Shooting at Sandy Hook. Many dead.

[JeffreyS]

It is hard for me to believe that we can't find common ground with the statement "it is too easy for a wack job to get guns in the USA. "

[buckethead]

The facts about this case seem to be evolving, but as I understand it, the guns were registered not to the shooter, but to a family member.. perhaps the mother who was killed.

He obtained them illegally. Obviously, if they weren't there, he couldn't have gotten them.

Additionally, if the children had not been corralled at the school, he would not have been able to attack so many in such a manner.

I think I read somewhere that he drove himself to the location, meaning his access to a car enabled this massacre.

I would imagine the gun owner bears some responsibility, if this shooter has displayed uncontrollable rage coupled tendency towards violence frequently in the past. (Barring, of course if the guns were properly stored and the kid killed his mom to gain access to the guns).

[ben says]

It is hard for me to believe that we can't find common ground with the statement "it is too easy for a wack job to get guns in the USA. "

+1

[Pinky]

It is hard for me to believe that we can't find common ground with the statement "it is too easy for a wack job to get guns in the USA. "

Absolutely agreed.  Where we seem to differ is whether the solution lies in disarming our society, or perhaps doing more to identify and treat the few people within it who display signs of instability.  With few exceptions, the majority of the people who commit such atrocities have a history of acting out in an escalating fashion.  (In this case the shooters older brother mentioned being estranged from him for a period of several years, likely because the kid was a dangerous nut.)

[Sportmotor]

This was horrific. My heart goes out to the families it is how Obama said, heart breaking in every way.

Far as what this thread is becoming "The Great Debate" I shall comment from a law enforcement point of view.
Let us ban cars, to stop DUI?
Let us close stores, to stop theft? 
Let us take away you're right to freedom of speech, because you hurt someone's feelings?

Not the answer, better parenting. The government cannot continue to overlook those with mental illness and ignoring them in hopes it will go away. Nor will putting them in a institution for a year and then releasing them to turn around and harm people again is the answer. The government needs to seriously address mental health.

I will leave with a story that depending on the responses will show if someone actually read it or not.
Let us not forget a man in China went into a school and stabbed over 20 children as well on the 14th of December. Not the first time in China that has happened either.


Parable of the Sheep
By Charles Riggs, © 1997

Not so long ago and in a pasture too uncomfortably close to here, a flock of sheep lived and grazed. They were protected by a dog, who answered to the master, but despite his best efforts from time to time a nearby pack of wolves would prey upon the flock.

One day a group of sheep, more bold than the rest, met to discuss their dilemma. "Our dog is good, and vigilant, but he is one dog and the wolves are many. The wolves he catches are not always killed, and the master judges and releases many to prey again upon us, for no reason we can understand. What can we do? We are sheep, but we do not wish to be food, too!"

One sheep spoke up, saying "It is his teeth and claws that make the wolf so terrible to us. It is his nature to prey, and he would find any way to do it, but it is the tools he wields that make it possible. If we had such teeth, we could fight back, and stop this savagery." The other sheep clamored in agreement, and they went together to the old bones of the dead wolves heaped in the corner of the pasture, and gathered fang and claw and made them into weapons.

That night, when the wolves came, the newly armed sheep sprang up with their weapons and struck at them and cried "Begone! We are not food!" and drove off the wolves, who were astonished. When did sheep become so bold and so dangerous to wolves? When did sheep grow teeth? It was unthinkable!

The next day, flush with victory and waving their weapons, they approached the flock to pronounce their discovery. But as they drew nigh, the flock huddled together and cried out "Baaaaaaaadddd!­ Baaaaaddd things! You have bad things! We are afraid! You are not sheep!"

The brave sheep stopped, amazed. "But we are your brethren!" they cried, "We are still sheep, but we do not wish to be food. See, our new teeth and claws protect us and have saved us from slaughter. They do not make us into wolves, they make us equal to the wolves, and safe from their viciousness!"

"Baaaaaaaddd!",­ cried the flock,"the things are bad and will pervert you, and we fear them. You cannot bring them into the flock. They scare us!". So the armed sheep resolved to conceal their weapons, for although they had no desire to panic the flock, they wished to remain in the fold. But they would not return to those nights of terror, waiting for the wolves to come.

In time, the wolves attacked less often and sought easier prey, for they had no stomach for fighting sheep who possessed tooth and claw even as they did. Not knowing which sheep had fangs and which did not, they came to leave sheep out of their diet almost completely except for the occasional raid, from which more than one wolf did not return. Then came the day when, as the flock grazed beside the stream, one sheep's weapon slipped from the folds of her fleece, and the flock cried out in terror again, "Baaaaaaddddd! You still possess these evil things! We must ban you from our presence!".

And so they did. The great chief sheep and his court and council, encouraged by the words of their moneylenders and advisors, placed signs and totems at the edges of the pasture forbidding the presence of hidden weapons there. The armed sheep protested before the council, saying "It is our pasture, too, and we have never harmed you! When can you say we have caused you hurt? It is the wolves, not we, who prey upon you. We are still sheep, but we are not food!". But the flock would not hear, and drowned them out with cries of "Baaaaaaddd! We will not hear your clever words! You and your things are evil and will harm us!".

Saddened by this rejection, the armed sheep moved off and spent their days on the edges of the flock, trying from time to time to speak with their brethren to convince them of the wisdom of having such teeth, but meeting with little success. They found it hard to talk to those who, upon hearing their words, would roll back their eyes and flee, crying "Baaaaddd! Bad things!".

That night, the wolves happened upon the sheep's totems and signs, and said, "Truly, these sheep are fools! They have told us they have no teeth! Brothers, let us feed!". And they set upon the flock, and horrible was the carnage in the midst of the fold. The dog fought like a demon, and often seemed to be in two places at once, but even he could not halt the slaughter. It was only when the other sheep arrived with their weapons that the wolves fled, vowing to each other to remain on the edge of the pasture and wait for the next time they could prey, for if the sheep were so foolish once, they would be so again. This they did, and do still.

In the morning, the armed sheep spoke to the flock, and said, "See? If the wolves know you have no teeth, they will fall upon you. Why be prey? To be a sheep does not mean to be food for wolves!". But the flock cried out, more feebly for their voices were fewer, though with no less terror, "Baaaaaaaadddd!­ These things are bad! If they were banished, the wolves would not harm us! Baaaaaaaddd!". The other sheep could only hang their heads and sigh. The flock had forgotten that even they possessed teeth; how else could they graze the grasses of the pasture? It was only those who preyed, like the wolves and jackals, who turned their teeth to evil ends. If you pulled their own fangs those beasts would take another's teeth and claws, perhaps even the broad flat teeth of sheep, and turn them to evil purposes.

The bold sheep knew that the fangs and claws they possessed had not changed them. They still grazed like other sheep, and raised their lambs in the spring, and greeted their friend the dog as he walked among them. But they could not quell the terror of the flock, which rose in them like some ancient dark smoky spirit and could not be damped by reason, nor dispelled by the light of day.

So they resolved to retain their weapons, but to conceal them from the flock; to endure their fear and loathing, and even to protect their brethren if the need arose, until the day the flock learned to understand that as long as there were wolves in the night, sheep would need teeth to repel them.
They would still be sheep, but they would not be food!

By Charles Riggs, © 1997

[JeffreyS]

There is no call to disarm the American people and the gun rights people know it. They just have trouble being outraged at reasonable solutions so they pretend there is a real effort to ban all guns.

You can defend your home and hunt with long barrel pump action shot guns and single shot rifles but those are not good weapons of mass execution or for robbing a liquor store. Such a simple problem to solve but so many need to deal with their inadequacy issues by stroking their glock.

[Pinky]

As many as 27... 18 grade school children dead.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/14/shooting-reported-at-connecticut-elementary-school/?hpt=hp_t1

Its a good thing that guns dont cause violence or mass killings.

I guess "the voices in my head" took this to be another predictable effort on your part to pin the responsibility for the action upon the tool used.  They also found the fact that this was the second post in the thread to be in very bad taste.

People bent on violence will find whatever method they can to do so.  Guns, swords, cars, Sherman tanks, it matters not, so I find your second question irrelevant. 

Finally, get this through your skull: I find the slaughter of anyone, anywhere, anytime, by any method, to be unspeakably wrong.  We differ on whether tighter regulation of a specific type of firearm is the best solution to that problem.  Knock off the personal crap and help me understand why you feel it is. 

[Tacachale]

God, I wish the gun supporters would show a little less defensiveness and a lot more sensitivity when things like this happen. You just make your own position look bad.

[BridgeTroll]

I am beginning to question what is wrong with our young males?

[BridgeTroll]

First question... yes.

Second... I...personally... do not think there is "better" or "easier" access to weapons.  In my household growing up and most families that I knew... nearly everyone had at least a shotgun and rifle... and in many cases multiple instances of those.  They were used for hunting and target shooting by most males in the family.  Access was easy.

For me... the most common thread here is young supposedly "disaffected" or "troubled" loner males.  We had those when I was growing up... and I suspect these people have existed throughout time.

Something is different in our society today that seems to make these acts by these youths acceptable to them... or a viable method of retribution or revenge.  We need to try and understand why this has become an acceptable behavior by these people.

I do not have the answers... no one does...

[BridgeTroll]

Young semi wealthy murderers have always been with us.  The difference is how many people they are able to kill.

For example consider the case of Leopold and Loeb.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_and_Loeb

Both Leopold and Loeb were exceptionally intelligent. Leopold was a child prodigy who spoke his first words at the age of four months; he reportedly had an intelligence quotient of 210, though this is not directly comparable to scores on modern IQ tests.  Leopold had already completed college, graduating Phi Beta Kappa, and was attending law school at the University of Chicago. He claimed to have been able to speak 27 languages fluently, and was an expert ornithologist. Leopold planned to transfer to Harvard Law School in September after taking a trip to Europe. Loeb, on the other hand, was the youngest graduate in the history of the University of Michigan and planned to enter the University of Chicago Law School after taking some postgraduate courses.

The Leopold, Loeb, and Franks families lived in the affluent Kenwood neighborhood on Chicago's Southside some six miles south of downtown. Loeb's father, Albert, began his career as a lawyer and became the vice president of Sears and Roebuck. Besides owning an impressive mansion in Kenwood, two blocks from the Leopold home, the Loeb family had a summer estate, Castle Farms, in Charlevoix, Michigan.

Leopold and Loeb met at the University of Chicago as teenagers. Leopold agreed to act as Loeb's accomplice.

Beginning with petty theft, the pair committed a series of more and more serious crimes, culminating in the murder.
Leopold was 19 years old at the time of the murder, and Loeb was 18. They believed themselves to be Nietzschean supermen who could commit a "perfect crime" (in this case, a kidnapping and murder). Before the murder, Leopold had written to Loeb: "A superman ... is, on account of certain superior qualities inherent in him, exempted from the ordinary laws which govern men. He is not liable for anything he may do.

given that last statement, if so many excellent ways to kill as many more of the 'sheep' that sportsmotor seems to like describing -----you know, us regular, non violent, everyday people--- were as available to leopold and loeb as they were to  Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, do you think that their crimes would have been more spectacular?

These two do not fit the same profile as the youngsters I am questioning.  These guys were criminals... the murder they committed had an understandable motive(Money). 

What was the motives of my above list?  revenge?  against all society?  children?

[BridgeTroll]

you guys had semi automatic weapons, teflon coated bullets, and 100 bullet magazines, Bridge?

And you could order them from mail order catalogues using a credit card without your parents knowing, the way that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold did?

You must be younger than I thought.

You couldnt do that when I was a kid.

you guys had semi automatic weapons, teflon coated bullets, and 100 bullet magazines, Bridge?

And you could order them from mail order catalogues using a credit card without your parents knowing, the way that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold did?

You must be younger than I thought.

You couldnt do that when I was a kid.

I can see you intend to fosus on the weapons.  Yes... most hunting weapons ARE semi-automatic.  Were teflon coated bullets used in any of these crimes?  I dont remember hearing about that.  I am also unaware of any 100 bullet magazines used in these crimes.

I also do not believe klebold and dylan bought their weapons on the internet... could be wrong tho...

[BridgeTroll]

While there are certainly similarities... the striking difference is... those two killed one person... klebold and dylan planned to kill as many as possible... and did so.

[BridgeTroll]

ok... anyway... I have no doubt we will focus on the easy and simplistic "gun issue" while the real cause is much deeper and sinister.

[ronchamblin]

If one were to inquire of the primary determiners of the frequency of shooting massacres such as the one we’ve just witnessed in Connecticut, one might look to at least six attributes or conditions of our society, each as placed upon a curve or graph, noting that as the realities of each approaches the end of the curve which promotes, or causes with greater pressure, these horrible acts, then we might see why and how these acts occur, and perhaps too, what can cause their much needed decrease.  Our objective should be to move each attribute from the “danger” or “enabling” end of the curve, to the end which lessens the likelihood of the shootings.

Obviously, as all of these six attributes or conditions are allowed to gravitate to or remain at the danger or enabling end of the curve, we have an accumulating effect, which only insures that the massacres increase.  Indeed, as shown below, we’ve seen each curve approach the high or danger end of the curve.  Some attributes are not easy to decrease or influence immediately, but some, especially the first three, are within our ability to change, and therefore to lessen the frequency of the shootings.  Can anyone add another one or two attribute or condition to the group of curves?   

The six attributes or conditions: (my opinions)

FIRST: The ease at which guns can be obtained by individuals.  Although the decades have made it more difficult for individuals to obtain guns legally, it must be made much more difficult, so that the frequency of sales and distribution decreases.  Currently, the curve might show this attribute to be at the high, or danger end.

SECOND:  The control and security of guns by owners must be increased to prevent others, who normally could not purchase them, from obtaining them.  This means the establishment of firm rules about locking guns in secure environments, especially in families.  This relates also to the thousands of guns stolen from automobiles and homes by thieves.  Currently, this attribute too is at the high end of the curve, thereby contributing to the higher probability of increased shootings.  Education and enforcement of this factor is the key to its movement to the lower end of its curve.

THIRD:  The reduction of guns in the population by aggressive programs for buyback.  Obviously there are many thousands of guns which could be removed from circulation, thereby reducing the ease with which others could obtain them by theft, borrowing, or simply, finding them.

FOURTH:  The ethical or moral habits as engaged by our political and corporate leadership is shameful.  As these habits descend to the bottom of the curve, to gross materialism, greed, and “anything for profit” attitudes and actions, the message to youngsters and adults is one which might promote, allow, or encourage similar behaviors of a lack of responsibility, or disrespect for all adults and rules of society.  Positive examples from above can promote by subtle pressures, the enhancement of mental stability, focus, and moral habits of those who are developing, and of those who are engaged in trying to survive in a poor economy.  In my opinion, our political and corporate leadership has over recent decades descended to shameful habits of mind and purpose, thereby offering to children and others little or no real leadership which might otherwise bring stability and attitudes of hope and confidence in the future.   

FIFTH:  Poor or stressful economic times wherein jobs are scarce, and unemployment is high.  A quick look at the statistics of mass shootings will allow one to see that a steep climb began in 2007 and 2008, the beginning of stressful economic times, stabilizing to the current uncomfortable rate.  Obviously, the more individuals without jobs, without the ability to save their homes, and sometimes without the ability to raise their children, and even to save their marriages, then the more individuals who might, as a last resort, seek relief or revenge by performing some desperate act such as a mass shooting.  As the curve representing the economy reaches the high end, the stressful end, it only contributes to the overall pressure for senseless acts to those inclined by other factors to commit them.

SIX:  Momentums of these desperate acts might ease the decisions to perform copycat acts.  The momentum is difficult to control, given the efficiency of the mass media.  The momentum will be the last item to descend to the bottom of its curve. 

In any case, the first three factors or attributes can respond to direct action via legislation.  The remaining being less controllable.  I’m sure I missed a factor or two, but I must get to work.

Summation:  As the attributes on this list are brought to their low end of their curves, we will see a considerable decrease in mass shootings.