Shooting in Newtown, Connecticut Elementary School

What we need is a mandate that the shooter in these crimes will never be a "star". Put it into law that the identity of any mass shooter will not be revealed outside the workings of the case, and put financial penalties on any news or media that reports on the individual. Everyone can still talk about the case, and the victims, but not the perpetrator.

They do this for attention. Don't give it to them.
 
And if they accidently shoot an unarmed civilian in the building or worse, a child, it doesn't work. Arming school personnel is NOT the answer. Putting things such as School Resource Officers full time in our school is a step in the right direction. I know, I was one for 4 years in a primary and elementary school. I was there every day, armed, with the children. It's a great program for many reasons. I was specifically trained in how to react to an intruder, the PROPER use of firearms and building search techniques and many other things. We also ran intruder drills and lock down drills so that school personnel and students would be somewhat prepared (as prepared as you can be in these situations).

It also teaches children, especially the young ones to trust and befriend officers. Something that is so often overlooked these days.

The other major point against arming teachers and school administration for me is this...when an incident happens, especially again in the younger schools, we need those teachers with their students who know and trust them. Those teachers already have their hands more than full keeping students calm and orderly and getting them to safety as quickly as possible. That is more important than having them out running down the halls. The children need the calming effect of a teacher they know and who knows them. Again, I know how important this is...I've seen it firsthand.

There are so many other factors as well....accidental shootings of innocent people, where do you keep guns when at school so the children don't have access, etc.

In the end, we all have to accept that there are NO perfect solutions to this problem. If an intruder wants in...he will get in. The best we can hope for is to keep casualties to a minimum. I always told my teachers that it was my job as the SRO to draw him away from students and focus on me if possible while help arrives. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. Either way, what we need to avoid is any type of rush to a decision and any type of vigilante attitude about arming all with guns.

It's a difficult and complex problem, I agree, but there are things that we can do to help. I hope solutions are studied that cover all angles, protection of the school and our students, mental health issues and more.

Arming school personnel isn't "the" answer - no one single thing is - but it's part of it. A secured defensive firearm in strategic location means teachers wouldn't necessarily be defenseless when a maniac coward visits the school. The firearm's location and presence should only be known to properly trained staff and there should be a strict protocol stating who may access it and under what conditions.

I understand what you are saying about the teachers needing keep children calm and orderly in a shooting crisis, but if that means the teacher and children are just calmly headed to slaughter, then that's no help at all. Yes, I understand the risk of accidental shootings. On balance, I think student safety is better served accepting the risk of an accident shooting by trained personnel, than by submitting to the mercy of a homocidal maniac.

Giving teachers the means to defend their schools is one component of what we need to be doing. SROs are nice but you can't have them in every school all the time, certainly not at a kindergarten. They're police, not armed guards.
 
What we need is a mandate that the shooter in these crimes will never be a "star". Put it into law that the identity of any mass shooter will not be revealed outside the workings of the case, and put financial penalties on any news or media that reports on the individual. Everyone can still talk about the case, and the victims, but not the perpetrator.

They do this for attention. Don't give it to them.

This is an interesting proposal, but it wouldn't work. You can't just fine media for getting information like that and it wouldn't be possible to keep it a secret. However, I understand what you are getting at and I support it in theory. I just can't figure out how to make it work.
 
Giving teachers the means to defend their schools is one component of what we need to be doing. SROs are nice but you can't have them in every school all the time, certainly not at a kindergarten. They're police, not armed guards.

Ahhh, but you can and I was! The school I worked was K-5th grade. So yes I was there all day every day. I even went on field trips and when I wasn't in the school on any day, another officer on the force came in for the day so it was always covered. That's the way the program was designed to work. Not sure if it still is but when I was an SRO it was started as a Federal Grant program so any school could apply and get them and then after 3 or 4 years the local district would take over the program. So YES it can, has and is being done - even in a kindergarten!
 
This is an interesting proposal, but it wouldn't work. You can't just fine media for getting information like that and it wouldn't be possible to keep it a secret. However, I understand what you are getting at and I support it in theory. I just can't figure out how to make it work.
It works just fine to protect the identity of minors involved in accidents or crimes, the subject still gets reported on, they just omit names and pictures. I don't think it would be popular with the media lobbyists, of course, but let's be real here... These deranged people do public stunts like these for the response.

Make the penalties steep enough and I think it could at least help. It's a very serious issue to me that every single time this happens, we give them exactly what they want. Attention.
 
I would trade my life to restore any one of the victims.

I am deeply offended at the emotional pumping in the media coverage...and the neglect other key stories are getting...especially in light of the vastly larger number of children dieing in auto accidents in the US.

Perspective distortion is the tool of the manipulative.
 
I am curious. Can the Aussie and Brit drummers here chime in as to average number on gun-related deaths in their country per year?


Am not a Brit or Aussie I can weigh in as a Canuck. Most things in Canada are the same as USA divided by 10 ( scale to population) except gun related crime. Way, way down in comparison. People simply cannot access firearms here, esp. hand guns.

As noted above, a country needs a social support system for problem kids/families. More social systems are needed. Gun control, obvious, but admittedly complicated.
 
My prayers go to all of the family's who lost loved ones for no reason, except just pure evil.
Bob sorry you were so close to the school. It sure is a dark time, a family at our church lost there 12 year old boy due to a freak accident. I was at the funeral last night. That was very rough, seeing I have a 13 year old son. I can't even imagine what these family's are going through right now. Back in 1992 there was a mass murder at a Browns chicken restaurant down the street from my house. A couple of kids in my neighborhood worked there and were shot and killed. There news trucks and helicopters all over the place. I feel for you Bob.
 
Am not a Brit or Aussie I can weigh in as a Canuck. Most things in Canada are the same as USA divided by 10 ( scale to population) except gun related crime. Way, way down in comparison. People simply cannot access firearms here, esp. hand guns.

As noted above, a country needs a social support system for problem kids/families. More social systems are needed. Gun control, obvious, but admittedly complicated.

We had here,in this instance, a child with some social/mental issues known to the mother so how in the hell did he have access to her weapons ? this is the gun control we need. Too late in this case but for every accident or crime permitted with a weapon owned by someone else that is not secured should bring the wrath of the law on the gun owner.
I have been planning for months to buy a pistol for my home, that would never leave my home except for classes and target shooting at the local store, and since this event I have had to really think this over. However the latest group of shootings like this have all been by persons with social/mental issues. I have not changed my mind on ownership. Any law will be broken by any person with these issues. they don't care about the law.
 
Just to add some objectivity to this debate...

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.full

Everyone should read this. It is from a reputable, peer-reviewed source and is very well written.

Just to add some idea of what this is about:

Results: In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm-related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p = 0.04), firearm suicides (p = 0.007) and firearm homicides (p = 0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws.

Conclusions: Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides.

...

Key points:

A radical gun law reform occurred in Australia after a gun massacre (35 dead and 18 seriously injured) in April 1996. Semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns and rifles were banned; a tax-funded firearm buyback and amnesties saw over 700 000 guns surrendered from an adult population of about 12 million.

The total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides had been falling in the 18 years preceding the new gun laws. In all, 13 mass shootings were noticed in the 18 years preceding the new gun laws.

In the 10.5 years after the gun law reforms, there have been no mass shootings, but accelerated declines in annual total gun deaths and firearm suicides and a non-significant accelerated decline in firearm homicides. No substitution effects occurred for suicides or homicides.

Says it all for me. Naturally, the pro-gun crowd will choose to deny it has any scientific validity. So be it.
 
We had here,in this instance, a child with some social/mental issues known to the mother so how in the hell did he have access to her weapons ? this is the gun control we need.

I have been planning for months to buy a pistol for my home, that would never leave my home except for classes and target shooting at the local store, and since this event I have had to really think this over.

+1 with your 1st point. i hear you loud and clear there. People should be able to own guns,bows arrows, etc. They should be locked/secure, and if not, major penalty.

Your 2nd point is the more interesting one for me. The need to have a pistol? If its truly for fun. I see that. But if its for protection, than there is something fundamentally different about the security people feel.

I'm sure the issue has been visited many times with many lines of evidence.
Sad all around.
 
Today I observed at least 25 news people and 5 or 6 news satellite trucks across the street from the towns only funeral home which is located on Main Street just north of the famous flagpole that Im sure that you have all seen by now.
They were taking videos of the mourners as they came and went to pay respects to 6 year old Jack Pinto. The line was long and people were standing outside in the cold December rain.
There was also a videographer inside the local deli that was near the funeral home. He was sticking the large shoulder mounted camera in everyones face as they walked in for lunch. Other reporters were outside of the deli trying to interview anyone who would stop and talk. These news people are truly bottom feeders. They are scum.
 
Just to add some objectivity to this debate...

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.full

Everyone should read this. It is from a reputable, peer-reviewed source and is very well written.

Just to add some idea of what this is about:



Says it all for me. Naturally, the pro-gun crowd will choose to deny it has any scientific validity. So be it.

I have read the article and have no issues with it. I am after a small hand gun for my house to keep crazies away.

I would offer the following article as evidence that we as a country are trying to reform. there is just too much opposition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act
 
"In 2003, there were a total of 42,643 traffic fatalities in the United States. The 0-14
age group accounted for 5 percent (2,136) of those traffic fatalities."

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809762.pdf


I fear our attentions are being manipulated.

The shots I see on the news blitz are far beyond reporting and are delving into emotional whipping.

Dont get me wrong...tragic...but far from appropriate proportions of tragedy in terms of suffering being felt across the US public.
 
Says it all for me. Naturally, the pro-gun crowd will choose to deny it has any scientific validity. So be it.

Not pro-gun per say, but I'm certainly pro-freedoms and accountability. The fact that something might hold a danger if mis-used does not typically sway me from advocating the freedom to own or use that thing. I believe that governments are far from infallible, and as such, we should always retain the right and as much ability to fight back as is reasonable, should the need arise and be generally agreed on by my peers. "Gun control" can very easily be turned into "population-control", should things get violent or oppressive.

Death by falling down the stairs is literally a leading cause of death here in the US. Banning stairways outright or limiting them to only 3 steps maximum would surely prevent thousands of deaths per year. It would be evil to not support the banning of all staircases. There is plenty of "scientific validity" in that statement.
 
If everything mentioned just right here would be put into effect, it would slash the killings to a tiny fraction of what they were before. A multi faceted attack, with a plan to have the adults responsible for the kids, meaning the teachers and staff, easy access to non lethal and secured access to lethal weapons, (give them a big fat raise while you're at it) a mandate that any killers entire history is to be wiped from the books. Big fines and loss of reporting privilege for any media mention whatsoever of the villian himself, penalties for owning legal weapons that get used in crimes that are committed by someone other than the owner, equal to what the criminal would get, automatic weapons illegal everywhere except military and police.

For starters.

It's all about money though, who's gonna pay? The middle class, who else? All this stuff can be done, it just takes money and strong, quick acting leadership. Like flex some muscle here. Lip service ain't gonna cut it. Spend some money on THIS country. It would be nice if the guys like Zucherberg and Gates and Turner would and the other top 1%-ers would be required by law to donate a billion a year to combat this. It's the least they could do to give back from the land they profited so immensely from.

They need to free up the money they spend on the war on cannabis and use it on a war against mass killers instead.
 
Lets look at what happened when The Irish Republican Army was active in Ireland.
There was full military security in place in Northern Ireland.
The IRA still managed to cause severe mayhem.
The violence only stopped when the IRA stopped it themselves.
You can't stop people who are hell bent on evil.
History proves that over and over.
 
We had here,in this instance, a child with some social/mental issues known to the mother so how in the hell did he have access to her weapons ? this is the gun control we need. Too late in this case but for every accident or crime permitted with a weapon owned by someone else that is not secured should bring the wrath of the law on the gun owner.
I have been planning for months to buy a pistol for my home, that would never leave my home except for classes and target shooting at the local store, and since this event I have had to really think this over. However the latest group of shootings like this have all been by persons with social/mental issues. I have not changed my mind on ownership. Any law will be broken by any person with these issues. they don't care about the law.

Where do you draw the line on mental stability? For example, should someone diagnosed with clinical depression have their guns taken away - even if they have never committed any crime? I would tend to say yes, at least for their own safety, and even if they're being medicated for it. Gun ownership is a tremendous responsiblity and you really need to have each and every one of your marbles.

If we're going to look at issues of mental instability, then we need to be prepared to make some very hard choices about who may and may not own firearms.
 
DMC for sure. I am not prepared to make the judgement but there are plenty of pros that do it every day. They are witnesses in courts and decide if a person is a danger to them selves or someone else. But if they are already being treated by a professional, then any weapons owned by the household should not be available to them. Like all decisions dealing with the constitution a lot of tough decisions are going to have to be made. Evidently none of this ladies weapons were under lock and key and certainly should have been.
 
Back
Top