School shooting in CT

Post Reply New Topic

Yup, a country that had one bad incident and we had the leaders with the balls to do the right thing and have been safer ever since...seen the effects of firearms firsthand and with no paranoia/conspiracy theory about the people I work with to the job that they're trained for. Spot on. I'm biased in saving life. Is that really a negative?

Dillogic has a good point.

Guns don't kill people any more than cars cause car crashes. In both cases, people are the ones in control. Driving a car will certainly cause a more fatal crash with a pedestrian than a bike just like using a gun gives the opportunity for more casualties. Why? Because in comparison to other weapons like knives, bows, etc. guns have both range and speed -- some even have range far enough that large numbers of people could be killed before a shooter is even located, let alone dealt with.

Just think; this shooter could've done considerably less damage if he were running around attempting to off people with a knife instead of a gun. Even a bow could've done less damage.

It's true that it's not the weapons themselves that cause these problems, it's the urge to be violent and the inability to manage or control it. But, that said, guns do give the opportunity for considerably more damage.

I think it's important also to consider: is this gun necessary for the use I need it for? I know someone who has a semi-automatic assault rifle. I asked him what possible use a non-military person would have for something like that. He told me that you could shoot deer with it. I personally don't hunt but it seems like overkill. I mean, you don't kill flies with a cannon, do you? It's true that in America, we have the freedom to bear arms. I don't object against that, but having a stockpile of assault weapons...sure, they won't go off and kill people on their own but they do seem a bit like an accident waiting to happen, even under the best of circumstances.

I think it's important also to consider: is this gun necessary for the use I need it for? I know someone who has a semi-automatic assault rifle. I asked him what possible use a non-military person would have for something like that. He told me that you could shoot deer with it. I personally don't hunt but it seems like overkill. I mean, you don't kill flies with a cannon, do you? It's true that in America, we have the freedom to bear arms. I don't object against that, but having a stockpile of assault weapons...sure, they won't go off and kill people on their own but they do seem a bit like an accident waiting to happen, even under the best of circumstances.

What is "necessary" depends on the individual. As far as I'm concerned they are better suited to uses and tasks other than hunting. I have my "black rifles" mostly for shooting pleasure that can only be had with that type of weapon. Shooting, for example, and AR-15 is a different experience than shooting a bolt action hunting rifle.
In addition to that I do believe and always will that an AR-15 or something similar and the skill to use it would be an asset during times of natural or civil disaster when things to awry and rule of law breaks down. It does happen.

Guns are not going to cease to exist. We can try to regulate gun ownership, but it's not going to do any good. I think we simply have to accept that these atrocities are going to happen. We can talk about prevention and defense, but it's all just talk to make us feel better.
Going to a movie theatre, going to school, going to a shopping mall - these are not safe places anymore. It's just the world we live in. One more thing to worry about or just to put in the back of your mind, but things are not going to change. This is just another threat that the modern world holds for us.

The mother owned the guns, but did not shoot up the school.

The kid shot up the school, but did not own the guns.

The difference being that the son seems to have had severe emotional and problems that were not properly treated.

I blame the son, then whoever failed to have him medicated into a stupor, then whoever let him have access to the guns.

It was not the guns themselves.

Remember, the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was the target of a bombing which killed 168 people, including 19 children all under age 6. Half of the building collapsed seconds after the truck bomb detonated.

No guns were used, only home-made explosives and a truck.

If weapons must be banned to protect people, then why are there no calls to outlaw fertilizer, fuel oil, acetylene, and rental trucks?

It's not about banning anything, it's about being more responsible. Anything can be a weapon, it's a combination of responsibility and lack of inventiveness that makes this world a safer place.

I think you perhaps would be a bit less willing to accept future atrocities if it were your child lying on a slab in a morgue. True, bad things will happen, but why should we lie down and take it? Allowing bad things to happen and not making any attempt to stop them just adds insult to injury in my mind. After all: The only way to be sure that nothing changes is to do nothing about it.

So while I respect your opinion and can see where you're coming from -- especially after such an awful event -- I'm not going to think like that...because if I do, there will be one less person fighting to make this world a better place...and I may never get up out of bed again...

It is tempting to retreat to one's bed, but I'm not going to yet. I just don't see how this sort of thing can be prevented. Guns and mental illness are not going anywhere. This is the world we live in. The only solution I can see is for people to stop gathering in public places, but this is impractical and it would be worse to let this threat dictate our behaviour.
I wish I could think that there was something that could be done about it, but I can't see what.

The world won't change and perhaps you can't change it. The most you can do is set a great example and give people education in the hope they do the right thing with it. People aren't going to just change overnight but, just like the green movement, which, when I was little, was nearly non-existent, if you do something and someone else sees that good example and are willing to be educated, that's one more possible person that can change the world just a little for the better. No, it's not about keeping people inside anymore than it's about getting rid of guns because guns and violence are not the same and violence doesn't only happen outside the home. It's about little changes. You do what you can and then you step back -- like planting a seed in a garden. Sometimes it becomes a flower, sometimes not, but you do what you can and then at least having a flower is an option.

Well, since your gun laws are so effective over there you have no reason to squall about anything related to gun related injury. Otherwise you’re clearly stating that your laws don’t work.

Well, since your gun laws are so effective over there you have no reason to squall about anything related to gun related injury. Otherwise you’re clearly stating that your laws don’t work.

But after Columbine, this latest massacre was only a matter of time and now we have a President that looks capable of having the stones to act.

He has said he will take meaningful action, "regardless of the politics" - let's see if he stands by his words...

"We"? Last time I checked that president was the president of the United States (whether I like it or not) and Scotland is not part of the US. Until rifle and handgun bullets are capable of trans-Atlantic flight you'll be safe right where you are.


He's not a king so it's not all up to him. The best thing he could attempt is to do away with those dangerously naive and criminally negligent "Gun Free" zones.
You'd never understand that kind of thinking, though.....

what are criminally neglegent gun free zones

Imagine that you ran a school district, and some rich foundation, worried about school shootings, gave you the following offer: We’ll hire armed security guards for you, who could try to do something about the school shooter. These aren’t going to be highly trained police officers, just typical security guards, given some modest training and subjected to basic background checks. It’s not like they’re highly skilled; security guards rarely are. But they have a basic understanding of how to shoot, and when to shoot.

They wouldn’t deal with ordinary trespassing, vandalism, and the like, nor would they be at all guaranteed to be effective in the event of a school shooting (who can offer such a guarantee?). But they’d provide someone on the ground who could try to interrupt a killing spree. And the foundation is paying, so it’s virtually no cost to the district. Would you say yes?

I imagine that you probably would. You probably wouldn’t much worry, for instance, that the guard would go crazy and himself start shooting — theoretically possible, to be sure, but unlikely. You’d figure that someone who can defend the school with a gun during an attack (as opposed to the police, who will come in many precious minutes after the attack begins) is better than no-one.

Nor would you object in principle about there being a gun in school, since it’s in the right hands. Just like people who have money often pay for armed neighborhood-wide security patrols, and don’t insist on the unarmed kind or no patrol at all, you’d probably think that this free security guard would probably be helpful.

But wait! The foundation has just learned that its investment portfolio has done very badly, and the grant doesn’t go through. But someone else suggests: Instead of hiring special-purpose security guards, why not take some of your existing employees — teachers, administrators, and the like — and offer them a deal: They’d go through some modest training and subjected to basic background checks, and in exchange they’d be given the right to carry the same guns that the security guards would have had.

Indeed, this way you could have not just one security guard but several (if several staff members sign up). And you might get people to do this even without paying them, since they might value the ability to defend themselves and to not be sitting ducks should the worst happen. (If there’s some union contract or labor law that precludes that, that can of course be changed, if people think this is a good idea.) Maybe Assistant Principal Joel Myrick, who confronted the Pearl, Mississippi high school shooter with a gun, after Myrick went to the car to get it, might have participated in such a program if it had existed, and had let him keep the gun in school.

And no need to call the licenses given to those who participate in the program “concealed carry” licenses, just in case some parents and others don’t like the concept. Just call them “volunteer security guard” licenses, though you might expect that most people who sign up for this will also have licenses to concealed carry on the street. Of course, if a killer does show up, maybe some of these volunteer security guards will just cower in the corner rather than trying to defend the students, or attack the killer. But it seems more likely that someone will confront and try to stop the killer if that someone is armed then if that person is disarmed.

What’s your answer to that? Is there some reason why the armed security guard is safe and helpful, but the armed teacher, administrator, or staffer — er, the teacher with a volunteer security guard license — would be useless and a menace?

Hey J Greens, before your post was removed I tried to respond to it. Apparantly I did just as it was being removed. But how the hell do you expect them to hunt deer without guns? I live out in the woods. Hunting is a big thing here. People don't get shot. Sane people don't kill other sane people. End of story.