Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 15   Go Down

Author Topic: Connecticut Tragedy  (Read 55548 times)

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #120 on: December 18, 2012, 09:57:48 am »

I've been reluctant to get into this one, but since Slobodan's made it clear he hasn't a clue what an "assault weapon" is, even though he's sure that banning them will bring about at least a partial cure for this thing everyone seems to agree "we need to do something about," here are a few points that might be considered:

(1) Even though Slobodan's Chicago has had the strictest anti-gun laws in the US, it's become the murder capital of the world. It's followed closely by New York, with nearly equivalent gun laws. Detroit is trying hard to compete.

(2) Though the number of random shootings like the one in Newtown has been increasing over recent years, the overall number of gun deaths has been decreasing.

Don't ask me to make sense out of those data. There isn't any. But it does demonstrate that restrictive gun laws don't necessarily correlate with less shootings.

Regarding "assault weapons." I don't remember who, above, opined that knives could be assault weapons, but it's worth pointing out that knives and swords haven't been considered assault weapons since the invention of the English longbow in the 1300s.

The AR 15 isn't an assault weapon. Even though it has a flash suppressor and a bayonet lug, it's still a semi-automatic weapon, identical in firepower to about half of the less aggressive-looking hunting rifles out there. And if you've practiced enough with a pump or lever-action rifle you can come close to the rate of fire of a semi-automatic. If you ever fire a full-automatic weapon like the M-16 or the AK-47 you'll know the difference. Back in 1934, at the height of Al Capone's depredations (here we are back in Chicago, Slobodan) the US outlawed full-automatic weapons in the hands of civilians, so we don't need to outlaw assault weapons. It's already been done.

Things that might actually have an effect:

(1) Forcibly evaluate and institutionalize people like Lanza, who showed clear signs of being unbalanced long before his rampage. This isn't going to weed out all the nuts who might go on a shooting spree, but it's something we used to do routinely before a deluge of bleeding-hearts took that option away.

(2) Get our TV people to stop immortalizing people like Lanza with day after day of coverage. Unbalanced copycats learn that they can become famous (if dead) by doing what others have done. Actually, what they become is notorious, but they don't know the difference and couldn't care less.

(3) Give a reasonable number of teachers in every school an additional duty: Pay them extra, require them to carry concealed weapons, and require them to show up periodically at a locally designated shooting range and re-qualify -- same way our cops have to.

I keep thinking about that professor at Virginia Tech who held the door against the shooter while his students got out of the room. There should be a huge memorial statue on the Virginia Tech campus for that guy who gave his life for his students. Had he been armed, the shooting would have stopped right there.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #121 on: December 18, 2012, 10:29:59 am »

I've been reluctant to get into this one, but since Slobodan's made it clear he hasn't a clue ...

Ain't I proud that my humble opinion can bring the mighty to the debate?

32BT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3095
    • Pictures
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #122 on: December 18, 2012, 11:12:29 am »

I thinks it's totally reasonable to argue that the number of victims per psycho-attack will reduce if that very efficient killing tool, the gun, is not readily available.

I simply can't understand why you would think otherwise.

Uhmmm, guns apparently are overrated. It takes another 40 or so schoolshootings before they level out victim count due to the mcveigh drama alone. And bombs are not readily available i might add. I don't find it useful though to make such a comparison in the same way that arguing about the term "assault" is in any way relevant.

I think it is very reasonable to assume that a psycho attacker will find a gun if so desired, i do not believe psycho attacks happen frequent enough so that the purely random impulse cases that might somehow be affected by gun-control make a jota of difference on victim count in general or the severity and impact of these attacks. Most schoolshootings sofar btw don't seem to classify at all as random-impuls cases.

Logged
Regards,
~ O ~
If you can stomach it: pictures

dmerger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 680
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #123 on: December 18, 2012, 11:44:33 am »

The U.S. is a safe country generally.  The number of gun related crimes looks very scary, especially when compared to other countries, but most of those gun crimes occur in inner city, crime ridden, minority neighborhoods.  A lot of the shootings are drug related, but drug related crime breeds even more other crime and violence.  It creates a culture where violence is normal.  There are a lot of poor, good, law abiding people who are effectively trapped in those neighborhoods.  It’s a shame and tragic that they have to live, and raise children, in such circumstances, and such circumstances just continue the cycle of violence.

I hope that all this talk about gun violence in the U.S. doesn’t give a wrong impression about how dangerous life is in the U.S.  Sure, everyone needs to be aware of areas to avoid, if possible, but overall people are pretty safe from violence in the U.S.
Logged
Dean Erger

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #124 on: December 18, 2012, 12:11:03 pm »

... I keep thinking about that professor at Virginia Tech who held the door against the shooter while his students got out of the room. Had he been armed, the shooting would have stopped right there.

Retrofitting higher probabilities to desired outcomes is a national pastime, otherwise known as monday-morning-quarterbacking, or, to bring it to Russ' domain, where it is known as (paraphrased) "all generals are smart after the battle."

So, lets do some retrofitting of our own, on the subject of "had he been armed":

- he might have had a bad burrito the night before and is spending the day in and out of school's restrooms
- he might have been preparing for his class in his cabinet or school's library
- he might have stepped out for a smoke
- he might have been making out with a colleague or student in a discrete corner of the school

In all those, and many other scenarios, somebody else might have held the door against the shooter, and unless that other is also armed, the outcome would have been the same. Unless, of course, every teacher is both armed and carrying it on him at all times. This includes female teachers as well. By extension, we shall then arm every doctor and every nurse, every shopkeeper in the mall, every usher in movie theaters, every bank teller, etc.

In all fairness, I must admit that Steve Weldon's idea of selected teachers as air-marshalls sounds a bit more seductive. The difference is that air-marshals operate in a very random environment, while students would be able to detect a teacher-marshal relatively quickly. The anonymity of an air-marshal is his key asset.

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #125 on: December 18, 2012, 01:38:57 pm »

Guns have many legit uses other than for killing.  ... They're used to hunt, to protect livestock from dangerous wildlife ...

The "legit uses" in this example actually are examples of guns being used, as designed, for killing -- killing game animals and killing dangerous wildlife.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #126 on: December 18, 2012, 01:49:48 pm »

... the problems associated with being thin – still am – and not particularly given to sport or to horseplay by nature. Groups of small children inevitably sense out those less capable of hitting them flat, and for absolutely no reason other than that they can will, therefore, go ahead and knock them flat. It’s how the male human, in a group, feels safe to operate, and anyone who denies this is lying or hiding his own character and experiences from himself...

Hmmm... I must be lying then. Or deluding myself. Or maybe I am not a man enough.

I would not say I am thin, but I am certainly of an average, i.e., non-impressive or threatening physique. And yet, in my whole life, I have never, ever (knock the wood), been bullied, mugged, attacked or engaged in any kind of physical or even verbal altercation. And I lived in some rather dangerous environments (Moscow, post-communism, eight years), Barcelona (four years), and (gasp) the "murder capital of the world" - Chicago - according to Russ (the last eight years).

My wife was a victim of a petty crime twice in Barcelona, though. Once pick-pocketing, done so skillfully (i.e., non-violently) that she did not even notice. And the second time her purse was snatched off her shoulder (again, no other harm to her). I do not see how a gun would have helped. In the second case, it would have been inside the purse, and thus gone as well.

So, what's my "secret," how on Earth I've been able to protect myself and my family from "murder and rape" without a gun, to paraphrase Steve Weldon's question in another post? At least so far (knock the wood again).

- I simply try to avoid situations or environments where I would need a gun
- I choose to live in safe neighborhoods (I do realize that not everybody can afford that)
- I try to stay away from seedy parts of town, bars, events
- I try not to provoke a situation or confrontation
- I will try to remove myself from a situation before it escalates (not to run away mind you, just anticipate well in advance so that I can avoid it)
- If inevitable, I'd try to defuse it

Now, if I had a gun, I would probably be in the position that economists and risk analysts call "moral hazard," i.e., engaging in riskier behavior knowing that I am "protected." Which then becomes a self-fullfilling prophecy: by owning the gun you actually attract the situations where owning and using it is justifiable. Or you can call it a vicious circle.

Also, by owning the gun I might be tempted to use it. I generally consider myself a calm and composed individual. Yet, everyone has his breaking point. Sometimes the trigger (pardon the pun) might be a sense of injustice, wounded pride, moral outrage, or simply hurt feelings (like when Oscar insulted my daughter ;)). If (or when) it happens to me, if I ever reach my breaking point, I certainly don't wish to have a gun in my hands.

But lets now assume i do have a gun and I ended up in a situation where it might be needed. If I brandish it as a deterrence, and the assailant runs away screaming in horror, that would be a Hollywood happy ending, wouldn't it? In reality, I am more likely to face another individual with a gun. And here is the catch: that individual will be more accustomed to the situation, more experienced, quicker, more determined and with far less moral scruples to use it than I would. Although I am not afraid to use it in self-defense, I would probably deliberate for a SPLIT-SECOND longer, whether the situation warrants killing, than the other guy.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 02:36:42 pm by Slobodan Blagojevic »
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #127 on: December 18, 2012, 02:06:15 pm »

Most people are intelligent enough to get suicide right the first time. When they don't it's a cry for help, for attention. Not all the time, but most of the time.

"Our finding that the magnitude of association between household firearm ownership and suicide is particularly high for children is consistent with previous empirical work, and with the hypothesis that suicide acts by youth are more likely to be impulsive and therefore more likely to be affected by the means at hand."


Assuming the person is incapable of movement you would be correct.  Most are capable of movement.

Be charitable, allow that both parties would be capable of movement, and someone would run away and call the cops on their cell phone -- or try to run away and be shot in the back.

 
I don't disagree guns are dangerous and can kill.  I do disagree all are designed that way or that it's their primary purpose (for all of them).  I know better because I've been involved with the subject matter my entire life.

In the context of this discussion, when there's so much else that you could choose to disagree about, this seems to be quarrelling for its own sake.

You choose to focus on a fraction of a fraction of a percent of firearms, when you understand the overwhelming majority of guns are designed to kill and that is the primary purpose.


If you wanted to kill someone, or a group of someone's, could you not come up with an alternative within just a few hours by visiting your local hardware store?

It seems that you very much do not wish to accept that what actually happened is that guns were used as designed -- to kill.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 03:25:04 pm by Isaac »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #128 on: December 18, 2012, 02:08:12 pm »


(1) Even though Slobodan's Chicago has had the strictest anti-gun laws in the US, it's become the murder capital of the world. It's followed closely by New York, with nearly equivalent gun laws. Detroit is trying hard to compete.

(2) Though the number of random shootings like the one in Newtown has been increasing over recent years, the overall number of gun deaths has been decreasing.

Don't ask me to make sense out of those data. There isn't any. But it does demonstrate that restrictive gun laws don't necessarily correlate with less shootings.


That's an interesting statistic, Russ, that Chicago's crime rate has been recently increasing despite its crackdown on handgun ownership. I did a bit of research, and according to Wikipedia the homicide rate in Chicago had been steadily decreasing from 1992 to 2011. This year, however, it's on the rise again. Here are the figures.

Homicides in Chicago 1990-2012

1990: 851
1991: 927
1992: 943
1993: 855
1994: 931
1995: 828
1996: 796
1997: 761
1998: 704
1999: 643
2000: 633
2001: 667
2002: 656
2003: 601
2004: 453
2005: 451
2006: 471
2007: 448
2008: 513
2009: 459
2010: 436
2011: 433
2012: 488(to date)

Chicago is not an island with it's own custom's control. It's a part of mainland America where there are about 200 million guns already in circulation, from estimates I've seen. I imagine that criminals and delinquents would have little difficulty in sneaking guns into the area from outside of Chicago.

Another interesting statistic I came across is that in 2005, 76% of the victims of murders in Chicago were African Americans, and 77.4% of the perpetrators of such murders were also African Americans. Only 5.65% were white.

That sounds to me like there are huge problems of social inequality in Chicago which may outweigh any poorly enforced restrictions on gun ownership.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago
Logged

Jim Pascoe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1131
    • http://www.jimpascoe.co.uk
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #129 on: December 18, 2012, 02:11:50 pm »



I see, so that's all right then.

Rob C

No Rob, not all right - but at least it doesn't turn into a shoot-out.  I have a brother who engaged in some petty criminal burglary when he was around 15 years old.  In the US setup he might have been shot if caught by an angry property owner.  Here, he was caught, and after a few months detention has carried on a crime free life.  I don't want to see anyone's brother or son shot because some self-righteous person thinks they have the power of god in the form of a gun.

Jim
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #130 on: December 18, 2012, 02:34:44 pm »

Chicago is not an island with it's own custom's control. It's a part of mainland America where there are about 200 million guns already in circulation, from estimates I've seen. I imagine that criminals and delinquents would have little difficulty in sneaking guns into the area from outside of Chicago.

As you imagine, and it's just the same in NYC --

Quote
But Mayor Michael Bloomberg pointed out: “We have now had eight — that’s correct, eight — members of the department shot in the last four months and this is the second time in the last 24 hours police have been fired upon by armed assailants.”

He added: “All the shootings have a disgraceful fact in common: all were committed with illegal guns that came from out of state. And that is the case with nearly every shooting in our city.”
« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 02:55:28 pm by Isaac »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #131 on: December 18, 2012, 02:43:41 pm »

I would not say I am thin, but I am certainly of an average, i.e., non-impressive or threatening physique. And yet, in my whole life, I have never, ever (nock the wood), been bullied, mugged, attacked or engaged in any kind of physical or even verbal altercation. And I lived in some rather dangerous environments (Moscow, post-communism, eight years), Barcelona (four years), and (gasp) the "murder capital of the world" - Chicago - according to Russ (the last eight years).



Why do you assume that you need to dip into the seedy areas of life to be threatened?

My own grim experiences were in an expensive boarding school in India; I'd guess that there is as much bullying in your US Ivy League, even of a far more subtle and painful manner, than in a simply rough'n'tumble neighbourhood where you might receive some physical scars (I'm speaking of kids here). There was no suggestion in my particular sentence that a gun, knife or baseball bat is relevant; my point was, and is that being vicious is a part of the human makeup. It exists within everybody and requires but the right circumstances for it to bloom forth in all its horror. Who can tell how far one would go given the provocation, the means and the requirement? You have but to read some of the writings on this very site to see how unpleasant people can be, one to the other, and there's absolutely nothing at stake here other than a cyber position. How more hurtful the same people could be in reality, did they but choose...

That you have avoided personal physical conflict/harm all your life says not so much about you, but your good fortune: you don't have to go looking for trouble; it usually comes looking for you. Owning a gun would certainly not make me go looking for life on the dark side; I have no interest in it. I must admit, I did have a giggle when I read Jim P advise that I might run away from a knife or club attack; yes, two heart-attacks and many years into my pension... the last time I remember running was about 25 years ago when I tried to outpace the wind that was blowing my hat into the sea; I didn't make it - the wind and the sea won the hat.

I suppose I should just roll over and surrender all I've got. Maybe give them the keys to the apartment, the card code. Yeah, that would be kind and save them all a lot of effort. Unarmed, what other choice would I have? As I am unarmed, I have none.

Rob C

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #132 on: December 18, 2012, 02:49:58 pm »

Uhmmm, guns apparently are overrated. It takes another 40 or so schoolshootings before they level out victim count due to the mcveigh drama alone.

In 2009, 31,347 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States...


Quote
National Vital Statistics Report pdf

Deaths: Final Data for 2009

Firearm—In 2009, 31,347 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (Tables 18 and 19), accounting for 17.7% of all injury deaths that year. The two major component causes of all firearm injury deaths in 2009 were suicide (59.8%) and homicide (36.7%). Firearm injuries (all intents) decreased 1.9% from 2008 to 2009. The age-adjusted death rate for firearm suicide did not change from 2008, whereas the death rate for firearm homicide decreased 5.0% in 2009 from 2008.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #133 on: December 18, 2012, 03:02:54 pm »

No Rob, not all right - but at least it doesn't turn into a shoot-out.  I have a brother who engaged in some petty criminal burglary when he was around 15 years old.  In the US setup he might have been shot if caught by an angry property owner.  Here, he was caught, and after a few months detention has carried on a crime free life. I don't want to see anyone's brother or son shot because some self-righteous person thinks they have the power of god in the form of a gun.Jim


Self-righteous? Where does that come from? Isn't the right to self-defence a natural one?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't think I'd be tempted to shoot a kid doing a burglary; I would certainly be tempted to hold him at gunpoint until the fuzz arrived. Why assume that shooting to kill is the only alternative, and that the sight of the gun itself and all that it represents isn't sufficient to solve the problem in such a case? I sure as hell wouldn't run away from somebody holding a gun at me; I'd sit quietly where I was told and pray the guy didn't get angrier than I'd already made him.

However, should an adult guy attack me or threaten attack, and I had the time available to get my own gun ready, then yes, I'd go for it. Or so it seems, sitting here in the office.

Rob C

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #134 on: December 18, 2012, 03:41:35 pm »


Self-righteous? Where does that come from? Isn't the right to self-defence a natural one?...

To protect your life, not your stereo.

In similar scenarios, there were several cases here recently, where parents killed their teenage children, mistaking their late-night sneaking in for burglary.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #135 on: December 18, 2012, 03:47:50 pm »

... That you have avoided personal physical conflict/harm all your life says not so much about you, but your good fortune...

Luck favors the prepared, right?

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #136 on: December 18, 2012, 04:16:09 pm »

Here is a timely article about the effect on crime rates due to fewer gun restrictions.  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-concealed-weapon-laws-result-in-less-crime/2012/12/16/e80a5d7e-47c9-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_blog.html

The gist of the article is that allowing more guns, much as Steve Weldon has proposed, didn't result in more crime, may have contributed somewhat to less crime, but most likely didn't have much effect at all.  This is just my quick summary.  Read the article for the full story if you're interested.

Ya, dealing with statistics and peoples interpretation of them is a giant bag of worms.. I've spent some time reading through the stats in the years post CCW because it interests me and my take is that it "almost always" results in lower crime.. but sometimes not.  For instance there are many other external factors, laws targeting gangs and a lot of resources for the same purpose was in one state I was studying.. so was the 40% drop in violent crime due to CCW's, the targeting of crime, or some aggregate? 

Every "journalist" who writes a piece has statistics available to support whatever bent he/she wants to take..and they write it up as such, convince some, and their job is done.  They've filled up today's column space.  And of course someone who wants to believe that same way.. they google those peoples and there you go again..

There are studies that show Australians gun control ban saved thousands, and other studies saying its resulted in thousands killed..

All I can say, is that based on the time I've spent reading such studies and looking for their flaws.. is I believe CCW's result in a negative turn in violence in 'most all' cases. 
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #137 on: December 18, 2012, 04:49:14 pm »

Chicago is not an island with it's own custom's control. It's a part of mainland America where there are about 200 million guns already in circulation, from estimates I've seen. I imagine that criminals and delinquents would have little difficulty in sneaking guns into the area from outside of Chicago.

Exactly, Ray! The guns used in almost all those shootings were illegal guns. Just passing laws never solves problems. You need to enforce them, and most gun laws are unenforceable, except against law-abiding citizens.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #138 on: December 18, 2012, 04:51:58 pm »

Some of my thoughts on the matter (I'm a Canadian and a recently retired 30 year cop, so am looking at this thing from the outside in, although have a bit more association to the matters than the average citizen):

The vast majority of Canadian cops do not advocate putting guns into the hands of citizens. The vast majority of American cops I have spoken to, do not advocate guns for citizens (as long as they get to keep theirs).


I find this very hard to believe.   And it certainly hasn't been my experience with American police officers.  You'll hear them all voice such opinions "I wish we could keep guns from.."  But what they're talking about are the bottom 2-3% of society they deal with, not your average citizen.  


Gun control in the US is one of the most contentious issues and will likely never be resolved.

Stats can be used to support anything. And often ignore many other things that contribute to certain results.

Both opponents and proponents often resort to fear-mongering to sell their point (similar to some of Steve Weldon's points - "brawn and lower IQ's rule our streets, schools, homes"  and having a family member hurt, killed or raped while, because you didn't have gun, you were incapable of doing anything - really, really?).



Yes, and yes to the gun control issue and statistics.  But I find it offensive when you take ten words out of perhaps thousands I've written in this thread and call them fear mongering.  The Supreme Court Of The United States recently ruled we have the right to protect our homes from exactly these types of threats.  And they cited them.  Read the opinion and tell me SCOTUS is fear mongering.  Better yet, go to the FBI website and look up the MILLIONS of rapes, home invasions, killings, beatings, and other violent crimes which have been reported and prosecuted.. and tell me again I'm fear mongering.  

Fear mongering sir is when you use unrealistic fears in the minds of people to support a point of view.  Putting the truth up for examination is not.  I'm not sure where you worked, but such violent crimes were things I saw on virtually every shift.  Every shift.  I had a lot of shifts.

I just can't comprehend a society which relies so heavily on the proliferation of guns to ensure a peaceful existence.

30 years on the job and you can't see this?  Really, where did you work?    Can you tell me a single country that does not depend on a "proliferation of arms" to defend itself?   Does it surprise you that subsets of those countries end up living in the same image?  It doesn't me.   It's sad, it's terrible, but I can certain comprehend it.. because I've lived it.  As we all have.

As part of a solution, having (even well trained) teachers carrying a concealed weapon while on duty, with the expectation that they will stand up to someone intent in causing death to others is so foreign to me and scares the heck out of me.

So.. well trained teachers 'scares the heck' out of you.  Question.  Did you carry a gun during your 30 years of service?  Were you aware it frightened people?  Every cop I knew was acutely aware of this and we'd take steps to use this fear (we'd make it more, or make it less) as the job dictated.  It scares me when someone else drives.  But all that means is I'm a control freak who unrealistically thinks I'm the only one who knows how to drive.  

Does the "well trained" air marshal on your flight scare you?  It scares me they might be needed and a mistake might happen.  But it scares me a lot more when they're not on the flight.

As a cop with 30 years I'm surprised you think all they could do is "stand up to someone intent on causing death."  Was this required of you as a police officer?  Seriously, a cop gets paid about the same as a teacher.. do you feel you were required to stand up to people intent on killing people?   My answer to this question is "as a last resort."  Once I've exhausted every other tactic and option available, yes.. it was my job and I did it without reservation.  But not one just expected me to stand up and shoot it out with them.  As a cop I was expected to use my good judgement, perhaps isolate the intruder, talk to him, confuse him, communicate with the next responders as they arrived on scene (very important to get someone in their in a short amount of time)..   And even when all that was exhausted I wouldn't through my life away.  I would (and did) weigh my chances for success against what would happen if I didn't.. 20+ kids.. I have a hard time thinking a career teacher would have trouble with a choice you and I would have made in a millisecond.

Although many citizens would/do take gun security seriously, a great many would/do not (in this case, it appeared it was not). To expect the answer to be more/better training and gun security is naive and unrealistic. If it takes time and commitment and a whole bunch of money, it is either not going to get done or get done but not very well.

I agree 100% there would be those who don't take their duties seriously.. but I'm a big believer in training.  I've seen in work over the course of a long military career and a short police stint.. time and again.  Training works.  It's not foolproof.. but when the alternative is a room full of dead.. it's the best we could hope to have.

A question:  Assuming all other methods failed.. and they did.  Connecticut has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation and they failed.  The school had new policies put recently into effect to restrict access from just this sort of thing.  It failed.  Assume the same, everything fails and the gunmen is now in the school with the kids and the teachers.  What is your solution?   Please answer this.  What happens at this point of failures in the system?  We asked for teachers to be trained after Virgina Tech, after Columbine (Columbine btw took place at the height of the assault weapons band.. yet so many still think that's a workable solution), and we asked after other tragedies.. and were denied.  What could it have hurt.. even if everything you say came true and the teacher chose to not confront the gunman, or did and missed.. what would we have lost?   I'd much rather have 10-15 trained teachers in a school of that size with the option and the means to respond.. than not.  Who do you or any of our lawmakers think they are to strip that last chance for life from these kids?

We'll see this question in the Supreme Court soon when they decide if the right to self defence, and the defence of your family, extends outside of the home.


I think the US is too far down the path it has chosen and see no real change in sight, certainly not in my life or the lives of my children or grandchildren. However, incidents such as this cause a whole bunch of people to do a whole bunch of talking and soul searching, then after awhile everyone goes on as before (except those directly affected). Until the next time.

My 2 cents.

Marv
[/quote]
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #139 on: December 18, 2012, 04:59:28 pm »

Steve, with respect, I think you are missing the point here.  Those of us from outside the US can mostly see the pragmatic side of your argument - that in reality very little will change because of the 300 million guns in circulation, and because of your constitution.  But can you honestly not realise that the solution is so simple in concept, if not in execution, that to get rid of guns in your society will reduce the numbers of violent deaths in general and mass killings in particular by a huge percentage.  All the training in the world will not alter the fact that a disillusioned man who does not own a gun, can just walk into his mother's room and pick up no less than FOUR legally held guns and ammunition, and go on a killing spree.
Unfortunately even well trained and well balanced ex policemen can flip mentally and suddenly decide to become killers.  Just don't give them access to guns. And the logical progression of the self defence concept is that every citizen would need to be armed, trained, and carry a weapon at all times - just in case.....

I am sure most US citizens are good people, so no reason why what works in other countries cannot work there too.

Jim

Jim -  With all due respect I feel you've also missed the points.  And failed to respond to my questions which after I answered yours so carefully is telling me you don't think they're worth answering.  Jim, a DISCUSSION requires we consider each others viewpoint, not simply report our own over and over.  I've considered your viewpoint and responded.  You're ignored my responses.  A discussion cannot continue this way and if you want to keep 'discussing' this subject with me I urge you to go to my last response where you'll  find the answers to the questions you asked.   All the answers are there.  You only have to read them.. and give them fair consideration.  You don't have to agree with me.

I hope that after you go back and read my answers you won't feel it necessary to ask them again, but instead will have new questions.

Thank you Jim.

Steve
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 15   Go Up