fate

Of course, if she had acted as an adult (i.e. responsibly) instead of as an over-indulgent parent, I don't think any of this would have happened. Is that speculation? No.
Go over the facts. Why did he know how to shoot? Why did he have access to the guns?

You`re arguing that a lot of Americans really don`t treat guns with the respect and maturity that they should...
Lets agree.
And yet you also argue that gun ownership should have few restrictions...
What exactly is going to change the current rate of deaths from gun violence, if you are right about the first
Are you suggesting that it is possible to legislate people like Lanza into sensible behaviours, or are you saying that because a certain percentage of people will always be inadequate in these areas that the US must be prepared to endure further Sandyhooks, and regular gun violence as a consequence of the continued liberty to own guns.

rickyp wrote:fate

Of course, if she had acted as an adult (i.e. responsibly) instead of as an over-indulgent parent, I don't think any of this would have happened. Is that speculation? No.
Go over the facts. Why did he know how to shoot? Why did he have access to the guns?

You`re arguing that a lot of Americans really don`t treat guns with the respect and maturity that they should...
Lets agree.

Let's not.

Let's talk about pronouns. The word "she" is a pronoun. It is singular. That does not specify or imply "a lot of Americans."

Are you suggesting that it is possible to legislate people like Lanza into sensible behaviours, or are you saying that because a certain percentage of people will always be inadequate in these areas that the US must be prepared to endure further Sandyhooks, and regular gun violence as a consequence of the continued liberty to own guns.

I'm saying if we try to legislate for every person's mistakes, we will end up with virtually no liberty.

fate

I'm saying if we try to legislate for every person's mistakes, we will end up with virtually no liberty

But its only one specific liberty under debate.
The liberty to own firearms, and specifically even then only powerful fast firing firearms...

Versus the liberty to send children to schools, or movies, or shopping malls without the fear of fire arms being used by irresposible people like Mrs. Lanza or those emnpowered by Mrs. Lanza's mistakes.
And Mrs. Lanza isn't a rare or isolated individual is she? In the US, There have been over 400 deaths from firearms since Sandy Hook .

This is a classic case where there is a balance between liberties.
When citizens are harmed by others mistakes, they generally demand that their governments do as much as possible to limit future mistakes, and the resulting harm.
Sometimes that means liberties are restricted for the common good.
It is true that an effective ban on the ownership of quick firing weapons, however they are defined, would limit the liberty of some. The question is whether the cost of events like Sandy Hook, or the ongoing rate of firearms deaths, is enough to make that limit a price worth paying...
Are people who appeal to the emotion of Sandy Hook wrong in demanding change that might limit further events like Sandy Hook?
Or are people who appeal to the emotion of the perceived atttack on their liberty right that their liberty to own and fire semi automatic weapons is worth more than any attempt to limit future Sandy Hooks?
Either one is an emotional argument.
But a sacrifice of liberty that ensures people like Mrs. Lanza don't have the ability to make the mistakes she did, seems worth the sacrifice...

and how many of these 400 deaths since sandy Hook were committed by assault rifles? (my guess is very very few making this a really stupid posting) How many were suicides? How many were gang related? How many were hunting accidents? How many were cops shooting at bad guys? Waaaay too many questions to even consider mentioning such a simple statement unless you simply want to play on shock value.
You want us to sacrifice liberty seemingly at any cost, you state governments should do as much as possible to limit harm to it's citizens. Then should we change our speed limit to 10MPH? That would reduce the number of car deaths no doubt? How about we require people to wear helmets when they walk outside, surely that would result in fewer accidents?
No the government should not do "anything" to achieve your desired result, personal liberty must be balanced with all other factors yet that seems to be ignored, common sense is only seen in your total elimination of guns that will frankly never happen so why keep harping on it?

I went back and looked at the U Penn study and looked at the numbers they crunched. I think some of their results are worth emphasizing:

(1) The homicide rate of 28/100,000 for Black males as opposed to 3.7/100,000 for White males. The rate for similar advanced countries is 1.76/100,000 So the perception of gun violence is probably going to be a lot different among Caucasians vs African-Americans. The overall rate ( from anywhere from 10.9/100,000 to 14/100,000 cited in the study) may be much higher than our similar advanced economies (1.76/100,000), but the white male firearm death rate is only marginally up. To put it bluntly, as to the political effect of these figures, White males are not going to give up their guns because black males are killing other black males with guns

(2) A lot of the suicides appear to be from elderly White males. Presumably, many of those suicides may be rational decision based on declining quality of life. The firearm suicide death rate for children being so much higher than other advanced countries (12 times) should concern us. Keeping guns locked up and out of access to children should be a priority.

(3) The steep decline in firearm homicide by age is noteworthy as well.

What these numbers tell us? It's not that important to keep guns out of the hands of middle-aged males who love their guns. I still think there is nothing wrong with trying to limit the carnage that any one person can do by banning assault weapons and limiting weapons clips.

It is disturbing that the NRA is trying to make it easier to get concealed weapons permit and stand your ground laws. There is no reason to bring guns into the public arena when in most communities gun violence is not that high.

With regard to the epidemic of gun violence in the Black community, it would seem prudent in areas with high rates of gun violence to have aggressive police tactics with regard to possession of illegal guns, harsh penalties for illegal gun possession, and targeting of gangs who act as criminal enterprises.(New York City has done a phenomenal job of reducing gun violence by using similar tactics)

Giving the jolting effect of these mass shootings, we need to take reasonable steps to prevent them (background checks at gun shows, limit gun clips, ban on assault weapons though I am most interested in limiting gun clips, and limiting access by the mentally ill to guns)

The goal should be reducing gun violence (and mass shootings) with the least possible infringement on gun rights for people who are never going to harm people with guns. The gun control steps being proposed really only minimally impact gun rights.

freeman2 wrote:I went back and looked at the U Penn study and looked at the numbers they crunched. I think some of their results are worth emphasizing:

(1) The homicide rate of 28/100,000 for Black males as opposed to 3.7/100,000 for White males. The rate for similar advanced countries is 1.76/100,000 So the perception of gun violence is probably going to be a lot different among Caucasians vs African-Americans. The overall rate ( from anywhere from 10.9/100,000 to 14/100,000 cited in the study) may be much higher than our similar advanced economies (1.76/100,000), but the white male firearm death rate is only marginally up. To put it bluntly, as to the political effect of these figures, White males are not going to give up their guns because black males are killing other black males with guns

I commend you for looking more deeply into the numbers.

Do you suppose black males want to give up their guns?

Why do you suppose black on black violence is relatively high?

(2) A lot of the suicides appear to be from elderly White males. Presumably, many of those suicides may be rational decision based on declining quality of life. The firearm suicide death rate for children being so much higher than other advanced countries (12 times) should concern us. Keeping guns locked up and out of access to children should be a priority.

How many underage kids gain access to prescription drugs, car keys, pornography, gasoline, etc.?

My point is a simple one: some adults fail to properly safeguard dangerous/inappropriate materials.

Is the solution for government to ban all such materials?

Inspect every home in America?

What these numbers tell us? It's not that important to keep guns out of the hands of middle-aged males who love their guns. I still think there is nothing wrong with trying to limit the carnage that any one person can do by banning assault weapons and limiting weapons clips.

It has yet to be demonstrated that any proposed law will "limit the carnage that any one person can do." I've yet to see any evidence.

It is disturbing that the NRA is trying to make it easier to get concealed weapons permit and stand your ground laws. There is no reason to bring guns into the public arena when in most communities gun violence is not that high.

Please do let me know the next mass shooting done by someone obeying the restrictions on their concealed weapon permit.

You worry about guns.

I worry about the wrong people having them.

You think the answer is to restrict/remove guns.

I think the answer is more complex and involves more attention to mental health issues. I think more instruction/information about mental health would be helpful. I think when all is revealed about Newtown, we will see a portrait of a delusional parent unwittingly training and goading her son to do this. Again, I don't think it was her intent. However, I think once we see all that took place, we will see that she was way out of line.

With regard to the epidemic of gun violence in the Black community, it would seem prudent to have aggressive police tactics with regard to possession of illegal penalties, harsh penalties for illegal gun possession, and targeting of gangs who act as criminal enterprises.(New York City has done a phenomenal job of reducing gun violence by using gun violence)

I know there have been legal issues re freedom of association, etc.

In California, your brilliant governor has released countless gang members. I personally know some 3-strike inmates who never did anything violent, yet are still in prison. Meanwhile, gangsters who shoot anyone who displeases them or wears the wrong color are free.

Only in California.

The problem in the black community is complex. Gangs exist because of the failure of the educational system, the family structure, the money involved in drugs, and the support of the government in all the wrong ways. You won't remove guns without changing some of the other problems.

Giving the jolting effect of these mass shootings, we need to take reasonable steps to prevent them (background checks at gun shows, limit gun clips, ban on assault weapons though I am most interested in limiting gun clips, and limiting access by the mentally ill to guns)

Magazines won't change much.

In fact, the larger the capacity magazine, for the most part, the more likely it is to jam. We carried 15 round magazines. They told us NOT to leave them loaded off-duty because it would wear down the springs, leading to more jams.

Additionally, carrying more magazines is not a problem and switching them out is fast. This is not a solution, no matter how many times liberal lawmakers say it is.

The goal should be reducing gun violence (and mass shootings) with the least possible infringement on gun rights on people who are never going to harm people with guns.

For me, protection needs to be taken into account. For example, every liberal seems to hate the armed guard idea. Okay, but Lanza was great against unarmed kids and teachers. What if there had been a skilled security person on site? How many lives might have been saved?

Apparently, he committed suicide when he thought the police were on scene. According to a book on profiling, this is common (mass shooters generally either commit suicide or make sure they are killed by the police--exceptions seem to be terror-related). So, what about making the shooter believe the cops are on scene before they are? Sound and special effects could easily make that happen (of course, this has limited shelf-life, but how many lives could such a thing have saved if deployed in Sandy Hook?).

I think we're kidding ourselves if we believe nipping at the edges will change this. Magazines and assault weapons are not the problem. People are the problem.

Doctor Fate wrote:For me, protection needs to be taken into account. For example, every liberal seems to hate the armed guard idea. Okay, but Lanza was great against unarmed kids and teachers. What if there had been a skilled security person on site? How many lives might have been saved?

Depends. Smart guys would know to find the armed guard and shoot him first. That's exactly what the Utoya killer did.

And I don't 'hate' the armed guard idea. I think it's not as effective as people assume (Colombine and Va Tech show they are not foolproof) and massively costly - at a time when conservatives rail against spending increases and demand cuts, it's a bit inconsistent to make uncosted suggestions like that. And the big question is how do we know that these armed guards won't flip out and turn on their charges?

I think we're kidding ourselves if we believe nipping at the edges will change this. Magazines and assault weapons are not the problem. People are the problem.

You never answered how your 'proposal' that people like Mrs Lanza not be so stupid would work. Was it just hope, or did you have any means to ensure it would actually happen and prevent such occurrences?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:For me, protection needs to be taken into account. For example, every liberal seems to hate the armed guard idea. Okay, but Lanza was great against unarmed kids and teachers. What if there had been a skilled security person on site? How many lives might have been saved?

Depends. Smart guys would know to find the armed guard and shoot him first. That's exactly what the Utoya killer did.

We don't know Lanza's mindset. What we do know is that he didn't have to even give it any consideration. What if there was a chance he might face armed resistance? The whole situation may never have occurred.

And I don't 'hate' the armed guard idea. I think it's not as effective as people assume (Colombine and Va Tech show they are not foolproof) and massively costly - at a time when conservatives rail against spending increases and demand cuts, it's a bit inconsistent to make uncosted suggestions like that. And the big question is how do we know that these armed guards won't flip out and turn on their charges?

I am not proposing a Federal program, so the cost argument is a complete fail.

If local governments want to do it, I'm fine with it. Frankly, I think it may be smart cost-wise. There will be lawsuits in the wake of Sandy Hook. Beyond that, what price would parents put on the safety of their kids? I would much rather have a tax levied on me for school security than a tax (as was tried not long ago) to get all the kids iPads. I would actually vote for such a thing--and I have no school-aged kids.

Virginia Tech is a red herring. That is a sprawling campus. Comparing it to Sandy Hook is not appropriate.

No one has ever convinced me that the Columbine guard(s) was/were trained for armed confrontation. Feel free to make the argument.

Doctor Fate wrote:We don't know Lanza's mindset. What we do know is that he didn't have to even give it any consideration. What if there was a chance he might face armed resistance? The whole situation may never have occurred.

Your first sentence is the exact point - you and others have speculated as to his mindset, his suitability for commital etc. We don't know enough and may never do thanks to his suicide. But we do know that he was easily able to source his weapons from his own home, which were legally owned.

I am not proposing a Federal program, so the cost argument is a complete fail.

Huh? Even if it's not Federally funded, someone would pay for it. It's not just the Federal government that is having problems with budgeting, and equally, it's not just the Federal government that can hike taxes (that you say you'd welcome it does indicate this is something you are aware of).

This 'federal' v 'any other kind of government' distinction is the red herring.

Virginia Tech is a red herring. That is a sprawling campus. Comparing it to Sandy Hook is not appropriate.

True, but they did have more than just an armed guard.

No one has ever convinced me that the Columbine guard(s) was/were trained for armed confrontation. Feel free to make the argument.

Well, let's start with Deputy Gardner having had 15 years' experience in the Sheriff's office. It's not unthinkable that in that time he'd had some training. http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/co ... S_TEXT.htm

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:We don't know Lanza's mindset. What we do know is that he didn't have to even give it any consideration. What if there was a chance he might face armed resistance? The whole situation may never have occurred.

Your first sentence is the exact point - you and others have speculated as to his mindset, his suitability for commital etc. We don't know enough and may never do thanks to his suicide. But we do know that he was easily able to source his weapons from his own home, which were legally owned. /quote]

We do know he had Asperger's. We do know he was socially inept. We do know, from witnesses, that his mother was struggling to maintain a relationship with him and that his father and brother were estranged from him.

I think we'll find that he was certainly not someone who should have been encouraged to train with weapons.

That is the personal responsibility of his mother. She failed. We can't legislate on that basis.

I am not proposing a Federal program, so the cost argument is a complete fail.

Huh? Even if it's not Federally funded, someone would pay for it.

Duh, as indicated by the rest of my post.

This 'federal' v 'any other kind of government' distinction is the red herring.

Not at all. My town has every right to raise a tax to specifically provide security at our schools. That would have NOTHING to do with the Federal government and would not be an extra burden on the town. It would be something we decided to provide and pay for--on top of everything else.

No one has ever convinced me that the Columbine guard(s) was/were trained for armed confrontation. Feel free to make the argument.

Well, let's start with Deputy Gardner having had 15 years' experience in the Sheriff's office. It's not unthinkable that in that time he'd had some training. http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/co ... S_TEXT.htm[

And, if he had been in the line of fire, things might have been different.

He missed Harris, but I don't see how that proves or disproves anything. I don't know what point you're trying to make, but let me put it this way: if Deputy Gardner was behind the locked door that the Sandy Hook shooter shot his way through, things might have gone differently.

It is very difficult to take a situation like Columbine and a man like Gardner, who was outside the building at the time the shooting began and compare it to what might have occurred at Sandy Hook.

Its a sure thing that if the armed guards hired by whoever (State, Feds or counties) to guard schools joined the Teachers Union that conservatives would be up in arms...

He missed Harris, but I don't see how that proves or disproves anything. I don't know what point you're trying to make, but let me put it this way: if Deputy Gardner was behind the locked door that the Sandy Hook shooter shot his way through, things

You can always imagine some scenario where your solution of armed guards would work. And one can imagine any number of scenarios where the scenario of armed guards would fail.

The way insurance companies calculate risk is by looking at the entire scope of incidents. They look for correlations and if they can find them causal relationships. That's why proponents of effective gun laws look at jurisdictions where effective gun laws have been put in place to reduce incidence of gun violence, and particularly mass shootings ....
The evidence is quite clear that in jurisdictions that have undertaken effective action have seen incidents reduced.

Opponents of guns laws need to come up with hypothesis on imagined scenarios .... with little to no evidence of actual incidents to provide support.
There have been armed guards in schools in the SU for some time. Funded by the Federal government.

As reported on April 16, 2000, by the Associated Press, the U.S. president, as Clinton then was, spoke to his nation on the first anniversary of the 1999 Columbine High School massacre. The president used the opportunity to unveil “the $60-million fifth round of funding for ‘COPS in School,’ a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and teachers,” the wire service story reported. “The money will be used to provide 452 officers in schools in more than 220 communities.”

The news agency went on to quote the president saying that the program had already “placed 2,200 officers in more than 1,000 communities across our nation, where they are heightening school safety as well as coaching sports and acting as mentors and mediators for kids in need

.”

What we know is that this program was a failure. By the standards that gun law opponents demand, if it can't prevent ALL incidents its a failure , and it couldn't. It didn't prevent Columbine or Virginia Tech or Sandy Hook. Somehow the wrong schools were protected or the guards at the schools weren't trained well enough or were in the wrong places...
There are as many holes in the armed guards scheme as there are in the airport security that was increased so much at airports. People now complain about the cost and the inconvenience of the airport security and its a sure bet that even if every school suddenly got a guy with a gun wandering the halls, in short order the cost, the problems, including accidents and fear, and the inability to actually secure a school or two that get hit by another mad man with an AR15 .... would cause a rethink.
The question is, why is an atavistic response to the shooting at Sandy Hook given a hearing when the rational response to risk analysis is not?

As a preface, I've rarely seen a post more full of generalizations and made-up facts as the one rickyp posted here. You will search in vain for evidence, but won't have to go far to find nonsense.

rickyp wrote:Its a sure thing that if the armed guards hired by whoever (State, Feds or counties) to guard schools joined the Teachers Union that conservatives would be up in arms...

For starters, they're not Teachers.

He missed Harris, but I don't see how that proves or disproves anything. I don't know what point you're trying to make, but let me put it this way: if Deputy Gardner was behind the locked door that the Sandy Hook shooter shot his way through, things

You can always imagine some scenario where your solution of armed guards would work. And one can imagine any number of scenarios where the scenario of armed guards would fail.

He took four shots at Harris. It's not out of the realm of reason to think he might well have hit him. He probably should have.

To the Sandy Hook shooting, the suspect shot his way in. That is a fact. The shooting made noise. That is a fact. Had there been an armed person near the front of the school, is it possible that he/she would have prevented much, or possibly all, of the carnage?

It is impossible to know, right?

However, what we do know is that zero guns inside the school meant zero resistance.

The way insurance companies calculate risk is by looking at the entire scope of incidents. They look for correlations and if they can find them causal relationships. That's why proponents of effective gun laws look at jurisdictions where effective gun laws have been put in place to reduce incidence of gun violence, and particularly mass shootings ....
The evidence is quite clear that in jurisdictions that have undertaken effective action have seen incidents reduced.

You should really be careful here. "Jurisdiction?" Really?

What "jurisdiction" in the US has more strict gun control laws than Chicago?

How's that working out?

Opponents of guns laws need to come up with hypothesis on imagined scenarios .... with little to no evidence of actual incidents to provide support.

Actually, that's not true. I've offered a few specific incidents and can offer many, many more. In fact, the NRA has a virtual encyclopedia of scenarios where armed civilians HAVE stopped violent crimes.

What we know is that this program was a failure. By the standards that gun law opponents demand, if it can't prevent ALL incidents its a failure , and it couldn't.

Gun-free schools are a failure by the standard you present.

The question is, why is an atavistic response to the shooting at Sandy Hook given a hearing when the rational response to risk analysis is not?

There is nothing rational in your analysis. Rationality would take in all factors--including the law. Yours does nothing about that.

Again, the suspect's mother acted irresponsibly. How do you bypass the Bill of Rights because one parent is an idiot?

This is not "rational."

The idea that large magazines are the problem is not rational.

The idea that assault weapons are the problem is not rational. (please bear in mind, I have no affinity for assault weapons. It is, however, foolhardy to suggest that banning them will solve this).

DF, you talk about a lack of proof that banning assault weapons and limiting magazines would reduce mass shootings. But we do have some proof:

(1) From 1994-2004 during the assault weapons ban mass shooting declined. Since 2004, after the ban was lifted, mass shootings have doubled;

(2)Since Australia put in their ban mass shootings have completely disappeared.

That is strong evidence that a ban would help reduce mass shootings. Is it conclusive proof? No, but it doesn't have to be. There is enough evidence there to support the ban. I have little evidence from you to the contrary, except your opinion that limitations on assault weapons and magazines would not help

With regard to your contention that limiting magazines would not help, there is evidence from the. Arizona shooting. The shooting was stopped when he tried to reload. We have your opinion that shooters can reload quickly so that magazine limitations would not help

With regard to putting armed guards in school, we have evidence that there was at least one guard at Columbine, the Arizona shooting, and Virginia Tech. In opposition, we have your opinion that they would make a difference

We have evidence to support out contentions, while you have opinions. Nothing wrong with opinions but evidence is superior. It is hard to know how theory will play out in practice. So however plausible arguments are in theory, they cannot compete against what has happened in real-life. I will admit that my understanding of gun violence has changed some by looking at the U Penn numbers in detail. The evidence in that study had changed my understanding of the problem to a certain degree. Similarly, with regard out what to do with regard to mass shootings it is best to look at the evidence instead of pre-conceived notions

Fate

I've rarely seen a post more full of generalizations and made-up facts as the one rickyp posted here

You should read your own posts then...

Fate

For starters, they're not Teachers

No, but lots of collective bargaining units aren't closely aligned occupations...
You can bet Union leaders would be really interested in unionizing a large group of publicly funded employees like armed guards... Since they are in schools they have their entre.

Fate

You should really be careful here. "Jurisdiction?" Really?

Really. Look up the word. Australia is a jurisdiction. The UK is a jurisdiction.
Tombstone Arizona is a jurisdiction and they had a very effective gun control policy in the 1880s....


Fate

Had there been an armed person near the front of the school, is it possible that he/she would have prevented much, or possibly all, of the carnage?

Or been the first victim? A very plausible outcome. Especially if the guard manned the door with a holstered weapon.


Fate

It is impossible to know, right?

Yes. Although this hasn't stopped you from assuming a positive out come. regardless of the countless scenarios that would be negative. Like the guard being the first victim.
Or the lack of evidence that armed guards at schools have ever accomplished anything.

Fate

However, what we do know is that zero guns inside the school meant zero resistance.

What we know is that when Laza got possession of guns he became dangerous...
We also know, The more powerful, the larger the magazine and the faster firing the weapon, the more dangerous .
Everything else is conjecture.

Doctor Fate wrote:We do know he had Asperger's. We do know he was socially inept. We do know, from witnesses, that his mother was struggling to maintain a relationship with him and that his father and brother were estranged from him.

If you think those aspects are enough to commit people, there will be a huge number of people in asylums.

I think we'll find that he was certainly not someone who should have been encouraged to train with weapons.

That is the personal responsibility of his mother. She failed. We can't legislate on that basis.

So let's not bother? Let's not bother to try and keep weapons out of the hands of people who are a danger, because there's no point?

This 'federal' v 'any other kind of government' distinction is the red herring.

Not at all. My town has every right to raise a tax to specifically provide security at our schools. That would have NOTHING to do with the Federal government and would not be an extra burden on the town. It would be something we decided to provide and pay for--on top of everything else.

'Tax and spend' at a local level is still 'tax and spend'. It still increases the tax burden on people if it's paid for in tax. If not, it still increases the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement (which covers all levels of government, not just the 'eevul fedrul gubmint'.

Well, let's start with Deputy Gardner having had 15 years' experience in the Sheriff's office. It's not unthinkable that in that time he'd had some training. http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/co ... S_TEXT.htm[

And, if he had been in the line of fire, things might have been different.

You read that link, right? he was fired upon. Putting him 'in the line of fire'.

He missed Harris, but I don't see how that proves or disproves anything. I don't know what point you're trying to make, but let me put it this way: if Deputy Gardner was behind the locked door that the Sandy Hook shooter shot his way through, things might have gone differently.

Maybe. Or maybe he'd have just been Lanza's second victim. It's just conjecture.

It is very difficult to take a situation like Columbine and a man like Gardner, who was outside the building at the time the shooting began and compare it to what might have occurred at Sandy Hook.

To a point. But clearly just having an armed guard around would not be enough. They'd have to be at the right place at the right time, constantly alert for a rare occurrence, and never prone to becoming murderous themselves. And that still would only protect a school, and we know that US mass killers like several kinds of target - cinemas, religious centres, malls...

The problem with the 'armed guard' solution is that it just creates thousands of pointless jobs.