CT Elementary School Shooting - WTF?!?

[Dakkster]

I can surely see how that's analogous. However the larger part of the picture is that neither side will be honest about the real problems. Too many guns in the country is one of them, but is it really the biggest problem overall when violent crime in the U.S. has substantially dropped the last 20 or so years?

No, it's a factor in mass killings, not the factor. Crazy mfers like this idiot shouldn't be able to get a gun or any weapon. Yet the larger point also still remains; any item you can pick up is a deadly weapon with intent and knowledge. In a case with people who are mentally ill, otherwise crazy and/or evil, a one-fold idea will solve nothing.

The violence in our culture, and inherent hot-headedness of Americans, is most definitely a factor. The lack of mental health treatment and care, definitely a factor. Lack of security on school campuses in general, a factor. Yes, and guns too here. A Mother's negligence was certainly causative as well. Anyone want to mention insane media coverage with the shooters becoming infamous en perpetuity?

But a crucial point is that if we address the first three issues, the relative availability of firearms would've mattered less because you really don't need guns to kill people. It's ridiculously easy to fashion explosives, start a fire, etc. Whereas merely passing a law does not eradication something, see "The War On Drugs" for a background.

There is no golden ticket here. We need to have a long, hard conversation that addresses multiple issues. I said it the other day to someone at work- why is it that we see PSAs for breast cancer or vaccinations but there are none about men seeking mental help? It's still a social stigma. Moreover, if we weren't so violent as a nation, partially in games, movies etc, wouldn't people be less apt to feel guns necessary?

Of course the mental health thing is something that has to be looked at in the US, but no matter what you do with that, gun control needs to happen and it has to happen now. It has to at least start. Saying "oh, but there are already millions of guns out there, so it won't matter" is just stupid. You start somewhere.

[MXHockey]

We should have ninjas outside of our schools, and jedis protecting our banks.

NRA = Ninja Retaliation Association

[dongjohnson]

Of course the mental health thing is something that has to be looked at in the US, but no matter what you do with that, gun control needs to happen and it has to happen now. It has to at least start. Saying "oh, but there are already millions of guns out there, so it won't matter" is just stupid. You start somewhere.

But it's true at this point; there's no hope of preventing criminals from acquiring firearms by passing yet another law. Sadly, we can't put the cat back in the hat on this one. The only people who will abide by what you're talking about are people like you and I, and despite being a long-time firearm owner, I've never aimed a gun nor shot anyone.

We both know half-measures like trying to ban certain types of weapons won't work. The idiot will find a shotgun in a barn somewhere if he really looks and a black market will develop just like it did for "assault weapons" before. Moreover, you cannot just make guns simply disappear- like it or not, that's the reality here.

[Rylant]

I can surely see how that's analogous. However the larger part of the picture is that neither side will be honest about the real problems. Too many guns in the country is one of them, but is it really the biggest problem overall when violent crime in the U.S. has substantially dropped the last 20 or so years?

No, it's a factor in mass killings, not the factor. Crazy mfers like this idiot shouldn't be able to get a gun or any weapon. Yet the larger point also still remains; any item you can pick up is a deadly weapon with intent and knowledge. In a case with people who are mentally ill, otherwise crazy and/or evil, a one-fold idea will solve nothing.

The violence in our culture, and inherent hot-headedness of Americans, is most definitely a factor. The lack of mental health treatment and care, definitely a factor. Lack of security on school campuses in general, a factor. Yes, and guns too here. A Mother's negligence was certainly causative as well. Anyone want to mention insane media coverage with the shooters becoming infamous en perpetuity?

But a crucial point is that if we address the first three issues, the relative availability of firearms would've mattered less because you really don't need guns to kill people. It's ridiculously easy to fashion explosives, start a fire, etc. Whereas merely passing a law does not eradication something, see "The War On Drugs" for a background.

There is no golden ticket here. We need to have a long, hard conversation that addresses multiple issues. I said it the other day to someone at work- why is it that we see PSAs for breast cancer or vaccinations but there are none about men seeking mental help? It's still a social stigma. Moreover, if we weren't so violent as a nation, partially in games, movies etc, wouldn't people be less apt to feel guns necessary?

I think the way you rationalize things baffles me a little. I will flat out say this and it is something that I haven't seen anybody else have the balls to say;

The single biggest contributing factor to these mass murders in the US, IS the ease in which firearms are obtained in that country.

People like you say things like "if somebody was sick enough to want to cause this kind of harm to people, they would find a way to do it even if they couldn't get a gun." Yes, a knife CAN be deadly, but, in the US, even though people wanting to kill many people in a short time COULD use a knife to do it, the fact remains that it just doesn't happen that way. They use a gun. Or several guns. We all know that a knife CAN be deadly. So can a baseball bat, or a bomb which is built using information taken from the internet which may or may not work when you go to use it. Nobody does that in the US though. Why? Because an AR-15 is deadly with near military force right out of the package, and they are easily obtained. They are easy to use. Why would anybody fashion a crude bomb or use a knife when they can use a gun?

Here is one other factor with guns which is often overlooked. Using a gun gives these people the easy way out that they are looking for, after they have committed all of the destruction that they can. A lot of time, these people are at the end. They don't want to go to jail, they want to die. They just want to cause as much devastation as possible before they turn their incredibly convenient means of destruction on themselves, and pull the trigger. How many times have we seen these people kill themselves with the same weapons that they have used on the innocents as the police were closing in? It's all part of the plan. Take away those guns. Would somebody who wanted to cause a lot of destruction, who intended on killing themselves at the end of their rampage, use a knife to stab themselves after it was all over? If they couldn't get a gun and had to use a knife, would they be as likely to kill themselves with that knife? Or blow themself up with their own crude bomb? I don't think so... That in itself might deter some people.

Rylant

[dongjohnson]

I do have to agree, but not fully, Rylant. Again, the three most notorious recent public/mass shootings all had shooters with screws loose (idiot in theater, guy who shot Gabby Giffords and this scumbag). The reality is yeah, of course ease of guns has something to do with it. But you cannot put the cat back in the bag, wave a magic wand and make it all disappear.

With that being said, I think my proposal is arguably the most reasonable one I've heard thus far. Establish a national mental health database for EVERY sale, including private sales, require criminal background checks on every sale as well. HOWEVER, that is only one front of a larger war. The next part is to force awareness of mental health problems; specifically with males, since men commit 99% of these despicable acts. Also, establish some measure of free mental health care. Consider that many counties have general medical assistance, e.g. something like Medicaid, but few, if any, offer commensurate mental health services. Thirdly, make sure that there's more adequate security at schools, in general. If you're not going to have armed guards, put a police station next to every school campus. I'm not kidding there. With all the money Macy's spends to protect handbags, we scoff at a fraction of that for thousands of children. If we mean what we say, let's put our bleeping money where our mouth is.

Last but not least, we all need to shame the media into making the damnable shooters far less infamous. Of course, America has not the stomach for anything that is rational, monosyllabic or likely to be effective.

[arctic_rogue]

Last but not least, we all need to shame the media into making the damnable shooters far less infamous. Of course, America has not the stomach for anything that is rational, monosyllabic or likely to be effective.

I believe this could be an important tool in reducing these incidents. Create legislation that Heavily fines any broadcast organization for releasing the name of offenders. This is especially effective when the perp is killed as there is no public safety aspect related to releasing the person's name.

[Dakkster]

But it's true at this point; there's no hope of preventing criminals from acquiring firearms by passing yet another law. Sadly, we can't put the cat back in the hat on this one. The only people who will abide by what you're talking about are people like you and I, and despite being a long-time firearm owner, I've never aimed a gun nor shot anyone.

We both know half-measures like trying to ban certain types of weapons won't work. The idiot will find a shotgun in a barn somewhere if he really looks and a black market will develop just like it did for "assault weapons" before. Moreover, you cannot just make guns simply disappear- like it or not, that's the reality here.

With that defeatist attitude, you are part of the problem.

[Bomm Bastic]

I fail to see how PSAs for men seeking mental help has anything to do with the availability of assault weapons.

Furthermore, insane people (for want of a more clinical term) do not know they are insane, otherwise they wouldn't be insane.

And I think it would be a gross error to assume by default individuals "insane" (as if it carries some diagnostic criterion) solely because they commit mass murder. Focusing on this kid's Aspergers serves only to further and unnecessarily stigmatize a particular demographic. Feel free to substitute black man, Muslim, Arab, homeless man, poor etc. The next shooter will be under five-foot in height and we'll all be standing around the water cooler discussing primordial dwarfism as a causitive factor.

I do agree the larger issue is indeed multi-factorial, but first and foremost assault weapons need to be banned from public availability. There is no other purpose for them but to kill people. Merely using it to hunt doen't make it any less an assault weapon, no more than using a fork to eat soup makes it a spoon.

[cdubb]

Just think its sad that in the US it's easier to buy guns than to get health insurance for the majority of ppl.

If its only the psychotics that do the mass shootings at least make it harder for them to access high powered weapons.

Saw a funny picture that shows while all types of automatic weapons are legal to own in the USA, they banned Kinder Surprises chocolates.

About having police officers at every school - well it'll cost billions of dollars with all the different schools (98,000+ public schools, 33,000+ private). 130,000 * $75,000 = $9,750,000,000. Total may be less since school is off in summer, But you are going to get the retiring officers, not ones in their prime. Good luck having shootouts in a place with hundreds of children.

[Loch]

Just think its sad that in the US it's easier to buy guns than to get health insurance for the majority of ppl.

If its only the psychotics that do the mass shootings at least make it harder for them to access high powered weapons.

Saw a funny picture that shows while all types of automatic weapons are legal to own in the USA, they banned Kinder Surprises chocolates.

About having police officers at every school - well it'll cost billions of dollars with all the different schools (98,000+ public schools, 33,000+ private). 130,000 * $75,000 = $9,750,000,000. Total may be less since school is off in summer, But you are going to get the retiring officers, not ones in their prime. Good luck having shootouts in a place with hundreds of children.

No, this will totally work. There's no way a future school shooter will have the presence of mind to shoot the cop first!

Furthermore, none of the recent spree shooters have used body armour so one cop with a .38 is totally going to instantly stop them. (wait, they have... okay, outlaw body armour!)

People go on about the high gun ownership in places like Finland and Switzerland as proof that gun control is not necessary because those places have low homocide rates. The thing is, the guns, while not particularly limited, do have some requirements for ownership.
Take Switzerland for an example (info from http://www.gunpolicy.org):

Genuine Reason Required for Firearm Licence
Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Switzerland are required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example, hunting, target shooting, self-defence, and collection

Gun Owner Background Checks
An applicant for a firearm licence in Switzerland must pass background checks which consider mental, criminal and domestic violence records

Gun Owner Licensing Period
In Switzerland gun owners must re-apply and re-qualify for their firearm licence every 5 years

Does anyone think this sort of 'gun control' might be useful in the US?

[arctic_rogue]

No, this will totally work. There's no way a future school shooter will have the presence of mind to shoot the cop first!

Furthermore, none of the recent spree shooters have used body armour so one cop with a .38 is totally going to instantly stop them. (wait, they have... okay, outlaw body armour!)

People go on about the high gun ownership in places like Finland and Switzerland as proof that gun control is not necessary because those places have low homocide rates. The thing is, the guns, while not particularly limited, do have some requirements for ownership.
Take Switzerland for an example (info from http://www.gunpolicy.org):






Does anyone think this sort of 'gun control' might be useful in the US?

Definitely more involved than what we have in Canada. Either way, it's a vast improvement over the US system.

[Bomm Bastic]

There were two armed security guards at Columbine. How'd that go?

[arctic_rogue]

There were two armed security guards at Columbine. How'd that go?

Oops, Mis-quote on my part. I was referring to the gun legislation in Switzerland. Not outright banning, just making it more difficult to get guns. I know it won't fix all problems, and stuff can happen with legally acquired guns, but it's a step in the right direction.

Regarding armed guards at schools, I think it might work. But knowing that such guards are present could change the approach of a person intending to do harm. So it's clearly not a "fix" for the problem.

[Loch]

There were two armed security guards at Columbine. How'd that go?

Sometimes I underestimate the stupidity of people like the NRA... this is one of those times.

You know who doesn't often get shot? Prisoners. Incarcerate America's children so that they might be safe! (and also to cut off Bieber's income source, but mainly the safety thing)

[MXHockey]

Armed guards at every school isn't the answer. People who intend such acts as the Connecticut school shooting will just find another venue that's less difficult to navigate to commit the horrendous act.

The young men who did this in CT targetted the school because that's where the young man's mother worked. If she was a professor of a university, he likely would have went there. If she worked in a daycare or library, he probably would have shown up there. The targetted venue was a direct result of the family connection in play in this situation. To generalize it as a "school issue" isn't looking at the whole picture. Of course the safety of all children is important, but gun toting security guards at every school isn't the expensive answer that makes sense here.

It's impossible to predict the next incident and its location. America puts armed guards at schools - Does that mean every playground, local sporting venue, child care centre etc get armed guards too?

The NRA is obviously clueless on this matter, but when you really think about it, the NRA represents a small percentage of the value system of Americans in regards to gun policy. Wikipedia says 4.3 million Americans are registered, which is equivalent to less than 2% of the population.

Statements from the NRA should be treated as deserved, with no coverage or acknowledgement.