HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

OT- CT Elementary School Killing today

Support Forums
>
Ulcerative Colitis
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
1 2 34
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 12/17/2012 3:58 AM (GMT 0)
Killcolitis, I don't see that anyone here is advocating locking up "anyone who MIGHT do something". Rather, we are concerned about the seriously mentally ill who have shown a disposition to rage or violence. Do you want a 200 lb. person with a stick, knife, or gun coming at you out-of-the-blue? (This happens to police officers even though, in the U.S., they are heavily armed.) If these mentally ill do not or cannot take Rx meds to control outbursts on their own, and no relatives take reliable custody of them, would you rather have them roaming around like so many time-bombs ticking and ready to go off, rather than confined in a secure facility? In our apt. bldg we have a 47 yr-old heavy-set female with PH.D. from Harvard who throws objects & jumps up/down above neighbors, repeatedly slams closet doors in wee hours, harrasses bldg staff about plumbing "noises", overflows a portable dishwasher, and her hubby leaves her alone to do this 95% of the time. There are times when she needs to be physically restrained. Period. Not accepting that some individuals have the capacity to cause random damage or injury to others after evidence of this behavior manifests is unrealistic. / Old Hat (32 yrs with left-sided UC; presently in remission taking brandname Colazal)
Posted 12/17/2012 4:04 AM (GMT 0)
It was strongly implied - otherwise why discuss "locking up" the mentally ill in this thread in relation to this tragedy? The killer in this case appears not to have had any criminal history and no history of violence, so I don't know what your example has to do with this case really.

Post Edited (killcolitis) : 12/16/2012 9:07:05 PM (GMT-7)

Posted 12/17/2012 4:21 AM (GMT 0)
He had observable problems reported by a H.S. science teacher, according to a print news report. This teacher did not feel comfortable leaving him unwatched around some lab equipment. / Old Hat (32 yrs with left-sided UC; presently in remission taking brandname Colazal)
Posted 12/17/2012 4:36 AM (GMT 0)
There are conflicting reports. I have friends who are teachers and they all have "strange" and "odd" kids and some with actual mental illnesses. Again he did not do anything violent. He was "odd". The media are going to be hunting for anyone who might have noticed anything weird about this guy and print it. Yesterday the mother was a kindergarten teacher, today she was never a teacher. Point is, throwing around words like "autism" and "mentally ill" and "odd" doesn't actually mean much unless the implication is that "those people" are "dangerous" and need to be "dealt with". Instead of the obvious issue which is guns.
I've lived in many inner cities and do so now. There are lots of "weird' men in my neighbourhood, some clearly mentally ill. I watch my kids extra close around them just in case though it's more than likely they are harmless. I don't think they should be locked up but I sure wouldn't hand them a gun.
Posted 12/17/2012 5:01 AM (GMT 0)
When the constitution was written, the founding fathers that everyone is so quick to bring up, people did have access to guns that could fire so many rounds. The reason that ammendment is there, is because there were no police and people protected themselves. At that time from British soliders, or thieves or some type of wildlife.
Now, for all these "don't take my guns" people, no one wants your shotgun, or your rifle, or you hand gun. Keep those, go hunting, go skeet shooting, hit the firing range. Keep it in your house to make you feel "safe" but, lock it up if you have kids, and read the statistics.
Gun control laws are about these military guns and these rapid fire guns. I don't know the names of guns. I do know, that no civilian needs a gun that can fire 20 rounds from one clip. And you certaintly don't need a gun that is used by soliders, in war!
I can't buy cold medicine cause I might make some meth, but owning and buying all those guns is legal. I guess I should be able to buy plutonium too.
I don't know if this kid was mentally ill, I don't care. He was evil, that's all. It wasn't video games, it wasn't tv, it wasn't a movie. Mass murders didn't start when video games came out, read a history book. They didn't start when God was taken out of our schools, read a history book. People didn't have access to the type of weapons they do now, and social media wasn't around so the whole world didn't always know when things like this happened.
We do need mental health reform. We don't need to cull the herd by killing or locking up the mentally ill. The ones who are true dangers to society need to be in federal run facilties, with highly trained doctors and nurses taking care of them. But they don't need to be treated like criminals, unless they become criminals. And with proper care, that wouldn't happen.
Posted 12/17/2012 6:11 AM (GMT 0)
Well put, Summerstorm. Speaking of Plutonium, a couple decades back there was a rebellious Canadian student attending the (U.S.) university where I was employed, who secretly took radioactive matter from a physics lab back to his dorm room. It was something with a half-life of 12-24 hrs. When the deans found out about it, they expelled him. He had made remarks advocating anarchy to the student daily, but no one expected him to actually endanger the community. He was 19-20 yrs old when this happened. / Old Hat (32 yrs with left-sided UC; presently in remission taking brandname Colazal)
Posted 12/17/2012 1:36 PM (GMT 0)
I heard a lady on CNN talking in the same vein as "we need to be able to better control mentally disturbed individuals before they commit crim": We lack proper legislation to intervene when parents see a problem, doctors need to medicate before they go shoot up a place.In the past decades, legislation has made it more difficult for Americans to be placed in mental health facilities or drugged against their will, but we have gone way too far in that direction and need to swing back the other way.

I know an older man who worked in a mental institution for many years and the stories of folks locked up against their will are ghastly. The ACLU has done great work over the decades to make it harder to forcibly lock someone up for 'tendencies' or whatever you want to call it. That borders on pre-crime. And forced drugging of our kids is not the answer. The lady on CNN gave these as things to look out for: they like going to the gun range, they are sad, mad, or spend time with themselves. A teenager who is moody and angry and standoffish! Stop the fraking presses! I even heard an 'expert' calling for legislation into video games to limit marketing and even the content of the games themselves.

As far as violent crime, repeating firearms have been around since the mid-1850s, these type shootings barely half as long. Also, the United States places behind these ten countries for violent crimes per 100,000 people and they have much sticter gun laws than it: UK, Austria, Sweden, South Africa, Belgium, FInland, Netherlands, Luxembourg, and France. The lowest in that group is 504, the highest the UK at 2,034 per 100,000 subjects. The US is 470 per 100,000 citizens. At the end of the day I want access to the same arms the officers of the law have access to.
Posted 12/17/2012 2:11 PM (GMT 0)
Just a reminder that this investigation is not over yet. I think if we are going to get serious about these tragedies we absolutely have to look at evaluating the mental condition of people that are threats to society and not let them back on the street until professionals determine that they are indeed not a threat to society. I'm not talking about stopping mass murders, I'm talking about seriously cutting down on preventable murders, whether it be one, two, three, 27, or more. There is a link between all of this that can't be ignored.  I don't think it is acceptable to try cutting down on mass murders and not try a darned thing to cut down on all of the other murders. Some murderers have a long criminal history. It's unacceptable that they continue letting these people out time and time again. If someone has been proven to have a violent history like in, for example, domestic violence, and that person can be proven to have made terroristic threats to kill his wife and kids and her family, then that person should be taken away for evaluation and not let back out until experts say he is not a threat. Why should we live in a society where a person who is an obvioius threat is allowed to murder and then we throw the book at them afterwards?

Even in the Connecticut case, if it is discovered that he was indeed in this gothic lifestyle and has internet posts congratulating or approving of the Columbine event (or other events), this is enough in my mind to take this person away for an evaluation. Apparently there WAS some damaging evidence because he destroyed a computer hard drive before going to the school. That's all I'm talking about, forced evaluation of people who are an obvious risk to society. We need to be pre-emptive instead of allowing these people the right to murder before we do something about it. I'm so sick of people having the right to be free just because they haven't pulled the trigger yet, particularly in cases where they were an obvious risk to society. Victims have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and should not be expendable pawns just because a high risk person hasn't actually done anything yet. If they are high risk, they are high risk. Eliminating assault weapon sales is only a small piece of the puzzle. If we don't try putting the whole puzzle together we aren't going to get very far in solving the problem.
Posted 12/17/2012 3:10 PM (GMT 0)
I'm very heartbroken over this, looking at my little girl face, is making me think about how precious children are. they are the most innocent beings on earth and its incomprehensible . who the heck does this? I couldn't watch too much of it, as it really disturbs me. but the question I have is, why is America obsessed with guns? I mean the third world of country , India, which is also the largest democracy in the world, no one has guns. maybe gun control and drug control can stop these type of evil incidents. this evil terrorist man went after those kids on purpose, I mean it's very scary and abnormal.
Posted 12/20/2012 1:24 PM (GMT 0)
fyi: I personally believe in gun control, especially after this tragedy, but I think it ironic that while the U.S. is seriously reviewing our gun laws the people in India are seriously considering legalizing guns for personal protection.

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/18/gang-rape-of-a-girl-inside-a-bus-in-new-delhi-raises-outrage-in-india/?tid=pm_world_pop
Abhijeet Singh, leader of India’s nascent gun rights lobby said that the rape incident demonstrates the need for easing the government’s strict norms for obtaining gun licenses. “There is talk of pepper sprays and martial arts as self-defense for women, but none of this is really effective,” Singh, who heads Indians For Guns said. “If the woman had a gun, this was preventable. We need to get rid of our victim mindset.”

Post Edited (BabeintheWoods) : 12/20/2012 6:27:41 AM (GMT-7)

Posted 12/20/2012 3:12 PM (GMT 0)
     I only read some of these posts but strongly agree with summerstorm.

     If the blame has to be placed on someone for this violent act, I would definitely say his mother.  What the heck was she thinking to know she had a disturbed son and bring guns into the home, especially those high powered ones?

     I have no idea what changes are going to be made but I think it is going to be extremely difficult to enforce gun control laws.  My son is law is a sheriff's officer and inherited about ten guns, hand guns and rifles, from his late grandfather.  He keeps them locked in a cabinet, but can't say I am happy about it.  It doesn't seem to bother my daughter.  They have no children yet, but I just don't like the idea of the guns in their home.

Posted 12/20/2012 6:29 PM (GMT 0)
My husband was a mental health professional back in the 70's and the police would call him for help to alleviate stressful situations regarding mental health issues. He told me that sometimes, all that was needed was a quick evaluation and other times he helped get the person any help that was needed. Most were worried they would be sent to the "nut" house, but he helped them realize that they were going to get help and that it wasn't a nut house. He saved several lives by talking people down.

Along came the budget cuts and now we have our poor law enforcement officers trying to make determinations on what mental status the person is in...and is it jail or mental hospital? I think as a society we need to revisit this issue and have a team of mental health professionals working with law enforcement to help make better decisions -- and possibly save more lives. If this mother had more access to help her son, maybe it would have helped?

Posted 12/20/2012 6:50 PM (GMT 0)
I agree Lonie and the president has indicated himself that he realizes gun control laws alone are not going to solve this problem all by themselves. Many of these people have had some mental issues and that needs to be part of the solution. This does not even take into account all of the other gun related murders that happen in the US every day (85) and that needs to be part of the solution as well. It is not acceptable to just try cutting down on the number of mass murders and continue letting 85 people per day get murdered by guns. Hopefully the right will allow laws to be passed regarding assault weapons and the like and the left will allow laws to be passed limiting the rights of dangerous people who are mentally unstable and a threat to soceity. I'm not talking about every person with mental problems but we need to get away from the mentality of allowing people to murder and then throwing the book at them later - assuming they haven't already killed themselves. We need to stop some of this before it happens. Throwing the book at someone after the fact is not much consulation for the victim's families.
Posted 12/20/2012 11:17 PM (GMT 0)
I agree, Gary.

I think it's very encouraging that many politicians on both the right and left are saying that they agree on at least stopping the sale of assault weapons and multi-bullet clips.
Even some NRA members are in favor of limiting such sales and universal background checks. (They have kids, too.)

Bearing in mind that change happens gradually, at least it would be a start.

It will be interesting to see what Joe Biden's committee suggests.
Posted 12/22/2012 7:52 AM (GMT 0)

The Newtown Massacre has left me just absolutely heartbroken and nearly despondent. I cannot recall ever feeling this low since my 12 year old niece was struck by a car and killed 20 years ago. One of the murdered children, Noah Pozner, bears a resemblance to my 3 year old son, and every time I see that little boy's face I weep. At work, several times I've had to slip out a stairwell to go outside and cry.

 

I am a Life Member of the NRA, I have a concealed pistol license, and I carry. I own guns that fit the assault weapon label, and I don't believe a renewed Assault Weapon (AW) and Large Capacity Magazine (LCM) ban will make any significant difference in deterring these types of crimes, and there are two reasons why.

 

1) It wasn't really a ban. It was a legislative order to gun and magazine makers to stop selling new product to the public. All 1.5 million AWs and 30 million LCMs produced before date X were perfectly legal to own, buy, trade, use, etc. After the expiration of the "ban", there are undoubtedly another million AWs and ten million or more addition LCMs on the market today.

 

2) The studies say the difference the law made was marginal at best.

 

For a long, painful read about the AW and LCM ban.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

 

For the full study, which is even longer and more painful.

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf

 

"Therefore, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs and LCMs."

 

Mass Shootings at Virginia Tech: Report of the Review Panel

http://www.governor.virginia.gov/TempContent/techPanelReport.cfm

 

"The panel concluded that 10-round magazines that were legal would have not made much difference in the incident."

 

However, with all that said, I do encourage you to read the studies, because their findings are mixed, and I think one could intuit from the research that a stricter law could make a significant difference. As such, I favor a number of very restrictive measures to make a real difference.

Posted 12/22/2012 12:41 PM (GMT 0)
I believe a ban on assault style weapons as well as a ban on the number of rounds that can be put into a clip would have prevented some of the deaths at Newtown. It's simple logic, the fewer bullets that can be fired per second=more time to stop the shooting and killing.

The police arrived so quickly and the minute the shooter knew they arrived on scene he stopped shooting children and killed himself. If the police had not arrived so quickly what would have stopped that maniac from continuing to kill even more children?

I think we know how heroic the teachers were and if there had been time between re-loading they would have thrown themselves at him as some did.

It's time to ban assault weapons and multi-bullet clips. There is no good reason for them.
Posted 12/22/2012 2:24 PM (GMT 0)
I'm not against gun control legislation but people are naive if they think that is the answer to the problem. Will it help - absolutely. Will it make a huge difference - probably not much. There are a ton of these things in circulation already and a ban isn't going to send the police searching everyone's home confiscating them. On top of that people who really want these things are going to find a way to get them anyway. This is somewhat similar to when they tried taking alcohol away from people during prohibition. It didn't work and was such a failure they had to abolish the prohibition. I still find it amazing that the liberals are so gung-ho about taking away people's rights to own guns because of what they "might" do but then they refuse to take away the right to people's freedom that are an obvious threat to society. We have the attitude to allow murders and then throw the book at the perpatrator later. Having said all that the NRA's response to the problem was totally laughable. They have absolutely no clue about anything.
Posted 12/22/2012 4:22 PM (GMT 0)
Good piece by James Fallows in The Atlantic suggesting that we get away from the now exhausted, inflammatory term gun "control", and instead emphasize gun "safety". That would include common sense things like extensive, and not quickie, background checks for all gun purchases, and mandatory training including recurrent training and testing.
Posted 12/23/2012 3:03 AM (GMT 0)
It's time to ban assault weapons and multi-bullet clips. There is no good reason for them.

You could be out hunting in the woods and all of a sudden run into a herd of deer all wearing bullet-proof vests. If bazookas are outlawed then only outlaws will have bazookas.
Posted 12/23/2012 6:46 AM (GMT 0)
If it was a real ban, then yes it would make a huge difference. However, it's not a real ban, and there's probably now 2.5 million assault weapons and 40 million large capacity magazines (over 10 rounds) out there.
Posted 12/23/2012 11:12 PM (GMT 0)
Now this is what Christmas is all about. :)

news.yahoo.com/world-mourns-connecticut-gifts-pour-081949972.html
Posted 12/24/2012 1:37 AM (GMT 0)
I read this forum alot but need to post on this one. As a former marine I can tell you the ban on 30 round mags will do nothing. You can change a mag in about 5 seconds. Does not really matter he would of had alot of time he was in a school where there is not going to be any resistance like the movie theater or mall . Very little if any resistance. This is a horrible thing. Alcohol kills many more people a year than guns. It just happens in smaller numbers at a time but alot more often. Should we ban alcohol? If you do not have someone close that can take care of people like this it is too late by the time someone calls the police and they show up. They will ALWAYS find a way to do harm if they intend to. What abot taking some of our returning vets and place them in the schools, they are used to the intensity of situations like this and are trained to react to it. It would also give them a good respectful and fulfilling job. I would not mind my school taxes going up for that rather than the teachers lavish benefits and retirement

As for the gun legislation some might help. I live in upstate NY and we have always had background checks and I was unaware that other states did not have them. I agree with that 150%. I too have a concealed carry permit for my pistols. Also own what they would consider an assault weapon but are locked up. My kids learned at a very young age how to shoot and handle a gun. Many people did not like me teaching this, but just because I am safe with my guns does not mean that their friends parents are so that is why i taught them at age 8 and 10 yrs old. It payed off too.

I think that people who just jump to a ban guns need to think about it, not just a knee jerk reaction to a situation. I know that many other countries have a much stricter gun control law but many more shootings than the us. Take NYC Chicago LA Boston, I believe most of these cities do not even allow a gun to be owned in the city but the shootings with illegal guns is very high. They are criminals they do not care what the laws say that is why they are criminals.They will find a way to get the guns even if law abiding citizens have to jump through hoops to get them .

I hope they use common sense about this, although this administration has not showed much of that yet.
Posted 12/24/2012 7:26 PM (GMT 0)
IMO, there is no reason for anyone other than the military or the police to have access to weapons of mass destruction.
That's what some guns can accomplish.....mass destruction.
I also think that background checks should be required nationwide with no exceptions (as in gun shows).

Gun regulation is one area of consideration as well as lack of available mental health treatment and the fact that we live in a society that glorifies violence.

While reading posts in this thread, I remembered that about 4 years ago an 8 year old boy died at the local Sportsman's Club event. He shot himself in the head with an uzi.
The gun "fair" was supposed to be supervised by trained individuals. At the time, many people wondered why they would have such a dangerous weapon available to young kids.
When my kids participated (years ago), they held turkey shoots with rifles or shotguns.

I have to say I was surprised by the response from the NRA leader. I saw an interview this morning where he won't even admit that gun "regulation" and background checks could be part of the problem. Polls are showing that the majority of NRA members think differently.
The suggestion that armed security people should be placed at all schools is as ridiculous as suggesting that the teachers be armed. How many would be needed where there are multiple buildings and entrances?

It was quite an interview.... especially when the interviewer
(I think it was David Gregory) pointed out the response from prominent newspapers to the original NRA news conference, calling the NRA leader a nutcase.

The NRA spokesman just kept saying the same things.
I was reminded of those toys where you pull a string........
Posted 12/24/2012 8:06 PM (GMT 0)
His newsconference was ridiculous. I guess he forgot that Columbine did have a couple of armed officers who couldn't stop what had already happened. For the sake of arguement let's assume that an armed guard at every school would have prevented Sandy Hook and will prevent any and all future attacks at schools from now on. That just means the shooter will pick a different target - a movie theater, mall, large stores, or maybe an entertainment or sporting event. You're just trading a school for some other place. I guess the answer to that problem would be to have an armed guard at every movie theater, all doors at all malls, every Walmart, Target, etc., and every row at all entertainment and sporting events. Maybe we could get by with just one armed guard in every section instead of every row. Stupid.
Posted 12/24/2012 8:23 PM (GMT 0)
The upside of the NRA stupidity - lots of new jobs...:-)
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
1234