Connecticut Massacre

Remove all ads!

Investments lose money. Tough luck for them, they put their money on the wrong horse. A buy back program may be worthwhile though.

 

She hasn't been working at all in recent years - at least she hasn't claimed any employment related income on her tax returns. She's been getting about $300K annually in alimony payments for the past several years. Obviously, I don't know when she bought the gun, so I can't say if there was overlap between the two events, but clearly she was in a position where she didn't have to work, and wasn't teaching, meaning the "not being allowed to be a teacher any more" was likely not something that was important to her.

 

Teaching her children about the end of the world worked ... for her and many, many others.

 

Funny you should mention that, I've got a mate who's father owns a farm and back when I was in the forces I visited him there when I was back for a weekend to catch up and stuff so we strolled the farm chatting, he carried a double barrel shotgun with him because wild dogs had been attacking sheep when we saw some kids playing in the hay down one of the fields, when they saw us they dove into a hay stack. so my mate was all "we'll put the $h!ts up them now" and we strolled down towards the hay stack, he closed the shotgun (not loaded, obviously) and with the distinctive 'klack' of the gun closing they shot out of there like it was on fire. We gave them a bollocking (pretended like we did think it was a dog and he would have fired) and sent them on their way looking very pale. those were good days.

when the UK brought in its sweeping ban on guns you received no reimbursement, as guns were licensed the police knew who owned what, you either turned them In or faced prosecution. obviously some guns would have slipped the net, but with a ban on the ammo, parts and professional cleaning and repair many of these weapons would be totally diserviced by now.

There is a dark side to my past, when I left the forces I suffered with severe depression, some people have suggested I may have suffered with PTSD and I really hated humans, I still have a bit of that hatred but not like I did then, and I've often said if I had had access to a gun, people would have died, instead I turned to alcohol and self harm. So my opinion may not come from any studies, it comes from my own experience, which is all I have on the subject.

To the other comments about her stockpiling, I'll bring up red Jacket again, in their workshop they have a room called 'the war room', full of gear, weapons and ammo fully serviced ready for the apocalypse (zombie included).

 

I sympathize with your story Shoshino, and I don't mean to be a d*ck, but you may want to avoid oversharing. The cultural shift being called for here almost certainly must include narcing out people who appear to be 'at risk.'

 

In case it interests anyone, J.E. Sawyer (from Obsisian Entertainment / Project Eternity), himself a liberal, has weighted in on the issue on Formspring in a much more sane and rational way than most of what has been said here (sorry):

"I believe we should start by closing easily-abused loopholes (and pursuing abusers) and encouraging safety. Outright bans have not worked in the United States in the past, in part due to the overwhelming perfusion of firearms throughout the country. We should also not expect that any legislation is going to do anything quickly. We reached this point slowly, over time, and if we expect it to get better, it's also going to take some time. Looking at the specifics of one mass shooting or another and targeting the details in an effort to effect national change is foolish."

I don't think the last sentence can be stressed enough.

Emotional gut-reactions to specific tragedies are not a good basis for making laws that will affect the security and liberty of millions of people.

In fact that's even true for much larger-scale tragedies. Just look at the outcome of the head-over-heels US reaction to 9/11: The economy has suffered and national debt skyrocketed, domestic civil liberties have been sacrificed on a large scale, hundreds of American soldiers are dead (not including thousands of veteran suicides), hundreds of thousands of Middle-East civilians are dead, the US has made many new enemies and united existing ones, its international position has been weakened, and to add insult to injury it has not really gained any security at the bottom line.

In that case, liberals warned of the negative side-effects, backlash, futility, and general fallacies of drastic and emotional "pro-security" policies, while most conservatives were completely blind to such considerations.
In the case of domestic gun violence, it seems it is the other way around.

 

OK, I'm a latecomer to this discussion, and I may have missed a few posts, so please forgive me. But I want to weigh in on some of the points discussed here.

First of all, a law has to be enforceable and reasonable. Suddenly making weapons illegal would not make them disappear overnight. Obama isn't Dumbledore. In addition, do you really want law enforcement hassling law abiding gun owners? Rather than chasing the real criminals or the violent mentally ill?

My father has owned and used guns since about 1930. He has never tangled with the law in that 80+ period of time, other than the occasional speeding ticket. Would taking away his guns make ANYONE safer? No. Does punishing him for the actions of some crazy killer make any sense to you? Me neither.

To me, the issue lies with people who are willing to do evil things. I use the term evil deliberately, as killing a room full of 6 year old kids cannot be described any other way. We need to identify and properly deal with these people. In the US, at least they have capital punishment, and barring that, life means life there. Here in Canada, this shooter would have been declared insane, and once some bleeding heart shrink had treated him for 6 months, the guy would once again be wandering the streets with little to no oversight to ensure he was taking his medications. This is just nuts. If we want to be humane, fine, but keep the killers away from the public!

The problem with the US was touched on by dogsoldier. As near as I can tell, there is little societal control in the US. There is little that holds the people together as a community. That sounds odd, so let me explain.

A society needs to have forces that hold it together. Religion is one common one, but the US prides itself on not having one central religion -- the country is based on religious plurality. I'm not opposed to that, as the Islamic countries that are politically dominated by Islamicists would not be any fun to live in, to put it mildly.

What about nationalism? Go USA! Well, that's what they try, but they cannot get a majority on board with exactly what they are cheering for. The country is permeated with the ideal of the "rugged individualist" who follows no rules or norms but his own. Children are encouraged by their parents and schools to only follow rules when they feel like it. Consideration for how one's actions may affect the rest of society are tossed aside in an inordinate focus on individual rights. Put another way, too much talking about rights in the society, and not enough talking about responsibilities TO the society.

Now, given the nastiness that can occur when people are far too willing to subsume their identity in the State, I understand the fear that US citizens have about too much jingoism -- see the Nazi Germany example, the European wars in the 1800s, even the USA's own history of elimination of Indigenous populations that stood in the way of their Manifest Destiny. Even there, we see that the USA is founded on a profound distrust of governments -- that's where the 2nd Amendment comes from, IMHO.

But what we are seeing now in the insane levels of violence that characterize US culture is the problem that comes of too much individualism that is not tempered with care for the society. Several people have mentioned that a significant proportion of the violence in the US is criminal on criminal. A criminal, by his very definition, is someone who has clearly demonstrated that he doesn't give a <censored> about his fellow citizens.

So what is there to hold American citizens together? What makes them see that person across the street as a brother, a fellow citizen whose rights are just as valid as one's own, rather than on obstacle or an object to be exploited? I don't know the answer, but I do know that I'm not the only one.

As for guns, as much as I hate to cite Michael Moore in a positive way, the question becomes at what point do we draw the line when it comes to weapons possession? I mean, no one advocates letting a citizen have access to C-4 plastic explosive, or a mortar, or a fully functioning tank. Heck, I think that if you had an old cavalry sabre on your hip the cops might stop you for a chat. So why can't the NRA agree to a moratorium on insane assault rifles? And on clips with high capacity magazines? If you can't take down a deer with 15 or fewer shots, you should practice a bit more before heading out into the bush. Going back to my father, he never owned anything close to such weaponry because he didn't need it for hunting or home defense. No one does. All rights have limits, and to me, these are common sense limits.

As I said before, though, laws have to be enforceable. I'll add now that they must also be enforced. There are too many criminals who walk free because the cops didn't click their heels together three times and dance the hokey pokey before gathering evidence. Under the banner of individual rights, courts do not punish criminals adequately. Is it any wonder then that Americans want to have weapons for self defense? It's pretty clear that the courts won't help them.

These problems are spreading to other countries, too. Canada has had its share of school shootings and mass murders. The government's response has been to take guns away from Farmer Brown, while releasing the worst of the worst back onto the streets. Or, as in the case of Clifford Olsen, allowing the criminal to taunt his victims for the next several decades while playing golf in prison. Common sense tells us that murderers and rapists need to be removed from the general population permanently, and that crimes should be punished appropriately, yet in a morass of legalese, these simple steps are not taken, and the criminals are emboldened to victimize even more people. The real gun control should be imprisoning anyone who uses a gun in a crime for about 10x longer than is currently done. Not targetting those who've never committed so much as a misdemeanor.

Some of these people are not criminals, but very very mentally ill. I have a hard time with that, but understand that sometimes it is true. Resources must be allocated to deal with these people. Ask any elementary teacher. (S)he'll tell you the disturbed kids in her classroom. Early detection and treatment is vital and can stop violent outbursts down the road. Yet we don't fund this sort of thing adequately in North America, and while I'm betting that while European countries surpass us, they likely are still underfunded. Prevention is better than post infection treatment, and can be done with respect for individual rights.

In closing, I think that while some tightening of gun laws is a valid response, the USA needs to address the root problem of a lack of social cohesion in society if they want to see any reduction in violence levels.

 

I'm still glad that I live in a country where guns aren't so deeply rooted as a part of the nation's culture.

 

nobody said it would.

If they're law abiding citizens its no hassle at all, they'd have turned their guns in when the law came into force.

yes, if a gun is out there it can be used to kill someone.

I don't see why people keep refering to taking guns away as "punishing" people. We're not talking about taking a lollipop away from a child here, if these people are really decent, logical, intelligent and rational people they will understand the need for such a ban, if they throw their toys out of the pram like a spoiled child then we know we were right to take the guns away from them anyway.

Everyone is capable of doing evil things, that is why we need to take away the best killing tools. take a look around, go out and see the depravity and abuse that humans are capable of.

The second amendment was designed to protect a fledgling nation from oppression, with the levels of government in the US today, that's not going to happen.

Mere opinion, I doubt any of the children who died in that school were hardened criminals.

The rest of this paragraph I totally agree with, but this line I take issue with, I don't think that any one man should have the right to decide life or death over another man, if someone breaks into my house I should have the right to strike him and restrain him so that a jury of 12 people should decide his fate, but not me alone, "this man dies now" just because he's broken into my house is not reasonable, its like going to a petrol station, putting 1 litre of petrol in and them asking me for £300, its not a fair price. That is why the courts in the UK decide if the level of force you use is reasonable and proportionate.

A reasonable and brash statement, earlier in your post you talked about something being enforceable, do you actually think that what you propose in this comment is actually possible?

 

Thank you for sharing about your past. Everyone has a different past and sometimes the experiences that come with it help highlight a point that would not be as understood.

I'm glad you've calmed down somewhat since then and hope you have a happier life in the future. If you had PTSD you may want to talk to mention it to a counselor or someone but that is up to you and to my non-mental health trained understanding you've gotten better based on what you said.

What you said brings up an interesting point compared to something else. i've heard a lot of vets (many but not all) get guns after coming home. One veteran saw it as giving him a feeling of security but worked his way, slowly, down to a pack of chewing gum from carrying at least 1 gun and possibly knives as well. The gum was because he was dealing with his emotions and purposefully trying to step them down.

He got guns to carry with him was because of his emotions not because of a clearly defined job or neighborhood criminals reason so replacing guns with gum may seem odd but it was as part of tricking and soothing those emotions.







Back to the topic at hand. I don't trust claims that legal gun owners are less likely to commit crimes because some conceal carry permit laws keep people from being able to analyze lists of permit holders to see if they, over time, actually do or do not commit crimes. I expect most do not but there was a concealed carry permit holder who was arrested this or last year for using his gun to threaten someone on the road whose driving he didn't like. Maybe the other guy was being a rude or aggressive driver and maybe he wasn't. It could have been paranoia on the permit holder's part. There was a man who advocated concealed carry here who ended up getting arrested for shooting 2 people outside a bar because he claimed they threatened him. But when police looked at the situation neither of the other people were armed and one was in his car driving out of a parking lot (and not aiming his car at the gun owner).

So we may actually not know if people with permits are acting properly or not.

 

I believe most crimes where one person is shot and killed (predominantly domestic violence) the gun was legally purchased. Gun shot accidents where people are injured by someone just being careless usually occur in households with legal weapons.

In looking closely at the number I believe you'll find a higher percentage of illegal gun owners commit crimes, but a higher number of victims come from legal guns.

Is the top priority to lower the crime or lower the number of victims?

 

I usually avoid topics like this...but I'll bite.

Guns are merely a means to an end. Murder, whether it's a single victim or a school shooting, are created by socio-econonmic conditions...they are going to happen whether guns are there or not. I think people are way too focused on gun related crime instead of just violent crimes in general.

Also, assault weapons classification is a joke as far as civilian weapons go. The ban on assault weapons in the states from 93-04 did absolutely nothing. There are dozens of weapons out there that aren't classified as assault weapons that would do as good or better job than an AR-15 or a similarly classed weapon. They just don't look like a military weapon. Any killer with even a mediocre shot could do as much or more damage with a pistol, a shotgun, or any number of hunting rifles. It seriously takes all of 5 seconds to reload a magazine gun...and magazines are not that heavy or difficult to carry...limiting magazine size isn't going to do anything.

As far as there being no cheap and viable alternative weapons to guns....you could seriously build a bomb for about $10 between your local hardware store and radio shack. Throw in a can of pellets or a bag of marbles for some extra shrapnel damage. I know I'm not the only military person posting in this thread...I would MUCH rather be shot at then be bombed. The **** happening daily in the Middle East with all the bombings is FAR worse than what we have going on here with domestic murders and even school shootings. Not that any of that is good...because it isn't...but these school, theater, college massacres get exponentially more damaging if you add bombs to the equation.

There is also some precedence that an increase in gun owners and CCW permits = a decrease in violent crime.

http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/36651639490/in-virginia-violent-crimes-decrease-as-gun-ownership

http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/28/gun-crime-continues-to-decrease-despite-increase-in-gun-ownership/



To add in some personal experience...I've had my life saved twice by friends have CCW permits. Both times no shots were fired, but if there hadn't been a gun, there would have been multiple people robbed and either assaulted or killed.

I truly believe that the only way to really fix the "gun issue" in the US is to change the culture in the US about guns. I would point to Switzerland as an example...as part of their stint in the Army, almost all citizens are familiarized with guns...how to use them, what to use them for, how to care for the guns, etc. They don't have nearly as many issues with them as we do here in the states. You can also point to portions of the US for similar results...Rural areas areas have 1/4th the gun crime rate.


@T2, I agree with some of your suggestions...I don't with others. I have zero problems with having a gun in the house if you have a kid. I actually think children being taught proper gun etiquette from a young age. If you learn what it's for and how to use it properly your entire life, it's far more likely to stick. In that same vein...if you have kids and a gun... you had better have a gun safe and a trigger lock for it. Definitely mandatory prison time if a child gets one unsupervised.

People with mental health issues should not have guns.

It's already illegal to own automatic weapons so I don't see the point in adding to that.

Hand guns are for personal protection. That's pretty much it...I don't agree with removing them at all. For any other purpose they are greatly outclassed by long barrel weapons.

A published paper from Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

edit: Apparently I skipped a page, I see now that Gaere already posted this.


Larry Correia does a pretty decent job of summing up my thoughts on this whole subject. I don't agree with everything he says but I do agree with most of it.
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

 

I'm really not sure the USA is doing good that one has to point to place like Syria where there is a civil war raging in order to say we aren't doing that bad.

Bombs can and have done plenty of killing. But the guy who went on a killing spree in Colorado decided-when he had both-to take the guns as his primary weapon in the movie theater.

 

Has anyone seen the interview Piers Morgan did with Larry Pratt?



And this show here...

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/19/opinion/morgan-gun-debate/index.html

I absolutely hate Piers Morgan, always have done. I find him obnoxious and arrogant so it's hard for me to say this, but he absolutely rinsed this guy here. I think he was a bit unprofessional calling his guest an 'idiot' and such, but I think he was just getting annoyed with the guy.

His Twitter account was funny after too "If I do get deported from America for wanting fewer gun murders, are there any other countries that will have me?" he added: "Wanting America to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines isn't anti-constitutional - it's called 'common sense.'"

 

Pathetic, isn't it?

 

These sad sad gun nuts