God damned crazy motherfuckers.

[OneSickPsycho]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/hc-police-responding-to-incident-in-newtown-20121214,0,1408213.story


AP: 27 Dead, Including 18 Children, At Sandy Hook School Shooting In Newtown

NEWTOWN—
Twenty-seven people, including 18 children, have been killed in a shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, according to the Associated Press.

The report cites an official with knowledge of the situation.

Sources told The Courant that there are at least 20 shooting victims. Many of the shootings took place in a kindergarten classroom, sources said.

One entire classroom is unaccounted for, sources said.

A person believed to be a shooter is dead. Earlier reports of a second shooter are unconfirmed.

Three people were brought to Danbury Hospital, but their condition is unknown. The emergency room is on lockdown.

Police were still searching the school at 11 a.m., and police dogs had been brought in. Around noon, the triage area was broken down, stretchers were taken away and the SWAT team left the building.

Shortly after 9:40 a.m., police reported that a shooter was in the main office of the school. A person in one room had “numerous gunshot wounds,” police said.

Groups of students — some crying, some holding hands — were being escorted away from the school by their teachers. Some students were still in the school at 10:30 a.m., parents said.

School and local emergency officials are accounting for the children, who will be released to their parents to get them home. A staging area has been set up at the Sandy Hook fire department, directly in front of the school.

Frustrated parents are trying to get information from officials, who were still actively searching the school.

Vanessa Bajraliu, a 9-year-old fourth grader, heard the shots.

"I saw policemen -- lots of policemen in the hallway with guns," she said. "The police took us out of the school. We were told to hold each others' hands and to close our eyes. We opened our eyes when we were outside."

Her brother, 17-year-old Mergim Bajraliu, a senior at Newtown High School, was at his nearby home when he heard shots, he said. He first went to a neighbor's house.

"Then we heard sirens," he said.

He rushed to the school on foot and saw a girl being carried out, he said. She looked badly injured. Another girl had blood on her face, he said.

Mergim soon found his sister and took her away from the scene.

Parent Richard Wilford said his Sandy Hook second-grader, Richie, heard what he described as “pans falling” when gunshots rang out. He said that his son told him that the teacher went to go check, came back in and locked the door and told the students to stand in the corner.

“What does a parent think about coming to a school where there’s a shooting” It’s the most terrifying moment of a parent’s life … you have no idea,” said Wilford.

Eight-year-old Alexis Wasik, a third-grader at the school, said police were checking everybody inside the school before they were escorted to the firehouse.

"We had to walk with a partner," she said.

One child leaving the school said that there was shattered glass everywhere. A police officer ran into the classroom and told them to run outside and keep going until the reach the firehouse.

Audra Barth, who was walking away from the school with her first-grade son and third-grade daughter, says a teacher took first-graders into the restroom after bullets came through the window.

Andrew Doba, a spokesman for Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, said the governor is monitoring the situation and is in “constant contact” with state police, who are coordinating with federal and local officials.

Malloy, who has spoken via telephone with President Obama, is now on the scene.

Afternoon buses and kindergarten has been cancelled. The entire district is on lockdown.

Unfuckingbelievable.

[LeeNetworX]

Makes me want to vomit. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH SOME PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD?

[Papa_Complex]

Sounds like a "family annihilator", but there are some reports that a second person has been taken into custody.

[Sixxxxer]

It makes me fucking sick...Lord help people like myself and those after me who have to raise children in this world. Just when you think you have seen something insane something else tops it.

I hope they catch the second gunman and put a bullet right between his fucking eyes.

[OneSickPsycho]

Sounds like a "family annihilator", but there are some reports that a second person has been taken into custody.

There are also reports that there was only one shooter... It will take a little time to sort this shit out.

And then there's this:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html

Knife attack at Chinese school wounds 22 children

Beijing (CNN) -- Twenty-two primary school children were wounded in a knife attack Friday in central China, authorities said.

The attack took place at the entrance to the Chenpeng Village Primary School in Henan province, according to the public information department of Guangshan county, the area where the school is located. An adult was also wounded, it said.

Several of the children are in critical condition, the state-run website Chinanews.com said, citing local authorities.

Read more: Malala is face of global attacks on schools

Police say they have detained a suspect, a 36-year-old man from the village, state media reported.

Initial assessments suggest the man is mentally ill, Chinanews.com said, citing Guangshan authorities.

China was hit by a spate of knife and cleaver attacks that targeted school children in 2010.

A number of measures were introduced at the time, including increased security at schools across the country and a regulation requiring people to register with their national ID cards when buying large knives.

[pauldun170]

"The police took us out of the school. We were told to hold each others' hands and to close our eyes. We opened our eyes when we were outside."

That made my eyes well up a little.

[OneSickPsycho]

That made my eyes well up a little.

The whole fucking thing gives me that numb, 'shit just got real', feeling.

[quackPOT]

I just don't understand how a person could shoot/stab/kill an innocent little kid.

[Papa_Complex]

I just don't understand how a person could shoot/stab/kill an innocent little kid.

That's because you, like so many other people in this world, have likely discounted the existence of one simple factor; evil.

[njchopper87]

Eh.. so this is what happened. Sad, sad..

[OneSickPsycho]

If anyone is interested in sending a card or something:

Sandy Hook Elementary School
12 Dickenson Drive
Sandy Hook, CT 06482

[RACER X]

so hard to look at

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/61822_449930421731976_1687321223_n.jpg

[OneSickPsycho]

And it's missing some

[pauldun170]

...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTbhVlHuONo

[RACER X]

decent article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html

[KSGregman]

decent article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html

At least she has the good sense not to keep an arsenal of military grade weapons in her house knowing a budding sociopath is sharing the home with her.

Ridiculous.

[shmike]

At least she has the good sense not to keep an arsenal of military grade weapons in her house knowing a budding sociopath is sharing the home with her.

Ridiculous.

I was going to post on here (TWFix) how thankful I am that this hasn't turned into another gun control debate.

I haven't read anything on the specifics of this tragedy, but if the shooter was known to be dangerous, then the owner of weapons (mother?) certainly shares the blame.

[Twobanger]

decent article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html

Yes it is. I probably shouldn't admit this on a public forum, but I have a sister who's been ill so long that medication doesnt work well anymore and has to be changed often or she goes off violently.

The logical solution is to bring back sanatoriums and asylums. Fuck the PC drivel. They need to be put away for the good of society. Take away guns and they will figure out how to make explosives, or use fire. The death tolls will then increase dramatically. These high functioning "brilliant" psychopaths are going to find a way to do their deeds.

The mother should have had her weapons locked up and never taught him to use them or given him access.

[Sixxxxer]

At least she has the good sense not to keep an arsenal of military grade weapons in her house knowing a budding sociopath is sharing the home with her.

Ridiculous.

Glad I'm not the only one who shares that view...Lets make it easier for people to flip the switch to crazy mode and off dozens of innocent people then themselves.

Ask a kid not to touch the cookie jar then leave it in reach...

[Papa_Complex]

Yes it is. I probably shouldn't admit this on a public forum, but I have a sister who's been ill so long that medication doesnt work well anymore and has to be changed often or she goes off violently.

The logical solution is to bring back sanatoriums and asylums. Fuck the PC drivel. They need to be put away for the good of society. Take away guns and they will figure out how to make explosives, or use fire. The death tolls will then increase dramatically. These high functioning "brilliant" psychopaths are going to find a way to do their deeds.

The mother should have had her weapons locked up and never taught him to use them or given him access.

The latest psychology buzz-phrase is "poor impulse control."

[RACER X]

another good read, long

from 2010



Active shooters in schools: The enemy is denial
Preventing juvenile mass murder in American schools is the job of police officers, school teachers, and concerned parents.

Editor's Note: Today we bring you the first in an occasional series of articles stemming from an extraordinary daylong seminar presented by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. In coming months we’ll discuss Grossman’s thoughts on the use of autogenic breathing, surviving gunshot wounds, and dealing with survivor guilt following a gun battle. We begin with violence among and against children in our schools. We would like to extend our special thanks to Gary Peterson, Mike Elerick, and the men and women of the California Peace Officers Association (Region II) for their warm invitation to this remarkable talk. On Saturday, May 8th, CPOA is holding its annual Memorial Run and Family BBQ, honoring California officers who died in the line of duty in 2009.

“How many kids have been killed by school fire in all of North America in the past 50 years? Kids killed... school fire... North America... 50 years... How many? Zero. That’s right. Not one single kid has been killed by school fire anywhere in North America in the past half a century. Now, how many kids have been killed by school violence?”

So began an extraordinary daylong seminar presented by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, a Pulitzer Prize nominated author, West Point psychology professor, and without a doubt the world’s foremost expert on human aggression and violence. The event, hosted by the California Peace Officers Association, was held in the auditorium of a very large community church about 30 miles from San Francisco, and was attended by more than 250 police officers from around the region.

Grossman’s talk spanned myriad topics of vital importance to law enforcement, such as the use of autogenic breathing, surviving gunshot wounds, dealing with survivor guilt following a gun battle, and others. In coming months, I will present a series of articles addressing many of these subjects, but violence among and against children was how the day began, and so it is in this area I will begin my coverage...

“In 1998,” Grossman said, “school violence claimed what at the time was an all time record number of kids’ lives. In that year there were 35 dead and a quarter of a million serious injuries due to violence in the school. How many killed by fire that year? Zero. But we hear people say, ‘That’s the year Columbine happened, that’s an anomaly.’ Well, in 2004 we had a new all time record — 48 dead in the schools from violence. How many killed by fire that year? Zero. Let’s assign some grades. Put your teacher hat on and give out some grades. What kind of grade do you give the firefighter for keeping kids safe? An ‘A,’ right? Reluctantly, reluctantly, the cops give the firefighters an ‘A,’ right? Danged firefighters, they sleep ‘till they’re hungry and eat ‘till they’re tired. What grade do we get for keeping the kids safe from violence? Come on, what’s our grade? Needs improvement, right?”

Johnny Firefighter, A+ Student
“Why can’t we be like little Johnny Firefighter?” Grossman asked as he prowled the stage. “He’s our A+ student!”

He paused, briefly, and answered with a voice that blew through the hall like thunder, “Denial, denial, denial!”

Grossman commanded, “Look up at the ceiling! See all those sprinklers up there? They’re hard to spot — they’re painted black — but they’re there. While you’re looking, look at the material the ceiling is made of. You know that that stuff was selected because it’s fire-retardant. Hooah? Now look over there above the door — you see that fire exit sign? That’s not just any fire exit sign — that’s a ‘battery-backup-when-the-world-ends-it-will-still-be-lit’ fire exit sign. Hooah?”

Walking from the stage toward a nearby fire exit and exterior wall, Grossman slammed the palm of his hand against the wall and exclaimed, “Look at these wall boards! They were chosen because they’re what?! Fireproof or fire retardant, hooah? There is not one stinking thing in this room that will burn!”

Pointing around the room as he spoke, Grossman continued, “But you’ve still got those fire sprinklers, those fire exit signs, fire hydrants outside, and fire trucks nearby! Are these fire guys crazy? Are these fire guys paranoid? NO! This fire guy is our A+ student! Because this fire guy has redundant, overlapping layers of protection, not a single kid has been killed by school fire in the last 50 years!

“But you try to prepare for violence — the thing much more likely to kill our kids in schools, the thing hundreds of times more likely to kill our kids in schools — and people think you’re paranoid. They think you’re crazy. ...They’re in denial.”

Teaching the Teachers
The challenge for law enforcement agencies and officers, then, is to overcome not only the attacks taking place in schools, but to first overcome the denial in the minds of mayors, city councils, school administrators, and parents. Grossman said that agencies and officers, although facing an uphill slog against the denial of the general public, must diligently work toward increasing understanding among the sheep that the wolves are coming for their children. Police officers must train and drill with teachers, not only so responding officers are intimately familiar with the facilities, but so that teachers know what they can do in the event of an attack.

“Come with me to the library at Columbine High School,” Grossman said. “The teacher in the library at Columbine High School spent her professional lifetime preparing for a fire, and we can all agree if there had been a fire in that library, that teacher would have instinctively, reflexively known what to do. But the thing most likely to kill her kids — the thing hundreds of times more likely to kill her kids, the teacher didn’t have a clue what to do. She should have put those kids in the librarian’s office but she didn’t know that. So she did the worst thing possible — she tried to secure her kids in an un-securable location. She told the kids to hide in the library — a library that has plate glass windows for walls. It’s an aquarium, it’s a fish bowl. She told the kids to hide in a fishbowl. What did those killers see? They saw targets. They saw fish in a fish bowl.”

Grossman said that if the school administrators at Columbine had spent a fraction of the money they’d spent preparing for fire — if the teachers there had spent a fraction of the time they spent preparing for fire — doing lockdown drills and talking with local law enforcers about the violent dangers they face, the outcome that day may have been different.

Rhetorically he asked the assembled cops, “If somebody had spent five minutes telling that teacher what to do, do you think lives would have been saved at Columbine?”

Arming Campus Cops is Elementary
Nearly two years ago, I wrote an article called Arming campus cops is elementary. Not surprisingly, Grossman agrees with that hypothesis.

“Never call an unarmed man ‘security’,” Grossman said.

“Call him ‘run-like-****-when-the-man-with-the-gun-shows-up’ but never call an unarmed man security. Imagine if someone said, ‘I want a trained fire professional on site. I want a fire hat, I want a fire uniform, I want a fire badge. But! No fire extinguishers in this building. No fire hoses. The hat, the badge, the uniform — that will keep us safe — but we have no need for fire extinguishers.’ Well, that would be insane. It is equally insane, delusional, legally liable, to say, ‘I want a trained security professional on site. I want a security hat, I want a security uniform, and I want a security badge, but I don’t want a gun.’ It’s not the hat, the uniform, or the badge. It’s the tools in the hands of a trained professional that keeps us safe.

“Our problem is not money,” said Grossman. “It is denial.”

Grossman said (and most cops agree) that many of the most important things we can do to protect our kids would cost us nothing or next-to-nothing.


Grossman’s Five D’s
In the next installment of this series, I will explore what follows in much greater detail, but for now, let’s contemplate the following outline and summary of Dave Grossman’s “Five D’s.” While you do, I encourage you to add in the comments area below your suggestions to address, and expand upon, these ideas.

1. Denial — Denial is the enemy and it has no survival value, said Grossman.

2. Deter — Put police officers in schools, because with just one officer assigned to a school, the probability of a mass murder in that school drops to almost zero

3. Detect — We’re talking about plain old fashioned police work here. The ultimate achievement for law enforcement is the crime that didn’t happen, so giving teachers and administrators regular access to cops is paramount.

4. Delay — Various simple mechanisms can be used by teachers and cops to put time and distance between the killers and the kids.

a. Ensure that the school/classroom have just a single point of entry. Simply locking the back door helps create a hard target.
b. Conduct your active shooter drills within (and in partnership with) the schools in your city so teachers know how to respond, and know what it looks like when you do your response.

5. Destroy — Police officers and agencies should consider the following:

a. Carry off duty. No one would tell a firefighter who has a fire extinguisher in his trunk that he’s crazy or paranoid.
b. Equip every cop in America with a patrol rifle. One chief of police, upon getting rifles for all his officers once said, “If an active killer strikes in my town, the response time will be measured in feet per second.”
c. Put smoke grenades in the trunk of every cop car in America. Any infantryman who needs to attack across open terrain or perform a rescue under fire deploys a smoke grenade. A fire extinguisher will do a decent job in some cases, but a smoke grenade is designed to perform the function.
d. Have a “go-to-war bag” filled with lots of loaded magazines and supplies for tactical combat casualty care.
e. Use helicopters. Somewhere in your county you probably have one or more of the following: medivac, media, private, national guard, coast guard rotors.
f. Employ the crew-served, continuous-feed, weapon you already have available to you (a firehouse) by integrating the fire service into your active shooter training. It is virtually impossible for a killer to put well-placed shots on target while also being blasted with water at 300 pounds per square inch.
g. Armed citizens can help. Think United 93. Whatever your personal take on gun control, it is all but certain that a killer set on killing is more likely to attack a target where the citizens are unarmed, rather than one where they are likely to encounter an armed citizen response.
Coming Soon: External Threats
Today we must not only prepare for juvenile mass murder, something that had never happened in human history until only recently, but we also must prepare for the external threat. Islamist fanatics have slaughtered children in their own religion — they have killed wantonly, mercilessly, and without regard for repercussion or regret of any kind. What do you think they’d think of killing our kids?

“Eight years ago they came and killed 3,000 of our citizens. Do we know what they’re going to do next? No! But one thing they’ve done in every country they’ve messed with is killing kids in schools.”

The latest al Qaeda charter states that “children are noble targets” and Osama bin Laden himself has said that “Russia is a preview for what we will do to America.”

What happened in Russia that we need to be concerned with in this context? In the town of Beslan on September 1, 2004 — the very day on which children across that country merrily make their return to school after the long summer break — radical Islamist terrorists from Chechnya took more than 1,000 teachers, mothers, and children hostage. When the three-day siege was over, more than 300 hostages had been killed, more than half of whom were children.

“If I could tackle every American and make them read one book to help them understand the terrorist’s plan, it would be Terror at Beslan by John Giduck. Beslan was just a dress rehearsal for what they’re planning to do to the United States.”

A future feature will focus solely on the issue of the terror threats against American schools, but for the time being consider this: There are almost a half a million school busses in America — it would require every enlisted person and every officer in the entire Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps combined to put just one armed guard on every school bus in the country.

As a country and as a culture, the level of protection Americans afford our kids against violence is nothing near what we do to protect them from fire. Grossman is correct: Denial is the enemy. We must prepare for violence like the firefighter prepares for fire. And we must do that today.

Hooah, Colonel!


About the author
Doug Wyllie is Editor in Chief of PoliceOne, responsible for setting the editorial direction of the website and managing the planned editorial features by our roster of expert writers. In addition to his editorial and managerial responsibilities, Doug has authored more than 600 feature articles and tactical tips on a wide range of topics and trends that affect the law enforcement community. Doug is a member of International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA), and an Associate Member of the California Peace Officers' Association. He is also a member of the Public Safety Writers Association, and is a two-time (2011 and 2012) Western Publishing Association "Maggie Award" Finalist in the category of Best Regularly Featured Digital Edition Column. Even in his "spare" time, he is active in his support for the law enforcement community, contributing his time and talents toward police-related charitable events as well as participating in force-on-force training, search-and-rescue training, and other scenario-based training designed to prepare cops for the fight they face every day on the street.

[OneSickPsycho]

got a link?

[RACER X]

http://www.policeone.com/active-shoo...emy-is-denial/

[OneSickPsycho]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html

'I Am Adam Lanza's Mother': A Mom's Perspective On The Mental Illness Conversation In America
Posted: 12/16/2012 9:15 am EST | Updated: 12/17/2012 5:12 pm EST


Friday’s horrific national tragedy -- the murder of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut -- has ignited a new discussion on violence in America. In kitchens and coffee shops across the country, we tearfully debate the many faces of violence in America: gun culture, media violence, lack of mental health services, overt and covert wars abroad, religion, politics and the way we raise our children. Liza Long, a writer based in Boise, says it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness.

While every family's story of mental illness is different, and we may never know the whole of the Lanzas' story, tales like this one need to be heard -- and families who live them deserve our help.

Three days before 20 year-old Adam Lanza killed his mother, then opened fire on a classroom full of Connecticut kindergartners, my 13-year old son Michael (name changed) missed his bus because he was wearing the wrong color pants.

“I can wear these pants,” he said, his tone increasingly belligerent, the black-hole pupils of his eyes swallowing the blue irises.

“They are navy blue,” I told him. “Your school’s dress code says black or khaki pants only.”

“They told me I could wear these,” he insisted. “You’re a stupid bitch. I can wear whatever pants I want to. This is America. I have rights!”

“You can’t wear whatever pants you want to,” I said, my tone affable, reasonable. “And you definitely cannot call me a stupid bitch. You’re grounded from electronics for the rest of the day. Now get in the car, and I will take you to school.”

I live with a son who is mentally ill. I love my son. But he terrifies me.

A few weeks ago, Michael pulled a knife and threatened to kill me and then himself after I asked him to return his overdue library books. His 7 and 9 year old siblings knew the safety plan -- they ran to the car and locked the doors before I even asked them to. I managed to get the knife from Michael, then methodically collected all the sharp objects in the house into a single Tupperware container that now travels with me. Through it all, he continued to scream insults at me and threaten to kill or hurt me.

That conflict ended with three burly police officers and a paramedic wrestling my son onto a gurney for an expensive ambulance ride to the local emergency room. The mental hospital didn’t have any beds that day, and Michael calmed down nicely in the ER, so they sent us home with a prescription for Zyprexa and a follow-up visit with a local pediatric psychiatrist.

We still don’t know what’s wrong with Michael. Autism spectrum, ADHD, Oppositional Defiant or Intermittent Explosive Disorder have all been tossed around at various meetings with probation officers and social workers and counselors and teachers and school administrators. He’s been on a slew of antipsychotic and mood altering pharmaceuticals, a Russian novel of behavioral plans. Nothing seems to work.

At the start of seventh grade, Michael was accepted to an accelerated program for highly gifted math and science students. His IQ is off the charts. When he’s in a good mood, he will gladly bend your ear on subjects ranging from Greek mythology to the differences between Einsteinian and Newtonian physics to Doctor Who. He’s in a good mood most of the time. But when he’s not, watch out. And it’s impossible to predict what will set him off.

Several weeks into his new junior high school, Michael began exhibiting increasingly odd and threatening behaviors at school. We decided to transfer him to the district’s most restrictive behavioral program, a contained school environment where children who can’t function in normal classrooms can access their right to free public babysitting from 7:30-1:50 Monday through Friday until they turn 18.

The morning of the pants incident, Michael continued to argue with me on the drive. He would occasionally apologize and seem remorseful. Right before we turned into his school parking lot, he said, “Look, Mom, I’m really sorry. Can I have video games back today?”

“No way,” I told him. “You cannot act the way you acted this morning and think you can get your electronic privileges back that quickly.”

His face turned cold, and his eyes were full of calculated rage. “Then I’m going to kill myself,” he said. “I’m going to jump out of this car right now and kill myself.”

That was it. After the knife incident, I told him that if he ever said those words again, I would take him straight to the mental hospital, no ifs, ands, or buts. I did not respond, except to pull the car into the opposite lane, turning left instead of right.

“Where are you taking me?” he said, suddenly worried. “Where are we going?”

“You know where we are going,” I replied.

“No! You can’t do that to me! You’re sending me to hell! You’re sending me straight to hell!”

I pulled up in front of the hospital, frantically waiving for one of the clinicians who happened to be standing outside. “Call the police,” I said. “Hurry.”

Michael was in a full-blown fit by then, screaming and hitting. I hugged him close so he couldn’t escape from the car. He bit me several times and repeatedly jabbed his elbows into my rib cage. I’m still stronger than he is, but I won’t be for much longer.

The police came quickly and carried my son screaming and kicking into the bowels of the hospital. I started to shake, and tears filled my eyes as I filled out the paperwork -- “Were there any difficulties with… at what age did your child… were there any problems with.. has your child ever experienced.. does your child have…”

At least we have health insurance now. I recently accepted a position with a local college, giving up my freelance career because when you have a kid like this, you need benefits. You’ll do anything for benefits. No individual insurance plan will cover this kind of thing.

For days, my son insisted that I was lying -- that I made the whole thing up so that I could get rid of him. The first day, when I called to check up on him, he said, “I hate you. And I’m going to get my revenge as soon as I get out of here.”

By day three, he was my calm, sweet boy again, all apologies and promises to get better. I’ve heard those promises for years. I don’t believe them anymore.

On the intake form, under the question, “What are your expectations for treatment?” I wrote, “I need help.”

And I do. This problem is too big for me to handle on my own. Sometimes there are no good options. So you just pray for grace and trust that in hindsight, it will all make sense.

I am sharing this story because I am Adam Lanza’s mother. I am Dylan Klebold’s and Eric Harris’s mother. I am James Holmes’s mother. I am Jared Loughner’s mother. I am Seung-Hui Cho’s mother. And these boys—and their mothers—need help. In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness.

According to Mother Jones, since 1982, 61 mass murders involving firearms have occurred throughout the country. Of these, 43 of the killers were white males, and only one was a woman. Mother Jones focused on whether the killers obtained their guns legally (most did). But this highly visible sign of mental illness should lead us to consider how many people in the U.S. live in fear, like I do.

When I asked my son’s social worker about my options, he said that the only thing I could do was to get Michael charged with a crime. “If he’s back in the system, they’ll create a paper trail,” he said. “That’s the only way you’re ever going to get anything done. No one will pay attention to you unless you’ve got charges.”

I don’t believe my son belongs in jail. The chaotic environment exacerbates Michael’s sensitivity to sensory stimuli and doesn’t deal with the underlying pathology. But it seems like the United States is using prison as the solution of choice for mentally ill people. According to Human Rights Watch, the number of mentally ill inmates in U.S. prisons quadrupled from 2000 to 2006, and it continues to rise -- in fact, the rate of inmate mental illness is five times greater (56 percent) than in the non-incarcerated population.

With state-run treatment centers and hospitals shuttered, prison is now the last resort for the mentally ill -- Rikers Island, the LA County Jail and Cook County Jail in Illinois housed the nation’s largest treatment centers in 2011.

No one wants to send a 13-year old genius who loves Harry Potter and his snuggle animal collection to jail. But our society, with its stigma on mental illness and its broken healthcare system, does not provide us with other options. Then another tortured soul shoots up a fast food restaurant. A mall. A kindergarten classroom. And we wring our hands and say, “Something must be done.”

I agree that something must be done. It’s time for a meaningful, nation-wide conversation about mental health. That’s the only way our nation can ever truly heal.

God help me. God help Michael. God help us all.

[OneSickPsycho]

http://www.policeone.com/active-shoo...emy-is-denial/

Incomplete link...

found it...

http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Lt-Col-Dave-Grossman-to-cops-The-enemy-is-denial/

[RACER X]

oh yeah, well you reposted my link from yesterday, lol

#15

[Turbo Ghost]

My carry permit came on Christmas eve so, I'm legal and ready now!

[askmrjesus]

My carry permit came on Christmas eve so, I'm legal and ready now!

Well if that doesn't just shout CHRISTMAS SPIRIT, I don't know what does.

JC

[pauldun170]

Putting an armed police officer in schools will simply result in the psycho's intent on shooting the place to incorporate "Shoot Officer first" into their plan.

I guess we'll have to put metal detectors in all schools.

Shit, then they just sneak in explosives or some shit like that.

Better search all bags and run everyone through scanners.

That's after they show state issued ID.

Guess we'll be seeing the TSA show up at elementary schools across the country.

[Turbo Ghost]

Well if that doesn't just shout CHRISTMAS SPIRIT, I don't know what does.

JC

Welcome to the South! It always did strike me funny that we get presents on YOUR birthday though!

[RACER X]

Putting an armed police officer in schools will simply result in the psycho's intent on shooting the place to incorporate "Shoot Officer first" into their plan

fine by me vs walk right on in unopposed

Most school dist I know off has a police force, now granted not all campuses haveolice there all the time.

[Papa_Complex]

One, at most two officers on-site. Multiple points of ingress. A large area to cover.

Useless.

[Turbo Ghost]

One, at most two officers on-site. Multiple points of ingress. A large area to cover.

Useless.

Every obstacle you can place in front of the bad guy is one more reason they might pass you by. Ideal? No. Useless? Not even close.

[Papa_Complex]

Every obstacle you can place in front of the bad guy is one more reason they might pass you by. Ideal? No. Useless? Not even close.

Ask the people of Columbine.

[Turbo Ghost]

Ask the people of Columbine.

You can't stop everyone all the time in every situation. Columbine had one officer. Who knows what his presence DID deter over the years. I don't necessarily condone armed guards at every entrance of every school but, when looking at targets, an unprotected target will be the main choice of most. I stand by my earlier statement.

[fasternyou929]

Ask the people of Columbine.

So your suggestion is maintain the status quo, because actually doing anything is essentially useless?

[Twobanger]

One, at most two officers on-site. Multiple points of ingress. A large area to cover.

Useless.

This is why teachers/admin who are willing and able should be allowed to carry. The alternative is to huddle in a corner and wait to die, while hoping the killer is stopped before he gets to you. Active shooter events last only a few minutes and by the time police get there its over. These guys typically commit suicide at the first sign of meaningful resistance. The Oregon mall shooting is a good example of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzKXrqdpbd4&sns=em

[Papa_Complex]

So your suggestion is maintain the status quo, because actually doing anything is essentially useless?

A single police officer in a school might deter a little drug or gang activity, but not a shooter who is willing to trade his life for fame. The Secret Service is afraid that they couldn't stop such a person.

To do anything meaningful you would have to essentially consolidate police substations with schools. Can anyone envision that? Schools as armed camps? I really don't see teachers taking the place of trained law enforcement personnel who, when the chips are down and the bullets are flying, still make enough mistakes of their own.

Escalation is not the answer. It's dealing with the wrong side of the equation. What is really needed, is a quantum shift in how Americans look at firearm ownership. I constantly hear people screaming about their "right" to bear arms. Frequently I find that the people who most loudly proclaim such are precisely the people I really wouldn't want to be carrying a gun, when the shit hits the fan. The whole thing has to start with an understanding of the DUTY to keep and bear arms. The duty to be able to act as a member of a "well regulated militia." The duty to give proper reverence to such a weapon and to properly use, and NOT use it.

And, as I said before, issues like mental health care need to be addressed in order to curtail this sort of thing. By the time some nutbar decides that he wants to shoot up a school or shopping mall, it's already too late.

[Turbo Ghost]

So, how do you define the intent of the 2nd amendment?

[pauldun170]

I think the wiki on it does a fairly decent job even though "advocates" from both sides go in and fuck it up from time to time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #Influence_of_the_English_Bill_of_Rights_of_1689

back ground
Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evill Councellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome (list of grievances including) ... by causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law, (Recital regarding the change of monarch) ... thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation takeing into their most serious Consideration the best meanes for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Auncestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their ancient Rights and Liberties, Declare (list of rights including) ... That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.[13]

Ratification debates

The debate surrounding the Constitution's ratification is of practical import, particularly to adherents of originalist and strict constructionist legal theories. In the context of such legal theories and elsewhere, it is important to understand the language of the Constitution in terms of what that language meant to the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution.[67]

The Second Amendment was relatively uncontroversial at the time of its ratification.[68] Robert Whitehill, a delegate from Pennsylvania, sought to clarify the draft Constitution with a bill of rights explicitly granting individuals the right to hunt on their own land in season,[69] though Whitehill's language was never debated.[70] Rather, the Constitutional delegates altered the language of the Second Amendment several times to emphasize the military context of the amendment[71] and the role of the militia as a force to defend national sovereignty,[72] quell insurrection,[73][74] and protect against tyranny.[75]

There was substantial opposition to the new Constitution, because it moved the power to arm the state militias from the states to the federal government. This created a fear that the federal government, by neglecting the upkeep of the militia, could have overwhelming military force at its disposal through its power to maintain a standing army and navy, leading to a confrontation with the states, encroaching on the states' reserved powers and even engaging in a military takeover. Article VI of the Articles of Confederation states:

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united States in congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the united States, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.[76][77]

In contrast, Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.[78]

A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?"[79][80] Noah Webster similarly argued:

Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[81][80]

George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.[82][80]

The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.[83][80]

Patrick Henry, in the Virginia ratification convention June 5, 1788, argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.[84]

While both Monroe and Adams supported ratification of the Constitution, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as "afraid to trust the people with arms." He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed...."[85][80]

By January of 1788, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia and Connecticut ratified the Constitution without insisting upon amendments. Several specific amendments were proposed, but were not adopted at the time the Constitution was ratified. For example, the Pennsylvania convention debated fifteen amendments, one of which concerned the right of the people to be armed, another with the militia. The Massachusetts convention also ratified the Constitution with an attached list of proposed amendments. In the end, the ratification convention was so evenly divided between those for and against the Constitution that the federalists agreed to amendments to assure ratification. Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution:

Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures.[86]

Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights

James Madison's initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[87]

On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his Bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion,[88] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.[89] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.[90]

The Second Amendment was debated and modified during sessions of the House on in late August 1789. These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the Senate:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The next day, August 25, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[91]

By this time, the proposed right to keep and bear arms was in a separate amendment, instead of being in a single amendment together with other proposed rights such as the due process right. As a Representative explained, this change allowed each amendment to "be passed upon distinctly by the States."[92] On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[93]

The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated.[94] The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[95]

On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the States.

[Turbo Ghost]

You mentioned a shift in how Americans view firearm ownership. I agree. The best example I've seen (which google has failed to find for me) was a cartoon in Hustler magazine. It was a two-panel, then and now cartoon. On the left it showed a frontier setting with several kids off to school in the morning with a slightly older boy carrying his long-rifle. The caption was "They'll be ok. Johnny's got his gun." The right panel showed a school massacre with the caption "Oh my god! Johnny's got a gun!".
We've gotten away from the idea that a gun is a tool to be used in many ways. We can procure food. We can have fun with targets. We can defend ourselves and if necessary others and in extreme examples our nation. Today's generation and probably the last few were not raised with guns and have no respect or understanding of them and only see them as dangerous weapons and they use them as such.
No one needs weapons like that you say? (not you, the general anti-gun lobby) That depends on what the situation. If I were in the L.A. riots several years back, considering I'm white for a white boy, I would want as much firepower as possible to protect myself. I would not be out looking for trouble. I would be barricaded in my home. If you want to get into the need for things being the only reason to have them then perhaps we should look at our bikes. My KLR has 35RWHP and will cruise the highways just fine and on a really good day, it will hit around 100mph. So, obviously there's no reason for anymore HP than that. They should ban these crazy power-monsters! It's too much! What if they point it at a schoolyard! They could kill dozens of children with one of those! Etc.
The 2nd amendment was created to make sure we remained a free society. Free from the oppression of any invading force AND the oppression of our own government should it turn corrupt. (even moreso than it is now) A "well-regulated militia" is US! That's US not U.S.! There was no standing army back then. It was any man woman or child that could hold a gun to protect themselves and those that couldn't or wouldn't.
I have owned many guns over the years since I was about 10 and started shooting when I was about 6. I have never pointed a gun towards any human for ANY reason in that time and hope I never need to do so. If I'm pointing a gun at a human, they have done something terribly wrong. None of the guns I've owned have been military style weapons. They're nice and I like them but, never had any desire to own any. I can accomplish whatever I need with what I have. There are those who feel they need those weapons and I have no problem with that.
As you mentioned, the problems run much deeper than guns and I agree. There are many problems. More guns aren't necessarily the solution but, fewer guns is just as much a problem.

[Turbo Ghost]

Paul,
My reply wasn't aimed at you. You responded while I was typing my novel.

[pauldun170]

Paul,
My reply wasn't aimed at you. You responded while I was typing my novel.

NP,

Didn't think you were responding to me.

[Papa_Complex]

Turbo Ghost,

Everyone brings out the motorcycle comparison and it's a completely invalid one. A motorcycle, of whatever type, has as it's primary purpose for being the transportation of a person. The primary function of a firearm is to project a bullet at sufficient velocity to kill. Comparisons like that are a big reason why I say that Americans MUST change their view of firearms.

Fewer guns is as much of a problem? Sorry, but I can't agree. Just who is training and regulating the 'militia'?

[pauldun170]

...

[Turbo Ghost]

They are different but, when it comes to wants and needs, the comparison is valid especially when in a life or death situation you will want more power from both your bike and your gun.
Who's training the militia (us)? That's the exact problem I refered to earlier. Generations before us were actually trained by those in the know and those skills were passed down from parent to child but, over the last several generations, that skill and respect has disappeared. Even here in the South it's waning terribly. When I was young, after school there would be a mass of youths heading into the woods to hunt squirrels. There would literally be dozens of us within a mile or less. No one ever got hurt or even hinted at hurting anyone. We were taught by our parents how to handle guns and the responsibility that goes along with the potential of a gun.
I personally was amazed at how much pressure and responsibility I felt once I received my carry permit. It is entirely possible I may be someone's (or my own) last line of defense in a bad situation. Before I could carry, I always felt responsible for the care of others if needed but, I feel it more so now.
I actually feel a bit guilty for not actually carrying yet. I'm usually the most calm and level-headed in any situation. Nothing rattles me. (titties don't count) and I've always been able to talk my way out of every bad situation I've encountered and I believe I will be able to continue that tradition. However, IF I can't, I do have another option. I hope it never comes to that and it probably won't but, ya never know.

So, how exactly ARE we supposed to change our view of firearms? What are we supposed to be thinking? How should we view them?

[Turbo Ghost]

Paul,
That's funny. "It's funny cause it's true!": Homer Simpson

[fatbuckRTO]

Turbo Ghost,

Everyone brings out the motorcycle comparison and it's a completely invalid one. A motorcycle, of whatever type, has as it's primary purpose for being the transportation of a person. The primary function of a firearm is to project a bullet at sufficient velocity to kill. Comparisons like that are a big reason why I say that Americans MUST change their view of firearms.How is the primary purpose of an object relevant in regards to the number of deaths it causes? Or, to frame the question differently, what makes the thousands of deaths by motor vehicles more acceptable than the thousands of deaths by firearms?

Nobody is really talking about doing away with assault rifles, or any other types of firearms. The discussion is about disallowing their private ownership. I think that makes the question of all types of motor vehicles a valid question. If you aim to reduce the number of deaths attributed to firearms by restricting their possession and operation to professional organizations (police, security guards, etc.), then where is the push to restrict the possession and operation of motor vehicles to professional organizations (taxis, busses)? By the numbers, motor vehicles are far more deadly machines. Disallowing their private ownership would go a long way toward reducing those fatalities. Is convenience of transportation really worth a life?

[RACER X]

Sad how all the news agencys keep referring to an AR as the weapon used to kill all the kids, fact is that he used handguns, the ar was still in the car

We need to ban assault weapons, though handguns killed more people in Chicago!
Who am I?

[Papa_Complex]

How should they be viewed? For a start people should stop using euphemisms when talking about them. They're weapons. Firearms is almost as good a word to use, but ultimately the only word that fully applies is weapon.

Second, stop making comparisons to things that simply don't apply. The only thing that possibly ties a motorcycle to a firearm are the words, "I want." By that metric you could just as easily tie a motorcycle to a baby. The logical fallacy is obvious in the second, so why not the first?

Thirdly, require an accredited training course (either hunting or defence) for firearm ownership. Accreditation would be performed by government, but training and testing would be performed by trained civilians. This would satisfy the "well regulated militia" portion of the Second Amendment, helping to instill proper reverence and practise in firearm owners.

Fourth and last, have a NATIONAL firearms strategy. This mishmash of State laws is ridiculous. You're one country. Something this important shouldn't be dealt with on a virtual ad hoc basis.

[Papa_Complex]

How is the primary purpose of an object relevant in regards to the number of deaths it causes? Or, to frame the question differently, what makes the thousands of deaths by motor vehicles more acceptable than the thousands of deaths by firearms?

How is it relevant? Because it shows a peculiar mindset.

[fatbuckRTO]

How should they be viewed? For a start people should stop using euphemisms when talking about them. They're weapons. Firearms is almost as good a word to use, but ultimately the only word that fully applies is weapon.I'm not sure what you mean here. I've only ever really heard them called guns, firearms, or specific types (pistol, handgun, rifle).

Thirdly, require an accredited training course (either hunting or defence) for firearm ownership. Accreditation would be performed by government, but training and testing would be performed by trained civilians. This would satisfy the "well regulated militia" portion of the Second Amendment, helping to instill proper reverence and practise in firearm owners.I could definitely get behind this. I don't have any problem with regulation, just outright banning.

Fourth and last, have a NATIONAL firearms strategy. This mishmash of State laws is ridiculous. You're one country. Something this important shouldn't be dealt with on a virtual ad hoc basis.I can get behind this for firearms and motor vehicles. I'm all for states' rights, but in both cases there is too much interstate travel / commerce involved. There needs to be one standard for each, coast to coast.

[fatbuckRTO]

How is it relevant? Because it shows a peculiar mindset.

Mindset has no real bearing on the end result, when the end result is death. What does it matter what a person's intent was if they run over a pedestrian? Sure, you address intent in court, when doling out punishment if it is appropriate. But it doesn't make a damn bit of difference to the dead pedestrian that the motorist only bought that car to get to work. To the dead guy's family, he's just as dead as if he had been riddled with bullets.

So what makes the 41k or so deaths due to privately owned motor vehicles less of an issue than the 31k or so deaths due to privately owned firearms?* By the way, half of those 31k firearm deaths were suicides.



*2007 numbers, easiest I could find on Google

[Papa_Complex]

I'm not sure what you mean here. I've only ever really heard them called guns, firearms, or specific types (pistol, handgun, rifle).

I could definitely get behind this. I don't have any problem with regulation, just outright banning.

I can get behind this for firearms and motor vehicles. I'm all for states' rights, but in both cases there is too much interstate travel / commerce involved. There needs to be one standard for each, coast to coast.

You haven't heard people refer to their firearms as their 'tools' or 'toys'? You haven't heard people refer to their guns in a way that makes you think that you could easily substitute the word 'toy'? I've heard both, from far too many people, and on far too many occasions. Not just in the US, while primarily there, but also less often in Canada where we have the sort of controls, some of which I: would recommend for your people.

I'm glad to see that you would agree with my on those two fronts. It's rather refreshing to read.

Mindset has no real bearing on the end result, when the end result is death. What does it matter what a person's intent was if they run over a pedestrian? Sure, you address intent in court, when doling out punishment if it is appropriate. But it doesn't make a damn bit of difference to the dead pedestrian that the motorist only bought that car to get to work. To the dead guy's family, he's just as dead as if he had been riddled with bullets.

So what makes the 41k or so deaths due to privately owned motor vehicles less of an issue than the 31k or so deaths due to privately owned firearms?* By the way, half of those 31k firearm deaths were suicides.

*2007 numbers, easiest I could find on Google

Once again, you're thinking on the wrong end of the equation. You're talking about what happens after the fact. I'm talking about trying to prevent the incident in the first place. From that point of view, mindset has a massive effect.

You're also minimizing the issue by making another invalid comparison; vehicular deaths to firearms deaths. In the United States there are roughly enough firearms to put one in the hands of every citizen over the age of 16 (rough estimate, based on the approximation that there are about 200,000 privately owned firearms in the US). Given that the majority of gun owners have more than one weapon, and that they are unlikely to all be taken out on a daily basis for their intended purpose, they are relatively unlikely to be involved in an incident. And yet they are.

On the flip-side of that you have road- going vehicles, the majority of which are used on a daily basis for their intended purpose. For this reason they are more likely to be involved in incidents resulting in death. Want a more valid comparison? Compare the number of wilful deaths resulting from both things and yes, a suicide is a wilful death.

[Turbo Ghost]

Sad how all the news agencys keep referring to an AR as the weapon used to kill all the kids, fact is that he used handguns, the ar was still in the car

We need to ban assault weapons, though handguns killed more people in Chicago!
Who am I?

The AR was the primary gun used. A shotgun was left in the car and not used.

[Turbo Ghost]

You have to look at the United States as a family. The parents are the federal government and the states are the children. The parents make the main rules but, each child must go out on its' own and make rules for its' own life. The children are still under the rule of the parents but, in their own homes, they make rules that more apply to their particular living conditions.
Example:
Here you have to go through a hunter safety course before you can get a hunting license. Would it make sense to require this course for someone in NYC that wants a handgun for self-defense? I know it's not the best analogy but, each state has a different set of circumstances. That's why each state is allowed to self-govern to a degree.

As for the weapon comparison, you do realize if you had buttered toast this morning, you used a weapon to butter it. I would be so bold as to say EVERY home on the planet has at least one knife. A madman recently killed a large number of children with a knife. Homicides by knife run about half as many as by handguns but, interestingly enough almost identicle to homicides by other types of guns (rifles/shotguns). Knives DO have more utilitarian uses than killing but, at their earliest iterations and from then on, one of their main uses is killing. Whether that be for homicide or food or defense that's what they were made for. A lot of people die from knives including suicides but, we don't talk about banning them or having training for them. On a side-note, looking at the charts, handgun related homicides rose dramatically between 1989 and 1996! Then they dropped sharply in 1997 and continued dropping until 2002 and it held steady through 2005. That was the end of the study.
The problem with guns is the ability to hurt multiple targets more easily than with any other weapon. That's also their greatest asset. If you want to kill a bunch of people, get a gun. If you need to defend yourself against a bunch of people, get a gun.
I'm all for training people properly in the use of guns. To be honest though, I would prefer more training and more restrictions in the driving of automobiles! I AM NOT trying to be funny! I've written letters to my representatives and the President trying to save the lives of our citizens especially the younger ones. Americans can't drive! No wonder considering the minimal level of training required to operate one of the most important machines you will ever be in charge of!
I make this point for a reason. My Bronco is a deadly device in the wrong hands. I KNOW I could find the right venue and kill dozens if not hundreds of people if I wanted. Just by being a poor driver, the odds of me killing someone are high! Yet despite the incredible odds that I will be involved in a wreck or incident involving injury, my testing for my license consisted of pulling out of a parking lot onto the main road and circling back in and parking. Good to go!
The same problem exists with guns. You can buy them without having a clue how to use them. People need to learn how to use something dangerous before being allowed to own it!
BUT, BUT, BUT!! Don't forget! The CT shooter STOLE his guns! I don't know what his mom was thinking allowing him access to the guns if she was aware of his state of mind but, it baffles me. Anyway, eventually my boss is going to wonder why I'm at the computer so much today so, I better get back at it! Keep up the debate!

Remember: My opinion! Make it yours!

[Turbo Ghost]

BTW, Papa Complex,
I would have sworn Tesla was The Sherminator from American Pie until I looked it up! Seperated at birth?

[fatbuckRTO]

You haven't heard people refer to their firearms as their 'tools' or 'toys'? You haven't heard people refer to their guns in a way that makes you think that you could easily substitute the word 'toy'? I've heard both, from far too many people, and on far too many occasions. Not just in the US, while primarily there, but also less often in Canada where we have the sort of controls, some of which I: would recommend for your people. I have heard that. I thought you meant in media / news. I do hear 'toys' and similar words used by individual people describing their weapons, usually when they are collectors. Personally, I was trained to call a firearm a 'weapon' or refer to it by it's type (rifle, pistol). But, while it goes against my grain to call a hand-held firearm by even a word like 'gun,'* I don't see it as a major issue. Usually when I hear 'toys' or the like, I understand it to be a tongue-in-cheek reference. I don't consider a motorcycle or car a toy either. They'll kill you quick.

But while I don't see terminology as being a major issue itself, I agree with you that lack of respect for firearms is a huge issue. The 4 safety rules should be taught along with phonics, in my opinion. There are too many firearms out there to just assume that a child will go his whole life without encountering one.

Once again, you're thinking on the wrong end of the equation. You're talking about what happens after the fact. I'm talking about trying to prevent the incident in the first place. From that point of view, mindset has a massive effect.

You're also minimizing the issue by making another invalid comparison; vehicular deaths to firearms deaths. In the United States there are roughly enough firearms to put one in the hands of every citizen over the age of 16 (rough estimate, based on the approximation that there are about 200,000 privately owned firearms in the US). Given that the majority of gun owners have more than one weapon, and that they are unlikely to all be taken out on a daily basis for their intended purpose, they are relatively unlikely to be involved in an incident. And yet they are.

On the flip-side of that you have road- going vehicles, the majority of which are used on a daily basis for their intended purpose. For this reason they are more likely to be involved in incidents resulting in death. Want a more valid comparison? Compare the number of wilful deaths resulting from both things and yes, a suicide is a wilful death.I don't think that the difference in saturation or per capita numbers makes the comparison invalid. Deaths are deaths. If one type of death is worth risk management, all types of death are worth risk management. You say that you want to prevent the incident in the first place, so I don't understand why you wouldn't want to prevent automobile fatalities as much as you want to prevent firearm fatalities. My intent isn't to minimize the moral implications of firearm fatalities, but to realize that automobile fatalities are just as tragic. In my opinion, they are comparable in that there are identical measures we could take to reduce fatalities for both, but we have not taken those measures.

I differentiate firearm suicides because I believe that, if a person is serious enough to shoot himself to death, he is serious enough to find another method of suicide if a firearm is not available to him. I don't believe reducing the number of firearms in circulation will have any measurable effect on suicide rates.

We'll probably end up having to agree to disagree here. That said, I appreciate you actually addressing the argument, vice summarily dismissing it as "childish" like some others have done.





* I will call a weapon a 'gun' for brevity, depending on my audience, but it's something akin to running my fingernails down a chalkboard. Old habits, and what...

[Papa_Complex]

You have to look at the United States as a family. The parents are the federal government and the states are the children. The parents make the main rules but, each child must go out on its' own and make rules for its' own life. The children are still under the rule of the parents but, in their own homes, they make rules that more apply to their particular living conditions.
Example:
Here you have to go through a hunter safety course before you can get a hunting license. Would it make sense to require this course for someone in NYC that wants a handgun for self-defense? I know it's not the best analogy but, each state has a different set of circumstances. That's why each state is allowed to self-govern to a degree.

And there is one issue: The States are still in the 'parents'' house. Want to make your own rules on major issues like firearms ownership/ Sucede. Then the 'kids' will be living in their own 'house.'

How we do it, is different classes of firearm; restricted and non restricted. a handgun or a rifle/carbine of under a certain barrel length (16.5" the last time I checked) are considered restricted, thereby requiring a different set of qualifications. That's one way to break down the training required.

As for the weapon comparison, you do realize if you had buttered toast this morning, you used a weapon to butter it. I would be so bold as to say EVERY home on the planet has at least one knife. A madman recently killed a large number of children with a knife. Homicides by knife run about half as many as by handguns but, interestingly enough almost identicle to homicides by other types of guns (rifles/shotguns). Knives DO have more utilitarian uses than killing but, at their earliest iterations and from then on, one of their main uses is killing. Whether that be for homicide or food or defense that's what they were made for. A lot of people die from knives including suicides but, we don't talk about banning them or having training for them. On a side-note, looking at the charts, handgun related homicides rose dramatically between 1989 and 1996! Then they dropped sharply in 1997 and continued dropping until 2002 and it held steady through 2005. That was the end of the study.

The knife that I buttered my toast with was flat, with a rounded tip, and without a sharpened edge. Unless I sharpen it and turn it into a shiv, it's primary function remains to butter my toast. It's no more a weapon than is a .22 blank firing nail gun, unless you defeat the safety features, at which point it becomes a VERY ineffective and clumsy firearm.

The problem with guns is the ability to hurt multiple targets more easily than with any other weapon. That's also their greatest asset. If you want to kill a bunch of people, get a gun. If you need to defend yourself against a bunch of people, get a gun.
I'm all for training people properly in the use of guns. To be honest though, I would prefer more training and more restrictions in the driving of automobiles! I AM NOT trying to be funny! I've written letters to my representatives and the President trying to save the lives of our citizens especially the younger ones. Americans can't drive! No wonder considering the minimal level of training required to operate one of the most important machines you will ever be in charge of!
I make this point for a reason. My Bronco is a deadly device in the wrong hands. I KNOW I could find the right venue and kill dozens if not hundreds of people if I wanted. Just by being a poor driver, the odds of me killing someone are high! Yet despite the incredible odds that I will be involved in a wreck or incident involving injury, my testing for my license consisted of pulling out of a parking lot onto the main road and circling back in and parking. Good to go!
The same problem exists with guns. You can buy them without having a clue how to use them. People need to learn how to use something dangerous before being allowed to own it!

I don't necessarily disagree with you regarding ownership of vehicles and additional training but, as a vehicle is not primarily a weapon and vehicular death statistics have been steadily going down (per capita) for decades, the best method of pursuing this would likely be via fiscal imperative (mandated insurance discounts).

But a vehicle still isn't a firearm.

BUT, BUT, BUT!! Don't forget! The CT shooter STOLE his guns! I don't know what his mom was thinking allowing him access to the guns if she was aware of his state of mind but, it baffles me. Anyway, eventually my boss is going to wonder why I'm at the computer so much today so, I better get back at it! Keep up the debate!

Remember: My opinion! Make it yours!

Hence my previous comments regarding storage requirements.

BTW, Papa Complex,
I would have sworn Tesla was The Sherminator from American Pie until I looked it up! Seperated at birth?

The Sherminator could have played the Tesla part, without needing the fake fangs. Stunt double?

[Papa_Complex]

I have heard that. I thought you meant in media / news. I do hear 'toys' and similar words used by individual people describing their weapons, usually when they are collectors. Personally, I was trained to call a firearm a 'weapon' or refer to it by it's type (rifle, pistol). But, while it goes against my grain to call a hand-held firearm by even a word like 'gun,'* I don't see it as a major issue. Usually when I hear 'toys' or the like, I understand it to be a tongue-in-cheek reference. I don't consider a motorcycle or car a toy either. They'll kill you quick.

But while I don't see terminology as being a major issue itself, I agree with you that lack of respect for firearms is a huge issue. The 4 safety rules should be taught along with phonics, in my opinion. There are too many firearms out there to just assume that a child will go his whole life without encountering one.

I point to the terminology used and the flippant manner of its use, because it's indicative of the root of the problem. Not because it is a problem in and of itself.

I don't think that the difference in saturation or per capita numbers makes the comparison invalid. Deaths are deaths. If one type of death is worth risk management, all types of death are worth risk management. You say that you want to prevent the incident in the first place, so I don't understand why you wouldn't want to prevent automobile fatalities as much as you want to prevent firearm fatalities. My intent isn't to minimize the moral implications of firearm fatalities, but to realize that automobile fatalities are just as tragic. In my opinion, they are comparable in that there are identical measures we could take to reduce fatalities for both, but we have not taken those measures.

I differentiate firearm suicides because I believe that, if a person is serious enough to shoot himself to death, he is serious enough to find another method of suicide if a firearm is not available to him. I don't believe reducing the number of firearms in circulation will have any measurable effect on suicide rates.

We'll probably end up having to agree to disagree here. That said, I appreciate you actually addressing the argument, vice summarily dismissing it as "childish" like some others have done.

* I will call a weapon a 'gun' for brevity, depending on my audience, but it's something akin to running my fingernails down a chalkboard. Old habits, and what...

Regarding the vehicular issues, see my other post. Given how much has been done over the years to prevent deaths by vehicle use, and how relatively little has been done to prevent death by firearms, which should I think requires more immediate attention?

[Turbo Ghost]

I just wanted to pop-in and address the earlier comment about one officer not being enough to cover an entire school. I can't believe I had forgotten this since it wasn't that long ago. This happened at a school just a few miles from my house. I actually went to school with most of the students that graduated in the same graduating year but, I was transferred to another school years before. I say this so it's not one of those "this happened over there" situations. This is a school where many of my friends teach and many of my friends have children attending.
The video is boring but, informative. Shortly after the end of the video, officers arrived and the aggressor was shot and killed. ONE officer is the reason only one person died that day. In the beginning of the video you will see her go to the door with the principle to see why the man is there. This school is locked. You don't get in without a reason. When approached, the man drew his gun on the principle and the SRO (School Resource Officer) drew hers and blocked him from shooting the principle. She then led him into a more contained area as there were children outside and the others were in their classrooms. Should she have shot him? She was certainly within her rights. We were not there and don't know the exact conversation they had at the time but, in interviews with her after the fact, she stated she believed he would drop the weapon. I'm thankful she was there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEDEi8ZZ--E

[Twobanger]

Wow. Thanks for posting that. It probably felt like an eternity for her.

[Turbo Ghost]

That is exactly what she said. Me personally, I probably would have shot him but, again I wasn't there and don't know exactly what the conversation was. I've seen videos with her watching the video and she says he was going on about the goverment. She felt he would drop the weapon and I commend her for her bravery and service.

Also, while I think of it. How incredibly relevant is this!? Way back in 2000 or 2001, this man had been taken to court for stalking a paper-carrier on her rounds. She did not know the man so it wasn't a domestic situation. The case was dismissed when a witness did not show. Some time after that, the man walked into a police station WEARING a handgun in his waistband complaining about some situation he was having that they needed to take care of. He was arrested for illegal concealment of a weapon. The judge ordered him to seek mental evaluation and counselling. He did neither. If he had or if his probation officer had made sure he had then, perhaps none of this would have happened.

[Papa_Complex]

That is exactly what she said. Me personally, I probably would have shot him but, again I wasn't there and don't know exactly what the conversation was. I've seen videos with her watching the video and she says he was going on about the goverment. She felt he would drop the weapon and I commend her for her bravery and service.

Also, while I think of it. How incredibly relevant is this!? Way back in 2000 or 2001, this man had been taken to court for stalking a paper-carrier on her rounds. She did not know the man so it wasn't a domestic situation. The case was dismissed when a witness did not show. Some time after that, the man walked into a police station WEARING a handgun in his waistband complaining about some situation he was having that they needed to take care of. He was arrested for illegal concealment of a weapon. The judge ordered him to seek mental evaluation and counselling. He did neither. If he had or if his probation officer had made sure he had then, perhaps none of this would have happened.

Quite relevant. If the mental health aspects had been pursued, then the SRO would likely have never been put in that position.

[Turbo Ghost]

Yup. That's what I said!