Connecticut school shooting: Reports say more than 20 dead

And I continue to beat this not-dead horse because of the fear that too many people, good people who honestly want to protect our children but are misguided in their beliefs on what will best do that, will be satisfied that a ban similar to the previous one will be sufficient and then no further action will be taken... until the next time.

Police and other first responders took 20 minutes to respond. TWENTY minutes. The axiom that "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away" has never been more true. With this kind of time, magazine capacity is totally irrelevant.

A CCW at the school might have been able to limit the death of innocents to just a couple (I know... it's no consolation, but bear with me). After all, this turd didn't stop because he ran out of ammo, gun malfunctioned, etc. He took his own life when he saw law enforcement approached... 20 minutes later. Would a CCW, firing on him, caused him to do so sooner or actually stopped him? Would the known presence of CCW at the school prevented any of this? We simply don't know, and anybody (even me) insinuating that it would is just guessing (albeit the gun-free zone theory is pretty rock solid, historically speaking). But one thing we do know is that these assholes always seem to take their own lives, or are stopped, when they come face to face with someone willing to fight back on an equal footing (firearms).

I don't know. I'm sure that my feelings on this are just as emotionally "tainted" as those with opposing viewpoints, even though I think I am thinking clearly. All I am sure of is that gun-free zones don't work. Everything else is just my theory on how to prevent tragedy such as this in the future.

I know I would like to say "fuck you" to the culture that has made me even think about NECESSARY ways to protect innocent children. And that includes the gun culture that allows everyone a weapon without any valid significant oversight as well as the dumb ass that thought gun-free zones was a partial answer. If anything can make you rethink a particular stance, it's shit like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loki520

Not only do is all we hear about gun control, it's a complete and utter failure to realize that gun control is not working.

We have ALREADY socially engineered specific areas to be gun-free. The school in CT was a gun-free zone. The theater in Colorado was the ONLY theater, out of 7 showing the same movie and at least three closer to the shooters residence, that was gun-free. The mall. The airport. The colleges. On and on. With the exception of the Giffords incident, every single mass-shooting since the early 1900's has occurred in a gun-free zone. EVERY.SINGLE.ONE. (note 1)

That should be one of the main statistics discussed right there. 99.9% of the time, the ONLY gun in a gun-free zone where there was a mass-shooting, was taken there by someone who was often mentally unstable. There was no cop. No armed citizen. There was only the armed perp... and victims. These places were CHOSEN specifically because there was nobody there to fight back.

I would much rather my grandson's school had licensed and trained administrators, or even a teacher(s), who was allowed CCW than to have the school designated "gun-free". A sign on the school building advising that is the case would seem to be a much better barrier to tragedy than the "fish in a barrel" advertisement that a "gun-free" sign equates to.

I willingly note that none of the above addresses the actual root issues that CAUSE these things. No... but they do put in place an obvious barrier to help PREVENT these things.

One other thing.... if you’ve ever smoked a joint, you are disqualified from arguing that prohibition works.

Note 1: Ft. Hood is no exception to this. I've seen the meme floating around from the left. No... Hasan wasn't able to kill all those people even though he was on a military base with firearms and trained individuals. He was able to kill all those people because he was also in a "gun-free" zone as personal firearms are BANNED on base, all military weapons are locked up in the armory, and all the trained individuals were as unarmed as elementary school children.

---

that one other thing I believe disqualifies Wolf from continuing to debate gun bans :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loki520

Not only do is all we hear about gun control, it's a complete and utter failure to realize that gun control is not working.

We have ALREADY socially engineered specific areas to be gun-free. The school in CT was a gun-free zone. The theater in Colorado was the ONLY theater, out of 7 showing the same movie and at least three closer to the shooters residence, that was gun-free. The mall. The airport. The colleges. On and on. With the exception of the Giffords incident, every single mass-shooting since the early 1900's has occurred in a gun-free zone. EVERY.SINGLE.ONE. (note 1)

That should be one of the main statistics discussed right there. 99.9% of the time, the ONLY gun in a gun-free zone where there was a mass-shooting, was taken there by someone who was often mentally unstable. There was no cop. No armed citizen. There was only the armed perp... and victims. These places were CHOSEN specifically because there was nobody there to fight back.

I would much rather my grandson's school had licensed and trained administrators, or even a teacher(s), who was allowed CCW than to have the school designated "gun-free". A sign on the school building advising that is the case would seem to be a much better barrier to tragedy than the "fish in a barrel" advertisement that a "gun-free" sign equates to.

I willingly note that none of the above addresses the actual root issues that CAUSE these things. No... but they do put in place an obvious barrier to help PREVENT these things.

One other thing.... if you’ve ever smoked a joint, you are disqualified from arguing that prohibition works.

Note 1: Ft. Hood is no exception to this. I've seen the meme floating around from the left. No... Hasan wasn't able to kill all those people even though he was on a military base with firearms and trained individuals. He was able to kill all those people because he was also in a "gun-free" zone as personal firearms are BANNED on base, all military weapons are locked up in the armory, and all the trained individuals were as unarmed as elementary school children.

---

that one other thing I believe disqualifies Wolf from continuing to debate gun bans :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

Wolf, I'm like you, I don't own a gun, I see no practicallity in owning an assult rifle. But I also know that you make owning that gun illegal you create a bigger issues.

If you make these guns illegal or any guns then you are also removing the govt's ability to track them....and not b/c they no longer exist in our society that is an ignorant lofty thought to think if the govt makes it illegal it will no longer exist. A black marekt WILL arrise, we already have problems w/one now coming from Mexico and that market will increase 1000x's what it is now as people move to get them.

And as someone else point out you will see people buying conversion kits and other ways of arming themselves as they see fit. The way you see guns as dangerous and should be illegal is how people see drugs as dangerous and illegal; but the same thing will happen as w/pot. A black market opens up and it's impossible to stop. The danger is always going to be there. That's the reality, you cannot legislate out the danger of society.

---

I agree and disagree…I agree you cannot legislate ALL the danger of out our society…however you can lessen that danger; you can attempt to make that society a bit safer...Do drunk driver laws mean that nobody ever drives drunk? No, it doesn't stop ALL drunk driving; these laws simply attempt to lessen the occurrence of this danger to our society…thankfully, legislating ALL gun violence out of our society is not my plan nor intention…once again, I am tired of the same old and lame excuse that if we can't fix something in its entirety, with a guaranteed 100% success rate, than there is really no reason to try anything at all....

As far as your pot analogy...once again I agree (somewhat) and disagree (mostly)...I agree that with a ban many diehard "black rifle" nuts will use the illegal black market or illegal conversion kits...however, most responsible, normal gun owners will not...the reason many normal gun owners - like nutjobs mom, for example - have these military style weapons is because they are just as easy to be buy as any other firearm...take away the ease, and they will simply buy something else...a shotgun, handgun or hunting rifle...of course, all those firearms can be used to hurt or kill people as well...I understand that...they just can't do it quite of effectively or efficiently as those military style weapons...

And yes, I have smoked pot before...in my teens mostly...maybe a dozen time...I was far from being a "head"...do I think smoking pot is a big deal? No, not really...but I haven't smoked in decades... precisely because it is illegal and not easy to get (in relative teams - I can't walk into a store and buy it)...prohibition does work for me and millions of responsible adults like me...maybe even for you too?

(I don't mean or want to unnecessarily piss off any gun owner or pot smoker...I don't think that just because you own an AK or something similar or that you smoke a little pot that you are a bad person...I am arguing about polices, not personal behavior...I have good friends who smoke pot; I have good friends who own assault rifles...)

Quote:

---

What needs to be done, is more protection at our schools, and better processes to diagnose and treat mental illnesses.

oh and btw, don't act like you haven't used the classic over reaction/put words in the mouth of the opponent it's a well used way to negate someones point, and everyone does it. I was hardly serious, but as flimsy as your point was, my flimsy counter was accurate. The real question is you need to ask those parents not if they'd take their kids being shot or stabbed, but would you rather have your kids attacked in school or not attacked. The root of the issue is their childeren were attacked in what was presumed as safe place, not that they are shot dead or maimed w/a knife.

---

Of course, they would rather not have their kids attack at all...why do we need to keep pointing out the ridiculous obvious?…but I wasn’t the one who started and continued to make the asinine comparison to old China man with a knife and our nutjob with a AR-15…that was Motown; that was you…

Elementary school student brings handgun to school

Posted on: 5:09 pm, December 17, 2012, by David Wells and Meredith Forrest Kulwicki, updated on: 10:41pm, December 17, 2012

4K

Pinterest 0

Share 4K

Twitter 379

Email

KEARNS, Utah – A 6th grade student brought an unloaded handgun to West Kearns Elementary School Monday.The 11-year-old boy allegedly told other students his parents encouraged him to bring a gun to school for protection following the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut on Friday.
The boy reportedly pulled the gun, a .22-caliber pistol, out of his backpack during recess Monday morning.
“At recess, he pointed a gun to my head and said he was going to kill me,” said Isabel Rios, one of the boy’s fellow 6th grade students.

Granite School District officials say students didn’t notify teachers about the weapon until 3 p.m.
“Once the teacher knew there was a weapon in the classroom, the student was apprehended in 30 to 45 seconds and immediately brought down to the office and the police were on site within five to 10 minutes,” said Granite School District Spokesman Ben Horsley.
Granite School District sent a pre-recorded message via telephone to the parents of West Kearns Elementary students at 5:30 p.m. By then, some of those parents had already heard about the incident from their children.
“There was no lockdown. No one was called. Nothing was done. And then we had to hear it from our kids,” said John Klaus, the father of a student at West Kearns Elementary.
School administrators said they didn’t lock the school down because the gun was taken into possession quickly and they felt a lockdown would have scared the students.
On Tuesday, some parents decided to keep their children home from school to keep them out of harms way.
“There are some individuals that have chosen to keep their kids home from school [Tuesday] and that’s very understandable. We are going to be working with those families, making sure they are comfortable with the steps and actions the school is taking,” Horsley said.
Ashlee Gordon pulled her 7-year-old son out of class after hearing about the incident Tuesday morning.
“I don’t want to have to be at work, or anything like that, and worry about my child possibly not coming home, especially before Christmas,” Gordon said.
Police were investigating to determine what the boy’s parents’ involvement may have been in the incident. The student was taken to a juvenile hall.
He has been suspended and criminal charges may be filed by the end of the week.



Wow, just wow. First, how in the hell did the kid get the gun in his possession? Next, the parents obviously know jack shit about how to safely maintain firearms in their home. Thank God it wasn't loaded or the kid probably would of discharged it showing his friends his "cool" gun. It's this kind of stuff that makes headlines, and lessens the credibility of gun owners everywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loki520

Police and other first responders took 20 minutes to respond. TWENTY minutes. The axiom that "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away" has never been more true. With this kind of time, magazine capacity is totally irrelevant.

---

While this is true in this case, we need to pass legislation based on objective facts, not individual examples....

The truth is it is easier and faster to shoot and kill 20 people with Glock that can hold 15, 17, 19, even 33 rounds then it is with Smith and Wesson 6 shooter...mag capacity is relevant...

one thing I read was the loon went to dicks sporting goods to get a weapon and the background check worked and he wasnt able to purchase anything.

now this is what I dont get when someone tries to purchase a firearm of any legal type and when the back ground check doesnt go through then the shop refuses the sale, dont the authorities follow up on someone trying to purchase firearms but then dont qualify? Or do they just let the loon go on their merry way to look for another avenue for weapons?

another thing I would like to say I dont mind the inconvenience of a week long back ground check before I buy a firearm. I dont mind a yearly review of my background for the current stuff I own. Yes it will cost money but if stuff like that can save a kid being shot F it. I think stuff like that is far more effective then any bans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motownbear

one thing I read was the loon went to dicks sporting goods to get a weapon and the background check worked and he wasnt able to purchase anything.

now this is what I dont get when someone tries to purchase a firearm of any legal type and when the back ground check doesnt go through then the shop refuses the sale, dont the authorities follow up on someone trying to purchase firearms but then dont qualify? Or do they just let the loon go on their merry way to look for another avenue for weapons?

another thing I would like to say I dont mind the inconvenience of a week long back ground check before I buy a firearm. I dont mind a yearly review of my background for the current stuff I own. Yes it will cost money but if stuff like that can save a kid being shot F it. I think stuff like that is far more effective then any bans

---

I don't mind the background checks, and would be all for licensing to require education courses or even a "driving" test for the weapons to make sure one knows how to use them on a renewable basis.

I also wouldn't mind legislation that put some pressure on teh owner to keep their legally owned guns locked and out of the reach of individuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motownbear

one thing I read was the loon went to dicks sporting goods to get a weapon and the background check worked and he wasnt able to purchase anything.

now this is what I dont get when someone tries to purchase a firearm of any legal type and when the back ground check doesnt go through then the shop refuses the sale, dont the authorities follow up on someone trying to purchase firearms but then dont qualify? Or do they just let the loon go on their merry way to look for another avenue for weapons?

another thing I would like to say I dont mind the inconvenience of a week long back ground check before I buy a firearm. I dont mind a yearly review of my background for the current stuff I own. Yes it will cost money but if stuff like that can save a kid being shot F it. I think stuff like that is far more effective then any bans

---

Spot on. People who don't qualify for a gun purchase should be watched, at a minimum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motownbear

one thing I read was the loon went to dicks sporting goods to get a weapon and the background check worked and he wasnt able to purchase anything.

now this is what I dont get when someone tries to purchase a firearm of any legal type and when the back ground check doesnt go through then the shop refuses the sale, dont the authorities follow up on someone trying to purchase firearms but then dont qualify? Or do they just let the loon go on their merry way to look for another avenue for weapons?

another thing I would like to say I dont mind the inconvenience of a week long back ground check before I buy a firearm. I dont mind a yearly review of my background for the current stuff I own. Yes it will cost money but if stuff like that can save a kid being shot F it. I think stuff like that is far more effective then any bans

---

I think all that sounds really reasonable and sensible...the problem is such reasonable and sensible ideas are constantly being fought and defeated by the gun lobby...in the past, any reasonable limitation or restriction has been met with unreasonable opposition...I fear the time for reasonable and sensible legislation may have been pissed away by all that unreasonable opposition...for the militant gun lobby, the crows about to home to roost...at least I hope so...

This isn't to say I don't personally want reasonable and sensible legislation...that is what I hope we do get...but I think we will get something like the Patriot Act after 911...a lot good and needed ideas, but hardly a perfect law...