Dear God, what is the matter with America?
Another school shooting. High death toll. Few days before Christmas. Connecticut.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/27-people-dead … Mtxy2_tRGY
Those poor families!! It made me cry when I saw the headline that children were killed. I can't even begin to imagine how they are feeling right now.
When is the violence going to end?
This is heartbreaking! Whats it going to take to for the safety of our childtren to be a higher priority than the Gun Lobby? GUNS KILL PEOPLE!
Just shut up! I am sick of this same tired rhetoric! Go tell it to those parents!
I'll say what I want. People like you are the reason for this type of crime, the "I will go down whining crowd"! Please take my ability to fight back crowd, Guns do not kill people, people kill people!
Actually, he's right. People kill people. Angry people kill people. People get angry when they've beenn pushed down, abused, made to feel terribly, ugly, and more. They get angry when they're bullied, when they can't find work, when they try their guts out and they don't get anywhere, and then they are blamed for their lack of ability to succeed.
There are a lot of very, very angry people. And if you take away the guns, they'll just find another way to express the anger.
Get rid of the anger and the guns will lie on the table unused.
That said, because there is so much anger here, it's probably best to ban guns permanently.
People will just resort to homemade bombs when it's too much of a hassle to get guns. Actually, they already do that.
Maybe we need to ask ourselves how long can anger last – the maximum time taken to cool back? To as many as 99% of people, anger may last just between a few minutes to a few days.
Anger develops in at least the following four stages:
1. The building
2. The spark
3. The explosion
4. The aftermath
It’s during the explosion stage that we need not have those guns around. To most people, the explosion stage may last no more than a maximum of two days which is insufficient time for one to assemble and make use of bombs.
Let's do to the NRA what the Tea Party did to ACORN, without the crime, lying and help from CNN, of course. I am really sick and tired of the calls for "discussion". What's to discuss? That has gotten us nowhere.
Yes sadly, people do kill people, so you are right.
Guns just make it super-easy for them to do so
And gunmen never go where there are others with guns.
People kill people with guns! Sick of it! Taking guns from people will result in more death, that is about as stupid a statement I have ever heard. We don't need guns AT ALL!
Over 9,000 Murders by Gun in US; 39 in UK
Posted on 01/14/2011 by Juan
Number of Murders, United States, 2009: 15,241
Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2009: 9,146
Number of Murders, Britain, 2008*: 648
(Since Britain’s population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,240 US murders)
Number of Murders by[pdf] firearms, Britain, 2008* 39
(equivalent to 195 US murders)
*The Home office reported murder statistics in the UK for the 12 months to March 2009, but these are 12-month figures).
For more on murder by firearms in Britain, see the BBC.
The international comparisons show conclusively that fewer gun owners per capita produce not only fewer murders by firearm, but fewer murders per capita over all. In the case of Britain, firearms murders are 48 times fewer than in the US.
Do hunters really need semi-automatic Glock hand guns? Is that how they roll in deer season? The US public doesn’t think so.
It seems you are wrong about what the U.S. Public thinks.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/ballot … ins-strong
Does a hunter need a semi-automatic Glock? Depends on what the hunter is hunting. Our second amendment isn't about hunting anyway, its about the U.S. citizen being able to protect themselves from whatever. It is about a citizen being able to protect this country from whomever.
From your referenced article....Last month a shooter in Aurora, Colo., opened fire in a movie theater, killing 12 people and wounding 58 more. Last week, a gunman slayed six people at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin. And on Monday, three people were killed – including the gunman – after a man opened fire at on the Texas A&M University campus in College Station, Texas.
Yeah, guns are a great idea!
I wonder how many more innnocents will die because of a few crazies. We certainly don't need more guns, and I can't stand the argument, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Nobody needs to be carrying to be safe, if they think they do they have mental health issues.
Learn how to understand statistics. That is not conclusive proof of what you claim. Not even close.
Switzerland has as high a rate of gun ownership as the US, but a homicide rate that is one of the lowest in the world. Does that conclusively prove that higher gun ownership rates lower crime?
No. Crime isn't dependent on weapons!
Crime is the problem. The weapons used are just the weapons used. Getting rid of weapons won't get rid of crimes.
Also, the UK's gun-related crime rate jumped 35% last year. How could that happen if guns are banned?
Still doesn't even touch the numbers in the USA. I guess your defense of guns is just part of the problem in the good ol USA. Too many people packing who lack the good sense of many. Children constantly take their parents guns and accidentally shoot themselves, guess that ok also right. I mean people deserve to have guns right? GUNS ARE SO HELPFUL TO EVERYONE THAT WE SHOULD ALL HAVE ONE! Give me a break!
No, I was illustrating that more guns doesn't mean more crime.
Guns don't cause crime. They simply don't. We have a violent society, especially among poor urban demographics. Guns don't cause that.
If you want to get into accidents, then we won't disagree much. Everyone is responsible for their guns.
'Guns don't cause crime' 'We have a violent society' why does anything more need to be said? How would 27 people be taken out so quickly? None is responsible for guns. I wouldn't want to walk into anyone with one.
How would 27 be taken out so quickly? Sadly, it would be just as easy with a knife, easier with a bomb or even just gasoline.
The Aurora shooting, James had the knowledge to come up with a plan that would probably have killed every single person in that theater, but he went with a gun instead.
Do you actually believe the same thing could've happened with a knife? Someone would've been way more likely and able to intervene by having a physical altercation with the suspect. There IS a reason that guns and in particular semi-automatic and automatics were created. To make it easier to kill things in large numbers and/or from a distance with more ease and convenience for the shooter when considering combat/wars. So, you must be kidding.
It happened yesterday in china. 22 children stabbed to death.
"Twenty-two elementary school students were stabbed, so was an adult villager" but none of the victims died, the official, who declined to give his name, told AFP.
Had that been a semi-automatic rifle, they would have.
You don't know that, not everyone who is shot dies.
... Seriously, I think you're grasping.
There was a different stabbing where 8 children did actually die. But 8 vs. 20? Come on. Every life is precious, so any death is a concern, but guns are more effective which is why they were created, you can't get around that.
You have to think about the skill it would take for someone to stab 22 people fatally.
Now think how easy it would be with a semi-automatic rifle.
Of course its easier but you seem to discount the fact that 8 children died from a knife wielding attacker. When guns are outlawed do you think the insane people who do these things will just stop?
Clearly that's silly... People with the intent to hurt/harm will act it out. But when there are weapons that make it easier and probably more devastating at their disposal, there's an issue. My point is that guns make it easier and people won't admit that. I've now seen examples where knives can used in mass stabbings, and so there I stand corrected, but guns make it easier to kill more people. In a group of 22 kids being stabbed and 0 dying, if it had been a semi-automatic rifle, the death toll would NOT be 0. That's the point. Where people go from there with that information is up to them.
Only someone really psychotic would do what was done. If he was on Ritalin he should not have had access to the guns. But he did. The guns should have been in a locked safe.
When someone is psychotic, they're out of touch with reality. Most serial killers and mass killers do not fit that diagnosis - they fully understand what they are doing, and they are not hearing voices or imagining things that aren't there. Charles Manson was/is sane, but he is evil and is a sociopath. Ted Bundy was sane, but was a sociopath and a narcissist. Sociopaths are very (very) good at hiding their true selves from others, and very few become killers.
Suppose all the solutions to mental health (funding, treatment, etc.) were suddenly available? This would still not stop things such as Friday's incident, because there are few ways to determine that someone with a mental health disorder (there are many types of diagnosis) will become a killer. So you give the person treatment, but that's all you can do.
And (this part is scary), some mental health issues are not considered treatable or curable - sociopathy is one of them. Sociopaths are born without a conscience. This doesn't mean they are automatically killers (most are not), it just means they do not feel the guilt most of us feel when we violate a social norm. That can be anything - being rude to someone, speeding in traffic, being a ruthless business executive, etc. - or it can be something more dangerous, such as killing people.
Finally, the person believed to be the killer in Connecticut is said to have had autism. That is not a mental illness - it is a developmental disorder and it is not known for causing calculated acts of violence against others.
The only common denominator in mass shootings is the arsenal of guns those people assemble before they go on their rampages. Over the past four decades, those arsenals have expanded from the rifles used by Charles Whitman (who barricaded himself on top of the Tower at the University of Texas and picked off innocent people on the campus below) to assault weapons that can fire off dozens of rounds automatically, bullet-proof vests and other trappings usually seen on SWAT teams or used by attack forces.
Charles Whitman, by the way, appears to have had a brain tumor, and did not demonstrate behavior that signaled he was going to leave his home one day and kill people. Brain tumors do not equate to mental illness.
That was very informative except for one part that I disagree with. Not all sociopaths are born that way. Sociopathy is possible for anyone who comes to see societies and their norms for exactly what they are. Norms. Lines drawn. Mental boxes created for many different purposes, some very important, some less important. I'd call them functionalists if they're like me. I may "lack a conscience," but I certainly wasn't born without getting that feeling. "Sociopathy" is at the opposite end of insanity. Ie, we're very much in touch with reality. More than those in positions of power or authority tend to like. And we don't need that sick feeling in the stomach feeling to follow social norms, but we are also not a slave to social norms. I follow the ones that seem important for society to continue to function and more properly, and that help people as well as myself. Anything small in nature however, I could care less about. As long as I'm not hurting someone, it probably doesn't have to be followed religiously. And I come to most of my conclusions based on logic and reason. Of course I make "mistakes," but I don't beat myself up about it. I simply fix it if it really seems to need fixing. Sociopathy becomes a problem when you're a sociopath that lacks empathy, if you are constantly alone, if you do not deal with your emotions properly, etc. But I'm not worried, because if I am a slave to anything, it is sympathy/empathy and I'm very much in touch with my emotions, but not a slave to them.
Please note that I did NOT say anything to suggest sociopaths were 'born that way.' Some people personally believe sociopaths are that way from birth, but mental health literature does not go into that. It does, however, say they are not considered 'curable.'
They can get counseling, and perhaps can control harmful behaviors, but they generally do not 'grow a conscience.' They are manipulative, and often spend considerable energy learning to 'act' normal (as in, acting like they have empathy, or pretending to be sorrowful), but they do not have a conscience, and do not feel guilt or remorse the way we do.
By the way, a hallmark of sociopathy is a lack of empathy (and lack of conscience). Many people talk about sociopathy but haven't researched the diagnostic definition of it. There are three terms that are somewhat interchangeable, and they're actually evolutions of the same general diagnosis: Psychopaths, Sociopaths & Anti-Social Personality Disorder. The original term in the 1900s) was Psychopath, then they changed it to Sociopath, and the current term is Anti-Social Personality Disorder (APD). I personally feel that last term sanitizes it way too much - people hear it and think it means someone isn't 'friendly.'
Some people think 'Psychopath' means 'crazy,' but that is also not the case. "Crazy" isn't a diagnosis. But the term 'Psychotic' is and the two words are NOT the same thing. A person with psychosis is out of touch with reality.
At any rate, if we hear the word "Psychopath," or "Sociopath," we think of someone who is potentially dangerous (and this is appropriate - they can be very dangerous, and they can also not be dangerous). According to some literature, about four percent of the population are sociopaths (Martha Stout - "The Sociopath Next Door"). Some people try to parse out a slight difference between Sociopaths, Psychopaths and Anti-Social Personality Disorder - but the three are usually considered the same thing with different labels given over a period of several decades.
"And (this part is scary), some mental health issues are not considered treatable or curable - sociopathy is one of them. Sociopaths are born without a conscience." What you said earlier. Sorry for the confusion?
Perhaps I'm using the term "sociopath" incorrectly. However, I don't think I am. My sense of moral responsibility isn't laid in with emotions, so I don't "feel bad" when I do something "wrong." My moral compass lives very much in my head, not my "heart." I don't like many social conventions, norms, etc, but I'm a functionalist in that I follow most of them because I understand their benefit for society as a whole as well as the individual. I do have empathy, it's very important to me, but not because I feel like I have to show empathy. It's just how I am. Maybe I'm not officially a sociopath because I care about society functioning well and have empathy? I'll have to find a better term to describe myself.
Just based on what you're saying, I would say you should indeed find another term to describe yourself. Sociopathy is not a term to be used lightly, or without proper diagnosis. Many people act in moral ways out of a sense of duty and responsibility rather than 'emotion.' And some people feel 'guilt' more severely than others (or feel more depth to their emotions in general).
But sociopathy is far more complicated than just those issues - it's the sort of person who can deliberately and knowingly harm someone (even if it's not a severe type of harm) and just brush it off and not feel guilt. It's the sort of person who does not see others as 'people,' instead they view them as 'things,' or vehicles to use for their own goals. Those are broad descriptions, but are the type of thing sociopaths are known for, to one degree or another.
I didn't discount it. A sentence or two after I specifically said that the importance of those 8 children dying wasn't dimished, and then I said that my point was specifically that guns are more effective and people won't admit that. Any death is sad and any violent one is especially sad and unnecessary. The problem is guns are simple and make it easier.
"In one of the worst attacks, a man described as an unemployed, middle-aged doctor killed eight children with a knife in March 2010 to vent his anger over a thwarted romantic relationship."
" No motive was given for the attack, which resembled a string of similar assaults against Chinese schoolchildren in 2010 that killed nearly 20 and wounded more than 50."
"A man, who stabbed six children and a teacher to death at a kindergarten in China’s northern city of Hanzhong has committed suicide, a local official announced Wednesday. At least 20 people were wounded in the assault, the fourth in a string of savage attacks on primary schools over the past two weeks, which left over 70 people wounded. Security around most kindergartens has been tightened.
According to the New York Times it could and did happen. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/world … .html?_r=0
If someone with a knife attacks you from 21 feet away or less, without special training, you are more likely to be killed by him than you are able to shoot him and stop him.
Only 10-20% of people who are shot end up dying. Only a fraction of those die or stop instantly. It's not like the movies.
And once again, anybody can make a devastating weapon from easily bought items... we're lucky that these psychos settle for guns.
No Jaxson. In the Uk in 1996 a man with a machete launched an attack on kindergarten children, parents and the kindergarten teacher. In trying to protect those children, the kindergarten teacher sustained very serious injuries as did some of the little kids. But thankfully no fatalities; if he'd had a gun they'd likely all be dead.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date … 496685.stm
Do you really want to know why Switzerland has a low homicide rate?
Because they are allowed to bear arms but not allowed to have any ammunition in their homes. Check it out:
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Specials/Gu … cid=970614
All the ammo is stored in central arsenals - so if you want to go shooting, you first need to go to the central arsenal to ask permission for ammo and explain why you want it...
No reason why something similar couldn't be enacted in the USA, and it doesn't even need Congressional permission, the President can just issue an Executive Order. And it's legal - the constitution says you have the right to bear arms, but says nothing about the right to bear ammunition.
If Obama had any guts he'd issue the order ASAP, watch the homicide rate drop, and leave it to his successor to argue that really, America is much better off with kindergarden children being killed and therefore he wants to rescind the order...
This is an interesting point, my husband also brought it up earlier this evening. If people can't get ammo for the guns, they would be useless.
Yup - and it would be so easy for the President to do - he's just been elected, he doesn't face re-election, he clearly doesn't want the misery of doing yet another speech about another set of un-necessary deaths. So why not just ban ammo with an executive order and see what happens.
At least he'll have some peace in terms of lower homicide rates for the next four years, and he can leave it to his opponents to argue against the evidence that will build up.
Ok, so they banned ammunition at home in 2007.
What was their rate before that? Did it change anything?
In 2002, their homicide rate was 0.9 per 100,000. Just goes to show that it's not policy, it's society. If you have a society of crime, weapon laws don't really matter. If you don't, they still don't really matter.
Did you know that among whites in the US, our homicide rate is right on par with Switzerland's?
I'm not sure the "white" argument actually works out well for you. Did you know that pretty much all these mass massacres are committed by white people (though I understand that a Korean-American took part in one of them). And there hasn't been a single massacre in Switzerland for decades. But there have been six this year in the USA, five of which were carried out by "white" people, one by a Korean.
Clearly white Americans do not have much in common with white Swiss people at all - cultural differences dontcha know, or maybe different shades of "white" if you are into that sort of thing, LOL.
What is clear is that American culture, and guns, don't really mix.
In this particular instance we had a mother who knew her youngest son was mentally unstable, and still bought and kept weapons within his reach.
Are you really saying that this stupid woman's right to purchase weapons and knowingly place them within reach of her unstable son was greater than the rights of the children to go to school and not be killed? Really?
You are being disingenuous to suggest there is no correlation between high rates of gun ownership and high gun homicide rates across the world.
The U.S. and Switzerland are ranked first and third respectively by rate of gun ownership (in second place is Yemen).
The U.S.,and Switzerland also happen to be the only developed countries that appear in the top 45 by rates of gun homicides per 100,000 population. (We can discount Liechtenstein as an anomaly because its entire population is around 40,000 and its 1 single homicide was with a firearm, giving it a 100% gun homicide rate. Its population size is also too small for its gun ownership numbers to be meaningfully ranked).
So the U.S. and Switzerland are the two developed countries with the highest rate of gun ownership, and the two developed countries with the highest rate of gun homicide per 100,000 population. That's a positive correlation. Is there a negative correlation?
Japan and Poland are the two developed countries with the lowest rates of gun ownership. Both countries also happen to be in the bottom 11 countries by gun homicide rate per 100,000 population. Japan actually has the lowest gun homicide rate of any developed country in the world.
So there is a very strong positive and negative correlation between rates of gun ownership and rates of gun homicide per 100,000 population in developed countries. No correlation conclusively demonstrates a causal relationship, however it can be a strong indicator.
Conclusion? It is a fact that there is a strong indicator of a casual relationship between high rates of gun ownership, and high rates of gun homicide per 100,000 population in developed countries around the world.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog … world-list
Your facts are very wrong, sorry. Greece, Spain, Canada, Ireland, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Denmark, Portugal, Norway, Luxembourg, Israel, Belgium, Austria, and others all have higher gun-homicide rates than Switzerland.
It is a fact that even as gun-ownership and carry-permits have skyrocketed in the US over the last two decades, the homicide rate has dropped tremendously as well.
Not sure what you are looking at, but you are wrong. Here is the data (apologies for the uneven formatting):
Country Gun homicide rate per 100,000
United States 2.97
Discounting Liechtenstein for reasons I explained earlier, the U.S. and Switzerland have the highest rates of gun homicide per 100,000 population than any other developed countries in the world. The U.S. and Switzerland also happen to have the 1st and 3rd highest level of gun ownership in the world (not just among developed countries).
By contrast, the developed countries you mention all have lower rates of gun ownership, and lower rates of gun homicide per 100,000 population:
Country Gun homicide rate per 100,000
Japan has a lower rate of gun ownership than any other developed country in the world, and also has a lower rate of gun homicides per 100,000 population than any other developed country on the world. Likewise, Poland has the second lowest rate of gun ownership in the world, and is in the bottom 11 by rate of gun homicides per 100,000 population.
Country Gun homicide rate per 100,000
The data speaks for itself. There is a strong positive and negative correlation between levels of gun ownership, and rates of gun homicide per 100,000 population in developed countries across the world. While this is not categorical evidence of a casual relationship, it serves as an indicator to a causal relationship.
Japanese smarter then us on two fronts, gun control and buying their "Own" manufactured products. Keeping big box stores like Walmart out!
It's actually 1.28
It's actually 0.76
It's actually 1.03
It's actually 1.77
It's actually 1.45
It's actually 0.59
It's actually 0.63
It's actually 1.1
It's actually 1.25
Your data is apparently quite wrong. My numbers come from (Mostly) the WHO 2012 reports.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … death_rate
Your data is "firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population in one year." Don W's data is "Homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 pop."
Two different things.
The dataset you are using is an amalgam of different datasets, spanning different years and from different sources. The range between years in some cases is more than a decade.
I am using a single dataset which was compiled by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) through its annual crime survey. I believe this data is more robust. You can download the raw data yourself in a spreadsheet here.
The Guardian newspaper also uses UNODC data and you can see the same figures posted online.
In addition, the Washington Post published a story yesterday (after my comment was posted): "The U.S. has far more gun-related killings than any other developed country". It shows this graphic indicating the rates of gun homicide per 100,000 population:
The source is cited simply as "United Nations" so I don't know exactly what dataset they are using, but this dataset also clearly shows that the United States and Switzerland have the highest rates of gun homicide per 100,000 population than any developed countries (Chile and Turkey are in fact developing countries). The U.S. and Switzerland also happen to have higher levels of gun ownership than any other developed countries in the world.
The graphic also shows Japan as having a lower rate of gun homicide per 100,000 population than any other developed country. Japan happens to also have the lowest rate of gun ownership. And Poland, which has the second lowest rate of gun ownership, is also shown in this chart as being in the bottom 7 by homicide rates per 100,000 population (in my dataset they were in the bottom 11).
It is irrefutable that there is a strong correlation between levels of gun ownership, and rates of gun homicide per 100,000 population. This is a fact referred to by multiple sources. This correlation serves as an indicator to a causal relationship.
That chart has to be at least a decade old.
The WHO data is all up-to-date, it's just that some countries haven't published new figures for a long time.
Let's just disagree, you like your data better, I don't. I can guarantee that a discussion delving into the source of the data in each set, and the methodologies used, wouldn't survive in this forum.
The WHO data you mention is from a report called the "European Detailed Mortality Database". You'll be waiting a long time for U.S. data to be published in that report. So using WHO data in that dataset alone, you couldn't make the same comparisons even if you wanted to.
And the figure for Switzerland is from a paper dating back to 1998! Why would you baulk at a chart you think is using decade old data (I don't think it is) but happily accept data that's a decade and a half out of date?
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the higher the level of gun ownership, the higher the level of gun homicides per 100,000 population. The lower the level of gun ownership, the lower the level of gun homicides per 100,000 population.
The moment we begin to ignore facts because they are inconvenient for our argument, is the moment we begin to desert reason. And reason is the one thing we need to keep hold of in a debate about firearms.
Which is why they should have at least some form of assessment to ensure, as far as is possible, that they will not pose significant harm to others, ie, innocents.
There are assessments in place you can't just walk into a gun store and buy a gun without a background check. Now having said that the Oregon shooter stole the weapon he used and its too early to say how this latest shooter got his. News reports concerning this are all over the place and not too reliable at the moment. The first person identified as the killer wasn't the killer, so I will wait until it is sorted out before I claim anything, You should try it.
I wasn't accusing anyone or even attempting to name suspects. But suggesting that that a more rigourous assessment in terms of mental health etc may be beneficial in the long run. Hate to burst your bubble, but that was a suggestion not a claim- massive difference.
Why does anyone need a gun? I don't understand.
1 - Fun
2 - Hunting(hunting is still valid for several reasons)
3 - Defense
4 - Collector's items
5 - Sport
6 - Because they just want them.
You forgot to mention shooting up public areas!
'fun'? I'm disturbed. Get a less destructive hobby.
Get a toy one if you need such a phallic symbol to display!
Guns can be fun. I used to really enjoy skeet shooting with a shotgun. Hitting fast moving clay targets is challenging, and nothing is harmed except for a clay disk. Hubby and I own guns, but I really don't see the need for semi-automatic weapons.
You know, this may or may not be relevant. But our popular cultures UK and US, really glamourise gun violence. We see films with the likes of Van Dam et.al. with their semi automatics and they're always portrayed as heroes and super cool people. I know that the majority of us can watch these kinds of movies and not be remotely influenced, but the people who commit these horrific acts can hardly be sane- I'm just thinking about a case in the Uk almost twenty years ago where two school boys took a toddler and murdered him. Later, after they had received some kind of psychological assessment- it was noted that they had been watching the chuckie movies and some of the torturous acts they committed were exactly what had happened in these movies.
1 - You ignore every other use.
2 - What is destructive about using guns for fun? Are you offended if I shoot some old Pepsi cans? Is that hurting anybody?
And most importantly, it doesn't matter whether you understand why people want guns or not - people do, and to advocate prohibition is to advocate violence.
Nothing is wrong with America, something is very wrong with certain people! Do you think we hold a class on how to kill innocent people? There should never be a "gun free zone"! These types of crimes don't occur at police stations,gun ranges they occur where cowards KNOW that nobody else is an immediate threat to them! Teachers regardless of laws against firearms should arm themselves and fight back, taking guns from citizens of this country will result in more death and mayhem.
START FIGHTING BACK!!
Yeah, teachers should be armed. Let's ensure that kids grow up around guns, let's teach them how to protect themselves by killing people who are just like them, armed. The world according to Repairguy. Bit like Wayne's world only funnier.
Would one armed Teacher been able to have helped some of these children, seems possible to me. Would you rather these children never know how to protect themselves if necessary? His world may be funnier than waynes world but your world exposes more children to danger than need be.
His world may be funnier than waynes world but your world exposes more children to danger than need be.
I'm afraid that statement is incorrect. My world, or the laws of the land in Britain, are far from perfect. And yes, we have experienced horrific events such as this but on a much smaller scale even taking into account the fact that we have a much smaller population than the US. My world does not expose children to danger because we don't just allow people to acquire guns and carry them. The fact is, children in Britain are much safer because of our gun laws. And that is a fact!
That is a very strong statement, if you come to think of it.
Its either the government provide good guns to the 312 million citizens of American or they take away all guns from the citizens. Theories will explain that this guy could as well have killed all these people with an ordinary kitchen knife if his aim was to have them dead. In life, not all theories are practical. In Europe, carrying a gun is strictly forbidden and has practically resulted in fewer murders per capita. Borrowing or copying a workable idea, from another region, is acceptable and quite in order - why should you struggle to reinvent a wheel when another guy in Europe has already invented one?
Now, 27 people, who were born and raised up by men and women, lay down there dead. And if they are dead, they are dead! - they will not come back to life tomorrow. There is not much we can do other than send condolences, sympathies and flowers. The murderer comfortably closed the chapter by killing himself. The courts can not do much now that the murderer is dead. That’s how ‘friendly’ our laws are. These laws were written down by our ancestors. They are good laws because our forefathers were intelligent just like their children are. Our forefathers also taught us that there is nothing cast in stone.
These types of murders have frequently been happening to our children, especially in schools. Its not the first time, neither the second or third, it’s the (n+1)ⁿ time it has happened. Tomorrow, it will happen again and we shall just send flowers and condolences and wait for another day.
Over the years, we have been evolving. Very many years ago, we were all hunters and gatherers. We enjoyed and loved hunting using arrows and simple traps. Then we evolved farther where every male had to be armed to the teeth with all manner of crude weapons just in case an enemy killed one of your own. At that time, the law of the jungle required one to pay a blood price which was at least equal to the number of people you have killed. This crude law of the jungle took into consideration that 27 can not be equal to one. The deficit had to be paid by your blood relatives and friends. The reasoning was that your blood relatives and friends should have stopped it before it happened. Obviously, we now have evolved considerably since then and no one should suggest we practice that crude law of the jungle.
The bottom line is: these cold murders of people and especially children are unacceptable in a modern society. A solution need be found anyway we can, but lets get it right.
Had the mom not had guns in the house accessible to this crazy, it wouldn't have happend. This happens more then not. Leave the protecting to law enforcement. Have your guns locked up, unloaded, and for recreational use only! Personally, I see no use for guns in a home where children might accidently get a hold of them. Nothing more then an accident waiting to happen. And yes, it could happen to you!
I have been crying and shaking all day. This is a few towns away but the police are at our schools right now in case other shooters were involved. There has been conflicting information all day. Please send your prayers and thoughts to the families. How is it so easy for people like that to get weapons?
There were two gunmen? One is dead, where is the other?
I saw one report that they had a suspect under arrest, but he insists he had nothing to do with it. Gunman inside school is dead.
I'm still crying too. I just can't stop thinking about it.
They arrested a suspect but still are not sure there were two gunmen involved.
I'm still crying, this is awful
Guess it brings back memories of the Dunblane Massacre to me.
Hope there are no hubbers here from Newtown, or those with family there.
How tragic for everyone involved, especially at this time of the year.
I was just thinking of that tragedy, too, Izzy. I remember that terrible incident.
This morning I left the house to have a pleasant breakfast with a good friend, and I drove past a school where there were lines of cars of parents dropping off their kids. So many people do everything they can to ensure their children are in safe communities going to good schools. Just an hour or so later, I was driving back past the school again, on my way home, listening to the radio in disbelief. I'm sick with sorrow for the poor families who are dealing with the horror of today's event.
This is the second US shooting in about a week. Indeed - the question of the hour is, "What is happening to America?"
I am from the U.S., and sit in disbelief as yet another massacre of school children happens, and our government refuses to change the gun laws, because they are guaranteed by our Constitution. That was written at a time when people needed to hunt for food, and is certainly outdated and unneccessary anymore. Hunters and Right Wing Conservatives insist that to curb the gun laws in the U.S. would be awful, and their motto is "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." it's so short sighted. There are very short waiting periods and unless you are a hardened criminal with a long prison record, you can get an automatic weapon, which nobody needs to hunt anyway. A criminal can get a gun anywhere anyway, and we have gun shows, so basically it is easy for anyone who wants a gun to get one, mostly in the Southern states. I believe the U.S. has the most deaths from guns than any country in the world. It's shameful, My heart goes out to these poor families, who did not do anything to deserve this. How heartbreaking, and yet we hear it all the time, and our government refuses to oppose the NRA, the powerful gun lobby.
I'm from the U.S., too, Jean - I live in Texas, where the 'pry my cold dead hands' phrase is practically a mantra, and where Charles Whitman killed more than a dozen people from the top of the UT Tower more than 40 years ago. Unlike the U.S., Canada has strict gun laws, and yet the gun rights group in the U.S. resist making the connection between the high number of incidents of mass killings in our country compared to the apparent safety people enjoy in Canada.
As Izzy said, we need to ask what's wrong with America. This cannot continue unchecked.
Canada has 1/3 more population than Australia. But surprisingly, Canada records less deaths from (illegal or legal) guns than Australia does in its crimes stats.
I agree 100 percent. In the past as a former and retired US Naval Officer and a Native American I would have argued against gun control but something has to change. This can not continue to happen over and over.
Something is horribly wrong in a country where this continues to happen over and over again. I convey my heart felt grief and I wonder what do we do to make sure this never happens again. Because if we don't make changes it will be repeated. I worry it may be too late already. I pray the parents of those little children find peace.
No amount of laws would have kept this evil animal from commiting this horrific crime. He was hell bent on killing himself and taking as many as possible with him. Even if he hadn't gotten the guns from his mom, he would have found another way to obtain them. Believe it or not, their are criminals out there that will sell you just about anything you want regardless of any laws. Making more laws will not change that. It will not prevent evil animals from perpetrate heinous crimes. That don't care how hard you make it, they are determined. That is obvious from the planning he made.
Research has shown that evil animals are more apt to prey on the helpless.
In Colorado, a concealed carry state, the evil animal that killed the people in the movie theater, chose the one that advertised that no firearms were allowed. There were other theaters closer and larger, but they did not post any prohibition against firearms. Just the one he went to. Why do you suppose that is?
Would it be possible that if one teacher or one of the staff in CT. had a gun, the carnage might be much less that it is? Evil preys on the weak and helpless first. It is less likely to prey on those that show a predispostion to stand up to it and have the tools to do so.
People with a mental problem are not Evil animals, they are sick people. And this kind of Paranoid mindset will stigmatize them more and people will be even less likely to seek help for themselves or those close to them.
Also too many Americans have seen Red Dawn too many times or have a love affair with the tales of the old west. Both scenarios are Hollywood, not real life, but I truly think this has influenced some to romanticize gun ownership.
I have never heard of anyone romanticizing gun ownership but I have heard the ignorant demonize gun ownership.
So sad, this just underscores that this can happen anywhere. My heart goes out to the parents and other family members.
Guns should be banned in America. This sort of thing doesn't really happen where guns aren't available freely.
According to the latest news brief, there are 20 students and six adults among the victims. The school's enrollment was about 450, so nearly five percent of the students were killed in just a few minutes of a rampage. I don't know the number of faculty & staff, but I suspect six adults would be maybe 10 percent of the adult employees.
Incredible. And of course we don't know whether there are others who might still be lost due to the severity of their injuries.
We need a system to protect us against this sort of thing. The system must be reliable, high performance, and cost effective.
I KNOW! I just now saw the news! I am devastated and shocked like we all are.....what IS happening? These crazy public shootings are occurring in closer succession all the time! Theaters, Malls, schools........My heart is just aching for these people.......Children, babies.....OMG
I heard it on the news and then watched as President Obama addressed the nation. I don't understand why people have to take another life, child or adult. Whatever is going on in your life that brings you to the point of murder, why not just drive yourself somewhere secluded, leave a note for someone and take yourself out of the misery of life. Life is so precious, and we just treat it like it's a piece of dirt on the ground -so small and insignificant if we take it away it won't be missed. Lord, please help this world get better. I pray for all of the people and families involved.
The problem with the persons involved in recent massacres is that they have not been treated for mental illness correctly or not at all. Many people don't recognize serious signs of an illness and just view the person as eccentric. Some teens with schizophrenia grow up to be adults without supervision and dont take their meds. Yes, guns kill people and so do knives, hammers, arrows and hands.
I wish all involved will heal from this extremely traumatic event. Those little children will be emotionally scarred for life.
The gunmen is on the less severe side of the autistic spectrum, according to resources for CNN.
Autism is not a mental illness (there's considerable discussion about this on news stations, to help clarify confusion), and it's also not associated with "planned violence."
In addition, not everyone who kills is mentally ill (some are just plain evil or have criminal intent), and most assuredly, personality disorders or other mental issues are in no way an indication that someone would attack others.
I teach a university course titled "Serial Killers as Heroes in Popular Culture" (the 'heroes' part means they are the main topic or theme in movies, books, news coverage and interactive games, among other vehicles). One assumption students often have is that all killers are sociopaths, and another assumption is that all sociopaths (or psychopaths, ad they're also known) are killers. Neither assumption is correct.
As we go through the course, it's palpably clear that the degree of violence in pop-culture vehicles has escalated dramatically in recent decades. In the early 1900s, movies about murderers suggested violence rather than graphically depicting it. Now, we even have role-playing games where people act out mass killings and are rewarded for it by gaining higher status among others playing the game.
Add to this phenomena the concerns raised in the U.S. about gun control (note - I said control, not elimination) and perhaps we have a mix that has created a lethal situation of glamorizing violence in a society that (perhaps) has insufficient measures for keeping guns out of the wrong hands.
I agree that all people who kill are not mentally ill, I disagree that people like serial killers and this guy yesterday are not insane, they most definitely are.
I did not say serial killers are not mentally ill - many of them (maybe all) have disorders. I said it is incorrect to assume sociopaths are killers, and that all killers are sociopaths. Sociopathy is only ONE mental disorder, and a main characteristic of it is a lack of remorse. Many killers indeed lack remorse, but not all.
Also, socipathy is not the same as insanity. Insanity (usually termed psychosis) is being out of touch with reality. Ted Bundy is one example of a serial killer who was not insane. He was, however, a sociopath.
Marcy, I replied to Habee earlier discussing exactly this issue about guns, glamorisation and popular culture. Can you tell that one of the units I studied at Uni was crime and popular culture?
Humm. I heard the news and I was as shocked as anyone. I'm a father of two girls myself.
Here in France, we have a lot, I mean a lot of young thugs armed with Kalashnikovs and all kinds of poor kids, carrying previous european wars weapons, sold in the black market for peanuts.
Carrying a gun is stricly forbidden in europe. Officially. In reality, "bandits" seem to be better armed than the police.
But, we've never seen the horrendous spectacle of one of those well armed young sharks shooting into a school playground.
Guys who do that must belong to another entirely different profile. Nothing to do with "laws" about weapon trade.
Who are they ?
Don't blame the easy mark people [guns], blame your local state and federal officials for dumping all thier revenue into stuff like pension funds of teachers , local state and federal unions . And tearing apart the revenues of state hospitals and mental institutions . All the wackos are now on the street! The moral of the story ........They buzzed this guy into the school carrying at least two semi auto rifles !!!!! Uhh wheres the common sense there ! Heres one for you ......What if the first teacher he pointed at had a gun ?
He was the child of a teacher, they just said that would automatically get him in, obviously they did not see his weapons.
And what if the first teacher was a lousy shot, or got shot as soon as he lifted his or her gun? More guns are not the answer. I don't know what is but arming ever single person will not cut down on the number of deaths.
How do you not see automatic rifles? What if the Teacher didn't miss?
So, are you saying they deliberately let him in even though they saw his weapons?
I'm saying common sense was not used. Why let him in just because he is a child of a teacher the first priority of the school should be the safety of the children.
People slip up. I'm sure no one expected a gunman to come in, especially if they had seen him around before. Of course it should never have happened and I'm sure tighter security will come to all schools because of this. But it seems no amount of security can stop someone from doing what he or she wants if they want it that badly.
The truest thing you said was this, no amount of security can stop someone from doing what he or she wants if they want it that badly. Then why blame an inanimate object as so many do? Yes, security at those schools will change, they should have changed long ago.
Do you think he would have given her time to get it out? Or should the teacher be wearing a gunbelt? You right it is not the guns, but there is a problem with the easy access to guns.
Actually, every government employee is required to contribute to their pension fund, just as we are all required to pay into Social Security and Medicare. Government employees and Social Security recipients didn't make up those rules, and they didn't generate the formula used for payments
Are you saying that people who were forced to pay into those systems for decades should not get the 'benefits' they were promised? I'm sure many people would have happily kept the many thousands of dollars they had to pay over the years so they could have invested it on their own, but that wasn't an option. Money is taking out of paychecks before employees even get them.
Today's incident has nothing to do with pension funds or Social Security. We live in a world where (especially here in the U.S.) there are movies glamorizing mass killers on big and small screens every day. Anyone can get assault weapons and stockpile them, legally or illegally, and many movies make it appear that arming yourself to the gills and storming a public area is a cool thing to do. It doesn't take much for someone who is already a few cards short of a deck to create a fantasy scene in their troubled mind. That's just one small piece of the puzzle, but I personally believe it's in the mix.
The census numbers for this little town were not quite 30,000 just a few years ago - it will be rare for anyone in this small community to not be personally affected by this tragedy.
I can't stop crying. No words. None. In memory of the victims, especially the children, I'm silent for now.
Actually, yes - and it was easier than it is to get some prescription drugs.
I doubt that, unless you have to call a federal agency every time you need to have a prescription filled. I am aware of what is involved in purchasing firearms and buying prescription drugs, I have never had a problem buying either but it took less time to get the prescription filled.
It doesn't matter who runs the system. What matters is that it is effective in preventing tragedies like this. This must never happen again. The system needs to be comprised of an element that detects threats, and responds to them successfully. It must be cost effective in that it can protect all schools, hospitals, and playing areas in the US. There must be a method for determining reliability and performance.
I think if you read rebekahELLE's post you will see that it does indeed matter who runs the system.
The first step in the design of a system is to elicit its requirements. This will ultimately lead to a systems specification. But first a requirements specification is needed. I know the system must be reliable, cost effective, and have optimum performance levels. My question is what else does it require?
Systems of gun control or access will not prevent this from happening. There are black markets and insane people. The system must be resilient enough, robust enough to handle both of these segments of our population. The first step in designing a system is to define what it has to do. Please help me.
I just recently heard this news and couldn't believe it. I can't imagine how sad the families and community feel at this time. I know how sad it makes me and I don't know any of them. Horrifying.
I don't know enough to comment any further. I work at a private school and there is no access to the part of the school where the children are unless you're a parent of a child or a teacher/administrator. The only access is with biometric fingerprint entry.
Such sadness at any time is hard to accept, but terribly sad during the holiday season.
The beat goes on and the murder continues. Guns and large capacity magazines are all too available in this crazy society. If one the teachers had a gun, they would have been jsut as likely to hit nothing or to shoot another innocent victim. We must address the ready availability of assault rifles and limit the amount of ammo that any idiot can buy. Maybe Jimmy Carter was right...
I agree - and since we have now had shootings at movie theaters, malls, schools, colleges & all sorts of other places, what are we supposed to do, arm the box office staff at theaters and the clerks in all the malls? Along with arming teachers?
If there were something we could do, it would have to perform well at protecting children and students, it would also have to be always on or not easily broken, and it would have to be something we can pay for. Can you think of anything else it would have to be?
What other right are you willing to give up? Would free speech be one, you know if that pesky free speech thing is done away with then hate speech will just be a thing of the past. How about the 4th amendment, the police can just waltz in and take a look through your things because you never know what you might be hiding.
Are you that afraid that you are willing to give up your rights?
You don't have to arm anyone, just don't prevent them from arming themselves.
Banning guns might be a good start. Why does antone need a gun?
What would happen if guns were banned in the US?
Good people wouldn't have them, clearly.
What about people who don't care about breaking the law?
Banning alcohol didn't get rid of alcohol, it just made the mob families rich.
Banning drugs hasn't worked, 80% of high-school students have easy access to them.
What would be diffferent about guns?
Prohibition sure worked wonders funneling money to crime families, didn't it?
Let's do the same thing with guns... we've been doing it with drugs for a while now anyway.
Useless argument. Good people in the Uk do not have guns, but criminals do, they shoot each other and not necessarily good people.
The UK is not the US.
Even further, Miami is not Salt Lake City, is not Emmett. Every place is different, with a different demographic, and a different 'society' of crime.
Blacks in the US both kill, and are killed, about 7 times more often than whites. Poor urban areas have higher rates than wealthy suburban areas.
You are trying to make a comparison without controlling for variables, which is why it is useless.
Exclusion of government is a method to achieve an effect. I assume that you believe the gov. will decrease the effectiveness of the overall system. If that is the case, it is covered in the performance element of the system. The system needs to perform as close to 100% as possible. It needs to be cost feasible for all schools, hospitals, and play areas. It needs to be reliable in that it wont break down. How these are implemented is of no concern to me now. I just don't want to miss a requirement of the system.
You are talking about performance. I am asking if there is any other requirement than performance, reliability, and cost for a system that protects our children?
Sure, the requirement of the parent knowing little johnny is coming home from school on the bus and not a coroners van. Quit over-thinking this issue, provide security in the form of barriers, armed guards train Teachers in the use of firearms and make sure they protect our children and themselves.
Please, please, please. For just one day, can we not debate, not argue, not blame but simply mourn this loss and hold those in pain in our hearts, putting them first and nothing else?
I'm just so hurt by this. I am sure there will be plenty of time to debate to call for solutions, but today feels like a day to do nothing but stand in solidarity and mourn.
I agree, it is a day for grieving. But somewhere there is a politician plotting to use this tragedy to accomplish a goal.
The problem is, tomorrow there will be another news story. We shift instantly from 'it's not the time to talk about it' to 'that's yesterday's news, now we are talking about Israel and Iran'.
Please all accept my humble apologies. When confronted with painful experience I try to create a system that "solves" the problem. Here is not the place to do that and I apologize.
No need to apologize. Forums are specifically places for discussion--it just feels to me that people are so raw that this situation wil bring out the worst in us rather than our best. It feels to me like we need a day to honor our dead by offering our best, not by allowing hurt to cause us to inflict more pain.
This is a forum, so please, don't take my comment as anything divisive, it wasn't meant to preach, it was meant as a plea for solidarity over an issue I know we can agree on: the death of children, the murder of those caring for them, and the pain of those left behind is an unspeakable tragedy.
Oh my, just learned of this - feel sick at stomach. Someone in the comments on the link asks what has gone wrong with the 20-somethings - no spanking, video games, spoiled? Terrible just terrible.
I can't get the lyrics of this song out of my head:
Midnight, our sons and daughters
Cut down, taken from us
Hear their heartbeat
We hear their heartbeat
In the wind we hear their laughter
In the rain we see their tears
Hear their heartbeat
We hear their heartbeat
Night hangs like a prisoner
Stretched over black and blue
Hear their heartbeat
We hear their heartbeat
In the trees our sons stand naked
Through the walls our daughters cry
See their tears in the rainfall
I'm remembering the very old Simon & Garfunkle song called something like "Silent Night/Six O'Clock News," which mixed news of the violence of the day with the lyrics of Silent Night. It was a music editorial on our life in this era: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-og_MxjIrzg
My heart aches for the unspeakable losses 20 families are experiencing, and for that small community that had every right to feel 'safe' less than, what, 10 hours hours ago?
Oh Marcy, I hadn't thought of that song in years. It broke my heart then as it breaks my heart now. Beautiful, haunting, and sad.
It's amazing how that song seems to fit this occasion, isn't it? I got chills and tears when I listened to the YouTube clip.
It is such an unthinkable thing to do, to kill these poor children and also the teachers trying to look after them.
I feel so for those poor families, for those people who came to school still hopeful only to hear that all the families that would be united already were, that nobody else was going home.
I second that. However twisted and convoluted the thoughts of the perpetrator- I cannot get my head around the fact that they would want to just snuff out the life of those children and teachers like that. Calculated, planned, this is dreadful. I can't even begin to imagine what the families of the victims are going through. Or how the kids who survived are feeling right now.
I am sorry for the victims. I hope that one day the connection between child abuse and killers is connected more by the media. The only way we are ever going to stop this from happening is by reducing the amount of child abuse and making therapy more available.
24 hours of respect for the dead and grieving is not too much to ask before getting back to politics as usual and he endless damned gun control debate.
I think we should also be mindful of and keep in our hearts all of those entrusted with the task of helping those left behind to heal as well, those first responders, and everyone trying to pick up the pieces of this horror.
All of them. But especially the kids which have survived, they've not only lost their friends but trust in adults and the world I would imagine. They're going to need so much support now.
http://www.ryot.org/22-children-stabbed … hool/35114
Just thought I'd pass this along for anyone who had not heard about the children in china today.
Its not just an American or gun problem is it? I had not heard of this but then our media darlings have been busy spreading bad information all day.
Reminds me of a video clip I saw the other day. A man with a knife was approached by 5 police, guns drawn. He refused to comply, and started attacking. He was able to stab 3 of the 5 police before going down(with more than 9 bullets inside him).
The problem isn't guns. The problem is violence.
In fact, as gun ownership has increased in the US, and as concealed carry permits have become more common, our crime rates have gone down.
It would be impossible to avert tragedies like this by trying to ban guns. Someone who is going to kill people doesn't care about laws.
When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.
Teachers have enough to do with teaching their students, it's ridiculous to think they should be learning how to buy guns and shoot them, when they need to be writing lesson plans. Some schools have metal detectors and guards, it varies. But nobody should be able to enter an elementary school anymore without ID and the approval of a guard. Most are more vigilant, and have doors which must be opened from the inside, someone has to let you in. More guns is not a solution, even more people could be killed. The violence in the U.S. is at epidemic levels, and it seems nobody wants to find out why. These poor famiies had their lives ruined today. Most marriages do not survive the loss of a child either, and how horrible, with Christmas right around the corner. So many of those parents probably have gifts wrapped for Christmas morning. It's so awful. Too bad nobody realized this guy was crazy, he should not have been allowed in the school just because his Mother was a teacher there. I heard he already killed her at home before he did this, so she was not at the school, and the weapon was registered in her name. Perhaps she was afraid of him and got the weapon?
The Chinese children were also stabbed today? I had not heard about that at all. Heartbreak on top of heartbreak.
This is my best response to the development of a system that prevents this from ever happening again. It is a method for developing systems, security systems. I invite any interested party to look and perhaps give feedback or more importantly alternate systems. Here is where you can propose systems that are not based on gov, such as the first one.
arming teachers is not the solution. the solution is NOT MORE but LESS arms. arms do not solve anything they just make everything worse. those poor poor little frightened kids and the poor little ones who are not going to open their presents under the Christmas tree this year. I feel so so sorry for those parents who are going to be damaged until they leave this world. I would not have the strength to go through this. it is horrible beyond words. Innocent children had to leave us today without any reason whatsoever. Why did no one notice that the person who did this was dangerous? Why didn't his parents realize?
There is currently a petition for stricter gun laws with the petitions.whitehouse.gov site. They have already reached the amount needed of 25,000 signatures. In fact, they have surpassed it; however, anyone can still sign it and I'm sure more signatures will make it get more favorable attention.
If it passes it will just make the illegal gun dealers richer. They will charge more for black market firearms. Not saying its a bad idea, it is a valid system.
You have to be f****** kidding - you have no compassion for the people who just lost their children?
Responding to people calling for more violence is absolutely appropriate in the wake of a tragedy. In turn, I ask you, do you have no compassion for the people who have died in the middle-east?
Yes I do - but to turn this into a politcal discussion is so disrespectful to the parents who are mourning the loss of an innocent child.
You may have caught the brunt of my anger and if you were simply repsonding to those calling for violence then I apologize - I just find it disgusting that anyone can turn this sad and terrifying even into something they can use to further their beliefs...
If you'd care to look, many comments offering sympathy are followed by a generic statement on the dangers of weapons, so I say, they started it. In any case, I think it's worth offering a wider view on the matter.
It is discussion that has no place on HP today....it's something that should be discussed when the anger and horror of the situation has passed.
The rationale for having guns in the Constitution of the U.S. (and I do not find it rational at all) is so if OUR government turns against us, we can have militias who can take up arms and we can protect ourselves. It's just plain silly, as at this point we will never have neighborhood militias. It's an outdated law made by people who want to hunt. I live in the woods, and people hunt deer and bears all the time, breaking the laws, and I'm sick of guns going off less feet away from my home than is legal. But I digress.. My son is a teacher, and he said today if anyone attacked his kindergarten class, he would die trying to take out the shooter. I had to remind him he will always be "my child" no matter how old he is, and that I think it would kill me. I think it is obvious there are too many undiagnosed people with severe mental health issues being untreated in the U.S., but more guns won't help. My heart is with these poor parents, and their children who will never have the chance to grow up. I saw President Obama cry for the first time today as he talked about this, from the viewpoint of a Father.
"They're all playing in the sun and having fun, fun fun, 'til Daddy takes their guns away."
from 'Help Save the Youth of America' by Billy Bragg.
You tell the parents of Newtown that you need to keep an uzi just in case the Queen of England decides to try and levy a tax on you.
I just skimmed through this thread - I am amazed that some people decided to turn this into a political discussion about the right to bear arms. God forbid it was one of your children who had just died - would you still defend the second amendment so hard! 20 CHILDREN are dead - have some compassion and respect.
Instead of "skimming", try reading. Starting with the location of this thread.
Where exactly did this thread start out as a discussion about the pros and cons on guns - it did not - it was a statement about the horror... nothing more nothing less. To change this into a discussion on the pros and cons of the second amendment, IMHO is wrong.
"I am amazed that some people decided to turn this into a political discussion..." This IS the politics and social issues forum
I remove myself from this discussion- I hope you all enjoy this lively discussion - thanks to the deaths of 26 innocent people - have fun with it
America in 2012 has a much bigger, denser, poorer, more chronically stressed out, less educated, less connected and generally more volatile population than the country was founded.
The idea of 315 million citizens all packing doesn't comfort me. In fact, quite the opposite.
Leaving the gun control argument out of it for the moment, can we do more on the prevention side?
Behind every one of these mass shootings is some kind of mental health crisis.
Something inside each of these guys snapped.
What were the warning signs?
Who in their lives had concerns but didn't act on them?
Why did they take their rage out on innocent people, especially children?
How can we learn to recognize danger in people around us -- before they go postal??
I recognize this argument is a non-starter for many here. We still have a big chunk of folks loudly proclaiming the evils of Obamacare. Oh noooo! Now they want everyone to have access to MENTAL HEALTH services too?
Radical and ridiculous.
But by all means, give everyone the gun they are entitled to.
No, MM, you are not. And it is not only Americans who agree with you.
It's sad that this is actually our reality.
That's inaccurate though.
If you have a problem with our laws about mental health, or healthcare costs, then argue that subject. Don't blame guns.
Nobody wants to talk about healthcare though... not honestly. Nobody cares about the actual costs of our healthcare, they just want an easy fix.
I think anyone here realizes there are no easy fixes. These issues are not unrelated. Nobody outside of military and law enforcement has need for assault weapons. I think, unfortunatley, the answer will be to make schools look more like prisons in order to protect our children. I have long believed our police officers should be trained as military and used as a local military system, not the Barney Fife system I see in my hometown. And yes, mental health care needs to be addressed, as it is obvious to any thinking individual we are failing miserably at caring for the citizens of this country.
I'm curious why this guy's mother had so many guns of that type.
When WILL it be time to talk about gun control? Two massacres in two weeks?
The statistics are frightening:
On Friday morning, 27 people were reportedly shot and killed at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, CT. According to sources, 18 of these casualties were children. This is the second mass shooting in the US this week, after a gunman opened fire in an Oregon shopping mall on Tuesday, killing 2. ABC News reports that there have been 31 school shootings in the US since Columbine in 1999, when 13 people were killed.
rate of people killed by guns in the US is 19.5 times higher than similar high-income countries in the world. In the last 30 years since 1982, America has mourned at least 61 mass murders.
Below is a timeline of mass shootings in the US since the Columbine High massacre:
December 11, 2012. On Tuesday, 22-year-old Jacob Tyler Roberts killed 2 people and himself with a stolen rifle in Clackamas Town Center, Oregon. His motive is unknown.
September 27, 2012. Five were shot to death by 36-year-old Andrew Engeldinger at Accent Signage Systems in Minneapolis, MN. Three others were wounded. Engeldinger went on a rampage after losing his job, ultimately killing himself.
August 5, 2012. Six Sikh temple members were killed when 40-year-old US Army veteran Wade Michael Page opened fire in a gurdara in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Four others were injured, and Page killed himself.
July 20, 2012. During the midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, CO, 24-year-old James Holmes killed 12 people and wounded 58. Holmes was arrested outside the theater.
May 29, 2012. Ian Stawicki opened fire on Cafe Racer Espresso in Seattle, WA, killing 5 and himself after a citywide manhunt.
April 6, 2012. Jake England, 19, and Alvin Watts, 32, shot 5 black men in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in racially motivated shooting spree. Three died.
April 2, 2012. A former student, 43-year-old One L. Goh killed 7 people at Oikos University, a Korean Christian college in Oakland, CA. The shooting was the sixth-deadliest school massacre in the US and the deadliest attack on a school since the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre.
October 14, 2011. Eight people died in a shooting at Salon Meritage hair salon in Seal Beach, CA. The gunman, 41-year-old Scott Evans Dekraai, killed six women and two men dead, while just one woman survived. It was Orange County’s deadliest mass killing.
September 6, 2011. Eduardo Sencion, 32, entered an IHOP restaurant in Carson City, NV and shot 12 people. Five died, including three National Guard members.
January 8, 2011. Former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) was shot in the head when 22-year-old Jared Loughner opened fire on an event she was holding at a Safeway market in Tucson, AZ. Six people died, including Arizona District Court Chief Judge John Roll, one of Giffords’ staffers, and a 9-year-old girl. 19 total were shot. Loughner has been sentenced to seven life terms plus 140 years, without parole.
August 3, 2010. Omar S. Thornton, 34, gunned down Hartford Beer Distributor in Manchester, CT after getting caught stealing beer. Nine were killed, including Thornton, and two were injured.
November 5, 2009. Forty-three people were shot by Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan at the Fort Hood army base in Texas. Hasan reportedly yelled “Allahu Akbar!” before opening fire, killing 13 and wounding 29 others.
April 3, 2009. Jiverly Wong, 41, opened fire at an immigration center in Binghamton, New York before committing suicide. He killed 13 people and wounded 4.
March 29, 2009. Eight people died in a shooting at the Pinelake Health and Rehab nursing home in Carthage, NC. The gunman, 45-year-old Robert Stewart, was targeting his estranged wife who worked at the home and survived. Stewart was sentenced to life in prison.
February 14, 2008. Steven Kazmierczak, 27, opened fire in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University, killing 6 and wounding 21. The gunman shot and killed himself before police arrived. It was the fifth-deadliest university shooting in US history.
February 7, 2008. Six people died and two were injured in a shooting spree at the City Hall in Kirkwood, Missouri. The gunman, Charles Lee Thornton, opened fire during a public meeting after being denied construction contracts he believed he deserved. Thornton was killed by police.
December 5, 2007. A 19-year-old boy, Robert Hawkins, shot up a department store in the Westroads Mall in Omaha, NE. Hawkins killed 9 people and wounded 4 before killing himself. The semi-automatic rifle he used was stolen from his stepfather’s house.
April 16, 2007. Virginia Tech became the site of the deadliest school shooting in US history when a student, Seung-Hui Choi, gunned down 56 people. Thirty-two people died in the massacre.
February 12, 2007. In Salt Lake City’s Trolley Square Mall, 5 people were shot to death and 4 others were wounded by 18-year-old gunman Sulejman Talović. One of the victims was a 16-year-old boy.
October 2, 2006. An Amish schoolhouse in Lancaster, PA was gunned down by 32-year-old Charles Carl Roberts, Roberts separated the boys from the girls, binding and shooting the girls. 5 young girls died, while 6 were injured. Roberts committed suicide afterward.
March 25, 2006. Seven died and 2 were injured by 28-year-old Kyle Aaron Huff in a shooting spree through Capitol Hill in Seattle, WA. The massacre was the worst killing in Seattle since 1983.
March 21, 2005. Teenager Jeffrey Weise killed his grandfather and his grandfather’s girlfriend before opening fire on Red Lake Senior High School, killing 9 people on campus and injuring 5. Weise killed himself.
March 12, 2005. A Living Church of God meeting was gunned down by 44-year-old church member Terry Michael Ratzmann at a Sheraton hotel in Brookfield, WI. Ratzmann was thought to have had religious motivations, and killed himself after executing the pastor, the pastor’s 16-year-old son, and 7 others. Four were wounded.
July 8, 2003. Doug Williams, a Lockheed Martin employee, shot up his plant in Meridian, MI in a racially-motivated rampage. He shot 14 people, most of them African American, and killed 7.
September 15, 1999. Larry Gene Ashbrook opened fire on a Christian rock concert and teen prayer rally at Wedgewood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, TX. He killed 7 people and wounded 7 others, almost all teenagers. Ashbrook committed suicide.
July 29, 1999. Mark Orrin Barton, 44, murdered his wife and two children with a hammer before shooting up two Atlanta day trading firms. Barton, a day trader, was believed to be motivated by huge monetary losses. He killed 12 including his family and injured 13 before killing himself.
April 20, 1999. In the deadliest high school shooting in US history, teenagers Eric Harris and Dylan Kiebold shot up Columbine High School in Littleton, CO. They killed 13 people and wounded 21 others. They killed themselves after the massacre
I've never understood why schools don't have metal detectors at every entrance.
This tragedy is overwhelming. I can't imagine how the parents of those little children are suffering right now. What the hell is wrong with people?? How could you shoot innocent children for no reason?
As much as this is so tragic and unbelievably sad, I refuse to watch the coverage on cable news stations.
I am astounded at how one can interview a small child after such a tragic event and broadcast it to the world. We are all deeply hurt and mourning the loss of innocence and a sense of security. A child should not have to be afraid to go to a public school in America. A public school teacher should not have to teach with the lingering prospect of someone barging through their doors with a semi-automatic. Please, networks, can we turn off the 24 hour coverage? As a parent and teacher, I am numb. And I've barely watched the coverage. Somehow, I don't know how, we have to process this kind of news. Changes must come.
I didn't know they interviewed a child, that is horrible! The media has gotten so low.
I didn't see it. I heard about it from a family member who saw it and turned off the tv in disgust. I saw this also on my FB feed. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national … ary/60009/
Terrible!! These kids are already going to be scarred from being a part of such violence. They can't possibly process something like this. Shame on the stations. Did the parents even give permission?? What parent would give permission?
This may or may not be true. It simply made it easier for the gunman. Sadly, the mother cannot speak, and the very thing she obviously feared took her life. She feared she would have to use guns to protect her life, and one of her own guns was used by her own son to take her life. I don't own one, and if I did, (which I won't), I wouldn't allow my children to know where they were kept.
The killer was hardly a child he was a grown man. There is no doubt he had mental problems so why was he not locked away? Everybody is quick to point out the problem is guns and ignore the fact that he was insane. It never ceases to amaze me than whenever someone goes on a shooting spree some people call for the firearms to be taken from those who didn't do it.
"whenever someone goes on a shooting spree" yeah, thats basically the problem isn't it. People with guns going on shooting sprees. And we need guns why?
There was a lack of Life Guarding in this case. If the mother had lived she should have been held accountable for what happened. She was very confused in raising this type of child and she did the exact opposite of what she should have: shooting for enjoyment with her son and supplementing it with violent video games. It is not the guns alone, it is the environment she allowed her son to be immersed in and the effect it had on his mind. We need to know what that environment was and how severe his asburgers was. It is ridiculous that someone with asburgers was spoon fed violence through video games and gun shooting for sport.
Parents need to teach their children that we are living in a civilized society and that guns are for killing. We really shouldn't need guns IF we are a civilized society.
People seem so intent on protecting themselves with guns.
Why? Are there really so many bad guys with guns out there?
However, the government might be happy that we are armed in case China or Russia wants to invade us. With an armed population, it will be less work for the military in protecting the country.
rebekahELLE That is seriously a wrong move (in my opinion). If you tell a child something is dangerous & leave it alone or you will get in trouble. Then you hide it. You will spark their curiosity and they will find it. I know I would.
I raised two children (twins) now adult. I always had guns in my home. They were taught how dangerous a gun is and what it was to be used for. They were taught how to shoot at age 12. And you know what !!! They never touched the guns because they knew why the gun was there and what for.
As for the unstable son - Everyone who has an unstable family member wants to believe they will get better and wants the best for them. So they may overlook what other people see as a serious mental problem.
Aren't we being a bit niave people , These guns were in the mothers [this teachers] name , not because she loves guns or was "protecting herself from her son " ....but because for whatever reason, she had bought them for her son ! The truth is, you can't buy a gun if you've had recorded mental issues ! But "mommy" can ! ......Her fault ?
Are you referring to my post? I didn't claim she purchased 5 guns to protect herself from her son. And it sounds like you are assuming she had 5 registered guns in her name to protect her son? How many does one need?
I'm off. I can't do this today.
Don, the argument that was made(don't remember who, was it you?) was that Switzerland's homicide rate is so low because they recently started keeping ammo in a central location instead of letting people keep them in their homes.
I don't want data from 2007 or later, because that doesn't prove anything. I want data for before that, to show that the act of 'banning ammo' didn't change the homicide rate.
And once again, your claim that 'it is increasingly obvious that higher rates of gun ownership the higher rate of gun homicide' is demonstrably false, as homicide rates in the US have fallen dramatically since gun ownership and carry rights have been expanded. If your claim were true, we should have seen rises in homicide rates as states loosen up their gun laws.
But we see the exact opposite.
If you really want to keep comparing countries, then let's get into it. We need to control homicide rates for every variable. Wealth of persons involved, education, race, city/suburb/rural, etc.
Otherwise, you'll agree, it's worthless to compare datasets with VASTLY different contributing factors.
You "don't want" data later than 2007 for Switzerland, but you baulk at data you think is "at least a decade old". Can't have it both ways. Which is it to be, pre 2007 data or post 2007 data?
The facts are these:
In the last decade (pre and post 2007!) the U.S. and Switzerland have had the highest levels of gun ownership relative to other developed countries. All available data shows that.
The Wikipedia data you presented yourelf shows the U.S. has the highest rate of gun homicide per 100,000 population, relative to other developed countries. (sort the list by gun homicide rate per 100,000 population, highest to lowest). All my data shows the same.
If it's pre 2007 data you want for Switzerland, the chart you believe is "at least a decade old", shows Switzerland has the highest rate of gun homicide per 100,000 population relative to any other developed country, except the U.S. The 2004 UNODC data I have shows the same.
Conversely, in the last decade Japan and Poland have had some of the lowest levels of gun ownership relative to other developed countries. All available data shows that.
The dataset you presented shows Japan and Poland in the bottom 5 for gun homicide rates per 100,000 population, relative to all countries (not just developed). My data shows the same.
So do you question both my data and the data you presented yourself ?
Moreover, the fact that there is a correlation between these gun homicide rates and gun ownership levels among developed countries, can't be denied by pointing to local increases or decreases in gun crime in the U.S. That's like denying global warming because it's snowing where you live! It misses the point completely.
And the fact that a similar correlation can be seen with pairs of countries as culturally different as the U.S. and Switzerland, on the one hand, and Japan and Poland on the other, means this is not about local cultural difference. It is exactly what it looks like. A global correlation between gun homicide rates and levels of gun ownership among developed countries.
Want yet another source? In January 2012 PolitiFact checked a claim by Congressman Jim Moran that the U.S. gun homicide rate is 20 times higher than other western nations. They found it to be mostly true (it's actually 15 times higher, rather than 20 times).
Like it or not, there are a multitude of independent, objectively verifiable sources that indicate a correlation between gun homicide rates and levels of gun ownership among developed countries.
Unless of course you believe all of those sources are incorrect, and you alone have the correct data. If so, I urge you to share your research with the rest of the world, and contribute to the discussion around this incredibly important subject.
by Sychophantastic 5 years ago
Another day, another school shooting. This time it occurred in Santa Fe, Texas with up to 10 people dead.What's obvious is that these students could not defend themselves. Until all high school students are allowed to bring their own guns to school for self-defense purposes, none of them will ever...
by news-usa 10 years ago
NEWTOWN, Conn. (AP) — A gunman opened fire inside a Connecticut elementary school where his mother worked Friday, killing at least 26 people, including 18 children, by blasting his way through the building as young students cowered helplessly in classrooms while their teachers and classmates were...
by Jeff Berndt 11 years ago
I just noticed something about the Fast and Furious controversy.Leaving aside the question of whether the operation was a good idea or not (I think not), I noticed that the Left and the Right have both seemed to flip-flop on their usual arguments about gun control.The Left usually wants to restrict...
by Sarah Spradlin 5 years ago
I'm so sick of hearing arguments about guns and mental illness and bad parenting. What school meetings or city meetings would be a good place for people to go to express their concern?
by Mike Russo 5 years ago
Our thoughts and prayers are with you and the victims is not enough to stop these senseless killings.
by Michele Travis 10 years ago
Rush said this even before the children started to have a funeral."It is terrible, incomprehensible but I'm going to tell you something as we sit here at this very moment, you know it and I know it there are liberals trying to find a way to blame this on conservatives or...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|