Yet another school shooting

[dgs49]

Notes on concealed-carry laws, and their affect on mass-killings:

-- Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.

-- Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (shooters' death excluded - doesn't count).

-- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

-- Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

-- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

-- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

[Miles]

In the cases of mass shootings in the school setting needing another weapon has never been a problem. The shooters seem to always come extremely prepared. I am all for armed guards provided they are prepared to shoot to kill without hesitation. That is a very difficult concept to develope in civilians.

[dgs49]

Most mass killings take place in "gun-free zones." The perpetrators may be crazy, but they understand what that means. It doesn't take an arsenal to kill one of these bastards: a single shot derringer would do the trick, if properly aimed.

If a would-be perpetrator is aware that some of the faculty and staff of a school, hospital, or other site are carrying, they will avoid that venue.

[Rick]

Now Dave look up the incidents where bystanders have been shot concealed carries.

You won't but that's ok I still make my point...

[Sue U]

The simple fact is that as long as there is ready access to firearms and inadequate treatment/services for mental illness, there will be mass shootings. Go ahead and arm schools to the teeth, it won't make a bit of difference; there are thousands of other targets for mayhem on a grand scale for those so unbalanced.

But that doesn't even begin to address the routine gun violence in the U.S. that results in more than 1,000 homicides every goddamn month, not to mention an additional 1,500 suicides. This is fucking outrageous. Gun deaths are the equivalent of ten jumbo jets crashing out of the sky every month. The murder rate in my own hometown has skyrocketed this year to the highest ever, even attracting the attention of The Fucking Daily Mail. (And that was in August, when there were only 39 dead; we're now up to 66.) Almost all of the killings have been by guns, and almost all related to gangs and drugs.

All the arguments about poor urban people needing guns for self-defense are pure bullshit. I have never owned a gun nor felt the need for one, and I have lived in some of the toughest neighborhoods around here. Carrying a gun is not going to help you if you're caught in a gang turf war or passing by a drug dealer having a problem with a customer or supplier. It's not going to help you in an armed robbery, either, where the bad guy(s) is/are always going to have the drop on you.

As much as I respect and honor the historical justifications for the Second Amendment, I am now at the point where I seriously think it needs repeal. There should be no individual "right" to bear arms. It should be a privilege, and a very highly regulated one at that.

[Big RR]

Sorry Big RR but I do not equate a shooting war (say against Adolf Hitler) with a person walking into a school and shooting down little kids. There are a couple of differences. The Judeo-Christian moral code might (as you say) allow the first but I know of no MORAL code that endorses the second.

And I was careful to say that adherence (true adherence) by all people to a valid moral code (whether Christian or other) would probably not eliminate all reprehensible actions by lunatics.

Meade

Nor do I, but then that's why there are no moral codes that are interpreted independent of the situation--perhaps among quakers or amish, but not generally among most who claim to adhere to them. The "couple of differences" you allude to are situational, which makes the moral code situational.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Been catching up but being a gun owner, figured I would put in my two cents.
I was amazed that way back when I went for a deer license I had to take a class for about 8 hours to get that license, yet could walk into K-Mart and buy a rifle without so much as a glance. Yes I had to present proof of being ove 18 but that was it. To shoot an animal I needed to take a safety class, to buy the means to shoot anything, I needed....next to nothing. Go figure.

As far a assault weapons ban. If they re-enacted the old assault weapons ban, the bushmaster he used was not subject to that law.

As far as high capacity magazines being banned, I am all for it. My rifle (a remington 600) only holds 6 cartriges and even then I only load 3 when hunting. And I only carry 6 more in my pocket for a total of nine. While I only need one to drop a deer, the bear and moose in the area I hunt are little harder to bring down especially when they are pissed off.

Automatic weapons are banned in most states (if not all) so when people here and elswhere call for their banning, they obviously have no clue. Semi-automatics, like the bushmaster are just that, SEMI automatics. Pretty much as fast as you can pull the trigger they will fire that fast. Nice to have when a 500lb bear or 1500lb moose is coming at you not so nice when your prey is 6yo children.

Don't know which side of the fight I come down on. The gun I own is not in my house, it is in my cousins safe. I don't know the combo, but do know where the combo is written down (unless of course he moved it from the last time he showed me).

One thing tht should be implemented is a training class needs to be taken for all gun purchases. Most people I know who own guns have gone through the safety course needed to get a hunting license. While adequate, it should be a little more advanced before a gun is issued. Also, it sjhould involve the actuall firing of the weapon at a range and subsequent safety after firing along with cleaning and storage of the weapon.

This should also be mandatory for pistols. HEre in NY it is next to immpossible to get a pistol license. I have been on the application list for years (not even a carry permit, just an owners permit) and still I can't get it. Perhaps it would be easier to get that permit if the safety and regulations would allow people to take the course, pass and then be able to get the pistol. Now it is hit or miss on who gets one.

My heart goe out to the families of the victims in this. The why I don't think will ever be answered. Why did mom have the guns? Maybe she liked shooting and srange shooting is a fun activity. If the guns were locked up, the kid may have found the key or combo and gotten them. Maybe mom found a hobby the kid enjoyed never realizing his dark side which seemed to manifest out of nowhere. I have yet to read where he was violent or had those kind of tendencies.

All the guns were legally obtained. Do we search a persons backround and anyone they are related and/or knew to see where maybe that person having a gun MAY get into the hands of someone they know who might be emotionally unstable?

Tough questions. No easy solutions. I do think it should be a litle harder to buy a gun than it is even here in NY which has pretty tough gun laws.

[rubato]

"....

All the arguments about poor urban people needing guns for self-defense are pure bullshit. ... "

Poor neighborhoods appear to have the most access to the cheapest guns w/ no measureable benefit.

"cheap guns for poor folks" isn't the solution. It's the problem.

yrs,
rubato

[liberty]

I don’t consider five hundred dollars and more cheap.

[Gob]

In Washington on Friday, influential National Rifle Association (NRA) broke a week-long silence with a robust defence of its pro-gun position.

Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the NRA, criticised politicians who had "exploited" the tragedy in Newtown for "political gain" and took aim at laws designating schools as gun-free zones.

"They tell every insane killer in America that schools are the safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk," he said.

Mr LaPierre called for a national database of the mentally ill and blamed violent video games and films for portraying murder as a "way of life".

He spoke out against the media for demonising lawful gun owners, and for suggesting a ban on certain types of weapon would be effective.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," Mr LaPierre told reporters.

Congress should authorise funding for armed security in every school in the country, he said, adding that an "extraordinary corps" of trained professionals could be drawn from active and retired police officers, security professionals and firefighters around the country.

Mr LaPierre was interrupted twice by anti-gun protesters carrying banners and declaring that the NRA had "blood on its hands".

The guns used in the shooting had been legally bought by the gunman's mother, Nancy Lanza.

The shooting has seen some pro-gun congressmen say the mass shooting has prompted them to change their views on whether guns should be regulated more strictly in the US.

Meanwhile California Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has been an advocate for tighter gun laws, said she would introduce new legislation when Congress meets for the first time in the new year.

But there is no bipartisan consensus on the issue, with others backing the NRA line that teachers in schools should be armed in order to better defend students if a shooting occurs.

Insane.

Edited to add;

A politician has claimed that ping pong is more dangerous than guns just a week after 26 were shot dead in a school by a lone gunman.

Incoming Texas State Representative Kyle Kacal made the remark as he insisted that new gun restrictions are not needed in the aftermath of the killing spree in Connecticut.

The rancher, who is due to take up his seat in the house of representatives in 2013, said: 'I've heard of people being killed playing ping pong - ping pongs are more dangerous than guns. Flat-screen TVs are injuring more kids today than anything.'

His remarks, reported by Yahoo news, come just a week after 20-year-old Adam Lanza walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown and shot dead 20 children and six adult staff members.

[liberty]

[
But there is no bipartisan consensus on the issue, with others backing the NRA line that teachers in schools should be armedin order to better defend students if a shooting occurs.

Insane.

[/quote]

Well Gob, it works in Texas.

[Joe Guy]

What works in Texas?

[liberty]

But there is no bipartisan consensus on the issue, with others backing the NRA line that teachers in schools should be armedin order to better defend studentsif a shooting occurs.

It is however more complicated than that; it is a managed program that involves selection, psychological evaluations, training and secrecy.

[Joe Guy]

Is that your answer?

[Lord Jim]

I saw LaPierre's entire press conference, and I found it bizarre, and somewhat detached from the reality of the public mood. Most people expected him to make at least some concessions, (like universal background checks) but he didn't give an inch. Instead he directed blame everywhere (the media, video games, music videos, television, movies parents, etc.) except on anything related to guns, (assault weapons, magazine sizes, etc.)

Then he went even further, outlining a program that would make this tragedy a tremendous business opportunity for his organization and the people he truly represents; the gun manufacturers. (Regardless of what arguments there might be for armed guards in schools, I found that contemptible)

But all of that having been said, this characterization of what he said at that news conference, is absolutely false:

with others backing the NRA line that teachers in schools should be armed in order to better defend students if a shooting occurs.

It may be the case he's said something like that in the past, but LaPierre suggested nothing of the sort yesterday. He went on at great length about a national program to put a trained, (he offered the services of the NRA in that regard) armed security guard in every school in America. He talked about the types of folks who might serve in this capacity. (military reservists, off duty police officers, retired military and police officers)

He came to the press conference yesterday, with this proposal fully fleshed out. It was the center piece of his remarks. He announced that the NRA was setting up a program to be able to help localities accomplish this. He's even appointed a former Congressman, and DEA chief, Asa Hutchinson to head it up, (Hutchinson also spoke at the press conference.)

But there was absolutely nothing he said that could be remotely interpreted as proposing that teachers be armed. That was not his proposal.

I think the security guard concept is arguable, but coming as it does from an organization that would stand to gain immensely from a financial standpoint from such a program, looks like a grotesque exploitation of this tragedy.

My own views on the armed guard concept have been somewhat in flux; I used to be a strong supporter, but I find a lot of the logistical issues, like those raised by Chris Christie after the NRA press conference, to raise serious questions about that approach:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) has come out against posting armed guards in schools, telling reporters Friday that it would not make students safer.

Armed guards would not be effective, he said during an event in Newark, as reported by the Bergen Record, unless they were in every classroom.[I hope LaPierre doesn't see that, or he'll probably propose that next]“Because if you just have an armed guard at the front door then what if this guy had gone around to the side door? There’s many doors in and out of schools.”

He added that there would be significant drawbacks to such a system.

“You don’t want to make this an armed camp for kids,” Christie said. “I don’t think that’s a positive example for children. We should be able to figure out other ways to enhance safety.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... ingtonpost



And then we have the example of Columbine, (which illustrates the logistical problems) because there was an armed security guard on campus, and he was completely ineffective in preventing or even diminishing that tragedy.

For the armed security guard thing to work, you have to get lucky and he or she has to happen to be in exactly the right place at exactly the right time. (And I think it's also a pretty fair bet that the psychos who do these things would take that presence into account, and adjust their strategy to minimize the chances of a confrontation.)

Looking at all these factors, I'm now leaning against this idea. As Christie also points out, turning schools into an armed camp is not something one should want to do; and if we were going to take that step, (and accept the cultural cost that comes with it) I personally would want to be convinced that it's a strategy that would prevent these tragedies if not completely, at least to a very great extent, and I'm not now persuaded of that.

LaPierre proposed one other thing that struck me as extraordinarily cynical and disingenuous. He proposed a national database for the mentally ill.

Well Wayne, frankly I think that's a splendid idea, but since 40% of all gun sales take place privately and at gun shows, which are not currently covered by background checks, and since you aren't endorsing the idea of extending background checks to those purchases, just what the hell good will this data base do? What good is a database when 40% of the purchases won't even be checked against it? (And if you were a nutcase who knew you were in such a database, why wouldn't you just make it a point to purchase your weapons privately?)

The NRA went into Friday with 4 million members; I suspect it's going to find it has fewer on Monday. Polling indicates that LaPierre's complete defiance position is opposed by a majority, of his own organization's membership. I've got to believe that some of those folks are going to be turned off by Wayne's performance.

BTW, LaPierre is scheduled to be on Meet The Press tomorrow, where he will finally have to answer some questions. (He didn't take a single one yesterday.) If he sticks to the approach he took yesterday, it should be a fascinating interview....

ETA:

I get the impression that LaPierre isn't going to be happy until the entire population of the country is like the planet in the Original Star Trek episode, A Piece Of The Action...where every single man and woman is walking around everywhere with a pistol or a machine gun...

[Joe Guy]

In the meantime, it's just another day in the US of A

[Sue U]

30+ gun homicides every single day. This country is sick. Gah.

[rubato]

The NRA has come up with their solution: More Guns and more government spending. And he only manages that much by pretending that the problem is "school shootings" not "shootings".

He didn't once suggest that the NRA might have some responsibility for their own failure to address the problem. All the morality of a tapeworm.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

I don’t consider five hundred dollars and more cheap.

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/inde ... s+Pistols/

In 2 min I located many choices from $200 to $340 .22, .25, .380, 9mm and .40 . "Private sales" are even cheaper for used but serviceable guns.

Guns in American are very plentiful and as a consequence are dirt cheap.


yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

Police say 1 dead, 3 wounded in Sac home invasion
Published 10:10 am, Saturday, December 22, 2012

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Police say one man is dead and three others wounded after a home invasion robbery in Sacramento early Saturday.

Police spokesman Officer Doug Morse says when officers were called to a home around 3:30 a.m. they found that four people had been shot in an exchange of gunfire.

Detectives have identified the person who was killed, but citing the ongoing investigation, Morse could not say if he was a resident of the home or a suspect in the home invasion.

The three wounded are being treated for what are being described as non-life threatening injuries. The names of the four people shot have not been released.

Detectives were on the scene Saturday morning and were interviewing witnesses.

source