Newtown, Beslan, Ma’alot: Defending the Targeted School
As we mourn the victims of the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, we might want to take a break from the seemingly endless and mindless discussion of the role of guns in this tragedy and consider a larger issue. One that has not made it to the pages and airwaves of the mainstream media and probably won’t until it is too late.
Beslan, a city in the Russian Federation, is five thousand miles from Newtown, Connecticut. But it is now connected to Newton by a similar tragedy: the invasion of a school and the wanton murder of children and adults.
On the first day of school in 2004, Islamist terrorists seized 1100 children and adults at the Beslan School Number One and herded them into a small gymnasium. The terrorists rigged the gym with mines and bombs. Two conspicuously large bombs were placed in the gym’s basketball hoops.
Children were made to stand in front of the gym’s windows as human shields. Periodically, the terrorists would fire their guns to further terrify the hostages.
Hours passed, the temperature climbed, and hostages began to faint. On the second day of the hostage-taking episode, children began dying of dehydration. Children and adults began stripping to stay cool and some people drank their own urine.
The gruesome scene was videotaped and a compliant and insensitive world media began broadcasting the footage. On the third day of the siege, Russian spetsnaz units stormed the school. Half-naked and bloodied hostages ran from the building.
The terrorists retreated to the school’s basement, where they were wiped out by the Russian troops in a horrendous gunfight. The gymnasium burned to the ground and the charred bodies of adults and children had to await DNA tests for identification. One terrorist had not retreated to the basement, and was later found by the Russian troops hiding under a truck. He told his captors that he would tell them whatever they wanted to know if they would not turn him over to the children’s parents.
The siege at the Beslan School left 311 people dead, of which 186 were children; some 700 people were injured. Neither time nor distance is a great healer in heart-wrenching events such as these. The survivors of Beslan, like survivors of all such episodes, continue to bear their psychological scars.
For years, I interviewed survivors of hostage and barricade situations. Precious few ever truly escape the lingering impact of the experience.
Honestly … for the country that championed game theory (if not actually inventing it), americans sure are bad at understanding it.
Sure – stick armed guards at the doors of schools. Angry kids playing “suicide by mass murder of children” will just find another target – I _was_ going to list a bunch of options here but I decided against it for obvious reasons. Angry kids might be angry, but they’re not idiots. There will always be an opportunity, somewhere.
You cannot defend everyone all of the time. There aren’t enough trained people, or at least trained people stupid enough to take on that risk – because it won’t be the left who strings them up and cherry-picks the testimonies the first time they make a bad call.
American schools have been putting up with armed students now for, well, about a century (really – look it up). It’s been a very conspicuous problem for decades (again, look it up). The problem isn’t teachers who aren’t armed navy seals – the problem is that the US has an unusual problem with guns. Get rid of rapid-fire guns, and teachers won’t have to be willing to take a bullet for their students (and, naturally, get sacked by republican governors for asking for an allowance to pay for the ammunition, or for asking for compensation after being shot)
Enough with the mathematically-challenged philosophy. Just look around the world at what works. Copy it. If you want to keep the second amendment, then just implement it properly – as they have in places like israel and switzerland, where guns are everywhere and gun violence is insignificant. If a “well regulated militia” is so important … why is it such a big deal to ask gun-owners to join one? Are you lot patriots, or just people who like having boom-sticks in the cupboard?
There is no country in the world where guns are awash in the community, and in the hands of untrained, undisciplined, self-selected civilians … and where gun violence is not endemic.
I’m worried that the subtlety might be too subtle … actually the wording was just bad.
“because it won’t be the left who strings them up and cherry-picks the testimonies the first time they make a bad call”
Before answering that … apply it to _teachers_. No, really.
“Enough with the mathematically-challenged philosophy.”
Yes, that’s enough from you. The gun homicide has been dropping steadily as more and more people acquire guns.
“The problem isn’t teachers who aren’t armed navy seals – the problem is that the US has an unusual problem with guns.”
Incorrect, as a h miller points out. Semi-auto technology is a century old. Guns used to be (until Lee Harvey Oswald) available by mail. But your solution is…what exactly? You didn’t mention one.
“Yes, that’s enough from you. The gun homicide has been dropping steadily as more and more people acquire guns”
Wrong. “More people” are not acquiring guns. The actual percentage of americans who own guns is dropping. Those people are simply buying more of them, is all.
“Incorrect, as a h miller points out. Semi-auto technology is a century old”
And as I said – mass shootings are nothing new. Your point?
“But your solution is…what exactly? You didn’t mention one.”
Get rapid-fire weapons out of easy circulation – require owners to justify a reason for owning a firearm.
Get rapid-fire weapons out of easy circulation – require owners to justify a reason for owning a firearm.
Make up your mind, please. Is your problem with “rapid-fire weapons” or with all firearms?
“rapid-fire weapons”, usually (if ambiguously) known as automatic weapons, have been tightly controlled in the United States since 1934.
If your problem is with ANY firearms, well, let’s ignore for a moment that the right to own them here is enshrined in our Constitution, right alongside freedom of speech. Let’s further ignore the tens of thousands of lives saved every year BY civilians with firearms, often without a shot being fired. Forget all that. Simply this — how do you propose to get weapons “out of easy circulation”?
There are well over a hundred million guns in the United States. (More than a million were sold in this past year by ONE gun manufacturer alone.) Assuming you define that as “easy circulation”, what do you propose to do about it?
Please keep in mind that a great many Americans see their guns, quite properly, as their means of defending themselves and their families, and will not voluntarily give them up. Please also keep in mind that, no matter what you do, criminals will always be able to get their hands on guns… because laws, by definition, do not restrict lawbreakers.
Finally, if you think you have a way to get guns away from Americans… have a look at this. If you don’t care to follow the link, it shows, step by step, how a man built his own AK-47… out of a shovel.
As I said, that’s enough wit the mathematically-challenged philosophy. More Americans own weapons than they did before. Your data are faulty. First, you equate a percentage with a number, when the two are not the same. And please quote your source for the bad data that a smaller percentage own weapons. I can disprove the fact that there is a smaller NUMBER with the fact that I own one now, and did not last year. A small increase, but it only takes one to disprove your theory.
If mass shootings are nothing new, then why are new measures required, when the gun homicide rate is already dropping? What’s your point, other than you are making an emotional decision rather than a rational one?
“Get rapid-fire weapons out of easy circulation” Please define “rapid fire” and “easy circulation” – or are these undefinable, like “rich” and “fair share”?
“require owners to justify a reason for owning a firearm.”
I don’t need justify a reason. That pesky little second amendment…of course, the rule of law is not an impediment to this administration, is it?
Yours is simply another pathetic example of liberal “thinking”, which doesn’t actually involve any. Try to grow up, if you can.
“First, you equate a percentage with a number, when the two are not the same”
Ok, fair enough. Most relevant figures are expressed in terms of per-capita – be it crime rate, gun ownership or whatever. Otherwise you end up confusing real underlying problems with a growing population. I actually suspect, given the graphs that I’ve seen, that actually raw numbers do support what I posted. I’ll let you work that out for yourself.
“And please quote your source for the bad data that a smaller percentage own weapons”
Sure. I can’t post links (my posts just end up in moderation, and never get published), but if you google “NORC GSS gun ownership” and click the first link, you’ll see a nice graph produced by the Uni of Chicago National Opinion Research Center on gun ownership going back to 1973. That one surveys household and individual gun ownership, and both show a steady downward trend. Whether it’s enough to offset population growth, I’ll let you decide.
If you googe “gallup poll gun ownership” and click the first link, you’ll see a similar graph for household gun ownership, but with a much more gradual decline (and it bounces around more, which is odd).
“I can disprove the fact that there is a smaller NUMBER with the fact that I own one now, and did not last year. A small increase, but it only takes one to disprove your theory”
Er … unless two other people got rid of their guns, that is.
“If mass shootings are nothing new, then why are new measures required, when the gun homicide rate is already dropping?”
Because the total number of gun homicides and assaults in the US is still around 4 times the OECD average. The crime rate might be dropping in the US, but it’s also dropping elsewhere, so you’ll always be behind the average. And yes, as you’ve noted, mass shootings are nothing new. But they do seem to be getting far more effective, and apparently more frequent.
“What’s your point, other than you are making an emotional decision rather than a rational one?”
What – as opposed to “I’m keeping my guns no matter what”?
“Please define “rapid fire””
The ability to fire a large number of bullets a lot more quickly that somebody who has to reload and aim. The ability to just keep pulling the trigger makes mass shootings that much easier for the unskilled. It means they can do a lot of damage very quickly, and respond rapidly when challenged.
“and “easy circulation” – or are these undefinable”
Look at the most popular semi-automatics in the US today. How long have they even existed?
“I don’t need justify a reason. That pesky little second amendment…of course, the rule of law is not an impediment to this administration, is it?”
Well, no. You don’t. And neither does anyone else, including people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place – the same people that you now believe you need a gun to protect yourself with. See the problem?
“Yours is simply another pathetic example of liberal “thinking”, which doesn’t actually involve any. Try to grow up, if you can.”
*sigh*
If I were one of you guys, I’d now puff up my chest and type some scary-sounding words about “how dare you” and “you’re lucky I’m not there” and all that rubbish. I’m just going to note that you don’t have a clue.
Abders Breivek killed 77 in a country not awash with guns. Your position is nothing but far left garbage.
As for.
“There is no country in the world where guns are awash in the community, and in the hands of untrained, undisciplined, self-selected civilians … and where gun violence is not endemic.”
The fact that most mass shooters are white notwithstanding, the fact is there is no country with significant populations of blacks that is not awash in violence of every sort. In this country that 12% commits about 50% of the crime, including murder, every year. Remove that, and the homicide rate drops to European levels, remove what latinos commit and it drops below the level of even the most restrictive anti-gun countries in Europe.
Whites who own the vast majority of firarms in this country are not the problem. Violent people/races are the problem for making a hellhole to live in.
I would say “violent tribal cultures” instead of race, but otherwise, I agree entirely.
Harry, that debate needs it’s own space. It would be a distraction to take it up here.
The point being that breaking down the data via distinct and large population groups in the US alone destroys Techno’s argument of causation. That easy access to guns begets gun violence.
Whites(non latino(mex/central american)) own guns at nearly twice the rate for minorities… including blacks. Yet when you adjust the homicide data for race, you find that American Whites(euro decent) have even less homicides than even the most anti-gunphobic euro country.
Obviously guns are not the causation.
The country with the most armed citizens is Switzerland, check out the crime rate.
So much for gun control.
What we need is more armed and trained citizens. Maybe we really need to have 100% citizen participation in the military. Maybe upon graduation from high school, or 18 years old, it is automatic two years of military service where you learn U.S. History and weapons training.
Take some of these up and coming liberals and teach them some hard lessons about personal excellence and survival. Maybe we would have a better citizenry.
“The country with the most armed citizens is Switzerland, check out the crime rate.
So much for gun control”
Do you guys actually bother to check that little talking point before reciting it? Switzerland has a “well-regulated militia”. Every male has to do national service, and remains in the militia. They are required to keep an army-issued firearm. That’s why switzerland has a lot of guns.
“What we need is more armed and trained citizens. Maybe we really need to have 100% citizen participation in the military”
Yes. I completely agree. If you’re going to keep the second half of the second amendment, then apply the first half as well.
Just love it when someone is not nearly as smart as they think themselves to be.
In this case, you like to toss out the phrase “well regulated militia”.
Before you keep using that phrase, you really ought to check out the Supreme Court case of Heller and educate yourself as to exactly what that phrase means.
“Before you keep using that phrase, you really ought to check out the Supreme Court case of Heller and educate yourself as to exactly what that phrase means.”
You need to read the debates among the guys who wrote the constitution. Well regulated meant just that – well regulated. Trained, disciplined, armed.
That is correct Techno. And irrelevant to the second part of the Second Amendment. “The Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall NOT Be Infringed”. Stands by itself.
A right of each and every Individual American.
@ Techno,
In your initial response, the manner you used “well regulated” as positioned within your overall comment left me with the impression you were advocating the modern use of the word – namely federal regulation of the possession and use of privately owned firearms.
Clearly, as even you now admit, that was not the intended usage of that phrase. They simply noted that an efficient militia was only one good reason for the people’s right to keep and bear arms, and it was important enough to warrant inclusion in the Bill of Rights.
But let’s give you the benefit of the doubt. Say you mean exactly what you say in that Americans should be in a militia.
For starters, you are showing a bit of ignorance due to the fact that, under federal law, most male citizens are already part of the unorganized militia (I seem to recall there are at least three classes of militia).
Now, let’s take a cold hard look at what the militia was at the writing of the Bill of Rights.
At that time, the militia was a local self defense force, armed equally to the regular military in terms of arms and equipment. Their officers were generally selected from amongst themselves and they drilled in their local communities. While there were plenty of instances where they traveled to other regions, as a rule they expected to stay local in any military related activities.
To put this into modern terms, you are suggesting all military age men be armed with weapons equal to that used by the military, so we’re talking select fire M16′s, grenade lanuchers, submachine guns, short barreled shotguns – all of which runs counter to the 1934 Gun Control law. It also means these arms are to be kept in the person’s home and in their personal possession, ready to be presented at a moment’s notice and to practice with in the expectation that if a local emergency arises that the militiaman shows up ready with his firearms and ammunition.
It did NOT mean the militiaman was a member of the standing army, though the militia could be called up for national service, and in fact the militia was considered a counterbalance to any standing army of the federal government.
To be an effective counterbalance, that means of course they’d have to be appropriately armed – which goes back to my reference to M16′s earlier.
While I’m personally good with this plan as it fulfills the expectations of the Founding Fathers, is this really what you’re driving at???
Another entry in the Left’s War on Science.
Statistics show that gun control, in an American context, kills. Right to carry does saves lives. And once-upon-a-time, armed students posed no threat. Maybe we should look at what changed? I think it is – people like you appeared. Look it up.
I doubt you know much about Israel. You cannot get a gun license here unless you have a need for one. We are safe because we have a lot of soldiers and soldierettes around, but that is because our army is very different than the American one, as we live on a potential battlefied, Heaven forbid.
“Get rid of rapid-fire guns.”
Completely, totally unrealistic (leaving aside the questionable pros/cons of such a move). There are too many already. New ones are produced outside the US and will ALWAYS be able to be acquired by those who want them for nefarious purposes, so even preventing US manufacturers from making them won’t keep them out of the hands of criminals.
Once we realize the sheer impossibility of “banning assault rifles” in order to produce a situation in which no criminals or terrorists have them, we realize the ONLY way of preventing situations like these is to have a general population in which armed citizens are not uncommon, and a criminal or terrorist knows that inside any bank, mall, store, school, subway, or movie theater there is likely to be at least a handful of people who, in defense of their own lives, have the training, will, and MEANS to end their terrorist escapade before it gets started.
That is, and will ever be, the ONLY way to prevent events like this or stop them before they become this bad.
All school teachers and employees of the school district should have small arms training and be carrying at all times. They are the ones who are closest to the children and therefore are the best and closest defense.
This is not brain surgery.
If you want to be a teacher then you must take small arms training and qualify on the range. If you do not care enough to do this, then you certainly can find a job somewhere else.
“Gun Free School Zones” are the problem. If everyone in the school is legally disarmed, it turns everyone in the school into “targets” for any crackpot or terrorist. Consider that 9-11 was carried out by 19 men, all Muslim terrorists willing to die in the act of destruction as long as they could kill Americans. What is now stopping the “successor” of Osama bin Laden from copying any of the school shooters, but with teamwork so that they can kill everyone in the school? Locked school doors can be broken with sledge hammers, or some other means can be used such as breaking out a window as apparently happened at Sandy Hook. The real answer is perhaps training teachers who volunteer to carry concealed weapons along with some of the school administration people. Perhaps we should consider hiring retired military veterans for some of these positions as they are more likely to be effective when it comes to using lethal force to protect the children. Something in any case worth considering…
Or we could consider adopting the air marshal strategy where some number of unidentified but well trained protectors work for each school system. You wouldn’t necessarily need one per school just as there is not a marshal on every flight.
The other obvious strategy is to apply technology. For what it costs to pay 5% of the education system bureaucracy (just a guess), you could instrument and monitor every door to every school from a central location in each school system or town. Simply do no allow any metal object big enough to be dangerous to pass into the perimeter unless it has an official tag that identifies it as safe. Make sure there are two ways out of each room. Put auto locks on doors. Really, these things are not beyond our reach considering all the money we spend on education. The problem would be the unions who would be threatened by the competition for funds.
Central control creates a central failure point.
Random adults (not necessarily all adults) being armed creates a much greater planning problem.
There is no country in the world where guns are awash in the community, and in the hands of untrained, undisciplined, self-selected civilians … and where gun violence is not endemic.
LIke Mexico, South Africa and Brazil where guns are kept from self-selected civilians with an inclination to obey the law and leave others alone but wind up in the hands of self-selected people — not always civilians — with an inclination to get what they want regardless of the law or common morality.
OTOH, places like Switzerland and Israel which arm a large percentage of people inclined to obey the law are exempt from thugocracy albeit in Israel’s case there is the obvious danger of organized attacks orchestrated by hostile nation states.
Now, you could point out that the gun-holding citizens of these states have training but you are not advocating universal firearm training for Americans. You are arguing restrictions and bans, and this is a remarkably foolish thing to do.
Rio de Janerio School Shooting
13 dead including the perp. The guy used revolvers.
In Brazil, all firearms are required to be registered with the state; the minimum age for ownership is 25[1] and although it is legal to carry a gun outside a residence, extremely severe restrictions were made by the federal government since 2002 making it virtually impossible to obtain a carry permit.[2] To legally own a gun, the owner must pay a tax every three years to register the gun, currently at BRL R$85[3]
Actually, there is only one way to stop public school violence. I’m surprised that all the geniuses and pundits haven’t figured it out yet.
OK, brainiac, what about alcohol? HuffPo reports today that “Alcohol causes nearly 4 percent of deaths worldwide, more than AIDS, tuberculosis or violence, the World Health Organization warned on Friday.” Do you propose banning “fast-drunk drinks”?
You need to start reading some history books. There’s nothing new under the sun – your arguments have been tried before, and they just don’t work. History demonstrates that gradiose bans are too simplistic, fail to account for human nature and frequently create bigger problems. Read about something called “Prohibition”. You’ll read that it accomplished nothing. Marijuana’s been illegal forever and it’s EVERYWHERE. How many people that have died/disabled from tainted marijuana or murderous drug trafficers would be around today if marijuana was legal? Over 32,000 people died in traffic accidents last year. For the “mathematically challenged” that’s 1600 TIMES
the number of people killed in the Connecticut rampage.
The bottom line is that our culture is rotten to the core. The frequency of these acts was statistically insignificant as recently as 50 years ago when we were still a traditional, church going, god fearing nation. Now, we are tribalized a/k/a “diverse”, depraved and godless.
Funny you should bring up “Game theory”.
So lets play.
I say arm normal people in the environment…. you say that the killers will move elsewhere. I say good, children at school safe. Game theory at work.
Game theory folks, in essence, is that everyone(as a whole) will seek the level of least resistance in order to get what they want. In short … water flows downhill.
Techno, “Just look around the world at what works. Copy it.” Nothing you will find around the world that works would comport with the 2nd amendment. Another law will not work! Gunman and criminals do not follow the laws. Self evident really.
A semi automatic is basically anything the fires a bullett each time you squeeze the trigger. Most Pistols and a heck of a lot of others. Don’t do anything, and the press and politicians will forget by Jan 22nd.
They banned fully-automatic weapons. There’s no technical impediment to banning semi-automatic weapons as well. In the first case, the full process took decades – there’s no reason to assume that solving the current problem is going to happen overnight.
And the second amendment clearly refers to a well-regulated militia, just like they have in israel and switzerland.
The problem isn’t legal, or technical. It’s political. You guys are just so darn attached to your bang-bang sticks that you’re happier to see children die than you are to give up the guns.
They banned the manufacture for private sale – they didn’t ban private ownership of machine guns.
Big difference between that and outright banning machine guns entirely, even if I do disagree that the they had the authority to ban post-1986 machine guns for private sale.
The relevant 1934 law actually was a tax – not a gun ban.
in the terminology extant in the day (late 18th Century), “well regulated” meant simply “something that works”, as in does what its supposed to do. Think of a clock. Now, back to your history: remember those men who formed up on the Commons at Lexington through the night of 18 April 1775? They were the men of Lexington, plus one visiting from Acton, ten miles north, who brought THEIR OWN weapons to the agreed upon meeting place.. most had “drilled” (marching in formation) and worked at their marksmanship skills together as a group of friends. They were there for the prupose of defending their homes, families, businesses, way of life, against the ever increasing British tyranny making their lives miserable. They were folks like you nd I. Common citizens. No pay, no special government concessions, no perks… they bought and paid for their own weapons, clothing, bots, powder and whot, brought their own food, blankets, horses if they had them. Later, on the 19th, after the alarm was spread by Paul Revere and Billy Dawes. over fourteen thousand such men were armed and in the field to withstand the attack of the British. THAT was the well regulated militia.. normal citizens each taking upon their own shoulders the responsibility of protecting their own, and each others’, lives, property, liberty. Nothing has changed. The militia were not the standing army, as there was none. It never was. The Second Ammendment declares the right to arms is for the common man, is given by God, our Creator, and shall not be infringed.. narrowed, limited, controlled, restricted. Not by anyone, or anything. The SCOTUS in Heller and Mc Donald, and recently the 2nd Circuit Court, have all declared that right accruing to the individual.
You want to see a well regulated militia? Remove all the stupid and unconstitutional regulations, restrictions, Mother May I permits, and let the common citizen again provide for his own defense and that of his neighbours. School and mall shootemups will disappear. The FBI reports that the single thing MOST FEARED by criminals is the potential armed citizen. Far more than they fear the cops. Put that fear to work. Never knowing where the next armed citizen wil turn up will cause these perps looking for a high body count and instant fame to try another line of work.
“in the terminology extant in the day (late 18th Century), “well regulated” meant simply “something that works”, as in does what its supposed to do”
Read the federalist papers, then come back and explain to us how you were wrong.
“Now, back to your history: remember those men who formed up on the Commons at Lexington through the night of 18 April 1775?”
You mean, before the US had an army, or a constitution? That was the only form of defence the continent had – and it was pretty woeful (see what washington and adams had to say about the militias). Now the US has the most powerful military in the world – a “citizen militia” would just get in the way.
To make an analogy: Back in 1775, the US was largely lit by kerosene. So what?
“It never was. The Second Ammendment declares the right to arms is for the common man, is given by God, our Creator, and shall not be infringed”
Er … the second amendment says that? Can you quote for me the section in which the words “god” or “creator” appear? Anywhere at all in the constitution, for that matter?
“You want to see a well regulated militia? Remove all the stupid and unconstitutional regulations, restrictions, Mother May I permits, and let the common citizen again provide for his own defense and that of his neighbours”
And see every criminal in america wandering around with a semi-automatic rifle, and every mugger working to a “shoot first, frisk later” policy. See every kid in school packing a loaded pistol. I like your idea – it would be very interesting to watch, from a great distance.
“School and mall shootemups will disappear”
No, really, honestly, they wouldn’t. The bad guys would just change their tactics. They’d need to plan a bit better, but they’d still be able to kill an awful lot of people before anyone competent was able to fulfill the mythical “private citizen take-down” we keep hearing about.
“The FBI reports that the single thing MOST FEARED by criminals is the potential armed citizen”
Link, please? I think you’re making that up.
“Far more than they fear the cops. Put that fear to work. Never knowing where the next armed citizen wil turn up will cause these perps looking for a high body count and instant fame to try another line of work”
Unlikely. You seem to forget that dying has not been the thing that most bothered these people, and body armor is (apparently) not too hard to come by. Stop assuming the bad guys are stupid, please.
Speaking of games:
(I’m not into role playing games, so this is going to be off)
Granny can take 10 points damage before dying, and can inflict 5 points damage per turn
Mugger can take 50 points damage before dying, and can inflict 50 points damage per turn
In a conflict between Granny and Mugger, Granny is dead meat 100% of the time.
Add a handgun (100 points damage per turn)
If both are armed, the odds of survival become 50/50 for each
Do you think Mugger (with or without handgun) is going to mess with Granny plus handgun?
And your point is? “There is no country in the world where guns are awash in the community, and in the hands of untrained, undisciplined, self-selected civilians…and where gun violence is not endemic.” Really? One out of two Swiss citizens owns a gun. The number in Israel is approximately equal. Where is the gun violence? Germany has strict gun control and high per capita gun violence. Did you look at Norway? Finland? On average, per capita MASS gun violence is no higher in America than in Europe. In no case of American mass gun violence was a rapid-fire gun used. Semi-automatics were used, and they are the most common gun on the market. Sure, if you harden schools, killers go elsewhere, but shouldn’t we save our children first? Gun laws are as effective as drug laws. Australia outlawed guns totally and saw a dramatic rise in crime. Adam Lanza could have committed the same amount of carnage had he brought in three .22 revolvers. Harden the target. Save the children. I have no problem with outlawing .223 caliber guns or banana clips. Rapid-fire weapons, for all practical purposes are already outlawed. You can’t find an automatic weapon.
Ouch ouch ouch. I think that just about everything you just wrote is factually wrong, or a blatant misunderstanding of facts. Let’s run through them:
“Really? One out of two Swiss citizens owns a gun. The number in Israel is approximately equal. Where is the gun violence?”
Read what I wrote. Do you actually _know_ anything about gun ownership in israel and switzerland? Do you know why they have those guns? They’re required to do national service, where they’re trained, regulated and disciplined. I have no problem with the military (or a well regulated militia) being armed.
“Germany has strict gun control and high per capita gun violence”
No, it does not have high per-capita gun violence. It’s way, way safer than the US.
“On average, per capita MASS gun violence is no higher in America than in Europe.”
That’s just a random term that you’ve invented. Define “MASS gun violence” and then let’s talk. I suspect you’re wrong no matter how you define it, but either way – the US gun violence figures are a multiple of any other developed western country.
“In no case of American mass gun violence was a rapid-fire gun used. Semi-automatics were used, and they are the most common gun on the market”
I know. That’s the problem. By rapid fire I mean the ability to fire rapidly – faster than anyone has any chance to respond by means other than another gun. If a shooter had to reload, then shootings like last week’s would be over pretty quickly. Semi-automatic rifles and handguns are by far the biggest problem the US has.
If you harden schools, killers go elsewhere, but shouldn’t we save our children first?”
Not if it’s an excuse for not doing anything else. The next shooting will just be somewhere else, which might or might not include children. Your choice is to do nothing about that – just deal with the last incident and let the future take care of itself.
“Australia outlawed guns totally and saw a dramatic rise in crime.”
Utterly wrong and utterly wrong. Australia has not outlawed guns totally (where do you GET this rubbish?!?). Australia outlawed semi-automatic weapons (and bought back any guns handed in during the amnesty), and introduced stricter rules on what you need to do in order to own a firearm. To own a pistol, you have to provide a reason. Usually you need to show evidence – so if you claim to be a sporting shooter, you need to show evidence of attending sports shooting events. And you really do have to secure your weapons. But any sane, law-abiding citizen who wants to own a gun can go out and get one.
And Australia’s crime rate has been steadily falling ever since. In particular, australia’s homicide rate has been falling steadily since 1995 when the gun buyback took place. That happened right after the port arthur shooting, and there hasn’t been anything of the sort since.
“Adam Lanza could have committed the same amount of carnage had he brought in three .22 revolvers”
He’d have taken longer to do it. It would have been harder to do. People would have had time to respond.
>>>Read what I wrote. Do you actually _know_ anything about gun ownership in israel and switzerland? Do you know why they have those guns? They’re required to do national service, where they’re trained, regulated and disciplined. I have no problem with the military (or a well regulated militia) being armed.<<<
I read what you wrote, too, and it is wrong. Yes, everyone goes for military training ,is issued their own weapon (these days a full automatic military rifle firing the VERY powerful 7.62 NATO round, several times more powerful than the piddly 5.56/.223 so popular here (main advantage is it is cheap, and nearly universally available. It is neither poewrful nor a long range rund, havng been developed for close quarters and short range combat). They are REQUIRED to keep that rifle in their own home, along with a prescribed minimum quantity of regulation ammunition for it, and practice (train, "well regulate" themselves, if you will) until at least sixty years of age, and be ready to be called up for national service if the need arises. This is NOT "military being armed", as these people are no longer IN the military. They are the militia.. citizens, with their own weapons, ready to defend their homeland and each other as needed.
Er … that’s what I said. They’re a militia – a well regulated one.
I’m sorry, but did you actually read my post?
I do not want my grandkids going to school in an armed fortress, or a school with too many checkpoints and other nonsense. I am also not the type that says, “if it saves even one child it is worth it”. No it ain’t!!
Why is the answer always to take away the liberty of the innocent citizen? These socialist weemies truly have brainwashed society-is there a MAN left in the country?
Terrorists/killers do what they do best, regardless of any label placed on them, mentally ill or the like.
And it is always the case that those who want to create carnage will find their way to the necessary weapons.
But the left would do well to stop bleating the drums re gun control, for they do not have a legal nor moral leg to stand on.
And it is also the case that Israelis (Jews in particular) understand viscerally what these slaughters entail, and also what needs to be done to mitigate them, as best as possible.
So take this commentary to heart, and use it as another nail to the left’s game plan – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/12/18/pa-prez-abbas-commiserates-with-islamist-in-chief-obama-over-slaughter-of-innocents-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
And it is not for nothing ‘What The MSM Is (Predictably) Blacking Out In Their Coverage of Recent Shootings’ too.
Since everyone (not you) is mistating the situation in Israel, here is one difference between the US and Israel.
In Israel everywhere you go, a guard asks you if you have weapons. And if you say yes, he asks for your permit. And if you have one, HE LETS YOU IN WITH THE WEAPON. And in the few high-security areas where you have to check your weapon, you can bet there are armed guards.
And of course all of the soldiers and soldierttes (trying to translate chayelet) out there with their issued weapons.
But we are getting more like the US; it is getting harder to get a permit.
You don’t need a permit to have a gun here. You need one to conceled carry and the requirements are different by state or local law. It is much harder to have a personal gun in Israel in my understanding. I talked to people there about it and I understand you need to have a physical and psychological form signed by a doctor and be tested for proficiency. You also have to explain why you need one and are only issued a permit for a specific type of gun.
Where I live you can walk into any gun shop with ID and sign a form. They run a quick computer check over the phone to see if you have any arrests and you just walk out with your gun. At a gun show you do not even need to do that. I have done it on my lunch hour. Guns do not have to be registered with the police.
The conceled carry law where I live is easy. Just take a one day class and you can get a permit at the police station. You only have to do that if you want to carry it around. Half the people who took the class I went to were already carrying one but just wanted to make it legal.
Thanks for clarifying the Israeli situation, mzk1. I know that licensing requirements were very hard indeed in the 1980s and 1990s, but my data’s old in that regard.
In general, translating what works for one country into what works for another country is suspect. Israel has universal conscription, and it works. Such a system would be fought tooth and nail in the United States today, even though we used to have it. Likewise, saying that Israeli “gun control” is stricter than that of almost any U.S. state, while true, is almost meaningless… because the situations (and motivations) are very different.
So to know what might work in the United States, we should compare to what HAS worked in the United States. And indeed, a majority of states now issue gun licenses to anyone who asks for one and is not prohibited from having one (“shall issue”). Forty-nine of the fifty states have some for of concealed-carry permit available, and the fiftieth looks ripe for change. Every time a state made it easier for law-abiding citizens to carry guns, rivers of blood were predicted… and have never happened. On the contrary, massacres have happened, as the author says above, where large populations are disarmed.
This might not work everywhere. But in the United States, citizens are safer when criminals know that concealed carriers walk among us.
(By the way, I’d recommend that you translate “chayelet” as “soldier”. In Hebrew you distinguish masculine from feminine because you have to, but it’s frowned upon in American job descriptions unless absolutely necessary.)
kol tuv,
DiB
I am proud to admit that I am a military brat. My father was career military and when he moved, if possible, my mother, my brother, my sister and I packed up and went with him. I’ve lived in six different states, traveled through twenty or so other states, I was born outside the United States and spent my first three years of school in Germany. My point is that I am NOT a novice traveler.
I remember going to Turkey in 1988. I remember arriving at Ataturk International Airport, going through customs and stepping out the front door of the airport. I turned to my left and there was a young Turkish soldier, with a loaded rifle across his chest, standing guard. It stunned me. A soldier with a loaded rifle standing guard outside of an airport.
I understand Mr. Miller’s comments. We could, if we wished, have a much more secure country. We could put trained, armed soldiers on our city streets, outside of our airports, malls and yes, even outside of our schools. We could put in shatterproof windows, alarms that would, not only keep out the bad guys, but also make sure that those two enamored teenagers can’t escape the school grounds to go out for lunch, much less anything else. We could fortify our schools and shopping centers, train our TSA agents better, give them all a gun and set them to work.
Who knows, with the changes we’d have to make to secure our safety, we might inadvertently solve our porous border issues.
Israel is a relatively small country, Mr. Miller, and they sit in some very dangerous territory. The United States has always had a bit more of a “cowboy” attitude towards things. We have an ocean on either side of us to keep us safe and a close, trusted ally to the north and south.
American attitudes are changing. For the better? I couldn’t tell you. I don’t think so. We’ve recently re-elected an ego-maniacal Socialist who has put into place a healthcare plan that will drive this country into bankruptcy – as if we weren’t already headed there anyway. A lot of changes are sweeping the nation. Speaking for myself, I don’t want my country to go that route. I don’t want armed troops on the streets, in the airports and in our schools. I think we can protect ourselves, and our posterity in other ways. I don’t think those other ways would be popular, here in the U.S. or overseas but I think more offensive, more dangerous, more destructive tactics might be required to keep not only the U.S. safe, but also the rest of the world.
This has always been by biggest fear in a post 9/11/01 America, that a school would be targeted by Islamic terrorists, just as in Beslan.
Nothing would strike more fear into the hearts of millions of Americans than the sight of literally hundreds of young kids being murdered at the hands of radical Islamic jihadists. And I think the only thing that stops this from actually happening is NOT our military, it’s NOT our law enforcement agencies, and it certainly is NOT security procedures in the schools.
No, I really believe that if radical Islamists killed hudreds of kids as in Beslan, Americans would be so angered and so enraged that you wouldn’t have to worry about putting any more people in Guantanamo Bay. Nope, Americans would descend into “frontier justice” and start hanging people from the nearest tree. There would be no Islamic prisoners anymore, just bodies. No quarter would ever be given again and this would be a fight to the death. In some ways, the results of a school attack like that would be worse than the attack on the World Trade Center. Americans wouldn’t tolerate it and revenge would be too kind of word of what they would be demanding. Americans would be on their own, personal, jihad and wouldn’t stop until a huge amount of retribution was extracted from those responsible. I think that is the only thing stopping a Beslan from happening in this country and maybe it’s that fear of retribution that is really stopping Islamic terrorists from even contemplating doing such a thing here.
I don’t think that’s why they haven’t done it.
It’s because they know that things like what just happened in Newtown and the Jared Loughner slaying and so on, are a tough act to follow.
Americans have seen so many of these spree shootings already that if there were one carried out by al-Qaeda, it wouldn’t be as disruptive as the 9-11 destruction of the Twin Towers was.
al-Qaeda doesn’t bother with gun attacks in America because they know that America is already accustomed to gun attacks.
“al-Qaeda doesn’t bother with gun attacks in America because they know that America is already accustomed to gun attacks.” – sinz54
That is an ignorant statement. Al Quaida doesn’t bother with gun attacks and hostage situations in the U.S.A. because Islam in the form of the MB is already waging political Jihad in the U.S.A. Up close and personal attacks would out their colleagues doing the political lawfare work; thereby compromising their mission – assuming the MSM had even one investigative reporter in their midst. They don’t need those kind of attacks at present; we’re willingly bending over for them politically; even to the point of adopting Sharia jurisprudence and handing over the 1st. Amendment to them. Why do you think Major Hassa
“al-Qaeda doesn’t bother with gun attacks in America because they know that America is already accustomed to gun attacks.” – sinz54
That is an ignorant statement. Al Quaida doesn’t bother with gun attacks and hostage situations in the U.S.A. because Islam in the form of the MB is already waging political Jihad in the U.S.A. Up close and personal attacks would out their colleagues doing the political lawfare work; thereby compromising their mission – assuming the MSM had even one investigative reporter in their midst. They don’t need those kind of attacks at present; we’re willingly bending over for them politically; even to the point of adopting Sharia jurisprudence and handing over the 1st. Amendment to them. Why do you think Major Hassan is still being housed and paid? He did exactly as you said; a “gun attack” on a very soft military target … expressly made that way by the policies of this current administration; ya know; the same one that forced NASA to do “Muslim outreach”. We already have an enemy within; the Muslim Brotherhood.
A quibble: The enemy within is the Obama Administration and the Soros-led cabal that installed it. The MB is just a client.
Libertyship46. I cannot tell you how many seminars I attended in the corridors of the intelligence community where these comments were made prior to 09/11. Regrettably, your vision of America is one that no longer exists. As Lt. Col. Dave Grossman might put it, there are too many sheep and not enough sheep dogs. You seem to have the instincts of a sheep dog, but ask yourself this: Are your reactions typical? Just think how infiltrated we are by Jihadi sympathizers at our highest level of government. After 09/11, Grover Norquist, who is married to a Muslim, asked his fellow conservatives, some who were actually mourning loved ones, to be more sympathetic to the concerns of the Muslim community. On one anniversary of 09/11, the Cincinnati Enquirer did a major feature not on the surviving families of the police and firemen who perished on that day, but on the psychological suffering of the local Muslim community. You think there is no affront we will not accept? I wish you were right, but I fear you are not.
Grover Norquest has been accused upfront by Frank Gaffney of colluding with MUZI terrorists, KNOWN MUZI terrorists. Grover Norquest is a traitor.
I think you are right. There really is no coordinated terrorism here in the US – for precisely the reasons you mention. At worse we will see random attempts here and there by splinter groups who are not necessarily plugged into any Islamic strategic thinking. If they really wanted to engage us, kill us, etc right now, there is no shortage of targets . . think of a truckload of explosives detonated at the midpoint of the Lincoln tunnel at rush hour. There is absolutely no way to stop something like that and the fact that it hasn’t happened says a lot.
We must look at this as a much different kind of war and separate the political and cultural infiltration from military/terrorist actions. Unfortunately, the ideology and world view of the current regime guarantees that neither aspect will be dealt with very effectively.
Regardless of our diplomatic/political strategy, we must let them know that if they mess with American property or lives, we will act swiftly and decisively in our defense. Under such a policy we would have swept into Benghazi at full strength, got everyone out and left a big hole where the embassy used to be. Then, as we identified the ringleaders, they would be replaced with smaller holes in the ground as well. Too bad if the rest of the world doesn’t like it and no need to make a big deal out of it afterwards – just back to the political posturing and name calling until the next time. Eventually they would realize that they are just punching themselves in the face each time they try to strike at us – while failing to gain any political capital from it at all.
This country has zillions of soft targets. We can’t turn every school, every day care center, every church, every strip mall, every highway rest stop, every off-Broadway theater, every restaurant, into armed camps with security guards and metal detectors and locked doors. Nor can we expect the proprietors of all these places to start arming themselves and their employees.
Finally, note that the people who own and work in these places are human beings themselves, vulnerable to freaking out too.
gee, you think you can’t? we did in Israel just 12 years ago. why can’t you screen people in public places? you can, without being TSA idiots. it converts every soft target to a hard one. Just one check point where you have to open your purse or get wanded will stop 99.5% of attacks.
It would be a good idea but I dont think will work as well here for a couple of reasons.
- In Israel the threat is from terrorists which are essentially an outside military type threat. People are more likely to comply with measures against that kind of threat. Also screening methods are likely to be more effective than against random lunatics with no rational motive.
- Israel has a larger pool of trained talent to pull from and the job is going to have a higher status than here. Private security here is often the subject of jokes (Bart the Mall Cop) and low paying. The guards in malls etc are paid by the property owners who will try to get away cheaply.
- Israel is a smaller country and less spread out so much easier to defend. Only one major airport for example.
- Israel is more politically unified on the subject. Everything here has gotten so political that nothing gets done anymore.
- Police and security here will tend to stay back and wait for SWAT reinforcements or orders. Security will tend to do little more than call for help. Rescuers are more likely to be blamed and punished if things go wrong.
In Israel reponders will rush to the sound of the gunfire and are more likely to act on their own initiative.
- Israelis are less afraid of government. A permit system like they have there with medical and psychological checks and a database of who has what would be seen as the next step to a fascist takeover by lots of Americans.
“We can’t turn every school, every day care center, every church, every strip mall, every highway rest stop, every off-Broadway theater, every restaurant, into armed camps with security guards and metal detectors and locked doors.”
No one is suggesting that, except you, because it’s not necessary. Simply remove the “Gun-Free” zones would be the first step. You do note that that’s where these occur, right?
You engage in hyperbole and then knock down your own straw-man arguments by claiming that we cannot do all of those things.
No one, to my knowledge, is advocating what you claim.
Rather I am advocating that we need to harden the most vulnerable targets with the most vulnerable potential victims…schools…with armed and trained security guards who have no other duty than to protect the children.
This would be a county or state action, and should not require any “blessing” from the Federal government at all to accomplish. It’s very do-able, and it DOES work.
If you can’t be a serious person about this, then kindly refrain from posting on the subject.
Any excuse, no matter how absurd, will serve to convince yourself not to do what you never wanted to do in the first place.
Actualy you can police most everywhere – its called “profiling” and we used to do it all the time with great success. Nowadays we let the lunatics and thugs run wild in plain sight.
With rapt attention, I listened to President Barack Obama’s speech at Newtown, Connecticut where the shocked, saddened, weeping assembled group of parents and friends listened as our President made the point in various ways that we have to do something to change the way we protect the lives of our youngest Americans.
Anyone with the least bit of common sense would have armed security at all entrances. The sentence went unsaid. This President is not partial to common sense.
So confounding was the President’s concern over the twenty souls whose lives were ended so violently and abruptly just a few short days ago. The dastardly of dastardly acts. The deed of the Devil.
All in all, though, I was left with a Presidential speech that truly mystified me. His claimed concern for the lives of the youngest among us seems to be fleeting as the tick of a clock.
After all, President Obama is the one who leads the drum beat of approval as every year more than 1.2 million of the newly born and unborn of this nation are systematically slaughtered by a mostly liberal/progressive group of anti-God miscreant malefactors under the hellish guise of abortion.
To abort the hopes and dreams of the smallest among us is their God.
On the one hand, these pukes will shoot their mouths off about their concern for the care and feeding of America’s children while on the other these depraved ObamaLed primal perverts will sound the death knell for the most vulnerable of society. I believe from the depths of my soul. Their evil mission must be aborted.
To any fair minded person, it would seem this soulless, coldblooded, callous, capricious corrupt Obama cabal is possessed by a demon’s call to arms; with the mindset of Nazi stormtroopers, they will not be deterred until their ghastly, marauding blood lust for the youngest and most vulnerable among us is fed.
One might call the American leftists high and mighty hypocrites.
That would make sense. They speak about saving young lives yet so much of their life’s work is dedicated to their destruction. They talk about how better to defend school children, then go from Jekyll to Hyde and kill the most defenseless.
Strangely, if you read the New York Times and most major metropolitan publications, the obvious hypocrisy of the left who kill a million each year while lamenting the deaths of twenty young souls at places like Newtown, Connecticut, goes unreported.
Does it not seem incontrovertible that Obama and his bloody band are criminal killers of the worst order. Some might say that the gallows are too good for them.
In their past, have they have the courage to go to war against others with guns pointed in their direction? No. None have ever worn the uniform of the United States.
Their bravery seems to begin and end with those who are innocent as lambs in a field.
Does this make Barack and his band of evildoers the equivalent of Hitler’s brownshirted, hobnailed booted Nazis? The honest answer must be in the affirmative. The only place Obama’s speech leads is lambs to their slaughter.
Bloodthirsty cowards one and all.
What a hypocrite.
Giving automatic weapons away to drug cartels (Operation Fast and Furious). With untold numbers of innocents dead as a bloody result.
Letting Americans in Benghazi die without trying to save their lives. And then lying about the malfeasance afterwards. Which disgraced the office of the Presidency.
Killing Americans in foreign counties with drone attacks without due process or court orders. Patently unconstitutional. High high above the law does Obama’s perverted mind take him?
One can reach no other conclusion: President Barack Obama is a hardened criminal of sorts. The scum of the earth who, so ironically, occupies the highest office in the land.
It does seem time for the good people of Newtown,CT., Highland Park, Illinois, Sea Cliff, NY and all the other liberty loving towns and villages of America to stand up for our rights and freedoms under the U.S. Constitution.
The eviction notice, legal and binding, must be sent to this corrupt traitor who devalues every value and ideal America stands for.
It’s time to evict President Barack Obama from the big white house he has disgraced in so many ways for so many days. Let the legal orders be drawn out based on the 25th amendment and served on the President by the U.S. Marshal.
The highest officer of the court shall, as per the 25th amendment, carry out the removal process. 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. was never intended to be the home of a mole.
Defend the Constitution and you’ll be defending every child in the land.
If Boehner was a true patriot, his debt ceiling/fiscal cliff counter-offer would demand the resignation of the President and Vice-President.
I’ve been wanting to say what you just said, but couldn’t get it out. Obama made two statements in his speech that could spell massive efforts at taking away even more freedoms. I still don’t believe he was “weeping” like it was reported by the MSM. Anyway … one thing I do believe is that God can change the hearts of men; and I believe Obama is one of those men. I despise what he’s doing; I despise his phony speeches and political phoniness; especially his con-artist words like “do something”, which are the first round of rhetoric (called a “tip off”) intended to ignite calls for gun control without him actually saying it out aloud … you see, that way; he’s just responding to the “vast majority of people” and thereby escaping the responsibility of more regulations. Snake Oil salesman comes to mind!
So, I fully expect things to go bonkers temporarily, but Obama, as I said earlier may surprise us; and just like Harry in Dumb and Dumber said to Lloyd after Lloyd had traded Harry’s van for a tiny scooter; “Ya know Lloyd, just when I think you couldn’t possibly do anything dumber; you go and do a thing like this! …. And totally redeem yourself!!” Hey!! Harry and Lloyd got to Aspen right?
What was one of Hitler’s first moves as a dictator? You guessed it, round up all the guns!
The discussion after every tragedy like Newtown always turns to having the gubmint take away our 2nd Amendment rights. Horse crap. Before you can solve a problem, you must first define it. The reality is that 50 years ago we made a decision as a society that individual rights of nutcases were more important that keeping them locked up where they couldn’t hurt people.
Forced institutionalization may have been misused on a large scale. I don’t know, I’m just 59, so the move to shut down most of our mental hospitals was already mostly done by the time I was old enough to care. I do know this much – most of the fault for mass murders lies with the individuals who do them, and if they have been under the care of of a mental health professional, with that person as well.
I’ve got a suggestion. Every time a mentally ill person under professional care commits a violent crime, take away the mental health professional’s license to practice. I’ll guaran-damn-tee you’ll see a big change in attitude, and in the number of patients recommended for forced hospitalization.
“What was one of Hitler’s first moves as a dictator? You guessed it, round up all the guns!”
Some 13 centuries ago, Muslims instituted rules for the conquered peoples that fell under their authority. Among them: Non-Muslims weren’t allowed to possess weapons, thus leaving them defenseless.
“I’ll guaran-damn-tee you’ll see a big change in attitude, and in the number of patients recommended for forced hospitalization.”
Was not the second thing Hitler did was to euthanize the “mentally unfit”?
May you be dragged by an American policeman into “involuntary commitment” (do you know how easy that is?), and see how you are treated by America’s mental health professionals.
It is far more terrifying than anyone with a Glock.
“I’ve got a suggestion. Every time a mentally ill person under professional care commits a violent crime, take away the mental health professional’s license to practice. I’ll guaran-damn-tee you’ll see a big change in attitude, and in the number of patients recommended for forced hospitalization.”
Nope you will just not be able to find any mental health professionals practicing anywhere. Who would want the job under those conditions?
Old School Conservative (my hairy rear end),
You have got to be kidding me!
You start your comment with ““What was one of Hitler’s first moves as a dictator?”
I’ll tell you, you ignorant NAZI.
He rounded up all of the mentally ill.
At the same time he rounded up the mentally retarded and the homosexual.
Then, he rounded up the physically deformed.
Only when he was done with that did he get started on the gypsies.
After that, the Jews.
Schizophrenia is the mental illness most commonly associated with violence.
Out of 100 schizophrenics. 8 of them will commit a violent crime.
Out of 100 perfectly “normal” people. 5 of them will commit a violent crime.
Thus, the association of schizophrenia or other mental illness, with violent crime is FALSE. It is believed by many, based on the SPOTLIGHT fallacy.
Hypothetically assuming 100 to be the total number, if you permanently confined all schizophrenics, you would sentence 92 innocent people to LIFE IMPRISONMENT to prevent 8 violent crimes.
By the same token, if you permanently confined all “sane” people, you would sentence 95 innocent people to Life imprisonment, to prevent 5 violent crimes.
Your justification for the PERMANENT IMPRISONMENT OF 92 INNOCENT people, is those THREE additional crimes prevented. And you call the schizophrenics “crazy”?!
So, to prevent 8 violent crimes, all you have to do is sentence 92 innocent people to LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT PAROLE; WITHOUT TRIAL; WITHOUT APPEAL; WITHOUT DEFENSE; WITHOUT CHARGE.
Why not, then, prevent ALL violent crime by putting everyone in prison? (after all, everybody knows there’s no violence IN prison)
What’s that? You don’t want to confine ALL schizophrenics? Just the one’s with “violent tendencies”? Such as assault? Aren’t they already confined when they commit a crime?
You’re not talking about schizophrenics with a history of ACTUAL violence. Such violence is ALREADY criminal. ALREADY requires confinement. (p.s. just in case you’re ignorant, violent THREATS are criminal …. tortious, too.)
By “violent tendencies”, you mean non-violent acts and speech indicative of violent thought. How many “sane” people say “violent” things? How many have ranted and raved when angry? How many do it, DAILY, on the internet? How many “sane” people have ever taken out their anger on an inanimate object? Are they given LIFE in prison? Should they be?
What is being advocated is the permanent confinement for Schizophrenics who SAY (but don’t DO) “violent” things, but not for “sane” people who do the same.
Things are not improved by reliance on the post hoc and circular argument that someone is “crazy” BECAUSE they committed a certain crime. This type of argument is FALLACIOUS. That is, the entire premise of the argument to confine the mentally ill to prevent more “Newtown’s” is logically flawed.
Still, “spotlighting” certain events, and begging the question after the fact will convince many “sane” people to agree to permanently confine the mentally ill. If their support for permanently confining the mentally ill is based on faulty logic; then it is — by definition — IRRATIONAL.
Now who’s crazy?
Nevertheless, “SOMETHING MUST be done”, right?
Well, let me add that there is a much stronger correlation between schizophrenia and violence when substance abuse is added to the mix.
Additionally, there is a very strong correlation between “sane” people and violence when substance abuse is involved.
I have a solution which is more consistent with both fact and logic than the permanent confinement of all mentally ill persons.
Permanently confine everyone who drinks alcohol or uses any “recreational” drug. You heard me. LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT PAROLE; WITHOUT TRIAL; WITHOUT APPEAL; WITHOUT DEFENSE; WITHOUT CHARGE.
(No, I’m not serious, dummy. It’s a valid reductio. But even as a serious argument, it’s sounder than your’s.)
There is a crime in this country — and THIS country particularly — that is worse than all others. Worse than murder. Worse than rape. It is the imprisonment, by the State, of an innocent man.
And you propose to do it multiple times over, in perpetuity.
Frankly, even if 99 of 100 schizophrenics committed violent crimes; what you suggest would still be evil as it would permanently imprison one innocent man.
NOTE: I didn’t even broach the subject of race as it relates to percentage of violent crime committed; but you should be aware that if this illogical and EVIL argument succeeds, it will set the precedent — logically, and INEVITABLY — for the imprisonment of all black people. This is why there is a VALID Slippery Slope argument to be made against this push to “Institutionalize”. Go on, say it. Say, “That could never happen here”.
My cousin is schizophrenic, and he wouldn’t harm a fly. He’s far less dangerous than most of the allegedly “sane” people I’ve met.
God help the person who comes to imprison my cousin; because I will be there with him … waiting for you.
Your outrage is impressive.
There is a difference between wanting to incarcerate the harmless — or in the Nazi’s case euthanize them — and wanting to incarcerate those who have demonstrated a tendency to violence.
Lanza’s mother was trying to get him locked up and with obvious good reason. I know someone who desperately and unsuccessfully tried to get her daughter locked up before she went on a shooting spree killing three and wounding several others. And she loved her daughter deeply just as presumably Mrs. Lanza loved her son.
No serious debate is needed to recognize that we need to make it easier to institutionalize the violent mentally ill.
The Beslan incident serves as a useful yardstick against which to measure our own reaction to the Newtown massacre. It suggests that our culture is not so depraved nor are “assult” weapons so prevalent to justify the hysterical reaction now taking place.
abe:
brilliantly said.
predators are predators. they kill the weak and defenseless when they can, because it lowers the risk of retaliation and harm to themselves.
they do not want to be interrupted during their work.
what better place than a school, what better victims than children?
it is a harsh reality, but, one that must be faced.
john jay
milton freewater, oregon usa
p.s. as for “gun control.” they will have my gun, when they take it from my dead hands.
Abu Tom • an hour ago −
WITHOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT PIERCE MORGAN WOULD BE DUKE OF NEW JERSEY.As I watched the fools with no experience blaming hunters for the murder of children. I watch the hunters feebly trying to defend their second amendment rights. The second amendment was not created to protect hunters. It was created to protect all of us from being hunted. Like the Jews of Europe, Like COMMUNIST Joe Stalins 30 million victims that we know about. Like COMMUNIST Mao’s enemies 30 million, Like COMMUNIST Pol Pots enemies the entire city of Pnomh Pen .Like Bill Ayers future enemies. That 20% of the AMERICAN population who refuse to go to re-education camps
.ADMIRAL YAMMAMOTO was asked by his Navy why he did not follow up Pearl Harbor with a West coast attack. He replied behind every blade of grass is an American with a rifle. Take another horror perpetrated in Connecticut. Two evil men seeing the vulnerability of an entire family pulverized the head of the house with a baseball bat. Believing he was dead they forced the mother to go the bank to withdraw money then returned home to rape two daughters and the mother tied to beds then set the house on fire burning any trace of the crime that was just committed. The police arrived too late .Had that family acquired a couple of handguns and a training hour DAD would not be alone today with an empty life.
It sounds good when politicians who have body guards say leave protection to law enforcement. Hiltler said the same thing as he confiscated weapons of the people in 1938. When he was finished 30 million Europeans were dead and cities reduced to ashes. The right to bear arms is every Americans right. If you choose not to have one that is also your right but do not deny it to fellow Americans who have the same right. Like the words in a song. THE WORLD IS STILL THE SAME YOU’LL NEVER CHANGE IT. THE NAME OF THAT TUNE IS FIND SOMEBODY TO LOVE.
That is why I say the murder weapon was the computer hard drive. The killer knew it. That is why he destroyed it. That hard drive was his soul recorder. He was a loaner to all but his computer. If you want to know the progression from computer chat to infanticide reconstruct that computer hard drive. That is where all the bullets got used. Who was Adam’s computer friend? Was it real or imaginary? Where is Adam’s all grown up picture. That photo of a teen is not the real image of a deranged 20 year old. If I can see it on You tube why can’t you?.
That posse that arrived too late as fast as they were could not stop the intruder as he shot his way past the door. No matter how fast a response team is it is not fast enough to stop a monster in action. Ever school in the country needs armed protection on sight. Don’t overlook school buses. Then we better scrutinize all public gathering places. We are in the new USA where cities are bombed and no small town is safe. BEDROOM COMMUNITIES MAKE EASY TARGETS.
The American cardinal rule is the strong must always protect the weak including the unborn. Let us pray for the victims including mothers with mentally ill children.and let us come together and learn from this tragedy. Never forget the second amendment is not for hunting it is to defend us all from being hunted.
If the small town residents of Concord, New Hampshire did not have fire power equal to British troops we would still be slaves of King George today. His most prosperous colony. Even though ADAM LANZA destroyed his hard drive there must be ways to reconstruct it. Perhaps. through servers. Find the hard drive info and you will see into the soul of a madman. It wasn’t the AR15 it was the hard drive.
http://www.spiritofamericapartyradios...
SIGNS OF THE FUTURE: THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS PROTECTED BY THE CROSS FIRE ASSOCIATION.
WILL THE ACLU TRY TO STOP IT BECAUSE THE WORD CROSS IS IN IT.
0 •Edit•Reply•Share ›
Veteran Patriot • 4 hours ago
“The incident in Newtown was precipitated by a deranged individual and not an organized terrorist group.”
WRONG, it appears both this shooter AND the aurora colorado shooter where children of bankers about to testify to CONGRESS in the LIBOR scandal. SOMEBODY has been datamining heath records for loony children getting psychiatric services, then recruting them in some way.
The odds against this being accidental are trillions to one. These shootings ARE rigged by quasi-governmental organisation dedicated to disarming the American population.
Im betting these shooters ALL had the same healthcare at some point, OR these poeple target the children of their own members for some reason. Id also bet these shooters pshrinks ALL had unexplained office breakins in the last three years with nothing missing.
You can’t know how badly I want to dismiss you as some tinfoil hat wearing nutcase! But I can’t; nothing is as it seems or should be in this Country since the coup d’etat of 2008.
I’m sorry, but the LIBOR link has been disproved. Neither company was requested to give testimony on the matter.
So if someone in the school was armed and say only 5 children died, that would be better?
So if someone in the school was armed and say only 5 children died, that would be better?
Yes.
If you don’t believe me, ask the parents of the other 15 children.
Ask Norway. Anders Breivek murdered 77 there because no one was around. That is in a country of 5 million. Vrs about 100(barring koranimals waging jihad on us) killed in the US this last decade.
The 100 for the US may or may not be accurate, just a number I have seen used in more than one place. Sounds about right.
That means the chance of dying in the US is 1 in 3 million. Gun nut hell according to some and in enlightened anti-gun Norway a 1 in 65,000 chance. Lower the kill ratio in the USA by getting rid of government sanction killing zones and it gets even more dramatic.
“no one around” should say no one around who was armed.
BHaa, I think I am coming down with the flu. Mistakes abound
People forget the Lod Airport massacre or rather then policy change resulting from the attack.
After that time Israel began army private citizens, and still does, on a controlled basis. This type of attack stopped when citizens were armed.
They only way Newtown could have been prevented was by force of arms from the people on scene.
I suspect that gun free zones and such are the result of the ethos of the that town and many others. I would hope people would understand the costs they are putting on others so that they can feel good about themselves.
I suspect the feel good side will win in some way, but it will not change one simple fact: somethings have to be dealt with by the people there at the time, and there is no way changing the world to prevent that challenge, no how much you “Imagine” with the late John Lennon.
Note that Hinckley like Lanza came from money and their families spent a boat load of it so that their spawn would be free to kill with ease.
Those kind of attacks didn’t stop! they are just met with deadly force in a shorter period of time than it takes for the “authorities” to respond. Which is what I think we are all asking for.
A few years ago it became popular to use heavy road work machines as weapons. No one could believe that the driver was trying to kill people with his earth mover. A civilian/army reservist shot him in the head after another guy had shot the driver in the legs and he wouldn’t stop. By the time the third incident came around, people were on to this, and that driver/terrorist got the head shot before he could do much damage.
And so it goes on. If you look at the local Israeli press, there is currently a controversy over a Border patrolwoman who shot dead a Pali with a weapon who she thought was going to attack her colleague. The debate about deadly force against terrorists hasn’t lessen over time. Look at the measured response to continuous missile attacks from Gaza.
This is a healthy thing.
But the bottom line is how much do you value your own life and those of you neighbours?
Another question: aren’t there already screenings with metal detectors in some high schools in the US?? What is that about?
The Swiss model works, and may, if not actually than philosophically, have been what the Founding Fathers had in mind when speaking of a well regulated militia.
For one thing, they are trained! And that training is very demanding. In theory, as in this country until more modern times, every able bodied man was in the militia.
There is an interesting historical chestnut that may worth considering. Before 1914, Kaiser Wilhelm II inspected a formation of 10,000 Swiss soldiers. One soldier was presented to the Imperial guest, and part of the conversation went like this
Kaiser: You have 10,000 men here. What would you do if I came against you with 10,000 men?”
Soldier: “Your Imperial Majesty, every one of us would fire once.”
Kaiser: “And if I came against you with 20,000 men?”
Soldier: “We would fire twice.”
[quoted from David Woodward, Armies of the World 1854 - 1914, p. 175.]
Maybe if we had a different view in the role of the citizen militia, such incidents would, if not stopped early, would do minimal damage…
Regulations and laws are helpless against maniacs like James Holmes and abnormals like Adam Lanza. The only defense against such as them is for more ordinary citizens to be armed; ordinary citizens, and school teachers. There are not enough police and security officers to go around, nor is there enough money. It is really senseless to add to the already onerous laws in existence. We just need to accept the fact that life is dangerous, and allow individuals to defend themselves.
Children in America are 13 times (not 13%) more likely to die by a gun than in all other OECD countries. I guess that makes us “the exceptional nation”. How about some common sense here: a massive gun buy-back program (think cash for clunkers) would stimulate the economy by pumping money into poor communities and we could sell the scrap metal to China so they can make stuff for poor people to buy at Walmart. Win, win, win!
Care to link that data point? Or did you just make it up?
I notice most OECD countries Europian countries, except mexico, and likely do not have the black populations which are so violent. Or the latino one either. Which so skew the US numbers vrs say Norway.
I would say this is BS.
Here’s the study where those numbers came from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571454
Hey, bright idea! We sell the scrap to China, and they turn around and make more guns to sell to the cartels in Mexico who then bring them across our porous southern border where they get sold in our inner cities. Our lovely little gang bangers can then use them however they want, maybe even sell them back to the government. Wash, rinse, repeat!
If you research it, it appears that the vast majority of kids killed with a gun are accidents or suicides. Murder is quite low in that age bracket, though statistics are difficult to wade through.
On the other hand, accidental deaths due to swimming pools is 52.8 to 68.0 times more likely than an accidental death by firearm for children under the age of 15.
http://www.m1-garand-rifle.com/firearms-versus-swimming-pools.php
Wanna make the world safer for kids – go for a swimming pool ban.
As tragic as this incident is, it’s still an anomaly as far as children are concerned.
Rather than attacking a tool or millions of gun owners, better to attack the murderer and the circumstances that resulted in him being able to even be in that school in the first place with murderous intent.
Need another banking scandal veiled before the public mind? Send another robo-shooter out to create the distraction. If a performer at the Magic Castle could have patrons barking like dogs, in minutes, think of the possibilities with a weak-minded, well-medicated target in a clinical setting. My only surprise is that we haven’t seen the synagogue school shooting gambit played recently. I imagine that is being saved for something special, such as to goad conservative Jews onto the disarmament runaway train. The Elders of Zion plan well. They cloak their conspiracy in Joseph’s coat, while having agents howl that it is only anti-Semites that believe in the conspiracy. The truth? They could be all Gentile, or all Jew. Does it matter what those, trying to disarm this nation before collapsing it, call themselves? I call them enemy, and Senator Feinstein has certainly raised her red pennant in that traitor’s camp.
If I remember the Beslan incident correctly, the Russians were pushed to attack the terrorists when fathers, brothers,and uncles of the children had reached the breaking point and went after the terrorists with their own weapons.The Soviets threw in a “knock out” gas which was too strong and actually killed many of the hostages. Not one of Spetnatz’s better actions.
Having said this, I believe we need to eliminate the “Gun Free Zones” and arm trained teachers, administrators, etc.
Techno-troll, you need to read some of the stuff by John Lott, and educate yourself. You are merely spouting the same old Brady Bunch/Handgun Control shit.
“Techno-troll, you need to read some of the stuff by John Lott, and educate yourself”
Uh-huh. Is this the same john lott who can’t even provide evidence of all the survey’s he’s supposedly taken?
I think you need to go have a look at the many articles debunking his analyses. His own data refutes his conclusions when it’s properly processed.
Hmmm……I believe you are confusing Lott with Bellesiles.
First, teacher’s lounges should have a .177 target air pistol range set up, with a spring-air target pistol. Any teacher who wishes could fire pellets at paper targets. If one does that, after a while they would be able to hit a head-sized target in the average distances found inside a school building.
The first thing would enhance anything else done. By itself, rumors would exert intimidatio9n.
Long-time studies at St. Elizabeth’s hospital for the criminally insane in Washington D.C. reveal no link between criminality and insanity. The inmates have the misfortune to be individuals with strong criminal tendencies whose mental problems gets them into dubious criminal acts and/or fouls up their ability to remain undetected.
The starting point is criminal tendencies, and the trying to punch a hole in the bulletproof armor surrounding an individual’s right to be mentally ill and off medication and living in the street as a viable alternate lifestyle.
Connecticut is a liberal state (voted for Obama over Romney by 17 points).
What are you going to do after all those liberal teachers refuse to carry firearms?
And what’s going to happen after the first wrongful-death lawsuit where a teacher shoots the janitor or some other visitor because he mistakenly thought the guy had a gun?
Vigilantism is no answer for anything.
I’d suggest, since it was a CT mother and her CT son who shot up a CT school, that the state of CT look into what they want to do about this tragedy that occurred within their domain.
Having said that, CT should not have the power to force other states to abide by their sensibilities.
If they want Obammer AND gun control, they are free to pursue either within their own state (barring conflict with the Constitution, of course).
The author conflates two separate kinds of action: hostage taking and intentional massacre.
The attacker in Newtown, and the attackers in Ma’alot, intended only to kill and to kill as many possible. They started killing immediately and continued until they ran out of ammunition or victims, or were themselved killed.
The attackers in Beslan killed only one or two guards to start with. They did not kill any of the hundreds of potential victims in their control for several days. The attackers made demands on the Russian authorities, regarding the Russian invasion and occupation of Chechnya, in which Russian forces killed tens of thousands of people with indiscriminate firing, bombing, and shelling. The Russians refused to negotiate, which understandable. On the other hand, given the murderous Russian actions in Chechnya, the de facto dictatorship of Putin, and that the Russian government is credibly accused of murdering dozens of its own people to provide an excuse for the invasion, the actions of the attackers are also understandable, though in no way excusable, and certainly not equivalent to Newtown or Ma’alot. And see below about the Russian response.
RickGreenvilleSC: You have the Beslan incident conflated with the Moscow Theater incident. That was where the Russian authorities used a knock-out gas which killed many of the hostages. One foreign survivor of the incident reported that the Russians refused to tell embassy doctors who came to treat him and other foreigners what the gas was.
At Beslan, the Russian authorities attacked the school with spetznaz commandos, but also with regular police, half-trained army recruits, and civilian vigilantes. They used not only machine guns and automatic rifles, but also tank cannon and large-caliber incendiary rockets. Who then was responsible for the hostage casualties? The attackers, certainly – but also the Russian authorities.
I blame the terrorists and you should too.
The liberal media is trying to brainwash to believe
Russians bad
terrorists good
The “liberal media” have next to nothing to say about Beslan and the Chechnyan war. One has to dig to find out the details.
And what one learns is not “Russians bad”, but that the corrupt, murderous gangster regime which controls Russia is bad. The regime that has that is headed by ex-KGB thug Vladimir Putin, that is staffed by Putin’s ex-KGB cronies, that looted hundreds of billions of dollars from the Russian economy, that murdered dozens of Russian journalists, that sets gangs of fascist hooligans on peaceful Russian protesters, that invaded Georgia, that greatly assisted the Iranian mullahs’ nuclear weapons and missile projects, that objects strenuously to U.S.-provided missile defenses in eastern Europe, that arms bad actors from Syria’s Bashir Assad to Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, is bad. Very bad.
And few have suffered as badly at the hands of Putin’s gang as Chechens. If all of the fantastic libels made by leftist and Moslem propagandists against U.S. forces and U.S. soldiers in Iraq were true, it would approximate what is known and documented about Russian forces in Chechnya.
The criminal actions of Chechen terrorist are inexcusable. (As I already wrote.) But the ultimate responsibility should lie with the Putin gang, which started the war, waged it with indiscriminate brutality, and remain unaccountable for their crimes. The Chechens have no agenda except for Russia to leave them alone.
Finally, I say this again: Hostage-taking is very bad, but it is not the same as intentional mass murder.
That terrorists began killing hostages on the first day.
Mr. Rostrom, Your post is irrelevant! Mr Miller did not make comparisons of the targets on their political merits, or underpinnings. Since you seem to be on the dense side, his point was that the targets were chosen because there would be little or no resistance! What can we do to make our schools less inviting targets? That is the point he desires to discuss!
If that was the author’s point, then the Newtown killings were irrelevant.
The Newtown killer went to Sandy Hook School because that was where his mother taught. His motive was personal, directed against that particular school’s staff and students: he resented the attention and care his mother provided to her students there.
He would have attacked the school regardless of its vulnerability or defenses.
ABORTION AND BANNING GUNS IN MORALLY CRAZY AMERICA
What are innocent children infrequently killed by gunfire in savage mass murder attacks compared to the holocaust of unborn children-one million a year-brutally murdered in abortion clinics? Which is worse? A senseless AK-47 that can’t shoot itself (and is neither good nor evil) but can be used to protect life from killers or take it in crime? Or an abortion doctor serially killing one unborn baby after another on a deadly assembly line? Now I’m no more for killing abortion doctors for their evil practices and crimes than are people on the Left for killing gun manufacturers or retailers who do nothing wrong when selling guns to law abiding citizens. But those who want to uphold the laws that keep mass murdering abortion clinics and doctors in business-and a president who pours out his heart over young Newtown victims but believes in live birth abortions (the most heinous kind)-are hypocritical for wanting to ban guns, any guns, because they could be used to kill innocent children or anyone. Where’s the moral sanity in this?
Very simple. If “gun free zones” are so great and workable, change the law to say that ALL government buildings from the White House to Congress to every government building and institution is to be a “Gun Free Zone.”
What is the real reason for our schools to be gun free zones? So there can be tradgeties like this and the liberals can further their anti-gun agenda?
Obviously the whole Sandy Hook story is a an out and out lie–a media invention. It MUST be. After all, the school is a gun free zone. Therefore, NO gun could have been taken there!
Gun free zones were created by dedicated defenders of the public welfare. You know…those people who know and eagerly pass into law what is best for us because Americans are generally not capable of caring for or defending themselves.
A terrible mass murder in an area declared off-limits to guns by the political ruling class left is simply not possible! Such a thing would mean the left was wrong in believing that disarming school officials was the best way to deter the actions of criminals and psychotics. And these are people who simply cannot BE wrong. If you don’t believe it, just ASK them!
Existing laws against gun sales to convicted felons even if their crimes were non-violent; or laws outlawing manufacture of sub-machine guns for non-military or non-police use, or preventing a citizen such as myself from owning a rocket launcher, infringe on my 2nd amendment rights just as much as much as making it more difficult to buy a semiautomatic gun would. Correct? if you’re against the latter, you should cOme out and say you’re also against the former. Why dont ex-felons who paid their debt to society have a right to bear arms? Or is it only a privilege for them?
We live not 10 minutes from newtown, and it has been just so awful. A nightmare. When the shooting at newtown happened, it made me think of the 2004 russian school tragedy.. I remember that was just SO awful, bc of the children lost!!! It was worse than 911 in nyc, in my opinion..