Newtown School Shootings

[Catiline]

Only in some Ayn Rand dystopia. It's a real and tangible increase in public safety, and besides its been clearly demonstrated that having a gun makes you less safe. You might be a bit less helpless, but your helping yourself to a greater chance of dead.


In regard to the mob looting thing, we have the right to defend ourselves using reasonable force. IMO shooting people to death, looters or not, to protect property is not reasonable.

[rvg]

Strange, the most serious conflicts I've been in involved non-firearm weapons. Not having a gun does not equal unarmed. People manage to damage and even kill one another without gunpowder, it just requires a little more commitment.

Guns are great equalizers though.

Also note that the vast majority of guns used in crimes in the USA were obtained legally.

As were guns used in preventing/stopping crimes.

Drudge Report is already screaming about how any attempt at any modification of gun law is a "gun grab" by ... Obama. Raise your hand if you didn't see that coming, and then slap yourself for obtuseness.

Exactly, coming from Drudge it's not really a shocker.

If I'm understanding the position of the 2A absolutists on this board:

• Mass shootings are rare, inevitable, and (while sad) a price of freedom
• Any attempt at registration, mandated safety measures, or anything, really, will just be a nanny-state infantilization of the citizenry (part of the larger degredation of rights which we will only tolerate when originating with acts committed by people with Muslim names)
• Therefore US citizens should suck it up, arm themselves, and never speak of this again

While you were away, the discussion in this thread has veered into "why allow any guns at all" territory along with "guns are only for the militia" line of thought.

[Greyblades]

That's a pure speculation on your part.

Ha ha ha, you funny man, I kill you last.
http://www.annefrankguide.net/en-GB/....asp?aid=35657

Duty during the war for the King and Queen meant engagements around the country related to the war effort. These included visits to military units, civil defence workers, to factories, to farms and to hospitals. When the Blitz started the King and Queen visited bomb struck cities as soon as possible after the attacks. Very often this was in London especially in the East End. Buckingham Palace itself suffered nine direct hits. But this had the opposite effect to that which the Germans had intended. Britain now felt that their Royal Family shared their suffering and were united with the people.

Many people thought it too dangerous for the King and Queen to remain in London, but Queen Elizabeth said "the Princesses will not leave us, I cannot leave the King and the King will never leave." They worked from Buckingham Palace during the week, visiting Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret at Windsor Castle at the weekends.

Indeed. They have no king and are doing just fine.

Look up Robespierre's reign of terror, france basically went though hell after for years after its revolution and it ultimately failed when napoleon crowned himself emperor, a king by another name, they are doing fine now but it did not become that way because of the revolution.

Which is why the people should be able to protect themselves.

Yes and you can defend yourself quite well with mace, baseball bats, tazers, putting intruder alarms on you house and and staying near other members of the public while outside.

2x4 isn't quite as good as a gun. As Al Capone once said: "You can get a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than just with a kind word."

He was a mobster who was referring to illegal acts of intimidation. And a gun is generally useless for anything but letting yourself get a chance to drop everything and run when facing more people than you have bullets in the gun.

Still, the point is that Britain has some of the most stringent gun laws and people still get shot. Not only that, but people are also unable to protect themselves from mob violence.

Yes, people get shot, people are always going to get shot, people are always going to rob liquor stores. That's life, nothings perfect, complete success is rare but you have to try because its not going to get better on its own. Gun restriction is the most effective method we have and it works to a point, but it is a higher point than places with personal firearms.

[rvg]

Ha ha ha, you funny man, I kill you last.
http://www.annefrankguide.net/en-GB/....asp?aid=35657

Visiting cities after the bombings? What's so heroic about it?

Look up Robespierre's reign of terror, france basically went though hell after for years after its revolution

Is it in that hell now?

Yes and you can defend yourself quite well with mace, baseball bats, tazers, putting intruder alarms on you house and and staying near other members of the public while outside.

Do you genuinely think that a can of mace would stop a looting mob?

He was a mobster who was referring to illegal acts of intimidation.

And?

And a gun is generally useless for anything but letting yourself get a chance to drop everything and run when facing more people than you have bullets in the gun.

Oh really? Mob is willing to kill, but it's not very willing to die. Before the guy with gun can be overpowered, a few guys with pitchforks will have to die, something that none of them would be willing to do. Which is why guns are effective in pacifying the mob while mace spray is not.

Yes, people get shot, people are always going to get shot, people are always going to rob liquor stores. That's life, nothings perfect, complete success is rare but you have to try because its not going to get better on its own. Gun restriction is the most effective method we have and it works to a point, but it is a higher point than places with public guns.

Americans in general don't think like that and do not buy this line of thinking.

[Greyblades]

Is it in that hell now?

Doesn't matter. Britain was already where they are now and if the royal family hadn't done what they did britain would have gone through a similar hell.

Do you genuinely think that a can of mace would stop a looting mob?

No, but it will make them think twice about storming you long enough for the authorities to show up or for you to escape, if it doesn't make them decide to loot somewhere easier. Looters want loot, not blood.

And?

Neither side in these situations are going to be using kind words, Also Kind words and tazers works just as well if you have a multi-shot stungun.

Oh really? Mob is willing to kill, but it's not very willing to die. Before the guy with gun can be overpowered, a few guys with pitchforks will have to die, something that none of them would be willing to die. Which is why guns are effective in pacifying the mob while mace spray is not.

If the mob is willing to kill in america they are likely to have guns in this situation too, so one guy with a gun, assuming he's law abiding, is likely to get shot before he has a chance to finish shouting a warning anyway. If niether side has guns the one guy is about as screwed, though he has a better chance to run as he's not going to be shot in the back as he goes.

Americans in general don't think like that and do not buy this line of thinking.

Then that makes you avoiding a proven improvement even more depressingly pointless.

[rvg]

Doesn't matter. Britain was already where they are now and if the royal family hadn't done what they did britain would have gone through a similar hell.

What has the royal family done?

No, but it will make them think twice about storming you long enough for the authorities to show up or for you to escape, if it doesn't make them decide to loot somewhere easier. Looters want loot, not blood.

Just like they showed up in London and quickly quelled the violence and the looting.

Neither side in these situations are going to be using kind words, Also Kind words and tazers works just as well if you have a multi-shot stungun.

No, not really. Tazers rarely maim or kill and the crowd knows that.

If the mob is willing to kill in america they are likely to have guns in this situation too, so one guy with a gun, assuming he's law abiding, is likely to get shot before he has a chance to finish shouting a warning anyway. If niether side has guns the one guy is about as screwed, though he has a better chance to run as he's not going to be shot in the back as he goes.

A lynch mob would be armed, unlike a loot mob.

Then that makes you avoiding a proven improvement even more depressingly pointless.

One man's improvement is another man's disaster.

[Don Corleone]

Merry Christmas, Happy Chaunakah (belatedly), Happy New Year, and all the other raz-mataz. It's been a while since I've posted in the Org, and this thread seems as appropriate a reentry point as any.

I cried several times during the day on Friday. The very night before, I had attended a Christmas concert put on by the Kindergarten through 2nd grades (5-7) at my daughter's school. There were about 20 children on stage at a time, including for various portions, my own divine Miss J. I was heartsick, to the point of nausea, at the idea of each and every one of those lives being snuffed out.

People have made some really good points in this thread (I was careful to read as much of the 10 pages as I could prior to responding). People also posted some rather inane propositions, I think in some misguided effort to be 'clever'. Reminded me of my own antics in posting in the Backroom over the years.

Here's what I know:

-Our government has access to such high forms of technology that a discussion of "protecting our liberties from tyranny" is laughable. A cheaply made AR-15 or AK-47 clone isn't going to do a damn thing against a predator drone. The only thing that can defeat a tyrranical government is human spirit.

-An assault weapons ban will not end these tragedies. It will however make the likelihood of the severity significantly reduced. I own several guns for hunting and personal protection. I am 100% in favor background checks, restrictions placed on the capacity of guns, etc. I do not need an assault weapon, nor can I put forward a good reason why any private citizen would need one.

-Yes, illegal trade in restricted armaments will occur. What people fail to understand is that it is far easier to traffic narcotics than arms. I will no longer let the perfect be the enemy of the good on this issue. I would like to eliminate gun violence. If I cannot, I will settle for reducing it, at the very least, reducing it's severity.

-I also know, courtesy of Timothy McVeigh, that large scale mass murder will still happen. But when you compare the number of fertilizer bombs to the number of mass shootings over the past 30 years or so, I think the data points to restricting firearms before one restricts lawn fertilizer.

-Yes, our country needs desparatetly to address our mental health issues. We have a lot of untreated mental illness. In reading about this tragedy, I uncovered a bone-chillingly disturbing fact: the 3 largest mental health facilities in the US are in Riker's, LA County Jail and Cook County Jail.

-Yet even more than mental illness, our society (and this extends outside the US) suffers from spiritual sickness. We have lost compassion, lost humanity. We do not value life. Regardless of the reasons we attribute, we have failed our young: failed to keep them safe, failed to make them whole, failed to make them see that they are a part of something greater than their finite selves.

I prayed for the shooter in my morning prayers and meditation on Saturday. First, somebody had to. But secondly, HIS story is a tragedy. That a human soul can be so anguished and despondent to resort to this...

I pray for us all. We have now evolved to a point where we are at a crisis point. Our technology and our knowledge have far oustripped our evolution and our wisdom. We MUST change, we MUST find a way to stop destroying each other and everything else upon this Earth, or we will cease to exist.

[Greyblades]

What has the royal family done?

The current one, or the whole family tree?

Just like they showed up in London and quickly quelled the violence and the looting.

Yes and that is a critique of the authorities capacity to respond to mobs. Not lack of guns.

No, not really. Tazers rarely maim or kill and the crowd knows that.

But they hurt, sometimes enough to render people unconscious or at least knock them over and their main problem is the same as a gun, fewer ammo than mob members, assuming we have a similar definition of mob.

A lynch mob would be armed, unlike a loot mob.

Not always, and I already addressed the issues guns would cause in either of them.

[Lemur]

Another shockingly reasonable post from Don C. Thanks, man.

You're quite correct, both the mental health and the deregulation of guns need to be reconsidered.

Deinstitutionalization needs to be re-examined. The extreme difficulty of involuntary commitment, and chronic underfunding of mental health services, are both obvious problems.

The loopholes in background checks for firearm purchases should be closed. Likewise, the extremely limited registration of firearms needs to be expanded.

As I said earlier in the thread, owning a gun should involve about as much safety training and mandatory recordkeeping as owning an automobile.

[rvg]

The current one, or the whole family tree?

The current one.

Yes and that is a critique of the authorities capacity to respond to mobs. Not lack of guns.

If the government is powerless, the people should be allowed to do what the government can't.

But they hurt, sometimes enough to render people unconscious or at least knock them over and their main problem is the same as a gun, fewer ammo than mob members, assuming we have a similar definition of mob.

Something that "hurts" isn't quite as scary as something that "kills".

Not always, and I already addressed the issues guns would cause in either of them.

Not always, but enough to make a difference.

[drone]

Drudge Report is already screaming about how any attempt at any modification of gun law is a "gun grab" by (who else?) Obama. Raise your hand if you didn't see that coming, and then slap yourself for obtuseness.

Well, he is coming for our guns!

In all seriousness, there are several things that need to be done prior to putting the useless "assault weapons" ban back in place. The NRA and GOP only have themselves to blame for the PR disaster they are now in.

Item 1 - The neutering of the BATFE. Since the merry band of jack-booted thugs was moved to the Justice Dept in 2006, Senate confirmation has been required for it's Director. By sheer coincidence, the ATF has not had a director since 2006, with the GOP blocking confirmation of anyone to the left of Heston. Needless to say, the ATF's performance has been subpar, even for the ATF. Funding, training, and enforcement all need improvement, along with a large modernization effort needed for tracking sales. Before any new laws are put in place, is it too much to ask for a less-dysfunctional agency to enforce them?

I don't think any widespread ban is going to happen, the elections just happened and most of the senators and reps funded by the NRA will hold off hoping it all blows over by 2014. They do need to close the gun show gap, and maybe 10-round mag limit, but any law based on cosmetics deserves to fail. Whatever comes out of the "gun grab", I just want the restrictions to apply to the LEOs as well as the general public.

Edit->Welcome back Don!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Americans in general don't think like that and do not buy this line of thinking.

We know - that's why your healthcare sucks.

An example of a Good King: Spain, after Franco'death Juan Carlos steered the country successfully towards democracy and prevented a violent Coup by a junta of Generals. He averted War - by it's very nature a good rifle would have encouraged it.

[Papewaio]

If the state renders people unable to defend themselves, the state better be damn sure that it can make up for that. But that's the thing, it can't. Unarmed civilians can't protect themselves, their unarmed neighbors can't help them either. Perceived public safety gain at the cost of total individual helplessness in the face of adversity. Hardly a worthwhile exchange.

Define safety?

Longer lifespan? 78.49 years (US), 80.17 years (UK)

Infant Mortality? 6/1000 vs 4.5/1000

HIV/AIDS? 0.6% vs 0.2%

Obesity? 33.9% vs 22.7%

Prisoners? 730 vs 154 per 100,000

Intentional Homicides? 4.2 vs 1.2 per 100,000

Economic Freedom (WSJ)? 76.3 vs 74.1 (higher is better)

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yes, US society suffers from spiritual sickness. I long for the days of old when Americans took the time to help each other

Unless they were black
or Hispanic
or Asian
or gay
or left leaning (which equals communist)
or not christian
or female

All of us white, male Christians have not been successful in preventing white, male Christians from going berserk. Society as a whole is tainted.

[Don Corleone]

I apologize if my post implied that a nostalgia for the days of segregation or other social ills. That wasn't my intent. Perhaps we've always been rotten to the core, and it only appears worse at this period of history because this is the only one I've lived through. My intent was to point to deficient compassion and love of one's fellow man as the primary culprit in many of our current social woes, including school shootings.

No offense intended.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I apologize if my post implied that a nostalgia for the days of segregation or other social ills. That wasn't my intent. Perhaps we've always been rotten to the core, and it only appears worse at this period of history because this is the only one I've lived through. My intent was to point to deficient compassion and love of one's fellow man as the primary culprit in many of our current social woes, including school shootings.

No offense intended.

No offense taken. I completely agree we need more compassion and love. I just want to keep things in perspective. In many ways, society is better than it ever has been, not just in material things. But we can and should always strive to be better, no need to compare ourselves to the past to spur that drive.

[Brenus]

“Look up Robespierre's reign of terror, france basically went though hell after for years after its revolution and it ultimately failed when napoleon crowned himself emperor, a king by another name, they are doing fine now but it did not become that way because of the revolution.”
You should read a little more about the French Revolution, and not the only the conventional one.
France was in hell thanks to Kings and consorts who just pillage it. Versailles is beautiful, but it ruined France. And I even don’t want to speak of wars raged by Louis XIV, Louis XV, and XVI. At least, the XIV intended to “unite” France.
The French Revolution created a shock still felt nowadays, in France and in the rest of the World.
In France, it meant abolition of the privileges (August the 4th), Republic with the UNIVERSAL Human Rights, suppression of the Nobility, end of Religious domination, first abolition of Slavery (cancelled by Napoleon), 1st Constitution and new legal system (known under Code Napoleon). We can add the universal measuring system…
The Civil Wars were first due to the “levee en masse”, thanks to the Foreign Invasions from all the European Monarchies. Without these Foreign Interventions (we would call them containment, or pre-emptive) , no repression needed, no Napoleon…
And France became what it is now because the French Revolution. It is too long to develop, but France is France not because a territory (changed during the centuries), language (we had different local ones) or ethnicities. France is a political construction based on a shared idea, roughly Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité.

And to end this paragraph, The English Civil War was as bloody, violent and nasty than the French Revolution.

[rvg]

Define safety?

Longer lifespan? 78.49 years (US), 80.17 years (UK)

Infant Mortality? 6/1000 vs 4.5/1000

HIV/AIDS? 0.6% vs 0.2%

Obesity? 33.9% vs 22.7%

Prisoners? 730 vs 154 per 100,000

Intentional Homicides? 4.2 vs 1.2 per 100,000

Economic Freedom (WSJ)? 76.3 vs 74.1 (higher is better)

Individual's ability to protect himself of course. What else?

[Papewaio]

It's called society were we look out for each other.

By those stats UK is outperforming US

For instance in the US individuals are three times more likely to be murdered or have HIV & four times more likely to die of HIV.

Quality of life is diminished when ones health is negatively impacted. So with 50% more Obesity and a third more infant deaths ones quality of life is suffering. More diabetes, strokes, heart attacks in the older population and more early deaths in the younger. Add to that four times the rate of incarceration which is an intentional diminishing of life quality.

So you have a society with a measurably shorter lifespan and less quality of life per annum.

I prefer measuring outcomes over intentions. UK society outpaces US individualism on virtually every metric.

[Greyblades]

“Look up Robespierre's reign of terror, france basically went though hell after for years after its revolution and it ultimately failed when napoleon crowned himself emperor, a king by another name, they are doing fine now but it did not become that way because of the revolution.”
You should read a little more about the French Revolution, and not the only the conventional one.
France was in hell thanks to Kings and consorts who just pillage it. Versailles is beautiful, but it ruined France. And I even don’t want to speak of wars raged by Louis XIV, Louis XV, and XVI. At least, the XIV intended to “unite” France.
The French Revolution created a shock still felt nowadays, in France and in the rest of the World.
In France, it meant abolition of the privileges (August the 4th), Republic with the UNIVERSAL Human Rights, suppression of the Nobility, end of Religious domination, first abolition of Slavery (cancelled by Napoleon), 1st Constitution and new legal system (known under Code Napoleon). We can add the universal measuring system…
The Civil Wars were first due to the “levee en masse”, thanks to the Foreign Invasions from all the European Monarchies. Without these Foreign Interventions (we would call them containment, or pre-emptive) , no repression needed, no Napoleon…
And France became what it is now because the French Revolution. It is too long to develop, but France is France not because a territory (changed during the centuries), language (we had different local ones) or ethnicities. France is a political construction based on a shared idea, roughly Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité.

And to end this paragraph, The English Civil War was as bloody, violent and nasty than the French Revolution.

I'm not sure what your problem is, as I said life was rubbish for the french poor before the revolution it was even worse for every frenchman during and, for a time, after and the main cause was the disparity between the classes, my point was that this was in mind when George 6th decided to risk the blitz and an indication of what might have happened if they had stayed in safety and comfort.

[rvg]

I prefer measuring outcomes over intentions. UK society outpaces US individualism on virtually every metric.

I'm glad to hear that Britain is to your liking, because America is to my liking.

[Papewaio]

I'm glad to hear that Britain is to your liking, because America is to my liking.

You were debating that individual access to firearms in the US makes for a safer society compared with the UK.
These are mainly stats from the Stalinist group called the CIA Factbook and Wall Street Journal.
In short your statement is long on rhetoric short on facts.

If I tabled the US vs Aus stats you would be even worse off.

[rvg]

You were debating that individual access to firearms in the US makes for a safer society compared with the UK.

I was stating that in America individuals have better ways of protecting themselves due to their access to firearms. Something that your statistics do not dispute in the slightest.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I was stating that in America individuals have better ways of protecting themselves due to their access to firearms. Something that your statistics do not dispute in the slightest.

The statistics prove that a stable state is better protection than individual armaments - America needs proper law enforcement, rather than the medieval, litterally, system you have now.

There's a reason shire reeves only administer Courts in the UK and elsewhere - professional Policemen are better.

[Papewaio]

Better protection would mean better outcomes.

US citizens are three times more likely to die in a homicide compared with the UK. That is a materially significant difference. If guns provided significant protection you would expect it to be the other way round with less homicides in the US. Self defense isn't included in these stats, homicide is where someone with criminal intent kills someone else.

If you were safer you would suffer less murders. The statistics plainly state you are not.

4.2 vs 1.2. Not just homicides by guns, all homicides. If you were safer you would be less likely to be killed by a criminal.

To put this in perspective 3.5 x 4.2 = 14.7/100,000

Or looking at the table somewhere between Nicaragua and Mexico.

So UK is to US, what US is to Mexico when it comes to being murdered.

In other words you are not better protected. A UK person moving to US for protection is like a US person moving to Mexico for protection.

[rvg]

Better protection would mean better outcomes.

The statistics you quote do not factor in crime prevention. The number of assaults, burglaries, kidnappings, muggings, robberies that are thwarted because of guns (and violent crime here is at a 40 year low). You want to believe that the state is more competent at protecting you than you yourself are. Keep believing that. I'll stick to my guns.

[Rhyfelwyr]

First off, I haven't read beyond the first 2 pages and this last one, so sorry...

I don't think this the primary angle on this tragedy should be with gun access or mental health services. Obviously, these do tie into it on some level, but I think the main issue is something else entirely - the development of mass shootings as a cultural phenomena.

You can compare levels of gun access or mental health care in the US with other developed countries, but those differences will never come close to explaining why such a specific sort of event seems to occur so frequrently in the USA. I think the most useful thing we can do right now is try to understand why this phenomena and from there hopefully find a solution to put and end to it.

What can we understand from it at the minute? Well I'm too ignorant to say give an opinion right now. Although I would be curious to see how many of the shooters fit the profile of a young male, shy, no friends, seen as a 'loser' etc. IIRC the ones at Columbine High and Virginia Tech fitted it anyway.

With the above in mind I'll refrain from commenting on the gun control debate, but for what its worth a similar event in Scotland (although a one-off that didn't fit the above stereotype) with the Dunblane massacre did directly lead to significant restrictions on gun ownership. Of course, I realise that the political culture in the USA is different. Although I will say that I find the idea of arming primary school teachers or staff to be pretty scary. Has it really come to that?

[rvg]

...With the above in mind I'll refrain from commenting on the gun control debate, but for what its worth a similar event in Scotland (although a one-off that didn't fit the above stereotype) with the Dunblane massacre did directly lead to significant restrictions on gun ownership. Of course, I realise that the political culture in the USA is different. Although I will say that I find the idea of arming primary school teachers or staff to be pretty scary. Has it really come to that?

Teachers don't need guns, they need tazers instead.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The statistics you quote do not factor in crime prevention. The number of assaults, burglaries, kidnappings, muggings, robberies that are thwarted because of guns (and violent crime here is at a 40 year low). You want to believe that the state is more competent at protecting you than you yourself are. Keep believing that. I'll stick to my guns.

So you're saying that without guns in private hands even more US citizens would be murdered each year?

That would mean your violent crime rate is artificially low, compared to the UK - i.e. America is, by your argument, an even more dangerous place than the statistics suggest.

[rvg]

So you're saying that without guns in private hands even more US citizens would be murdered each year?

What I'm saying is that without guns more people would get robbed, raped, carjacked, more houses would get broken into.

While we're on the topic, I present to you Gun Town, USA. The article is a bit old, but the idea stands.