US Connecticut Shooting

[das_nut]

But then, you would think that in this case it is kind of obvious what the influence was, given that the murderer was brought up in a house full of accessible dangerous guns, with a strange gun obsessed parent who encouraged him to shoot? Only a complete moron would even debate that having easy access to guns wasnt one of the top factors in this case.

If you're defining "top factor" in regards to its deadliness, I agree. As the attacks were carried out, guns did increase the deadliness of the attack at the school.

If you're defining "top factor" in regards to the attacker deciding to carry out the attacks, I'd have to ask for clarification. Most American adults, assuming they are law abiding and have a couple bucks, can buy a firearm about as easily as they can make an off-sale liquor purchase.

In addition, even considering the people with access to a firearm who actually use a firearm to commit a homicide of a family member, most of that limited subset do not later go on to commit an mass killing at another location.

Assuming that this was a moment of rage or insanity that lead to the initial killing, if a loaded weapon was very accessible, I could see how the weapon could be considered a top factor in the initial killing. I would not call it a top factor in the decision to commit the mass killings at the school. Most murderers, even those who kill family members with a firearm, do not proceed to commit a mass shooting at their initial victim's workplace.

 

[ledboots]

Newtown, Connecticut is what you would call rural, rather than suburban. Moneyed rural; most properties each have a lot of land, and the zoning must be strict on minimum lot size. People tend to have more guns when they are remote with room to shoot them. I would have not have been surprised to hear they had a shotgun and a 22 rifle in the home, or maybe a pistol. That military-style gun that he used to murder everyone, however, wtf is that.

 

[Moll Flanders]

I'm really trying to limit the amount of time I watch this news story as it is so desperately sad when kids of that age are involved. They have had US people on the news trying to explain why guns are seen as so important to American culture but I think it is hard for people in the UK to understand.

One positive note is that it is nice to see the community coming together to remember the people that died and giving tribute to the victims.

So it appears the mother was not the wisest. She had a troubled child and she was an avid gun collector who often took him shooting at shooting ranges with her. I think if you have a special needs child it is not a smart idea to bring them up with a whole bunch of guns, particularly if they are reclusive and prone to depression. It is a recipe for disaster.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Adam-Lanza-a-fiercely-intelligent-killer.html

If that information is accurate then I don't understand why the mother would keep guns in the home (if that is where she kept them?)

 

[beancounter]

If that information is accurate then I don't understand why the mother would keep guns in the home (if that is where she kept them?)

It's the mentality of the NRA.

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/...-massacre-no-comment-and-the-evil-that-men-do

 

[yakherder]

I definitely came from a gun family, though it was arguably a necessity spending 3 to 6 months of the year in remote parts of Alaska. My stepfather was a commercial fisherman with the mentality of a father straight out of an 1800s life on the prairie movie and my mother, now in her mid 50s, still hits the range once every couple of weeks. I was already a pretty good shot by the time I was 10, and in my young adulthood I've owned several assault rifles, including an AR 15 and an M4, which is the same one the killer had in his trunk but to my knowledge didn't use.

Since starting to travel a lot, not to mention moving to Canada, I haven't had guns in quite a while. My sister, with her two kids, recently moved in with my mom, and since she no longer lives in an environment where it's considered a virtual necessity, the first thing she did was to store her guns at the range she goes to. That said, I think the key to safe gun ownership is to see and treat them like the tools they are, with respect given to their dangerous nature, and not to idolize them as collectors items or status symbols.

As for gun control, I'm not even gonna get into that debate. All I will say is that if gun reduction in general is to be the answer, you have to change the culture before you change the law. If there is still a demand for guns, restricting ownership will fail for the same reason that alcohol prohibition failed and the drug war continues to fail. Unenforceable laws are irrational, serving only to elevate items to black market status and making it very difficult to regulate and track sales.

 

[ledboots]

It is difficult to explain how important the right to bear arms is to some citizens in the United States. As part of the bill of rights in our constitution, it is part of the rights set out for citizens so that the government cannot have all the power. Our whole constitution is set up to limit the rights of government, so the people have the rights, not the government which is *for and by the people*.

In the movie theatre shooting in Colorado, there were six theatres close to the home of the shooter, all showing the same Batman premiere. Only one had a sign up stating that it was a gun-free zone. The killer didn't choose the theatre closest to his house, nor did he choose the largest one. He chose the one with the sign, where he knew no one in the audience could pull out a pistol and shoot back.

 

[Eleven]

I just get sick of the gun debate.

There is no meaningful gun debate at any level that matters. When a member of Congress (Gabrielle Giffords) was shot in the head, there was no debate. When the Aurora shootings happened, there was no debate. And now that 20 1st graders have been shot, there will not be any debate on guns that matters.

I hope when members of Congress receive their NRA campaign contributions, that they can at least think of the people who've died. Maybe I'll send them some pictures.

 

[Eleven]

In the movie theatre shooting in Colorado, there were six theatres close to the home of the shooter, all showing the same Batman premiere. Only one had a sign up stating that it was a gun-free zone. The killer didn't choose the theatre closest to his house, nor did he choose the largest one. He chose the one with the sign, where he knew no one in the audience could pull out a pistol and shoot back.

Had other people had guns in the theater and one stood up and began shooting, others would have assumed there was more than one attacker. As others began shooting, more wrong assumptions and more people dead. There are no law enforcement agencies that would suggest that arming the public would help.

 

[das_nut]

and in my young adulthood I've owned several assault rifles, including an AR 15 and an M4, which is the same one the killer had in his trunk but to my knowledge didn't use.

AFAIK, he didn't have any assault rifles. AR15 isn't an assault rifle, but the M4 is - I presume you're referring to a civilian variant that is probably an assault weapon, but isn't an assault rifle.

Assault rifle = rifle capable of full automatic behavior.
Assault weapon = weapons that look like assault rifle.

As for gun control, I'm not even gonna get into that debate. All I will say is that if gun reduction in general is to be the answer, you have to change the culture before you change the law. If there is still a demand for guns, restricting ownership will fail for the same reason that alcohol prohibition failed and the drug war continues to fail. Unenforceable laws are irrational, serving only to elevate items to black market status and making it very difficult to regulate and track sales.

I agree fully with this. We can't sign a law and expect all the guns to magically disappear. We could reduce the amount of guns used in other crimes, both by increasing the penalties for using a gun during a crime, and by attacking crime directly - for example, partial or full drug legalization would be an extremely effective at reducing the amount of money flowing into crime.

What would be bad is to fall into a gun situation like Mexico's - where guns are heavily regulated and their ownership is just a small fraction of the US, but the amount of gun homicides is far greater than the US.

 

[Calliegirl]

It is difficult to explain how important the right to bear arms is to some citizens in the United States. As part of the bill of rights in our constitution, it is part of the rights set out for citizens so that the government cannot have all the power. Our whole constitution is set up to limit the rights of government, so the people have the rights, not the government which is *for and by the people*.

The bill of rights was written at a time when you could only fire a single shot, then had to stop to reload, not shoot 3000 rounds per minute (or 60 rpm in the case of a semi-automatic).

The original wording is "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It was meant as protection during wartime, not for gun nuts to collect assault weapons.

 

[ledboots]

Guns are successfully used defensively in the US. Examples:

"Crime and Self-Defense * Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11] *
A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]
* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16] *
Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]
* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]
* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]
* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21] • 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22] " more here
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime

 

[Freesia]

I'm really trying to limit the amount of time I watch this news story as it is so desperately sad when kids of that age are involved. They have had US people on the news trying to explain why guns are seen as so important to American culture but I think it is hard for people in the UK to understand.

One positive note is that it is nice to see the community coming together to remember the people that died and giving tribute to the victims.



If that information is accurate then I don't understand why the mother would keep guns in the home (if that is where she kept them?)

The mother was a gun enthusiast who encouraged her sons to partake in her interest. So her mentally disturbed son had ready access to her weapons. This only points to the fact that the mother probably was a few sandwiches short of a picnic too, what mother would bring her children up in this manner? I actually think the mother was equally responsible for this tragedy. The hand that rocks the cradle... etc.

 

[Freesia]

What would be bad is to fall into a gun situation like Mexico's - where guns are heavily regulated and their ownership is just a small fraction of the US, but the amount of gun homicides is far greater than the US.

That is ridiculous, to point out Mexico as an example of a country which has "gun regulations" it is basically run by drug cartels for whom the law is completely irrelevant.

 

[Freesia]

AFAIK, he didn't have any assault rifles. AR15 isn't an assault rifle, but the M4 is - I presume you're referring to a civilian variant that is probably an assault weapon, but isn't an assault rifle.

Assault rifle = rifle capable of full automatic behavior.
Assault weapon = weapons that look like assault rifle.

Considering the large amount of people that were killed, how can it not be seen as a weapon which is inappropriate for use except in a combat situation? And with so many of these weapons around, how can anybody (who is sane) not see that as a problem?

Honestly, your posts are so bizarre that sometimes i wonder if you are kidding and just trying to mess with us or something.

 

[yakherder]

AFAIK, he didn't have any assault rifles.

Handguns were used in the attack itself, but I've seen several articles claiming he had a Bushmaster M4 in the trunk of the vehicle.

AR15 isn't an assault rifle, but the M4 is - I presume you're referring to a civilian variant that is probably an assault weapon, but isn't an assault rifle.

Correct, sorry for my lazy use of language The AR15 is very similar to the M16, while the M4 was virtually identical to the one I currently use in the Army, the main difference being the lack of burst fire or full auto modes in the civilian version.

 

[Envy]

Considering the large amount of people that were killed, how can it not be seen as a weapon which is inappropriate for use except in a combat situation? And with so many of these weapons around, how can anybody (who is sane) not see that as a problem?

Honestly, your posts are so bizarre that sometimes i wonder if you are kidding and just trying to mess with us or something.

He didn't say anything like that.

 

[Amy SF]

The mother was a gun enthusiast who encouraged her sons to partake in her interest. So her mentally disturbed son had ready access to her weapons. This only points to the fact that the mother probably was a few sandwiches short of a picnic too, what mother would bring her children up in this manner? I actually think the mother was equally responsible for this tragedy. The hand that rocks the cradle... etc.

I have to agree with this. It's a tragedy that she was the first person he killed on Friday, but it was a tragedy waiting to happen. I can't say that she got what she deserved, but apparently she didn't see it coming. Maybe she was blinded by a mother's delusional love, not realizing that he was capable of such a thing. And if there are other parents out there like she was, then there will be more tragedies like this one.

 

[yakherder]

Considering the large amount of people that were killed, how can it not be seen as a weapon which is inappropriate for use except in a combat situation?

Combat is a pretty vague term. For killing unarmed people at close range, yeah a handgun is pretty ideal. For what I would personally define as combat, a handgun is just extra weight.

 

[Freesia]

From Michael Bloomberg: http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/bloomberg-obama-should-make-gun-control-his-numb

 

[beancounter]

Just some thoughts...
The surveys you've linked to where a date is mentioned are at least 19 years old or older. Do you have any current links?
Who is funding "Just the facts"?
What are the statistics for accidental deaths?
What about countries that have strict gun laws and low per capita gun deaths?
What about potential abuse of certain laws such as "stand your ground"?
How many people who had guns in their home ended up getting injured or killed by an intruder, or by the intruder using the victim's gun?
Why do civilians need military weapons?
What about counties that have no gun laws and where there is a high gun ownership. What are the per capita gun deaths?
What's wrong with background checks, safety locks, and other laws that don't restrict the number of guns someone can own?

Guns are successfully used defensively in the US. Examples:

"Crime and Self-Defense * Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11] *
A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]
* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16] *
Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]
* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]
* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]
* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21] • 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22] " more here
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime