Connecticut school shooting

[hbelkins]

Surprised there has been no discussion of this event here.

(Steve's photo of a button-copy sign for Newtown and Sandy Hook is making the rounds on Facebook.)

[bugo]

The anti-gun nuts are going to use this as an excuse to ban guns.  They let the actions of a dozen lunatics dictate gun policy in the entire nation.

[Alps]

(Steve's photo of a button-copy sign for Newtown and Sandy Hook is making the rounds on Facebook.)

Has it made it outside of the roadgeek circle? I've seen one enthusiast use it as his image so far.

[NE2]

Surprised there has been no discussion of this event here.

Surprised it took this long. Why didn't Obama ban these threads like he promised?

[hbelkins]

(Steve's photo of a button-copy sign for Newtown and Sandy Hook is making the rounds on Facebook.)

Has it made it outside of the roadgeek circle? I've seen one enthusiast use it as his image so far.

I've seen it at least one other place, but darned if I can remember where at the moment.

[Molandfreak]

The anti-gun nuts are going to use this as an excuse to ban guns.  They let the actions of a dozen lunatics dictate gun policy in the entire nation.

I couldn't agree more! All you're going to do is make a black market for guns. These people are insane psychopaths and sociopaths, but they're not stupid

[NE2]

A normal reaction to a shooting: Holy fuck, that's horrible! (and then maybe 'how can we prevent this, take away their guns/give teachers guns, etc.')
A gun nut's reaction to a shooting: Holy fuck, they're going to take away my guns!

[Billy F 1988]

Stop, stop, stop, stop! Hold on here. Why are we so dead set on gun laws, Obama, and all this shit? Let's keep in mind the gentle and defenseless souls we all lost, not just the families of those affected by the tragedy. Leave this gun control shit to the lunatics on Facebook to argue about it. Because to be quite honest, no gun control law or ban can ever fix this problem at all. It will defeat the Second Ammendment to bear arms out of the equasion first of all. Secondly, any of you AAR members who are hunters will never be able to hunt for deer, elk, or whathaveyou should this be put into effect, that for which I know them gutless yellow-teethed cowards in D.C. won't dare do, unless they're stupid enough to pull a stunt like that. Our country has had enough issues and none of them are being fixed.

To put it in a way for all to understand better, Guns. Do. Not. Kill. People who are senseless, inconsoleable, and don't have any concern on human life are those that kill. It goes the same way when you are in your car, your wife's minivan, or your big rig hauling lumber. It's not cars or trucks that kill. People who have no sense of attention to the road kill.

Put your notions of religion, gun control, and all this mindless propaganda behind you and remember the people of Sandy Hook Elementary and the community of Newtown, Conneticut. If you really want to stand up to something like this, don't just sit there and get angry. Do something. Take on a toy drive for the children affected by the loss of their friends. Give money to the families who have to pay an exorbitant amount of money for funeral expenses. Get a prayer chain together with your congregation, I don't care what denomination it is. Whatever this may be, just don't sit on your Lay-Z-Boy recliner and suck in the anger and not proactively make your voice heard. I'd rather keep my guns than for the government to take them away. Let's be honest, peeps, fuck the government because they fucked up long enough. I've had it with these pundits who talk about gun laws, how we should control this, control that. None of this mindless talk is making any difference!

[NE2]

Yep. Guns don't kill. Gun nuts and bullets do.

[Brandon]

Yep. Guns don't kill. Gun nuts and bullets do.

No, people kill, whether it be by gun, bat, knife, hands, or in the case of the worst school massacre in the US, bomb.  Nuts will find a way regardless of the restrictions thrown at them.

As for gun bans, I lost faith in them a long time ago (ditto for the War on Drugs) due to the one in Chicago that just can't seem to keep guns out of the hands of gangs.  If they can't do that, then what's the point?

As far as I am concerned, have your gay marriage, with your Bushmaster, while smoking weed, and protesting the high taxes (now place me politically).

[NE2]

Bat nut talking point: check.

[Roadsguy]

Guns. Do. Not. Kill. People who are senseless, inconsoleable, and don't have any concern on human life are those that kill.

We need a way to "like" posts...

[english si]

There doesn't seem to be a correlation between gun ownership and homicides - sure the US has high rates of both, but Canada, Switzerland, Israel have lots of the former but not lots of the latter. The UK has low rates of both, but the Netherlands has high homicide rates, despite not many guns...

I've read your usual 'if in Texas/insert other redneck state, then a teacher would have shot him before he had a chance to kill more than a handful of kids' and 'if in the Bronx, or Southside, the kids would have killed him with a mixture of guns and shivs' nonsense, and your usual 'ban all the guns! ban all the guns!' kneejerks. However in all that, two good articles spring to mind:

This one written by a mother about how the only way her son, who is prone to violent outbursts, can get treatment is if she presses charges and gets him (normally a sweet boy) into the system by sending him to jail. It's an attack on a eggs-all-in-one-unpleasant-basket. Modern America has the Victorian London/Gotham City way of dealing with mental illness - send them to Bedlam!

This one talks about how school shootings didn't happen as often before the late 70s and puts the blame at the narcissistic culture of self-esteem, etc. that has taken off in America. Mass school shootings do seem to be a suburban/rural middle-class thing over in the States.

We had something similar to Sandy Hook in 1996 at Dunblane. After a massive public campaign (#1 single, etc, etc) we totally and utterly banned handguns for private use (the Olympics needed a law passed to enable people to train in the build up, and compete - due to some events involving illegal guns). Though given that, outside of Northern Ireland and criminal things, killing sprees involving guns have happened at a similar rate to before - one every 10-15 years that 'succeeds' and one every year or two that 'fails', killing maybe one person before the police stop it (likely with no firearms themselves).

[Brandon]

Bat nut talking point: check.

I take it you looked in the mirror before saying that, Dan.

[Brandon]

This one talks about how school shootings didn't happen as often before the late 70s and puts the blame at the narcissistic culture of self-esteem, etc. that has taken off in America. Mass school shootings do seem to be a suburban/rural middle-class thing over in the States.

That is something I have noticed as well with these shootings.  They're very rarely, if ever, in urban situations.  Even the kids being caught bringing a gun/knife/etc to a school tend to be in the more suburban schools.  We have two such public schools here in town - one urban, one suburban.  The suburban one has suffered from these kids bringing weapons to school, but the urban one hasn't, in spite of the reputation it has for gangs.

They may be on to something with the self-esteem culture.  It's something I've noticed with other folks (both sides of the political divide, I might add) in these same areas.  We teach everyone that they are special and they are unique, and that they cannot fail.  If they do fail, it's the fault of something else.  It's a bunch of bullshit, but that's what we teach kids.  They used to understand failure and how to overcome failure in school and early on.  But, we don't let kids fail now because it would be cruel to their self-esteem.

[agentsteel53]

the kids being caught bringing a gun/knife/etc to a school

that's a completely different kettle of fish.  there are some serious civil liberties violations going on when a person is expelled for bringing in a butter knife to prepare a lunch.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3758286

that said, I'd respond to an expulsion with "so long, you fascists!  let freedom ring!"

[Brandon]

the kids being caught bringing a gun/knife/etc to a school

that's a completely different kettle of fish.  there are some serious civil liberties violations going on when a person is expelled for bringing in a butter knife to prepare a lunch.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3758286

that said, I'd respond to an expulsion with "so long, you fascists!  let freedom ring!"

Very true.  I hate zero tolerance crappola.  It fails to note the difference between a switchblade or Crocodile Dundee-type knife and a butter knife for spreading jam on a biscuit.  One could make the same comment about the TSA robots before they learned that nail clippers are not the same as a box cutter.

[mgk920]

The anti-gun nuts are going to use this as an excuse to ban guns.  They let the actions of a dozen lunatics dictate gun policy in the entire nation.

I couldn't agree more! All you're going to do is make a black market for guns. These people are insane psychopaths and sociopaths, but they're not stupid

I'll echo my main sentiment here - I will *never* blame inanimate objects for the damage done when people misuse them.  Period.

Mike

[Scott5114]

To put it in a way for all to understand better, Guns. Do. Not. Kill. Ridiculously large text does. Have you ever had a 24-point letter M fall on your head? It hurts, guys. It hurts.

[hbelkins]

We need a way to "like" posts...

There are any number of "Like" images out there that you could link to.

No, people kill, whether it be by gun, bat, knife, hands, or in the case of the worst school massacre in the US, bomb.  Nuts will find a way regardless of the restrictions thrown at them.

The site of the Bath school bombing was included in a Michigan roadgeek meeting in Lansing a few years ago.

[Brandon]

We need a way to "like" posts...

I'll pass on that.  I used to comment on a blog where the purveyor began using "+" and "-" buttons to like/dislike comments.  It got really nasty after the first month or so.

[agentsteel53]

We need a way to "like" posts...

I'll pass on that.  I used to comment on a blog where the purveyor began using "+" and "-" buttons to like/dislike comments.  It got really nasty after the first month or so.

I will pass as well.  "me too" adds nothing to a discussion.

(says the guy who just wrote, effectively, a "me too" post.)

[roadman]

The anti-gun nuts are going to use this as an excuse to ban guns.  They let the actions of a dozen lunatics dictate gun policy in the entire nation.

I couldn't agree more! All you're going to do is make a black market for guns. These people are insane psychopaths and sociopaths, but they're not stupid

While I agree we shouldn't totally ban those weapons that still have a legitimate purpose in some aspects of society (like hunting rifles), nevertheless, we do need to revisit the need to retain an outdated Constutional amendment that makes it very difficult for the government to place very legitimate controls on the sale and use of said guns.  The knee-jerk cry of the gun folks "But it's my right under the Second Amendment" is not a legitimate justification for owning any weapon, let alone high-powered assault weapons whose sole purpose is to maim and kill multiple people in under 30 seconds.

[J N Winkler]

Personally, I favor moderate gun control.  The US has very high gun ownership and a much higher gun crime rate (absolutely, per capita, and per gun owner) than other First World countries with relatively high gun ownership such as Switzerland and Finland.  I believe that it is possible to make a fairly large reduction in the gun crime rate (including the near-elimination of mass shooting incidents) by eliminating the gun-show exemption, requiring a waiting period and background check for all firearms purchases, and limiting sale of high-yield guns and high-capacity magazines, without touching the guns that are already in legal ownership and use.

There are all kinds of counterarguments--"criminals will still be able to get guns," "the only people left with guns will be the criminals," etc.--but they deserve skepticism and cry out for factual challenge.  Criminals rely on a liquid market in legal firearms:  that is how you get hold of untraceable guns which can be used once in a single crime and then be disposed of in order to eliminate any risk from ballistics evidence.  In the last few mass shootings--the one in Newtown being the only exception that comes to mind--the guns were acquired for the specific purpose of the shooting and were not in the shooter's possession beforehand, and the shooter had no connections to the illegal arms trade which would have allowed circumvention of even mild purchase controls.

I don't favor a complete ban on ownership either of handguns or long guns, the aftermath of the Ludlow massacre being my principal reason for taking this position.  When officers of the state are so corrupt that they are openly bought and sold, and serving soldiers have picked up a taste for war crimes in dirty wars abroad, citizen possession of firearms helps move the balance of force back toward parity.

[hbelkins]

Reading roadman's post above about his feelings that the Second Amendment is outdated harkens me back to my Facebook post the other night.

I repeat it here:

As I read various points and counterpoints about gun control measures after last week's school shooting, one view I occasionally see is that the Second Amendment was written at a time when weaponry was vastly different and less advanced than it is today; that it was written during a time of muskets and black powder guns and that it should be applied differently today. The press was vastly different when the First Amendment was written, too. There were very few newspapers as we know them today, and there were certainly no such things as radio, television or the Internet. Yet should the First Amendment be applied differently just because of technological advances? It's funny how the beneficiaries of the freedoms and rights guaranteed by the First Amendment seem so eager to take away those guaranteed by the Second.