Connecticut School Shooting

[j.r-ahde]

Hello, Ally!

Sorry, but I just had to quote one detail:

"...They kill people because people violate their homes and violate their need to feel safe in the places they work to maintain."

So; In Finland one person thought like this and gunned down "an intruder". Later it was found out, that "the intruder" was in fact a plumber. The plumber was supposed to visit the house that day, but an exact time wasn't mentioned.

So, what do you have to say to the relatives of the plumber? That the houseowner "just needed to feel safe"?

All the best
Jukka

[RavenDarkendale]

The need to feel safe in one's one home, to defend one's own life and the life of others is one felt more and more these days what with home invasions and serial murders on the rise here in the states.

That said, why does anyone need an assault rife or other fully automatic weapon to defend the home? Why do they sell larger and larger clips for guns which with added amount of rounds per clip and a large number of clips allows a gunman to fire almost continuously?

Look, in the Old West here in the states almost everyone was armed. They carried a six-shot pistol, maybe two, a lever action rifle, and a shotgun. No one ever had trouble defending themselves. Old West characters such as Wild Bill Hickock and John Wesley Hardin were not only fast draws but extremely accurate shots. A single shot was enough. Buffalo Bill's accuracy with a rifle was legend, as was Annie Oakley's Little Sure Shot.

I myself have a .22 magnum revolver, a Winchester .30-30, a Remington .22 magnum varmint rifle, a Savage .22 target rifle, and two Savage shotguns, .20 and .12 gauge. I don't need a semiautomatic gun to defend myself, my family, or my property. People don't argue with a pump-action .12 gauge.

No one is saying private citizens can't own guns. But certain types of guns should be restricted to Law Enforcement and Military. Every school shooting has involved automatic or semiautomatic guns and nigh endless supply of o in clips. If the perp had a six gun, six shots and someone would be able to tackle the creep. You can't do that when they can just snap in another clip and keep shooting.

The worst death toll in school shooting took place at Virginia Tech. I live within 75 miles of the school. In fact my youngest son is a Junior there right now. A campus cop was killed this year in the very parking lot where my son's car was parked.

If the Government would stop cutting funding for education, especially public schools, perhaps we could install metal detectors and have more security guards. Maybe we could also educate people to understand that with the right to own a gun comes responsibility doe that gun. Each person is responsible for every time they pull the trigger. Bullets don't seek targets, aim does that whether a direct shot or a ricochet. Learn to make each shot count, not depending on firing enough bullets to guarantee success.

If you cannot hit a target in six shots, you probably need to practice

God Bless

Raven Darkendale

[The Good Michael]

A gun is simply a pacifier and blanket that allows the paranoid to feel they are safe from harm. A gun is mother saying, "Everything will be OK. Nothing will happen to you when I'm here."

In short, trusting in Gun is as delusional as trusting in God. Yet, both of them give people solace, so my stance is the same on both: A little God that you keep to yourself because it comforts you, I have no problem with. A little Gun should be enough as well. When someone needs something bigger and more explosive...then they are Gundamentalists, and everybody knows how dangerous fundamentalists are.

Mike

[caz]

It should be noted that none of the intruders in my examples had guns. It was the homeowners who had guns, and were therefore able to defend themselves from intruders. Which is fortunate. Or do you think an unarmed 12 year old has any chance at all against a grown man, whether he happens to be armed or not?

Huh. I wasn't aware that there was no crime in England and never any home break-ins. Interesting.

Not on anywhere like the same scale, Ally.

How many 12 year old children do you think are left home alone here in the UK and terrified because any minute they may have to face an intruder without the comfort of a loaded gun ready to shoot him with?

It's not a life that I would wish on any 12 year old anywhere in the world, and I find it really sad that in certain places it is now regarded as necessary and therefore normal to provide such 'comfort'.

Love,

Caz
X

[Errata]

Huh. Interestingly enough the 24 hour news cycle rarely, if ever seems to be discussing people who save themselves using guns. They rarely, if ever discuss arming homeowners for their defense. They rarely if ever discuss the good that comes from owning a gun. Less than 20 percent of the adult population owns a gun. So I find it interesting where this overwhelming societal pressure is coming from.

Maybe it's because I live in Tennessee, which has a thriving gun culture. Maybe it's because the area is rural, as close as we are to Nashville. Maybe it's because I'm perceived as a carpetbagger, despite the fact that I was born and raised in the south. Maybe it's because there is a surprising amount of Klan around here. Who knows. I don't have cable. I don't watch 24 news channels. I get my news from the computer and NPR, maybe twice a day. My experience is different from yours. It would be ludicrous to expect that our lives have been parallel. And evidently they have not been. The societal pressure is not overwhelming. If it were I would be a gun owner, and I am not. But it is there.

I don't agree a life is worth a life. I think it depends on whose life you are talking about. Is my tv worth a life? Depends whose life. Mine, or the criminal dirtbag who has entered my house illegally. His life isn't worth jackcrap to me. I don't believe a human is somehow imbued with some sort of intrinsic value or worth, just because they happen to possess human DNA. Your life is only worth the value you place on it and what you choose to do with it. If you choose to enter my home illegally, uninvited, with the intent to commit a crime, your life has absolutely no value, whatsoever.

Clearly it has no value to you. But our society has decided that death is not an appropriate punishment for burglary. Else people would be sentenced to death for it. Empathy is not terrible thing. The proper application of it could prevent a lot of crimes. Lets say that some crack addicted guy is stealing from people to pay for his habit. If he breaks in to your house, his life has no value, and you deem he is not worth empathy. But if someone had empathy and helped him get clean a month earlier, he wouldn't be in your house, and therefore his life is worth something. His life only has value to you because someone showed him compassion. Which is not unlike saying that as long as someone else is willing to help him, so it doesn't have to be you, then his life is worth something. It seems sad that a person would be willing to kill a man who may have a family and people who love him, but not help him.

I guess he should die for that. I was unable to find the specific case that you were referring to though the bottom line remains the same. Should a person be able to feel safe in their own home?

I don't know why a person should feel safe in their own home. We aren't safe anywhere. I have had three friends wake up in the middle of the night when a drunk driver plowed into their bedrooms. Now I know that doesn't happen often, and the fact that three people I know had that happen is spectacularly rare, or a comment on Tennessee drivers, but that's not safe. How do we protect ourselves from that? Well, we don't. You're more likely to die in your own home than anywhere else, most fatal accidents occur within the mile of the home, and you are more likely to be killed by a family member than a stranger.

I lost my faith in safety a long time ago. Maybe it's because I am bipolar, and am keenly aware of my lack of control over even basic things. Maybe it's because I have a severe anxiety disorder, so I have been over every terrible thing that could ever happen to me 100 times. Maybe I was attacked too young, and I never developed a sense of security. But I am no so attached to life that I am willing to live with something that would haunt me for the rest of my days. And I am not going to waste it with some false sense of security that can be violated at any time. I have noticed that even people who successfully scared off intruders, or even shot them, don't feel safe in their houses anymore. So if they are shooting someone to protect their feeling of safety, they are wasting bullets.

What precisely would a 14 year old be doing wandering on my property at 10 O'clock at night? Other than getting shot?

Well, if they are on their way to the lake that technically closes at 9, and they have a choice between sneaking past the ranger station or cutting through the woods on either side that are not marked as private property nor are fenced, it's seems an easy choice. Until the owners of these properties start shooting at you without bothering to say a word. I mean, we were dumb kids laughing and talking pretty loud. And clearly just passing through. Telling us to get off their property would have sufficed.

Ah. Why don't we all just stand on the street corner and hand out our stuff for free since apparently we should view our homes as all you can take buffets. No one kills anyone over home electronics. They kill people because people violate their homes and violate their need to feel safe in the places they work to maintain.

Locks and alarms maybe? My house has very attractive wrought iron grating over the windows.

Just out of curiosity, why should people value human life? What makes HUMAN life more special than any other kind of life on the planet? I value humans, specific humans who are worth valuing. I don't value a life, just because it's DNA happens to be the same basic form as mine. I don't value the life of all humans equally, why should I? No one does. No one ever will. No one will EVER pick the life of say, Ted Bundy over the life of their own child. No one will ever pick the life of the old lady stranger down the street over the life of their own child. No one, ever, will value all human life equally. All people hold certain lives higher than others, it is all just ranking the hierarchy.

I'm not sure that people should value human life. I do. There are people that I am not sorry are dead, but when I say that a life is worth a life, I mean that if someone is trying to kill you, by all means kill them first if you can. If I ever walked in on man having sex with a child, I'm pretty sure he would live through the experience, but only because I think a life in perpetual agony and the loss of parts held dear is worse than death. And there are things worse than death. Of course nobody values life equally. If I have to choose the life of a burglar over the life of my fiance, of course the burglar loses. If I have to choose between the life of a burglar and the continued presence of my stereo, I'm going to choose the burglar's life. I have to say, if I have to choose the life of the burglar or the life of my cat, that's a tough call. Stuff is not a good enough reason to kill. We don't like it when people kill to take stuff, I don't think we should like it when people kill to keep stuff. And I don't think killing to preserve an illusion is a good enough reason either. And safety is an illusion.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi all

I am of the liberal persuasion myself and am for the steps that Obama and Biden wish to take to try to stop future mass killings, though I recognize that might be difficult if not impossible. I thought people here might be interested in the following op-ed piece by conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer, not usually somebody I agree with but I do think he makes some good points here:

Charles Krauthammer -- "The Roots of Mass Murder"

Cheers

Chris

[Robert]

Of course, over here we have the dear old BBC, an organization we can always trust to uphold freedom of speech :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2251593/Mensa-member-criticised-describing-people-low-IQs-carrots-appearing-BBC-Breakfast.html

[RivkahChaya]

Based on the second amendment, your neighbour could buy an nuclear bomb, if he wants to... interesting...

Believe it or not, I'm actually going to seriously address this bone-headed statement. Yes, if your neighbor can afford it, he can own a nuclear warhead.

He cannot, however, without being about to properly transport, store, and dispose of waste, purchase fissionable materials. He is not allowed to store uranium-235 under his kitchen sink. A nuclear warhead without fissionable material is just lawn art.

Anyway, just to be able to afford the warhead itself, your neighbor is going to have to be rich (and probably just a little bit of a jerk as well). But it takes a whole different dimension of "rich" to be able to afford just the ability to safely store uranium-235, let alone track down some that is for sale.

So, go ahead and try that one, if you feel like putting the 2nd amendment to the test. Good luck.

[Hunter]

... I thought people here might be interested in the following op-ed piece by conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer, not usually somebody I agree with but I do think he makes some good points here:

Charles Krauthammer -- "The Roots of Mass Murder"

Krauthammer's piece is good sense.
Maybe most Americans who really do care about these issues will consider a logical outlook once the 'Rhetoric of fire' and emotions subside a little, although I doubt many government officials will. Congress either passes knee jerk legislation that does nothing in reality or usurps the Constitution (the 1994 so-called Assault Weapons ban or the so-called Patriot Act) or they shirk their real responsibility of handling the country's finances (the Senate hasn't even passed a budget in over 3 years now).

The first three words in the Constitution are "We the People." It does not start out with "They the government." Folks need to stop worrying about what outfit Kim Kardashion (or whoever the hell she is) is wearing, and at least learn some basic Civics.

The only reason to implement something that doesn't work is either because the people doing it are simply vindictive or stupid - or both.

[Ally]

Not on anywhere like the same scale, Ally.

How many 12 year old children do you think are left home alone here in the UK and terrified because any minute they may have to face an intruder without the comfort of a loaded gun ready to shoot him with?

It's not a life that I would wish on any 12 year old anywhere in the world, and I find it really sad that in certain places it is now regarded as necessary and therefore normal to provide such 'comfort'.

Love,

Caz
X

Okay I had to respond to this one first. I sincerely doubt that the 12 year old spent every minute of her life cowering in fear of intruders, like you are trying to imply. I sincerely doubt that girl gave intruders a single thought until one broke into her house while she happened to be there. And lucky for her, her parents WERE prepared and she was able to defend herself.

If you are telling me that no one ever breaks into houses in England, that's one thing, but unless you have no crime whatsoever, your 12 year olds aren't any safer in their homes than they are here. It only takes once. Does that mean our 12 year olds are cowering under their beds? No. But thank god, ours seem a little more equipped to handle themselves in that eventuality.

[Ally]

Hello, Ally!

Sorry, but I just had to quote one detail:

"...They kill people because people violate their homes and violate their need to feel safe in the places they work to maintain."

So; In Finland one person thought like this and gunned down "an intruder". Later it was found out, that "the intruder" was in fact a plumber. The plumber was supposed to visit the house that day, but an exact time wasn't mentioned.

So, what do you have to say to the relatives of the plumber? That the houseowner "just needed to feel safe"?

All the best
Jukka

No, I'd ask the relatives of the plumber, "Did he knock?"

[Ally]

A gun is simply a pacifier and blanket that allows the paranoid to feel they are safe from harm. A gun is mother saying, "Everything will be OK. Nothing will happen to you when I'm here."

In short, trusting in Gun is as delusional as trusting in God. Yet, both of them give people solace, so my stance is the same on both: A little God that you keep to yourself because it comforts you, I have no problem with. A little Gun should be enough as well. When someone needs something bigger and more explosive...then they are Gundamentalists, and everybody knows how dangerous fundamentalists are.

Mike

No. Guns have been proven to have stopped crime and mass shootings. There are documented instances. God's never once shown up and stopped a mass murder or an armed robbery.

I'll keep my gun. You can keep god. I know which one will actually be there if I need it.

[Ally]

Clearly it has no value to you. But our society has decided that death is not an appropriate punishment for burglary. Else people would be sentenced to death for it.

Unless they are caught in the act by the homeowner, in which case, they can very well be sentenced to death and our laws support that.

But if someone had empathy and helped him get clean a month earlier, he wouldn't be in your house, and therefore his life is worth something. His life only has value to you because someone showed him compassion

There is not a single case in the world where a crack addict has gotten clean due to someone else's empathy. Empathy is meaningless unless they take responsibility for their lives. You can't empath them into clean living.

Which is not unlike saying that as long as someone else is willing to help him, so it doesn't have to be you, then his life is worth something. It seems sad that a person would be willing to kill a man who may have a family and people who love him, but not help him.

Interesting. So in your scenario, I shouldn't kill this man, who you've imagined to have family who love him -- but not have any interest in helping him, but I, who am a victim of him and have absolutely no love for him, should somehow be more empathetic than his own family?

And as for this sentence, no one else's actions make his life worth something. He and he alone makes his life worth something or worth nothing. All the empathy in the world isn't going to make him get clean if he doesn't want to, so it's not "Someone else willing to help him" that makes his life worth something to me. It's his actions that determine his worth. Period.

I don't know why a person should feel safe in their own home. We aren't safe anywhere. I have had three friends wake up in the middle of the night when a drunk driver plowed into their bedrooms.

There is a difference between random accidents, that obviously no one can prepare for, and people breaking into your home with intent. Obviously you cannot prepare for every eventuality. A rapist breaking into your home is absolutely one you can prepare for.

You're more likely to die in your own home than anywhere else, most fatal accidents occur within the mile of the home, and you are more likely to be killed by a family member than a stranger.

That's because people make crappy choices as to who they live with. Again, that's a choice when it comes to personal safety.

Well, if they are on their way to the lake that technically closes at 9, and they have a choice between sneaking past the ranger station or cutting through the woods on either side that are not marked as private property nor are fenced, it's seems an easy choice. Until the owners of these properties start shooting at you without bothering to say a word. I mean, we were dumb kids laughing and talking pretty loud. And clearly just passing through. Telling us to get off their property would have sufficed.

So would have walking around people's private property.

Stuff is not a good enough reason to kill. We don't like it when people kill to take stuff, I don't think we should like it when people kill to keep stuff. And I don't think killing to preserve an illusion is a good enough reason either. And safety is an illusion.

There is no excuse, whatsoever, for burglarizing someone's home. None. If you make that choice, you do it with the knowledge that they have the right to shoot you if they choose, therefore the burglar breaking into the home makes that determination that whatever stuff is in their IS worth their life, because they know it can be taken if they are caught. So the person who decides their life is worth my stuff, is the person breaking into take it. I don't make that decision for them, they make it when they break into my home. Once again, that individual decides what his life is worth, not me.

[Errata]

So would have walking around people's private property.
.

Swear to god, it was not marked. No fence, no string, no signs, about 10 acres of undeveloped land. It's not like we were in his yard. We couldn't even see the house. We were on his land. In fact, guy on the left of the ranger station clearly had his land marked as the park. Cops could make him put a string up to mark the bounds of his property, but didn't even suggest that hey maybe don't shoot at kids unless they get actually somewhere near the part you actually inhabit.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Ally!

No, I'd ask the relatives of the plumber, "Did he knock?"

Interesting view of yours to ask this kind of question from the relatives. Have you ever heard about tactfulness?

And if someone doesn't knock, you have the right to gun him down?

All the best
Jukka