It's just so very sad | Page 8 | The Boneyard

It's just so very sad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Finally sitting down to get some thoughts out on this...

I am an elementary school teacher and when I saw this during my lunch yesterday, I was in shock. I work in a k-5 school and when I went down to get my class, a kindergarten class was walking towards me coming from the library. It was surreal to say the least. I brought my class upstairs and just looked at them for a minute before starting, appreciating what I had in front of me (and believe me, this can be a very difficult class).

I agree with the poster who said that more needs to be done in schools for children who are outsiders/outcasts/whatever term you want to throw out there. However, I'd stretch that out to say that more has to be done in our society. I have had students who fit the profile of the "outcast" whom I feel I have done all in my power to help but I don't get support from support staff (guidance/adjustment counselors), parents, administration, state agencies, whomever. This has to be a societal shift to make identifying and helping these kids a priority. We (rightfully) spend millions of dollars helping kids who can't read and write get supplemental services. Where is the extra money to help kids who are lacking skills to socialize and adapt to day to day life? If we can help such people as kids, do we not help head off at least a few of these horrible tragedies?
 
It would be a start. Before $$ are invested check what successful countries (countries with lower rates of violence do) in regards to the issues being brought up in this forum. If they have less violence understanding their policies is an inexpensive start to implementing things here.
 
fleudslipcon said:
It would be a start. Before $$ are invested check what successful countries (countries with lower rates of violence do) in regards to the issues being brought up in this forum. If they have less violence understanding their policies is an inexpensive start to implementing things here.
Expand ...

Study Japan

"Of the world's 23 "rich" countries, the U.S. gun-related murder rate is almost 20 times that of the other 22. With almost one privately owned firearm per person, America's ownership rate is the highest in the world"

"In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal. By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally."
 
dsturdy5 said:
Finally sitting down to get some thoughts out on this...

I am an elementary school teacher and when I saw this during my lunch yesterday, I was in shock. I work in a k-5 school and when I went down to get my class, a kindergarten class was walking towards me coming from the library. It was surreal to say the least. I brought my class upstairs and just looked at them for a minute before starting, appreciating what I had in front of me (and believe me, this can be a very difficult class).

I agree with the poster who said that more needs to be done in schools for children who are outsiders/outcasts/whatever term you want to throw out there. However, I'd stretch that out to say that more has to be done in our society. I have had students who fit the profile of the "outcast" whom I feel I have done all in my power to help but I don't get support from support staff (guidance/adjustment counselors), parents, administration, state agencies, whomever. This has to be a societal shift to make identifying and helping these kids a priority. We (rightfully) spend millions of dollars helping kids who can't read and write get supplemental services. Where is the extra money to help kids who are lacking skills to socialize and adapt to day to day life? If we can help such people as kids, do we not help head off at least a few of these horrible tragedies?
Expand ...

Some of these "outsider" kids become especially at risk for deterioration when they graduate from high school and lose the structure of the school and the role of student. Many of these kids will not be able to compete for regular jobs and will need extra support and patience if they do somehow get a chance at a job. One practical way that employers could help would be to work with high schools and special education schools to get internships and perhaps jobs that will be set up to help them succeed, one step at a time. Vulnerable kids who are isolated can really deteriorate with nothing to do and no confidence or social skills to find a place in the world as a young adult. I have no idea to what degree this fits the shooter, but there are lots of kids in this situation (lost after high school) who could desperately benefit from mentoring and job/training/intern opportunities.
 
The "drugs are illegal and people still get them" is a bit of a red herring, as well.

First, marijuana and some other recreational drugs can be easily grown, or grown and then refined. It doesn't take the technology that it does to make an assault weapon. And the places that supply drugs don't often have the abilities to make good quality guns.

Second, there is constant demand for drugs. One person uses cocaine, and then he needs more. That isn't the same with guns.

Third, drugs are generally malleable, and easy to move in small or large quantities. Guns are no so much.

Would there be a black market for guns? Yes. Would anyone be able to get it? Not really.

Also, someone mentioned 3-D printers. Sorry, but they aren't going to be advanced enough to print out a fully working gun, with moving parts. One would need to "print" out each individual part and then put it together. That seems difficult, far more difficult than people are making it seem. And don't think that major gun companies are going to just let people print out their own guns--the lawsuits would be crazy, so I'm not overly concerned about the "soon people will be just printing out guns" future.
 
dsturdy5 said:
Finally sitting down to get some thoughts out on this...

I am an elementary school teacher and when I saw this during my lunch yesterday, I was in shock. I work in a k-5 school and when I went down to get my class, a kindergarten class was walking towards me coming from the library. It was surreal to say the least. I brought my class upstairs and just looked at them for a minute before starting, appreciating what I had in front of me (and believe me, this can be a very difficult class).

I agree with the poster who said that more needs to be done in schools for children who are outsiders/outcasts/whatever term you want to throw out there. However, I'd stretch that out to say that more has to be done in our society. I have had students who fit the profile of the "outcast" whom I feel I have done all in my power to help but I don't get support from support staff (guidance/adjustment counselors), parents, administration, state agencies, whomever. This has to be a societal shift to make identifying and helping these kids a priority. We (rightfully) spend millions of dollars helping kids who can't read and write get supplemental services. Where is the extra money to help kids who are lacking skills to socialize and adapt to day to day life? If we can help such people as kids, do we not help head off at least a few of these horrible tragedies?
Expand ...

Thank you. My first job out of law school was in the PD's office. The profiles were always predictable.
 
.-.
tykurez said:
Study Japan

"Of the world's 23 "rich" countries, the U.S. gun-related murder rate is almost 20 times that of the other 22. With almost one privately owned firearm per person, America's ownership rate is the highest in the world"

"In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal. By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally."
Expand ...
Not flaming on you but Japan has a much higher suicide rate than the US. There is a cultural difference that influences mentally unstable people to act one way in one culture and another way in another culture. I'm not arguing for or against the gun issue. I'm just trying to get a complete picture about things because if we advocate change, the more we understand human behavior the better we'll be able to predict an outcome with the changes we formulate and the more likely we'll monitor the most important negative problems that we think can arise from the changes we propose.

This article discusses firearms per 100 people throughout the world.

http://billmoyers.com/2012/07/23/mapping-gun-ownership-and-homicides-by-country/

The US is far ahead in those numbers. The problem is one person can collect multiple weapons and other people none and the numbers can get skewed if large numbers of people are collectors. But that's another issue. In spite of leading the world in weapon possession, the US is 27th in firearm homicides per 100,000 people. That is still horrible by any stretch of the imagination. But it shows that guns are not the only problem when it comes to violence otherwise the correlation would be greater.

There is one correlation we all can agree. The more destructive the weapon, the greater the likelihood that someone acting out his anger in a violent way will cause larger numbers of injuries or fatalities. The suicide bombers in 9/11 understood this.

I'm not a gun advocate. I don't own a gun or belong to the NRA. But I'm not as clear on this issue as some of you are. Certainly I abhor the violence. No one should be taken before their time especially kids. My concern is things that I see occurring around the world such as Syria or in Africa. Powerful regimes controlling weapons brutalize their unarmed citizens. My gut tells me that this is an argument with no value in the U.S., not because we are cut from a different mold then other people in the world, but because if the U.S. reached the point of military take over and a dictatorial modality of government, the militias in this country would be the first to go and the rest of us would be like ducks in the pond. But I would like to think I'm wrong about this type of prediction in any of its iterations.
 
tzznandrew said:
Also, someone mentioned 3-D printers. Sorry, but they aren't going to be advanced enough to print out a fully working gun, with moving parts. One would need to "print" out each individual part and then put it together. That seems difficult, far more difficult than people are making it seem. And don't think that major gun companies are going to just let people print out their own guns--the lawsuits would be crazy, so I'm not overly concerned about the "soon people will be just printing out guns" future.
Expand ...

by reading this, my guess is you don't have much experience on 3-d printing. they've 3-d printed fully functioning assault weapons as well as numerous types of hand guns.
 
21Huskies said:
by reading this, my guess is you don't have much experience on 3-d printing. they've 3-d printed fully functioning assault weapons as well as numerous types of hand guns.
Expand ...
Here's what I've read:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/with-a-3-d-printer-building-a-gun-at-home/

Its from October, so it may be outdated. According to this, they've printed parts of assault weapons and numerous types of hand guns, but never whole. It does postulate that printers could that. Color me skeptical of them being able a fully functioning gun with no need of assembly.

But, frankly, I've been wrong many times before.
 
superjohn said:
From that type of logic, I now think you are a stupid person.
Expand ...


From your response I would have to say that you thought process is somewhat lacking. But I wont hold it against you, I am sure you mean well.
 
Robertelamin said:
By the way, the media has absolutely sucked throughout this whole thing. How about get the story correct instead of being first.
Expand ...

If I stopped following this at noon yesterday I would be beliveing that...

The killer was Ryan Lanza. That he killed his dad, brother and girlfriend in Hoboken.
Then drove to Newtown and went to the school where he shot his mother in front of her kindergarten class and then shot all her kids.

:mad:
 
.-.
After 9/11 they allowed retired cops to carry concealed guns across state lines, anywhere in the US. Maybe now retired cops will be hired to sit at a school? I think it would be helpful. Won't change the world, but a step in the right direction.
 
tzznandrew said:
Here's what I've read:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/with-a-3-d-printer-building-a-gun-at-home/

Its from October, so it may be outdated. According to this, they've printed parts of assault weapons and numerous types of hand guns, but never whole. It does postulate that printers could that. Color me skeptical of them being able a fully functioning gun with no need of assembly.

But, frankly, I've been wrong many times before.
Expand ...
I don't know about guns, but I know you can print machines with moving internal parts (at least on the simple side) such as an adjustable wrench without need for further assembly. The "ink" for a 3D printer comes as a powder so that when the machine is printed, you blow away the un-crosslinked ink. Not sure how complex of a mechanism you can get.
 
August_West said:
There has to be stricter controls. Few are asking or expecting across the board bans.

Also, I love when pro gun people use the " drugs are illegal, and people still can get them" argument as they unwittingly walking into a good argument for making guns illegal.

If I offered 30 people on this board 10,000 dollars to prove they could purchase a gun pretty much all of you would be able to do so. Maybe a few would fail background check, but at least 25 of you would be successful.

If I made a similar offer of 10000 dollars to prove you could purchase a bag of heroin I promise that fewer than 5 of you would come back with heroin. Some of you will be arrested in the process, some will be outright robbed by a dealer, some will purchase what is advertised as a heroin, but isn't, and some of you will just be plain beaten down.

This is about harm reduction, and making it tougher for people to access these weapons. Which odds do you like better?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Expand ...
I agree that there has to be stricter laws and no where in my reply did I mention odds. However if you want to get into that that is okay. Heroin is a deadly drug so you have to have the same variable for guns. See how many people can get their hands on an AK or a fully automatic shotgun (forgot the name). You comparing acquiring a run of the mill gun is like acquiring weed which everyone has already.
The problem isn't with people getting guns as much as it is the people that already have guns that let them get into wrong hands.
 
The first thing I thought of when Japan was brought up was the suicide rate. To a large degree, this is about guns. There is just as much, if not more, ostracization of the different everywhere in the world. I have seen good methods for treating it in the USA in certain progressive schools, but that approach is way too mamby-pamby for most Americans. In such schools, it amazes you to see the amount of respect children have for one another. Maybe they are indoctrinated into it, but it works. And maybe people are creeped out by Stepford children, but again it works. I'll note that there is one such school on the other side of Danbury, a Waldorf school.

The whole thing shares similarities to 9/11 and the Indian Ocean tsunami for me in that not only did I have nightmares about this last night, but it just gets worse and worse, and I expect I'll be even more horrified because the police now say there is a motive. I mean, come on!! Motive? Mental illness I can understand. But...
 
.-.
Timmy's law changed healthcare in terms of determining what health care providers could/couldn't deny as it related to psychiatric care.

Every firearm in the Unites States is supposed to be registered, and not in possession of felons. Why not have it so that any household in America where ANYONE has any mental/social/ disorder CAN'T own a handgun ? It's not at all discriminatory, just common sense.

Also , if a restraining order has been filed against you, you CAN'T get a handgun for 90 days.

The NRA - aka gun folks, is the largest lobby in politics. Schools used to have safety officers, but local budgets can no longer afford them. You'll generally only see police officers in High Schools , and some Junior High's depending on the area. Pay gym teachers an extra $5k annually if the obtain and maintain a concealed carry permit.

Place a dressed down National guardsman , or reservist at the front door with a concealed firearm and it will reduce tragedy's like this. Unfortunately..it won't stop them.
 
TerryA88 said:
Timmy's law changed healthcare in terms of determining what health care providers could/couldn't deny as it related to psychiatric care.

Every firearm in the Unites States is supposed to be registered, and not in possession of felons. Why not have it so that any household in America where ANYONE has any mental/social/ disorder CAN'T own a handgun ? It's not at all discriminatory, just common sense.

Also , if a restraining order has been filed against you, you CAN'T get a handgun for 90 days.

The NRA - aka gun folks, is the largest lobby in politics. Schools used to have safety officers, but local budgets can no longer afford them. You'll generally only see police officers in High Schools , and some Junior High's depending on the area. Pay gym teachers an extra $5k annually if the obtain and maintain a concealed carry permit.

Place a dressed down National guardsman , or reservist at the front door with a concealed firearm and it will reduce tragedy's like this. Unfortunately..it won't stop them.
Expand ...

There is no registry in regard to people diagnosed with any type of mental disorder. Such a registry would likely have the impact of making people even more reluctant to seek help. The privacy of medical records is a pretty big deal and such a registry would violate that privacy.
 
We have technology - why don't we use it. If you can make a smart phone, you can make a smart gun. If you have a handgun for home protection, it's disabled if it leaves your property. If you like to hunt, you submit your hunting plan, ie. area you plan to hunt in that doesn't include schools or malls or places of worship, and your hunting rifle only works in those places and only for the times you will be there. Both of those things can be easily done with GPS. Finally, have the grips recognize hand prints. If your hand doesn't match the prints registered to use the gun, you have a chunk of metal you can throw at people.

Would this cost more? Yup. So what. You want a gun, you pay the extra expense to enable those technologies.

I'm sure someone will say people will crack those protections and maybe in a few instances, they would. But it is about 99% likely it would have stopped this tragedy and most all others like it for the last 20 years. Some people might get some 'cracked' guns, but most of the time, it would prevent such events from happening.

You get your gun to protect your property and you get your gun to go hunting with. If you're dumb enough to have one in the house, you even get to shoot your spouse when you're pissed. You even get the opportunity to kill yourself of someone in your house accidentally (happens over 500 times a year). But it protects the rest of us from anyone taking those weapons into public and using them.

The technology could easily be developed - why aren't we?
 
You missed one assumption: the constitutional right to bear arms without government interference so as to create an informal army or militia when necessary as during the Revolutionary and Civil War and in border skirmishes today. The SCOTUS is moving away from this reading and simply citing an individual right to bear licensed arms for self-defense and allowing some prohibitions like assault weapons and by extension WMDs and military versus civilian weaponry

Crimes of passion face little barrier with many of the current limits . Suicide, Even pre-meditated crimes where several hand guns and clips are used,

80% of the crimes are illegal guns often in the hands of felons acquired through private sale and gun shows or from family members as in the case of Newtown.

I don't see the current SCOTUS allowing self-defense to apply only to the home. Much of this will be irrelevant as technology creates viruses and bio weapons of incredible effectiveness and the tech leaks to the general public. Incident like 911 and bomb usage will be back in vogue. If US weaponry gets too hi tech and expensive we'll see guns coming over the border that are low tech.

I don't much care about gun control laws. I have little reason to believe they will be effective. The NRA's position is we need aggressive enforcement of existing laws and there is something to be said for that. Gun Sweeps are hampered by constitutional challenges on minority profiling issues, etc.
 
RS9999X said:
You missed one assumption: the constitutional right to bear arms without government interference so as to create an informal army or militia when necessary as during the Revolutionary and Civil War and in border skirmishes today. The SCOTUS is moving away from this reading and simply citing an individual right to bear licensed arms for self-defense and allowing some prohibitions like assault weapons and by extension WMDs and military versus civilian weaponry

Crimes of passion face little barrier with many of the current limits . Suicide, Even pre-meditated crimes where several hand guns and clips are used,

80% of the crimes are illegal guns often in the hands of felons acquired through private sale and gun shows or from family members as in the case of Newtown.

I don't see the current SCOTUS allowing self-defense to apply only to the home. Much of this will be irrelevant as technology creates viruses and bio weapons of incredible effectiveness and the tech leaks to the general public. Incident like 911 and bomb usage will be back in vogue. If US weaponry gets too hi tech and expensive we'll see guns coming over the border that are low tech.

I don't much care about gun control laws. I have little reason to believe they will be effective. The NRA's position is we need aggressive enforcement of existing laws and there is something to be said for that. Gun Sweeps are hampered by constitutional challenges on minority profiling issues, etc.
Expand ...
Let me retort:

The constitutional right was written when a skilled gun man could get 3 or 4 shots off per minute, not 7 rounds per second. They had no idea what 200+ years of technology would produce. I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would not be in favor of people having the guns that are available now in the much denser and complicated society we have now.

Anyone who thinks a bunch of people with guns today could overthrow the US Government with the military might it has is delusional. I don't care how many people rise up with assault rifles, they aren't going to beat tanks and aircraft. That is another idea the flew 200+ years ago that makes no sense today.

While I agree (and said so in my original post) that there would be 'cracked' guns and as you say black market guns, in a case like which we are responding to, technology would have prevented the tragedy. The Mom wouldn't (probably) be buying illegal guns. If they had tech built into them, her son could maybe have killed her and that would be the extent. If he knew he couldn't leave and kill others, he probably wouldn't have bothered killing her.

If you can enable technology and stop one of these things happening, it's worth it (particularly as it's no cost to anyone who doesn't own guns). If you can stop most, it's a no brainer.
 
I wonder how much these crimes are motivated, at least in part, by the attention they receive. Someone feeling insignificant can become "famous" in a few seconds.
 
.-.
Dogbreath2U said:
I wonder how much these crimes are motivated, at least in part, by the attention they receive. Someone feeling insignificant can become "famous" in a few seconds.
Expand ...


An excerpt from an interesting article by Charles Cook:

"Contrarily, school shootings, such as the nauseating and heartbreaking spectacle we saw yesterday, are seemingly on the rise — as are other mass shootings, such as that which afflicted Aurora, Colo. earlier in the year. As Ezra Klein has observed, “of the 12 deadliest shootings in U.S. history, six have taken place since 2007.” This is a separate problem. What is causing this is not yet known and probably underinvestigated, but it is certainly not guns. The American republic stood for almost two hundred years before the first school shooting occurred. Something is awry, to be sure; to blame guns is a mistake."

It seems to certainly be something that has changed in our society
 
Good point. Not to distract people from their fear based knee jerk anti-gun crusade but has anyone heard any more information about the New Jersey connection to this incident? We now know his father is alive and lives in Stamford. We also know the brother was working and is not the other person taken into custody at the scene. So who was it that died in NJ and who was the second person taken into custody?
 
Dougsts said:
An excerpt from an interesting article by Charles Cook:

"Contrarily, school shootings, such as the nauseating and heartbreaking spectacle we saw yesterday, are seemingly on the rise — as are other mass shootings, such as that which afflicted Aurora, Colo. earlier in the year. As Ezra Klein has observed, “of the 12 deadliest shootings in U.S. history, six have taken place since 2007.” This is a separate problem. What is causing this is not yet known and probably underinvestigated, but it is certainly not guns. The American republic stood for almost two hundred years before the first school shooting occurred. Something is awry, to be sure; to blame guns is a mistake."

It seems to certainly be something that has changed in our society
Expand ...
While I agree that there is something else going on besides guns, suggesting it has nothing to do with guns is also a problem. There weren't mass shootings in the Roman days, or in the Renaissance. Why? Part of it was that there weren't guns capable of doing this available to anyone, let alone the public. We didn't have mass shootings over the first 200 years or so because people couldn't get guns powerful enough to do this.
 
I hate guns but know the necessity to many and will not get in to any of the politics and pretend I know.......I have a 34-32 demarini bat located in my house strategically just in case (2 actually) so if they have a gun I'm in trouble but at 53 why start now?

Anyway I get a single mom wanting to feel safe at home alone but 6 guns including an assault rifle? C'mon the world is ridiculous, how about the Glock in the drawer next to your bedstand and done?!?!?!
 
The atrocities that occured during the end of the Roman Empire and the dark ages were at least as ugly as this. They didn't need guns. Swords, a mace, rope and horses were sufficient to wipe out entire villages, including women and children. Humans are imperfect and humanity occasionally goes off the rails. Fix the people.
 
Dougsts said:
An excerpt from an interesting article by Charles Cook:

"Contrarily, school shootings, such as the nauseating and heartbreaking spectacle we saw yesterday, are seemingly on the rise — as are other mass shootings, such as that which afflicted Aurora, Colo. earlier in the year. As Ezra Klein has observed, “of the 12 deadliest shootings in U.S. history, six have taken place since 2007.” This is a separate problem. What is causing this is not yet known and probably underinvestigated, but it is certainly not guns. The American republic stood for almost two hundred years before the first school shooting occurred. Something is awry, to be sure; to blame guns is a mistake."

It seems to certainly be something that has changed in our society
Expand ...

I'd like to see more research on this. 2 weeks ago I was reading about the massacre of 73 kids in Calumet, Michigan in 1913. There was another one, a massacre of women and children, in Ludlow, Colorado about a decade later. Those weren't done by single crazed killers, however. But multiple men with a motive. Maybe that's the difference. But we've always had a lot of violence.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,372
Messages
4,568,743
Members
10,474
Latest member
MyStore24


Top Bottom