Mass Shooting at Connecticut Elementary School

[Steved1998]

I'm applying for a gun license and concealed carry permit.

[BoMac]

I think this is a fairly reasonable gun law. Will it happen? Probably not. Maybe...we'll see.

A Gun Control Law That Would Actually Work - Robert Wright - The Atlantic

[Steved1998]

What's funny is she legally owned those weapons so gun control would have done nothing in this case. I love how everybody is politicizing this tragedy to push their own agendas before the bodies are even buried

OMG tyrants! Home invaders! Constitution! Gun control! Gun show loopholes! Assault rifles!

You want to prevent this stuff? Reopen the state mental health facilities. No amount of legislation will ever prevent a shooting or keep you safe.

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by Axver

Especially because, y'know, your average principal is not exactly trained to identify targets and neutralise them under extreme stress and pressure. That's the preserve of specially trained law enforcement and military members. Seems to me your average school shooting tragedy would just be made worse, not better, if it turned into a shoot-out.

This is really a major part of the problem in the US today. There is the mentality among a large percentage of Americans that any given individual will turn into James Fucking Bond if presented with a dangerous situation, when in reality their reaction would likely be far, far less efficient, and likely counterproductive. I really don't know what it is about Americans that they think having a firearm on their person automatically makes them some kind of badass.

[Pearl]

Jamie Foxx, one of the industry's biggest stars, said Saturday as he promoted Quentin Tarantino's upcoming ultra-violent spaghetti Western-style film about slavery, "Django Unchained," that actors can't ignore the fact that movie violence can influence people.
"We cannot turn our back and say that violence in films or anything that we do doesn't have a sort of influence," Foxx said in an interview on Saturday. "It does."
In true Tarantino form, buckets of blood explode from characters as they are shot or shredded to pieces by rabid dogs in "Django Unchained."

Jamie Foxx Responds To Connecticut Shooting

Interesting to hear someone from Hollywood in a Tarantino film say all that. PR stunt, perhaps?

Not that I believe violent movies or video games make people violent, but America does have a violence obsessed culture.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Steved1998

What's funny is she legally owned those weapons so gun control would have done nothing in this case.

Gun control that limits access to the types of weapons she could have bought would have made a sizeable difference.

[BoMac]

From David Frum. A, in my opinion, common-sense approach to addressing the problem. It's a start, at least:

Monday will be a day of mourning for the slain schoolchildren of Newtown, Connecticut. Then what? Some are urging President Barack Obama to lead a national campaign for tighter control of firearms.

Bad idea. If the president -- any president -- inserts himself into the gun debate, he will inevitably polarize it. Supporters of the president will rally, but opponents of the president will become more obdurate. Because the president has many items on his agenda, and often needs the votes of Democrats from districts where pro-gun feeling runs strong, his opponents will probably outlast him.

Presidential leadership on guns will most likely fail for another reason, one that comes from a darker and grimmer place in American culture.

I've written before at CNN about the paradoxes of American gun ownership.

Here's one more such paradox: Obama has done literally nothing to restrict the (large and growing) rights of gun owners. President Bill Clinton signed two important pieces of gun control legislation and issued many restrictive executive orders; Obama has not so much as introduced even one.

Yet the election of Obama has triggered an angry reaction among gun owners fiercer than anything seen under Clinton. Between 1960 and the late 1990s, there occurred a gradual decline in the percentage of American homes that contain a gun, from about one-half to about one-third.

(This trend is at least partly explained by the decline of hunting as a sport. In 2011, about 6% of Americans aged 16 or over went hunting even once in the year. )

In 2009, however, that trend away from guns abruptly went into reverse. Gun buying spiked in the Obama administration, pushing the share of households with a gun all the way back up to 47%, near the 1960 peak, even as crime rates tumbled to the lowest levels ever recorded, making guns less necessary than ever to self-defense. Black Friday 2012 set a one-day record for gun sales.

What's going on?

People who buy guns for self-defense do not look only to the statistics for information about the dangers they face. They are guided by their own perceptions, and often their own misperceptions. By the numbers, Obama's America is probably the safest America ever.

But in the imaginations of millions of people, Obama's America is threatened by social instability. For many, the president himself is the leading symbol of the changes they fear. The more the president leads the campaign for gun control, the more hopeless that campaign will be.

Instead, progress to more rational gun laws must be led from outside the political system. Look at the success of the campaign against drunken driving.

In 1980, 13-year-old Cari Lightner was struck and killed by a drunken driver. That driver had recently been arrested for another driving under the influence offense, but he remained on the road to kill again. Cari's mother, Candice, threw herself into the cause of stopping drunken driving. A powerful organizer, she founded a group, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, that not only changed laws at the federal and state level, but also changed the larger cultural context.

Forty years ago, the hugely popular entertainer, Dean Martin, made giggling jokes about being drunk at the wheel. Today, in millions of American homes, workplaces and restaurants, "friends don't let friends drive drunk" has replaced "one for the road."

This is the model for the future campaign against dangerous weapons.
That campaign should be led from outside the political system, by people who have suffered loss and grief from gun violence. Only that way can the campaign avoid being held hostage by the usual conflict of parties -- Democrats who fear that gun control will lose them rural congressional districts; Republicans who exaggerate for partisan gain exactly what gun control would mean.

Gun control should no more mean the abolition of guns than Mothers Against Drunk Driving abolished the car. Guns are part of the cherished American culture of the outdoors. In many parts of the country, a deer rifle literally puts meat on the table.

In other parts, a revolver in the bedroom dresser drawer is the frightened spouse's last defense against an abusive partner, or the gay urban homesteader's final protection against violent bigots. Guns can be souvenirs of heroic moments on faraway battlefields, mementoes of national history, or art objects of great beauty.

It's harder to imagine why any civilian would need a semiautomatic weapon. Still, it's a free country, and gun ownership is one of the freedoms specifically cited in the Constitution. Responsible gun owners have a right to their guns. The challenge for the grass-roots gun-safety movement of the future is to focus on the danger posed by irresponsible owners. The goal should be less to ban particular classes of weapons -- such a goal puts the law in a race against technology, a race the law will likely lose -- and more to change the rules defining who may keep a gun.

Prospective gun owners should be required to take serious training and pass a safety exam before qualifying for a license. They should be screened for mental illness and histories of violence, very much including domestic violence. They should be required to buy insurance against the harm done by wrongful use of their weapons, and if that insurance proves expensive -- well, too bad. People apprehended in possession of an unlicensed weapon should face severe sanctions.

At the same time, we also need to pay attention to the role of mental health professionals in averting such horrors like the Newtown massacre. In a survey of mass killings published in 2000, The New York Times observed:

"They give lots of warning and even tell people explicitly what they plan to do."

Yet it's exceeding difficult in this country to compel treatment of the mentally ill, even as they prepare to commit the worst crimes. The Associated Press reported this disturbing story on October 1:

"Andrew Engeldinger's parents pushed him for two years to seek treatment for what they suspected was mental illness, but even though he became increasingly paranoid and experienced delusions, there was nothing more they could do.

"Minnesota law doesn't allow people to be forced into treatment without proof that they are a threat to themselves or others. Engeldinger's parents were horrified last week, when their 36-year-old son went on a workplace shooting spree that led to the deaths of a Minneapolis sign company's owner, several of his employees and a UPS driver. Engeldinger then killed himself."

It's important to ensure that guns are kept out of the hands of people like Engeldinger. It's also important to expedite the process by which family and friends can require them to accept treatment.

Such measures might not produce immediate results, but like the campaign against drunken driving, would steadily enhance gun safety and raise higher the obstacles to the obtaining of weapons by people likely to misuse them.

As with any public safety measure, the goal is not absolute security. We'll never reduce the toll of crime, accident and general human mayhem to zero. But after the seventh mass killings of this single year 2012, isn't it about time that we tried to reduce the toll at least somewhat?

The politicians can't or won't. But one of the many, many families bereaved in this year of random violence -- maybe they will be moved to follow for the victims of gun crime the lead Candice Lightner established for the victims of reckless driving?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Steved1998

What's funny is she legally owned those weapons so gun control would have done nothing in this case.

It's my understanding that this gun would have been banned under previous laws due to the capacity of the clip used. So yes, the amount of damage done may have been curbed.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

You can already are and hear the spin coming... before the first funeral has even taken place.

It's the video games. It's the music. It's the movies.

No. No no no no no.

It's the fucking guns.

Issue #2 is our shameful record in dealing with mental health.

Address those two issues first. Then if you want to have a debate about violent movies and video games (which exist in countries that don't have the same gun problems we do, btw)... fine. We can talk then. But not before then.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by Steved1998

What's funny is she legally owned those weapons so gun control would have done nothing in this case. I love how everybody is politicizing this tragedy to push their own agendas before the bodies are even buried

OMG tyrants! Home invaders! Constitution! Gun control! Gun show loopholes! Assault rifles!

You want to prevent this stuff? Reopen the state mental health facilities. No amount of legislation will ever prevent a shooting or keep you safe.

No, yes, sorta.

Yes to reopening state mental health facilities nationwide.

No to gun control not being able to stop what happened.

There is no reason whatsoever why large capacity magazines and semi automatic weapons are legal. If you need a semi-auto rifle with a 30 round mag to hunt deer or protect your house, you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

Sorta to the last... Nothing will stop everything. Someone will always be able to slip through the cracks. But that's no excuse to not do anything.

If we can stop 9 out of 10 of these, we should do so. Not being able to stop 10 out of 10 is not a reason to settle.

[Steved1998]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

No, yes, sorta.

Yes to reopening state mental health facilities nationwide.

No to gun control not being able to stop what happened.

There is no reason whatsoever why large capacity magazines and semi automatic weapons are legal. If you need a semi-auto rifle with a 30 round mag to hunt deer or protect your house, you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

Sorta to the last... Nothing will stop everything. Someone will always be able to slip through the cracks. But that's no excuse to not do anything.

If we can stop 9 out of 10 of these, we should do so. Not being able to stop 10 out of 10 is not a reason to settle.

While I see your point I don't think having to reload after 12 or 15 rounds would slow down someone that determined. It's not like Tucson shooting when there were enough abled bodied people to overtake the gunman.

The media NEEDS to stop glorifying the shootings and acting like the death toll is some xbox achievement.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Steved1998

I'm applying for a gun license and concealed carry permit.

why?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Steved1998

What's funny is she legally owned those weapons so gun control would have done nothing in this case.

right. which means its the direct availability of the weapons themselves that brought us this carnage. it's what is legal that has created this situation. so, yes, MORE gun control such that, say, a combat weapon cannot be legally purchased absolutely would have resulted in fewer dead children.

[BoMac]

It's hard for many non-Americans to understand the gun culture in the U.S.:

Neil Macdonald: Death and delusion in a nation of assault rifles - World - CBC News

[MrsSpringsteen]

If his mother owned that Bushmaster, that is an assault weapon. And we could bring back the assault weapons ban. That might help. This sports talk show I was listening to over the weekend, someone texted in that citizens should have the right to own assault weapons because the police do. Huh? Like the host said, for what-to take on the police? Since when do we have the same rights that the police do, or face the same dangers?

It's not just the mental health care system either. It's a much larger cultural problem we have of blaming others for our problems, and attempting to solve our problems by inflicting pain and violence on others. It's systemic, and it's a disease. There are reasons that we have copycat violence, and that is also influenced by the media glorifying these people. I believe that is a huge problem that is serving as a motivation for many of these acts.

Our culture helps people to make certain choices and to avoid personal responsibility. Not everyone who makes these choices is mentally ill. Some people do it for a variety of other reasons and motivations.

I heard this morning that he may have had access to over 20 weapons. Don't know if all of those belonged to his mother, or if that's even true. Also she allegedly said that she feared she had "lost" her son. So what did she attempt to do about that? I don't know. But she didn't get rid of her guns. Yes, he could have gotten one elsewhere. But he tried at Dick's Sporting Goods and did not have the proper paperwork. But just perhaps growing up with a mother who owned all of those guns and used them, I would guess. What effect (s) did that have on him?

And Jamie Foxx-uh, why did he take that job then and take the money for it? I don't blame movies for any of this, but the fact is that they are part of a culture of violence, and dehumanization of violence, that we live in. Are they a result of it or a contributing factor? Maybe a little of both.

So we throw up our hands and say that people will do these things in spite of gun laws, in spite of anything we might try to do? No, we can't do that.

[PhilsFan]

Nancy Lanza could have bought that assault rifle on the black market!

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by Steved1998

While I see your point I don't think having to reload after 12 or 15 rounds would slow down someone that determined. It's not like Tucson shooting when there were enough abled bodied people to overtake the gunman.

The media NEEDS to stop glorifying the shootings and acting like the death toll is some xbox achievement.

12 or 15 rounds is still too many.

The right to bare arms was put into place during the time of muskets. It was never intended to allow for weapons of mass death.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Right to bear arms was for citizen militias, that's my understanding. We don't have those in 2012, of course there are plenty of paranoid people who think we should. Maybe more now than ever.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

Right to bear arms was for citizen militias, that's my understanding. We don't have those in 2012, of course there are plenty of paranoid people who think we should. Maybe more now than ever.

Exactly, and why was there a need for a well-organized militia? To overthrow a potentially tyrannical government.

We are in 2012. Americans spend, what, 1 trillion dollars a year on their military? They have by far the best and most professional military in the world. It's not even close. You mean to tell me that a militia with Bushmasters and Glocks is going to overthrow the US government and military? In order for the 2nd amendment to really have effect as to its purpose, you would have to allow the citizenry to have nuclear warheads.

Normal Joe Shmoe citizens owning Bushmasters is inconsistent with both a literal reading of the 2nd amendment (that was not a weapon available then) and with the purpose of the amendment.

[deep]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

If we can stop 9 out of 10 of these, we should do so. Not being able to stop 10 out of 10 is not a reason to settle.

that suggest 8 out of 10, might not be worth it

most police chiefs seem to be pretty happy if they can get their murder stats down 10%

if we can stop 5 out of 10?
if we apply that same number we would have 10 dead first graders instead of 20.