Yet another school shooting

[MajGenl.Meade]

The entire thing is simply awful and heart-breaking.

The chap in Norway purchased similar weapons and magazines legally (some via the same US companies?) in a country with perhaps even stricter gun control laws than the USA. The only truly effective way to mitigate such massacres is to ban private ownership of guns outright - as in the UK's total ban on handguns (except for historic and blackpowder) following the 1996 Dunblane shootings. "Long" arms are still permitted in private ownership in the UK but I don't know what that means re semi-automatic weaponry although I suspect it's a big negative.

Banning private ownership of handguns in the USA is not possible. Whatever restrictions there are, there are ways to work around most. For example - buy a black powder replica Colt Navy or Remington - easy. Buy a new cyclinder made for modern .44 ammo - replace the BP cylinder. Also easy. Now you have a really nice and deadly weapon without registration. Not a convenient weapon, true.

Not putting too fine a point on it and meaning no disrespect, whether a gun is semi-automatic or not may be rather meaningless in many perhaps most situations. An evil man standing in the doorway of a little kids classroom can shoot 20 of them just as easily with a weapon that is not automatic or semi-automatic - where else can they go? What else can they do?

I weep for the grief of mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers and grandparents and friends and the frightened children that this man created. Did these things really happen in such profusion before ..... 1960? Did they happen like this so often when buying guns was as simple as buying bread? Does anyone think they happen more frequently now amidst all the regulations? Why is that?

Meade

[TPFKA@W]

The problem is not the guns it's society. When I was a teen in the 70's many of the kids drove trucks to school that had gun racks in the back window. Most of the gun racks had guns of varying fire power in them. Every school day. Nothing ever happened. EVER. And I am sure it was like that in all rural schools all over the Midwest and south at least.


People are broken.

[Gob]

Bath, Michigan
May 18, 1927

By far the worst school massacre in US history took place in the tiny town of Bath, Michigan in 1927. There, an angry school board member named Andrew Kehoe blew up the town’s school, killing 45 and wounding 58. Most of the victims were kindergarten through sixth grade students. A secondary explosion killed Kehoe and the school Superintendent.

August 1, 1966
Austin, Texas

From the observation deck of the University of Texas’ tower, Charles Whitman killed 16 and wounded 31 in a shooting rampage that lasted for 96 minutes.

January 1, 1989
Stockton, California

Five children are killed and 30 others wounded in a massacre at Cleveland Elementary. As is typical, the gunman also killed himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_sho ... ted_States

1 History of School Shootings in the United States

1.1 1700s
1.2 1800s
1.3 1900–1930s
1.4 1940s
1.5 1950s
1.6 1960s
1.7 1970s
1.8 1980s
1.9 1990s
1.10 2000s
1.11 2010s

[Daisy]

In a world where people are broken, does it make sense for guns to be so easily acessible?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Is that the point? Guns have become increasingly more difficult to obtain (relatively) in the USA and yet the more restrictions there are, the more guns are being used to commit crimes. The abject failure of "society" to teach good manners and respect for other people, can never be remedied by ever more draconian ways to stop people getting the toys they want.

The constant denigration of law and order; the abusive and foul attitudes and language that are so "cool" in the media;
the mantra of personal fulfilment; the cheapening of education by promoting such moronic rubbish as the Kardashians, dumb yokels catching crocodiles with their teeth, and practically any other cable 'reality' show that there is; the undermining of values by shows like Two and Half Men, the New Normal and countless other examples . . . the beat goes on. Put kids in school uniforms; make them call teachers Mr. and Mrs. and Ms. whatever instead of first names; bring back nauseating school dinners; make discipline something other than the joke it is . . . then people may not be so broken (read: self-serving boors and cretins).

Of course, the downward slide of U.S. society into the gutter is going to be applauded as "modern" and "liberal" and "self realization" and all the other crap excuses defective humans will make for accepting the kinds of decay manifested in school shootings which are, in the end, only a more intense and concentrated repetition of what goes down every day in the streets

Meade

[Miles]

Does anyone here really think outlawing guns would have stopped this event from happening? The number of deaths may have changed but is even one life not as terrible a loss as 20. The focus should be on the individual commiting the crime not the method. Guns, knives, clubs or explosivies! All are equally effective and just as readily available. Guns are tools and in the hands of responsible people not a problem the answer, if there is one, is desperately trying to weed out the irresponsible ones. Turning this thread into a condemnation of firearms by trying to compare other countries with the US is uselsess. We have more people and a constitution that secures a rite to own weapons.

Again, focus on the tragic loss from the only perspective that will actually have a chance to make a difference in the aftermath of such a horrendous event. That is the suffering of those directly involved as well as the rest of us who agonize with them thinking of our own children.

[Sean]

With respect to you Miles, fuck the constitution!

I would ask anyone who is willing to bang on about their"right to bear arms" to think of those dead children and ask themselves if it's really worth it?

[Timster]

With all due respect. Think about it.

[Sean]

Tim, my issue is with those who hide behind the empty and hopelessly outdated rhetoric of the second amendment.

But to touch on your point... while it is true that making guns illegal will not stop gun crime in it's tracks, does that make it okay to allow people like this guy to access them so easily and legally? Isn't it time to tighten up restrictions? Would anyone like to try and convince me that this school teacher had these weapons in her house for self-defence?

[Guinevere]

Last night I heard some comments from Professor James Alan Fox, who is one of the leading criminologists on mass killings and killers. He states that the number of mass killings (defined as more than 4 people killed in one incident) in the US has been rather steady -- at about 20 per year since the 1970s. Link here: http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime ... tings.html

Professor Fox also said that the men (95%+ of mass killers are men) who do these mass killings all have similar characteristics, are isolated, profoundly disappointed/frustrated with life, feel victimized, and are generally not officially criminally or mentally ill. There are also tens of thousands of people in the country with those characteristics, so it is very difficult to predict who will cross the line and become a mass killer and who will not. Link to one of his pieces of these characteristics here: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opi ... 56395562/1

Another good piece on his conclusions that mass murders are not "random" in the sense that the killers target their victims, and there is often a family connection involved. Link here: http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime ... urder.html

[Guinevere]

A word about Newtown, CT -- this is not a community where anyone would need a gun for protection. It's in Fairfield County, Connecticut, one of the most prosperous counties in the nation. My sister lives two towns over, I've been in Newtown regularly, and as I said earlier -- I've was at Sandy Hook Elementary for a 8-9 year old summer baseball league game against the Newtown team. Newtown is charming, well off, and while Fairfield County does have some heavily urbanized areas, Newtown is not. It is in one of the most rural parts of the county -- full of rolling hills, rivers, and reservoirs. It is incredibly safe.

[Joe Guy]

while it is true that making guns illegal will not stop gun crime in it's tracks, does that make it okay to allow people like this guy to access them so easily and legally?

All the information regarding this story is still coming out and some of it has later been shown to be incorrect. But from what I've read, this man very likely stole the weapons from his mother.

My point is that someone who intends to commit mass murder will find a way. As long as guns are manufactured people will get them. Unless we are willing to eliminate the manufacturing and selling of them to citizens, nothing will change.

So, I guess my real point is that it's too late.

This is part of what we in the U.S. must accept as a result of our freedom to own firearms.

Let's have a toast to the 2nd amendment.

Pass the marmite.

[Scooter]

With all due respect. Think about it.

With all due respect, it isn't the same thing at all. Anyone can set up meth lab in their basement. The same isn't true of a gun factory. Effectively limiting the supply of guns can work in a way that couldn't work for drugs.

[Sean]

This is part of what we in the U.S. must accept as a result of our freedom to own firearms.

Brilliant! Maybe these kids can be buried wrapped in the fucking stars and stripes!

Patriotism is all well and good but blind patriotism is utterly fucking moronic!

[Guinevere]

With respect to you Miles, fuck the constitution!

I would ask anyone who is willing to bang on about their"right to bear arms" to think of those dead children and ask themselves if it's really worth it?

Certainly, fuck the second amendment.

No constitutional right is inviolate. There are reasons behind and established analyses for determining if specific restrictions on liberties pass constitutional muster.

We have modern capable well armed and equipped police forces, national guardsmen, and military, so there is far less of a need for people to have arms to protect themselves (and yes, I know not every community is Fairfield County, and what if we have to protect ourselves from the police/national guard/military -- but those are different issues for the moment). There is also far less of a need for people to have weapons that fire so many rounds so quickly. It wouldn't stop this shooter, but maybe it would have allowed a group of teachers to bring him down, and it certainly would have slowed him down so maybe fewer lives would have been lost.

We like to toss about that beautiful phrase from the Declaration about our unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Life comes first, and with good reason. I'm more than ok with restricting second amendment rights to protect lives.

[Sean]

Well said Guin!

It's worth remembering that the constitution can be amended. The second amendment itself is proof of that. Unfortunately there appears to be an awful lot of chest-thumping, neanderthal, Charlton Heston types out there who don't want to give up their dick extensions guns...

...no matter what the cost.

[Big RR]

By all means let's have the discussion in the national arena, but let's also be sure that any restrictions make sense, are effective, and are closely looked at for unintended consequences. There's a tendency to react emotionally, especially when children are involved, but let's not let that make us overeact on either side of the issue. That won't make things any better, and probably will make them a lot worse.

[Guinevere]

BigRR, there are going to be unintended consequences no matter what is done, or not done. What it more important is to balance those consequences, or to at least have an understanding of what they are and affirmatively take them on.

I've never been a fan of guns, I've never owned a gun -- yet my father taught me how to shoot a pistol as a girl and I learned how to handle a rifle in college, courtesy of a gunnery sergeant --- so perhaps its easy for me. This is one right I would concede, if fewer lives were lost as a result of that concession. I don't want to hear the slippery sloper arguments, either. It would be a specific, limited, knowing limitation of a right, with no precedential value to any other liberty.

Lots more to discuss, but for now, I'm going to the pool to swim away some of yesterday's pain.

[Joe Guy]

There is always public outcry to eliminate the availability of guns after something like this tragedy happens. Then it passes. Then another shooting occurs and it starts again.

If people want to change our gun laws they need to keep at it and not just make it an issue every time a mass killing happens.

The problem you will face is that those who support the 2nd amendment will tell you that taking our firearms away is the first step toward total government domination over our lives. That's probably enough to even scare many anti-gun people into backing off.

I'd like to hear an unemotional solution to our 'gun problem'.

I haven't heard one yet.

[Lord Jim]

Sean:

I personally am not going to get into another exchange with you about banning the civilian ownership of guns....

I believe that was the first discussion you and I had when you returned to the CSB, and I well remember it. (In fact it stands out as one of my most memorable experiences on that board; it involved an exchange of 30-40 posts in about an hour's time if I recall, and got quite testy...I suspect you may recall it as well... )

far less of a need for people to have weapons that fire so many rounds so quickly.

I believe that's really where the national dialog on this should be, because that's where I believe we can achieve a broad national consensus, and maybe actually get something that is Constitutional, legislatively accomplished.

As I've pointed out, polls indicate that even a majority of rank and file NRA members support limits on magazine size, for example. (as opposed to the NRA leadership, which in order to maintain it's political power and raison d'être, mindlessly opposes any effort to do anything to reduce the level of lethality available legally. They've even opposed banning the sale of armor piercing rounds. )

Chest thumping exhortations to "Fuck the Constitution!" are complete non-starters, and will get us nowhere.

It wouldn't stop this shooter, but maybe it would have allowed a group of teachers to bring him down, and it certainly would have slowed him down so maybe fewer lives would have been lost.

That's exactly right, and it would also mean that the shooter would have had less time to fire before law enforcement arrived.

The scope of these dramatic tragedies (and the more day-in-day-out type tragedies of innocent people being killed in gang drive-bys and and shoot outs) would be vastly reduced just by the shooter having to stop to reload....(Drive-by shooters aren't going to hang around to re-load; they're going to fire off as many shots as they can as quickly as they can, and take off. If that's 6-8 rounds rather than 50-100, a lot of lives are going to be saved.)

I believe that in the wake of this tragedy, given the level national support, it ought to be possible to create the degree of national political pressure to overcome the intimidating power the NRA leadership has on legislators to meaningfully address the issue of "being able to fire so many shots so quickly" .