Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drunks

Friday, December 14, 2012

27 Dead, Including 14 Children, in Connecticut Elementary School Shooting

Posted by on Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Fuck.

Via Reuters:

A shooter opened fire at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, on Friday, killing several people including children, the Hartford Courant newspaper reported.

The shooter was also killed, the Courant said.

Sandy Hook Elementary School teaches children from kindergarten through fourth grade - roughly ages 5 to 10.

Reuters has constant reports and updates.

My heart hurts.

 

Comments (36) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Lew Siffer 1
WTF.
Posted by Lew Siffer on December 14, 2012 at 9:57 AM · Report this
samktg 2
Fuck you 5280, Tawnos, Phnglui, and anyone else that claims this shit can happen just easily with a knife. Fuck you.
Posted by samktg on December 14, 2012 at 9:59 AM · Report this
Cato the Younger Younger 3
The NRA is a terrorist organization and until Obama grows a pair of balls and demands serious gun control legislation he is an enabling that terrorist organization.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on December 14, 2012 at 10:01 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 4
@2

Could be the problem is with your reading comprehension.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on December 14, 2012 at 10:08 AM · Report this
5
@3
"...serious gun control legislation..."

Such as what?
Which specific laws?
How would those specific laws have prevented this specific incident?
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on December 14, 2012 at 10:12 AM · Report this
6
20 children? 30?

peanuts.

try a million.

Planned Parenthood is a terrorist organization and everyone who advocates for it or donates is an enabling that terrorist organization.
Posted by you fool no one on December 14, 2012 at 10:16 AM · Report this
samktg 7
@4, I'm sorry if I just didn't get what you meant, but I'm kinda reeling from hearing that 18 children and 9 adults have been killed, and I'm fucking tired of hearing whatever nonsense gun owners have to say so that no restrictions or controls ever affect their second amendment rights.
Posted by samktg on December 14, 2012 at 10:16 AM · Report this
samktg 8
@6 FUCK YOU
Posted by samktg on December 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM · Report this
Cato the Younger Younger 9
@6, I wish your mother had aborted your stupid ass...sorry I didn't mean that. It was cruel....
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on December 14, 2012 at 10:20 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 10
@5

Since the NRA says gun control is so inconsequential, because you can kill just as many people with a 6 shot revolver, or even a knife, then why not let us have our inconsequential gun control?

You can laugh at how pointless it is to ban assault weapons when just as many massacres will happen with bricks. I don't see a downside here. Gun owners get to keep weapons that, they've told us many times, are just as deadly as assault weapons, and liberals can have their "useless" gun ban. It's a grand compromise.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on December 14, 2012 at 10:20 AM · Report this
tabathalphabet 11
god, this is so horrible. my heart hurts too. i can't imagine how the families are feeling right now, particularly in the midst of holiday season. thoughts to all.
Posted by tabathalphabet on December 14, 2012 at 10:24 AM · Report this
fletc3her 12
It's early on this story, but the weapons used at Columbine and in other mass killings have been assault weapons designed for exactly that purpose.

Perhaps it's time to ask ourselves what kind of weapons should be available to our citizen militia. Especially since the number of foreign invaders that have been killed by the militia is being far outstripped by the number of American children in the line of fire.
Posted by fletc3her on December 14, 2012 at 10:26 AM · Report this
13
@2: Woo, I'm on a shitlist!

@6: Thanks for reminding me that I should make a donation to PP.
Posted by Tawnos on December 14, 2012 at 10:26 AM · Report this
Max Solomon 14
for once, i want to hear one idea from our 2nd amendment advocates, one idea that might keep one gun out of the hands of one alienated, suicidal murderer.

you cannot argue that guns don't facilitate this insanity.

Posted by Max Solomon on December 14, 2012 at 10:26 AM · Report this
Max Solomon 15
@12: please don't say "assault weapons". it gives the gun trolls the opening they need to distract from the main point. "what is an assault weapon?" "an AR-15 is not based on the Kalasnikov". etc.

say semi-automatics w/ high-capacity magazines. we need to use their precise terminology or they derail the "conversation".
Posted by Max Solomon on December 14, 2012 at 10:32 AM · Report this
16
@10
"Since the NRA says gun control is so inconsequential, because you can kill just as many people with a 6 shot revolver, or even a knife, then why not let us have our inconsequential gun control?"

You can have it when you can convince 51% of the voters to vote for it.
But first you'll have to be specific about what law you want to pass and how it would have prevented this specific incident.
Can you do that?
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on December 14, 2012 at 10:42 AM · Report this
TVDinner 17
I think I'm going to hurl. How is it even possible that this happened? Children? Really?
Posted by TVDinner http:// on December 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 18
@16

You've been given specific proposals and you immediately objected on the grounds that the proposal wouldn't have any effect. You said limiting ammunition purchases to only 12 bullets at a time would have no effect.

So here we are. You got the specific proposal you demanded, and predictably you trotted out the same old argument: it is inconsequential.

Why is it so important to you to oppose inconsequential laws? Just let us have our silly law and you can smugly dismiss it.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on December 14, 2012 at 10:55 AM · Report this
Will in Seattle 19
Obviously we need to talk about banning kids.

What is with them and Santa anyway?
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on December 14, 2012 at 11:05 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 20
@15: God forbid we expect a reporter to accurately state what kind of gun was used, when it forms the basis of their entire point: that the AWB would have banned that particular gun.

I'm sorry, but the type of gun matters when the point of a post is about how that specific type of gun may have been or not been banned by a specific law.

Besides, I (and the others who pointed out that mistake) was just pointing out his glaring errors, I said nothing about his overall political point, or even gun control in general.

No different from pointing out a typo. You and the others jumping all over that issue made it a big deal and derailed the conversation.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on December 14, 2012 at 11:08 AM · Report this
21
@18
"You've been given specific proposals..."

Then show that I'm wrong and post them again.
Go ahead.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on December 14, 2012 at 11:16 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 22
@21

Ban semi-automatic assault rifles.

Limit the amount of ammunition that can be purchased at one time.

Stop selling guns to crazy people.

Make gun owners pass a test to get a gun license. Take their license away if they turn into a freak.

Require every gun to have a trigger lock with it.

Etc.

There are a hundred sensible proposals on the table. The problem isn't a lack of solutions. The problem is gun owners are fucking nuts.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on December 14, 2012 at 11:43 AM · Report this
23
@22
"The problem is gun owners are fucking nuts."

And yet more than 99% of the gun owners and their guns will never be involved in shooting another person.
So I think the problem is more that you don't like guns or gun owners.

"Ban semi-automatic assault rifles."

I already addressed that. Why are you claiming that I did not?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Ass…
It wasn't very effective.
And how would that have effected this SPECIFIC incident?

"Limit the amount of ammunition that can be purchased at one time."

I am also addressing that with "arbeck" who brought it up.
Again, why are you claiming otherwise?

"Stop selling guns to crazy people."

I haven't seen that one before. Is it one of yours?
How do you define "crazy" because it is not a legal term.

"Make gun owners pass a test to get a gun license. Take their license away if they turn into a freak."

Yeah, you might want to look up what "specific" means because it seems that you do not understand it.
What is the legal definition of "freak"?
What would that test be over, specifically?

"Require every gun to have a trigger lock with it."

At least that one is specific.
But you have not shown how it would have any effect on the specific incident today.
Can you do that?

"Etc."

Like I said, be specific.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on December 14, 2012 at 11:53 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 24
@23

Your objections would apply equally to any law. You can pick any law, jaywalking, speeding, murder, you name it, and pick out some scenario that would let somebody somewhere violate it. Nobody expects any law to be that perfect. You don't need a perfect definition of mental illness to filter out a significant chunk of crazy people from buying guns. You don't need a perfect definition of assault rifle to take a significant portion of the worst offenders off the market. There are any number of loopholes on regulations of car emissions. You can buy a car and mess around with the catalytic converter and ECU and whatnot. You get away with being a worse polluter than we wanted, but the net effect is overall less air pollution, because most people don't tamper with their cars. It's not perfect, but it makes a difference.

Nobody promised law abiding gun owners they'd never be inconvenienced just a little. "Give me convenience or give me death!" is their motto. We're sick of the death, so gun owners are going to have jump through just a few hoops. We all know they love their guns so much they'll do anything to get them. Fill out a form. Take a class. Take a test. Buy a trigger lock. Such inconvenience! Boo hoo.

What we do expect is that with a few common sense regulations, we can just possibly get the number of gun massacres down to something a teeny bit less than two a week. Maybe they'll get so rare that we can feel genuine surprise when they happen instead of bitter resignation.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on December 14, 2012 at 12:07 PM · Report this
25
@24
"You can pick any law, jaywalking, speeding, murder, you name it, and pick out some scenario that would let somebody somewhere violate it."

As I had pointed out before, I'm not even going to address whether or not a specific shooter would have broken a proposed gun control law.
Presume that the shooter would have followed all the laws right up to the day of the shooting.

"You don't need a perfect definition of mental illness to filter out a significant chunk of crazy people from buying guns."

But that "significant chunk" of "crazy" already don't get guns.
And the shooter in this SPECIFIC incident would not meet your non-definition of "crazy" because you failed to define it.

"You don't need a perfect definition of assault rifle to take a significant portion of the worst offenders off the market."

I'm guessing that you didn't read the Wikipedia article.
Here it is, again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Ass…
And no. I did nothing to ... "significant" ... "worst offenders" ...
The manufacturers simply changed the characteristics of their product to meet the new requirements.

Learn what "specific" means.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on December 14, 2012 at 12:21 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 26
@25

This SPECIFIC (why are we writing specific in all caps? I dunno. Just go with it...) incident wouldn't cause such an uproar if it were not yet another in a long line of horrific gun massacres. If this SPECIFIC incident were rare, instead of horrifically commonplace, we wouldn't be discussing this.

We regulate CO and HC emissions from cars without having to prove that one SPECIFIC Fred Needermeyer of 34 West Palm Beach Place Apartment #3 will definietly drive a car with less CO and HC emissions. It's a stupid, meaningless standard. We have broad regulations on cars, and they broadly reduce the amount of pollution from cars. Some cars still pollute too much but that's of no consequence in deciding the utility of the regulation.

Fred Needermeyer might have jaywalked last week but we don't need to prove that our jaywalking law would have prevented Fred from running across the road to decide that the law is helpful.

I'm actually at least the fourth person to have explained this to you. Today. God knows how many times you've had this explained to you before today. You're just a clown who can't learn, and who spews out the same twaddle like a broken record.

Notice the lack of anybody saying "Gee, you have a really good point there!" It's because your arguments suck.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on December 14, 2012 at 12:45 PM · Report this
27
@26
"why are we writing specific in all caps?"

Because you seem to keep missing it.
Your examples are not specific.
"crazy" is not specific.
"freak" is not specific.

So instead you go off on a tangent about car emissions.

What SPECIFIC law(s) do you suggest that would have prevented this SPECIFIC incident?
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on December 14, 2012 at 12:50 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 28
@27

None. Asshole.

Nobody proposed such a thing. Nobody is interested in such a thing. Nobody is interested in writing a REALLY FUCKING STUPID LAW tailored to prevent one specific guy from killing people. Can you name even one law that is written like that?

So there you go. This was never about this SPECIFIC incident. It is, and always has been, about the general level of gun violence. The frequency of the class of incidents, of which this SPECIFIC incident, asshole, is a member, can be reduced with any number of common sense regulations.

Asshole. Did I mention asshole? Kind of thick a asshole as that. Now you've had this explained to you five times today. No doubt tomorrow you will be just as clueless.

Carry on, repeating your inane twaddle like a broken record. Asshole. I know I can call you an asshole a thousand times and it won't make a dent. The definition of an asshole like you is that you're incapable of realizing what an asshole you are, asshole.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on December 14, 2012 at 1:02 PM · Report this
29
@28
"None. Asshole."

I take it that you have exhausted your ability with the English language.

"Nobody is interested in writing a REALLY FUCKING STUPID LAW tailored to prevent one specific guy from killing people."

It looks like you have exhausted your ability with the English language.
Because I've never said it was about one specific guy.
I said "specific incident".

"I know I can call you an asshole a thousand times and it won't make a dent."

Of course not.
Because I would have to respect your opinion for your insults to have an impact.
You are some nobody on the internet throwing out insults when his position is shown to be flawed.

You have not provided any SPECIFIC suggests for a law (or laws) that would have prevented this SPECIFIC incident from happening.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on December 14, 2012 at 1:10 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 30
@29

Another way to recognize an asshole is that if you call a normal person an asshole they go away. Call an asshole an asshole and the keep blathering on, repeating their inane bullshit as if they didn't hear you.

Asshole.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on December 14, 2012 at 2:35 PM · Report this
31
@29
"Another way to recognize an asshole is that if you call a normal person an asshole they go away."

So you still cannot provided any SPECIFIC suggests for a law (or laws) that would have prevented this SPECIFIC incident from happening.

I don't care what your opinion of me is because I don't care what your opinions are.
So I'm illustrating the limitations of your opinions by pointing out that you cannot provide even a single specific suggestion that would have prevented this specific instance.
And that your understanding of the English language is so limited that you cannot even understand the question.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on December 14, 2012 at 2:55 PM · Report this
Sam Levine 32
A crazy guy might shoot up some place. Quick! Give the government your guns before they do!
Posted by Sam Levine http://levinetech.net on December 14, 2012 at 3:00 PM · Report this
Sam Levine 33
@22 None of your suggestions would lower the body count in mass shootings like this, in general. This doesn't make them bad (or good), but you're punching at shadows here unless your goal is ending the second amendment and mass gun confiscations (which isn't on your list).

Not selling to crazy people is difficult, because most crazy people that do this avoid the mental health system.

We might do well to start locking up people that we think are kind of creepy, and not letting them out until they prove that they're sane. But I'm not sure people are ready for yet another form of mass incarceration given that gun deaths are at near all time lows since the 60s.
Posted by Sam Levine http://levinetech.net on December 14, 2012 at 3:09 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 34
@31

Ah, there you go again. Repeating the same inane question, which a half dozen times you've been told is completely off point. An asshole move on your part. Naturally.

Now you're going to come back and repeat the same idiotic question. As if others reading this will be impressed by that. They're going to say to themselves, "What an asshole."
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on December 14, 2012 at 4:08 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 35
@33

Once again, we hear the NRA's first line of defense. "That wouldn't work. That's an inconsequential law." The reason it's so obviously disingenuous is that they obviously think these laws would be very consequential indeed, and are worth spending millions of dollars to stop.

If gun control regulation were really so meaningless, they'd just ignore it and laugh. But they know better.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on December 14, 2012 at 4:12 PM · Report this
36
@34
"Now you're going to come back and repeat the same idiotic question."

Yep.
Because it is still a relevant question that you have been unable to answer.
Because you still cannot provided any SPECIFIC suggests for a law (or laws) that would have prevented this SPECIFIC incident from happening.

"The reason it's so obviously disingenuous is that they obviously think these laws would be very consequential indeed, and are worth spending millions of dollars to stop."

Nope.
You are conflating "gun ownership" with "gun violence".
They are not the same.
So a law that would impact "gun ownership" may not impact "gun violence".
Which has been pointed out to you several times.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on December 15, 2012 at 2:26 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy