School Shooting

[MediumTex]

I don't really have any words to describe how terrible this event is, but I do wonder what can actually be done about preventing this sort of thing from happening.

If you confiscated and destroyed all of the guns in the U.S. that could be tracked down there would still be a huge volume of illegal guns, and there would still be crazy people who want to do crazy things.

Here are a few things that do come to mind that might help:

1. Somehow change the culture of gun owners so that they are persuaded to better secure their weapons (many already do, but many don't).  This is hard to do in many cases, though, because a gun for self-defense can't be unloaded sitting in a gun safe with a trigger lock in place.  There is much room for improvement in this area, though.

2. I know this one is not possible, but if the media didn't provide so much coverage of these events I think that they would be less of a magnet for mentally ill people seeking to perform an act that will draw the maximum amount of attention to them.  I'm not blaming the media for these events, but I don't think that it is an accident that these events tend to happen in clusters.  It's like one tragic event happens, and the media saturation of the event causes the tiny population of people capable of these acts to begin seriously considering doing it themselves where otherwise they might have done something less destructive when they reached the breaking point.

3. If we are going to try some kind of gun control measures, I would say maybe treat gun ownership the way we do driving a car, and require some minimal level of training for all gun purchasers, including a periodic refresher.  The course wouldn't really cover how to fire the weapon (though this would be covered) so much as how to maintain it, the essential nature of regular practice with the weapon and the critical importance of securing the weapon one way or another at all times.  This type of training would also be an opportunity to present to people the risks that gun ownership poses to gun owners, including the potential liability associated with gun ownership, the dangers for gun owners with mild mental illness or anger issues, and obviously the risk that the gun could be stolen and the gun owner could possibly be unwittingly facilitating all sorts of terrible crimes.

Whatever people decide is the right response, today's event is about the saddest story I can imagine hearing about. 

[MachineGhost]

I predict there will be increased federal funding for the states to get fully on-board with comprehensive electronic background checking.  And probably try to restrict the private sale loophole in some way.

No word yet on whether the autistic killer was on psychiatrict drugs.  Eventually, I predict someday there is going to be a class action lawsuit against Big Pharma from victims of all these drug-deranged killers.

[smurff]

As for 2, there may be hope, at least for certain parts of the media.  CNN and others have decided to not mention the various gunmen' s names often enough to sear them in our memories.  Maybe it' s just a few steps from avoiding that to avoiding the usual wall to wall round the clock coverage of such incidents.

While it may be politically incorrect to ask, I have often wondered whether the huge increase in the numbers of people with autism, particularly the high- functioning type, May have some relationship to the increase in certain trends (not just spree killing).

[MediumTex]

No word yet on whether the autistic killer was on psychiatrict drugs.  Eventually, I predict someday there is going to be a class action lawsuit against Big Pharma from victims of all these drug-deranged killers.

That's a great point.

Taking a person who doesn't feel right mentally and filling him with drugs that no one really understands all that well is not a good idea.

I think that this explains a lot of these returning soldier murders and suicides--they have the PTSD that you would expect from what they've been through and their doctors try to smooth over the severity of the psychological damage with medication that has all sorts of poorly understood side effects.

[TripleB]

I'm going to play Browne's Advocate (or is it Harry's Advocate?) here.

No amount of government legislation will prevent this kind of event. Government is force and coercion. Someone who is willing and desires to murder 26 people in a spree-event will do so regardless of government efforts to stop him.

If the government didn't make schools a gun-free zone, then perhaps a teacher or a parent would have a firearm useful to stop the shooter. Dare I suggest it's the government's fault that this type of event could occur. It's not a "failure" of the Bill of Rights that allows a strong second amendment, much like it's not a "failure of the free market" when a government-regulated industry fails. It's failure of the government itself, who attempts to shift blame externally. The government failed by banning guns from schools. Clearly, this shooter didn't care about the federal ban and only prospective "good guys" were deterred from having a gun.

Most active shooters take their own lives when confronted by any level of resistance. That's an FBI statistic that's driven law enforcement protocols to shift tactics towards "first on scene, first to make entry" rather than "secure the perimeter" - yes it's more risky to an individual officer who comes on scene first, however the suspect will 9 times out of 10 turn the muzzle to his own head when confronted by the first sign of resistance. Government laws have ensured the first resistance is 5 to 10 minutes away from any school.

It's a failure of government for demonizing guns. Perhaps if the government didn't demonize gun ownership, then some of the teachers/parents at the school would be gun owners that otherwise are not. Combined with removal of the previous government failure, maybe they'd also bring guns to school.

It's a failure of the government to impose gun control. Perhaps if the government didn't set standards for gun sales, then this shooter may not have qualified to buy a gun. When the government sets the minimal level, then private gun dealers and sellers may simply decide "OK this guy filled out the form 4473, he can have a gun." Perhaps if 4473 didn't exist, then a gun dealer might use their own judgment in determining whether selling an individual a firearm is a good idea.

It's a failure of government to fund public schools. Perhaps if parents were able to afford private schools (because of reduced taxes that otherwise would be going to public schools) then some parents would select schools that offered armed security.

This type of problem is government-related and more government, whether it be mandated training, mandated psychology checks, or whatever, will fix the solution. Government laws will spiral out of control and eventually anyone who expresses a disagreement with government will fail a comprehensive gun background check, as a potential terrorist, because "expressing negative thoughts about government" is an indicator of a possible terrorist.

We have to accept the fact that the world will never be 100% safe and government mandates will not increase safety and will actually have an opposite effect for reasons above. I purport we'd have less disastrous outcomes if government did not try to impose gun ownership restrictions.

One may point to England or Australia and show a reduction in gun violence following increased gun control. However, one only has to look to Mexico, which has some of the toughest gun control laws in the world, to see that it's not going to work.

[KevinW]

IMO these kinds of things have more to do with mental health care than they do gun control.

[RuralEngineer]

I'd love to make a detailed post on this but lack time. I'd like to quickly point to the recent mass stabbing of some 22 children in China (one of many such incidents there) as this being a people problem, not a gun problem.

I am personally an advocate for having qualified and trained staff armed in every school. Because so many of these crazies are suicidal, it won't prevent an incident, but it will mitigate it. Until we fix our society we will continue to face this kind of violence. I'd rather face it armed than as a lamb before the knife.

[MediumTex]

I'd like to quickly point to the recent mass stabbing of some 22 children in China (one of many such incidents there) as this being a people problem, not a gun problem.

That reminds me of this bumper sticker: "Ted Kennedy's Car Has Killed More People Than My Gun."

[smurff]

IMO these kinds of things have more to do with mental health care than they do gun control.

I believe you are correct.  We have an abysmal mental health system in the USA..  Putting more guns in the environment would increase the number of accidental discharges, and enlarge the pool of guns a prospective shooter would have access to.  It would also increase dueling behavior over minor insults.  Rather than being a relatively rare occurrence mass shootings would become common.

[Xan]

I think you're right about the media coverage being a big part of it, and the news outlets who've decided to stop mentioning the guy's name all the time are making a good start.  Another good thing would be to have less of this:

What motivated XYZ to do what he did?  What was his childhood like?  What got under his skin?  How did society fail him?  What could we all have done differently to make his life better?

That of course is just what these people want to imagine will happen after their sprees.  We should have more of:

XYZ was a cowardly asshole.

In fact, I would suggest that whenever a media outlet DOES mention the perp's name, it should be prefaced by "cowardly asshole".

[Kriegsspiel]

I just wanted to throw this out there: unless this either COULD HAVE BEEN affected by you, or AFFECTED you, then I maybe wouldn't stress out like a lot of people are.  Just... you know, zen'ing it up.  It's sad and all, but... shit like this has been happening for millennia,

[MachineGhost]

It's a failure of the government to impose gun control. Perhaps if the government didn't set standards for gun sales, then this shooter may not have qualified to buy a gun. When the government sets the minimal level, then private gun dealers and sellers may simply decide "OK this guy filled out the form 4473, he can have a gun." Perhaps if 4473 didn't exist, then a gun dealer might use their own judgment in determining whether selling an individual a firearm is a good idea.

Apparantly, the shooter used guns his mother had legally bought.  What I find odd is that a kindergarten teacher living in Connecticut -- a highly liberal and pro-gun control state -- with an autistic child, would see the need to have an assault weapon or other weapons that seem overkill for personal protection and home defense.  What was she, a red neck thinking she was living in Arizona?

I think the pro-gun lobby misses the point in that its not that we want everyone to have guns, we want only mentally stable and trained individuals to own, respect and use guns.  Otherwise, it's likely to be a free-for all in shooting situations such as those NY cops shooting up innocent bystanders because they had inadequate training.  Imagine what a bunch of gangbangers would be chomping at the bit to do if some deranged killer showed up to a screening of Boyz to Men XI.

[notsheigetz]

I just wanted to throw this out there: unless this either COULD HAVE BEEN affected by you, or AFFECTED you, then I maybe wouldn't stress out like a lot of people are.  Just... you know, zen'ing it up.  It's sad and all, but... shit like this has been happening for millennia,

Maybe so, but I don't remember anything like this ever happening when I was growing up.

The image I can't get out of my mind is that of the parents waiting outside to see if their kids were coming out and then being told no more were coming. I can join Obama in getting emotional over that thought. I'm not into zen but a few drinks at the Christmas party tonight might help.

America is a violent place. From video games, to TV violence, to our favorite sport of football, to our gigantic military,to our propensity for bullying policing the whole word, we are a violent people. And I have a hard time zen'ing out over it. Beam me up scotty.

[TripleB]

I think the pro-gun lobby misses the point in that its not that we want everyone to have guns, we want only mentally stable and trained individuals to own, respect and use guns.

How good of a job has the government done to ensure only mentally stable and trained drivers have access to cars? How many people drive drunk or texting everyday? Do we need more DUI laws until the government finally solves the problem? Is the suspension of the fourth amendment in DUI checkpoints, allowing vehicle stops/searches without Probable Cause, not strong enough?

We can "want" anything but the government is not the entity to do it. As HB says, the government has never gotten anything right. What makes you think they can do this one thing right?

[moda0306]

I'm all for sensible gun laws, even if I don't know what they should be, but there has to be something more deeply wrong.  This 20 year old man shot his own mother in the face in her own home, and then proceeded to drive 25 miles to shoot a bunch of her kindergarten students.  I guess this is just far and away beyond anything I ever thought I'd see.  A very small part of me can understand getting mad at your boss, being bullied at school screwing up your perspective, racial tension, Muslim/American tensions, hating the IRS or even hating your parents, or just simply being crazy, and all the other reasons these things happen, but this shooting in CT is just so disgusting I'm left with no idea how to "prevent" it without a police state, and maybe the fact we're even talking about how to prevent a man from walking into a school and shooting up babies if we've already fucking lost.  What's next, we see mass murders in the maternity wings of hospitals? 

Better school security seems like a no brainer at this point, even though that's always left a bad taste in my mouth (practically indoctrinating our children to a police state).  I dont have kids (though my 7 year old nephew is my best friend) but feel like I've been shot in the gut and that a piece of my goodwill towards humanity has just disappeared.  I almost have the urge to puke before i have the urge to cry.  I don't know how the parents in here feel.  Sound off cuz I'd love to get your perspective on this.  I am not religious and I hate censorship, but I am willing to have the conversation of what the fuck is changing about our society that allows the number (and in this case, the severity) of these things to be spiraling out of control.

[TripleB]

What I find odd is that a kindergarten teacher living in Connecticut -- a highly liberal and pro-gun control state -- with an autistic child, would see the need to have an assault weapon or other weapons that seem overkill for personal protection and home defense.  What was she, a red neck thinking she was living in Arizona?

I don't find this odd at all. An "assault rifle" contains a projectile that is safer to use for home defense than a handgun. The fact that it's a "highly pro-gun control state" only makes the need for a home defense tool more important because it means criminals have greater access to guns than law abiding citizens. Look at how well Chicago's gun ban has worked out over recent decades. That's the place you need an effective gun the most.

With respect to an "assault weapon" for home defense, it's extremely valid:

1) It's more stable to shoot because you have four points of contact rather than only two (carbine has two hands, cheek and shoulder in contact with the firearm, versus two hands on a handgun). Under stress when adrenaline is making your hands shake, it's safer to have four points of contact on the firearm to ensure accurate shots at the target.

2) The volume of fire is necessary for multiple assailants. A home invasion will be three to four attackers. "Trained" police officers have a 10% hit rate in officer involved shootings. Do you want a handgun with a 10 round magazine to fight against 3 home invaders when you're awoken in the middle of the night and "trained" law enforcement, who are on duty and presumably awake and expecting an attack have a 10% hit rate?

3) The "stopping power" of a handgun is abyssmal. You'll need either a direct central nervous system shot (in a very specific 1 square inch area) or multiple shots to the torso. Considering the 10% hit rate and multiple attackers, this does not bode well for a handgun. An "assault weapon" has significantly more stopping power and fewer shots are necessary to stop an attack.

4) Handgun bullets penetrate through drywall. Do you want to shoot a handgun in your home, and have 90% of your shots (due to a 10% hit rate) go through the wall and hit your children or neighbor? The FBI has known this for over a decade and has switched from MP5s (which shoot a 9mm handgun bullet) over to AR15 "assault weapons" to reduce overpenetration in buildings.

5) The other alternative to a handgun that isn't an "assault rifle" is a shotgun. However, you're looking at a 6 to 8 round gun that is very slow to reload and has significant recoil. Additionally, there's overpenetration problems with it, even using common self defense rounds, much like a handgun. You need a significant amount of training to equip a shotgun for home defense, and dare I say most people over the age of 60 or under the weight of 150 pounds will have a difficult time using one effectively. For the most part, law enforcement has transitioned away from shotguns and moved to "assault weapons" for duty use.

[BearBones]

IMO these kinds of things have more to do with mental health care than they do gun control.

Gun related homicides are far more common per capita in the US than other countries. You have a sound hypothesis. However, f you are right, why do you think that there are more mentally ill (or untreated mentally ill) in the US than other countries?

[BearBones]

We can "want" anything but the government is not the entity to do it. As HB says, the government has never gotten anything right. What makes you think they can do this one thing right?

That government has "never gotten anything right" may be widely accepted on this libertarian-oriented forum, but I suspect that it is a rather extreme view in the spectrum of public opinion. It is my opinion that there is indeed a role for government, and government actually does some things remarkably well, considering what it is up against. The day that people are able to freely bring bombs and weapons on airplanes, into schools, and into shopping malls is the day I become an emigrant.

[Benko]

Don't misunderstand my comment, as I'm not suggesting we ban videogames, but I find it interesting that no one has mentioned that proliferation of violent videogames including ones where the player acts as a "shooter".  Tv and movies probably play some role as well, but in the videogames you actually act as a shooter and shoot things/people.  These desensitize children to violence. These proliferate and we wonder why there are more acts of violence?

Acts such as the recent one are a reflection of society.

[notsheigetz]

Too bad we can't ask that mother what she thinks now about keeping those guns in the house.

I've never owned one myself (although I was once lent the use of an M-16 by the U.S. govt for a period of time). If I lived in an area more prone to violence I would probably see things differently but I have always calculated that the likelihood of something bad happening with those guns either by accident or by a known person's drunken/emotional rage was far greater than the risk of being attacked by an intruder. Seeing that the mother and son lived in an affluent neighborhood (I'm assuming gated community) and knowing the mental state of her son, I suspect she would make the same calculations knowing what she does now.

(And for the record I'm not against gun ownership but I'm also for common sense).

What I find odd is that a kindergarten teacher living in Connecticut -- a highly liberal and pro-gun control state -- with an autistic child, would see the need to have an assault weapon or other weapons that seem overkill for personal protection and home defense.  What was she, a red neck thinking she was living in Arizona?

I don't find this odd at all. An "assault rifle" contains a projectile that is safer to use for home defense than a handgun. The fact that it's a "highly pro-gun control state" only makes the need for a home defense tool more important because it means criminals have greater access to guns than law abiding citizens. Look at how well Chicago's gun ban has worked out over recent decades. That's the place you need an effective gun the most.

With respect to an "assault weapon" for home defense, it's extremely valid:

1) It's more stable to shoot because you have four points of contact rather than only two (carbine has two hands, cheek and shoulder in contact with the firearm, versus two hands on a handgun). Under stress when adrenaline is making your hands shake, it's safer to have four points of contact on the firearm to ensure accurate shots at the target.

2) The volume of fire is necessary for multiple assailants. A home invasion will be three to four attackers. "Trained" police officers have a 10% hit rate in officer involved shootings. Do you want a handgun with a 10 round magazine to fight against 3 home invaders when you're awoken in the middle of the night and "trained" law enforcement, who are on duty and presumably awake and expecting an attack have a 10% hit rate?

3) The "stopping power" of a handgun is abyssmal. You'll need either a direct central nervous system shot (in a very specific 1 square inch area) or multiple shots to the torso. Considering the 10% hit rate and multiple attackers, this does not bode well for a handgun. An "assault weapon" has significantly more stopping power and fewer shots are necessary to stop an attack.

4) Handgun bullets penetrate through drywall. Do you want to shoot a handgun in your home, and have 90% of your shots (due to a 10% hit rate) go through the wall and hit your children or neighbor? The FBI has known this for over a decade and has switched from MP5s (which shoot a 9mm handgun bullet) over to AR15 "assault weapons" to reduce overpenetration in buildings.

5) The other alternative to a handgun that isn't an "assault rifle" is a shotgun. However, you're looking at a 6 to 8 round gun that is very slow to reload and has significant recoil. Additionally, there's overpenetration problems with it, even using common self defense rounds, much like a handgun. You need a significant amount of training to equip a shotgun for home defense, and dare I say most people over the age of 60 or under the weight of 150 pounds will have a difficult time using one effectively. For the most part, law enforcement has transitioned away from shotguns and moved to "assault weapons" for duty use.

[BearBones]

...and maybe the fact we're even talking about how to prevent a man from walking into a school and shooting up babies if we've already fucking lost.  What's next, we see mass murders in the maternity wings of hospitals? 

Better school security seems like a no brainer at this point, even though that's always left a bad taste in my mouth (practically indoctrinating our children to a police state).  I dont have kids (though my 7 year old nephew is my best friend) but feel like I've been shot in the gut and that a piece of my goodwill towards humanity has just disappeared.  I almost have the urge to puke before i have the urge to cry...

Well put, Moda. I cannot imagine that everyone reading this does not share this sentiment. I suspect the cause is multifactorial. And I suspect that a police state at public schools is only going to magnify the problem. What kind of message is that to our kids? Personally, I am all for a bit more gun control, but I think that this is largely pissing in the breeze when the root problem is rampant mental illness. I am not talking about autism as much as generalized dysphoria, restlessness, despondency, and the feeling of being lost.

I bet the answer is in looking at us rather than accusing them. I, for one, am from a very sound family, I have a fantastic job, I am surrounded by amenities, and I struggle in this society to feel grounded, content, and at ease. Why? It is my opinion that we have constructed a society that is increasingly focused on self rather than others, on isolation rather than connection, on materialism, and on the future and past rather than the now. What do others think?

[TripleB]

I've never owned one myself (although I was once lent the use of an M-16 by the U.S. govt for a period of time). If I lived in an area more prone to violence I would probably see things differently but I have always calculated that the likelihood of something bad happening with those guns either by accident or by a known person's drunken/emotional rage was far greater than the risk of being attacked by an intruder.

Interesting point of view. I find that I can easily control what firearms do and thus I'm less scared of them than drunk/emotionally raging people.

My solution is that I simply got rid of any drunks, drug-abusers, emotional ragers from my life.

[TripleB]

Gun related homicides are far more common per capita in the US than other countries.

This is a product of failed government policy. Most of those gun-related homicides are due to gangs and drug dealers, which only flourish due to government policy. Look at how much violence increased during prohibition in the US and receded immediately after the appeal.

Look at how much violence increased increased over the last few decades during the war on drugs.

Most of these gun-related homicides are "business-transaction" related that only occur due to the government's policies that allow a thriving blackmarket for drugs.

[TripleB]

We can "want" anything but the government is not the entity to do it. As HB says, the government has never gotten anything right. What makes you think they can do this one thing right?

That government has "never gotten anything right" may be widely accepted on this libertarian-oriented forum, but I suspect that it is a rather extreme view in the spectrum of public opinion. It is my opinion that there is indeed a role for government, and government actually does some things remarkably well, considering what it is up against. The day that people are able to freely bring bombs and weapons on airplanes, into schools, and into shopping malls is the day I become an emigrant.

Just because government disbands the TSA and eliminates 90% of law enforcement positions doesn't mean that people will be free to bring bombs onto airplanes.

Each airline will be free to set up their own policies and security protocols. Perhaps you want to fly on a plane where everyone is frisked 100% of the time and no weapons are allowed on board. Some profit-seeking corporation will create that program.

Suppose someone else would prefer to conceal a handgun on the plane, after showing valid training credentials to the airliner. A different profit-seeking company will create that as well.

You will get to choose what level of security you want and what personal freedoms you want to sacrifice. The government's monopoly on it has a one-size-fit-all whereby even little kids are being molested by TSA. Is that really the best way?

Why not let private businesses offer a whole host of options and you can decide what's best for you and your family? Additionally, there will likely be a cost savings in the process because private enterprise can do things more cheaply than government. And if you felt that you'd rather pay a higher price than current market rates to have even greater security where all passengers are leg-shackled to ensure no one can hijack the plane, then if enough people wanted the same thing, there'd be a private airliner for that too.

Your thought process against libertarianism is the common fallacy of "if the government doesn't do it, then it's a free for all." That will never be the case. Personal regulation is the first level of regulation. If an airliner can't prove that their planes are safe, customers won't fly on them. If a drug company can't prove their drugs are safe, patients won't take them. We don't need the TSA and FDA to do it for us because they do it poorly.

More people have died from FDA policies than have been saved. One study shows 60,000 Americans died while waiting for Beta Blockers to be approved for use in the US, when they were already in use safely in Europe. Why not give those people an opportunity to decide for themselves if they want to take a risk on the drug, rather than dying needlessly?

Government doesn't work, can't work, will never work.

Please stay with us, we'll be back right after this break, sponsored by Glideright test heads

[BearBones]

Just because government disbands the TSA and eliminates 90% of law enforcement positions doesn't mean that people will be free to bring bombs onto airplanes.

If government "never got anything right" then there would be no need for 10% gov't law enforcement.

Government doesn't work, can't work, will never work.

You are certainly entitled to this view, but it is pretty extreme. I for one trust most private sector industries (who's #1 goal is profit) even less than government. Just take a look at our food industry, the big pharm industry that MachineGhost is always berating, and the private health insurance morass. Where would we be if it were not for law enforcement, public transportation (including our roads and highways), some degree of environmental protections (I remember well the air and water of the 1970's), and our national park systems? You might say better. I'd say more like Sudan.