Newtown School Shootings

[Fragony]

My condolances

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-n...-shooting-live

Beyond horrible

[rvg]

A veritable tragedy.

[Fisherking]

It is horrible!

Now, bet on whether the Perp was on anti-depressants?

Gone off his meds without telling anyone…

[Greyblades]

Jesus.

It is horrible!

Now, bet on whether the Perp was on anti-depressants?

Gone off his meds without telling anyone…

If it was a single suicide maybe, but this? Going off anti depressants would make someone less likely to do this.

[Fisherking]

Jesus.


If it was a single suicide maybe, but this? Going off anti depressants would make someone less likely to do this.

It seem like every time this stuff happens the shooter is on some serotonin reuptake inhibitor.

If it was only most of them it could be another tragic coincidence but so far as I know every one of these incidences have these drugs.

[Greyblades]

It seem like every time this stuff happens the shooter is on some serotonin reuptake inhibitor.

If it was only most of them it could be another tragic coincidence but so far as I know every one of these incidences have these drugs.

post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Correlation does not imply causation, in school shootings you could say the same for the prominence of male shooters over females and the fact that they are all considered nutjobs.

[quadalpha]

Cue handwringing and lots of not thinking about gun control.

[Fisherking]

post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Correlation does not imply causation, in school shootings you could say the same for the prominence of male shooters over females and the fact that they are all considered nutjobs.

Women do kill people coming off these drugs. Phil Hartman was killed by his wife, she just didn’t go to a school and kill lots of others.

We don’t actually know much yet, however. Let’s just wait and see.


We might also think twice about giving this stuff to people who like to play with guns…


edit: German news reported the shooter was a parent of a child at the school.!?

Anyone else hear more?

[Lemur]

There are approx 310 million firearms in circulation among civilians in the USA. Good luck registering them. The third-most powerful lobbying group (after AARP and AIPAC) is a 2nd Amendment absolutist which has been hysterically screaming about how Obama will derk er guhns for four years. The courts have repeatedly demonstrated that they are uninterested in regulating gun rights in any way, and there is, so far, insufficient public outrage to change that equation.

I would like to see gun ownership about as regulated as motor vehicle operation, but a school full of dead children ain't gonna make it happen. The Founders kinda screwed us with the phrasing of the Second Amendment. Yes, the "well-regulated militia" part is pretty obvious, but so is "shall not be infringed."

[Andres]

There are approx 310 million firearms in circulation among civilians in the USA. Good luck registering them. The third-most powerful lobbying group is a 2nd Amendment absolutist which has been hysterically screaming about how Obama will derk er guhns for four years. The courts and public are approx 50% 2A absolutists.

As long as you have such powerful absolutists, backed by such a large part of the population, clinging on to this Amendmenet as if it were some holy rule written in stone by Supreme Beings, you can't have an open debate. And gun legislation is only one aspect.

I would like to see gun ownership about as regulated as motor vehicle operation, but a school full of dead children ain't gonna make it happen.

A teenager can take his/her fathers' car for a ride without the father knowing... Juste like a young lad can take his mothers' guns and shoot her before going on a rampage with her guns...

If your legislation on guns is the main reason for events such like these happening, then only outright banning private gun ownership will help, imo. Even if you add extra regulation, it'll still be too easy for a deranged individual to get his hands on a gun.

[Lemur]

A teenager can take his/her fathers' car for a ride without the father knowing... Juste like a young lad can take his mothers' guns and shoot her before going on a rampage with her guns...

The car is registered, and has a license plate. The ownership of the car is tracked at the State level. The parent had to pass a minimal driving and safety test before being allowed on the road, and is required to have insurance for the vehicle in most states.

Moreover, the car is required by law to have a host of safety features, such as locks, airbags, brakes, etc.

I don't see a meaningful comparison between motor vehicles and firearms, at least not in the USA. That's because vehicle operation is treated as a privilege, while gun ownership, due to the phrasing of the Second Amendment, is a right. Unless/until we modify the Second Amendment, I don't see much meaningful change happening. And the political will just isn't there.

Truthfully, I think any change is going to need to come from gun advocates themselves. Fun little fact: The NRA was originally founded to support the regulation of firearms. It's true, look it up. So when the NRA can move past Obama's gunna derk uhr gehns and get into some sort of workable regimen of gun regulation, ain't nothing gonna happen.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The comparison between alcohol and guns is bunk for the simple fact that the purpose of alcohol is not to kill someone or something with. If you want to compare, you would have to have an environment where you could own and load guns, but not, you know, actually carry them in public (public drinking).

Which sounds to me like it might actually be an improvement, but then again I am, you know disdainful, of the idea that you somehow should need a gun because of 2A against evil governments or because you apparently live in Somalia and criminals and police are gonna shake you down and burgle your home if you don't. Me, I think you should make sure that the baseline goal is a world wherein nobody should ever have to own, or use a gun or know someone who does and still be safe and secure from criminals and government and police brutality alike. That is what I'd expect people to strive for.

Leave the guns, then, to be a tool of recreational use at the shooting range or hunt, and for pest control by farmers. There is no need to prohibit ownership or use, but as Lemur put it so very well:

That's because vehicle operation is treated as a privilege, while gun ownership, due to the phrasing of the Second Amendment, is a right. Unless/until we modify the Second Amendment, I don't see much meaningful change happening. And the political will just isn't there.

Gun ownership (and more importantly: use) should be more like car ownership: fine if you want it, but it is a privilege and not a God given right.

[Major Robert Dump]

Many years ago I was a member of the NRA but let my membership lapse because their stance on gun shows irked me. They are absolutists. Thats the problem. Not unlike the ACLU in a sense, but the ACLU does not deal wth instruments of killing.....

I've been away for a good while, so pardon me if the laws have changed, which I don't think they have....

For decades we have seen reasonable (and unreasonable) laws put under the axe by the NRA. The mere fact that at a gun show (or in a person-to-person sale in a newspaper classified) a weapon can be transferred from one person to the other with not paper trail is absolutely absurd. No background check, no requirement for either party to inform anyone of the purchase and transfer....

The most common argument I hear supporting this is how gun show vendors are doing this to make a living and cant afford to pay for background checks, invoking that golden goose the Small Business Man, ma and pa farms, just a regular guy trying to make some money.....

If you can't afford to meet the health department criteria, you dont open a restraurant. If you cant afford insruance, you dont practice medicine. If you cant afford a license, you dont drive a semi rig. I dont see why this thing with gun shows is any different. There are more administrative hoops to jump through for selling real estate, an automobile or a boat than they are for selling a gun to a random stranger at a gun show.

Gun absolutists..... lets see, IIRC (i was just a boy) the NRA was none to happy about the automatic weapons ban after the mcdonalds massacre in 1984, and they saw Reagan as a cop-out for signing the law. The NRA supported the original bill as it offered gun owner protections, but the automatic weapon clause was added at the 11th hour, and some of the fringers did not care for it....I still remember the old men in my family making a fuss about it.... Curious what the NRA says about it today.....I could only imagine what the states would be like today if people could legally own and purchase MAC 10s....

And this recent rule where veterans deemed unfit by the VA cannot buy guns.... republicans and the NRA are fighting this, trying to pass legislation to kill it. Some of them are saying because the right needs to be revoked by a judge, not a bearaucrat. Not sure I understand the reasoning. The doctor says the guy is crazy, I don't see what it matters who takes away the right to own a gun..... a lot of the right wing nutters are saying this is just a ploy to begin taking or guns, the beginning of the end, typical NRA, anyway, I see this issue maybe being shelved for the time being

On a related note, most people arguing about guns -- including Rupert Murdoch -- still think Assault Weapon means Automatic Weapon, and the liberal media is none to forthcoming about striaghtening this out. So we get all this round and round about assault rifles, which are really only more useful than a pistol at long longer range, and no massacres in recent memory involved a guy at range, it was all up close. I could definitely see it making a difference in a long building like a mall, though, if you are an exerienced shooter with the rifle, which in most cases the person is not. Nonetheless, the debate focuses on assault rifles....

[Fragony]

There are approx 310 million firearms in circulation among civilians in the USA. Good luck registering them. The third-most powerful lobbying group is a 2nd Amendment absolutist which has been hysterically screaming about how Obama will derk er guhns for four years. The courts have repeatedly demonstrated that they are uninterested in regulating gun rights in any way, and there is, so far, insufficient public outrage to change that equation.

I would like to see gun ownership about as regulated as motor vehicle operation, but a school full of dead children ain't gonna make it happen. The Founders kinda screwed us with the phrasing of the Second Amendment. Yes, the "well-regulated militia" part is pretty obvious, but so is "shall not be infringed."

At least you can register most of them, over here that's much harder because most come from former Yugoslavia. Better to accept things like this happening sometimes than to have no overview whatsoever. Carrying a gun on the street is utterly unacceptable imho but if you make it legal for those who don't have a criminal record to own a registered gun you at least are in control of the situation a whole lot more. It isn't hard to get a gun really, I can easily get you an AK-47 if you hand me 500 a 600 euro. What's the better situation really, some control or none at all?

[Lemur]

What's the better situation really, some control or none at all?

According to the 2A absolutists, none at all. That's pretty obvious.

Again, I think proposals for change would be best if they came from the bastions of 2A absolutism, such as the NRA. Anybody who suggests we need any regulation at all is going to be crucified if they aren't a "conservative" Republican.

Obama? Man, forget about it. After four years of hysterical squealing about how he's gonna be a gun-grabber? After all of the right-wing reality-free froth and paranoia about how the OBUMMER is going to become a dictator? Due to the unhinged nature of the wingnuts, he has zero room to maneuver.

So if 2A absolutists such as Panzer want to propose something, anything more realistic than turning our schools into armed camps, let's hear it. 'Cause the left and center are hamstrung on this issue. So let's hear what the right has to say. If anything.

[Fragony]

I have absolutely nothing meaningfull to say really, I have no idea how to fix things like this

[Lemur]

Just checked the NRA's blog. They got nothing. Their news feed? Nothing. Their Facebook page? They took it down. In fact, their only acknowledgement seems to be this one twitter statement: "Until the facts are thoroughly known, NRA will not have any comment." What an unbelievable bunch of tools.

On the bright side, seems there are a few "conservative" Republicans willing to at least have a conversation. We'll see if they get body-slammed by their own right-wing media complex or not.

-edit-

Sorry, my bad, the politician asking for a conversation about gun regulation is a Dem. My mistake. He will now be flogged in public as the SOCIALIST GUN GRABBER he clearly is.

[PanzerJaeger]

So if 2A absolutists such as Panzer want to propose something, anything more realistic than turning our schools into armed camps, let's hear it. 'Cause the left and center are hamstrung on this issue. So let's hear what the right has to say. If anything.

The idea that this tragedy requires legislative action is a fallacy in itself. While the nation has seen more mass shootings lately (ie: three) than usual, their extreme rarity should preclude any broad policy shift. Not every tragic loss of life requires the federal government to wrap society in another layer of bubble wrap. As mentioned above, if our national focus is to directed towards decreasing preventable deaths by curtailing freedoms currently enjoyed, a return to prohibition and any number of other issues should take priority. Taking aim (no pun intended) at gun ownership out of an emotional reaction to a headline grabbing, yet isolated incident is not logical.

[Papewaio]

I agree statistically speaking it used to be a lot more dangerous with guns. An American during the War of Independence was ten times more likely to die of a gunshot wound then a citizen of today.

In 1776 it is estimated that there was 1/100th of the population of the modern US.
8000 died on the battlefield over an eight year period.

In comparison whilst the 11,000 who died of homicides this year from guns seems a lot larger. Once you adjust for population inflation it comes down to 100 per year. Which is a mere 800 over an eight year period or just ten percent.

So the human cost for freedom is cheaper then ever. IMDHO that is the very definition of progress.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

While the nation has seen more mass shootings lately (ie: three) than usual, their extreme rarity should preclude any broad policy shift.

Three mass shootings within 12 months is by no measure 'an extreme rarity'.

[Greyblades]

I just don't understand people who are comfortable without a gun. There's not a lot of crime in Eugene, but there's enough--and the cops are so broke they can't even keep people in jail.

Call me paranoid, but I'd rather be prepared for any eventuality.

Because our police arent so broke they cant even keep people in jail. Seriously dude, if its that bad why are the right wing pro gun american orginizations spreading blame on the media, video games, mental health etc, when they have such a blatant problem in thier police forces?

And that's not a hypothetical question, why?

[Ironside]

I just don't understand people who are comfortable without a gun. There's not a lot of crime in Eugene, but there's enough--and the cops are so broke they can't even keep people in jail.

Call me paranoid, but I'd rather be prepared for any eventuality.

It's because the situations were a gun would be useful is quite rare and due to the different culture, if you actually are robbed, they don't use a gun either.

Avoid being alone and drunk in the center parts of the city during late weekends, avoid taking out money when followed by a youth gang and you're pretty much covered.

[Beskar]

Guns are a tool with the sole purpose of killing, there is no other purpose at all. People argue "So why not ban cars? people die due to those" and it is simple, because cars are used for transport and travel, they are not for mowing people down in and they are regulated. I guess it is the advantage of knowing I won't be shot whilst walking down the street, no random psychopath is suddenly going to come out guns blazing and shoot people in the middle of the town centre, they simply don't have access. Most of the gun crimes are illegally-obtained guns 'borrowed' from Legal owners, in the UK, that is virtually no one, in America, it is virtually everyone, this is why a kid can takes mommy's gun and just blast apart a school. They have access.

If the access to the guns were not there, then these incidents would not happen. It is really that simple, unfortunately. Protection against 'mythical' overthrow of government is a really bad argument, since a successful overthrow would require defectors from the armed forced, popular support and foreign intervention.

Only advantage to have widespread access to guns would be to fight against a Zombie Apocalypse, simply because they are powerful ranged weapons.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Guns are a tool with the sole purpose of killing, there is no other purpose at all. People argue "So why not ban cars? people die due to those" and it is simple, because cars are used for transport and travel, they are not for mowing people down in and they are regulated.

And when someone is attacking you or your family, you want a weapon that can kill them. So a tool with the purpose of killing someone is a good thing when innocent people are being attacked and need to defend themselves. They are the most effective tools of self defense available. Have you considered dhow many people would be killed or raped by criminals if they didn't have a gun to protect themselves?

I guess it is the advantage of knowing I won't be shot whilst walking down the street, no random psychopath is suddenly going to come out guns blazing and shoot people in the middle of the town centre, they simply don't have access. Most of the gun crimes are illegally-obtained guns 'borrowed' from Legal owners, in the UK, that is virtually no one, in America, it is virtually everyone, this is why a kid can takes mommy's gun and just blast apart a school. They have access.

Making legislation based on extremely rare events is just plain stupid. The Patriot Act was wrong and any new gun ban they pass will not work. Handguns are explicitly constitutionally protected, and that's what was used in the largest school shooting spree. And even if all guns were banned, there'd still be access - even in Europe many millions of guns are unregistered:
http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/2...ys-bred-defian

And you're wrong - this would not prevent massacres. It would just shift the attack. It's like the TSA banning liquids; useless because it ignores the attacker and focuses on the weapon.

If the access to the guns were not there, then these incidents would not happen. It is really that simple, unfortunately. Protection against 'mythical' overthrow of government is a really bad argument, since a successful overthrow would require defectors from the armed forced, popular support and foreign intervention.

Even if it did require those things, widespread civilian gun ownership would make things much easier and maybe scare the government off from becoming tyrannical in the first place.

Because our police arent so broke they cant even keep people in jail. Seriously dude, if its that bad why are the right wing pro gun american orginizations spreading blame on the media, video games, mental health etc, when they have such a blatant problem in thier police forces?

And that's not a hypothetical question, why?

The NRA and other gun rights groups don't want to go up against the police unions.

Now, you could argue that getting rid of other rights - like privacy and requiring the police to get warrant before searching everyone or tapping their phones, and the right to not self-incriminate - could be ended and save a lot of people.

But we don't throw away our rights - or we shouldn't, at least - because of some hysteria.

CR

[Tellos Athenaios]

Have you considered dhow many people would be killed or raped by criminals if they didn't have a gun to protect themselves?

Killed? Fewer, because even the criminals would ordinarily not have a gun to protect themselves either. They wouldn't need to.
Raped? About the same. You see, rape is typically committed by a person who is implicitly or explicitly trusted by the victim. Or by someone with apparent authority who cannot be challenged. For example, a police officer raping a teacher at gun point as you pointed out in the police abuse thread IIRC. Or law enforcement abusing their position to rape sex workers in the USA (depressingly common).

Again it seems we're back at this funny place called the United States of Assault, wherein every issue is best solved with a gun. Until you realise that yes, the bad guys carry guns and will use them too. So it solves exactly nothing.

[Fragony]

Stupidity evolved, a US newspaper supposedly published a list of (legal) gun owners, how dumb can you be now burglars know who probably doesn't have one. Way to go. Am I so smart or are some people so dumb.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's a moot argument anyway. This country is flooded with guns, and criminals will always get them.

And the law abiding gun owners would raise serious hell if the government ever tried to take them away. Guns are here to stay in America.

We did it here.

First you make people feel safe, so they don't feel they need guns; the US really should be sliding that way given that you're averaging a mass-killing a year now. Then you ban automatic weapons and have an amnesty. We managed it after WWII when this country was awash with weapons and paranoid about Germans.

The problem with US gun control is purely one of attitude, not logistics.

[rory_20_uk]

In Eastern Europe after the USSR collapsed the countries were awash with levels of unregulated weaponry rarely seen. And they also managed to restrict these without civil war.

[drone]

Then you ban automatic weapons and have an amnesty.

Automatic weapons are essentially banned anyway. They are quite difficult to get, and legally obtained ones are rarely, if ever, used in crimes.

[rory_20_uk]

As I understand it, automatic weapons have no place in committing a crime as their purpose is suppressive fire which used as such would require a lot of ammo and either needs to have a proper emplacement or be mounted on a van - neither option are particularly appealing.

Semi automatic assault rifles have the accuracy to kill at range, the punch to get through body armour and outside of the military a couple of bullets is going to adequately suppress all but the most terminally enthusiastic would be heroes.