Friday Sober Thread: Tragedy in Connecticut

I was talking mostly about this thread, but I think the "fuck it" mentality is slowly seeping back in. As time passes, and laws don't pass, and nothing changes, nothing WILL change. The more removed we are from the situation, the less likely it is that any changes will be made.

No, but the law I suggested would've kept him from having access to the firearms he used in this attack. His mother couldn't have had the guns because she lived with a child with a serious mental illness. The Virginia Tech shooter would've had much more difficulty gaining access to the weapons he used. Same for the Arizona shooter. This, in combination with closing gun show loopholes and actually enforcing the current gun control laws (as discussed in this thread) would've certainly made this a much, much more difficult prospect for this killer to do what he did.

The problem I see here is that the conservative and entrenched element of our culture is currently a minority, they just scream louder and do everything possible to stop any laws from passing that might prevent future tragedies. I realize they'll never change. As for the laws benefiting everyone, let me again stress that the ONLY law I've proposed would keep guns out of the hands and out of reach for people with mental illnesses. It would force a choice on some people: do I live with someone with a mental illness and take care of them, or do I own guns. The only people who COULDN'T own guns would be those with serious mental illnesses.

I've said previously there would be caveats. Someone with ADHD is different than someone with Bipolar disorder, boder-line personality disorder, autism spectrum, or schizophrenia. That said, there are people that should NOT have access to guns. A suicidally depressed person should not have access to firearms. A paranoid schizophrenic should NOT have access to guns. Is it possible to cure them? No. It is possible that they be treated. In that PM I even suggested a caveat that if a person is actively seeking treatment and taking medication then they may be able to have a gun license (pending therapist approval and maybe even drug testing to ensure compliance with medication).

He was isolated, and I do agree that socialization is important, but at the same time, socialization results in bullying. In this very thread we've seen (joking) bullying, or even advocating bullying. This very forum has participated in some crazy cyber bullying. My point is that socialization has pitfalls that need to be addressed as well. Now, I can't say whether this kid was bullied. By all reports, he was withdrawn from his classmates, and none of them will come out today and say "yeah, that guy was weird and we made fun of him." We agree that he was a scared, lonely, weak child who planned out some crazy shit to lash out at a world he felt isolated from, but maybe he felt isolated not by choice, but because society pushed him away.

Again, I don't have the answers. I don't know. I can propose answers (and be told I am a fucking moron, which I have been repeatedly), but they may not be feasible. My entire point in this thread, recently, is that I hate the attitude that things like this cannot be prevented under any circumstances, and therefore there is nothing we can do about it. Sure, I think it should involve a dose of gun control mixed with some mental health reform, and maybe some cultural awareness. The thing is, it would involve ALL of those things going together. If one proponent of those three (gun control is the one no one seems willing to even think about changing) keeps up with the "we cannot change this, it won't do any good," it is basically saying "fuck it, we can't change this."

 

I was'nt quoting Fox news, you jackmonkey. I was quoting the people on it.

OK.

So now you are choosing the psychology of the shooter and/or guns?

A combination of mental health and gun laws is required.

Are you serious? Is that what you really think is required?

Required for what?

There's a potential fourth cause that no one has even mentioned. I'm waiting for more information before I even bring it up.

"Ghetto, get your ass in the bullpen. The count is full."

 

Required to make a cultural change and perhaps prevent things like this from happening. You were the one saying that the only thing I'd advocated was gun control laws. You're wrong. I'd say that we need to make changes in all three. Gun Control, Culture, and mental health. When one of those three has decided that they won't change under any circumstances, it is basically saying "we won't change, it won't do any good, fuck it."

 

So are you stating, that by passing laws about guns and mental health, that our culture will shift into a position where mass killing doesn't happen?

Or, are you stating that we should also pass culture specific laws that prevent citizens from violating conditions of their culture?

Really?

 

I don't have much to add, but this makes me fucking sick. A kid shoots up a school, so you run out and buy the gun he used, ya know, just in case you can't buy that specific gun starting next month. Nevermind the thousands of models of rifles & handguns that would remain legal should an assault weapons ban go into effect; get me the one Adam Lanza used to take off the skulls of 20 six year olds. And let me get some of them high capacity clips, while I'm at it, so I can pump thirty rounds into a deer or a robber or whatever in less time than it woud take to wipe my ass.

This is ignorant, narcissistic paranoia. This is people displacing their identities as free citizens into a device designed not to hunt, not to protect, but to enact mass killing. Look me in the eye and explain to me why in your heart you need an AR-15 Bushmaster rifle, three days after a man gunned down dozens of children with one.

(The 'you' here, obviously, being the fucking slobberers dragging their knuckles to the nearest gun shows, not anyone in this thread particularly)

 

Clearly.

With your first statement, you are purporting to the mindset of anyone who is choosing to buy an AR-15, without actually knowing why they are. And then demanding they justify their purchase to you, who is undoubtedly biased in the first place. Making any reason they have unjust in your eyes.

Its one of the most widely used weapons for feral hog hunting here in Texas. I think we have roughly 3 million of them and they are destructive and powerful.

 

In the County where I work (and it's not a "big city"), the Board of Education has it's own Police force. They are armed and patrol campuses.

Since the specific Sandy Hook shooting prompted this thread, in analyzing all the options for discussion, it might be worth looking at that situation. They had a locked school with video permission-only entry. The shooter shot his way through the door - meaning, there was enough delay at the front door for someone nearby to react. Instead of arming the teachers, what if only the principal (and maybe assistant principal) had the training and access to a handgun in a combination-locked box? In this particular case, the reports indicate that the principal appears to have died trying to stop the man. If she had been shooting at him, this might have turned out differently.

 

This is going to come as a shock to nobody. Give teachers the opportunity to defend themselves. If I'm going to trust someone with my child, I'm going to trust them with a gun and my child as well. I would be more concerned with a female teacher banging my 14 year old than shooting him. When was the last time a teacher killed a student? Does anyone know?

 

While I hate the idea of a defenseless group of kids, something else bothers me more.

Do we really want our kids growing up in what is supposed to be an environment conducive to safety and learning, often times away from a tumultuous home life filled with fear and threat of violence, that is now loaded with more cops, armed teachers, guns in every class, and god fucking forbid private security whackadoodles? What is being thrown around here is the idea of a police state in our schools. It's bad enough many public schools are already ineffectual centers of educations, but now they are going to look and act even more like prisons.

That's just something that irks me. If you can make it work, make it work. But like most school policies put into practice, it probably won't work the way it is intended.

 

I'm still pretty uncomfortable with having untrained people suddenly be required to handle firearms. It's the kind of thing where you need regular training and comfort with the weapon.

I doubt you could legislate a minimum amount of training that would still be effective in a life-threatening situation. It seems like the kind of thing where the people who care and take an interest will put in a lot of time, but the people who see it as just another checkbox will skate by.

This is part of the reason I'd rather use the police force, which at least has existing systems and procedures for weapons training.

edit: Cops in schools can absolutely become an oppressive force, as CJ points out. But it doesn't have to be that way. I know my high school (big public school) had a couple of cops on duty, and they were friendly guys who were up for a conversation. I'd say it actually brought the police force closer to the community, in a sense.

 

Man, I'm not gonna argue with you, other than that http://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/g...g-rifles-and-handguns?photo=8#node-1001355211 has twelve or so non-assault-weapon suggestions for hog hunting that seem like they should do the trick, and that haven't been recently used to fucking slaughter six year olds. If you really think the assault weapons ban is impinging upon some central freedom to fuck up some hogs, I guess that's your prerogative, but maybe wait until the latest elementary school 'hogs' are in the ground. You know, out of respect.

 

I don't think it should be required. I think it should be voluntary and anonymous. Basically, it means that the monsters who may want to shoot up a school don't know who is armed. There should be some mandatory safety compliance but that's something that could be covered in an hour or two every quarter. I can tell you with 100% certainty that I would trust the principal of Sandy Hook with a firearm in a heartbeat. She stepped in harm's way with nothing.

See, here's a part of gun ownership that people haven't talked about because the anti-folks don't like it- gun owners protect non-gun owners because of the unknown. D26 and I could live next door to each other and a would-be robber would have no clue which house has no guns and which house a loaded AR15 under the bed and a homeowner who carries a handgun as a matter of course. I don't advertise that I own guns. I don't have gun stickers on my car or an NRA flag hanging in front of the door. The place is as average as any home.

The part about these shooting that keeps coming up is the shooter looks for a target rich environment with the smallest likelihood of someone shooting them first. We can argue that arming everyone (!) will turn the world into the wild west, but that hasn't happened, even though all 50 states are now required to issue carry permits.

 

Who did Nancy Lanza, gun owner, protect?

 

Also, does the idea of what kind of person is likely to volunteer for that not bother you at all?

Gun owners also don't protect us when they shoot us. So there's that. For non-gun-owners, it's basically Schrodinger's gun owner: we have no way of telling whether or not an actual gun owner places us in danger, or is "responsible," since the former group don't actively consider themselves as such.

 

I know there's been a ton of shit floating around Facebook from a bunch of mouth-breathing idiots, but the one thing that I could get behind is employing veterans to protect schools. But don't suit them up in fatigues with an M4 across their chest, treat them like an air marshall.

Give them a bogus title and some auxiliary responsibilities that make it look like they've got some other purpose in the building. Give them a concealed weapon. Have a locked room with a locked safe containing a couple M4's, a platform their trained to use in combat situations should the need arise for the (serious) escalation of force. Don't arm teachers, don't take away from the police force. These men and women would be better trained that either of the two.

"But who pays for it?"

Maybe there's a government subsidy for schools who choose to participate, maybe not. But I'd gladly pay higher taxes in my town to make it happen.

 

Nice cut and paste. That part where I talked about mandatory safety compliance is a pretty important part of the argument for armed teachers.

 

A school district in Pennsylvania just announced they will be hiring retired State Troopers to act as armed guards: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.officer.com/news/10843509/western-pennsylvania-school-districts-arm-guards" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.officer.com/news/10843509/we ... arm-guards</a>

Of course it isn't the first or only district to have armed guards (like my high school), but if you have the budget- I could stand behind an arrangement like that with highly qualified and trained individuals like State Troopers, police, sheriffs, etc.

 

You're right on a bunch of accounts--I'm not presenting a good, cogent argument for the assault weapons ban, though I myself certainly support it. My reaction is one of rage: purchasing a weapon recently used to kill children, is, to me, ethically reprehensible, sickening even. That does not mean, however, that it consequently must be illegal. I can't pretend towards knowledgeability or argumentative facility about gun policy. As a human being, though, the logic that lead to a spike in AR-15 sales is, again to me, completely fucked, totally self-centered, disrespectful, despicable, etc.

So I think in the above, you're misrepresenting me a little bit (which is my fault). It's not that assault weapons are the reason for Sandy Hook; certainly this kid could have (and would have) used other weapons. I definitely think banning those kinds of guns (and especially banning high capacity magazines) might have helped-it would have been more difficult to kill as many with a bolt-action rifle. But I don't have a good leg to stand on for why I think that, at least not one grounded in facts and figures or in legal precedent. To me what's upsetting is the fucked-up priorities behind "this gun was just used to kill kids--better get one before it goes off the market." Examine your life if this thought has run through your head.