Connecticut School Shooting

[RivkahChaya]

Thanks for that clarification Riv. I guess if I lived there I'd be exempt on a number of grounds - thank goodness!

I don't think the US is the only country that passes ridiculous laws to make political hay, but this particular one is uniquely American. It isn't about safety, freedom, patriotism, crime, or anything, really, other than going "neener-neener" to Morton Grove, Ill., and if you ask me, that has roots not just in the "gun crazies," but also a little, in the lingering North vs. South that still goes on around here, which you'd have to see to believe.

[ChainzCooper]

Not you you. Non specified you. Only as in opposed to me, not as in relevant to you as a individual person. Somewhat akin to the "they" in "that's what they say".

If thats what you meant then I apologize wholeheartedly
Jordan

[ChainzCooper]

Being in the UK, I don't have that problem. We have the same proportion of burglars, nutters and resentful youths as our cousins across the pond, but we prefer them not to have the right to a gun, then we don't need the same right just to defend ourselves when another of the sods goes into self-destruct mode.

How are 20 six year-olds meant to defend themselves, even if their teachers were armed and quick on the draw, from the next nutter who is determined to kill as many as possible before being killed himself (and it's very rarely herself) in the process?

And it can hardly be a 'them and us' attitude among pupils or former pupils towards their teachers and the education system, or they would be protecting their own kind - the kids - from the rotten ones at the top, not gunning down as many of the youngsters as they can before turning the gun on themselves.

Love,

Caz
X

I just think if someone is about to attack you you have the right to defend yourself with a gun. I mean do people honestly think that if you banned EVERY firearm in the United States that gun deaths would go down to zero? Criminals and people like this shooter are going to do what they want to do no matter what any law states. Therefore law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms and defend themselves. Its up to you! I just don't understand the logic here this guy had no criminal record whatsoever how are we going to know this is going to happen? Do you lock up people who act strange and look weird? I think sometimes horrible things happen in life and you can't go around thinking what might have been you have accept what hand is dealt to you, at least that is what I try to do. Its a hard notion to deal with but you have to remind yourself that eventually your day will come and this will all work out. Its been a fun debate I think I have summed up everything I want to say so I'll leave it at this
Jordan

[Errata]

If thats what you meant then I apologize wholeheartedly
Jordan

No I totally understand. It's one of those things where tone matters, and typing is notoriously tone free. "They" doesn't work in that scenario, because then everyone is wondering who "they" are, like I'm quoting someone... And people doesn't work for singulars... I'll get it right some day.

[ChrisGeorge]

Here are a couple of good op ed articles about the Newtown, Connecticut tragedy and what might be done to stop future such tragedies:

"The Killing of Children: Our National Shame" by Richard Cohen, Washington Post.

"We're not helpless when it comes to children's safety" by Michael Gerson, The Bakersfield Californian

The following op ed piece is more about misreporting generally in news articles, including the Newtown tragedy but other news stories as well. By extension, the author's comments have applicability to the misreporting in the Ripper case of 1888, if you think about it.

"Another casualty of shootings" by Charles Lane, Washington Post

Best regards

Chris

[caz]

I just think if someone is about to attack you you have the right to defend yourself with a gun. I mean do people honestly think that if you banned EVERY firearm in the United States that gun deaths would go down to zero? Criminals and people like this shooter are going to do what they want to do no matter what any law states. Therefore law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms and defend themselves. Its up to you! I just don't understand the logic here this guy had no criminal record whatsoever how are we going to know this is going to happen? Do you lock up people who act strange and look weird? I think sometimes horrible things happen in life and you can't go around thinking what might have been you have accept what hand is dealt to you, at least that is what I try to do. Its a hard notion to deal with but you have to remind yourself that eventually your day will come and this will all work out. Its been a fun debate I think I have summed up everything I want to say so I'll leave it at this
Jordan

Hi Jordan,

Maybe I would see it from your point of view if I had to live in America and live as Americans live.

But I don't, so I just feel that given there are always going to be unstable characters in any neighbourhood who could suddenly go out of control at any time, I'd prefer as few of them to have access to a gun as humanly possible.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

But I don't, so I just feel that given there are always going to be unstable characters in any neighbourhood who could suddenly go out of control at any time, I'd prefer as few of them to have access to a gun as humanly possible.

I agree, and I'd add that stable ones make a lot of mistakes in life. Guns facilitate stupidity and very rarely save lives.

Mike

[Bridewell]

How do you know exactly that someone is going to do this beforehand? Get out a crystal ball and figure it out? There is no correlation between stringent gun laws and gun violence, Washington DC has some of the highest percentage of violent crime and have the strictest gun laws whereas towns like Kennesaw Georgia dwellings are required to keep a firearm and its probably the safest town in America. I think some people need to pump their brakes and stop playing monday morning quarterback when things like this happen. Some people are just evil and will stop at nothing laws or not to do what they want to
Jordan

Hi Jordan,

You address a point which I didn't make. I didn't suggest that there should be a total ban on gun ownership. What I said was:

Extending the right to 'keep and bear arms' to the psychotic and the deranged is a triumph of stubborn idiocy over common sense.


There are some people who should not be allowed anywhere near a gun under any circumstances. The bottom line is that 28 people, 20 of them children, who are now dead, would still be alive had the right to bear arms not included Adam Lanza.

I do not own a gun. I have no need to own a gun because, except under very stringent restrictions, no-one else in this country has one either, unless illegally. It's safer that way. I accept that this is an issue around which there are strongly and sincerely held opinions. What I don't accept is the argument which says that, if everyone has the right to carry a gun, everyone will be safer. The right to bear arms is one freedom I don't have - and don't want. You feel differently and are entitled to do so.

Regards, Bridewell.

[sleekviper]

Unless the story has changed, the "Right to bear arms" did not extend to the killer.
"NEWTOWN, Conn. - Adam Lanza, the suspect in the suburban Connecticut elementary school shooting rampage, tried to purchase a "long gun" rifle from a local shop but was turned away because he did not want to wait for the required 14-day background check, law enforcement sources said Saturday."

http://www.pressherald.com/news/adam-lanza-attempted-failed-to-purchase-his-own-gun-sources-say_2012-12-16.html

He took guns from his mother, and anyone that determined to have them, is going to get them any way possible at some point.

[Stephen Thomas]

Unless the story has changed, the "Right to bear arms" did not extend to the killer.
"NEWTOWN, Conn. - Adam Lanza, the suspect in the suburban Connecticut elementary school shooting rampage, tried to purchase a "long gun" rifle from a local shop but was turned away because he did not want to wait for the required 14-day background check, law enforcement sources said Saturday."
.

Oh sure, whatever. Have a nice day.

[Bridewell]

Unless the story has changed, the "Right to bear arms" did not extend to the killer.
"NEWTOWN, Conn. - Adam Lanza, the suspect in the suburban Connecticut elementary school shooting rampage, tried to purchase a "long gun" rifle from a local shop but was turned away because he did not want to wait for the required 14-day background check, law enforcement sources said Saturday."

http://www.pressherald.com/news/adam-lanza-attempted-failed-to-purchase-his-own-gun-sources-say_2012-12-16.html

He took guns from his mother, and anyone that determined to have them, is going to get them any way possible at some point.

Thanks, Sleekviper,

In that case, I guess the key question is whether or not the background check would have prohibited him from having the rifle if he had chosen to wait. If the right to keep and bear arms does not, in fact, extend to all citizens, I apologise for the vehemence of my earlier post.

Regards, Bridewell.

[RivkahChaya]

I just think if someone is about to attack you you have the right to defend yourself with a gun. I mean do people honestly think that if you banned EVERY firearm in the United States that gun deaths would go down to zero? Criminals and people like this shooter are going to do what they want to do no matter what any law states.

Chainz has absented himself from the discussion, or so he says, but he seems not to have thought through what a ban on the manufacture, import, and sale of guns would mean. He's thinking in terms of the way it is now, when a jurisdiction bans, for example, handguns, and just creates a black market import from the next city over. People would try to smuggle guns in, but guns a harder to smuggle than drugs and harder to use surreptitiously. Also, people are going to think twice about paying $500 for one, if a police officer can confiscate it without a warrant or cause, simply because guns themselves are illegal.

FWIW, a gun is a specific kind of firearm; it's not a rifle. No one uses a gun (other than a shotgun, which is still something different-- I'm talking about handguns) for hunting. Guns are for people.

Me, I thinks it's nuts that you can get a gun license without having to pass a written gun safety test, like the traffic safety test you take to get a driving learner's permit. I think it's crazy that people can own a gun, and not know how to set the sites, zero a shot group, and soforth. People shoot people they weren't aiming for all the time, because they don't know how to use the damn gun.

I'm not advocating being allowed to kill people you aim for correctly. I'm just saying.

Therefore law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms and defend themselves. Its up to you! I just don't understand the logic here this guy had no criminal record whatsoever how are we going to know this is going to happen? Do you lock up people who act strange and look weird? I think sometimes horrible things happen in life and you can't go around thinking what might have been you have accept what hand is dealt to you, at least that is what I try to do. Its a hard notion to deal with but you have to remind yourself that eventually your day will come and this will all work out. Its been a fun debate I think I have summed up everything I want to say so I'll leave it at this
Jordan[/QUOTE]

[Errata]

Maybe we just need to examine the question whether or not "because I want one" is a good enough reason to get a gun. And the answer may be yes, but I think we as a nation really need to think about that in an impersonal way. I have decided that there will never be a gun in my home. And there are good reasons for that. But if my sister were to purchase a gun, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I would be baffled, but not enraged. The same way I would feel if she were to obtain a second husband. But if she got it because she just wanted one, that's a little weird to me. And maybe all things considered, it's not a good enough reason. Maybe she needs to explain why she feels threatened. There are rumors that this shooter's mom was some survivalist wackjob. I don't know if that's true. But if someone wants a gun because "the end is nigh", do we WANT them to have a gun? If a woman feels threatened because she just got raped, do we want her carrying a gun while she's still traumatized? They are worthy questions. I think Chris Rock said that if a bullet cost $1000 dollars, innocent bystanders would be a thing of the past. I'm not sure it isn't a good idea. You get enough bullets to fill the chamber or clip. After that, bullets are ridiculously expensive unless they were used in the course of defending oneself, at which point the police will replace what you used. Totally unworkable plan, but it would insure that people were very very careful about where they stored and used their bullets.

[Ally]

I support gun rights. I support the right to bear arms. There is absolutely no reason on earth why I should not have a gun, therefore, law or not, I will carry a gun.

In Errata's above example, if the woman hadn't waited til after she was raped to attempt to find a means to defend herself, maybe she wouldn't have been raped in the first place. America has made it so laughable to carry a weapon, whyever would you, and then goes oh gee, rapes? burglary? murder? Terrible! but don't carry a gun! That just makes you a crazy nut! Because being unarmed guarantees you won't be victimized!

And the whole idea of making bullets outrageously expensive is a ridiculous one. So the idea to reduce innocent bystanders is to make it prohibitively expensive for people who own guns to actually practice shooting them... thereby making it pretty darn sure there's going to be innocent bystanders

The knee jerk reaction to strip protection from people in response to tragedy is ridiculous.

I am definitely not going to leave myself defenseless, knowing full well that criminals will never abide by a no guns policy.

And I surely don't want to model ourselves after England where house owners get arrested if they defend themselves against criminal dirtbags breaking into their house. There is no such thing as unreasonable force when you have entered my house illegally.

Are guns in the wrong hands bad news? Yes they are. But so are cars. Ah but cars have a legitimate purpose I hear you say. Well guns have a legitimate purpose as well. Like the 12 year old who was home alone and shot an intruder possibly saving her own life, who knows. I bet those parents are celebrating the fact that they had access to a gun. But that story isn't splashed all over the national media on 24 hour coverage is it? Did you even hear about it?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/kendra-st-clair-oklahoma-girl-12-shoots-intruder/story?id=17524438#.UNJn3Hfef_c

Or the woman with the baby who shot intruders who had broken into her home to steal her recently deceased husband's cancer drugs:

http://digitaljournal.com/article/317319

Or this one:

http://www.wral.com/fayetteville-woman-shoots-intruder/11881139/

or this one:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/alabama-woman-shoots-home-intruder-to-protect-herself-and-her-ax-and-knife-wielding-daughters/

Or this one:

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/10/bessemer_woman_shoots_gun-wiel.html

Or this one:

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Homeowner-Shoots-Intruders-Police-174633151.html

Guns are responsible for saving the lives of victims as well. But that's not nearly as juicy a story as the stories of when guns go wrong.

Is the Connecticut story a freaking tragedy? Yes. Is it a thousand times worse because of the age of the victims? Many will think so.

But what I know is if a crazy man with a gun enters my environs and I didn't have a gun there's a hundred percent chance I'd end up dead if unarmed. Armed, well my odds of living increase, don't they? I'll take a chance at life over certain death any day of the week.

I carry. I will always carry. There is no law ever that will deprive me of the right to defend myself. If you prefer to just let what happens happen, that's fine. That's your right and your choice. I choose to prepare for eventualities and provide myself with the option of defense should I need it. Just like I live in a hurricane prone state so I stock up on food and water during hurricane season. Perhaps that makes me a survivalist nut, I prefer to think of it as prudent planning.

[ChainzCooper]

I support gun rights. I support the right to bear arms. There is absolutely no reason on earth why I should not have a gun, therefore, law or not, I will carry a gun.

In Errata's above example, if the woman hadn't waited til after she was raped to attempt to find a means to defend herself, maybe she wouldn't have been raped in the first place. America has made it so laughable to carry a weapon, whyever would you, and then goes oh gee, rapes? burglary? murder? Terrible! but don't carry a gun! That just makes you a crazy nut! Because being unarmed guarantees you won't be victimized!

And the whole idea of making bullets outrageously expensive is a ridiculous one. So the idea to reduce innocent bystanders is to make it prohibitively expensive for people who own guns to actually practice shooting them... thereby making it pretty darn sure there's going to be innocent bystanders

The knee jerk reaction to strip protection from people in response to tragedy is ridiculous.

I am definitely not going to leave myself defenseless, knowing full well that criminals will never abide by a no guns policy.

And I surely don't want to model ourselves after England where house owners get arrested if they defend themselves against criminal dirtbags breaking into their house. There is no such thing as unreasonable force when you have entered my house illegally.

Are guns in the wrong hands bad news? Yes they are. But so are cars. Ah but cars have a legitimate purpose I hear you say. Well guns have a legitimate purpose as well. Like the 12 year old who was home alone and shot an intruder possibly saving her own life, who knows. I bet those parents are celebrating the fact that they had access to a gun. But that story isn't splashed all over the national media on 24 hour coverage is it? Did you even hear about it?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/kendra-st-clair-oklahoma-girl-12-shoots-intruder/story?id=17524438#.UNJn3Hfef_c

Or the woman with the baby who shot intruders who had broken into her home to steal her recently deceased husband's cancer drugs:

http://digitaljournal.com/article/317319

Or this one:

http://www.wral.com/fayetteville-woman-shoots-intruder/11881139/

or this one:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/alabama-woman-shoots-home-intruder-to-protect-herself-and-her-ax-and-knife-wielding-daughters/

Or this one:

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/10/bessemer_woman_shoots_gun-wiel.html

Or this one:

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Homeowner-Shoots-Intruders-Police-174633151.html

Guns are responsible for saving the lives of victims as well. But that's not nearly as juicy a story as the stories of when guns go wrong.

Is the Connecticut story a freaking tragedy? Yes. Is it a thousand times worse because of the age of the victims? Many will think so.

But what I know is if a crazy man with a gun enters my environs and I didn't have a gun there's a hundred percent chance I'd end up dead if unarmed. Armed, well my odds of living increase, don't they? I'll take a chance at life over certain death any day of the week.

I carry. I will always carry. There is no law ever that will deprive me of the right to defend myself. If you prefer to just let what happens happen, that's fine. That's your right and your choice. I choose to prepare for eventualities and provide myself with the option of defense should I need it. Just like I live in a hurricane prone state so I stock up on food and water during hurricane season. Perhaps that makes me a survivalist nut, I prefer to think of it as prudent planning.

Nice post I enjoyed reading it we actually agree on this issue wow hehe
Jordan