CT School shooting

[Arete]

We did not have prayer in the public schools I attended in the 70s. Not one of us died or ever even came close to dying on school grounds. Why the FUCK is this considered an issue in 2012? Oh yeah, because we let the inmates get voted in as directors of the asylum. :doh:

[FakePigtails]

I feel like I'm in a twilight zone after each of these shootings. I live in a country with massacre after massacre of the same trends (mentally ill young men, legally obtained assault weapons), and yet people continue to defend our status quo of assault weapons for almost anyone and a health system that leaves people with mental health problems without needed care.

I mean really, people say "oh, the assault weapons ban wouldn't have covered these weapons anyway" How is that the takeaway and not that maybe the assault weapons ban wasn't effective enough? "He was rejected from purchasing because he didn't have the paperwork CT required, so see, the rules worked" Bullshit. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I can't believe what I'm reading: that there's nothing we can do to prevent sick people from causing destruction, people still use drugs even though they're banned? Well f*ck drug legislation, and keep weapons easily available. Yep, that's what we should take from this :roll:

I mean really, what happened to my country? Is the 2nd amendment and no universal healthcare (can't have freeloaders on the system) worth it to these people? Apparently yes. I just can't comprehend it.

[GeoBQn]

We did not have prayer in the public schools I attended in the 70s. Not one of us died or ever even came close to dying on school grounds. Why the FUCK is this considered an issue in 2012? Oh yeah, because we let the inmates get voted in as directors of the asylum. :doh:

Whatever happened to the slogan, "As long as there are math tests, there will always be prayer in school?" Students have always engaged in individual private prayer, like a silent prayer before a test or a blessing over food before lunch. Nobody is trying to take that away. It's like Fuckabee and his ilk are saying that prayer only "counts" if it is forced on a group by the school administration.

I feel like I'm in a twilight zone after each of these shootings. I live in a country with massacre after massacre of the same trends (mentally ill young men, legally obtained assault weapons), and yet people continue to defend our status quo of assault weapons for almost anyone and a health system that leaves people with mental health problems without needed care.

This reminds me of the popular definition of insanity--doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.

[Dinorah]

I also wonder how many of the people who think that "even if there's a ban on guns people will get them illegally anyway if they want one" firmly believe that outlawing abortion will mean that no desperate pregnant woman will ever, ever get an illegal abortion...

[Turtle]

I also wonder how many of the people who think that "even if there's a ban on guns people will get them illegally anyway if they want one" firmly believe that outlawing abortion will mean that no desperate pregnant woman will ever, ever get an illegal abortion...

That would require a bit of logic, so no they probably haven't.

[FakePigtails]

That would require a bit of logic, so no they probably haven't.

"It'll still cut back on the total number of _____" is only a valid reason for legislation in certain cases, clearly.

[keeperrox]

The thing that concerns me about the gun control talks is that I afraid things won't progress past possibly improving background checks. From what I've read, that wouldn't have made a difference in this case. All of the guns were legally purchased by the shooter's mother, who would have most likely passed any background check performed. The weapons and ammunition used had no business being in the hands of a private citizen. I truly don't think the right wingers will allow the discussion to revolve around the type of weaponry used.

[BoomerLynn]

I feel like I'm in a twilight zone after each of these shootings. I live in a country with massacre after massacre of the same trends (mentally ill young men, legally obtained assault weapons), and yet people continue to defend our status quo of assault weapons for almost anyone and a health system that leaves people with mental health problems without needed care.

I mean really, people say "oh, the assault weapons ban wouldn't have covered these weapons anyway" How is that the takeaway and not that maybe the assault weapons ban wasn't effective enough? "He was rejected from purchasing because he didn't have the paperwork CT required, so see, the rules worked" Bullshit. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I can't believe what I'm reading: that there's nothing we can do to prevent sick people from causing destruction, people still use drugs even though they're banned? Well f*ck drug legislation, and keep weapons easily available. Yep, that's what we should take from this :roll:

I mean really, what happened to my country? Is the 2nd amendment and no universal healthcare (can't have freeloaders on the system) worth it to these people? Apparently yes. I just can't comprehend it.

Well said. And we own a gun. I am all for stricter gun control. I think it is ridiculous how easy it is to get a gun in this country. I would gladly comply with tighter regulations if it kept something like this from happening again.

[Austin]

The thing that concerns me about the gun control talks is that I afraid things won't progress past possibly improving background checks. From what I've read, that wouldn't have made a difference in this case. All of the guns were legally purchased by the shooter's mother, who would have most likely passed any background check performed. The weapons and ammunition used had no business being in the hands of a private citizen. I truly don't think the right wingers will allow the discussion to revolve around the type of weaponry used.

I think we need to look past background checks and start to address access. I've been posting this all over the place. The mother, the "gun enthusiast" in this case, deceased as she may be at the end of her own gun no doubt, bears some responsibility for this tragedy. Had she been responsible with her guns, meaning not having in the same home as an unstable son, or having them impregnably locked up, this massacre would have been much more difficult for him to pull off. She knew he was unstable as she told people that she was leaving work to "care for him".

So gun owners whose guns fall into the hands of other people who use them for destruction ARE at least somewhat responsible for that destruction. Until we hold them criminally liable and accountable and not allow them to stand around wringing their hands, saying, "I just don't how this happened!", they will continue to be irresponsible. How many children have we heard about who were killed by their friend or sibling playing around with an unsecured gun? The gun owners in these situations might as well have pulled the triggers themselves.

So every gun owner needs to carry liability insurance and needs to agree upon the purchase of their first firearm that they will be criminally and civilly liable for any destruction caused by any guns registered to them. No responsible gun owner would object to this.

This reminds me of a variation from something in scripture: this woman lived by the gun, and died by the gun. She exposed her unstable son to guns, took him to firing ranges, and included her son in her deadly hobby and did not secure the guns from him. Let's hold all gun owners responsible for allowing access to their weapons.

[Kitty]

You don't own weapons for the hell if it. You own them to kill something. Each gun is used for a different purpose. Very few people will ever need assault weapons. Those are the weapons people get just to have, they are not needed by private citizens.

The only solution I can come up with is, since even the underage mass murderers like the Columbine shooters got the guns from their parents, that people who live with those who are so dangerous and violent shouldn't own guns either. And that really doesn't seem fair... But at the same time, after reading the blog post in another thread about a woman who keeps all the Sharp objects on her at all times, maybe it is a bad idea to have a gun when you have a child who is very mentally ill and violent. And background checks don't ask about that.

What's really pissing me off about the gun rights debate is that all the gun nuts want guns for all to protect the people, but then its very difficult for the people who need the protection the most to get guns. But adding guns and arming people to the teeth is not going to achieve anything. In other countries where terrorists enter a school to kill everyone inside, we blame the terrorists and the ideology they subscribe to for the attacks, not their access to guns. So it really shouldn't be a gun issue. This should be a discussion about our violence saturated culture, our society's failure to keep even schools safe, and the lack of mental health care here in the US. We should also stop writing this off as something only mentally ill freaks do, or kids who had bad parents. Even if it is a problem with mental health, the US cannot and should not have more mass murderers than other countries. Something is very wrong here, and nobody should have to carry a lethal weapon just for a normal day in a goddamn elementary school, or a mall, or anywhere else other than a war zone. And when was the last war that took place on US soil? The 1860's.

[freejoytoo]

I just watched a video of a father talking about the loss of his daughter and I'm crying. What the fuck is wrong with the world? How many children have to die before people stop talking about their rights to own weapons? How could anyone do this to a child?

[Turtle]

The thing that concerns me about the gun control talks is that I afraid things won't progress past possibly improving background checks. From what I've read, that wouldn't have made a difference in this case. All of the guns were legally purchased by the shooter's mother, who would have most likely passed any background check performed. The weapons and ammunition used had no business being in the hands of a private citizen. I truly don't think the right wingers will allow the discussion to revolve around the type of weaponry used.

I agree. But I think we have to do all we can not to let those right winger dictate the conversation.

To all the people who oppose gun restrictions and are posting things such as "this is not the time to debate gun control" on their Facebook page or whatever: I understand that it's awkward for you to argue in favor of unrestricted access to assault weapons after someone used a legally purchased weapon to massacre babies in their classroom so it's in your best interest to deflect the conversation. But that shouldn't mean the rest of us can't have a reasonable debate and seek solutions. Because no one can reasonably claim there isn't a gun problem in this country.

[mirele]

We did not have prayer in the public schools I attended in the 70s. Not one of us died or ever even came close to dying on school grounds. Why the FUCK is this considered an issue in 2012? Oh yeah, because we let the inmates get voted in as directors of the asylum. :doh:

France is a militantly secular democracy that severely restricts religious expression in the public lycees, but when was the last time you heard of some French guy shooting up a school? Riiiiight.

[pomology]

France is a militantly secular democracy that severely restricts religious expression in the public lycees, but when was the last time you heard of some French guy shooting up a school? Riiiiight.

Well, actually, earlier this year: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17426313

Not that we don't need gun control and not that religion and it's place in public life has absolutely anything to do with what happened in CT.

[mirele]

Well, actually, earlier this year: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17426313

Not that we don't need gun control and not that religion and it's place in public life has absolutely anything to do with what happened in CT.

You're right, I forgot about that. But still. How often do you hear of mass murder with powerful weapons incidents in Europe? Not very often. Here? At least once a week, it seems.

[pomology]

You're right, I forgot about that. But still. How often do you hear of mass murder with powerful weapons incidents in Europe? Not very often. Here? At least once a week, it seems.

Exactly. Other than that incident, I can't think of any other mass murder in Europe in the past decade off the top of my head.

[Arete]

The was the guy who hated Muslims in Norway 2 (?) years ago. Killed 70 people. He was straight up crazy/hateful/fascist and was not religiously observant himself.

[pomology]

The was the guy who hated Muslims in Norway 2 (?) years ago. Killed 70 people. He was straight up crazy/hateful/fascist and was not religiously observant himself.

Oh right. Still. Since America has has two crazed gunman commit mass murder in the past week...

[Arete]

Oh right. Still. Since America has has two crazed gunman commit mass murder in the past week...

Oh, we are definitely winning the Gold here by a wide margin.

[She Who Laughs]

There were two school shootings in Finland, one in 2007 and one in 2008.

I have no problem with a ban on assault weapons or tighter laws for purchasing/owning handguns. You could try to ban handguns, but this country is full of rifles and shotguns that have been purchased over the years. I know people who own anywhere from 10-200 shotguns and rifles of various makes and models that legally don't have to be registered anywhere so only people they choose to tell even know they own them. And anyone who is mentally unstable could buy a shotgun, saw it off, and take into any public place under a jacket and end up with a pretty high body count, In my state, owners of guns are held legally accountable if their guns are used in a crime or even an accidental shooting because they weren't properly locked up and kept out of other people's hands.

In the case of the CT shooting, the mother was not acting responsibly by having guns in the same house as her mentally unstable son. She apparently knew he had problems and yet didn't make the decision to get the guns out of her house. She ultimately bears a huge amount of the blame here, not that it affects her anymore since she became his first victim.

And yes, I believe in our right to bear arms, but I also believe that it is ok to have laws to make sure only responsible/stable people buy them and it is good to have laws holding people accountable if they fail to lock their weapons up. I don't think banning handguns will fix the problem as there will always be crazies who will find a way to do things like this regardless of their access to a gun. Perhaps if this guy hadn't had gun access, maybe this wouldn't have happened. But who's to say he wouldn't have chosen some other "weapon" like driving his car into a group of kids at a crosswalk, or causing an accident with a school bus, or even finding a way to make a bomb using info on the Internet (sounds like he was an intelligent person so this would probably be something he would be able to do).

[Artemis]

SWL: A little while ago someone asked you:

Why are you on FJ, then? Are you trying to prove a point?

You replied:

I mentioned this in an earlier thread somewhere. Mostly it's just entertainment. I have worked in many different jobs with a huge variety of people from various beliefs and backgrounds and I have never come across a group like this. It's kind of like how many here fundie watch or watch the daggers using the train wreck analogy. I feel the same way here, it's like a train wreck and I just can't stop myself from looking.

In the current situation, with this terrible and tragic event that has upset all of us, I, for one, would like to politely request that you, She Who Laughs, take your 'trainwreck' fascination elsewhere. We do not at this juncture need someone on here who posts inflammatory and provocative statements for the sake of it.

Perhaps there is another thread where you could indulge yourself, should you wish? Or were you just planning on gathering some more notes for your newsletter?

[She Who Laughs]

SWL: A little while ago someone asked you:

You replied:

In the current situation, with this terrible and tragic event that has upset all of us, I, for one, would like to politely request that you, She Who Laughs, take your 'trainwreck' fascination elsewhere. We do not at this juncture need someone on here who posts inflammatory and provocative statements for the sake of it.

Perhaps there is another thread where you could indulge yourself, should you wish? Or were you just planning on gathering some more notes for your newsletter?

And exactly what in my post was provocative or inflammatory? I said nothing inappropriate or inflammatory.

[Witsec7]

Oh, we are definitely winning the Gold here by a wide margin.

Yea we are on a race to the bottom.

[Artemis]

Yet. Just a little shot across the bows, don't you know?

I think your behaviour over the newsletter was sneaky and inappropriate. It was, frankly, low. We have a certain level of trust here: you betrayed it.

I wouldn't like anyone I care about on here, who is upset, anguished by the loss of a child already and going through memories, triggered by the event of murder/shooting, or connected to this area by propinquity, get wound up by you into a passionate argument that you then repeated elsewhere with your own little spin.

By all means play nicely - if you can.

[emmiedahl]

Apparently the shooter went to a private religious school. It is safe to say that he got tons of religious instruction and prayer in schools.