MASSIVE Elementary School Shooting in CT *12-24 Maybe be dead
- Thread starter bigdaddy
- Start date
It sounds so cool especially when it comes from Morgan Freeman, doesn't it? I was even doing an impression of him while I was reading that quote you posted.
I like Morgan Freeman; however, I don't agree with his last statement.Not all violent criminals are crazy, and not all crazies are criminals. But as long as anyone has easy access to guns, does it really matter what their motives are?
I'm still thinking about this and I'm still angered by this, but a site released the names of the victims and I actually just had tears. 6 and 7 year olds who won't ever get a chance to grow up, have their own children, get married. I really hope this country does something and not have happen like what happened with Aurora, have it top news for a few weeks and not hear anything else about it afterwards. It's just heartbreaking this whole thing, and it hits close to home because I'm a Substitute Custodian and had a day shift at an elementary school a week ago Friday. This is really affecting me, even though I live hundreds of miles away. 
Well said indeed, DN.
Are you kidding? Does the name Timothy McVeigh ring a bell?
You're absolutely right. The reality is that we can't prevent all mental breakdowns any more than we can prevent hurricanes or tsunamis. They are a force of nature. But we can do infinitely better at removing the stigma of mental illness, researching mental illness and learning how to recognize and treat mental illness. Draconian measures of gun bans, curfews, pass laws, police in the schools and so on do nothing to address the issue.
Exactly. We need more knowledge. Knowledge is power.
And, yes, Morgan Freeman rocks.
The figures prove Kelthaz right - specifically, the frequency and number of victims of such killings in countries with tight gun control (China, European countries, etc) when compared with countries with almost no gun control (such as SUA).
The punchline would be - both the frequency and number of victims are MUCH higher in SUA/countries with loose gun control.
Statistics along those lines are easy to find. Feel free to check them out (although I suspect you don't want to confront these facts because you really don't like their inevitable conclusion).
All your rhetoric or bias can't change these figures.
And the mental health care "proposals" are but weak attempts to obfuscate said figures.
If you want some stats on firearms realted deaths
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Put just to pull a few details (homicides)
US 2.98 per 100 000
UK 0.04 per 100 000
Japan 0.02 per 100 000
As countries like the UK and Japan have some of the most strict gun laws in the developed world, the facts speak for themselves. (of course other crimes such as Knife crimes might be higher in those countries).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Put just to pull a few details (homicides)
US 2.98 per 100 000
UK 0.04 per 100 000
Japan 0.02 per 100 000
As countries like the UK and Japan have some of the most strict gun laws in the developed world, the facts speak for themselves. (of course other crimes such as Knife crimes might be higher in those countries).
It's worth mentioning the example of Australia, as well:
In 1996, Australia changed its gun laws following a particularly bad mass shooting: banning assault rifles, severely restricting other types of fire-arms, limiting magazines to five rounds (three for pump-action shotguns, auto-loaders were banned outright). Researchers compared the rate of mass shootings before and after - using fixed criteria, not just what "felt" like a mass-shooting - and found that the rate dropped from one every 18 months before the change, to just one event in the 16 years since the change.
There were no other noticeable changes that might be responsible for the reduction; no reduction in poverty, or improvements in mental health treatment. And judging by other crime rates, there wasn't a significant change in culture or economics or policing. Hell, even the number of firearms in society recovered within a few years. And the only things that did change in Australia, it shared with the US. There was an increase in antidepressant use in Australia, but so too in the US. Video-games violence became more photorealistic, and so too in the US.
It's such a perfect experiment: Similar culture. Only one major change, gun laws. And one clear result, the virtual elimination of mass shootings.
If you want to reduce the rate of mass shootings in the US by an order of magnitude, Australia can tell you how to do it.
But your country won't like the taste of the medicine.
Indeed, in USA, many DE FACTO accept mass shootings as the one that just happened (as long as they are not the victims, of course) if that's the price to pay for them to keep having assault rifles, high-capacity magazines, etc.
In 1996, Australia changed its gun laws following a particularly bad mass shooting: banning assault rifles, severely restricting other types of fire-arms, limiting magazines to five rounds (three for pump-action shotguns, auto-loaders were banned outright). Researchers compared the rate of mass shootings before and after - using fixed criteria, not just what "felt" like a mass-shooting - and found that the rate dropped from one every 18 months before the change, to just one event in the 16 years since the change.
There were no other noticeable changes that might be responsible for the reduction; no reduction in poverty, or improvements in mental health treatment. And judging by other crime rates, there wasn't a significant change in culture or economics or policing. Hell, even the number of firearms in society recovered within a few years. And the only things that did change in Australia, it shared with the US. There was an increase in antidepressant use in Australia, but so too in the US. Video-games violence became more photorealistic, and so too in the US.
It's such a perfect experiment: Similar culture. Only one major change, gun laws. And one clear result, the virtual elimination of mass shootings.
If you want to reduce the rate of mass shootings in the US by an order of magnitude, Australia can tell you how to do it.
But your country won't like the taste of the medicine.
Indeed, in USA, many DE FACTO accept mass shootings as the one that just happened (as long as they are not the victims, of course) if that's the price to pay for them to keep having assault rifles, high-capacity magazines, etc.
Last edited:
They changed security requirements on federal facilities after that. I worked on a few projects for the VA where you couldn't get a vehicle within 50' of the building. Granted, someone could walk in with a bomb strapped to him or a machine gun, but at least the whole building wouldn't be taken out.
As for the gun issue, you could make them as illegal as could be a someone determined enough could still get one on the black market. Drugs are illegal and people get them all the time.
As for the culture of violence, I agree with this mostly. Violence is glorified in TV and movies. If there aren't enough explosions and bodies, we complain it was dull and lacked action. Video games are even worse. There's another shoot 'em up. game every 5 minutes. You're actively fantasizing about mowing down space aliens or the Taliban.
As for the guns, I would say leave the semi-automatic weapons to law enforcement and the military. You want a gun for hunting or self protection or just to fire off a few rounds at the range, great. But what do you need an uzi for? Worried about the zombie apocolypse?
The same TV and movies - glorifying violence -, the same shoot'em up video games are being watched/played in Australia and the other countries with strict gun control.
They DO NOT translate into mass shootings.
In Australia and the other countries with strict gun control, certain guns being illegal DOES NOT translate into every loser who wants to shoot people because he's depressed being able to get his/her hands on one via the black market.
As such, both of these arguments are obviously fallacies, merely empty rhetoric whose purpose is to avoid addressing the real problem: the ubiquity/easy access to assault guns/high-capacity magazines/etc in the USA.
They DO NOT translate into mass shootings.
In Australia and the other countries with strict gun control, certain guns being illegal DOES NOT translate into every loser who wants to shoot people because he's depressed being able to get his/her hands on one via the black market.
As such, both of these arguments are obviously fallacies, merely empty rhetoric whose purpose is to avoid addressing the real problem: the ubiquity/easy access to assault guns/high-capacity magazines/etc in the USA.
i agree with XYZ
to anyone saying this isnt the time to talk about gun control, open your eyes. this is the perfect time to make a change that will save lives. the statistics bare it out. maybe something could come from this tragedy.
(i'm sure i put forward this arguement in another thread once upon a time and was laughed of as a communist by some gun nut. )
take all the guns. melt them down.
to anyone saying this isnt the time to talk about gun control, open your eyes. this is the perfect time to make a change that will save lives. the statistics bare it out. maybe something could come from this tragedy.
(i'm sure i put forward this arguement in another thread once upon a time and was laughed of as a communist by some gun nut. )
take all the guns. melt them down.
That argument is exceptionally silly. Should we allow explosives just because guys like Timothy McVeigh were determined enough to mix explosives themselves?
Drugs are illegal and people get them all the time, yes. Now imagine a world were all drugs are perfectly legal.
So today is not the day to discuss guns (you know, the actual weapons used in the massacre), but it's ok to blame tv shows and toys?
Jesus. What is wrong with these people? Westboro "church" to picket Newtown funerals.
said on Friday night this'd happen by Tuesday at the latest - depressing to see I'm right. Why in the name of fuck, in a country with so many guns and so many people willing to shoot people, does nobody shoot these sick fuckers who deserve it?
Though, really, the US does need to rethink it's gun laws, Kelthaz may find this - America's worst school massacre - of interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
As for gun control...
On Livejournal I was asked my opinion on gun ownership, related also to knives (think of the Chinese school attack yesterday)- this is what I replied:
Both knives and guns have practical uses in certain situations (knives in the kitchen, guns in defending yourself against wild animals in some parts of the world, for example) and are easily misused elsewhere.
I really think the problem with most people's contributions to debating gun ownership - on whichever side, in whichever country - is that they think there's some universal value about it, and don't get that different countries have different societal and cultural contexts as a result of their histories and populations.
So people will say "oh, what worked in... Japan, say, will work in the US." But it won't, because one is a country that been ethnically homogenous for millennia, and spent centuries evolving a tiered social structure in which everyone knew where they fit in, and the other is a random mashup of peoples who came together in a war against a colonial centre...
(In the UK, by the time handguns came along, they were already established as upper-class duelling weapons, not something of use or interest to the lower classes, for whom the shotgun was a more practical game-hunting and pest control device - which is why the UK never had that big a handgun lifestyle)
To discuss whether gun ownership is good or bad, right or wrong - and to discuss what the nature of that ownership should be - you have to be discussing it about a specific society and with and understanding of how and why they are the way they are.
That said, the US constitution was designed, contextually, to evolve and be amended over time, and the Second Amendment - written to cover swords, muskets, and pikes (there were *no* repeating weapons then) - was intended to be used for something akin to Switzerland's defence force laws, not to become the religious fetish totem that it has become, and they really need to think about updating it as it was always intended to by the Founding Fathers.
Also, I'm with Chris Rock on the matter of ammo, which would solve a lot of problems!
On Livejournal I was asked my opinion on gun ownership, related also to knives (think of the Chinese school attack yesterday)- this is what I replied:
Both knives and guns have practical uses in certain situations (knives in the kitchen, guns in defending yourself against wild animals in some parts of the world, for example) and are easily misused elsewhere.
I really think the problem with most people's contributions to debating gun ownership - on whichever side, in whichever country - is that they think there's some universal value about it, and don't get that different countries have different societal and cultural contexts as a result of their histories and populations.
So people will say "oh, what worked in... Japan, say, will work in the US." But it won't, because one is a country that been ethnically homogenous for millennia, and spent centuries evolving a tiered social structure in which everyone knew where they fit in, and the other is a random mashup of peoples who came together in a war against a colonial centre...
(In the UK, by the time handguns came along, they were already established as upper-class duelling weapons, not something of use or interest to the lower classes, for whom the shotgun was a more practical game-hunting and pest control device - which is why the UK never had that big a handgun lifestyle)
To discuss whether gun ownership is good or bad, right or wrong - and to discuss what the nature of that ownership should be - you have to be discussing it about a specific society and with and understanding of how and why they are the way they are.
That said, the US constitution was designed, contextually, to evolve and be amended over time, and the Second Amendment - written to cover swords, muskets, and pikes (there were *no* repeating weapons then) - was intended to be used for something akin to Switzerland's defence force laws, not to become the religious fetish totem that it has become, and they really need to think about updating it as it was always intended to by the Founding Fathers.
Also, I'm with Chris Rock on the matter of ammo, which would solve a lot of problems!
THIS. In spades.
books/games/music/comics have always been easier targets that sell papers. End of.
Australia isn't the US though- there's a lot more unregistered weapons available there. I don't believe it'd be physically possible to eliminate them from the US.
At the very least, though, they really need to *control*the guns more - following at least the pre-ban models of the UK/Australia/japan etc with licensing, fitness checks, etc. Even that would make a huge difference.
But I can't see it happening in a country where interest groups block even minor legislation to track the resale of weapons previously used in crimes, as if that somehow translates to "they're taking our toys away!"
Obviously without easy access to guns there wouldn't be such high levels of gun crime, but the availability of guns doesn't immediately and necessarily make violence a reality. It just makes it easier for someone who intends violence to carry it out. Removing easy access to guns would definitely make crimes like this rarer and harder to stage (and some might say that's really all that's required), but the underlying pressures and tensions that contribute to high rates of violent crime need to be dealt with too, and I worry that those pressures and tensions in American society aren't going to be dealt with or examined with any degree of interest, because it's going to become another gun debate. And, again, I agree that such a discussion absolutely needs to take place, and if positive changes in that area come about in the near future I'll be very happy, but I wouldn't want it to close off any other avenues for confronting factors that contribute to the high rate of gun crime in the US.
And I don't mean the tired old fallacies commentators are trotting out about violence in video games, etc. That's just another example of how people fall back into comfort zones and easy arguments rather than challenging anything. And, yes, for certain ideological groups it's a convenient scapegoat for having to confront the gun control question. They don't want to touch that because many of their supporters would be alienated, so they settle on video games as the demon. But I think the gun control question isn't that far removed itself from being, if not a scapegoat, then another means by which American society (and apparently the rest of us too) distracts itself from tackling the deeper social issues that plague any large nation.
Of course the easy availability of guns in the US is significant and contributes to the ease and frequency of crimes like this, but when some people argue that it's not about guns, they mean that it's always preferrable to dig out the roots of the weed rather than just cut off the stalk and then aggressively monitor it so it doesn't grow back.
And I don't mean the tired old fallacies commentators are trotting out about violence in video games, etc. That's just another example of how people fall back into comfort zones and easy arguments rather than challenging anything. And, yes, for certain ideological groups it's a convenient scapegoat for having to confront the gun control question. They don't want to touch that because many of their supporters would be alienated, so they settle on video games as the demon. But I think the gun control question isn't that far removed itself from being, if not a scapegoat, then another means by which American society (and apparently the rest of us too) distracts itself from tackling the deeper social issues that plague any large nation.
Of course the easy availability of guns in the US is significant and contributes to the ease and frequency of crimes like this, but when some people argue that it's not about guns, they mean that it's always preferrable to dig out the roots of the weed rather than just cut off the stalk and then aggressively monitor it so it doesn't grow back.
With all due respect to God President General CIA-Director FBI-Special-Agent Judge Supreme-Narrator Freeman, but he's making the same problematic argument that always plagues these discussions; the fixation on blaming the thing he dislikes most at the expense of all others, and the idea that solving that problem will curb all of these incidents.
Yes, media sensationalism of these incidents is a huge factor in perpetuating them, but so is a lack of effective gun control and background checks (which he dismisses), a lack of available and affordable/free mental health care and screening (which he thankfully mentions), violent and fearmongering cultural trends and possibly entertainment, bullying, lack of job or financial security, etc. No one problem is the total cause nor is fixing any one problem the total solution. Which is not to say we shouldn't try to fix one or hopefully as many problems as we can in the meantime instead of just declaring it all hopeless, but we can't put all our eggs in one basket and pat ourselves on the back for a job well done either.
I'd take your comments more seriously if they weren't constantly couched in your usual snide anti-Americanism (which is just one of your many ugly biases) and crudeness.
I disagree. Not with the fact that it's well-said (it is), but with the premise that the aftermath of an incident is not the right time to discuss it. Sure, you should wait until at least the primary details of the incident are known so you can make an informed argument, but once that's happened I think there's no better time to discuss it than when it's fresh in people's minds and the reason we should take action is most apparent.
What happens when the gap between these incidents gets small enough that the "too soon to talk about the cause" moratorium crosses over into the next shooting? Do we continue not to talk about from there, because that's too soon again? FOX News would certainly have us think so. Jon Stewart was recently talking about another shooting incident that took place before this, but his argument dovetails nicely into this one and point out why the "too soon" argument falters:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-december-10-2012/any-given-gun-day?xrs=share_copy
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/m...un-day---bob-costas---fox-news?xrs=share_copy
I agree that these types of discussions should continue even when there's no major shooting incidents going on, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it in the immediate aftermath --with enough time to make informed arguments-- as well.