Sandy hook why?

I'm nursing a sick 9 year old that Friday I didn't want to take to school for fear of the unknown, and she wasn't feeling great, but we studied hard for a rather difficult social studies test. These kids are doing algebra in the 4th grade. She was determined to ace the test, wanted to go. Things I didn't do until high school they do in elementary school.

It's harder for me to let my child go to school, as we had a lockdown about a week ago, and the father is in jail.

Then you have insanity like what happened on Friday to the most innocent of are children.
Most of you are pretty intelligent, what's the answer?

12pierogi wrote:I'm nursing a sick 9 year old that Friday I didn't want to take to school for fear of the unknown, and she wasn't feeling great, but we studied hard for a rather difficult social studies test. These kids are doing algebra in the 4th grade. She was determined to ace the test, wanted to go. Things I didn't do until high school they do in elementary school.

It's harder for me to let my child go to school, as we had a lockdown about a week ago, and the father is in jail.

Then you have insanity like what happened on Friday to the most innocent of are children.
Most of you are pretty intelligent, what's the answer?

There is no answer to this. Take reasonable precautions but live your life and let her live hers. Her odds at school are better than in the car with you on the way.

I imagine we all realize the world is changing, the ante for angry or insane people is increasing. Hell, in some of our lifetimes there could be nuclear devices detonated in our cities. Don't mean to be dogmatic but we'll just have to adapt.

Morgan Freeman's brilliant take on what happened yesterday :

"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.

It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed
people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."

Demonic intervention. Serious.

Golfaholic wrote:Morgan Freeman's brilliant take on what happened yesterday :

"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.

It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed
people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."

Well said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm sorry but the answer lies in tighter gun laws, as in restrictions, syc evaluation.
I was able where I currently live to walk in and get a conceal carry permit. No nothing.
Another state I lived in had a course you had to complete, with usually a state police officer, mostly retired, a little tighter law.

My current small arsenal is geared towards home or personal protection or gathering of food. No weapons that will go fully auto, or have huge capacity mags. Wtf putting these guns in the hands of fear inspired sales societies. Take your meds, and let's see where this goes before you stockpile your home with shit for killing people.
All they have to do is put a federal firearms requirement that makes it more difficult to purchase military style guns. Instantly you save lives I bet. I see collections of guns for the wrong reasons.

How many times yesterday did we hear "the shooter's name isn't important, the victims' names are so we're only going to show you his picture and say his name once" followed by it being done many times. They choose our President, form our economic policy and if you properly include the entertainment media, shape our culture. For meaningful change you'd have to alter the 1st amendment.

The answer is obviously gun control and I say this as an owner of multiple guns. You think what Morgan Freeman had to say was brilliant? Well I think it was beyond stupid. He not only upped the ante for the next psychopath, he illustrated the human trait of making comments dramatic so they'll be listened to. Didn't everybody catch the irony in that? He couldn't tone it down but the media should? Good luck getting news and entertainment to self-censor. The only way would be to modify the 1st amendment. Well, as hard as it might be to mess with the 2d amendment, it would be worlds easier than the 1st.

Gun control is of course the answer and you only need look as far as Europe to know this. The UK had its own horrible episodes including mass school shootings until they changed their laws requiring mental health and background checks in a painstaking and lengthy process. Following that, incidents dropped meteorically. I say this as an owner of several weapons, including a Glock similar to one the killer had on him. But I don't need assault or automatic weapons and I shouldn't be able to own a weapon without a review of my qualifications.

Gun control will happen at some point, it's a matter of whether this is now enough or more heinous acts need to occur. Sadly, since our lawmakers take no leadership when votes may be lost, it will likely take more tragedy for the gun lobby to be beaten back. But it will happen eventually.

In the meantime, MF has set the bar for what's next.

(I had a battle with the edit software but I think I get it now.}

spankdoggie wrote:Demonic intervention. Serious.

Of course. But don't speak it too loudly because the massess will ridicule you.

Part of me says make firearms harder to get in the USA, but then the other part of me says it will be a waste of time and money. There are already so many weapons out there that aren't tracked, it would be like trying to put a band aid on a severe bleed. What difference are you actually going to make this late in the game?


I'm glad firearms aren't as prevalent in Canada and I'm glad Canada makes it difficult for someone to purchase these types of weapons from a dealer. Hell, I carry a pistol at work and have immediate access to an assault rifle and shot gun but I can't go into a store and purchase any of the weapons I carry 45 hours a week, because I haven't submitted the paper work for the safety course I took years ago. They make sure certain things are in place so they know who has what. Yes, people can still buy guns from each other and no one will know the difference, but this happens a lot less in Canada than the US, IMO. We must be doing something right as these instances happen in Canada a lot less than other places. Perhaps it's the support systems we have in place for the mentally ill or a combination of these things. Or, perhaps it's just a matter of time before the violent episodes spill across our border.

I vote for a large increase in the severity of punishment for crimes committed when one uses or is in possession of a firearm. Better start building new jails now though. And prepare for an increase in tax.

Lorenzzo wrote: You think what Morgan Freeman had to say was brilliant?

Brilliant, no, I just copied and pasted that entire post from something you will probably see circulating your FaceBook.

I don't however, disagree with what he said.

12pierogi wrote:I'm nursing a sick 9 year old that Friday I didn't want to take to school for fear of the unknown, and she wasn't feeling great, but we studied hard for a rather difficult social studies test. These kids are doing algebra in the 4th grade. She was determined to ace the test, wanted to go. Things I didn't do until high school they do in elementary school.

It's harder for me to let my child go to school, as we had a lockdown about a week ago, and the father is in jail.

Then you have insanity like what happened on Friday to the most innocent of are children.
Most of you are pretty intelligent, what's the answer?

This is sad for all of us... too much freedom in USA has its own price. I am sure there will be debates from from sides, Singapore does not have this problem. Civilian can't carry gun by law, end of discussion. One dies by gun is one too many.

I've been to that surrounding area several times. I went to grad school at UConn, in the past 4 yrs I went to Newtown / Southbury several times for business trips, it's a really beautiful part of Connecticut... I feel sick in my stomach now

Golfaholic wrote:

Lorenzzo wrote: You think what Morgan Freeman had to say was brilliant?

Brilliant, no, I just copied and pasted that entire post from something you will probably see circulating your FaceBook.

I don't however, disagree with what he said.

Like most knee jerk blame, it's naive. There are no magic bullets here (sorry). The media isn't going to change, that's just silly. MF himself illustrated why. It was pure, classic naive stupidity which is what you can expect when actors are treated like leaders.

Options:

1. Media Self Regulation - Right...

2. Modification of 1st Amendment - Right...

3. Better Handling of Kooks - Possible, there's room for improvement and gutless politicians might take it on.

4. Better Security - At schools and other places. It's the American way. Don't change the ball, lengthen all the courses.

5. Gun Control - All the arguments against were played in the UK but it worked. Would work less here because there are so many guns already but would unquestionably help and moreso over time.

6. Arm Everybody - That's what's happening now. I don't think it's working too well.

7. Hang The Entire Disgusting Gun Lobby - I'm for that but it's against the law.

8. More Compassion & Respect - The time is right for a cultural shift towards respect for others. It's moved the other way for a long time. We'd need a catalyst.

9. Better Economic Policy - Right... Although these things happen more during difficult economic times.

10. Adapt - The only thing we can do individually.


Good luck.

There is no solution. You could argue that armed teachers could have stopped it sooner. The guns were the property of the shooter's mom. It happened and it's horrible but it will happen again. It is not a matter of evil either. Let's try to act like intelligent people. We have to accept that terrible things happen because of crazy / criminal behavior. We live in a free country and this, unfortunately, is part of the deal.

I am always bemused by the reaction to calls for more gun control regulations in the USA after these type of incidents.

After Dunblane in the UK I sold my handguns, gave up shooting all together and fully supported the introduction of some of the most draconian gun laws in the Western World.

"Guns dont kill people, people do" is an oft quoted cliche used by the anti gun control lobby and like most cliches it is true, to a point. The problem with guns is they allow people to kill people far more effciently and in much greater quantity. Its what they were designed to do.

In countrys where people cannot buy guns, you dont have mass shootings at schools. Yes the disturbed or mentally ill could use a knife or a sword or a bow and arrow and they may kill some, but they would be able to kill 20 little children. It is the liberal access to firearms that allowed him to do this.

Arguing that the mentally ill should not be allowed access to guns is true, but how on earth do you prevent it when so many people have so many guns in so many homes. IF you have guns in your home and a disturbed child, trust me that child has access to your guns. If you lock them up he will find the key, if you remove the firing pin he will find it. A sad statistic is that you are far more likely to be killed with your own gun than ever kill a burglar but in a country gripped by fear the feeling you need a gun is very powerfull.

As a Brit with an American wife I suspect that your country will have to endure many more tragedys like this because your love of guns and the right to own them means they are, frankly and somewhat depressingly inevitable.

I have stopped watching the news of this because as a Dad of a 6 and 3 year old girl I have found it to distressing.

As the real story unfolds on TV and the Internet, opinions may change. From what I've gathered so far, the mother and father had divorced and the mother and younger son-shooter lived together in a luxury dwelling near the school. Now the shooter o of mental and emotional problems. The handguns and rifle found on the crime scene were purchased and registered to the mother. Apparantley, the mother took the younger son-shooter to a range and taught him how to operate the weapons. Now it would seem to me that the mother could have found a better hobby with which to spend time with her troubled younger son-shooter. Like get him an electric guitar. Or take golf lessons together. Or smoke some pot. Or whatever. Semi-auto nines and an AR-clone .223 Bushmaster are not what you'd keep for hunting or home protection. A good .12 gauge pump gun should suffice.

So my conclusion at this point is to lay blame squarely at the toe-tagged feet of the deceased mother and spread a bit less blame around to the rest of the family and those who knew the mother and younger son-shooter and their firearms cache.

By the way, the rifle, a .223 cal Bushmaster, was the same weapon sported by Johnny Mohammed and Leroy Boy Malvo a.k.a. "Beltway Snipers" who terrorized the I-95 VA/MD corridor ten years ago. Mongrel out.

You know as well as I do mongrel that the mother had no viable reason to purchase assault weapons, did you catch the Russian high capacity shotgun the runt had in the trunk, that the mother also had. He left it in the trunk as I'm sure the recoil was enough to knock him over.

It's stupid for anyone other than law enforcement, or maybe ex military or security details to have access to these weapons.
The gun laws need some updates, the Constitution was wrote when guns were a joke, compared to today's modern firearms.
Are fore fathers would be sad, and disturbed if around today. The laws would be changed.

I got a feeling there going to change soon.

Does any other civilised, first world country have such liberal gun laws? Maybe Afghanistan?

edgey wrote:

As a Brit with an American wife I suspect that your country will have to endure many more tragedys like this because your love of guns and the right to own them means they are, frankly and somewhat depressingly inevitable.

I have stopped watching the news of this because as a Dad of a 6 and 3 year old girl I have found it to distressing.

The collective insanity over guns in this country is astonishing. It's unfortunate there isn't more discussion in the USA about what happened in the UK.

There probably is no one answer, but gun control will go a long way to helping. As some of you may know, i live where one of OZ's worst massacres took place and have seen years later what effect tighter gun laws have had in my society. Some would argue that the laws haven't had the desired result as there are still places in OZ where gun crime is too common, but in general since the laws we have thankfully seen very little of what seems to get reported in the States on a regular basis. As a hunter for many years, i didn't necessarily like the gun laws at first but any sensible person soon realises that for either recreational or club shooting there is really no need for the kind of fire power that typically gets used in many mass shootings. The arguments for and against tighter gun laws carried on in my state for many years, but as time has gone by we are probably at a point where tighter laws again would be accepted. People get used to it and someone has to make the hard call now, so that generations down the track will accept it as normal. As a parent, the last day i owned a firearm was the day my first child started crawling.

12pierogi wrote:You know as well as I do mongrel that the mother had no viable reason to purchase assault weapons, did you catch the Russian high capacity shotgun the runt had in the trunk, that the mother also had. He left it in the trunk as I'm sure the recoil was enough to knock him over.

It's stupid for anyone other than law enforcement, or maybe ex military or security details to have access to these weapons.
The gun laws need some updates, the Constitution was wrote when guns were a joke, compared to today's modern firearms.
Are fore fathers would be sad, and disturbed if around today. The laws would be changed.

I got a feeling there going to change soon.

I missed the shotgun. Seems to me like the mother enabled the son to murder her and all those kids and teachers. Letting her f*cked up kid use them makes her either insane or irresponsible. So its either not guilty by reason of insanity and guilty, as an accessory, on all 26 counts. Sentence already carried out.

12pierogi wrote:You know as well as I do mongrel that the mother had no viable reason to purchase assault weapons, did you catch the Russian high capacity shotgun the runt had in the trunk, that the mother also had. He left it in the trunk as I'm sure the recoil was enough to knock him over.

It's stupid for anyone other than law enforcement, or maybe ex military or security details to have access to these weapons.
The gun laws need some updates, the Constitution was wrote when guns were a joke, compared to today's modern firearms.
Are fore fathers would be sad, and disturbed if around today. The laws would be changed.

I got a feeling there going to change soon.

I'm no expert on American history but wasn't the constitution also written when large parts of the US were still unsettled and there was a wild west frontier where the level of lawlessness meant it was entirely appropriate to arm yourself in order to protect yourself. Also weren't peoples militia formed to protect against the possibility that the British would attempt to take back it's former colony. Add to that the American Civil War and it seems you have laws that were appropriate in the days when they were drafted but are completely outdated now. Surely all civilised nations have been through these periods and the gun laws have evolved over time to todays laws.

But on top of that the right to own guns is one thing but access to such high powered military style automatic weapons should surely be banned to the general public. There is absolutely no reason that the general public should need these types of weapons in the guise of self defence or for hunting/sport shooting.

I cannot fathom why these assault rifles are legal. The response from the NRA is reprehensible to me. The whole "guns kill people" argument is so callous. They cited the OK City bombing and 9/11 as situations where violence doesn't equal guns. If you are drawing parallels between what happened on Friday and those other events, you aren't mentally fit to carry a firearm.

There are certain events which must cause a shift in our collective thought process. This is one of them. Although, I'm disgusted that people can still support their coke habits with all the sh!t going down in Mexico, Central, and South America. As a realist, I don't believe anything will change. If anything, people will buy more guns.

Horseballs wrote:I cannot fathom why these assault rifles are legal.

There are certain events which must cause a shift in our collective thought process. This is one of them. Although, I'm disgusted that people can still support their coke habits with all the sh!t going down in Mexico, Central, and South America. As a realist, I don't believe anything will change. If anything, people will buy more guns.

Having said all that where there is a will there is a way. We had a guy go nuts in a small coastal town named Aramoana in 1990. In NZ our cops don't even pack side arms though they do carry guns in their cars. Anyway this guy goes nuts in this remote seaside settlement and the first cops to arrive on the scene are completely outgunned by this loon with high powered military style automatic weapons. This in a country where guns are pretty much outlawed except for hunting and sport shooting and the rules around owning them are very strict. Somehow this loon had managed to obtain them regardless. I guess if your laws were different his mother wouldn't have owned such lethal weapons denying him access and making this tragic event entirely preventable.

Kiwigolfer wrote:

12pierogi wrote:You know as well as I do mongrel that the mother had no viable reason to purchase assault weapons, did you catch the Russian high capacity shotgun the runt had in the trunk, that the mother also had. He left it in the trunk as I'm sure the recoil was enough to knock him over.

It's stupid for anyone other than law enforcement, or maybe ex military or security details to have access to these weapons.
The gun laws need some updates, the Constitution was wrote when guns were a joke, compared to today's modern firearms.
Are fore fathers would be sad, and disturbed if around today. The laws would be changed.

I got a feeling there going to change soon.

I'm no expert on American history but wasn't the constitution also written when large parts of the US were still unsettled and there was a wild west frontier where the level of lawlessness meant it was entirely appropriate to arm yourself in order to protect yourself. Also weren't peoples militia formed to protect against the possibility that the British would attempt to take back it's former colony. Add to that the American Civil War and it seems you have laws that were appropriate in the days when they were drafted but are completely outdated now. Surely all civilised nations have been through these periods and the gun laws have evolved over time to todays laws.

But on top of that the right to own guns is one thing but access to such high powered military style automatic weapons should surely be banned to the general public. There is absolutely no reason that the general public should need these types of weapons in the guise of self defence or for hunting/sport shooting.

The victims were killed with 9mm handguns the shooter brought into the school. He left the rifle in the car. The rifle is in .223 caliber, a round that is less powerful than the typical round used for the hunting of deer and other larger game in the USA. Keep in mind that these "assault rifles" possessed by millions of Yanks are not automatic weapons but semi-autos. That means you have to pull the trigger for each shot instead of just holding it down until your magazine is empty. The Sandy Hook shooter could have killed just as many with a single shot .22 used for target shooting or a shotgun used for small game hunting. Or five gallons of gasoline and a book of matches. Or he could have waited until all the kids were outside at recess in the playground and run them down with his mother's car. Or the kid could have been locked away in an institution with padded walls and a steady supply of tranqs and things would be hunky dory.

Mostly German wrote:

Kiwigolfer wrote:

12pierogi wrote:You know as well as I do mongrel that the mother had no viable reason to purchase assault weapons, did you catch the Russian high capacity shotgun the runt had in the trunk, that the mother also had. He left it in the trunk as I'm sure the recoil was enough to knock him over.

It's stupid for anyone other than law enforcement, or maybe ex military or security details to have access to these weapons.
The gun laws need some updates, the Constitution was wrote when guns were a joke, compared to today's modern firearms.
Are fore fathers would be sad, and disturbed if around today. The laws would be changed.

I got a feeling there going to change soon.

I'm no expert on American history but wasn't the constitution also written when large parts of the US were still unsettled and there was a wild west frontier where the level of lawlessness meant it was entirely appropriate to arm yourself in order to protect yourself. Also weren't peoples militia formed to protect against the possibility that the British would attempt to take back it's former colony. Add to that the American Civil War and it seems you have laws that were appropriate in the days when they were drafted but are completely outdated now. Surely all civilised nations have been through these periods and the gun laws have evolved over time to todays laws.

But on top of that the right to own guns is one thing but access to such high powered military style automatic weapons should surely be banned to the general public. There is absolutely no reason that the general public should need these types of weapons in the guise of self defence or for hunting/sport shooting.

The victims were killed with 9mm handguns the shooter brought into the school. He left the rifle in the car. The rifle is in .223 caliber, a round that is less powerful than the typical round used for the hunting of deer and other larger game in the USA. Keep in mind that these "assault rifles" possessed by millions of Yanks are not automatic weapons but semi-autos. That means you have to pull the trigger for each shot instead of just holding it down until your magazine is empty. The Sandy Hook shooter could have killed just as many with a single shot .22 used for target shooting or a shotgun used for small game hunting. Or five gallons of gasoline and a book of matches. Or he could have waited until all the kids were outside at recess in the playground and run them down with his mother's car. Or the kid could have been locked away in an institution with padded walls and a steady supply of tranqs and things would be hunky dory.

Where are you getting that from? Everyone, including the officers on the scene reported a Bushmaster AR-15 was used (hundreds of spent rounds recovered). There was another rifle in the car. He killed himself with the handgun.
I wouldn't give two shits if every non-hunting gun was illegal. I do not fear the British coming to reclaim their colony.