OT: Grammar School Shooting in Connecticut

[Mech Engineer]

The problem is not about money for mental health. That is definitely important for somebody else. But, this guy's family or even the Colorado shooter's family had all the money they want to help him out. It is more about the environment.

[bentheredengthat]

I apologize in advance... I've read hardly any pages in these threads, but have there ever been any links to first person shooter games & the male perps that do this stuff? Don't mean to sidetrack the discussion.

[johnnyvann840]

A final series of questions, and this is something I truly have no insight in, but am curious of:

How does expensive guns find their way to the low income areas and "ghettos"? Who's providing those kids with weapons? Why do they end up there? How is it acceptable? How come nothing has changed despite people having known of this problem for decades?

That's an area, in my eyes, that seems to have NO control whatsoever. And due to the lack of control in those areas, people die. Is it because low-income families are of no significant importance to the US?

These are legitimate questions, and if I am stepping on toes here, I apologize. It's not my intention to do so.

Here is a great piece on the very subject, Mort. Although, it has little to do with yesterday's tragedy, it touches on your curiosity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/opini ... -guns.html

some of it here...

Understanding Kids, Gangs and Guns
By SUDHIR VENKATESH
Published: October 3, 2012


CHICAGO hit a grim milestone last week, when it recorded its 400th murder for the year. Homicides are up about 25 percent over last year. Chicago has surpassed New York and Los Angeles as a hub of gun-related violence, most of it involving young people. Since 2001, it has recorded more than 5,000 gun-related deaths, compared with the 2,000 American military deaths in the war in Afghanistan.

I’ve been studying violent crime for more than a decade — first as an academic researcher, then briefly as a senior adviser to the F.B.I. — and have been struck by the ways in which our efforts to stop gun violence are not as targeted and efficient as they should be.

Until I started observing gangs and criminals, I used to think that young, violent criminals were generally adept in gun use. I learned the reality was far worse. Gangs and drug crews had caches of high-powered weapons but no formal training. Their members could not match a gun to its proper bullet. Few knew how to load, clean or shoot. Their aim was woeful: they injured one another — not to mention bystanders — as often as their enemies. It would be ludicrous to train gang members to shoot better (even if it would reduce the number of innocent bystanders who get shot, it would empower criminals). So big-city mayors, and their police departments, understandably focus on gun access.

But they have done so in an unbalanced way. Gun runners who transport weapons from federally licensed dealers to city neighborhoods have been singled out as a primary culprit. But purchases from authorized dealers account for only about 60 percent of gun purchases, and the gun runners — so-called straw purchasers — are responsible for only a fraction of these. We can no longer ignore the 40 percent of guns obtained on the secondary market, which includes gun brokers, gangs and other informal traders.

For inner-city young men, a gun is a badge of honor and an act of masculine one-upmanship. Rarely do they have access to straw purchasers — most couldn’t even name one. They do, however, know a gang or a clandestine seller around the corner from whom they can buy, borrow or rent a gun.

[BIGGIEsmalls 23]

Seems that he had more guns at his disposal, not just the three owned by his mother:

[Updated at 11:50 a.m. ET] The gunman in the Connecticut school shooting had access to more guns than the three found at the elementary school, a law enforcement source said Saturday. Police recovered three additional guns elsewhere. They are a .45-caliber Henry repeating rifle, a .22-caliber Marlin rifle, and a .30-caliber Enfield rifle, the source said.

[Updated at 11:59 a.m. ET] Adam Lanza, the Connecticut school massacre shooter, tried to buy a gun in the area Tuesday before the shooting, a law enforcement source said. The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said it is contacting shooting ranges and gun stores in the area to try to establish whether Lanza sought to purchase guns or practice using them.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/15/ch ... ?hpt=hp_t1

[LobosJordan]

I apologize in advance... I've read hardly any pages in these threads, but have there ever been any links to first person shooter games & the male perps that do this stuff? Don't mean to sidetrack the discussion.

no

[bullsnewdynasty]

Quick question for those that don't believe that focus on gun control is the answer to this problem, but believe the focus should be on the mental health/societal issues that plague this country.

Considering that a lot of you are the same posters that argue against Government spending, would you be open to the Federal Government investing $500 Billion into programs designed to tackle the mental health/societal issues that plague this country?

I posted this back on like page 13 or 14. Great point Biggie.

$500 billlion?

Where the heck are you getting that number from?

[BIGGIEsmalls 23]

Quick question for those that don't believe that focus on gun control is the answer to this problem, but believe the focus should be on the mental health/societal issues that plague this country.

Considering that a lot of you are the same posters that argue against Government spending, would you be open to the Federal Government investing $500 Billion into programs designed to tackle the mental health/societal issues that plague this country?

I posted this back on like page 13 or 14. Great point Biggie.

$500 billlion?

Where the heck are you getting that number from?

I just made up a number, BND.

[coldfish]

Quick question for those that don't believe that focus on gun control is the answer to this problem, but believe the focus should be on the mental health/societal issues that plague this country.

Considering that a lot of you are the same posters that argue against Government spending, would you be open to the Federal Government investing $500 Billion into programs designed to tackle the mental health/societal issues that plague this country?

I would not be for this type of thing.

The first thing you would need is a system overhaul. I know that the Colorado shooter was in contact with a mental health professional already when he shot up that theatre. The Giffords shooter was told to see a mental health expert by his college and he simply blew it off. The Fort Hood shooter was flagged by his superiors as an issue and he himself was a psychiatrist.

There aren't many details out, but there are rumors that the Connecticut shooter had mental health issues.

Basically, if you follow the thread, most of these shooters had already been identified by the existing system as potential threats yet the system ignored it. Expanding the system would do nothing. You have to fix the system first, then maybe look at giving it more money. I think this needs to be restated:

In many of the shooting incidents, an employee of the government (military, educational, etc.) was aware that the shooter was a potential threat and they didn't address it. The thought that just giving government more money would fix the issue is naive. We need to hold our government to a higher competence standard.

[dice]

$500 billlion?

Where the heck are you getting that number from?

I just made up a number, BND.

way too big

[League Circles]

It's easy to say that we need to do more about identifying people who might be risks and stop them, but you guys have to understand how much of an art, and not a science, doing that is. Psychiatrists and psychologists are basically just taking their best guesses when they decide someone is a threat. IF they decide someone is a threat, they admit them involuntarily into an inpatient facility. If they don't decide they're a threat based on their evaluation, the person gets to go home. You can't make someone tell a psychiatrist the truth about their crazy thoughts. And people aren't "crazy" or "not crazy" - they get crazy at times in life, and not at others. People get well and they get ill, sometimes back and forth. This is nearly an impossible task, and one that necessitates arbitrary limiting of human rights by individual physicians, who, despite their well meaning, training, and careful consideration, ARE JUST MAKING GUESSES.

That's why I say the problem needs to be first addressed in two ways:

1) show everyone much more love and how fragile life is at a young age. That means the president, parents, teachers and media creators need to spend time doing this, no matter how vague it might seem. show every person that their life has dignity, regardless of whether they are "successful" or a mentally ill junkie looser whom no one likes. show everyone how to use a gun properly in elementary school in case they ever find one while unsupervised, and so that the whole wow/shock factor is gone for them at an early age.

2) Put effing armed guards in schools. Such a no-brainer. Why was the door to the school unlocked and unguarded for a killer to walk in, armed, and do this? ANYWHERE that outlaws guns, such as any school, needs to have armed pros in the facility. I'm fine with private property owners doing what they want, but if the law makes you go to school, and the school outlaws concealed carry (which I'm fine with), then the school needs to have much greater security. I was just about to buy a 9mm today online (for delivery, background check, and purchase handling at an approved local gun store) because I've been meaning to get one and this scared me into remembering to do it, but then I remembered that I can't carry at my school (college student), which is by far where I'd feel most vulnerable for obvious reasons, and so I didn't order it. I think it's insane that I can't get a concealed carry permit and carry inside, but whatever. I'd feel a lot safer if there were metal detectors, or armed security guards, or photo-ID/key card access, or SOME way to stop people from invading and killing people in a place that literally has a sign notifying any crazy people that all the good folks inside aren't allowed to carry tools to protect themselves.

[r1terrell23]

Guns are the easiest way to kill people. It's very difficult to kill a mass group of people with knives and cars to begin with, but remember these people want to kill themselves too to avoid repercussion. Most people don't have the knowledge, equipment, or patience to make bombs and other home made devices to mass kill. So naturally using a fireman is the way to go for them.

Put that bomb in a box full of nails and you could do alot of damage.

Google has 3,110,000 search results on homemade bomb

Here is a collection of weapons that prisoners made in maximum security prison.



Has anyone ever heard of stabbings in prison? This is a perfect test case for what happens when you take guns away from criminals, and if we do ban guns we wouldn't even be able to guarantee that criminals do not have access to guns.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30495873/ns ... MvWZ3c4RQM

A man kills 5 people by driving his car into a crowd at a parade.

And if you research Columbine you will find out that crazy people do plan what they are going to do, it is not a spur of the moment decision to walk into a school and execute your peers.

From the US dept of commerce.

2000-2008 firearm deaths- 86,112
2000-2008 bombing deaths - 43
2000-2008 knife deaths- 16,547

People doing these evil things prefer guns, it's just that simple. It's much easier for them.

[waffle]

What if the NRA became an asset rather than a hindrance?

I think of the beer commercials that say "don't be an idiot, don't drink and drive". It sends the right message, and think of who it is coming from? Do people stop drinking? No! But now they are part of the positive message and hopefully the solution.

What if the NRA took the position that owning a gun was a privilege with serious responsibilities? That we owe it as gun owners, people who believe that gun ownership is a right as an American, to make sure that this awesome piece of POTENTIAL is treated with respect? Rather than letting any yutz own a gun? Would that be so bad?

It is too casual. It shouldn't be "darn right, I am an American! And I can have a gun!" But rather "I want to protect this right for all gun owners by making sure that it is applied with serious consideration. We are a select group with powerful responsibilities"

The whole slippery slope thing is a crock.

[coldfish]

What if the NRA became an asset rather than a hindrance?

I think of the beer commercials that say "don't be an idiot, don't drink and drive". It sends the right message, and think of who it is coming from? Do people stop drinking? No! But now they are part of the positive message and hopefully the solution.

What if the NRA took the position that owning a gun was a privilege with serious responsibilities? That we owe it as gun owners, people who believe that gun ownership is a right as an American, to make sure that this awesome piece of POTENTIAL is treated with respect? Rather than letting any yutz own a gun? Would that be so bad?

It is too casual. It shouldn't be "darn right, I am an American! And I can have a gun!" But rather "I want to protect this right for all gun owners by making sure that it is applied with serious consideration. We are a select group with powerful responsibilities"

The whole slippery slope thing is a crock.

It would be a crock if there weren't a whole lot of people actively discussing getting rid of all guns. The NRA people aren't idiots. They know there is a rather large group of people that want to eliminate all legal guns in the US.

I agree that a compromise solution would be best but as long as people keep talking about seizing everyone's gun, its not going to happen.

Side but related comment: I believe that in two of the recent mass shootings, the suspect went to purchase a gun and the gun store attendant refused based on behavior. It would be interesting to put a mechanism in place for gun store owners to report suspicious people trying to buy a gun.

[waffle]

I don't think there are alot of people saying that. I bet it's pretty small. Probably find the % somewhere, but I bet it's around 10% or so, and 10% won't get you anywhere 'round these parts...

[waffle]

and I do believe there is a middle ground. Again, the slippery slope defense is hog wash. There are people on the edges of EVERY issue.

[coldfish]

I don't think there are alot of people saying that. I bet it's pretty small. Probably find the % somewhere, but I bet it's around 10% or so, and 10% won't get you anywhere 'round these parts...

Maybe. I'm not an NRA type but based on what I have heard and read, it seems that the NRA is convinced that there is a rather sizeable group of people who want to get rid of all guns.

[waffle]

That is what they would say to support the slippery slope/no compromise stance. Let's see what I can find out

[CalilLove89]

Quick question for those that don't believe that focus on gun control is the answer to this problem, but believe the focus should be on the mental health/societal issues that plague this country.

Considering that a lot of you are the same posters that argue against Government spending, would you be open to the Federal Government investing $500 Billion into programs designed to tackle the mental health/societal issues that plague this country?

Not all gun owners are republican, i am almost socialist, and i aprove rebuilding mental health infrastructure.

[CalilLove89]

What if the NRA became an asset rather than a hindrance?

I think of the beer commercials that say "don't be an idiot, don't drink and drive". It sends the right message, and think of who it is coming from? Do people stop drinking? No! But now they are part of the positive message and hopefully the solution.

What if the NRA took the position that owning a gun was a privilege with serious responsibilities? That we owe it as gun owners, people who believe that gun ownership is a right as an American, to make sure that this awesome piece of POTENTIAL is treated with respect? Rather than letting any yutz own a gun? Would that be so bad?

It is too casual. It shouldn't be "darn right, I am an American! And I can have a gun!" But rather "I want to protect this right for all gun owners by making sure that it is applied with serious consideration. We are a select group with powerful responsibilities"

The whole slippery slope thing is a crock.

The nra heavily promotes training, and safe gun ownership.

They think gun ownership is a right, and that every american should be highly educated about guns.

And where is this training thing coming from, do people think somebody who killed 20 plus people doesnt know how to use a gun?

.27 people die of a firearm accident per 100,000 in the states

[CalilLove89]

That is what they would say to support the slippery slope/no compromise stance. Let's see what I can find out

This is the slippery slope stance on gun control.

If the government wants to ban "military style" firearms, they could ban the following

Bolt action rifles
pump shotguns
semi automatic handguns, shotguns, rifles
revolvers

The thing is, the military uses EVERY type of firearm, they could even make a case against breach loader firearms, if a ban is proposed using the word "Military Style" or "Assault Weapon" that would leave the interpretation of what guns should be banned up to any government official, the bans are not specific, but broad, and purposefully general, that way anything could be banned, because like I said the military uses EVERY type of gun to "Assault" our enemies.

The government could also mandate that all guns be childproof, well it is impossible to make anything childproof, because that term can be interpreted to be 8 and under, it could also be interpreted to be 17 and under, children are humans to, and it is hard to make something human proof.

Is a childproof medicine bottle really childproof, can children not push and turn the lid?

People that think the government is not evil, let me tell you that the man who could be leading our national board of science and technology wrote SOPA, and does not believe in evolution, he rejects science, he thinks the earth is 10,000 years old and has no clue how the internet works, but he will be in charge of our science and technology legislation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/0 ... 47125.html

I do not want these types of people in charge of telling me what I can and cannot do, or what I can and cannot have.