Connecticut School Murders
A heavily armed man invaded a Newtown, Conn., elementary school today, killing his mother and 26 others, mostly children, federal and state sources tell ABC News.
The gunman, identified as Adam Lanza, 20, of New Jersey, was killed inside of the school.
In addition to the casualties at the school, a dead body was also found in his home, officials said. Sources said Lanza was armed with four weapons and wearing a bullet-proof vest when he opened fire in the elementary school.
NOTE: Name of killer corrected from original story.
I had no idea how much having kids makes you see the world differently until today. I saw that this had happened and thought, “Wow, this is absolutely terrible.” Then I talk to my friends/family with kids and they’re all crying, very upset, can’t do anything but think about their kids, etc…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 1532 hrs
Prayers go out to everyone’s family involved. As a father of two very young children, I can’t even begin to imagine…
Already conflicting reports of who the gunman was. It now looks like it might have actually been Ryan Lanza’s brother.
I know that this is a sensitive time, but it is times like this when it is completely appropriate to discuss the gun control debate. Because as a society, we are to A.D.D. and will get distracted by something else within a week.
I don’t want to ban firearms, but I would LOVE to see them way more difficult to get a hold of. I would like to see some sort of mental health exam go along with every sale of a firearm and then a refresher every 5 years or so, along with a written exam and gun safety course.
Ugggh. What an awful day.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 1544 hrs
CBS is reporting a simular type incident in China today except a knife was used.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 1615 hrs
There are always crazy people and they are gonna do crazy things that hurt people.
I kinda equate knives vs. guns to dogs vs. pitbulls. Any dog can harm a child if provoked. But a pitbull can do it way more quickly and proficiently because of how they are built. That may seem like a silly analogy to some, but it makes sense to me.
And the difference between the knife wielding man is that he injured 22 kids not massacred them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 1624 hrs
The shooter is Adam Lanza, 20 years old.
Ryan is his older 24 year old brother.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 1636 hrs
Looks like Adam Lanza went to the school in his mothers car, who was a teacher there.
He shot her and then opened fire on the kids in the classroom.
20 kids were killed, 6 adults, and then the shooter shot himself.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 1639 hrs
This is not directed at you Owen, just the media in general who always trying to get the big lead on a story, screws shit up.
The media botched this story badly in their attempts to break it before investigating. That they smeared a totally innocent man, Ryan Lanza, whose photos were on the MSM news for hours while he was at work, is disturbing. From what I can tell, he’s a well-educated, polite, reputable man who works at a University no less.
Today, his mother and brother and perhaps another brother or father were shot in the biggest mass murder ever alongside dozens of children and a dozen adults. All the while, people were pouring through his FB profile and creating thousands of hate sites with the wrong man’s photograph online. How much pain Ryan must be in now.
I feel we need to be careful to be committed to reality-based journalism.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 1646 hrs
+1 for Rdub.
I agree. In a rush for eyeballs and clicks-through the media is no better than the National Enquirer. I just read that his mom was found murdered at his house. There are so many conflicting stories that people are just printing anything that they hear. It really is sad.
Don’t trust anything until you hear it directly from a press conference.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 1650 hrs
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: We don’t need gun control, we need crazy control. Our mental health system has been designed by folks who would have been committed under the old one.
Really, this was a huge tragedy and my prayers go out to those affected.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 1750 hrs
There are always crazy people and they are gonna do crazy things that hurt people.
That’s true but all the more reason to make it harder to get a hold of guns. The president expresses well the sentiments of every sane parent and citizen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mIA0W69U2_YPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 1758 hrs
That’s true but all the more reason to make it harder to get a hold of guns.
We could start by taking them out of vending machines. Create an online database run by the government to vet people who can’t buy guns. Forms to fill out! A waiting period would be swell.
Or you could do what a fellow I knew did, and what it appears this guys did do, and _steal_ them. We should make that against the law, too.
Posted by Brian Dunbar on December 14, 2012 at 1803 hrs
The weapons used in the attack were legally purchased and were registered to the gunman’s mother, two law enforcement officials said.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 1815 hrs
And as more info comes out, it seems as if more and more of the reported story was incorrectly reported.
-They had the wrong name and person first
-Was reported the gunman killed his mother who was a teacher in the school, now reports are he shot her at home and then went to the schoolPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 1817 hrs
Early on the media was also reporting on a 2nd shooter that was involved. That story now too looks to be false.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 1825 hrs
If not now to have a sensible conversation about gun control, when? I am sure the NRA media folks have spent the day coming up with a response stating that it was not the guns, but the shooter who did the killing.
Sorry—I can in no way shape or form imagine those who wrote our Constitution envisioning the average person on the street carrying a gun. When they wrote the 2nd amendment, this is something they never could have imagined. They were just worried about the defense of the nation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 1859 hrs
It is amazing that a Chinese and American tragedy occurred on the same day. Madmen went on rampages at schools in both countries. One left dozens dead the other sent dozens to the hospital.
Wake up America. We have a gun problem. Only a cultural shift away from the glorification of gun use is going to solve it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 2019 hrs
Wake up America. We have a gun problem. Only a cultural shift away from the glorification of gun use is going to solve it.
And somewhere in China, right now, someone just typed…
Wake up China. We have a knife problem. Only a cultural shift away from the glorification of knife use is going to solve it.
That person is just as simple-minded as you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 2030 hrs
Jason, no just as simple minded as you.
There is a reality in the world that many Americans do not want to acknowledge—in countries with high gun ownership, many people are killed and injured by guns each year. In countries like Canada and most of Europe where gun ownership is more strictly contolled, significantly less people are killed and injured by guns.
In Germany in a recent year, police fired 84 bullets, total, for the whole country. Why, fewer people with guns shooting or shooting back. More guns = more people using them either accidentially or intentionally.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 2051 hrs
Simple minded? It is simple minded to not take a hard look at the culture of your country after a madman murders an entire kindergarten class. Especially after the an eerily similar tragedy in another country occurs on exactly the same day with far less devastating results.
In one country it is culturally acceptable for a kindergarten teacher to have multiple firearms at her residence including semiautomatic handguns. In the other guns are not readily available and parents get to kiss their bandaged kids goodnight.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 2054 hrs
What measure of gun control would have stopped this guy from stealing his mother’s legally owned guns to kill her and these children?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 2111 hrs
Guns are available to criminals all over the world and used by criminals all over the world. You can google all of Europe’s school shootings and massacres should you choose to do so, TKMF. Our gun deaths consist of suicides and blacks killing blacks in the cities. But because blue state America can’t have a serious discussion about either race or mental illness neither of those will be addressed. It’s easier to make everyone else the scapegoat.
When I went to high school I seriously doubt there was a single day when there weren’t guns on the campus. Lots of kids had them in their cars to go shooting after school. We never thought to shoot each other.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 2113 hrs
BV,
Does what happened today count as “suicide” or “black on black”? What about what happened in Oregon? In Colorado? At Columbine?
Just because the person who does the killing kills himself doesn’t make it fall under the category of “suicide.” It’s someone massacring dozens of children. That’s called murder. Just because the guy kills himself doesn’t make the whole thing one big suicide.
And yep, black people account for a disproportionate percentage of gun deaths. The mentally ill count for some. What, exactly, is red state America’s contribution to this, apparently, one-sided “serious discussion” you’re talking about?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 2124 hrs
Ok Owen its been over 6 hours since you posted this. Care to replace the top paragraph actual facts, you know, by mentioning the correct killer?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 2129 hrs
another voice,
You say the founding fathers never envisioned guns being used like this - they were purely for defense of the nation. They also never envisioned the that people would do this. But I sincerely believe that if they thought this was possible, they wouldn’t have taken the guns away. They would have mandated them.
Disarming law abiding citizens does not make people safer (see Chicago and Washington D.C.) it makes politicians safer. And that was the true purpose of the 2nd amendment; to give teeth to our liberty.
Tad
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 2129 hrs
Tad. your arrogance is topped only by your ignorance.
Look at the world. In countries with more gun control, very few people die or are injured by guns.
Guns give no teeth to our liberty or freedom. More guns equates to more fear which is the opposite of liberty. I buy a gun because I think my neighbor might have a gun he will use to harm me. We buy guns to “protect” ourselves and others. That is not liberty—that is plain and simple fear motivating us to purchase and own something that is intended to be used for one purpose—to end life. Everyone who takes any concealed carry classes knows you only pull out a gun if you intend to use it to stop someone.
Guns deter nothing and their only use is to inflict injury or death. Tell the parents of the 20 kids killed we need more guns.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 2141 hrs
Why, fewer people with guns shooting or shooting back.
That’s simple-minded right there.
In one country it is culturally acceptable for a kindergarten teacher to have multiple firearms at her residence including semiautomatic handguns. In the other guns are not readily available and parents get to kiss their bandaged kids goodnight.
Another classic simple-minded statement.
I don’t disagree that our culture is very different than many other countries around the world, and that our culture does have some impact on events like this one. However, to simply make a post on a blog like you boht have today, is nothing more than lazy, simple-minded bullshit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 2149 hrs
Im sorry but if someone wants to hurt or kill someone they will do it regardless. I think improving mental health issues is what to look into.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 2149 hrs
No discussion other than gun control will happen, VAPolitico, because it would require blue state America to reflect on the country’s miserable urban areas, the miserable state of its’ blacks, the miserable state of mental illness and treatment and the possibility that the culture that has been fostered and promoted may encourage those miserable states. It’s easier to blame guns.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 2151 hrs
You’re right it won’t happen, BV, because one side will say “2nd Amendment!!!! AMurrrrrrica!” and the other side will say “If we didn’t have guns, we wouldn’t be like this.”
Don’t pretend like red state America is any better at having this conversation. And what culture exactly is fostering and promoting this miserableness?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 2158 hrs
Red state america is better at having the discussion. No pretending is necessary.
I don’t have the answer, VAPolitico, other than guns are blue state America’s standard excuse.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 2208 hrs
One side yells “guns are evil!” while the other yells “2nd amendment!” I agree some actual productive conversation would help us all.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 2215 hrs
First person shooter video games that both desensitize youth towards killing and create neural paths to wanting to pull triggers.
Are we ready to ban those video games? Let’s have the discussion because all these guns have been around for decades and we didnt seem to have these rampages in the past.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 2245 hrs
http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/02/an-honest-debate-about-gun-violence/
According to a study by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, based on data collected by the Center for Disease Control, 1.5 white Americans in 100,000 were shot and killed in 2007 — still higher than the Canadian rate of 0.6, but, given the population densities of the two nations, at least in the same ballpark. On the other hand, the rate for Hispanic Americans was an alarming 5.2 per 100,000 — more than three times the rate among whites Americans. The rate for African Americans was a grotesque 18.1 per 100,000, or roughly 12 times the rate among whites Americans. The rate for African-American males was an obscene 37.59 per 100,000.
Canada 1.6
Czech Republic 1.7
United Kingdom 1.2
Belgium 1.7White America 1.5
——————————————————Also, for the last decade or so violent crime across America has been on the decline. At the same time, concealed carry has been on the rise. The largest drops in crime correlate to those states that gained CCW or made it more available.
We’ve also seen a rise in mass shootings in the last few years. Nearly all of them have one thing in common: they occur in “gun free zones.”
It shouldn’t take a genius to do the math…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 2329 hrs
Yeh, gun control in the USA works real well. Per the MJS CT has some of the most stringent gun control laws around. And then there is Chicago which still virtually bans private ownership of guns and the daily massacre there is nothing short of stomach-turning. New York City and Washington DC also have very restrictive gun laws. I don’t think anyone feels comfortable walking the streets there. Thinking that guns are the real problem and not the people using them illegally is nothing short of foolish when you look at the Wisconsin deer hunting season where over 300K armed people are out and about. And look at the million or more times that a legally armed private individual prevents or stops a crime by merely displaying a gun.
Instead of focusing on restricting all gun ownership, why aren’t we looking more closely at controlling criminals and mental patients? Why does this contry waste its time making new laws that only impacts those folks who have no desire to commit a crime with a firearm? Why not come down hard on the guys who sell stolen guns in back alleys? Make felon in possession of a firearm a minimum of 25 years in prison with no parole? And for heaven’s sake let’s allow the mental patients to be forced into residential treatment? How about we force DA’s to not plea down the charge of illegal possession of a gun? Why aren’t cops setting up stings to trap those cretins that sell stolen guns to those who should not own them? Why is it that with all of the howling about gun crime in Milwaukee we’ve never seen the cops proudly showing the cache of guns that they nabbed in a sting operation?
But no, instead of doing the right thing and focusing on the bad guys, we will see a whole host of laws that only affect people who obey laws. No one will go after the criminal element who, by definition, could care less what the law is. Only if we FORCE the criminal element to recognize the law will anything happen. How do we do that? Simple: Any felony committed with a gun in one’s possession, whether used or not, will result in a mandatory charging with no plea bargaining and, upon conviction, that person will be looking at punishment so certain and severe that they will rue the day they even thought of using a gun to commit a crime. It should be that they mark the day that their life went down the toilet as the day they picked up a gun and though it would be fun to knock over a liquor store.
Alas we will never see that. What we will see is more layers of bureaucratic idiocy that will only be faced by legal gun owners that have no interest in committing crime.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 2333 hrs
KSB, you are so right about mass shooting always taking place in locations where CCW is prohibited. Using the gun-controllers mindset, the rate of mass shootings and out-and-out murder should be highest in places such as Gander Mountain Gun World.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 2336 hrs
Economist Richard Florida ran a piece last year in The Atlantic that covered, on a state level, correlative factors to gun violence. Not editorializing on his part, just running numbers.
Greatest positive correlation to gun deaths: McCain vote share, Poverty Level, working class individuals, weapons in high schools, income inequality
Greatest negative correlation to gun deaths: College graduates, Obama vote share, creative class (white collar) individuals, safe gun storage requirements, assault weapon ban
(Interestingly, states with higher numbers of immigrants were also less prone to gun violence.)
Now, I’ll be the first person to throw out the Obama/McCain thing, since I think that’s a superficial manifestation of many of the other elements in play.
Also interesting to note are those factors which were not statistically significant either way: stress and mental illness. We’ll hear lots about the latter, since mental illness tends to play a larger role in sociopathic crimes, but on a day to day basis neither plays a considerable role in gun violence.
What we routinely see, both within America and when viewed vis-a-vis other comparable nations (Switzerland is a good example, since gun ownership is high and its culture is relatively plural), is that gun ownership in and of itself is not necessarily a predictor of violence. However, when you begin combining a promiscuous attitude towards gun ownership with other socioeconomic factors (high poverty levels and levels of income inequality, low levels of educational attainment) you end up with a real powder keg of negative activity.
The real answer is to solve the problems relating to poverty and income inequality. But what do you do when politicians, for one reason or another, are too inept to accomplish that? Then, as seen elsewhere in other countries, regulating firearms correlates positively to reduced levels of gun violence. Gun control isn’t a great plan A, but it’s a reasonably effective plan B.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 15, 2012 at 0121 hrs
The slaughter of 19 children in a day care center by Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City took place without the use of a firearm.
Last night was Friday night. How many people, children or adults, were killed or injured by drunk drivers?
How many will be tonight?
How many will die by abuse by caregivers?
How many will go to bed hungry? Or alone?
I cried last night because of this tragedy. Please don’t think I’m uncaring. But in reality, we really only care about this event because it’s a lot of children in one place at one time. Children are killed, every day, one at a time, and we barely notice or care because the media does not play up less spectacular happenings.
Oh, we give them their few minutes, and then it’s on to the latest celebrity or sports hero update.
If anyone wishes to disagree, let me ask you this: can you name this year’s Heisman winner and can you name one of the more than 10 children who have died in co-sleeping incidents in Milwaukee this year alone?
The sad truth, gun control questions aside, is that we just don’t as a country particularly care about life. Maybe that’s just the human condition.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 0615 hrs
Recess Supervisor, the FBI statistics would disagree with the effectiveness of your “Plan B.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/18/gun-ownership-up-crime-down/
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 0810 hrs
This passage from Matthew doesn’t resolve the problem, but it goes a ways to explain it:
10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
And please, no comments about the Mayan calendar.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 0852 hrs
The problem with nearly every solution to gun violence is that it attacks legal and peaceful gun owners and does not attack the real problem: Getting guns out of the hands of those who seek to do evil. One area that always intrigues me is when a five-time convicted felon is hauled into court on armed robbery charges it appears that no one has bothered to ask him where he got the gun. Time after time people who use a firearm in the commission of a crime seem to never get asked “Where did you get that gun?”
There is a black market in stolen guns and it seems no one is taking even a tiny step towards solving it. So, when a hood with a handgun ends up in police custody, why aren’t the cops getting vigorous in pursuing where that criminal got his hand gun? This probably explains why cops never bring to court a guy who supplies criminals with illegal handguns.
Well, he got it from a friend. Then chase down that friend. Where did the friend get it? From Jake at Joe’s bar. Where did Jake get it? Seems he acquired it via a burglary. Ding! But a scenario like that never seems to get played out. Some, five-time loser gets busted for armed robbery or murder and the cops, courts, or press never seem to ask where he got the gun. (Or at least we never hear of that unless he got it in a straw purchase at Badger Guns.) We are led to conclude that the gun just magically appeared and some loser decided that he could get some quick money with this amazing appearance. This leads to the erroneous conclusion that EVERY criminal bought his gun at Badger Guns or at a gun show. Personally, I don’t think that the cops have the foggiest idea where criminals get their guns because they never pursue the issue.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 0938 hrs
Recess, I read your link. I think he attempts to find his own conclusions in the selection of his data but wouldn’t say it is inaccurate unless I could look closely at exactly how he did it.
However, he does seem to try and make a conclusion that the peaceful blue states are better than the red states.
What I’d like him to do is a follow up where he would calculate gun deaths not only per capita but actual deaths between the big blue cities and then the suburbs and rural areas. I’d also like a breakdown by racial makeup of the deaths and shooters.
He seems to imply the hicks in red states like AZ, MS, FL shoot each either up more and gun control could help yet glosses over that his highest per capita death rate is DC. And somehow he gets the statistics to show immigration isn’t a problem even though arguably AZ and FL have a high immigrant population.
My guess would be that the gun deaths would be centered around the blue cities in the US and the sheer population bases in those States as a whole (whether a red or blue state) create the noise in his statistics.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 0941 hrs
-
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 0950 hrs
In one country it is culturally acceptable for a kindergarten teacher to have multiple firearms at her residence including semiautomatic handguns.
Yes, that country is Israel.
Back in the 70s there was a rash of shootings and hostage takings in schools until the Israelis decided that arming teachers should be allowed, and they even required it on field trips. That stopped school shootings in Israel, with one exception in 2008 which was stopped by two guys with their private firearms who rushed in while the cops waited outside.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 1052 hrs
My heart goes out to the families affected by this tragic event. I can’t imagine their pain.
I wonder though, if Adam Lanza instead hijacked a school bus with 20 children and six adults on it and drove it off an overpass killing all aboard, would the liberal crowd be immediately calling for a ban on school buses, or overpasses?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 1058 hrs
Im sorry but if someone wants to hurt or kill someone they will do it regardless.
This is the third largest school massacre in US history. The largest was 45 dead when a former school board member in Michigan detonated 3 bombs back in the 20s.
I think improving mental health issues is what to look into.
That’s an understatement.
What do you get when you get a 2nd Amendment activist who has a brother with schizophrenia? You get Clayton Cramer who has literally written the book on how the treatment of the mentally ill has contributed to this problem. You can see this column for an example of what he has to say on the issue.
In this particular case, you can see someone who everyone saw had issues and clearly needed help. And if you’ve ever tried to get help committing an adult you know how hard it can be to get them help. Quoting from the NY Daily News:
He was dark and disturbed, a deeply troubled boy from a wealthy family who unnerved his neighbors and classmates.
Mass murderer Adam Lanza, 20, was a ticking time bomb, people who knew him told the Daily News.
“This was a deeply disturbed kid,” a family insider told the Daily News. “He certainly had major issues. He was subject to outbursts from what I recall.”
Lanza, who friends and officials said suffered from Asperger’s syndrome or a personality disorder, had a tortured mind.
He was socially awkward and at times unstable, but also extraordinarily bright.
“He was smart,” the insider said. “He was like one of these real brainiac computer kind of kids.”
A “longtime” family friend said Lanza had a condition “where he couldn’t feel pain.”
“A few years ago when he was on the baseball team, everyone had to be careful that he didn’t fall because he could get hurt and not feel it,” said the friend. “Adam had a lot of mental problems.”Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 1107 hrs
Steve, a study conducted by the journal Pediatrics and released in 2010 showed that children under 19 are equally likely to die from gun violence in either rural or urban settings. You can also read this study from the American Journal of Public Health which concludes that urban and rural rates of intentional firearm death are nearly identical (more homicides occur in urban areas, more suicides occur in rural areas).
So while I understand what you’re saying, that’s already resolved by the fact that the numbers used are ratios and not absolute figures. There aren’t enough people in upstate New York, for instance, to lower the state of New York’s numbers so radically as to conceal some enormous rate of gun deaths in New York City proper. Statistically, the same city in a red state would yield more gun deaths than said city in a blue state, which would indicate there’s something in play beyond the fact that it’s an urban area that probably votes for Democrats.
There’s no way to “get” the statistics to show anything. Florida’s analysis is painfully simple. Measures of poverty level, or the presence of certain gun laws are variables that can’t be massaged to produce a desired outcome. It’s just data.
Really, if you’ve got evidence supporting your assertions, I’d love to consider it. I don’t think any of us has anything to gain by being blindly ideological on this issue. But right now you seem to be rejecting data without contrary evidence in order to maintain a position based largely on blind faith.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 15, 2012 at 1115 hrs
TerryN—“I wonder though, if Adam Lanza instead hijacked a school bus with 20 children and six adults on it and drove it off an overpass killing all aboard, would the liberal crowd be immediately calling for a ban on school buses, or overpasses?”
Thanks for politicizing, along with some other posters here, a national tragedy. Everyone is so proud of you!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 1126 hrs
It’s my God-given right and a founding principle of this country that I be able to own a [piece of metal that launches other smaller pieces of metal great distances, one after the other], and if a few deaths here and there is the price we have to pay for that freedom, then so be it. Sure, it’s sad that a few kids died, but it’s far better than the tyranny that would result if the government came and took away all our [mechanical contraptions that make a lot of little pointy chunks of metal go through the air fast]. Can you even imagine what kind of horrible world that would be? Pry the [wholly inanimate mechanical object, nothing more, nothing less] from my dead hands.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 1142 hrs
TerryN, if your bus scenario did happen we would look at ways of preventing things like that in the future. When 9/11 happened we grounded all flights and made adjustments to our security policies. There is a reason we put restrictions on things such as speed limits.
Maybe this is a different question, but where does the right to bear arms end? I mean what is considered an arm. Should you have the right to a fully automatic weapon, a tank, a rocket launcher? In the future when a personal laser gun can incinerate a person should that be legal? These are questions I don’t have answers to. Technology is faster than laws. Things could get interesting over the next 10 years.
Has there been any info on how long his mom owned these legal firearms? Any chance her son was able to register them under her name? I don’t know the firearm policies in NY or CT. I hope that she was truly just a firearm enthusiast, but something just doesn’t feel right.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 1155 hrs
Recess, look at this listing of the gun deaths.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000
What I can’t really figure out is that you’ve got DC leading the pack with their very strict gun laws. Red state, pistol packing good ole boy Texas is way down the list. Blue state Illinois is even further down the list. And I would like to see the Illnois breakdown between Cook County and the rest of the State.
I’m not saying any of these have dispositive correlations. Just noting that the disparity between the different areas is striking. Gun control high in DC and Illinois and low in Texas. Gun deaths high in DC, low in Texas and even lower in Illinois.
I would also like a breakdown of the accidental gun deaths versus homicides and violent crimes. I am guessing the gun ownership and hunting use is much higher in those deep south states with the high death rates but am willing to concede the people down there may be nuts also.
The only correlation I buy into is the one that says your chances of being killed via gun by either your own suicide or being killed by a person you know (domestic violence) is far higher than being killed by a random person. And that my chance of being killed via homicide is higher if I live in the central city of a major metro area than in the suburbs or rural areas.
The other stuff I’m still not there on. Too much noise in the statistics and too many people focusing on only one solution to the problem, I.e. strict gun control. Wisconsin sends 600,000 people out into the woods for ten days each year with high powered rifles and shotguns, generally without incident and I’d guess more will die at the hands of guns in Chicago this weekend.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 1155 hrs
-
Gun violence is a bigger problem in states with lax gun laws.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6018a1.htm
NYC has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and a really low rate of gun violence.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 1316 hrs
Speaking of data, RS, why do your sources leave out the correlation for race in gun violence? It’s easy to lok up.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 1451 hrs
It has nothing to do with race! It has to do with education and economics… Usually tied together.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 1459 hrs
The data say otherwise, Jonnyv, and that fact needs to be acknowledged, confronted and addressed for gun deaths to be meaningfully reduced.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 1623 hrs
The data say otherwise, Jonnyv, and that fact needs to be acknowledged, confronted and addressed for gun deaths to be meaningfully reduced.
Bullshit,BBB.
How many mass shootings/killing have been perpetrated by racial minorities?
JohnnyV is exactly right.
I am gonna guess that if these guys had access to high explosive vests you would see a lot more suicide bombings.
It’s more about desperation than aspiration.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 1640 hrs
Yawn, fu. Look at the correlations. The highest (or second highest depending on when the study was done) factor correlated for gun deaths and gun violence is traditionally race. It doesn’t go away when economic factors are considered. It doesn’t go away because we don’t like it. It’s real and we need to determine the hows and whys and address that fact.
Mass shootings are a small percentage of the number of gun deaths in this country every year, and this one, like nearly all of them, will turn out to be perpetrated by a person known or suspected to be mentally ill whose illness was not addressed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 1704 hrs
It’s good to see a nice exchange of ideas for the most part. I certainly don’t pretend to have all the answers, but I do think the best thing people can do in terms of approaching this issue is to set aside all the dogma, consider the data from many sources, find the causes of these problems, and work collectively to solve them. Nobody’s dogmatic ideology (either those who think everyone should own whatever guns they want in whatever quantity or that nobody should own guns, period) is likely to be helpful in the discussion.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 15, 2012 at 1713 hrs
Mass shootings are a small percentage of the number of gun deaths in this country every year, and this one, like nearly all of them, will turn out to be perpetrated by a person known or suspected to be mentally ill whose illness was not addressed.
Right back at you BBB, why were’t they addressed?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 1719 hrs
Oh, but Steve, cherry-picking DC and Texas is a pretty worthless exercise. Why didn’t you look further down your list? States with lowest rates of firearm death rates?
Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Maine, Iowa.
Ten states that all traditionally vote for Democrats in statewide races. Ten states that, taken as a whole, have much stricter gun laws than the other 40 states on the list (and also, in fairness and by and large, better educated and more affluent). But if a promiscuous gun culture is such a overriding benefit to public safety, moreso than other factors, why aren’t the top 10 states all red states?
As for DC? Poverty and lack of educational attainment go a long way to explaining those problems, which countless studies will bear out as being major contributing factors to likelihood of gun violence.
Fix the problems with poverty, income inequality, and lack of educational attainment, and I’ll bet my house the gun problems start to go away on their own. And really, should that be EVERYONE’s preferred solution?
Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 15, 2012 at 1727 hrs
Nobody’s dogmatic ideology (either those who think everyone should own whatever guns they want in whatever quantity or that nobody should own guns, period) is likely to be helpful in the
discussion.My dogmatic ideology is the Bill of Rights.
Second Amendment says I can have firearms.
End of discussion.
Posted by Brian Dunbar on December 15, 2012 at 1813 hrs
You are all igoring two simple facts. 1. Most of the gun killings that take place in the US take place with legally obtained firearms—firearms sold legally.
2. A gun is designed to kill. That is its sole purpose. You can say it is to defend oneself, but that defense only happens when one is threatened and the gun is discharged therefore hurting or killing.
Guns serve a single purpose—they are designed to kill.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 1859 hrs
TMFK,
“Wake up America. We have a gun problem. Only a cultural shift away from the glorification of gun use is going to solve it.”
No meathead, we have a PUNISHMENT problem. Criminals commit violent crimes, it takes YEARS for a trial, decades for their execution.
A fast trial and a faster execution of capital criminals, like in the OLD DAYS, when Thompson SMGs were sold in local hardware stores, MIGHT help.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 2027 hrs
Greencarman - My comment is a rebuttal to the MSNBC crowd who started politicizing this before the victims were even removed from the crime scene.
Johnnyv - Why was this guy allowed into an elementary school? Maybe we have done all we can to prevent these incidents except follow the rules. Maybe we build better overpasses. Maybe we tighten security on school buses.
I’m sick and tired of the liberal meme of blaming guns or questioning our Constitution when evil people do evil things.
If the clowns in the media would take the time to ask who, what, where, when and why instead of editorializing on their disdain for our constitution, potential losers who are thinking about going out with a bang might just point the gun at themselves first.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 2045 hrs
My dogmatic ideology is the Bill of Rights.
Second Amendment says I can have firearms.
It also says that if you have arms you should be well regulated.
There are simple common sense regulations that could be imposed and would save lives. Keep your guns but keep them safe. Not securing your guns should be a mandatory felony.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 2138 hrs
After Friday’s events I think the guy who authenticated the second amendment would be in favor of a more liberal interpretation of the second amendment’s 27 words, two of which are “well regulated”.
“Can one generation bind another and all others in succession
forever? I think not. The Creator has made the earth for the
living, not for the dead. Rights and powers can only belong to
persons, not to things, not to mere matter unendowed with will.”
—Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.“I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes
in laws and constitutions, I think moderate imperfections had
better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate
ourselves to them and find practical means of correcting their
ill effects. But I know, also, that laws and institutions must
go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that
becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are
made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with
the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and
keep pace with the times.”—Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval,
1816.“We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which
fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under
the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”—Thomas Jefferson to
Samuel Kercheval, 1816.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 2225 hrs
We don’t do anything about mental illness, fu, because among other reasons we don’t like the treatments, we’re afraid to investigate the causes knowing that they may include or be exacerbated by societal coventions and we know any such investigation may require us to change and we don’t want to change.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 2229 hrs
TMKF,
Read up on the historical use of the phrase “well regulated.” It means well prepared and well trained. It does not refer to restricting the ability to own, keep, or bear arms.
Also, look, the system worked. NBC is reporting Lanza tried to buy a rifle earlier in the week and was DENIED. His mother’s irresponsible inability to restrict her deranged son’s access to her weapons is not anything gun laws can fix.
(the posting software won’t allow me to post the link…)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 2248 hrs
Brian, the Bill of Rights also says that freedom of speech shall not be abridged, but it’s illegal to deliberately incite violence or create threats to public safety with speech, it’s illegal to share state secrets with foreign governments, on and on. No rights are absolute because rights come into conflict with one another all the time.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 16, 2012 at 0048 hrs
Recess, so you agree that the electorate should be fully vetted, registered, and required to prove who they are to vote? And by the way, if you look at auto deaths, the more vehicles an area has and the more miles a person spends in a car also means that there are more auto related fatalities. It is a matter of numbers. What needs to be looked at is that if a state has a no weapon policy they should have zero gun fatalities and that is simply not the case. gun restrictions serve one purpose and that is to make it difficult for those that follow the law to attain them. It does not amount to a hill of beans to the one that will not follow the law.
Posted by fishaddict on December 16, 2012 at 1142 hrs
Fishaddict—almost all gun deaths happen with legally obtained firearms—illegal guns is not the problem. It is the easy access to firearms. In countries without easy access to firearms, there are significantly less gun deaths.
Guns are designed to kill when properly used. End of discussion. They are manfactured with the single purpose of ending life. 2nd AMendment supporters can spin that all they want, but no gun manfacturer wants to produce a gun that will not stop someone or something by lethal force.
Any other product on the market in this country that was designed to kill when used would be regulated much stricter than we regulate guns. More guns is not the answer. Look at CT, the shooters mother had at least 4 guns in the house—and pretty high powered stuff. Why does one person need 4 guns for protection?
Those guns did what they were designed to do. That is what we need to face as a county.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 16, 2012 at 1332 hrs
anothervoice,
The guns in this school shooting were legally obtained by the mother. They were STOLEN from her. The media will spin that they were legally obtained. They were not. The killer tried to purchase a rifle earlier that week, he was DENIED. Being 20 years old, he could not legally purchase a handgun. Handguns are what was used in the school.
Why does someone need 4 guns for protection? Maybe because different kinds of guns do different things. Here is a simple explanation of how someone would have four weapons for protection: one shotgun, one magazine-fed rifle, one full-sized handgun, one subcompact handgun (for CCW).
Also, the handguns used in the murders are not “high powered.” They were 9mm handguns. According to the FBI study of police shootings and stopping a threat, 9mm is the SMALLEST caliber they recommend, as anything smaller is too likely to NOT STOP THE THREAT. Too many times someone’s killer has been shot with a .22, then proceeded to kill the person they were attacking, before bleeding out up to an hour or more later.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 16, 2012 at 1438 hrs
KSB, thanks for proving my point—even a 22 kills. And the FBI study shows the purpose of guns—to stop a threat—ie. kill or disable another human being.
And as to CT, the guns were legally in the house. Yes, the killer chose to steal them which begs a complete other point—how often are guns used against their owners? And, yes the killer was stopped from buying a gun, but because guns are so plentiful in our society he was able to get 4 without any difficulty.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 16, 2012 at 1825 hrs
He was denied because he was underage? Not because he was a lunatic. If he had been a few months older is the conversation different.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 16, 2012 at 1839 hrs
Anothervoice and Jonnyv, the sole purpose of matches and lighters is to start a fire. Burn units, and fire depts. across the world can tell you horror stories about the results of fire. It is not the object that is the problem. We do not ban anything short of flint and steel or 2 sticks to rub together to get the fireplace going. Why make it easier for the arsonist to burn the forest down, set wildfires in the west costing billions of dollars and endangering hundreds of thousands of people and their homes? Again it is not the object that is the problem but rather the individual using the object. You can be killed with a pencil and yet we cannot ban nature from creating sharpened sticks. People die and again I am suprised I survived childhood. No helmet laws on bicycles, no car seats, jarts, and BB/pellet guns all over in the hands of children and yet we survived. The difference is the person wielding them not the object itself.
Posted by fishaddict on December 17, 2012 at 1032 hrs
Fishaddict, and yet some states have bans on flamethrowers. I am not suggesting banning all guns. I simply am asking to what level gun are you allowed to keep. Where does it end?
Fully automatic? Semi-automatic? What caliber? Rocket launchers? Why have restrictions on ANY weapons then? Dirty bombs, pipe bombs, shrapnel filled bombs? Are not these just “things”. And on their own they are useless. This is a serious question that no one has answered for me yet.
I really WANT to hear someone’s serious take on this. Is there a weapon that you feel is “too much”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2012 at 1121 hrs
Well last I checked and I do have training in this area being in the Navy, we have what is called a room sweeper. It is a 12 guage shotgun. If you want to destroy personel in a small area without damage to bulkheads you use it. Multiple projectiles in each shot make it more effective in close quarters like a room and the limited range and lesser penetration qualities protect the integrity of the ship while eliminating the threat.
If you didn’t know, there was this guy Mcveigh who killed a bunch of kids and other folks without a gun by using commonly found home and garden chemicals in the proper proportions…care to outlaw gardening now? As for too much, who are you to say? if you have a lawn(I have used this analogy before) but I don’t think you need a powered mower, do I get to say you are banned from using anything with a motor? Live in the city? Can I say it is illegal for you to use a car? The argument has been made on your side(the banning side) before that internal combustion engines will destroy the earth and so should be made so expensive as to be impractical. How about we start with outlawing the riding lawn mowers and motorized mowers for those with less than an acre of grass. We could introduce a waiting period and a limit on the number of matches or lighter one could buy, if at all, because anything you would burn will cause pollution or cancer and so fire is also bad…not to mention costly when you think of all the campfires and bonfires that have gotten out of control and burned whole states in the west. All of the bombs you list as well as the flame thrower can be made in my barn using scrap metal and a few household chemicals in the proper proportions…(movie reference). We made napalm as kids and threw firebombs into the quarry. We were 10…fond, fun memories…and yet no one died much less got hurt until our parents found out. This all before the internet.
Bottom line is that we are seeing the result of patient rights, HIPPA, and the end of institutionalization that began during the beginning of my career. Move the potentially violent and seriously unstable into the general population. Do not force or even require said patient to take meds to control the symptoms. I had a patient who died long ago, tell me frequently that he was going to attack the family…I won’t give the address but it is seared into my mind…that lived in his childhood home because he felt they were the cause of his family displacement. He eventually blew up a power station and himself near the house but according to law, and I got into this with my senior many times, because he had not actually presented a threat overtly, it was not reportable.
The object is not the issue here. The issue is the unstable individual controling the object that is the problem. Mental health has been a problem for quite a while and historically the folks in question were either A) put in a place where they could be cared for(this degraded quite a bit over time) or B) were hid and watched over by loving families who frequently feared for their own safety due to the violence often exhibited. Now we have the option of imprisoning a family member that scares us. Has any of you tried to or investigated a third party petition for institutionalizing a family member? It is quite the daunting task.
Bottom line is not the thing the disturbed uses but rather how the disturbed is dealt with. In the end we do not hear about the hundreds of children who die in the crashes cause by the DUI person, yet in some states we legalize another intoxicating substance. We have an issue here locally with co-sleeping deaths yet neither the perpetrator or the bed or the alcohol that most of the cases involve are targeted. I cannot say that this issue can be resolved until the root perpetrator not the method used is addressed.
What I do find more disturbing is the focus on the means rather than the end result is more commonly discusseed. I am afraid that my children will grow up in a more darkened world than I knew…and that is the most troubling of all.
Posted by fishaddict on December 17, 2012 at 1402 hrs
Fish, you still didn’t answer my question. Should there be a limit on the types of firearms that we as a society are allowed to own. And if so… where. Should it be illegal to build a bomb, etc?
I don’t disagree that people are the main problem and not the weapons themselves. I have said this before that technology moves faster than laws and I think that any law we enact now will be obsolete in the next 10 years. We are getting closer and closer to people being able to PRINT their own guns in their house. At that point, most gun restrictions will be obsolete. All you will need is a 3D printer.
Again, I am not for banning all guns. But, I wouldn’t argue with reasonable limits. We limit other rights for societies safety.
I don’t have a good solution. But why don’t other countries have these same problems? Clearly mental illness isn’t limited to our country. You can’t blame our violent TV shows, music, or video games because these things are all worldwide. Why do we lead the world in these kind of mass shootings? It is hard to argue that our easy access to these weapons contributes to it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2012 at 1525 hrs
As I have said on the other thread on this site discussung this… define reasonable. I don’t have the answer you are looking for and I suspect no one really has but we are walking a fine line. I do not see the need for many things that other people enjoy. I see people cutting their postage stamp lawns with riders and yet when my tractor comes out at 0430 to bring in hay, I meet noise restriction and particulate pollution(dust) restriction laws. I do not like to hear the rockets that zip back and forth along the road in front of my house because too often they have left said road and wound up in a neighbor or my house or on top of a deer in the ditch. If we want total safety we wrap ourselves in bubble wrap and close ourselves off from all things including the sun. Having and using maliciously are 2 differant things so I would say building a bomb, as I did many times in childhood, and blowing up a school are again 2 differant things.
You will also notice that in some other countries they don’t have homosexuality. They are killed as soon as they are found out. Other countries don’t have a child deformity problem because again they are removed from society as soon as they are born. I also have passing familiarity as to why we have a higher rate of child mottality. The study pointed to the fact that we deliver children that would not even had made it to that point in other countries and so are listed as still borns or spontanious abortions. I suspect the incidence of violent crime is relatively stable around the world, it is more of an issue of reporting and type. We used to have quite a bit more fatalities in the large city near here and that went down. The number of crimes remained stable but the Medics were much better at saving the victims. I have heard that Israel has a rocket problem or maybe they have a palistinian problem.
I can’t say what is reasonable and I really don’t trust many who call for reasonable restriction. I think that bad govt has killed much more people and destroyed more lives than guns and yet each and every election is a veritable free for all.
Posted by fishaddict on December 17, 2012 at 1719 hrs
You guys are incredible.
Brian Dunbar- Only out of my cold dead fingers.No meathead, we have a PUNISHMENT problem. Criminals commit violent crimes, it takes YEARS for a trial, decades for their execution.
A fast trial and a faster execution of capital criminals, like in the OLD DAYS, when Thompson SMGs were sold in local hardware stores, MIGHT help.
HRWL: We already incarcerate more per 100,000 of population than any other country.You guys are crazy and luckily a majority of the country disagrees with you!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2012 at 1835 hrs
Brian Dunbar- Only out of my cold dead fingers.
I didn’t write that.
If you’re going to mis-quote me, do so accurately.
Posted by Brian Dunbar on December 17, 2012 at 1901 hrs
If you’re going to mis-quote me, do so accurately.
Come on Brian, that’s exactly what he did:)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2012 at 2053 hrs
Greatest negative correlation to gun deaths: College graduates, Obama vote share, creative class (white collar) individuals, safe gun storage requirements, assault weapon ban
Obviously, he deleted Chicago from his “survey.” And now, Connecticut.
Posted by dad29 on December 17, 2012 at 2135 hrs
Measures of poverty level, or the presence of certain gun laws are variables that can’t be massaged to produce a desired outcome. It’s just data.
Uh-huh. Was it measured against known drug-running/gang fighting areas?
Posted by dad29 on December 17, 2012 at 2138 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 36
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/22/2013 02:00 am
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).