I first heard about today’s unthinkable tragedy in Newtown Conn while scanning twitter and thinking I saw a tweet referencing Newton. It could have happened here, of course. This could have happened anywhere.
Here’s a quote from a Newtown father:
‘‘It’s alarming, especially in Newtown, Connecticut, which we always thought was the safest place in America.”
And here’s the message Newton School Superintendent David Fleishman sent to parents today
This is David Fleishman, Superintendent of Schools in Newton. I am sure many of you are already aware of the school shooting that took place today in Newtown, CT. I am calling to let you know that we are keeping your children safe at school and that we will have regular dismissal today.
Inevitably, many of your children will want to discuss this very upsetting event over the weekend and we encourage you to speak with them about this in ways that are comfortable for your family and developmentally appropriate. On Monday our faculty and staff will be available to provide support as needed.
Thank you very much and take care.
A friend, who is an elementary school teacher in the Greater Boston area, posted this as her status on Facebook, which reminds us how things may appear from a child’s perspective:
Many friends on Facebook have been sharing the following words of wisdom from Mister Rogers:
As we all struggle to make sense of this, the latest in a string of tragedies involving senseless violence, let us not forget to take the time today and in the days to come to comfort and reassure our children and ourselves that there are a lot of good, decent, caring people in the world. And a lot of them are teachers in our own children’s schools.
Correction: My friend is an elementary school principal and a former teacher.
Thanks for that thoughtful post Ted. Good people vastly outnumber bad. But we are all very vulnerable to the bad. Wish the psychos would consider children off limits.
I’m reminded of the last words Marlon Brando spoke as Col. Kurtz in Apocalypse Now… “The horror–the horror.”
An almost incomprehensible tragedy in Newtown, which has left many searching for a motive. What people should realize is that’s it’s not the motive, but the means that warrants scrutiny. What difference does this lunatic’s motive make? He was insane, that much is clear.
One of our societal objectives must be, to create an impenetrable wall between crazies and guns. Unfortunately that’s something which is going to take time, because of the proliferation of guns in America. Ultimately though, I believe a combination of stricter laws and technology can stop these mass shootings. Obviously, we must get illegal guns off our streets, but the guns used in this massacre were apparently legally owned [by the killers mother]. Gun manufacturers should be required by law to produce weapons that can only be fired by the law enforcement officer or licensed individual who owns them. Both guns and ammunition should be heavily taxed, to dissuade ownership, and help pay for the cost of gun violence to society. Lastly, assault weapons are duplicate weapons of war, and have no place in civilized society. The one thing congress should do tomorrow, is reinstate the ban on assault weapons.
Mike, if we want to know why people do what they do, in order to prevent the next occurence. People forget, we’ve probably prevented 20 of these occurrences evertime one happens. How many times do you hear that principals find guns in someone’s locker or a teacher gets word of a disgruntled student, etc. I know thats not going to make Newtown people feel any better, but it could always get worse.
As most people, I think about yesterdays events and think about what could have possibly made a difference …why did it come down to shooting so many innocent children and adults? As of right now we have no idea why the perp did what he did, but my mind goes right to gun control. Then I think that maybe gun control is just a knee jerk reaction, it’s not a silver bullet, afterall, drugs are illegal and it doesn’t stop anyone who wants to get drugs. Then what? Is this the price we pay for having a free society? Do we have to live with ocassional events like this? What about our mental healthcare? Are we doing all we can for the mentally disturbed? Could this have been prevented if we, as a society, put more money in our mental healthcare system. Let’s face it, every event the happens like Newtown there are two things in common, guns are involved and someone who is mentally disturbed is pulling the trigger. Could the perp get guns even with gun control, of course. What is the answer? Is there an answer or do we have to sit and take it?????
Nope, not guns fault, sorry Mike.
With a society of 300+ Million people there will always be the criminally insane. One way or another, they will do despicable things. The greatest school disaster remains a bombing in 1927. Guns are used for terrible things sometimes, but they are used much more often for self defense. These guns were not “legally owned” by the shooter. He killed his mother and stole them from her. This is a 1 in a million freak act of an insane person.
Guns are not always involved either. Again, there have been many bombings, gassings, poisonings, lynchings, cases of arson, and sick twisted antics of serial killers throughout our history. Sick people will always do crazy things. We can reduce these things by taking various measures, but it will never be fully eliminated. We will have shootings, bombings, arson, and serial killers forever.
Mike, I am going to attack your argument specifically, because I take it personally as an attack against me, all of my responsible gun owning friends and family, and my ability to defend my family. I know we have talked privately, but I want to do so publicly, since you have launched this attack publicly.
First, while it would be great if guns could only be fired by “authorized users,” we aren’t there yet so it is not going to happen. Next you want them to be prohibitively expensive… so that only the wealthy will be armed. I as a gun enthusiast (Yes, I said it), I shoot 10K + rounds a year. As it is I had to go towards making my own ammunition to save money, I don’t need it to be any more expensive for me to remain proficient. If I didn’t reload I’d be in the hole 5K instead of 1K, and if you had your way there is no way I would be able to remain as proficient as I’d like to be at shooting.
Finally, “Assault weapon” is a term made up to get people to agree to a ban. It was based only on the outward appearance of firearms. By definition, assault weapons are actually fully automatic, and are already heavily restricted (and haven’t been used in virtually any crime in recent time). The assault weapons which were banned were the same as all the guns that weren’t banned with slightly different features (For example, bayonet mounts were prohibited on some models, completely stupid) Plenty of people in Newton own AR15s, the common and incorrectly titled “assault weapon” that your side attacks. They are the most popular rifle in the country because they are easy to use, [comparatively] cheap to shoot, very accurate, and very suitable for defense of ones home. As far as them being devastating military weapons, they are much less powerful than most hunting rifles, and are even considered to weak to humanely hunt deer with. They just look scary so people want them banned. I have plenty of older rifles that are orders of magnitude more powerful than my AR15s.
Things like this are devastating. I am not going to say well if they hadn’t banned guns in the school things would have been different, because they very well might not have. That said, by continuing these bans all they do is guarantee the same end result in the rare chance that someone does go crazy like this. Plenty of Newton teachers are gun owners, I am sure if they had a program to have them going through extra training with the police department and then carry a gun concealed in school some would be willing to. This is how Israel works and nobody thinks twice about it because its not a big deal. Cops are people, teachers are people, there is no reason they couldn’t be brought up to speed at minimal financial cost to the community. It is a far cry from a guarantee of safety, that is unattainable, but it will do a helluva lot more than another “assault weapons ban.”
This was truly a tragedy, but don’t attack me and how I (and most of America) live my life, the things I enjoy, and the things that are necessary to me keeping my family safe because one crazy person. I’m sure we should ban fertilizer too, because it can very easily be made into explosives if one knows what they are doing.
Mike
Mike– You know that I believe law abiding citizens have the right to carry and defend themselves with a handgun. I think that is a liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment. I believe you have the right to carry a handgun, and I know you are a responsible gun owner. I think you on the other hand, have to acknowledge the role guns played in this Newtown tragedy, and similar instances around the country. Unfortunately, not all gun owners are as responsible as you, and it’s far too easy for guns to fall into the wrong hands. That’s a fact, not an opinion, and it’s backed up by the numbers of innocent people killed. So I think it’s clear that some restrictions are necessary. In my opinion, the single best thing we can do [and actually accomplish] is to require gun manufacturers to make only guns that can be fired by the legally authorized individual who owns that gun. The technology does exist. It may be expensive, but so are a lot of other things in life. This type of gun technology will not only save lives, it will help preserve your Second Amendment rights as a responsible gun owner.
It does not exist in a capacity that makes it reliable enough that I would trust my life to it. Also, the gun I defend my house with is an AR15, not a handgun (though I and all my friends do carry concealed). The majority of crime in our society, even involving guns is in fact a problem with our society. Our inner cities are literally war zones because of myriad factors.
Mike,
As well thought out as your argument is, statistics blow it away. The fact remains that countries with strict gun laws have fewer gun deaths. That’s not an opinion. It’s fact. While your opinion may be that our current gun laws are suffice, the data says that more innocent people die as a result.
Mike – is your AT15 the same semi-automatic rifle used in Sandy Hook? In a matter of just a few minutes, each victim was shot between 3 to 11 times. Having access to that semi-automatic rifle allowed him to do that. That’s not a gun you get for “protection” – it’s a gun you get because you like the fire power, you like shooting it. At least that’s what’s being reported as the mother’s reason for owning it.
Tricia,
The most recent report I’ve read say that the Newtown shooter used only handguns (legally owned by his mother). There was some sort of rifle in the car.
Mike (not Striar),
At some point, those, like you, who support a right to own guns need to accept and embrace the following:
1. No right is free, there are always costs
2. The death of 20 6- & 7-year-olds every once in a while is an acceptable cost to pay for the right to bear arms
The notion that tragic gun violence is just a matter of our failure to completely embrace gun rights is just nuts. As the Newtown tragedy bears out so tragically, guns owned legally get into the wrong hands.
Until you and other gun-rights advocates accept 1 & 2 above, you are not really ready to join the conversation. At the very least, those of us who are on the other side of the debate are willing to acknowledge that there are costs to rights and we are willing to diminish the right to reduce the cost.
Sean, that was an initial news report, but the information release by the medical examiner last night after the autopsies cited a specific semi-automatic rifle.
I stand corrected … and even more horrified.
Kim, the most common source of those statistics, VPC, includes suicides which as tragic as they are are just that, suicides. Additionally, this country absolutely does have a problem with VIOLENCE. Our inner cities are effectively war zones. We need to solve those problems at the root. These people are not law abiding gun owners. Once you take those two factors out of the equation, even when we include the RARE(because in a society of 300 Million people these are rare and statistically small) tragedies that occur the number of firearms homicides are low. Drunk drivers kill many more, and nobody does anything about them, because most people drive, many under the influence. I will have somebody rail against me over guns in a bar and then stumble into their SUV and drive home.
Tricia, here you go calling for the ban of something you know nothing about. You listen to the media blindly and say nobody needs that it should be banned. The reason the gun lobby is so powerful in this country is most of us are gun owners, and we don’t want the impulsive ideas of a few dictating what happens to the many. Bushmaster doesn’t even make an AT15, it is called the XM-15, but whatever, let’s just ban it. Also, it is a perfectly acceptable gun for protection. Case and point, myself and many others use this gun or variants of it for home protection. These guns are the most popular in the country. At the same time, all my other rifles are much more powerful than my AR15 pattern rifles. As sad as it is, he locked a bunch of little kids in a classroom, what he had was irrelevant.
Sean, it is more tragic they are dead because he used X gun over Y gun? I think it is tragic in general that they are dead, whether he used an axe, knife, revolver, rifle, or explosives. To address your points
1. There are always costs. Gun ownership isn’t going anywhere. We can work to mitigate these costs rather than just blaming guns, guns didn’t do this. I have plenty of guns. ALL of my friends have, use, and carry guns. We are good people and this is part of our lives that is here to stay.
2. Unfortunately, whether it is guns or something else, there will always be the insane killing people. There will be bombings, arson, serial killers and shootings in our future. The greatest domestic acts of murder in this country remain at the use of explosives, including in schools. The only thing to blame is the fact that 300 Million people will always have their crazies. It certainly doesn’t help that the media makes you FAMOUS if you commit and atrocious act such as this.
As I said, this didn’t happen because we haven’t fully embraced gun rights. Even if the teachers were permitted to carry guns it is likely it would have transpired a similar way. That said, I have had teachers in highschool and professors in college that have told me if permitted they would have carried the gun they carry everywhere else in their lives also while working at school. It’s no guarantee, but it is much better than a guarantee that there is no protection while at schools.
Mike
Hey Mike, remind me – where in my post did I call for a “ban” on a specific rifle? So I accidentally type “AT” instead of “AR” – so what? What he had isn’t “irrelevant”. Apparently it was a Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic with a 30 round magazine capacity. It’s that capacity that allows a shooter to mow down lots of victims quickly, before anyone can react. He can re-load another 30 in a few seconds – the capacity and speed is just beyond the Glock and Sig that he also had with him (why do you think he chose the rifle?) And just because you and “many others use this gun or variants of it for home protection” doesn’t make it the right gun for personal protection. At the end of the day, most gun enthusiasts have these particular guns because they like shooting them.
No, it is the right gun for personal protection. That comes down to personal preference. I have friends who for their own reasons prefer shotguns, pistols, or in my case I prefer my version of an AR15.
The 30 round capacity of the magazine doesn’t make it any more deadly. Here is a video of the worlds fastest shooter, who uses a revolver: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DpCellB_UQ I’ve shot competitively as well as in the military and never seen anyone come close with any handguns or AR15s.
The reasons I use my AR15 for my home defense gun: I don’t have to fumble with a spare magazine in the dark, and I have practiced much more on that specific gun so it is easier for me to shoot. I also already have it set up with a light and the sights that are on it are optimized for being used in the dark. When you jump up in the middle of the night you aren’t grabbing your handgun, spare magazines, and a bunch of other stuff. What you have on the gun is what you have with you, and when its life or death every advantage counts. They are also enjoyable to shoot, and they make it no easier to “mow down” people.
If I had to guess the shooter used that gun because he thought it was “cool.” It was no more deadly by handguns. The Virginia tech shooter killed more people using a .22 and a 9mm handgun with regular magazines. .22s aren’t even considered valid forms of self defense rounds they are so small. If you have a crowd of unarmed people it doesn’t matter what you have.
If you aren’t calling for a ban, I’m surprised, because the way you suggest you know what is needed and what is not sounds to me like you think what we don’t need we shouldn’t be allowed to have. If that was not what you were saying than I stand corrected.
Mike
Mike,
I agree with most of what you say, and you say it well. However, let’s be honest. Just as you say that a statistically rare few crazies cause these problems and we shouldn’t lose our rights to guns because of them, there have been, I suspect, an equally statistically rare number of times that people have actually successfully defended themselves by possessing some sort of firearm. So, both arguments are irrelevant.
The question to me is should the government prevent firearm ownership on some more legalistic, e.g. Constitutional, basis, and if so, what kind? (by the way, I think the 2nd Amendment really authorized possession for militias, as the army does in Israel, for quick response to an attack) Some should be banned. I suspect that no-one thinks a person should be allowed to walk into Walmart and buy an RPG launcher or a tank or a missile. Most also seem to agree that fully automatic weapons are a no-no. Where do we draw the line? And what kinds of safeguards should be used, like background checks, owner licensing, weapon registration, etc.?
Militias at the time of the drafting of the constitution consisted of groups of neighbors, not standing armies, do your homework before making assertions. Also, SCOTUS as evidenced by Heller and McDonald disagrees (rightfully) with your assessment of who can own guns as per 2A. The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It was pretty straight forward, especially if you read any correspondence between the founders. As to whether or not an armed society even with things such as AR15s and hunting rifles is relevant with a standing army… They absolutely are. This country could wage an unbeatable insurgency (I know, I’ve fought one).
Guns are used more in instances of self defense. People don’t always report every time they have drawn a gun and an attacker has run off. I know multiple people who have drawn on muggers and that ended the situation and there it was. Also, in states that have passed concealed carry crime has gone down. If you really think its a good thing that cities like Chicago that have 500+ murders annually have barred all lawful residents from owning guns for protection, you are absolutely mad.
As far as what safeguards we should have, we already have mandatory federal background checks which I fully support. I also fully support mental health records being integrated into the NICS background check system. That is enough. I would not NECCESSARILY be opposed to licensing for CARRY as a compromise with a reasonable fee though I don’t support it by any means. In Massachusetts we have a situation where certain towns grant licenses (Weston) others don’t for anyone unless they know somebody (Newton) and others have been rumored to only give these licenses to certain demographics of people. It needs to be shall issue. People who can’t be trusted to carry guns can’t be trusted to own them either. Weapons “registration” I view as unconstitutional. No government entity should have a master list of who lives where and owns what.
Mike
Mike, relax.
I’m no lawyer. I was just asking. Per the Constitution “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” I don’t know how it’s been interpreted, as you do, but I think there may be some more basic human right that says a government that may be untrustworthy shouldn’t have the right to deny individuals a weapon as a protection against the government, not against crime.
I wasn’t denying us the right to bear arms. I was just questioning you, who has strong opinions about it, whether or not it has limits, which you answered near the end, and I would agree. The part about differences from town to town kind of bothers me too. It should be either statewide or federal licensing.
As far as the government know who owns what, there is a census, and owned real estate is certainly registered, and cars are titled and registered. So, there’s certainly a precedent for that. Do you think we should be able to buy a house anonymously, and pay the tax bill anonymously for the address with no knowledge of who owns the property?
Anyway, I’m only asking. I don’t have a strong opinion yet on any of this, but I don’t believe in disarming society. I did years ago, but I’ve changed my mind as I’ve grown up and learned about life.
There is a census… the census doesn’t track everyone who is capable of standing up to an oppressive government what they have, and what isn’t accounted for so it needs to be tracked and taken away. Gun registration has as a matter of fact been used in the past to disarm a populace before committing genocide or other atrocities. This is why one of the most vocal pro-firearms organizations is JPFO. Hitler ordered firearms confiscated from Jews, and we all saw how that worked out.
Now I am not afraid of the government. I don’t put on my tinfoil hat before I go to sleep. I don’t think X Y and Z were inside jobs. I don’t see them going door to door, and I highly highly doubt in my lifetime I would ever see something a la WWII. But we have to remember, it was OUR government who imprisoned Americans with no trial during WWII, it was our government that passed the patriot act and NDAA. It doesn’t hurt to be critical or weary of them. Sure if we turned over all our weapons now we probably wouldn’t see anything happen in the next 100 years… but as one of the biggest most free societies we owe it to our children and grand children to see to it that they ALWAYS have the ability to stand up for themselves. Once that goes away you open a door that will ultimately be abused.
I’m happy to clarify. Guns are not a democrat/republican issue, but they keep getting turned in to one. Don’t want to own them, fine, but don’t tell me what I have is too dangerous. We already see the mainstream media editorializing this woman as being weird or extreme for liking guns. That’s just utterly ridiculous.
Mike
Mike – I honestly don’t know if they should be banned. But I do know that something is very wrong when 26 people – including 20 1st graders – can be killed inside a locked, secure building a matter of a minutes by an armed intruder. Perhaps the gun owner thought that possessing these legally obtained, registered guns made her and her son safer. But the reality is that they made her and her son – and 26 innocent victims – dead.
He killed her and took them. He could have got them somewhere else, burned the school down, built a bomb, etc. Terrible things just sometimes happen. You dont punish the rest of the country for the actions of one insane person who killed someone and stole their guns
But he didn’t do those other things. He didn’t have to, because he had easy access to her guns – he killed her with one. Mike, based on everything you’ve written it sounds like you are a responsible gun owner who makes sure that his weapons are secure. In this scenario, legally purchased and registered guns were used to kill the gun owner and 26 other innocent people. So clearly they were not secure. How do we prevent guns from getting in the hands not only of criminals and the unbalanced, but in the hands of presumably law-abiding folks who don’t (or won’t) secure them, putting us ALL at risk? I don’t have an answer, and honestly I just don’t have the capacity to neutrally consider the rights of gun owners today.
Nobody said anything about punishing anyone. Tricia’s point was that this woman’s guns did not increase her safety, they were used to kill her, he son and many others. I believe (though I’m no expert) that the statistics bear this out on the larger society wide scale. Those that own guns are statistically more likely to suffer gun violence themselves or on their family members.
Aside from that, you say “one insane person”. I wish that was true. We now have a never ending, continuous series, of these absolutely horrific scenes repeating over and over and over again.
I would hope that those who own, use and value firearms would take the lead in figuring out how we can continue to be such a well armed society without suffering these endless gun fueled tragedies. Instead, the NRA bristles and brings out their awesome lobbying prowess to fight any and all attempts of any kind for even the most common sense sort of reforms.
As a gun owner yourself Mike, what do you suggest be done? It sounds like you’re just shrugging your shoulders – you can’t stop an insane guy, if he didn’t have a gun he’d have a knife, etc.
The US stands alone among developed countries when it comes to both the level of gun violence and the laxity of its gun laws. If you value the right to own guns, what would you suggest we do to reel in future gun violence?
Mike-In all my years of teaching, I have never heard any colleague say that s/he would carry a gun if permitted. That’s 40 years of teaching and counting. Never. Not once.
Get your facts straight. Teachers do not want to carry guns. They want safe schools so they don’t need to have the kind of conversations that will occur in many classrooms across America tomorrow morning.
Well I’ve talked to teachers who do. I also had a Newton North teacher who was uncomfortable talking about his politics because of what other teachers had said when he had brought things up in the past. I have been told by professors at Umass who I know outside of school who do carry guns that they would like to be able to on campus.
One woman who clearly was irresponsible in the presence of her son who others said wasn’t stable is going to be used as an example for all of us? You can’t average statistics. Well if you have a car you are more likely to drive shitfaced, because if you average DUIs and you average drivers…? If you never drink and drive, that isn’t true? The small % who are idiots don’t average out among the rest of us who are not.
I agree with background checks and an integration of mental health into those background checks. The problem is you can’t make theft impossible. I don’t have all the answers, I just know what the answers are NOT.
Mike
I like Mike. I welcome and respect his opinion, while disagreeing with large parts of it. Because of the sensitive subject matter, I feel the need to remind everyone that there are two Mike’s posting on this thread. I post only as “Mike Striar.”
So, again, Mike (not Striar) I ask. Are there any limits on what a person can own in terms of firepower, in your opinion?
And do I understand that you agree with things like background checks upon purchase, but not with having to carry a license in order to own a firearm, an not having to register a weapon? And, not to complicate things, is this the position of the NRA, if you know what there position is?
sorry, “their” positon
Today is going to be a tough one in every public school across the country. Please be supportive and understanding of the teachers and others who are helping our children deal with Friday’s tragedy even as they are struggling to cope with it themselves.
Newton North Principal Jen Price sent the following email around to parents yesterday afternoon. Please take the time to read and reflect on it.
I believe that the cutoff for what people should be able to obtain without going through additional processes is whether or.not something can kill indeacriminately (ie explosives and machineguns). That doesn’t mean I believe there should be zero avenue to obtain such items. The NFA process currently required for machineguns is a good example.
If you clear the background checks you shouls need no license to posess. No registry of firearms should exist.
I don’t know nor do I care what the position of the NRA is as I am not a spomesperson for them and I disagree with many of their past compromises and positions. I would like to point iut that the gun lobby isn’t evil and powerful, they do in fact represent of the majority of the country. We as gun owners are good people who appreciate our right to own firearms. We don’t want it taken away. We aren’t rednecks, stupid, violent, etc. We are your friends, coworkers and neighbors. We truly believe the country is a better place and our families are safer because odlf firearm ownership.
Sorry for typos Im on my phone.
Mike
The only thing that will actually give schools a fighting chance is actually get some armed good guys, cops, contractors, teachers, or all of the above inside. Thats the world we live in. It would be great if terrible things never happened… but they always will. We can reduce but never eliminate these incidents. For those we cant eliminate, at least we can leave good guys with a chance. Locking a glass door is as false a sense of security as “banning guns.”
Mike,
I really hope we aren’t getting to the point where we live in an armed camp. Dictatorships do that, and crime is definitely low. But personal freedom, that you seem to love so much is definitely low. Crazies have shot up malls, restaurants, offices, factories, other schools, public streets, etc. We can’t put police everywhere. Security at airports is an example of the intrusion of authorities because of our fear. Electronic strip searches, etc., are really a sad commentary on our society.
I don’t know what the solution is, but if psychology and psychiatry have anything to offer our society, we ought to be able to identify and treat high-risk individuals before they do these things, both by their psyches and by the environment in which they live. This kid was emotionally disturbed and he lived in a house with weapons, and was affected most likely by the divorce and separation of his parents. There may be other factors that haven’t yet come out.
Disarming everyone or policing every street corner are both to me poor ways to live.
Thats why you police your own. I carry a gun, therefore.I could care less if there are cops or not. I can protect my own. 90% of my friends are also armed too. Problem solved. I’m not a superhero or vigilante, I am armed and suggest to others they do the same. As a firearms instructor I am hapoy to help with that. Now knowing this… how does it make any sense that I can’t legally be armed in my college classes? Every other time of the day I am evenly matched to most realistc threats? Teachers and professors should be able to do the same. I wouldn’t even oppose them being vetted by their individual schools first. But its plain stupid to tell a teacher who also carries a gun in their day to day life they cant also do it at work.
I beg to differ. I’ve never owned a firearm, and, to the best of my knowledge, most people I know don’t own one. We are doing just fine, thank you. No-one has ever threatened me with one, yet. I don’t want to live in Dodge City.
Everyone carrying a firearm includes those who may be a problem. You may have a gun on your person, but if someone is pointing one at your face, you’d be hard-pressed to get yours out in time. Or if someone shoots you in the back. And what would a teacher do if a guy comes in and starts firing rapidly at a class of 6-year-olds, starting with the teacher? It’s true that in your world fewer people would be killed, because someone would eventually take down the shooter, but I don’t want to live in that world.
The thesis of your approach, I think, is that common criminals would think twice before committing a mugging or robbing a convenience store or a bank, if they knew people carried guns. Nothing stops people who are mentally ill. I have a 5-year-old grand-daughter and, for the life of me, I can’t imagine someone pointing a gun at that angelic face and firing at it repeatedly. Your system won’t work with people like this. You just make it easier for them to obtain guns.
And, by the way, I suspect guys like the one in Connecticut are suicidal. He did kill himself as many of these crazies do. And suicide bombers, of which there are far too many, also don’t care if you get them as long as their explosives detonate and they take a lot of lives at the same time.
Well Barry, that is the world we live in now. People can and do carry guns. That doesn’t mean everyone does, it means that those who want to can, and its not dodge city. The concept of “gun free zones” among this world where people can carry guns is rediculous. Also, wherever concealed carry has been instituted crime has gone down.
As someone who has never owned a firearm, you do seem to think you know how a lot of hypothetical scenarios would play out. As I said I am not saying that if you have an aversion to guns you must own one. I am saying that I encourage people to own and properly train on firearms. My opinion is it is the responsible thing to do. If you are happy without them, soesn’t bother me. I, however, will not give mine up, and will fight for futyre generations to be able to protect themselves as well.
Mike
If you “get them” before they detonate there vest or.in the midst of shooting people, then it lessens or prevents the damage. Hence why israelli teachers and shaperones are armed.
Mike,
I’m not averse to owning a gun. I just never felt the lack of one was a problem for me. It just seems that you advocate some kind of almost universal gun possession, and I just don’t think it solves the problems like Newtown, which is the current issue.
I also fear that someone may feel threatened and use a gun where it really wasn’t necessary, if he had one. You remember the case of the Japanese student on Halloween in, I think, Florida? A homeowner told him to “freeze”, and he didn’t know English well enough to understand, and the homeowner shot him. There are pros and cons to all issues.
As I said before, I don’t believe in universal disarmament, nor a police state, nor Dodge City. There must be another way. And, I think one can never reduce the risks of life to zero. We’d have to stop driving cars, stop using knives, stop flying in airplanes, etc. Life will always have some risks. Even risks of criminals and mentally disturbed people, and governments that overstep their bounds.
I think we agree on more than you think. I don’t advocate universal gun ownership, I advocate people are able to do what they want, to include owning and carrying guns. Life will always have risks. No matter what laws are passed there will still be massacres, plane crashes, fires, car accidents, etc. In higher risk environments, like schools, however, I think we would benefit with some defensive capabilities, which could include allowing teachers and in the case of universities students to carry the same guns they carry everywhere else in the state.
Obviously irresponsible gun ownership comes with risks. But remember everyday 100 million gun owners dont hurt anyone including themselves.
Mike
Mike,
So, I think you answered most of my questions. Background check at purchase is okay. License to own or carry, or weapon registration is not okay.
So, is there a limit? Can I own an automatic weapon, an RPG launcher, a tank, a missile, etc.?
I think there should be a process like there already is to own machineguns. I would never say absolutely not on anything else but for the time being I don’t mind drawing the line at explosives.
Mike
a bullet is explosive
A bullet is not an explosive
Mr. Lanza and his predecessors from Aurora, Stockton, Columbine, and so many other places would never be chosen as member of a “well regulated militia.” A reasonable restriction on either assault weapons (as was the case nationally until 2004) or large capacity high speed magazines does not seem to me to be a violation of the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms. The people on the scene in Newtowne who most resembled my impression of the Minutemen of Massachusetts were the law enforcement personnel running toward the danger at Sandy Hook.
People who want to join the national effort for reasonable gun control should contact the Brady Campaign which has been leading this effort since Mr. Hinkley attempted to win the heart of Jody Foster by attempting to kill the President.
Brian Yates
The Brady campaign uses lies and propaganda to sell people on scary terminology. The perfect example would be your use of the word “assault weapon” and “Large capacity high speed magazine” neither of which are properly used.
I am all for federal background checks, and wrapping psychiatric commitments up into that check. I unilaterally oppose legislation that does trample on my rights. As someone who has what you refer to as “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” banning those WILL be stepping on the toes of a law abiding citizen.
Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is also incorrect (as per SCOTUS and any historical context)
Columbine occurred during the precious “assault weapons ban.” It is pretty much universally accepted that the “assault weapons ban” accomplished NOTHING by everyone who has studied the issue. The Virginia tech shooter used predominately “low” capacity magazines (~170 rounds fired from 17 magazines). Also, how do you determine what is high and what is normal capacity? My Sig is designed to take 12 round magazines, are those high capacity just because they are more than 1o rounds? It’s certainly beneficial for me carrying a gun to have those extra 2 rounds. If I was a “bad guy” it would take me half a second to change between multiple “10 round low capacity” magazines. My AR15 is designed with a standard magazine capacity of 30 rounds, are those high capacity? No, they are normal capacity magazines designed for their respective firearms. Have you ever shot a gun before? Do you know it takes less than a second to change magazines?
Stop pressing for feel good legislation that does nothing but result in the good guys getting screwed. Press for better mental health and security.
Mike
With respect to Newtown, I question why the mother was training a kid with emotional problems to use a firearm. Perhaps if there were people at the shooting ranges they attended who noticed this incongruity, there would be 27 more people alive today. Generally, people who see stuff like this don’t want to get involved. Like the flying school instructors who had 9/11 Moslem suicide terrorists as students who didn’t care about take-off or landing. That should have been a red flag.
Mike said:”I am sure if they had a program to have them going through extra training with the police department and then carry a gun concealed in school some would be willing to. This is how Israel works and nobody thinks twice about it because its not a big deal.” The other way Israel works is that suspicious people and situations are reported to the authorities. That’s why so many terrorist attacks are averted before they happen. And passenger profiling is allowed at airport security. That’s why planes out of Ben Gurion Airport are never hijacked. We have too many people in this country who are more concerned about the so-called rights of those who are a potential problem than the safety and convenience of those who are not. We are crazy people. We don’t mind having everyone be subjected to electronic strip searches or to have to take of our sneakers or not carry bottles of cologne, but if someone is interrogated who fits a problematic profile, the ACLU and other such groups are up in arms.
As someone who is at various shooting ranges at least a couple times a month you don’t go interrogate other people shooting there if they are doing their own thing. At the same time shooting is often a very social event. I doubt she was “training” her son. To become proficient in using guns takes regular practice. I’ve taken my 17 year old sister shooting with me, and though she has the fundamentals and was a good shot, it would take a degree of regularity for her to become proficient. This shooter was not a proficient shooter. He locked a bunch of 6 year-olds in a classroom and shot them all multiple times. It’s tragic and disgusting, but not the sign of a proficient shooter (since you brought up training).
I won’t get into an airport debate with you, but a large part of Israel’s deterrence is having armed people in high risk environments, including in schools and on field trips. When I took a tour of the country our bus had a security contractor with a rifle, and I would not be surprised if the driver and guide were also carrying concealed. It’s a last line of defense as profiling doesn’t work 100% of the time. Our country profiles plenty. Just look at how gun owners are looked at.
Mike
The website of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is at http://www.BradyCenter.org. People can judge the validity of Mike’s criticisms for themselves. I lack Mike’s knowledge of firearms but the speed and volume of bullets seems clearly to impact the amount of damage that can be done. The Newtown shooter seems to have noticed the first police, sprayed the second classroom and killed himself. Without a weapon like the one he possessed, this amount of fire would seem impossible in a brief period.
So you admit to not knowing anything about firearms yet you push for more legislation? Let this stand as an example to people that THIS is why we complain about knee jerk feel good bs.
Mike
@Mike, respectfully, the argument that banning semi-automatic weapons with large magazines is “stepping on toes” just doesn’t move me, anymore than an argument from someone who likes to drive his Porsche fast when he is drunk that speed limits and drunk driving laws are stepping on his toes. There is a balance and after the Newtown school shooting, for the first time in a long time the majority of Americans favor more restrictions on guns on the federal level. Whether you are a law abiding citizen depends, of course, on what the law is. We have more laws on the books to protect us from a one-ton hunk of metal, rubber and plastic than we do from a semi-automatic weapon and ammunition you can put in your pocket that have equal lethality and can kill or maim scores of people quickly using large magazines.
In addition, I am glad you are in favor of background checks, but civil commitments for mental illness as the standard for denying a gun permit would not satisfy me. I am not aware that any of the killers in recent mass shootings had been civilly committed or even voluntary admitted for psychiatric care. It is a pretty high standard. The Aurora, CO killer, I believe, was an example of someone who had not been committed or even hospitalized, but showed signs of being mentally unstable enough to raise some red flags, albeit not enough. Having some experience in mental health law and working with people with mental disabilities and mental illness both before and after becoming a lawyer, I would be concerned about anyone who a doctor or psychologist might think was a “ticking time bomb” as well as someone who has PTSD, or other types of mental disorders that can cause people to lose touch with reality from time to time without warning, whether from serving in a war zone or some other trauma or illness. I would also worry about anyone who had a cognitive impairment of any sort, as well as senile dementia or Alzheimers. Most of these conditions do not require commitment (in Mass. the standard is that someone represents a risk of imminent harm to themselves or others). But I think we need to have some public conversation about whether the burden should be on the applicant for a gun permit to show they are mentally healthy, or on the government to show that they are not.
That said, I would be open to allowing people to shoot semi-automatic weapons at clubs where they cannot hurt anybody (including themselves) although the tragedy involving the youngster who got killed while shooting an AK47 with his father at a gun show certainly mitigates against allowing children to use more powerful weapons. Despite all you have said, and I respect your knowledge of the topic and your thoughtful commentary, I am not persuaded that it justifies the need for anyone outside of the military or law enforcement to have a semi-automatic weapon or large magazines of ammunition that can kill many people quickly, as we saw last week in Newtown, CT.
But, at the very least, legislators and the general public need to have a discussion about rational measures to protect the public from guns as well as mental health and access to treatment of people with mental illness. Can you at least agree with that?
Automatic weapons have been heavily restricted and regulated by the ATF since 1934. The shooter used a semi-automatic rifle, which was no more deadly than a handgun at that range. There are 100 million responsible gun owners out there, but thank you for contrasting us to drunk drivers in their porsches. It is more like owning alcohol and owning a porsche, except gun owners are usually more responsible with their guns than people are with their cars.
You can kill someone just as quickly with a revolver or motor vehicle as you can with a semi-automatic handgun. It takes half a second to change a magazine. The Virginia tech shooter used 10 round magazines for example. All you do with magazine capacity bans is hinder people from protecting themselves. For example, I carry a gun with a 12 round magazine and another round in the gun, for 13 rounds, as I don’t have the space to carry multiple magazines. However, if I was a madman, I could carry multiple 10 rounds magazines because it doesn’t need to be practical for my day to day life.
Most shooters (including the Newtowne shooter, columbine shooters, and virtually every criminal in the inner city which accounts for most of our gun crime) acquire their firearms illegally, either through theft, trafficking from theft, or straw purchasing (already a crime, punishment should be more severe). How about the burden is on the government to show that they are not, unless they want to have mental health professionals donate their time to hang out at gun shops.
The 2nd Amendment does not exist, free people do not value their guns, to “shoot them at a range.” I own my AR15 for defense of me and my family first and foremost. This is why MOST gun owners own their guns. Also a caveat, the kid who shot himself was using a 9mm sub-machine gun about the size of a pistol. It was a 1 in a million accident. The problem was due to poor supervision. We don’t need a law, just smarter parenting and better management of these events. The truth is that “accidental gun deaths” while they do occur, and are tragic, even among children, rate below things like falling off ladders, drowning in pools, etc. Its just a side effect to having a tool. I know more people who have heart themselves with power tools than guns, and I know more people who own guns than who don’t.
I respect your right to think you know what people should and shouldn’t own. I’d recommend you find someone qualified to take you shooting, with various guns, various magazines, etc, so you can see how trivial magazine capacity is. Yes some of these things are the weapons of choice for these people, but more often because they think they are cool, rather than the functionality. Sad but true. I would also like to add, with all due respect to the deceased, that I don’t think an “AR-15” made it any easier for this psycho to kill a bunch of kids he locked in a first grade class. They even had a former ATF assistant director on NPR who confirmed that it would have made no difference if he had used a handgun.
A rational discussion should be had… but the “assault weapons ban” to make people feel better because of what it sounds like it bans is not rational. This is evidenced by all the misinformation people have (presumably from the media, since I watch them blatantly misreport things constantly on this issue) in all these threads.
Mike
I don’t know if anyone monitors or is subscribed to this thread, but I recently made a video that I think is relevant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWBd2lv1mZg
Mike