Connecticut School Shooting

[ChainzCooper]

Hello you all!

Just read an interesting piece of news; in 2008 there were 12 000 dead in the US because of guns. Meanwhile in Japan there were only 11 deaths because of guns; their laws only allow guns for hunting and sports.

Could you, please, think about this, dear American friends. Before you start to talk again about your second amendment and defend your bullet-headed countrymen.

All the best
Jukka

Riddle me this then. Someone is breaking into your house and is armed. Do you have a right to get your gun and defend yourself? Or do you just sit there and hope the police get there in time?
Jordan

[Errata]

I'll post this one more time. Gun crime and violence is HIGHER in places like Washington DC where they have stringent gun laws. Kennesaw Georgia is the probably the safest town in the US and has one of the lowest burglary rates because every dwelling is REQUIRED to have a firearm. Again, I'm really tired of the hysteria and acting like gun crimes and crime in general is just an American thing. The same day same a-hole went into a school in China where guns are outlawed and knifed a bunch of children did this get any news? No because the media wants to hatchet up the anti-gun nonsense, do you ever hear stories about citizens saving themselves from attackers because they carried a gun? No because thats not going to fit this BS narrative. Its time for some personal responsibility and accountability, its the d-bags fault and not guns or America or whatever else I'm sick of people taking one thing and calling it something else its really disgusting and needs to stop
Jordan

It got news. In fact was three lines down from the Connecticut shooting on my news sites. But surely even you can admit that there is a vast difference between 23 people injured, and 27 people killed.

Clearly we as a society are broken when we let these people fall through the cracks. Obviously we can't prevent all of them from wanting to kill, but there is no reason we can't prevent them from actually doing it. There are signs. There are signals. They are ignored. The family and friends of the Oregon mall shooter said that he showed no signs of something being wrong. But then they go on to describe several months worth of behavior that any idiot who has ever seen an after school special knows is a classic sign of imminent violence or suicide. They saw. They just chose not to act. How is that any different than seeing someone aiming a rifle out the window, and not stopping and asking them what the hell are they doing? Or calling the cops? Sure we can say that it's none of our business, and not our responsibility, and the guy pointing a rifle out the window has every right to that. And technically it might all even be correct. But that attitude isn't getting us less dead people now is it?

Everything in this world is multi causal. You want to say it's just people being evil? Then what good are you? If all you are going to do is ask god to make it stop, then you are part of the problem. If all you are going to do is shrug, or suggest that "gee maybe teachers should have guns" or something equally ridiculous, then you don't really care about the problem at all. You just want to keep your guns. Well, I want you to keep your guns too. We have a choice. Change society or change gun laws. Which would you prefer? Do you want to suck it up and make people responsible for not giving a **** about their fellow man, or do you want to ban all projectiles?

And stop using whatever DC numbers you have because clearly they are flawed. They have been the murder capital of the US for 30 years, and have only had these stringent gun laws for about 10 years. It takes time for the crime numbers to come down. The Kennesaw numbers would be a great argument, if the crime numbers hadn't already reduced significantly BEFORE that idiot ordinance was passed. Never mind that fact that Kennesaw has all of 30,000 people in it, 10,000 households, and half of the heads of households are exempt from the law and do not have firearms. Nor is that law in any way helping the surrounding city of Atlanta. The Amish have a ridiculously low number of people die by gunshot every year. They have guns. How come you don't cite the Amish?

[RivkahChaya]

We need strict gun control laws, but the gun lobby is so strong I doubt it will happen. Guns are a big $$$ commodity in this country, and that commodity wraps itself in the flag to avoid common sense regulation. Any nut can get their hands on a gun.

Frankly, we have fairly good gun control laws in most states, they just don't get enforced. In my opinion, the worst kind of laws are the ones with no enforcement, because they actively encourage scofflaw-type thinking.

What I would be in favor of are federal gun control laws, because while it is against the law to carry a loaded gun (and in some cases, any unlicensed gun) from state to state, since we don't patrol state boarders, the law is pretty much unenforceable, so people in high-regulation states can often skirt the law by buying guns in low-regulation states. New York has gun laws up the you-know, but people just go to low-reg Virginia to buy guns.

There might be a cultural factor at play in the US. As the country expanded westward, law and order lagged behind, with the result that people wore guns to protect themselves.

I think there's another US cultural factor: it's the schools.

It's inescapable that young people commit violence on school campuses. People can talk themselves blue about drugs, bullying, bad parenting, Ritalin, TV violence, comic books, anime, and one or two of those things may have been a factor in some of the incidents, and not in others. But what they all have in common is schools.

While young people being violent is shocking, I really don't think that it's a coincidence that schools are the playing fields. I don't know about other countries, but there's an adversarial relationship between students and the public education system in the US. Kids really feel and "Us against them," with "them" being the teachers and administration, and that's true across all age groups, and social cliques. It shouldn't be that way. I went to a Jewish day school preschool -- 2nd grade, and then to public school for a year, then we went to Russia, and I went to an international school sponsored by the British and American embassies, where the classes were very small, and my teacher was English, and used a British open classroom structure, so I have something to compare the regular public school to, and it's hell.

You don't have to try to see how much bitter humor there is, everywhere, anywhere, in American culture and popular entertainment, derived from public school experience.

It's not as bad as our non-existent public healthcare, but a teacher's salary alone isn't enough to support a family very well, without subsidized housing, and earned income tax credits. I don't know a teacher who doesn't have a working spouse, except for some very young, new teachers, in crappy apartments, sometimes with roommates, struggling to pay off student loans.

Most Americans may not be able to put their finger on exactly why school made them angry-- not a single bullying experience, bad year, or bad teacher-- it was just twelve years of being in a pressure cooker, and it blows some people's tops.

[ChainzCooper]

It got news. In fact was three lines down from the Connecticut shooting on my news sites. But surely even you can admit that there is a vast difference between 23 people injured, and 27 people killed.

Clearly we as a society are broken when we let these people fall through the cracks. Obviously we can't prevent all of them from wanting to kill, but there is no reason we can't prevent them from actually doing it. There are signs. There are signals. They are ignored. The family and friends of the Oregon mall shooter said that he showed no signs of something being wrong. But then they go on to describe several months worth of behavior that any idiot who has ever seen an after school special knows is a classic sign of imminent violence or suicide. They saw. They just chose not to act. How is that any different than seeing someone aiming a rifle out the window, and not stopping and asking them what the hell are they doing? Or calling the cops? Sure we can say that it's none of our business, and not our responsibility, and the guy pointing a rifle out the window has every right to that. And technically it might all even be correct. But that attitude isn't getting us less dead people now is it?

Everything in this world is multi causal. You want to say it's just people being evil? Then what good are you? If all you are going to do is ask god to make it stop, then you are part of the problem. If all you are going to do is shrug, or suggest that "gee maybe teachers should have guns" or something equally ridiculous, then you don't really care about the problem at all. You just want to keep your guns. Well, I want you to keep your guns too. We have a choice. Change society or change gun laws. Which would you prefer? Do you want to suck it up and make people responsible for not giving a **** about their fellow man, or do you want to ban all projectiles?

And stop using whatever DC numbers you have because clearly they are flawed. They have been the murder capital of the US for 30 years, and have only had these stringent gun laws for about 10 years. It takes time for the crime numbers to come down. The Kennesaw numbers would be a great argument, if the crime numbers hadn't already reduced significantly BEFORE that idiot ordinance was passed. Never mind that fact that Kennesaw has all of 30,000 people in it, 10,000 households, and half of the heads of households are exempt from the law and do not have firearms. Nor is that law in any way helping the surrounding city of Atlanta. The Amish have a ridiculously low number of people die by gunshot every year. They have guns. How come you don't cite the Amish?

I am part of the problem and don't really care, I'm really not going to respond to something so insulting so later
Jordan

[DirectorDave]

Sympathies with the families.

To Archaic, I'm afraid that freedom comes with a price.

Within every group of people, there are the odd few who will abuse it.

Do you forgo your principles in lieu of the actions of a few bad apples?

As an Englishman, I would say the Americans are absolutely right to cherish their freedoms and guard them from an over-extended government; as we all know, power corrupts.

Ultimately, a free country pays the inevitable price of freedom.

Archaic, you don't know how good you have it over there. Continental Europe is beyond redemption; England is teetering on the brink; the United States actually has sound principles to which she adheres - issues which are really important to its people - such as individual rights which have all but been forgotten over here.

Those principles should not be thrown away because of the actions of a few bad apples.

I've heard some guff spouted on here but that really does take the biscuit.
Principles? "Individual rights"?

Freedom might mean different things in different countries but in Scotland it means the right to live in peace without fear.

"England teetering on the brink". So what is it that has made you think that? Gay marriage or the immigration policy?

The UK banned handguns and has servre restrictions on rifles....we done this after a similar incident to that in the US and we have never looked back.

FAO Americans….Fleetwood Mac I doubt speaks for most British people, I would suggest most Brits think your obsession with guns is mental. I heard more than one “Gun Pundit” on the news channels today saying the teachers should be armed, and talking about “The good guns do!”.

Guns don’t kill people, people do?....yeah keep saying it till the next incident.

I think this will be the defining moment of Obama’s presidency….either he is a progressive politician or he is all talk.

Get rid of guns, get rid of as many as you can and change your country for the better.

USA is not the home of freedom…it’s a den of fear.

RIP the victims and thoughts with their families.

Riddle me this then. Someone is breaking into your house and is armed. Do you have a right to get your gun and defend yourself? Or do you just sit there and hope the police get there in time?

We don't have guns, there are no guns to reach for! I would love to see the percentage of house breakings in the UK where the perpatrator had a firearm....0.000 something % I would imagine.

[Barnaby]

I'll post this one more time. Gun crime and violence is HIGHER in places like Washington DC where they have stringent gun laws. Kennesaw Georgia is the probably the safest town in the US and has one of the lowest burglary rates because every dwelling is REQUIRED to have a firearm.

Ever think that the wildly different demographics just maybe might not make this a fair comparison? The fact is, if there aren't any guns to be had, there won't be any gun deaths. I realize that this is unrealistic in this country. But the data in totality when one does not cherry pick examples clearly shows a strong correlation between access to guns and gun deaths. And as we unfortunately saw last week, you can do much more damage with a gun than a knife.

People in favor of zero gun laws often state that this is the price we pay for freedom. But note that requiring that every dwelling has a firearm is just as much an affront on my freedom as banning them altogether. And so if you are in favor of the laws of Kennesaw, it can't be based on a "freedom" argument.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello ChainzCooper!

Since you quote your comment, I will quote some of mine:

The balance or the lack of balance comes from home.

Probably something was cracking at home...

I've just read a blog called "I am Adam Lanza's mother", which gives a pretty gruesome picture of the real reasons behind these incidents in your country.

Here in Finland, where we have more strict gunlaws, still some people buy guns for their protection. I have never heard, that these people would have helped themselves with it. Instead, they have caused a mess getting freaky and shooting innocent people coming for plumbing etc.

Just read an interesting piece of news; in 2008 there were 12 000 dead in the US because of guns. Meanwhile in Japan there were only 11 deaths because of guns; their laws only allow guns for hunting and sports.

Could you, please, think about this, dear American friends. Before you start to talk again about your second amendment and defend your bullet-headed countrymen.

All the best
Jukka

[Limehouse]

I've heard some guff spouted on here but that really does take the biscuit.
Principles? "Individual rights"?

Freedom might mean different things in different countries but in Scotland it means the right to live in peace without fear.

"England teetering on the brink". So what is it that has made you think that? Gay marriage or the immigration policy?

The UK banned handguns and has servre restrictions on rifles....we done this after a similar incident to that in the US and we have never looked back.

FAO Americans….Fleetwood Mac I doubt speaks for most British people, I would suggest most Brits think your obsession with guns is mental. I heard more than one “Gun Pundit” on the news channels today saying the teachers should be armed, and talking about “The good guns do!”.

Guns don’t kill people, people do?....yeah keep saying it till the next incident.

I think this will be the defining moment of Obama’s presidency….either he is a progressive politician or he is all talk.

Get rid of guns, get rid of as many as you can and change your country for the better.

USA is not the home of freedom…it’s a den of fear.

RIP the victims and thoughts with their families.




We don't have guns, there are no guns to reach for! I would love to see the percentage of house breakings in the UK where the perpatrator had a firearm....0.000 something % I would imagine.

Well said Dave.

[The Good Michael]

I'm not opposed to people owning a single-shot pistol and having to keep it in their home.

I am opposed to guns being a multi-billion dollar industry and for people to create fear-mongering in America in order to keep the industry alive. I was just thinking that anyone who would go to a gun show, is the kind of person that shouldn't have a gun.

Mike

[caz]

Riddle me this then. Someone is breaking into your house and is armed. Do you have a right to get your gun and defend yourself? Or do you just sit there and hope the police get there in time?
Jordan

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

[Errata]

I am part of the problem and don't really care, I'm really not going to respond to something so insulting so later
Jordan

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".

[RivkahChaya]

People in favor of zero gun laws often state that this is the price we pay for freedom. But note that requiring that every dwelling has a firearm is just as much an affront on my freedom as banning them altogether. And so if you are in favor of the laws of Kennesaw, it can't be based on a "freedom" argument.

I was thinking the same thing, and we've had guns. DH and I were both in the military, and he had a target pistol, which, when he wasn't using it, he kept unloaded and locked away, until we had a child, then he sold it. Aside from guns in little hands, he didn't think he'd have time for target shooting anymore, and if he did, he could always rent one at the range.

However, the Kennesaw law is not an outright violation of the second amendment, which an absolute an complete bad on guns would be.

Where the Kennesaw law does fail, though, I would think, is on the right to privacy, which the Supreme Court decided is implicit in the constitution, and wrote into the Roe v. Wade decision. I really think whether or not to have a gun is a matter of privacy and conscience. Seriously-- they are forcing people who are members of the Society of Friends (Quakers) to have guns? that has to be a 1st amendment violation. What about people on parole, or with mental illnesses, whose non-right to own guns are superseded by state laws? If I were the suspicious type, I'd suspect that this gun ownership law was really a way of preventing parolees, probationers, felons and the mentally ill from living in the jurisdiction, since they can't obey the gun order. If you keep anyone previously convicted of a crime out of the area, that will probably make your crime rate go down

Not to mention, it's ridiculous to order citizens with severe cerebral palsy (among movement disorders), or visual impairments, to go to the trouble of arming themselves just to comply with the law, and dangerous as well. I know the law is written to say "head of household," so maybe the framers couldn't imagine a situation where a disabled person is the head of a household, but that's just another example of their narrow-mindedness.

The 2nd amendment may be part of the constitution, and may even be part of the Bill of Rights, but it isn't immune to being repealed or modified, and other sections of the constitution provide for that, if any non-American readers are curious.

[Limehouse]

I was thinking the same thing, and we've had guns. DH and I were both in the military, and he had a target pistol, which, when he wasn't using it, he kept unloaded and locked away, until we had a child, then he sold it. Aside from guns in little hands, he didn't think he'd have time for target shooting anymore, and if he did, he could always rent one at the range.

However, the Kennesaw law is not an outright violation of the second amendment, which an absolute an complete bad on guns would be.

Where the Kennesaw law does fail, though, I would think, is on the right to privacy, which the Supreme Court decided is implicit in the constitution, and wrote into the Roe v. Wade decision. I really think whether or not to have a gun is a matter of privacy and conscience. Seriously-- they are forcing people who are members of the Society of Friends (Quakers) to have guns? that has to be a 1st amendment violation. What about people on parole, or with mental illnesses, whose non-right to own guns are superseded by state laws? If I were the suspicious type, I'd suspect that this gun ownership law was really a way of preventing parolees, probationers, felons and the mentally ill from living in the jurisdiction, since they can't obey the gun order. If you keep anyone previously convicted of a crime out of the area, that will probably make your crime rate go down

Not to mention, it's ridiculous to order citizens with severe cerebral palsy (among movement disorders), or visual impairments, to go to the trouble of arming themselves just to comply with the law, and dangerous as well. I know the law is written to say "head of household," so maybe the framers couldn't imagine a situation where a disabled person is the head of a household, but that's just another example of their narrow-mindedness.

The 2nd amendment may be part of the constitution, and may even be part of the Bill of Rights, but it isn't immune to being repealed or modified, and other sections of the constitution provide for that, if any non-American readers are curious.

This is an excellent post and a really good response to what I see as a crazy law, in fact, a completely bonkers law.

[RivkahChaya]

This is an excellent post and a really good response to what I see as a crazy law, in fact, a completely bonkers law.

Well, here's what the city has to say for itself:

[Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert] Jones said one motivation for the council passing the ordinance had to do with publicity.

"It was done in response to a law passed by Morton Grove, Ill., outlawing gun ownership within the city limits," he said. "Several council members were upset Morton Grove had gotten a lot of attention with their ordinance so they decided to top them.

"They figured the gun ownership ordinance would knock that city right off the front pages. They were right."

Jones said the ensuing publicity surrounding the law has given Kennesaw worldwide name recognition.

"I have been to Australia and Europe and when I tell people I am from Kennesaw they recognize the name as the place that requires everyone to own a gun," he said.

Apparently people with religious objections, and other "conscientious objectors," people with disabilities, felons (and, I presume, anyone else legally prohibited by state law from gun ownership, like parolees), and "paupers," however it's defined, are exempted from the law by wording within it, and it has already been challenged by the ACLU. There is no punishment specified, nor any means of enforcement, like periodic matching of property tax filing to gun registration. Kennesaw has a general fine for violating laws when no fine is specified, of $100. Anyway, the exemptions make the law constitutional, but they also make it meaningless. I doubt anyone who did not already own a gun went out and grudgingly bought one the day after the law was passed.

I can seriously only imagine this becoming an issue if you are under suspicion of some other crime, for which the police cannot obtain a search warrant, so they obtain one to force you to produce your weapon, and if you can't, then they might have probable cause to search, or something, I don't know, I'm not a lawyer-- or if they are building a case against you for something else, and don't want you to flee the jurisdiction, they might arrest you initially for gun ownership violation. The gun ownership violation charges would probably get thrown out, but by then, the police might have whatever they really wanted.

That's not what they passed the law for, though. It's clear why they passed it. It's pretty bone-headed.

[Limehouse]

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