Slog
News & ArtsFriday, December 14, 2012
Crime / Breaking News At Least 26 Dead, Including 18 Children, Reported at Connecticut Elementary School Shooting
Posted by Goldy on Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:01 PM
This post has been moved up and will be updated as more information becomes available. Updates are by Paul Constant.
UPDATE: We'll be updating news as it comes in an afternoon post, in order to keep Slog loading times fast. [PC]
UPDATE 12:09 PM: John Boehner has ordered all the flags on Capitol Hill to be flown at half-mast. [PC]
UPDATE 11:51 AM: President Obama will speak in about twenty-five minutes, at 3:15 eastern time. [PC]
UPDATE 11:23 AM: The suspected shooter's name is being reported as Ryan Lanza, age 23 or 24. A reporter for NBC says a source tells him that the shooter's mother was a kindergarten teacher at the school. [PC]
UPDATE 11:12 AM: There are reports that "a parent of the suspected shooter has been found dead at a home in New Jersey." [PC]
UPDATE 11:08 AM: The death toll according to the Connecticut Post is now up to 29 dead, including 22 children. [PC]
UPDATE 10:58 AM: According to CNN, the other person being interviewed by authorities is not being called a suspect. [PC]
UPDATE 10:51 AM: President Obama will be speaking soon, according to NBC's Chuck Todd. [PC]
UPDATE 10:44 AM: They're giving a press briefing for basic information right now. The 911 call came after 9:30 am. Police arrived soon after. There were fatalities on the scene. The shooter is deceased inside the building, and police are now searching other sites related to the shooter. The school is now secure. President Obama has called "with condolences on behalf of the nation." More information will be released when the families are informed. [PC]
UPDATE 10:33 AM: Reuters is reporting that an entire classroom of students is unaccounted for. There will be a police briefing in an hour. [PC]
UPDATE 10:28 AM: Multiple outlets are reporting that the shooter is dead. CBS is reporting that a person of interest is in custody. Some reports indicate that this person in custody might be a second shooter, but those reports are unconfirmed by law enforcement. At mass shootings, there are frequently reports of multiple shooters; these scenes are chaotic and eyewitness testimony is often unreliable. As Megan noted, this Reuters page is a constantly updated source of information. [PC]
According the AP. Awful.
1
Good god...
NOW can Obama grow a pair of balls and talk about serious gun control? And call the NRA a terrorist organization?
NOW can Obama grow a pair of balls and talk about serious gun control? And call the NRA a terrorist organization?
2
Maybe if leftists like Goldfucker would let us lock up crazy people, this wouldn't happen. Oh, never mind. They have rights.
3
Good god...
NOW can Obama grow a pair of balls and talk about capital punishment?
The recidivism rate for executed murderers is zero.....
NOW can Obama grow a pair of balls and talk about capital punishment?
The recidivism rate for executed murderers is zero.....
4
If this were due to a food additive or an auto defect, there'd be a MASSIVE immediate recall.
What Cato @1 said. NRA to Guantanamo.
What Cato @1 said. NRA to Guantanamo.
5
@2,@3, you realize your "idea" wouldn't prevent this crap from happening right? You want to punish them after there's a pile of corpses who are now elementary kids.
The NRA managed to create a disaster worse than Columbine. Congrats NRA and your fucking political enablers. May you experience a drone strike at your next convention.
The NRA managed to create a disaster worse than Columbine. Congrats NRA and your fucking political enablers. May you experience a drone strike at your next convention.
6
And we need to PREVENT guns from getting into the hands of the crazies BEFORE they kill.
When will you fucking conservatives finally get it?
When will you fucking conservatives finally get it?
8
Holy shit. This is unimaginable. Those poor parents.
If something like this isn't the nail in the coffin of the NRA then nothing will be. Demographically the organization was already (literally) dying and surviving by getting HUGE political donors to sustain it. Something like this might shame those donors. Fuck. Who am I kidding. Nothing will shame them.
If something like this isn't the nail in the coffin of the NRA then nothing will be. Demographically the organization was already (literally) dying and surviving by getting HUGE political donors to sustain it. Something like this might shame those donors. Fuck. Who am I kidding. Nothing will shame them.
9
So, Goldy, why don't you suggest a specific law that would have prevented this specific shooting?
Why isn't anyone here doing that?
We've seen enough of these articles by now that anyone for "gun control" should have some idea of what law(s) they would like passed.
Why isn't anyone here doing that?
We've seen enough of these articles by now that anyone for "gun control" should have some idea of what law(s) they would like passed.
12
5
you propose punishing them before they commit a crime?
of course not.
you propose punishing EVERYONE because you think someone might commit a crime.
enlightened........
you propose punishing them before they commit a crime?
of course not.
you propose punishing EVERYONE because you think someone might commit a crime.
enlightened........
13
Waiting for someone to say how this wouldn't have happened if the kids and teachers had been armed...
I'm sick to my stomach. So awful.
I'm sick to my stomach. So awful.
14
@9
If you're so convinced that laws like an assault weapons ban are inconsequential, then stop opposing them. Let us have our pointless ban. You NRA guys spend an awful lot of time fighting against something you say is meaningless.
If you're so convinced that laws like an assault weapons ban are inconsequential, then stop opposing them. Let us have our pointless ban. You NRA guys spend an awful lot of time fighting against something you say is meaningless.
15
This is not a pro-gun or anti-gun statement, but if we keep having gun massacres take place at the rate they're taking place now, we WILL end up with serious gun control laws and restrictions. People will not sit by and let this become a fact of life. Today may go down as a tipping point, and they way things are going it should.
Either you get serious about this problem (and stop pretending it's not a problem), or someone will get serious about it for you.
Either you get serious about this problem (and stop pretending it's not a problem), or someone will get serious about it for you.
16
Just horrible. Obviously, locking up every person capable of this isn't Constitutional @2 so it's going to be your guns that will be regulated. Get a fucking clue loser.
18
Until there's a serious effort to organize gun control advocates into a mass group that will vote on the issue, and target both Democrats insufficiently strong on the issue and Republicans in swing districts, nothing will happen.
That's what the NRA does, and it works.
That's what the NRA does, and it works.
19
@9
Here's a law. We treat bullets like pseudoephedrine. You can buy them in packets of 12, with an ID that is logged. If you travel from store to store trying to buy more bullets, you'll get caught and charged with a crime. We set a reasonable limit on the number of bullets you can buy a month (Pistol and AR bullets might be less per month than hunting rifle). In a firing range you can purchase as many bullets as you want to be used at the range (you can't take them with you). It's still legal to make your own bullets, but not to sell them with out a license and following the first rule.
This doesn't make it impossible for things like this to happen. But nothing does, you can kill people with a variety of things. This just makes it harder. It requires more planning and is easier to catch the person before they do it. It also doesn't actually do much to harm law abiding gun owners.
Here's a law. We treat bullets like pseudoephedrine. You can buy them in packets of 12, with an ID that is logged. If you travel from store to store trying to buy more bullets, you'll get caught and charged with a crime. We set a reasonable limit on the number of bullets you can buy a month (Pistol and AR bullets might be less per month than hunting rifle). In a firing range you can purchase as many bullets as you want to be used at the range (you can't take them with you). It's still legal to make your own bullets, but not to sell them with out a license and following the first rule.
This doesn't make it impossible for things like this to happen. But nothing does, you can kill people with a variety of things. This just makes it harder. It requires more planning and is easier to catch the person before they do it. It also doesn't actually do much to harm law abiding gun owners.
20
@14
"If you're so convinced that laws like an assault weapons ban are inconsequential, then stop opposing them."
I know it is difficult, but can you try to stay on topic?
What, specific, law are you suggesting that would have prevented this, specific, incident?
Try being specific about what you are suggesting BEFORE claiming that other people are opposed to something that hasn't even been specified.
Can you do that?
"If you're so convinced that laws like an assault weapons ban are inconsequential, then stop opposing them."
I know it is difficult, but can you try to stay on topic?
What, specific, law are you suggesting that would have prevented this, specific, incident?
Try being specific about what you are suggesting BEFORE claiming that other people are opposed to something that hasn't even been specified.
Can you do that?
21
So, I haven't checked on the news today and I'm just checking on Slog right now and this is what greets me. Good God.
22
Stop asking Obama to do something. Stand up and demand federal gun control legislation. Contact your representatives and Senators. Donate money. The NRA isn't big enough to fight the tide that will result with each continued mass shooting. Sensible people realize that gun control is a necessity. Stop sitting back and complaining and do something about it.
23
I bet the ghost of the Clackamas shooter is PISSED. His suicidal blaze of glory was just wiped off the front page.
24
This is ridiculous. Now they're slaughtering kids. I damn well better hear the phrase "gun control" come out of Obama's lips.
25
@9: Like all the dolts on the pro-gun side, you keep asking the same question: "What would YOU do to stop this?"
You dolts fail to see that there is no one magic answer. Everyone that's been paying attention knows that there are multiple causes and multiple reasons for why gun violence happens, especially mass shootings like this.
No one law, no one solution will apply.
The conversation has to start though, and it has to include many things that are not directly connected. We've talked about this before. Better mental health programs. Better education. Fewer guns. Stricter laws. None of these are easy things to change. For one example, there's that law down in the redneck southern states that forbids medical professionals from even asking patients if they have guns in their houses and know simple facts about gun safety. What a bullshit, idiot law.
But stopping the conversation by saying "Whelp, it's too hard to fix, so no point trying" is an idiot tactic, and all you dolts on the right are idiots for using it.
You dolts fail to see that there is no one magic answer. Everyone that's been paying attention knows that there are multiple causes and multiple reasons for why gun violence happens, especially mass shootings like this.
No one law, no one solution will apply.
The conversation has to start though, and it has to include many things that are not directly connected. We've talked about this before. Better mental health programs. Better education. Fewer guns. Stricter laws. None of these are easy things to change. For one example, there's that law down in the redneck southern states that forbids medical professionals from even asking patients if they have guns in their houses and know simple facts about gun safety. What a bullshit, idiot law.
But stopping the conversation by saying "Whelp, it's too hard to fix, so no point trying" is an idiot tactic, and all you dolts on the right are idiots for using it.
26
The issue seems to be how to keep firearms out of the hands of disturbed individuals. There is currently no motivation for the gun industry or for current owners to do so. The NRA likes to talk about responsible gun ownership, but makes sure that owners bear no responsibility for the negative effects of the guns.
Make gun manufacturers, sellers, and owners jointly liable for the crimes committed with the guns. Make gun owners buy insurance. Car insurance is mandatory. Why not firearm insurance?
Gun got borrowed: owner's fault.
Gun got stolen: owner's fault.
Gun got misplaced: owner's fault.
You don't want to be responsible for what your gun does? Have it destroyed.
Make gun manufacturers, sellers, and owners jointly liable for the crimes committed with the guns. Make gun owners buy insurance. Car insurance is mandatory. Why not firearm insurance?
Gun got borrowed: owner's fault.
Gun got stolen: owner's fault.
Gun got misplaced: owner's fault.
You don't want to be responsible for what your gun does? Have it destroyed.
27
@9: why don't YOU suggest something? gun trolls are great at pointing out flaws in other's proposals, but given your greater knowledge of gun culture, you might actually have some insight into an effective policy.
or are these massacres acceptable to you? just the price we pay for freedom?
or are these massacres acceptable to you? just the price we pay for freedom?
28
Automatic and semi automatic weapons have only one purpose. To kill people. They are not needed for hunting or self protection. There is no constitutional right to own any type of weapon you want. Ban automatic, semi-automatic and silenced weapons outside of the military. Period. this won't stop crazies from harming people, but it will limit the damage, and give the victims a better chance of stopping the shooter or getting out of harm's way. This makes me sick.
30
@19
"We treat bullets like pseudoephedrine."
Which means that the shooter would have only been able to kill 11 people and himself. And with nothing to stop the shooter from saving up a few months of ammo rations.
"This just makes it harder."
Only if you assume that the shooter would not save up a few month's worth of rationed bullets. 12, 24, 36, 48.
"We treat bullets like pseudoephedrine."
Which means that the shooter would have only been able to kill 11 people and himself. And with nothing to stop the shooter from saving up a few months of ammo rations.
"This just makes it harder."
Only if you assume that the shooter would not save up a few month's worth of rationed bullets. 12, 24, 36, 48.
31
Anyone else expecting the Seattle Times to put out an op-ed about how this wouldn't happen at charter schools? I mean they are such a classy news source..
32
Connecticut has an assault weapons ban that was instituted in 1993 before the Clinton ban of 1994. Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.
http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/law/firearm…
Schools are a gun free zone under federal law.
Condolences to the dead.
http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/law/firearm…
Schools are a gun free zone under federal law.
Condolences to the dead.
34
I'd also like to see a NRA or gun supporter just once say this. If they did I might accept their postition:
Every year 30,000 people die in car crashes. That's the price we pay to have the freedom to own an operate these machines. There are a similar amount of privately owned guns ad privately owned cars and fewer deaths caused by the guns. We need to accept the fact that a number of people will die due to the 200+ million guns in circulation. It's the price we pay for that freedom.
I don't think that would be a winning argument with the majority of America though.
Every year 30,000 people die in car crashes. That's the price we pay to have the freedom to own an operate these machines. There are a similar amount of privately owned guns ad privately owned cars and fewer deaths caused by the guns. We need to accept the fact that a number of people will die due to the 200+ million guns in circulation. It's the price we pay for that freedom.
I don't think that would be a winning argument with the majority of America though.
35
Shit, 5280, where are you to enlighten us in this time of confusion? Is this what your ilk means about the blood that waters the tree of liberty from time to time?
37
@30 And during that savings period, the chance of someone finding out increases.
There is utility in laws that make it HARDER to massacre people, even if the law doesn't make it IMPOSSIBLE.
There is utility in laws that make it HARDER to massacre people, even if the law doesn't make it IMPOSSIBLE.
40
@32: You're right, we need comprehensive laws, not some patchwork that ignores the permeability of borders.
41
Why is mental health treatment harder to get than a .223 rifle and 100 rounds of ammo? Is it a matter of priorities that the majority of Americans have decided upon? Or are they electing legislators who do not work for the best interests of Americans?
42
@11 - It's not about punishing people before they commit a crime. It's about funding mental health programs, getting mentally ill people the care and treatment they need, and keeping guns out of the hands of those people. That would go a long way. It's also about keeping guns capable of causing mass destruction out of people's hands altogether and making it difficult for unstable people to get guns in the first place. That is called PREVENTION, not punishment.
43
@30
Yes the shooter could save up bullets for months on end. But the kind of person who does is also not the kind of person making rational decisions. You're also assuming that a person with 12 bullets is going to kill 11 people, in my experience with firearms; that's highly unlikely.
You can't prevent stuff like this from happening. It's simply impossible. You can make it harder though. I gave you one example of a law that know one can deny would make situations like this harder to pull off.
You can combine that with other sensible gun laws. A ban on high capacity magazines, with a government by back of existing magazines. This would end up driving up the price of those magazines high enough so that it would be much harder to obtain one.
There's never going to be one law that you can implement that will stop everything. And even if there were no guns, you could still kill or injure a lot of people with other devices. But we can make it harder to plan and carry out these kinds of things and minimize the damage when they do happen.
Yes the shooter could save up bullets for months on end. But the kind of person who does is also not the kind of person making rational decisions. You're also assuming that a person with 12 bullets is going to kill 11 people, in my experience with firearms; that's highly unlikely.
You can't prevent stuff like this from happening. It's simply impossible. You can make it harder though. I gave you one example of a law that know one can deny would make situations like this harder to pull off.
You can combine that with other sensible gun laws. A ban on high capacity magazines, with a government by back of existing magazines. This would end up driving up the price of those magazines high enough so that it would be much harder to obtain one.
There's never going to be one law that you can implement that will stop everything. And even if there were no guns, you could still kill or injure a lot of people with other devices. But we can make it harder to plan and carry out these kinds of things and minimize the damage when they do happen.
44
@37
"And during that savings period, the chance of someone finding out increases."
Someone finding out what?
Or are you suggesting that even having more than 12 bullets be illegal?
Can you be specific about what specific law you are suggesting?
"There is utility in laws that make it HARDER to massacre people, even if the law doesn't make it IMPOSSIBLE."
Considering that even 2 people dead (not counting the shooter) is now referred to as a "massacre" (check Goldy's previous links) then being able to kill 11 people does not sound "HARDER".
"And during that savings period, the chance of someone finding out increases."
Someone finding out what?
Or are you suggesting that even having more than 12 bullets be illegal?
Can you be specific about what specific law you are suggesting?
"There is utility in laws that make it HARDER to massacre people, even if the law doesn't make it IMPOSSIBLE."
Considering that even 2 people dead (not counting the shooter) is now referred to as a "massacre" (check Goldy's previous links) then being able to kill 11 people does not sound "HARDER".
46
@30
Ha. See? My point exactly.
You get a specific proposal, and you think you can shoot it down by saying how it is inconsequential. It will have no effect, according to you. And the whole NRA. You got a lot of friends.
So. Let's limit purchases to 12 bullets. It will make liberals happy, and you are certain it will make no difference. If it makes no difference, then you shouldn't be wasting your time fighting against it.
If I propose banning semi-automatic rifles, you'll say the same thing: bad guys will just get some other gun. So? Let's ban them and you can safely rejoice that it will have no effect on anything.
Unless these claims that gun control laws have no effect are just rhetoric...? No. Can't be that. You're too honest a fellow.
Ha. See? My point exactly.
You get a specific proposal, and you think you can shoot it down by saying how it is inconsequential. It will have no effect, according to you. And the whole NRA. You got a lot of friends.
So. Let's limit purchases to 12 bullets. It will make liberals happy, and you are certain it will make no difference. If it makes no difference, then you shouldn't be wasting your time fighting against it.
If I propose banning semi-automatic rifles, you'll say the same thing: bad guys will just get some other gun. So? Let's ban them and you can safely rejoice that it will have no effect on anything.
Unless these claims that gun control laws have no effect are just rhetoric...? No. Can't be that. You're too honest a fellow.
47
@32
Guns transferring ownership across state borders is also illegal under federal law unless they were transferred through a Federal Firearm License.
Assault weapons can not be transferred in Connecticut.
All the laws that people want to have to prevent this sort of thing were already in place.
Guns transferring ownership across state borders is also illegal under federal law unless they were transferred through a Federal Firearm License.
Assault weapons can not be transferred in Connecticut.
All the laws that people want to have to prevent this sort of thing were already in place.
49
In comments on previous gun-related posts, I've seen it suggested that people can kill each other with knives and bricks and hands, so despite the more efficiently lethal nature of guns, stricter controls on the sale and possession of guns is an improper response to gun violence. Sadly, today brings us as damn near a one-to-one comparison as we're likely to see: 27 killed in the Connecticut school shooting and 23 slashed--not killed--by a man outside a school in China.
http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldn…
http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldn…
50
As with anything in America, when enough lives are ruined then and only then will there be meaningful change. Once again innocent people have paid the HIGH price for freedom to own guns. See as the right wing loves to say, "freedom is not free" they just never tell you who pays the price. Now you know.
51
@20 No one is claiming that a single law or even an assortment of laws is going to absolutely and unfailingly prevent every possible shooting. That is a nonsensical standard. But we can pass laws that will make shootings like this less easy to pull off (and therefore less commonly attempted and more likely to be caught before they happen).
You want specific: no private ownership of handguns and automatic weapons. None. Those weapons are for shooting people. You want to shoot a handgun, go to a shooting range. Add to that the close regulation of ammution proposed in #19 and I think we will see a dramatic decrease in gun deaths. I'm not saying there wont be any, but I think there will be far, far fewer.
Tell you what, lets try it my way a decade and if I'm wrong you can have all your people-hunting guns back.
You want specific: no private ownership of handguns and automatic weapons. None. Those weapons are for shooting people. You want to shoot a handgun, go to a shooting range. Add to that the close regulation of ammution proposed in #19 and I think we will see a dramatic decrease in gun deaths. I'm not saying there wont be any, but I think there will be far, far fewer.
Tell you what, lets try it my way a decade and if I'm wrong you can have all your people-hunting guns back.
52
Obviously the answer to gun control laws is to keep passing incrementally tighter restrictions until we can eventually ban them. The NRA knows this, which is why they fight any stupid gun control law even when it's obviously the right thing to do and wouldn't hurt their freedom to shoot things in the slightest.
54
@46
"Ha. See? My point exactly."
You had your chance, repeatedly, to make your suggestions.
You could not.
Now I am discussing the ONE suggestion that ONE person has put forward.
"arbeck" is at least doing something to move this debate forward.
Even if the suggestion would not have changed anything other than the shooter waiting to collect enough bullets.
"Let's ban them and you can safely rejoice that it will have no effect on anything."
Get 51% of the voters to vote for it.
Or you can stop beating on that straw man and start offering some specific suggestions for laws that would have prevented this specific incident.
"Ha. See? My point exactly."
You had your chance, repeatedly, to make your suggestions.
You could not.
Now I am discussing the ONE suggestion that ONE person has put forward.
"arbeck" is at least doing something to move this debate forward.
Even if the suggestion would not have changed anything other than the shooter waiting to collect enough bullets.
"Let's ban them and you can safely rejoice that it will have no effect on anything."
Get 51% of the voters to vote for it.
Or you can stop beating on that straw man and start offering some specific suggestions for laws that would have prevented this specific incident.
55
@53, remember the time when I said "we should be taking our laws from a [sic] authoritarian communist regime"?
56
@53: No, you're right, nobody has better laws than us. You should go to those kids' parents' houses on Christmas morning and explain this to them.
57
Ughhh..why fuck can't we be like UK, Australia, etc and outlaw guns, bullets, etc., entirely amongst civilians? You have a 90 day grace period to hand in everything, no questions asked. After that period any civilian caught with any gun, bullet, etc., gets 20 years min in jail, guaranteed. God forbid we restrict hillbilly's rights to go on hunting - I don't give a fuck.
Of course at most all that will come out of this is *perhaps* some extremely limited measure that would outlaw certain types of automatic weapons, with plenty of loopholes. And that will get overturned in time I'm sure
I lived in Japan when Columbine and a couple other mass shootings happened here and thought how fucked the US was and questioned whether I should even move back. Shit like this makes me question it again, espec the predictable Rupublican/NRA "response"
Of course at most all that will come out of this is *perhaps* some extremely limited measure that would outlaw certain types of automatic weapons, with plenty of loopholes. And that will get overturned in time I'm sure
I lived in Japan when Columbine and a couple other mass shootings happened here and thought how fucked the US was and questioned whether I should even move back. Shit like this makes me question it again, espec the predictable Rupublican/NRA "response"
58
@44
You could also add a large federal excise tax on bullets. Make the 12 have an added $100 tax. (Not charged at a firing range). Or have them charge a large deposit which can be redeemed by returning the spent shells. Again, doesn't stop someone completely (you could always make your own bullets), but it sure does make it harder.
@32
But those laws are so easy to break they are almost worthless. Especially in a region where you can travel to places with more liberal gun laws so easily.
You could also add a large federal excise tax on bullets. Make the 12 have an added $100 tax. (Not charged at a firing range). Or have them charge a large deposit which can be redeemed by returning the spent shells. Again, doesn't stop someone completely (you could always make your own bullets), but it sure does make it harder.
@32
But those laws are so easy to break they are almost worthless. Especially in a region where you can travel to places with more liberal gun laws so easily.
59
@ 19 - I think that's a great idea, and would be a great place to start to try to get a handle on this recurring bullshit...
60
You are right 57, why cant we be more like the UK and have a massive stabbing problem, the highest crime rate in Europe, which is higher than South Africa by the way.
As for per capita murder rate you will notice that the USA did not even make it to the list.
http://www.businessinsider.com/1homicida…
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mu…
As for per capita murder rate you will notice that the USA did not even make it to the list.
http://www.businessinsider.com/1homicida…
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mu…
62
@1 for the Epic GITMO win.
PS, @53 doesn't want to admit Canadians have twice as many guns per capita as we do, they just don't shoot each other with them.
PS, @53 doesn't want to admit Canadians have twice as many guns per capita as we do, they just don't shoot each other with them.
63
@58
One of the main points of the NRA is that criminals violate the laws so laws only really impact honest people (99%+ of the gun owners).
But even if we skip over that for now, what you're proposing is making bullets far more expensive so that only persons with disposable income over a certain point can purchase enough bullets to kill this many people.
I don't see that as being an issue in this specific incident.
Nor in most of the other incidents.
One of the main points of the NRA is that criminals violate the laws so laws only really impact honest people (99%+ of the gun owners).
But even if we skip over that for now, what you're proposing is making bullets far more expensive so that only persons with disposable income over a certain point can purchase enough bullets to kill this many people.
I don't see that as being an issue in this specific incident.
Nor in most of the other incidents.
64
@60: Yes, the massacre of 6-year-olds is just one of the many costs of freedom. Why don't you just say that?
65
How about if news sources declined to publish the name and photo of the shooter. Maybe the Stranger can take the lead?
66
The gunman's parent was found dead in the gunman's home in NJ. This story just keeps getting more and more horrific.
My thoughts go out to all the families who have been forever altered by this.
My thoughts go out to all the families who have been forever altered by this.
67
@54
Look you clearly have a child's understanding of how laws are passed. Less than a child's understanding, actually. Don't you remember that cartoon? "I'm just a bill. Yes, I'm only a bill. And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill..." Good times.
What this really comes down to is whether the coalition of minorities and young people that just elected Obama can be sustained through the mid terms and beyond. In the past only old white people voted in the midterms, ensuring stasis. But we've seen big changes in the electorate so maybe a new election dynamic is possible. Maybe not this time around, maybe the cycle after this one. It's not impossible, sooner or later.
We also need to get rid of a few of the utter troglodytes we have now on the Supreme Court. That might happen on Obama's watch. If Sam Reid is has the balls to reform the filibuster mess, decent justices can be confirmed on a simple majority.
I don't expect the Republicans will offer any better a candidate than Mitt Romney in 2016. Mitt really did represent who they are. So with another Democratic president, changing the Supreme Court for good is a distinct possibility.
Fifty one percent of the population! You do know there are no national plebiscites in the US, right? You don't know. What country are you from? You got your state laws, and you got federal laws. "I'm just a bill..." Great song. Watch the cartoon.
I also like requiring every gun owner to posses a trigger lock for each gun. Being so predictable, I know what you're going to say to that.
Look you clearly have a child's understanding of how laws are passed. Less than a child's understanding, actually. Don't you remember that cartoon? "I'm just a bill. Yes, I'm only a bill. And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill..." Good times.
What this really comes down to is whether the coalition of minorities and young people that just elected Obama can be sustained through the mid terms and beyond. In the past only old white people voted in the midterms, ensuring stasis. But we've seen big changes in the electorate so maybe a new election dynamic is possible. Maybe not this time around, maybe the cycle after this one. It's not impossible, sooner or later.
We also need to get rid of a few of the utter troglodytes we have now on the Supreme Court. That might happen on Obama's watch. If Sam Reid is has the balls to reform the filibuster mess, decent justices can be confirmed on a simple majority.
I don't expect the Republicans will offer any better a candidate than Mitt Romney in 2016. Mitt really did represent who they are. So with another Democratic president, changing the Supreme Court for good is a distinct possibility.
Fifty one percent of the population! You do know there are no national plebiscites in the US, right? You don't know. What country are you from? You got your state laws, and you got federal laws. "I'm just a bill..." Great song. Watch the cartoon.
I also like requiring every gun owner to posses a trigger lock for each gun. Being so predictable, I know what you're going to say to that.
68
Wouldn't making bullets more expensive prevent the ability of poor people to defend themselves?
The lower economic classes are the most likely to need to defend themselves from violence.
This would make a heavy excise tax on bullets classist and by extension racist.
After all the idea of gun control is rooted in racism.
http://constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racis…
The lower economic classes are the most likely to need to defend themselves from violence.
This would make a heavy excise tax on bullets classist and by extension racist.
After all the idea of gun control is rooted in racism.
http://constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racis…
69
@44 Finding out that their brother, their cousin, their son, their psychiatric patient, is hoarding weapons and ammunition to take to a school, a mall, or a movie theater and kill people.
And if you are saying that killing 11 people is no worse than killing 2 people, you are a glorious demonstration of why not everybody should own guns.
And if you are saying that killing 11 people is no worse than killing 2 people, you are a glorious demonstration of why not everybody should own guns.
70
@60, kill yourself. Seriously: just do it. Don't take out any kids with you; just blow your fucking brains out. Do it in the tub so it's easy to clean up. You fucking suck, and you're not fit to live with other humans.
73
News is now reporting that the shooter killed his father in the shooter's Hoboken apt and then went to the school to kill his mother in her kindergarten classroom. So he killed 2 dozen children just to kill his mom.
74
The whole idea that one law will stop gun violence is just as silly as saying one law will stop traffic fatalities. This is why we have a whole set of laws to slow the rate of traffic fatalities.
All you can do is set up several laws, across the board background checks, waiting periods, regular psych exams, limits on what types of guns civilians can have (especially in cities), etc. and hope that it slows the rate of gun violence.
You can't stop it. Too many guns already, just as you can not stop traffic deaths. All you can do is hope that people follow the laws, and it slows the rate of deaths down.
All you can do is set up several laws, across the board background checks, waiting periods, regular psych exams, limits on what types of guns civilians can have (especially in cities), etc. and hope that it slows the rate of gun violence.
You can't stop it. Too many guns already, just as you can not stop traffic deaths. All you can do is hope that people follow the laws, and it slows the rate of deaths down.
76
@60 Wow, our homicide rate is lower than that of many desperately poor and/or war-torn countries. I'm so impressed with us.
And while I would rather not be attacked at all, I like my chances against someone armed with a knife a lot better than someone armed with a gun. Today a man in China attacked elementary school children with a knife. Many were injured. Thus far, there have been no fatalities. Had he had a gun, it is safe to presume there would have been dozens of fatalities.
And while I would rather not be attacked at all, I like my chances against someone armed with a knife a lot better than someone armed with a gun. Today a man in China attacked elementary school children with a knife. Many were injured. Thus far, there have been no fatalities. Had he had a gun, it is safe to presume there would have been dozens of fatalities.
78
@68
You're never going to need more than 12 bullets to defend yourself. If you're in a situation that requires more than 12 bullets to defend yourself.
Plus making bullets more expensive is also going to make it harder for the people the lower economic classes are defending themselves against to have bullets.
My proposed law was just a quick though I spit out in an internet thread. I'm pretty sure if you gave me a few days to flesh it out, I could make the law much more fair.
For instance, maybe when you purchase a gun you can get 12 bullets for free. After that you're limited to the 12 a month with the high federal excise tax. That should end any arguments on the self defense front. If you buy a gun for defense, you have enough ammo to defend yourself.
The only person that this really hurts is hunters. But the average hunter already spends $2500 a year on the sport, so I doubt it hurts them that much. Plus, they're the people most likely to take advantage of the self made ammo.
You're never going to need more than 12 bullets to defend yourself. If you're in a situation that requires more than 12 bullets to defend yourself.
Plus making bullets more expensive is also going to make it harder for the people the lower economic classes are defending themselves against to have bullets.
My proposed law was just a quick though I spit out in an internet thread. I'm pretty sure if you gave me a few days to flesh it out, I could make the law much more fair.
For instance, maybe when you purchase a gun you can get 12 bullets for free. After that you're limited to the 12 a month with the high federal excise tax. That should end any arguments on the self defense front. If you buy a gun for defense, you have enough ammo to defend yourself.
The only person that this really hurts is hunters. But the average hunter already spends $2500 a year on the sport, so I doubt it hurts them that much. Plus, they're the people most likely to take advantage of the self made ammo.
79
@60: So basically what you're saying is: Since the U.S. doesn't have one of the highest homicide rates in the world, we shouldn't bother trying to reduce the number of homicides that are committed here.
I'm sure you feel like a little big man walking around town with your concealed carry though, dont you? That's what's really at stake here for your ilk.
I'm sure you feel like a little big man walking around town with your concealed carry though, dont you? That's what's really at stake here for your ilk.
81
@67
"Look you clearly have a child's understanding of how laws are passed."
That was a rather long post and you still did not suggest a single SPECIFIC law that would have prevented this SPECIFIC incident.
Why is that?
Why are you unable to suggest even a single specific law?
"Look you clearly have a child's understanding of how laws are passed."
That was a rather long post and you still did not suggest a single SPECIFIC law that would have prevented this SPECIFIC incident.
Why is that?
Why are you unable to suggest even a single specific law?
82
@75
Ya think? Maybe that's why I mentioned something or other about the electoral process?
Or. Or maybe that's why I mentioned something or other about the Supreme Court. Get rid of Clarence Thomas and Anton Scalia and get a couple judges who realize the words "well regulated" mean well regulated.
Ya think? Maybe that's why I mentioned something or other about the electoral process?
Or. Or maybe that's why I mentioned something or other about the Supreme Court. Get rid of Clarence Thomas and Anton Scalia and get a couple judges who realize the words "well regulated" mean well regulated.
83
the issue is hardly the restrictions on guns in one or several locals, states and schools, with permeable borders cannot be expected to maintain significantly stricter protocols on gun possession then the surrounding arias. Washington DC is that classic example, we need comprehensive federal gun control laws restricting types of guns that can be owned, waiting periods and background checks, limits on ammunition purchases, and much much better social safety net programs. If sick, struggling, dangerous people could get the help they desperately need this would not happen so offen.
Oh and Fuck the NRA, really Fuck then and all their donors.
and Fuck the idiot last week who did not check the chamber and carelessly shot his child.
My dad owns a gun, a little 22 rifle, he owns it because he lives in a sketchy rural aria and occasionally he uses it to euthanize roadkill that wanders on to his driveway. He keeps it unloaded and locked in the closet, he has taken gun safety classes. He is what all gun owners should be, he it the line between a reasonable gun owner and a nut.
Give me a massive stabbing problem any day, over this horror, it's a fuck lot easier to run from a knife then a semi automatic weapon.
Oh and Fuck the NRA, really Fuck then and all their donors.
and Fuck the idiot last week who did not check the chamber and carelessly shot his child.
My dad owns a gun, a little 22 rifle, he owns it because he lives in a sketchy rural aria and occasionally he uses it to euthanize roadkill that wanders on to his driveway. He keeps it unloaded and locked in the closet, he has taken gun safety classes. He is what all gun owners should be, he it the line between a reasonable gun owner and a nut.
Give me a massive stabbing problem any day, over this horror, it's a fuck lot easier to run from a knife then a semi automatic weapon.
84
CNN identified the shooter as Ryan Lanza. Looks like this is the guy who caused all this misery.
https://www.facebook.com/search/results.…
https://www.facebook.com/search/results.…
85
Yet Americans think they are safer because they have to remove their shoes and submit to backscatter radiation or groping at airports.
86
@ 80
What about us prohomo, atheist, gun-toters ?
@79
Yes I carry, I work in emergency medicine and have seen first hand the terrible terrible things that people do to each other. I also receive at least 1 death threat a week. It doesn't make me feel big or tough, if anything it made me much more mellow knowing that starting shit can end up in death, which is something that I really don't want if i can avoid it.
I wish we lived in a world of peace, love, unicorns and rainbows where no one ever needed a gun. But that is not the world we live in .
What about us prohomo, atheist, gun-toters ?
@79
Yes I carry, I work in emergency medicine and have seen first hand the terrible terrible things that people do to each other. I also receive at least 1 death threat a week. It doesn't make me feel big or tough, if anything it made me much more mellow knowing that starting shit can end up in death, which is something that I really don't want if i can avoid it.
I wish we lived in a world of peace, love, unicorns and rainbows where no one ever needed a gun. But that is not the world we live in .
88
@81: The basis of your repeated questioning is essentially flawed, as it suggests that anything can be stopped with one specific law, just as it assumes that this tragedy is limited to the amount of people who were killed and why.
Because for you to say "this SPECIFIC accident," it means that if one less person were killed, this "specific accident" would be effectively stopped. Also, it assumes that we can magically deduce what would have happened if any one element was different.
Was this "specific incident" the killing of over 20 kids, the killing of any kids, the ability of armed men to enter schools, etc. What exactly does "this specific incident" even really mean?
For example, one could argue that without an assault weapon, not as many kids would have been killed. But no one can know that. Perhaps the shooter would have just brought a lot of pistol clips. Or perhaps without guns he would have made a bomb and killed even more kids.
Your question has no valid answer, as it is framed in a way that is impossible to actually answer. Therefore, no answer is required and no answer would suffice.
Because for you to say "this SPECIFIC accident," it means that if one less person were killed, this "specific accident" would be effectively stopped. Also, it assumes that we can magically deduce what would have happened if any one element was different.
Was this "specific incident" the killing of over 20 kids, the killing of any kids, the ability of armed men to enter schools, etc. What exactly does "this specific incident" even really mean?
For example, one could argue that without an assault weapon, not as many kids would have been killed. But no one can know that. Perhaps the shooter would have just brought a lot of pistol clips. Or perhaps without guns he would have made a bomb and killed even more kids.
Your question has no valid answer, as it is framed in a way that is impossible to actually answer. Therefore, no answer is required and no answer would suffice.
89
Also for the record New Jersey, the shooters home state also has an assault weapons ban and strict gun control, stricter than Connecticut.
Like Connecticut New Jerseys ban was instituted before the Clinton ban of 1994. They don't allow any magazines over 15 rounds and ban hollow point bullets. They also require a state license for all firearms purchases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in…
Neighboring state NY also has a strict assault weapons ban.
Like Connecticut New Jerseys ban was instituted before the Clinton ban of 1994. They don't allow any magazines over 15 rounds and ban hollow point bullets. They also require a state license for all firearms purchases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in…
Neighboring state NY also has a strict assault weapons ban.
91
@86 Would you ever entertain the possibility that there could be some middle-ground where you get to keep your gun *and* we have tighter restrictions on who can own them and what kind of guns they can own, even if it means we don't get to have unicorns and rainbows all the time? We don't have to give up just because we can't achieve perfection.
92
But guns don't kill, remember?
How many more massacres are we going to have in this country before something is done about gun violence?
How many more massacres are we going to have in this country before something is done about gun violence?
93
you dont need to ban private gun posesion to put a serious dent into shit like this happening, the reason so many people in the US get killed by guns compared to other countries with widespread but regulated private gunpossesion are the same reason why so many people die in car realted accidents in the US compared to countries with well regulated car posession, if you, like in most places in europe wouldnt put kids behind wheel, if you regirously tested before you get a licence, if you didnt encourage drinking and driving through your lack of infrastructure, if you could take licences easier away from people who have mental or physical illnesses etc etc.
these exact kind of sensible regulations you should also put on gun posession, some sugestions based on practice here; - you need a license, - (for anything other than a hunting rifle) for first year of your licence you need to leave your gun on the range, - to keep your licence you need to go to the range regularly (you get stamped when you go there), - the cops can come and check wheter you keep your guns under lock and key, - if you get mental problems, get into criminality or fail adhere to the duties that come with your licence the state will take temporarly or permanently possesion of your guns, - no gun posession for conficted fellons, - no guns for kids outside of the range enviroment, - no full automatics, no dumdums, no extended magazins, - mandatory education in gun safety in area's with high gun posession rates etc etc
we have here in the netherland actually quite alot of non-hunting legal guns, of the very, very few crimes commited with guns a insignificant fraction is with legal guns (its mostly inter-criminal violence) and of those the majority is by cops or military, almost never gun enthousiasts.
tldr; dont ban, regulate.
More...
these exact kind of sensible regulations you should also put on gun posession, some sugestions based on practice here; - you need a license, - (for anything other than a hunting rifle) for first year of your licence you need to leave your gun on the range, - to keep your licence you need to go to the range regularly (you get stamped when you go there), - the cops can come and check wheter you keep your guns under lock and key, - if you get mental problems, get into criminality or fail adhere to the duties that come with your licence the state will take temporarly or permanently possesion of your guns, - no gun posession for conficted fellons, - no guns for kids outside of the range enviroment, - no full automatics, no dumdums, no extended magazins, - mandatory education in gun safety in area's with high gun posession rates etc etc
we have here in the netherland actually quite alot of non-hunting legal guns, of the very, very few crimes commited with guns a insignificant fraction is with legal guns (its mostly inter-criminal violence) and of those the majority is by cops or military, almost never gun enthousiasts.
tldr; dont ban, regulate.
94
@60 scroll down the article link you sent, moron, and you'll see our murder rate far exceeds that of western europe, japan, china, australia, etc..
http://www.businessinsider.com/1homicida…
And yeah, somehow the fact that our homicide rate per capita beats Ethiopia and El Salvador does not instill much patriotism in me.
I'm skeptical you've spent much time abroad given your posts, because if you had, you'd come to understand that this isn't the way that it *has* to be. No country is perfect, but for a "first-world" superpower, fuck.
America, fuck yeah. ughhhh!
http://www.businessinsider.com/1homicida…
And yeah, somehow the fact that our homicide rate per capita beats Ethiopia and El Salvador does not instill much patriotism in me.
I'm skeptical you've spent much time abroad given your posts, because if you had, you'd come to understand that this isn't the way that it *has* to be. No country is perfect, but for a "first-world" superpower, fuck.
America, fuck yeah. ughhhh!
96
@91
Honestly I would like better enforcement of the laws that are already on the books. Violent felons should not own firearms, people convicted of DV should not own firearms, and those sent to involuntary mental health treatment facilities ( I use to work in one btw) should not own firearms.
Our parole officers are stretched too thin to even keep track of their cases, much less do firearms inspections. Recently here in the CD a stolen gun was found in a house full of felons and no one even went to jail because it was under a couch and not in any ones possession.
People also need better access to mental health care. We also need to look after one another and notice when friends are having problems and work together as individuals to help each other out and get the professional help that we sometimes need.
These kinds of things are not simply the fault of gun, ammunition, the NRA ect, but are a result of a deeper sickness within our society. We live crowded into cities, struggling to get to work on packed freeways, sucking down chemically processed food and go home and watch murders on TV. I don't think we were ever meant to live like this, I also don't have any real solutions other than we as individuals must examine our lives and make the changes needed to keep ourselves and those around us healthy, happy and safe.
Honestly I would like better enforcement of the laws that are already on the books. Violent felons should not own firearms, people convicted of DV should not own firearms, and those sent to involuntary mental health treatment facilities ( I use to work in one btw) should not own firearms.
Our parole officers are stretched too thin to even keep track of their cases, much less do firearms inspections. Recently here in the CD a stolen gun was found in a house full of felons and no one even went to jail because it was under a couch and not in any ones possession.
People also need better access to mental health care. We also need to look after one another and notice when friends are having problems and work together as individuals to help each other out and get the professional help that we sometimes need.
These kinds of things are not simply the fault of gun, ammunition, the NRA ect, but are a result of a deeper sickness within our society. We live crowded into cities, struggling to get to work on packed freeways, sucking down chemically processed food and go home and watch murders on TV. I don't think we were ever meant to live like this, I also don't have any real solutions other than we as individuals must examine our lives and make the changes needed to keep ourselves and those around us healthy, happy and safe.
97
How many more kids need to be sacrificed at the altar of the second amendment before society realizes it should be repealed? How ignorant do you have to be to think some 200+ year old idea is more important than actual people getting murdered by guns? NO ONE should have guns, except the police. We have 128x as many firearm related deaths as Japan per capita, and 41x as many as England. We rank right between South Africa and Montenegro. We should be fucking embarrassed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou…
98
@95
I assure people have been doing horrible horrible things to each other long before the invention of the firearm, in fact we probably live in one of the least violent points in history.
I assure people have been doing horrible horrible things to each other long before the invention of the firearm, in fact we probably live in one of the least violent points in history.
99
@96: Awesome. The Twinkie defense and self-reflection. That's your fucking solution.
Well while you weren't looking, some asshole woke up this morning and took advantage of your idiocy and fed this to a 6-year-old, you son-of-a-bitch.
https://twitter.com/MarlowNYC/status/279…
Well while you weren't looking, some asshole woke up this morning and took advantage of your idiocy and fed this to a 6-year-old, you son-of-a-bitch.
https://twitter.com/MarlowNYC/status/279…
100
@88
You did not understand.
I am not asking for a single law that will fix everything.
I'm pointing out that despite all the "discussion" there hasn't even been a single specific proposed law that would have prevented this specific incident.
There should be lots of specific proposals.
But there aren't.
"Because for you to say "this SPECIFIC accident," it means that if one less person were killed, this "specific accident" would be effectively stopped."
What the fuck?
So 18 kids dead is bad?
But 17 kids dead is okay?
"Also, it assumes that we can magically deduce what would have happened if any one element was different."
No.
If the guy used gun A then claiming that making gun A illegal would prevent this when gun B is legal and has the same relative characteristics is not very rational.
It just means that the shooter would probably have acquired gun B instead of gun A.
"Or perhaps without guns he would have made a bomb and killed even more kids."
Stick to guns, first. Okay?
You did not understand.
I am not asking for a single law that will fix everything.
I'm pointing out that despite all the "discussion" there hasn't even been a single specific proposed law that would have prevented this specific incident.
There should be lots of specific proposals.
But there aren't.
"Because for you to say "this SPECIFIC accident," it means that if one less person were killed, this "specific accident" would be effectively stopped."
What the fuck?
So 18 kids dead is bad?
But 17 kids dead is okay?
"Also, it assumes that we can magically deduce what would have happened if any one element was different."
No.
If the guy used gun A then claiming that making gun A illegal would prevent this when gun B is legal and has the same relative characteristics is not very rational.
It just means that the shooter would probably have acquired gun B instead of gun A.
"Or perhaps without guns he would have made a bomb and killed even more kids."
Stick to guns, first. Okay?
101
@30, 54. you're just proving my point - the onus is on YOU and the gun owners, the defenders of the 2nd amendment, to suggest an effective policy to address this problem.
but you can't/won't. you just shoot down other's ideas.
come on, 1 idea from the pro-gun side.
but you can't/won't. you just shoot down other's ideas.
come on, 1 idea from the pro-gun side.
102
@97
Because the government having a monopoly on force has always worked out so well.
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm
Because the government having a monopoly on force has always worked out so well.
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm
103
There's a very unhappy kid in Hoboken, New Jersey named Ryan Lanza whose Facebook page got linked to on Buzzfeed as that of the shooter, but this Ryan Lanza is still alive and getting a massive amount of unwanted hate mail right now.
https://twitter.com/Fletch788/status/279…
https://twitter.com/Fletch788/status/279…
104
@72 but he could buy a whole mess of them, drive across the undefended border and be at your house in a day.
Cause he's American.
Comprende?
Cause he's American.
Comprende?
105
also, if your responding cops need to look like they are coming straight of the streets of mogadishu, then yes, you have a gun (culture) problem; http://bin.snmmd.nl/m/m1nx5dpaq06m_std10…
106
@99
The pictured rifle (a precision build for long distance target shooting btw, and a crappy one at that) is illegal in both Connecticut and NJ.
Also name calling doesn't really make you look rational.
The pictured rifle (a precision build for long distance target shooting btw, and a crappy one at that) is illegal in both Connecticut and NJ.
Also name calling doesn't really make you look rational.
107
"(a precision build for long distance target shooting btw, and a crappy one at that)"
what's the best gun then for this kind of job???? PLZ SHARE
what's the best gun then for this kind of job???? PLZ SHARE
108
@104
I too am an a American and a Seattle, thus I engage in my second amendment rights and my rights under the constitution of Washington State. I also pity the fool that attempts a home invasion on someone who competes in practical rifle.
I too am an a American and a Seattle, thus I engage in my second amendment rights and my rights under the constitution of Washington State. I also pity the fool that attempts a home invasion on someone who competes in practical rifle.
109
@106: Rational? Yeah. I get a little heated when kids are dead and people think that's just the price we pay for being American. It's hard to stay "rational" when dealing with logic like that.
Until the pictured rifle and others of its caliber are illegal everywhere in the U.S., then you and everyone else who thinks "dead kids = liberty" has blood on their hands. You're out of excuses.
Until the pictured rifle and others of its caliber are illegal everywhere in the U.S., then you and everyone else who thinks "dead kids = liberty" has blood on their hands. You're out of excuses.
110
What is it like in NRA headquarters when one of these events takes place?
Does anybody ever have the decency to hold their head in their hands and murmur, "oh god, not again"?
Or is it always full-throttle spin control from the get-go?
Does anybody ever have the decency to hold their head in their hands and murmur, "oh god, not again"?
Or is it always full-throttle spin control from the get-go?
111
Please, can we talk about mental health resources. Please. Everyone has a thought on guns, but we all try rally hard NOT to think or talk about mental health. We need a conversation, we need better resources, we need the equivalent of first aide. [If you have never noticed someone close to you in need (possibly dangerous need), it is because most of us don't know what to look for, and we certainly don't know what to do if we are worried.]
In summary, I would gladly give the NRA whatever they want for a positive culture around mental health and well funded programs for intervention.
In summary, I would gladly give the NRA whatever they want for a positive culture around mental health and well funded programs for intervention.
112
The guns have won, and they won a long time ago. We live in a country of the NRAs (and Cascadian Bacons) making. A world in which there is no effective gun control, and never can be, and where people get shot up by nutjobs on a regular basis.
Obviously we don't need more gun control laws. As CB points out, there are already plenty of laws on the book that aren't working. What we need is FEWER GUNS in the US. This means we stop selling guns to everyone and begin a systematic confiscation of handguns and semi-automatic rifles. A thing which WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
Thanks to the hard work of "gun rights activists" shit like this is going to become more and more common.
Obviously we don't need more gun control laws. As CB points out, there are already plenty of laws on the book that aren't working. What we need is FEWER GUNS in the US. This means we stop selling guns to everyone and begin a systematic confiscation of handguns and semi-automatic rifles. A thing which WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
Thanks to the hard work of "gun rights activists" shit like this is going to become more and more common.
113
@109
As opposed to the logic of, we must restrict the rights on 100,000,000+ people due to the crimes committed by one with an object he was already prohibited from owning?
Also sadly any attempt of mass confiscation would cause an amount of blood shed that would make this tragedy pale in comparison. It would essentially be the beginning of a second civil war which is something no sane person wants.
As opposed to the logic of, we must restrict the rights on 100,000,000+ people due to the crimes committed by one with an object he was already prohibited from owning?
Also sadly any attempt of mass confiscation would cause an amount of blood shed that would make this tragedy pale in comparison. It would essentially be the beginning of a second civil war which is something no sane person wants.
116
It takes Nixon to go to China.
If we want meaningful gun control laws, the best group to develop and sponsor them is the NRA, or rather, its membership.
Nixon was persuaded by economics and national security.
...what would be the carrot for the NRA? What would be the stick?
If we want meaningful gun control laws, the best group to develop and sponsor them is the NRA, or rather, its membership.
Nixon was persuaded by economics and national security.
...what would be the carrot for the NRA? What would be the stick?
117
@109 Talk like that is why I keep sending money to the NRA, even though on days like today I hate myself for doing it.
118
GOLDY, DAN, Someone on staff!!!!!! Please incorporate @71's comment into the Slog header somehow. This is a spot-on idea.
119
@111
YES!
@112
A gun is an incredibly simple machine, at it's base level it is a tube, and a spring.
Unfortunately if guns are banned we will most likely have a rash of home build sub-machine guns, if they could manage to make them in Poland under nazi occupation I am sure they can manage to make them here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C5%82yska…
Criminals don't tend to follow laws btw.
YES!
@112
A gun is an incredibly simple machine, at it's base level it is a tube, and a spring.
Unfortunately if guns are banned we will most likely have a rash of home build sub-machine guns, if they could manage to make them in Poland under nazi occupation I am sure they can manage to make them here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C5%82yska…
Criminals don't tend to follow laws btw.
120
@103 That's a weird coincidence if that isn't the correct Ryan Lanza, because the hometown listed on his Facebook page in Newton, CT.
122
@108 you could be armed with a whole squad's worth of weapons but it wouldn't protect you.
Just saying.
Bullets don't care about how many guns you have. They just kill.
Just saying.
Bullets don't care about how many guns you have. They just kill.
123
@113: Once again, I beg of you, visit those kids' parents on Christmas morning. Tell them about your rights as an American. Show them your beautiful collection of firearms. Tell them your need for the freedom to buy a rifle (even a "crappy one") is and always will be more important than their kid. Say it right to their faces. Do it you fuck. Live by your sword. These are your rights man! Your rights!
Somewhere along the line a "responsible" gun owner or dealer let that weapon get into the shooter's hands. You're complicit with that and that's never going away. Good thing you're so mellow about it!
Who mentioned mass confiscation? Granted it's a better idea than "don't eat junk food" but don't put words in my mouth.
Somewhere along the line a "responsible" gun owner or dealer let that weapon get into the shooter's hands. You're complicit with that and that's never going away. Good thing you're so mellow about it!
Who mentioned mass confiscation? Granted it's a better idea than "don't eat junk food" but don't put words in my mouth.
124
@122
I cant shoot more than one gun at once and bullets kill? Wow no way!/!
Once again thank you for your genius insight will, where we be without you.
I cant shoot more than one gun at once and bullets kill? Wow no way!/!
Once again thank you for your genius insight will, where we be without you.
125
@121:
Americans didn't intend to elect a Republican majority to the House of Representatives. Thanks to GOP-engineered redistricting, they did.http://www.motherjones.com/print/206481
Americans woke up on November 7 having elected a Democratic president, expanded the Democratic majority in the Senate, and preserved the Republican majority in the House.
That's not what they voted for, though. Most Americans voted for Democratic representation in the House. The votes are still being counted, but as of now it looks as if Democrats have a slight edge in the popular vote for House seats, 49 percent-48.2 percent, according to an analysis [1] by the Washington Post. Still, as the Post's Aaron Blake notes, the 233-195 seat majority the GOP will likely end up with represents the GOP's "second-biggest House majority in 60 years and their third-biggest since the Great Depression..."
126
the fact that their state bans on assault rifles didn't limit this guys access isn't an excuse, its the problem. From juancole.com:
Lax gun laws and inadequate security checks in Mississippi, West Virginia and Kentucky and 7 other states meant that they supplied nearly half the 43,000 guns traced to crime scenes in other states in one recent year. The guns aren’t randomly acquired, and they aren’t used or Saturday night specials. They come disproportionately from specific states.
Lax gun laws and inadequate security checks in Mississippi, West Virginia and Kentucky and 7 other states meant that they supplied nearly half the 43,000 guns traced to crime scenes in other states in one recent year. The guns aren’t randomly acquired, and they aren’t used or Saturday night specials. They come disproportionately from specific states.
127
@126
I would be on board with banning Mississippi, West Virginia and Kentucky.
Make you wonder who REALLY lost the civil war.
I would be on board with banning Mississippi, West Virginia and Kentucky.
Make you wonder who REALLY lost the civil war.
128
@119 I think banning guns would probably work about as well as banning addictive drugs. Illegal meth labs exist but the quantity and quality of their product is far below what drug companies could produce if the stuff was legal. I think it would be the same w/ homemade black market guns.
129
@86 I work in emergency medicine too and nobody threatens to kill me. You must be a real dick. A dick with a concealed weapon who obviously has the maturity of a 12 year old. Great combo. I'm hardly convinced to defend your right to shoot people at your workplace should you slip up and "start some shit".
131
@129
If you haven't been threatened or assaulted yet my guess is that you are either new, or a liar. Honestly I am one of the better ones when it comes to deescalation in the healthcare environment.
If you haven't been threatened or assaulted yet my guess is that you are either new, or a liar. Honestly I am one of the better ones when it comes to deescalation in the healthcare environment.
132
@120, now the New York Post (yeah, I know, but still) is saying that that IS the right Ryan Lanza, but he's not the killer, he's the killer's brother. Which means he's also in a world of pain by now.
These wounds never heal, you know.
These wounds never heal, you know.
133
it's harder to get an abortion in america than a gun. really. why don't gun control advocates adopt anti-choicer tactics? picket gun shops and gun shows with photos of gun massacre victims. post photos of known gun buyers on websites. give money to pro-gun control candidates. harass the owners of gun shops. march on washington. come on!
134
And in the real world, here's the kind of action that's being taken on gun control: it's being dismantled. Check out the bill passed YESTERDAY in Ohio, that among other things eliminates the requirement that gun owners show competency when they renew their concealed-carry permits. When the Republican governor signs this bill, all you have to do is show your expiring license every time you renew, until the end of time.
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-…
Also, the magazine ban proposed in the US Senate by Lautenberg, Schumer and Feinstein is permanently stalled.
So tell me more about your tiny incrementalist suggestions and how well they're doing in legislation.
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-…
Also, the magazine ban proposed in the US Senate by Lautenberg, Schumer and Feinstein is permanently stalled.
So tell me more about your tiny incrementalist suggestions and how well they're doing in legislation.
135
@132 Thanks for the correct info Fnarf. CNN identified Ryan Lanza as the shooter two hours ago, and now they're not mentioning the name, even though they don't seem to have retracted the original statement. It now appears it was his brother Adam. I can't imagine having a worse day than Ryan Lanza right now.
136
@133: I like the idea of protesting in front NRA offices, or gun shows. Like the women in black do.
137
@131 sure aggression happens, but I certainly don't get weekly specific death threats. The last thing I would want when dealing with an aggressive patient is Joe Shmoe male nurse (I assume) pulling a gun out of his scrubs bottoms. Where do you even keep it?!? A gun fanny pack? Maybe you're security? I am trying to understand what would be so threatening to you that you need to carry a gun to a workplace that any number of pregnant women, normal men and middle aged tough ladies navigate just fine without one
But that's the thing about pro-gun people. They're scared shitless for usually no good reason. I also don't like people using their special position (emergency medicine ooooh) to trick laypeople into thinking their paranoia is justified.
But that's the thing about pro-gun people. They're scared shitless for usually no good reason. I also don't like people using their special position (emergency medicine ooooh) to trick laypeople into thinking their paranoia is justified.
139
@133
"picket gun shops and gun shows with photos of gun massacre victims."
Sounds like it would raise awareness.
Don't harass them, though.
Just picket.
Even when there hasn't been a shooting.
"picket gun shops and gun shows with photos of gun massacre victims."
Sounds like it would raise awareness.
Don't harass them, though.
Just picket.
Even when there hasn't been a shooting.
140
@137
I do not carry at work per policy, nor do I think it would be safe to do in a cramped environment where one is often working alone with psychotic individuals. Back when I worked mental health even the police had to lock up their weapons before entry. I also think that you would be surprised at the number of your coworkers who carry but just never mentioned it.
I do not carry at work per policy, nor do I think it would be safe to do in a cramped environment where one is often working alone with psychotic individuals. Back when I worked mental health even the police had to lock up their weapons before entry. I also think that you would be surprised at the number of your coworkers who carry but just never mentioned it.
141
@140 so what you're saying is that in situations that are actually dangerous, you're safer walking in without a gun. Maybe you should think about that for a while.
142
And while you're composing a reply saying I'm complicit here, let me say that I'm in favor of universal gun registration. I'm in favor of immediate impoundment of guns from people seeking mental health care, or assigned a mental health assesment, or however that would work. I'm in favor of immediate impoundment in cases of domestic violence reports.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid enacting anything like this would lead to huge numbers (dozens, hundreds, thousands?) of similar massacres as the nuttiest 1% of gun nuts decided to go out in a blaze of glory. Specifically targeting places where they think they could most hurt "liberals," like schools and malls in blue cities, most likely. I really wish I was wrong about that.
I also wish the NRA would put their money toward victim reparations, instead of buying politicians. That's probably the least likely outcome of anything in this thread. It's almost literally the least they could do. I might even join their club, if they did that.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid enacting anything like this would lead to huge numbers (dozens, hundreds, thousands?) of similar massacres as the nuttiest 1% of gun nuts decided to go out in a blaze of glory. Specifically targeting places where they think they could most hurt "liberals," like schools and malls in blue cities, most likely. I really wish I was wrong about that.
I also wish the NRA would put their money toward victim reparations, instead of buying politicians. That's probably the least likely outcome of anything in this thread. It's almost literally the least they could do. I might even join their club, if they did that.
143
@140
No I am saying that I am uncomfortable putting myself in a situation where my firearm could be taken away as I am not using police level retention for a small pocket pistol and would not be able to do so without open carrying a full sized pistol on a gun belt. I am also obeying the regulations of my workplace.
At work I have less than 1 minute until assistance arrives, compare that with the over 10 minute average response time of a 911 call when on the streets. As the saying goes, "I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop."
No I am saying that I am uncomfortable putting myself in a situation where my firearm could be taken away as I am not using police level retention for a small pocket pistol and would not be able to do so without open carrying a full sized pistol on a gun belt. I am also obeying the regulations of my workplace.
At work I have less than 1 minute until assistance arrives, compare that with the over 10 minute average response time of a 911 call when on the streets. As the saying goes, "I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop."
144
Kevin Cole played this song earlier this afternoon on KEXP:
Patti Smith - The Jackson Song
"Patti Smith and her husband, Fred, wrote this song for their son Jackson when he was two years old."
Patti Smith - The Jackson Song
"Patti Smith and her husband, Fred, wrote this song for their son Jackson when he was two years old."
Little blue dreamer go to sleep
Let's close our eyes and call the deep
slumbering land that just begins
When day is done and little dreamers spin
First take my hand now let it go
Little blue boy you're on your own
Little blue wings as those feet fly
Little blue shoes that walk across the sky
May your path be your own
But I'm with you
And each day you'll grow
He'll be there too
And someday when you go
We'll follow you
As you go, as you go
Little blue star that offers light
Little blue bird that offers flight
Little blue path where those feet fall
Little blue dreamer won't you dream it all
Refrain
And in your travels you will see
Warrior wings remember Daddy
And if a mama bird you see
Folding her wings will you remember me
As you go, as you go
As you go, as you go
145
Now I'm second guessing whether it was appropriate to post that. I'm not sure Kevin meant the song as any kind of response or comment on the tragedy. But I listened to it while reading the news and it made me cry.
The lyrics express a parent's love for her child and her hopes for the child's life. But they seemed to take on a new meaning in the context of today.
At least it makes me think of the memory of the children for a moment, instead of the rancor of guns and politics.
The lyrics express a parent's love for her child and her hopes for the child's life. But they seemed to take on a new meaning in the context of today.
At least it makes me think of the memory of the children for a moment, instead of the rancor of guns and politics.
147
Hey Cascadian Bacon, a world where the government doesn't have a monopoly on force is just as fantastic as a world full of unicorns, rainbows, and happiness. The U.S government has a monopoly on force. Until the day comes when private citizens have access to aircraft carriers, bunker busters, tanks, submarines, drones, artillery, fighter jets, bombers, grenade launchers, land mines, torpedoes, etc., etc., the government will always have a monopoly on force. I hate that, too. It sucks sooooooooo bad. I really, really, really hate it. But it's the truth. In the event of a civil war, we will have to do what we did during the American revolution and hope enough of the army breaks away to the good side and brings weapons with it. Until then, we just have to actually participate in government and make sure it doesn't get so bad that we have to fight a war. At the moment the only use for guns is personal safety and hunting, and we don't need anything more than pistols and single shot rifles for that.
148
Guns are not the problem. They need to be guided by a person to do damage.
Neglectful parents who (to their benefit) didn't learn how to model constructive and pro-social behavior for their children are a dangerous, growing phenomenon in our society.
Who's regulating/monitoring parenting skills? Because we become parents doesn't give us a "free ticket" from having mental health and interpersonal communication issues which need attention.
Metaphoric to a person who seeks to acquire a gun - a parent who is not "qualified" (has no "background check" or monitoring done for parenting/communication skills) is potentially very dangerous. Further, parents "wrap their hands around" a child, guide/"aim" their direction, and, ultimately, pull the trigger.
What we really need to give our attention to is not the gun, but who's behind the trigger?
Neglectful parents who (to their benefit) didn't learn how to model constructive and pro-social behavior for their children are a dangerous, growing phenomenon in our society.
Who's regulating/monitoring parenting skills? Because we become parents doesn't give us a "free ticket" from having mental health and interpersonal communication issues which need attention.
Metaphoric to a person who seeks to acquire a gun - a parent who is not "qualified" (has no "background check" or monitoring done for parenting/communication skills) is potentially very dangerous. Further, parents "wrap their hands around" a child, guide/"aim" their direction, and, ultimately, pull the trigger.
What we really need to give our attention to is not the gun, but who's behind the trigger?
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One by Dan Savage
-
Bigot Florist Files Countersuit by Dominic Holden
-
America Doesn't Care About Black People by Charles Mudede
-
US Military Grants Itself the Power to Police American Streets and "Quell" "Civil Disturbances" by Brendan Kiley
-
SL Letter of the Day: Living Discomfortably by Dan Savage
-
Slog Super Poll: Who Should Be Mayor? by Dominic Holden
-
Black Market Elimination Fail: Draft Pot Rules Call for Ban on Hash and Hash Oil by Ben Livingston
-
Tim Burgess Quits the Mayor's Race by Dominic Holden
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (148) RSS