Shooting at CT Elementary School

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby sardia » Fri Jan 11, 2013 7:22 am UTC

I wonder what Biden is gonna come up with, he's been on a hot streak lately.

OT: Lol, I know what it's like to be taken advantage of for having a hobby; you pay out the nose for, to outsiders, minor differences of the same production model. I remember buying an english card for a few bucks, and then paying double that for the Russian version, and then triple that for the limited edition supershiny Japanese card. And that's after you get a set of them, you want the set to match, so if you collect the English set first, but then happen upon the Russian one, well now you have to get a matching pair.

User avatar
Triangle_Man
WINNING
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:41 pm UTC
Location: CANADA

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Triangle_Man » Fri Jan 11, 2013 7:17 pm UTC

Which only shows that it's possible to collect anything and that you are still going to empty your back account in the process.

...Speaking of which, have there been any new developments in regards to this News Story? Has the NRA made any more press releases, are their any policy changes being planned/made, etc.
I really should be working right now, but somehow I don't have the energy.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:My moral system allows me to bitch slap you for typing that.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby sardia » Fri Jan 11, 2013 10:54 pm UTC

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/12/us/po ... itics&_r=0
There aren't any specifics so far, only possibilities. Like the Brady campaign is emphasizing better background checks and trafficking crackdown. What does that mean? Nothing until you get into the nuts and bolts of the law. Just one small example is how people abuse gun freedoms in the US to traffic guns to Mexico. You buy a gun, then you sell it to a stranger who offered you a really high price for it, no questions asked. How do you stop that without getting your head bit off by gun enthusiasts?

Its interesting that the Brady Campaign offers a different take on the assault weapons ban. They say we shouldn't focus on it because gun enthusiasts can argue all day on it to delay the passage of any gun control law. Considering how long we argued on the effects of the assault weapon ban, into what is an assault weapon, into are guns even comparatively dangerous, I see their point.

User avatar
Eseell
Posts: 789
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:58 am UTC
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Contact:

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Eseell » Fri Jan 11, 2013 11:11 pm UTC

sardia wrote:You buy a gun, then you sell it to a stranger who offered you a really high price for it, no questions asked. How do you stop that without getting your head bit off by gun enthusiasts?

How can you stop it? Straw purchases are already federal felonies. Making it more illegal doesn't seem like a useful solution.
"Math is hard work and it occupies your mind -- and it doesn't hurt to learn all you can of it, no matter what rank you are; everything of any importance is founded on mathematics." - Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby sardia » Fri Jan 11, 2013 11:42 pm UTC

Eseell wrote:
sardia wrote:You buy a gun, then you sell it to a stranger who offered you a really high price for it, no questions asked. How do you stop that without getting your head bit off by gun enthusiasts?

How can you stop it? Straw purchases are already federal felonies. Making it more illegal doesn't seem like a useful solution.

Nice strawman(or some other logical fallacy, I was never sure which). You know that murder is illegal too, and yet here we are, talking about how to reduce murders by guns.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10268
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Jan 11, 2013 11:59 pm UTC

Is legitimate purchase with illegal resale any more serious/common than someone reselling a car to someone without a license? Though come to think of it, gun registration a la car registration, where transfer of ownership must be registered with a DMV-like organization, might very well be feasible.

User avatar
Eseell
Posts: 789
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:58 am UTC
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Contact:

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Eseell » Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:09 am UTC

That was an actual question. What law do you propose to pass that would prevent someone from illegally selling a gun to a person for the purpose of smuggling it back to Mexico? Let's say I'm legally allowed to purchase a gun. I can pass all the checks and whatever. I walk into a gun store and buy a gun, then I walk out, go home, and sell it to a guy illegally. What law could you pass that would prevent me from doing that? Closing the so-called "gun show loophole" would not. It would allow the police, if I were caught, to charge me with an additional crime.
"Math is hard work and it occupies your mind -- and it doesn't hurt to learn all you can of it, no matter what rank you are; everything of any importance is founded on mathematics." - Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6326
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Thesh » Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:30 am UTC

Make it against the law to commit crime.

Honestly, if crime is your concern, the goal should be ending poverty as well as income inequality, eliminating legislation against victimless activities because some find them immoral (drugs, prostitution, gambling). The world needs to evolve, otherwise we are just bandaiding problems. It is possible to, within our lifetime, eliminate most crime, violence, war, poverty, and atrocities on this planet, but we need to be willing to make sacrifices to do so. But, I digress.

There are just too many guns in America for any gun control to be effective; the black market is already flooded, and the more you restrict them the more the criminals will result to smuggling and theft. We won't solve much by sticking on a bandaid over every new wound; background checks, registration, licensing, and training requirements are just that. The only purpose registration serves for a vehicle is taxation and proof of ownership (which I would argue is only necessary due to the cost) , and proof of ownership doesn't do much to stop gun violence. Licensing for vehicles is necessary due to the complex rules of the road and is there to reduce accidental deaths, but firearms are all common sense and accidental deaths aren't the problem. I have nothing against background checks, but expanding them still won't stop the violence.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3665
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby EdgarJPublius » Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:32 am UTC

It's not actually clear that a majority, or even a particularly large percentage of firearms used by Mexican criminals and cartels actually comes from the U.S.

The evidence seems to indicate a large portion of illegal weapons in Mexico come from the Mexican Military, some South American nations, and Asia/Russia.

Similarly, as per sources I've posted previously (in the Gun Control SB thread, if not here) Most criminals in the U.S. obtain firearms by theft, though many do acquire them from straw purchasers (typically otherwise non-criminal friends and family members, not high-volume illegal arms dealers)
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Tyndmyr » Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:51 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Is legitimate purchase with illegal resale any more serious/common than someone reselling a car to someone without a license? Though come to think of it, gun registration a la car registration, where transfer of ownership must be registered with a DMV-like organization, might very well be feasible.


Gun registration is fairly unpopular for the reason that registration has historically been pushed as a precursor to confiscation.

That said, no, it's not a big deal. People frequently misrepresent the "gun show" "loophole". It's not anything specific to gun shows at all, actually. It simply establishes that individual folks like you or I can sell our guns, in small quantities, without need to keep to all the standard a retail store does. This is reasonable, and consistent with just about every other product imaginable. The guy selling one used item is not the same as the store selling thousands.

Dealers, of course, must still run background checks, etc, even if selling at gun shows. Venue does not matter.

It has been labeled a "gun show loophole" only because, yes, sometimes people sell guns at gun shows.

The most common way criminals get firearms is via straw purchases(source, FBI). The second most common is from illegal arms dealers. Now, nobody on either side of the debate is going to mind a crackdown on these folks. Both are already overtly illegal felony offenses that carry long prison terms and other consequences. Stepping up enforcement, etc? Go nuts. No problems there. Theft is also a problem...it's not as big as the others, but it does account 10-15% of guns used in crime(Source: ATF), which is still pretty significant. I could see a justification for caring about gun thefts more. Definitely could be seen as an indicator that the person is planning additional crimes.

Triangle_Man wrote:Which only shows that it's possible to collect anything and that you are still going to empty your back account in the process.

...Speaking of which, have there been any new developments in regards to this News Story? Has the NRA made any more press releases, are their any policy changes being planned/made, etc.


Yes. The NRA has announced that the federal group is a crock, and has ceased participating. This seems likely, given the events.

Oh, and also, it turns out no assault weapon may have actually been part of the Sandy Hook shooting at all. They found two more pistols in the school(source, NBC news, Pete Williams). The media is now claiming(at least in part) that the "bushmaster AR-15" was in the trunk of his car the entire time. Certainly, NBC explicitly claimed that only the four handguns entered the school at all.

Thing is, you can very clearly see in the video of the police securing the weapon that they are working the bolt on the gun. AR-15's don't have a side operated bolt like that. I know. I have one. They invariably have a charging handle that's behind the action. Entirely different motion. It's pretty obvious that this isn't an AR-15 at all. In fact, no high cap magazine is visible in the video, and the stock looks remarkably similar to a hunting rifle or shotgun, not a typical AR stock. Despite no visible clip, they rack the action several times. This is typical to eject shells from a tube feed(ie, not detatchable) mag for a hunting rifle or shotgun. So, I can guarantee that whichever gun was taken out of the car...it wasn't an AR-15.

The medical examiner said that all the wounds they know of are caused by "the long one". Now, that's a damned imprecise way to identify a weapon, especially when five guns are involved, but it seems he means the rifle? If that's the case, how the hell did it get back out in the car? And why all four pistols inside if they weren't used? CNN certainly reports that the shooter died to one of the pistols.

Multiple mags were identified for one of the pistols, a glock, on the shooter.

Victims were shot between 3 and 11 times each. This information was revealed, along with the fact that over 150 hits had been found on the victims. Even assuming all weapons were used and that no misses happened(a questionable assumption at best), this means the shooter had to have made multiple mag changes in the course of his spree. In addition, it strongly indicates that he was shooting over and over at people even after they were clearly dead or dying. That's a remarkably crazy level of rage.

In addition, the shooter had attempted to purchase a weapon on his own from a gun store somewhat before the attack, and was denied.

Long story short, there's still a shit-ton of contradictions to sort through, and I don't understand why identifying the firearms involved is hard. The brand, model and caliber is generally printed into the steel on the side on all even vaguely modern firearms. This is something that anyone with the ability to read should be able to settle cold. The empty shell casings for the different guns are overtly distinguishable at a glance(and indeed, generally stamped with the caliber), and the wounds can be identified at a glance as well. Either the cops and/or the media have been utterly screwing this reporting up.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby sardia » Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:52 am UTC

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/us/po ... f=politics
Apparently both sides are eager to beef up enforcement of people who lie on their background checks when they buy a gun. Still no idea if this will get into any potential legislation, but it does have bipartisan support.

Btw, what did you mean by illegal arms dealers? Are they normal gun stores that don't report sales, or is it something else?

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby DSenette » Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:21 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Btw, what did you mean by illegal arms dealers? Are they normal gun stores that don't report sales, or is it something else?

both. normal gun stores that don't report sales, and something else (i would imagine).

the first kind is probably relativelly rare. with all the hoops gun stores have to jump through when buying and selling guns, differences in inventory are probably pretty easy to notice. pawn shops might be a little more succeptible to this kind of thing since they're often cash only types of joints.

the other type of illegal arms dealers are the ones that are opperating on the black market. they don't have any licenses to sell guns, they just aquire guns and sell them on the street.

Tyndmyr wrote:Long story short, there's still a shit-ton of contradictions to sort through, and I don't understand why identifying the firearms involved is hard. The brand, model and caliber is generally printed into the steel on the side on all even vaguely modern firearms. This is something that anyone with the ability to read should be able to settle cold. The empty shell casings for the different guns are overtly distinguishable at a glance(and indeed, generally stamped with the caliber), and the wounds can be identified at a glance as well. Either the cops and/or the media have been utterly screwing this reporting up.

i would imagine that this is primarily a failing in the information being given to news groups or news groups reporting stuff entirely too quickly without getting all of the information. it's highly unlikely taht the reporting police department that collected all of the evidence doesn't know what make/model weapons were collected and where they were collected from. it's just a matter of them not releasing that info to the news media because...you know, active murder case.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

PerchloricAcid
Posts: 339
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:09 pm UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby PerchloricAcid » Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:03 pm UTC

Seriously, people?
I open this topic just to see another discussion on gun control.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7516
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Zamfir » Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:52 pm UTC


This thread keep moving towards the gun control thread. I am unsure if there really is a purpose left for this specific thread.

Is there anyone left who would like to discuss the shooting itself, in ways not directly related to gun control? Or conversely, are there people who like to have a special thread about gun control in the context of this particular shooting, separate from the general gun control thread?

If so, please send a PM. Without responses, I will assume that this thread can be locked with the discussion moving entirely to the gun control thread. Otherwise I will keep this thread open, and/or open an extra thread about gun control.

Iceman
Posts: 667
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:41 am UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Iceman » Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:01 pm UTC

As far as the shooting itself goes, I am against it.

I do always find it disheartening that discussion tends to lean towards physical prevention of acts like these as opposed to cultural and psychological prevention.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10268
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:21 pm UTC

Iceman wrote:As far as the shooting itself goes, I am against it.


There are people for shooting 1st graders?

Aside from Old Man "get the fuck out of my yard" Jenkins of course.

Iceman
Posts: 667
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:41 am UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Iceman » Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:28 pm UTC

Well, that was kind of the joke...

In a thread about the shootings people will debate gun control, psychology, cultural influences etc... because you can't really 'discuss' the shooting itself aside from just facts. So it's inevitable you'll go off on some side track related to prevention and causes.

User avatar
Triangle_Man
WINNING
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:41 pm UTC
Location: CANADA

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Triangle_Man » Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:33 pm UTC

Thanks for the information supplied earlier, folks. I'm guessing this debate is at a stalemate again?
CorruptUser wrote:
Iceman wrote:As far as the shooting itself goes, I am against it.


There are people for shooting 1st graders?

Aside from Old Man "get the fuck out of my yard" Jenkins of course.

Hey, didn't somebody actually shoot a kid for stepping on his lawn?

I remember a news story that ran to that effect...
I really should be working right now, but somehow I don't have the energy.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:My moral system allows me to bitch slap you for typing that.

Iceman
Posts: 667
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:41 am UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Iceman » Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:05 pm UTC

Triangle_Man wrote:Thanks for the information supplied earlier, folks. I'm guessing this debate is at a stalemate again?
CorruptUser wrote:
Iceman wrote:As far as the shooting itself goes, I am against it.


There are people for shooting 1st graders?

Aside from Old Man "get the fuck out of my yard" Jenkins of course.

Hey, didn't somebody actually shoot a kid for stepping on his lawn?

I remember a news story that ran to that effect...


I remember that being an episode of Star Trek the Next Generation, only they were gonna give him a lethal injection

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Tirian » Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:36 pm UTC

If wanting to kill Wesley Crusher in the first two seasons was a crime, we'd need more jails.

Seriously, the issue that I haven't seen enough about is designing schools to be less massacre-proof. It broke my heart to read about doors at Sandy Hook where the locks weren't working and that janitors went from room to room telling teachers to secure themselves. I don't want to overstate it, but a gunman is going to be at least significantly slowed down by a door with a deadbolt on it and alarms are just ... argh. And we need to have safety drills that are conducted by people who don't have a vested interest in sweeping problems under the rug on the theory that "it couldn't happen here".

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jan 15, 2013 3:37 am UTC

DSenette wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Long story short, there's still a shit-ton of contradictions to sort through, and I don't understand why identifying the firearms involved is hard. The brand, model and caliber is generally printed into the steel on the side on all even vaguely modern firearms. This is something that anyone with the ability to read should be able to settle cold. The empty shell casings for the different guns are overtly distinguishable at a glance(and indeed, generally stamped with the caliber), and the wounds can be identified at a glance as well. Either the cops and/or the media have been utterly screwing this reporting up.

i would imagine that this is primarily a failing in the information being given to news groups or news groups reporting stuff entirely too quickly without getting all of the information. it's highly unlikely taht the reporting police department that collected all of the evidence doesn't know what make/model weapons were collected and where they were collected from. it's just a matter of them not releasing that info to the news media because...you know, active murder case.


I'd hope so, but there was a recent high profile shooting of firemen near me, and police admitted they didn't know what kind of gun he'd shot at them for days...but said "probably a rifle, because of the range". Seriously? There are empties. The shooter is dead. Look at the empty shells. Are they long and metal? Rifle. Short and metal? Pistol. Long and mostly plastic? Shotgun. This ain't rocket science.

sardia wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/us/politics/us-may-focus-more-on-gun-background-checks.html?pagewanted=2&ref=politics
Apparently both sides are eager to beef up enforcement of people who lie on their background checks when they buy a gun. Still no idea if this will get into any potential legislation, but it does have bipartisan support.

Btw, what did you mean by illegal arms dealers? Are they normal gun stores that don't report sales, or is it something else?


Yeah, people who flat out lie to illegally buy guns...they have basically have no support from anywhere. There's really not much harm to legitimate gun owners from enforcing that, so nobody's gonna lose sleep over it.

Illegal arms dealers come in two flavors. The first is a Federal Firearms License holder that just decides he's gonna break the law and gleefully sell to criminals. These guys are few, but can have a big effect. They stand out like sore thumbs in post-crime analysis of where guns come from, but it can take a while to get all that data sorted. The second is dealers that just don't have a license at all, and buy and sell(still in violation of the law, mind you), from whoever. This can involve imported illegal firearms, trade in stolen firearms, or whoever. The stats for "stolen guns" usually only refers to criminals who stole the gun themselves, then used it in a crime. Not every thief is a violent one...some just sell the guns like everything else.

Being either kind of person is a good way to get locked away basically for life if caught, naturally. Even single violations of these laws carry heavy jail sentences and fines, so doing it as a matter of course is a great way to get nabbed on many charges.

I'm not sure how exactly you'd categorize these guns. Best information so far is that they were legally purchased by the parent, probably. So, a pre-buying screening or whatever wouldn't have been of much use.

Zamfir wrote:
This thread keep moving towards the gun control thread. I am unsure if there really is a purpose left for this specific thread.

Is there anyone left who would like to discuss the shooting itself, in ways not directly related to gun control? Or conversely, are there people who like to have a special thread about gun control in the context of this particular shooting, separate from the general gun control thread?

If so, please send a PM. Without responses, I will assume that this thread can be locked with the discussion moving entirely to the gun control thread. Otherwise I will keep this thread open, and/or open an extra thread about gun control.


Come now, I just posted updated information about reporting the firearms involved. It's true that this is also related to the ongoing gun control debate...but it's primarily about the shooting itself.

Tirian wrote:Seriously, the issue that I haven't seen enough about is designing schools to be less massacre-proof. It broke my heart to read about doors at Sandy Hook where the locks weren't working and that janitors went from room to room telling teachers to secure themselves. I don't want to overstate it, but a gunman is going to be at least significantly slowed down by a door with a deadbolt on it and alarms are just ... argh. And we need to have safety drills that are conducted by people who don't have a vested interest in sweeping problems under the rug on the theory that "it couldn't happen here".


Also fair. Safety drills and working locks and such are...good standard practice. Not just for shootings, but for school security in general. Fires happen, accidents happen, and being able to lock off areas where kids shouldn't be seems reasonable. I believe there was a locked room that the shooter demanded they open(a ridiculous request if ever there was one), that resulted in nobody inside being shot. Certainly a plus.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10009
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby addams » Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:09 am UTC

There is so much to discuss.

1. What the fuck is wrong with us?
2. Grief. Hard work.
3. The families got through Christmas. Now, they must get through birthdays
4. The belongings of a six year old person. What would you do?

I am so white, sometimes.
I know what I did.

I gave the task some thought. I decided to keep her school work. Not boxes and boxes. Enough that I could set it on a table and look at it.
I recommend keeping a sample of the child's handwriting.
This is an technicaly avanced world. There are recordings of these children.

I emptied her room. Everything went to Salvation Army.
Because I didn't talk much does not mean I didn't feel anything.
O.k.

I got numb. I liked another mother. We talked a great deal. She wanted nothing to do with the tranquility of
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10009
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby addams » Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:27 am UTC

Hardware!
The other mother did not want tranqulizers.
I wanted to be so heavily drugged I could feel nothing.
I did not do it. Later much later I did, some.

We talked about culture and genetics.
How we grieve is both.

Do white people take drugs because they are sissys?
Do white people take the drugs because whites are so sensitive the pain is greater?
The other mother said she wanted to feel the pain. It honored her child.

Her culture taught her, Time will ease the pain. Something like that.

We all know it is so painful to lose a child.
It take a year. Some people are advanced. They are done sooner.

The method is somewhat unimportant. Grief is eased et
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby sardia » Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:30 am UTC

You shouldn't doublepost, it's bad manners.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/us/po ... f=politics
Obama is exercising executive power to clear the way for legislative steps. The big things he can do without Congressional interference: "Actions the president could take on his own are likely to include imposing new limits on guns imported from overseas, compelling federal agencies to improve sharing of mental health records and directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct research on gun violence, according to those briefed on the effort. "

I guess he's ordering these things to signal that he is serious about gun control as a priority. I dunno how he's gonna fit this in, along with immigration, appointees, and the elephant in the room, the debt ceiling.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:33 pm UTC

For the life of me, I can't see the relevance of additional import restrictions. Glock, Bushmaster, etc...these are made in USA. If there's one industry the US has lots of domestically, it's the arms industry. This seems pointless, and mostly a problem for historians and collectors.

Sharing of mental health records is legit, tho. I recall reading a study that compared outcomes between hospitals that allowed any doctor to see mental health records and ones that allowed only specialists to see them. The former had a significantly lower recurring issue rate, because they were better able to diagnose issues. Now, privacy of medical records is also a big deal...but if sharing of records is helping both the patient and society at large, it's probably a good move.

As for stats on gun violence...I'm not sure if that matters. FBI already tends to keep pretty solid violence and crime stats. CDC keeps accident stats already. Don't know that this would be much of a change...though I do hope it doesn't cause duplication of effort.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:12 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:As for stats on gun violence...I'm not sure if that matters. FBI already tends to keep pretty solid violence and crime stats. CDC keeps accident stats already. Don't know that this would be much of a change...though I do hope it doesn't cause duplication of effort.

Actually, the CDC used to perform research on gun violence, until Congress threatened to cut their funding. Now they may still collect statistics, but they no longer do any analysis or research ways to reduce gun violence.

It'd be like if the CDC still collected data on car accidents, but no longer recommended seat belts or air bags because the Auto lobby strongarmed them into not conducting any sort of analysis.

There's plenty of data out there regarding, say, which safety measures work best at reducing gun accidents that the CDC can't touch because of the Gun Lobby.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7516
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Zamfir » Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:27 pm UTC


OK, there seems enough animo to keep the thread open some more, but not for a gun-control-free thread on the issue. Carry on :)


Iceman
Posts: 667
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:41 am UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Iceman » Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:49 pm UTC

Tirian wrote:Seriously, the issue that I haven't seen enough about is designing schools to be less massacre-proof. It broke my heart to read about doors at Sandy Hook where the locks weren't working and that janitors went from room to room telling teachers to secure themselves. I don't want to overstate it, but a gunman is going to be at least significantly slowed down by a door with a deadbolt on it and alarms are just ... argh. And we need to have safety drills that are conducted by people who don't have a vested interest in sweeping problems under the rug on the theory that "it couldn't happen here".


I guess locks on doors should work, just because hey should...but it's pretty silly to think locks should work because they prevent mass shootings.

I really find talk about physical prevention of things like this to simply be so off-base to the point of being ridiculous.

Safety drills at an elementary addresses at mass shootings? Could that be more idiotic?

Whenever a thing happens people seem to want to address and solve that EXACT single thing. It's just the most wrong-headed thinking.

For starters, this kid went and shot up a school he didn't even go to. I don't remember that happening before, it's usually a high schooler shooting up a high school they attend.
If you made all the doors lock, he could just attack at lunch with everoyne outside. He could attack a hospital or mall or stadium or any other public place.

If he got in a single room and killed everyone in 1 classroom, that would still equal the kill count he attained in the whole school, and there'd be no way to prevent that.

If you put up a metal detector he could just shoot the guard first. He could bomb the school instead of shooting it up, he could have poisoned a bunch of school lunches, he could have done tons and tons of things.

Putting in completely ridiculous 'safety' things just cost huge amounts of money, accomplish nothing whatsoever and ultimately just mildly alter an attacker's plans.

I cannot beleive how much people go 'Oh yes, yes, that's a great idea!' at these idiotic suggestions. This is how you end up emptying 9 oz liquids into plastic baggies at airports.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby sardia » Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:20 pm UTC

Did you just say you're against working locks on doors at schools? Are you against fire drills as well?
Heisenberg wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:As for stats on gun violence...I'm not sure if that matters. FBI already tends to keep pretty solid violence and crime stats. CDC keeps accident stats already. Don't know that this would be much of a change...though I do hope it doesn't cause duplication of effort.

Actually, the CDC used to perform research on gun violence, until Congress threatened to cut their funding. Now they may still collect statistics, but they no longer do any analysis or research ways to reduce gun violence.

It'd be like if the CDC still collected data on car accidents, but no longer recommended seat belts or air bags because the Auto lobby strongarmed them into not conducting any sort of analysis.

There's plenty of data out there regarding, say, which safety measures work best at reducing gun accidents that the CDC can't touch because of the Gun Lobby.

It's easy to forget how much coddling gun enthusiasts have had over the years. There's a lot of special regulation restricting the government's attempt at controlling criminal use of firearms.
As for the efficacy of these steps, I think it's merely a signal that Obama is keeping this a priority.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:00 am UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:As for stats on gun violence...I'm not sure if that matters. FBI already tends to keep pretty solid violence and crime stats. CDC keeps accident stats already. Don't know that this would be much of a change...though I do hope it doesn't cause duplication of effort.

Actually, the CDC used to perform research on gun violence, until Congress threatened to cut their funding. Now they may still collect statistics, but they no longer do any analysis or research ways to reduce gun violence.

It'd be like if the CDC still collected data on car accidents, but no longer recommended seat belts or air bags because the Auto lobby strongarmed them into not conducting any sort of analysis.

There's plenty of data out there regarding, say, which safety measures work best at reducing gun accidents that the CDC can't touch because of the Gun Lobby.


Honestly, I'd be perfectly ok with that. Sufficient aggregated data can definitely point very suggestively in the right ways. Metrics on mortality of using seatbelts vs not don't require a summary. The conclusion of "use a seatbelt if you want to not die" is fairly obvious.

I'm not against increased stats gathering in general, mind you...I'm just worried about them either duplicating stats already collected by another agency(a minor worry, since it's probably not THAT expensive compared to much our government does), or becoming politicized. Recommendations on courses of action run that risk. Right now, the CDC is pretty decently unbiased, IMO, and I wouldn't want to see that change. I suppose I'll have to wait for more details before I have a really strong position on this, as the exact details might make it better or worse than portrayed in a brief summary.

Iceman wrote:
Tirian wrote:Seriously, the issue that I haven't seen enough about is designing schools to be less massacre-proof. It broke my heart to read about doors at Sandy Hook where the locks weren't working and that janitors went from room to room telling teachers to secure themselves. I don't want to overstate it, but a gunman is going to be at least significantly slowed down by a door with a deadbolt on it and alarms are just ... argh. And we need to have safety drills that are conducted by people who don't have a vested interest in sweeping problems under the rug on the theory that "it couldn't happen here".


I guess locks on doors should work, just because hey should...but it's pretty silly to think locks should work because they prevent mass shootings.


Not silly at all. A classroom full of people are alive in this shooting because their door was locked, and so the shooter, after requesting they open it a few times, moved on.

I bet those folks value the crap out of that lock. No, locks aren't a cure-all, but they're a very, very inexpensive, uncontroversial security measure. Having them in working order is just good policy.

Safety drills at an elementary addresses at mass shootings? Could that be more idiotic?


What, exactly, is idiotic about safety drills? We have them for all manner of things. They certainly seem worthy of consideration at least.

Iceman wrote:For starters, this kid went and shot up a school he didn't even go to. I don't remember that happening before, it's usually a high schooler shooting up a high school they attend.


Usually, yeah. And usually, they're loners, but Columbine had a pair. Sometimes you get unusual events, and indeed, mass shootings as a whole tend to be pretty unusual. Still, it's definitely possible to draw some correlations, if we take some time to consider all the factors. I agree that focusing on just a single cause is going to be simplistic, but a more holistic analysis isn't a bad idea.

Iceman wrote:If you made all the doors lock, he could just attack at lunch with everoyne outside. He could attack a hospital or mall or stadium or any other public place.


They're not gonna be locked down all the time. It simply makes it easier for people to get away from an attacker, as locked doors slow the shooter down. It gives the police more time to respond.

Iceman wrote:If he got in a single room and killed everyone in 1 classroom, that would still equal the kill count he attained in the whole school, and there'd be no way to prevent that.


There really isn't. However, he got into single rooms, and didn't necessarily kill everyone. Looking over mass shootings, I have to say, it doesn't normally seem like maximum mortality is the primary goal. Rather a lot of them have ways in which they could have possibly killed more people that they didn't pursue. Hell, lots of them end in suicide. I theorize that it's much more about inflicting pain on others. Look at CT, he shot many of the victims very, very many times. IE, he probably shot them a lot after they were already dead. That's a lot of rage. It's not a logical state of mind at all.

Iceman wrote:If you put up a metal detector he could just shoot the guard first. He could bomb the school instead of shooting it up, he could have poisoned a bunch of school lunches, he could have done tons and tons of things.


Granted. However, in practice, attacks don't happen at guarded schools much. I believe there's only been one exception in several decades, but mass shootings have overwelmingly taken place in gun free zones.

Bombs are a fairly common method of mass killings too...and indeed one with a higher lethality than guns, but poisonings are not. Perhaps it's related to the mindset, perhaps poisonings just don't get the media attention, I'm not sure...but it doesn't seem like a vector that's a problem atm.

Iceman wrote:Putting in completely ridiculous 'safety' things just cost huge amounts of money, accomplish nothing whatsoever and ultimately just mildly alter an attacker's plans.

I cannot beleive how much people go 'Oh yes, yes, that's a great idea!' at these idiotic suggestions. This is how you end up emptying 9 oz liquids into plastic baggies at airports.


It absolutely can go overboard, yes. We need to take a measured analysis of the problem, and evaluate possible solutions for their costs and benefits, rather than taking hasty action. However, just ignoring the issue isn't viable either. Take your example of the airport security. Has it gone too far? Sure. But some stuff, like reinforced cockpit doors? Not a bad idea. It's a matter of taking the time to weed the good ideas out from the bad.

sardia wrote:It's easy to forget how much coddling gun enthusiasts have had over the years. There's a lot of special regulation restricting the government's attempt at controlling criminal use of firearms.
As for the efficacy of these steps, I think it's merely a signal that Obama is keeping this a priority.


I wouldn't call them coddling. They're almost invariably reactionary to legislative overreaches.

You could say the same about free speech enthusiasts, if you liked.

User avatar
Eseell
Posts: 789
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:58 am UTC
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Contact:

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Eseell » Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:32 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Iceman wrote:Safety drills at an elementary addresses at mass shootings? Could that be more idiotic?


What, exactly, is idiotic about safety drills? We have them for all manner of things. They certainly seem worthy of consideration at least.
As Lt. Col. Dave Grossman pointed out in an excellent article, when was the last time a child died in a school fire? Likely none have died in fires in your lifetime: the last child to die in a school fire was over 50 years ago (I wish the article had a cite, but I assume that he's talking about this fire.). And yet we still have regular fire drills in all schools. We have drills because it's dangerous to hide our heads in the sand and pretend that fires never happen; without preparation for a vanishingly unlikely scenario, people would die. It's similarly dangerous to deny that school lockdowns happen. Without proper planning and practice, people panic and don't respond effectively in high pressure situations.
"Math is hard work and it occupies your mind -- and it doesn't hurt to learn all you can of it, no matter what rank you are; everything of any importance is founded on mathematics." - Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby sardia » Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:11 am UTC

This slipped my mind, but let's play devil's advocate for the day. If we're so intent on protecting gun rights, is it ok to trample on the rights of the mentally ill? Statistically, they aren't any more dangerous than people with guns or just people on average, yet they get all sorts of flak. Remember how people in this thread talk about the mentally ill as if they were cunning monsters?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =169421270
Requires any therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat of harming others to report the threat to a mental health director, who would then have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her, as well.

This small line in the NY gun law is a significant change to the rights of the mentally ill. "Currently a mental health professional has a duty to protect potential victims of a patient, but there are several ways to do that, he said. The patient can be committed to an institution, voluntarily or not, or his medication can be changed to reduce the risk, or the intended victim can be warned, he said." The new law would require therapists to report it to authorities, undermining doctor patient confidentiality. In essence, in our effort to prevent gun shootings, we're preventing people who need help from getting it.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:40 am UTC

sardia wrote:This slipped my mind, but let's play devil's advocate for the day. If we're so intent on protecting gun rights, is it ok to trample on the rights of the mentally ill? Statistically, they aren't any more dangerous than people with guns or just people on average, yet they get all sorts of flak. Remember how people in this thread talk about the mentally ill as if they were cunning monsters?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =169421270


No, that's a fair concern too. We can't simply lock up every mental patient. They're not all equal, and they're not all violent. We've had a substantial anti-institutionalization movement in this country, and frankly, much of it has been positive. Things like locking people up for being gay were pretty terrible, and I'm glad that died.

Requires any therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat of harming others to report the threat to a mental health director, who would then have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her, as well.

This small line in the NY gun law is a significant change to the rights of the mentally ill. "Currently a mental health professional has a duty to protect potential victims of a patient, but there are several ways to do that, he said. The patient can be committed to an institution, voluntarily or not, or his medication can be changed to reduce the risk, or the intended victim can be warned, he said." The new law would require therapists to report it to authorities, undermining doctor patient confidentiality. In essence, in our effort to prevent gun shootings, we're preventing people who need help from getting it.


I do worry about effects of discouraging self-reporting. If you penalize those seeking treatment too much, people don't seek treatment. I think the NY law was hastily written, and really suffered as a result of being patched together quickly behind closed doors, then not really given much time for consideration(some senators said they only had 20 minutes between receiving the text of the bill and having to vote on it). The rush job probably looks good to many, as politicians are seen to be "doing something", but I think avoiding public commentary and discourse on bills can seriously result in a bad bill.

In this case, I'd like to see more balancing of patient rights. For instance, I don't have a problem with increasing sharing of mental health issues between medical providers. Not a big concern there privacy wise, but can mean more comprehensive, better treatment. In addition, while removing guns from someone who is a danger to himself or others is logical...having a means to restore them once the person has recovered is important for reducing the disincentive. You don't want someone to think "Man, if I get help, I'll lose all my guns forever", and then...not seek help.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby sardia » Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:11 am UTC

While that could be a problem, the bigger issue was that "man, I could get help, but he might get me arrested." and then not seek help. That's a bigger pool of patients then the gun worry crowd. I can see a compromise where the gun rights groups throw the mentally ill under the bus to protect their own butts. Hmm, I can't find much on the topic except what I posted earlier. There's no way to predict who will become violent with any reasonable accuracy, which is really disconcerting.

User avatar
cerbie
Posts: 934
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:14 am UTC
Location: USA

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby cerbie » Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:47 am UTC

sardia wrote:This slipped my mind, but let's play devil's advocate for the day. If we're so intent on protecting gun rights, is it ok to trample on the rights of the mentally ill? Statistically, they aren't any more dangerous than people with guns or just people on average, yet they get all sorts of flak. Remember how people in this thread talk about the mentally ill as if they were cunning monsters?
No, I recall some posters, including myself, considering the dangerous mentally ill to be as capable as anyone else at forming and executing plans. De-institutionalization has definitely been a net positive. But, we need to make it easier for family and such to get help for those that seem like they might be dangerous. We've gone a little too far, and need to swing back towards a good balance.

This small line in the NY gun law is a significant change to the rights of the mentally ill. "Currently a mental health professional has a duty to protect potential victims of a patient, but there are several ways to do that, he said. The patient can be committed to an institution, voluntarily or not, or his medication can be changed to reduce the risk, or the intended victim can be warned, he said." The new law would require therapists to report it to authorities, undermining doctor patient confidentiality. In essence, in our effort to prevent gun shootings, we're preventing people who need help from getting it.
Said law is crap, and was rammed through quickly, because they knew there was a chance it might not pass, if given time for a public backlash against it. They wanted to get the maximum benefit they could from those kids dying in CT, by passing an unrelated law (nothing the CT shooter did, that we know of, would be substantially affected, were he to be in NY in the near future).

I can't say it any better, so I'll just leave this link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rRSUEaLKvA
DSenette: (...) on the whole, even a trained killer cow is kind of stupid.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:18 pm UTC

sardia wrote:While that could be a problem, the bigger issue was that "man, I could get help, but he might get me arrested." and then not seek help. That's a bigger pool of patients then the gun worry crowd. I can see a compromise where the gun rights groups throw the mentally ill under the bus to protect their own butts. Hmm, I can't find much on the topic except what I posted earlier. There's no way to predict who will become violent with any reasonable accuracy, which is really disconcerting.


That's certainly also a factor. All additional laws need to be carefully considered for all disincentives. This law was definitely a crap law. I suspect it would have been MUCH better if publicly discussed, and if feedback were gathered publicly from the mental health profession. They're now expressing worry, of course, but why not get that info before passing it instead of after?

Well, there is...certain conditions combined with drug/alcohol abuse leads to a staggeringly high violence rate(much higher than the totals of both alone). Worth focusing on, but we can't pretend that doing so will eliminate all the school shootings. In fact, it seems like a flavor of violence mostly unrelated to school shootings. The sort of thing we really want to work on is more accessible treatment and better early identification. Those aren't really addressed at all by this law. Research funding to mental health would probably help with better identification and understanding. Accessible treatment can be improved in a number of ways.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby sardia » Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:38 pm UTC

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/healt ... f=politics
Even with all the warning signs, the mentally ill only account for 20% of mass shootings and 4% of violent crimes in general.
"“But most mass murders are done by working-class men who’ve been jilted, fired, or otherwise humiliated — and who then undergo a crisis of rage and get out one of the 300 million guns in our country and do their thing,” Dr. Stone said. "
I find it funny that the psychologist threw the NRA line back at them, no, crazy people aren't the problem, guys with guns are the problem.

Back on topic: I hope we explore an overhaul to our mental care system. I don't think we should be happy if it consisted of a judge deciding whether a guy gets his guns or not and calling it a day.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby leady » Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:02 pm UTC

Eseell wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Iceman wrote:Safety drills at an elementary addresses at mass shootings? Could that be more idiotic?


What, exactly, is idiotic about safety drills? We have them for all manner of things. They certainly seem worthy of consideration at least.
As Lt. Col. Dave Grossman pointed out in an excellent article, when was the last time a child died in a school fire? Likely none have died in fires in your lifetime: the last child to die in a school fire was over 50 years ago (I wish the article had a cite, but I assume that he's talking about this fire.). And yet we still have regular fire drills in all schools. We have drills because it's dangerous to hide our heads in the sand and pretend that fires never happen; without preparation for a vanishingly unlikely scenario, people would die. It's similarly dangerous to deny that school lockdowns happen. Without proper planning and practice, people panic and don't respond effectively in high pressure situations.


Its utterly futile to drill infrequently for something that is less likely than a lightning strike - its a complete waste of time, not to mention if you drill against one ludicrously unlikely event why not the myriad of others.

The fact is that s**t happens and most changes to reduce the instances of them will be impossible to measure the effigacy of and have undesireable consequences. For example the door locks option exposes a far greater pupil risk to fire hazards, chemical experiment hazards, the costs of guards could save far more pupils if spent on other things...

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby sardia » Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:40 pm UTC

I get that drills have a cost benefit thing going, but why are people hating on locks? Is your apartment not locked or something? Is a fire in your building going to kill you because the door has a lock on it?

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:51 pm UTC

leady wrote:Its utterly futile to drill infrequently for something that is less likely than a lightning strike - its a complete waste of time, not to mention if you drill against one ludicrously unlikely event why not the myriad of others.

Well, you see, you could create one drill that would help in a myriad of scenarios. Like, instead of having a student shooter scenario and a disgruntled teacher scenario and a local bank robbery scenario and a rabid coyote scenario, you just have a single lockdown drill. It's one drill that covers thousands of possible hazards. It's not hard to do and you do it once a year. It also gives you a reason to check your equipment (door locks and window shutters) just like you would check your smoke detector batteries.

The rarity of a school shooting is a reason to avoid excessive precautions, but not a reason to avoid any precautions. Children are more likely to be hit by lighting than they are to be abducted by a weird guy in a van, but it's still a reasonable precaution to warn them not to get into weird guys' vans. It's an unreasonable precaution to not let your kid play outside or surround schools in barbed wire. Those are excessive. Yearly drills and simple warnings are basic precautions that are near zero cost.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 17 guests