Another mass shooting in the U.S

wordsmithi · 16-12-2012 02:16AM

Did anyone get the chance to listen to the father of one victim speaking about his child who was one of the victims. A little blond girl called Emily Parker. It was very moving to hear him speak to the media. It would bring tears to your eyes listening to him speak about his poor daughter.

UCDVet · 16-12-2012 02:23AM

AdamD wrote: »

In what Western countries are bombs often used in though? By random civilians...there's a big difference between making a bomb or simply picking up a gun and pulling the trigger. Guns are too easy to kill people with.

Despite what you might have heard; loaded guns aren't just laying around all over the streets of the United States.

It would take me less time to buy and assemble a bomb, with no previous knowledge on how to do it, than it would take for me to legally purchase a handgun in the US. And, it would cost considerably less money.

I don't see any point in limiting our discussion to Western countries - bombs are an effective means of terror and destruction. It's easy enough to find lists of 'bigger' bombs, but smaller bombs are so common place they just get reported and forgotten.

Here's Wikipedia's list of 'mass' car bombings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_car_bombings#2010s

In the US alone there have been quite a few bombings as well...
* 2011 January 6: Three packages detonate in the mail rooms of two Maryland state government buildings, causing minor injuries to the fingers of two government workers

* 2009 May 25: 17-year old Kyle Shaw sets off a crude explosive device at a Starbucks at East 92nd Street on

* 2008 August 2, August 3 University of California-Santa Cruz molecular biologist David Feldheim's home was firebombed

* (2012) PLEASANT HILL, Calif. (KGO) -- Police in Pleasant Hill arrested two teenagers after officers say the boys used a pipe bomb to blow up a woman's mailbox

* (2012) A 31-year-old Tacna man has been hospitalized after losing a leg in a pipe bomb explosion.

* (2012) Pipe bomb explodes outside Glendale house; second bomb blown across street

* (2012) A pipe bomb that exploded early Wednesday in a Central El Paso neighborhood caused a large police response and alarmed area residents, but no injuries were reported. The homemade device exploded in the 3000 block of Nations Avenue.

* (2012) It's not clear who put a pipe bomb in a news rack outside a Jack in the Box in West Los Angeles, if it was meant for someone in particular, or if it was because they didn't get the curly fries they ordered, but that bomb exploded early Wednesday morning.

* (2012) BLACKSBURG, Va. — Authorities are investigating a pipe bomb that exploded in Blacksburg, damaging a vehicle parked blocks from Virginia Tech’s campus.

The list goes on and on and on.

As much as I'd like to, I can't imagine anyone who would get the guns/ammo/tactical gear these people get and the shoot as many innocent people as they can are going to be deterred by tighter gun control laws.

First, the idea that passing more laws is an effective way of eliminating guns is very questionable. Second, there will always be effective ways of killing people. I'm using bombs as an example because you can make them out of things you can purchase anywhere. You can't regulate them away. But if someone is determined, there's just an endless number of ways to kill. Making a bomb might be 'too hard' (it's not, but let's pretend); but how hard is it to buy a bunch of bicycle locks, lock the exits of a crowded something (like a movie theater), empty a few cans of petrol, and light a match?

It's horribly sad and tragic. I absolutely understand peoples desire to immediately act to prevent horribly sad and tragic things from happening. I just don't see any reason to think it would be effective. I'm willing to consider reducing the rights, liberties, freedom of individuals; but we should have a REALLY good reason. 'Maybe this could possibly stop a really lazy would be killer from killing someone....but who knows?' isn't a good reason IMHO.

robluvshandegg · 16-12-2012 02:27AM

Blay wrote: »

They can be used for any of those. An assault rifle is fully automatic..the rifles you buy in the US are not assault rifles..AR15's and other semi auto's are being targeted for how they look despite being no more dangerous than a Ruger Mini 14, M1 Carbine, M1 Garand or any other semi auto but those rifles are never mentioned as being demon rifles like the AR15.

But doesn't needing a military grade or at least close to military grade weapon for home defence seem like a problem? I'm assuming for home defence it needs to be readily accessible also? As for using it for hunting, what do they hunt that needs that much fire power? ( I looked up those guns and why do you need a 20 or 30 round mag?)

wordsmithi · 16-12-2012 02:27AM

Another frightening reality is that massacres used to be rare events. They are happening frequently now. There was a huge stand off with a gunman in Britain. A madman on the run.
A very dangerous fellow who shot his girlfriend, her boyfriend and a police officer. Was it in Rothbury? He was in a big standoff with the police and shot himself in the end. The media was covering it non stop i.e Sky News. I wonder if that is really right to bombard people with these awful events. It is hard to know how these things should be dealt with.

Witcher · 16-12-2012 02:32AM

robluvshandegg wrote: »

But doesn't needing a military grade or at least close to military grade weapon for home defence seem like a problem? I'm assuming for home defence it needs to be readily accessible also? As for using it for hunting, what do they hunt that needs that much fire power? ( I looked up those guns and why do you need a 20 or 30 round mag?)

In a home defence situation most would use a shotgun. It being readily accessible means nothing, I've a rifle here behind me right now in a safe and I could have it out and loaded in about 30 seconds, the time to get it isnt important really.

Just because there's a 30 round mag hanging out of the rifle doesn't mean it's loaded to capacity and some will pick up 5 round mags for it but they're so small that they're harder to get out of the rifle so it's easier to use the longer 30 rounders and load 5/10 rounds.

wordsmithi wrote: »

Another frightening reality is that massacres used to be rare events. They are happening frequently now. There was a huge stand off with a gunman in Britain. A madman on the run.
A very dangerous fellow who shot his girlfriend, her boyfriend and a police officer. Was it in Rothbury?

Raoul Moat, in that case it was important for the news to cover it as he was still loose in the area.

tails_naf · 16-12-2012 02:35AM

Blay wrote: »

They can be used for any of those. An assault rifle is fully automatic..the rifles you buy in the US are not assault rifles..AR15's and other semi auto's are being targeted for how they look despite being no more dangerous than a Ruger Mini 14, M1 Carbine, M1 Garand or any other semi auto but those rifles are never mentioned as being demon rifles like the AR15. As I must have stated about 50 times, people here hold semi automatic centrefire rifles..it's not just Americans that have them.

Yes you have stated 50 times that these were not fully automatic. You have however neglected to mention that semi-automatic rifles such as used in most (if not all) mass shootings are capable of delivering hundreds of rounds in minutes. The ability to deliver such fire-power is what people are against.

robluvshandegg · 16-12-2012 02:39AM

Blay wrote: »

In a home defence situation most would use a shotgun. It being readily accessible means nothing, I've a rifle here behind me right now in a safe and I could have it out and loaded in about 30 seconds, the time to get it isnt important really.

Just because there's a 30 round mag hanging out of the rifle doesn't mean it's loaded to capacity and some will pick up 5 round mags for it but they're so small that they're harder to get out of the rifle so it's easier to use the longer 30 rounders and load 5/10 rounds.

Raoul Moat, in that case it was important for the news to cover it as he was still loose in the area.

So you've obviously thought this home defence thing through. What's your line before you open your safe? And how would you describe/deal with a typical scenario involving home defence? Like do you call the police before you open the safe? etc.

Witcher · 16-12-2012 02:40AM

tails_naf wrote: »

Yes you have stated 50 times that these were not fully automatic. You have however neglected to mention that semi-automatic rifles such as used in most (if not all) mass shootings are capable of delivering hundreds of rounds in minutes. The ability to deliver such fire-power is what people are against.

I don't need to say it because you've been spouting it.

Witcher · 16-12-2012 02:41AM

robluvshandegg wrote: »

So you've obviously thought this home defence thing through. What's your line before you open your safe? And how would you describe/deal with a typical scenario involving home defence? Like do you call the police before you open the safe? etc.

I'm in Ireland, ya open the safe for that and the next thing you'll see will be the back of a cell door in Mountjoy:pac:

allthedoyles · 16-12-2012 02:43AM

wordsmithi wrote: »

Did anyone get the chance to listen to the father of one victim speaking about his child who was one of the victims. A little blond girl called Emily Parker. It was very moving to hear him speak to the media. It would bring tears to your eyes listening to him speak about his poor daughter.

Thought this was way too premature from Mr paedrician Parker........He should be grieving , but instead has opened a Facebook page looking for donations worldwide to help funeral expenses etc.

( btw the FB page is www.facebook.com/emilieparkerfund )

UCDVet · 16-12-2012 02:45AM

robluvshandegg wrote: »

Can anyone tell me why Americans feel the need to own guns? (Just well thought out and reasonable answers please)

A lot of it has to do with the views of the 'founding fathers' towards government. After all, they went to war to overthrow their government. They fully believed that governments, left unchecked, will grow corrupt.

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

Leading up to the American Revolution (after the Tea Party, when things were getting 'heated') Parliament banned the import of firearms and gunpowder. The following year they started banning and limiting the types of firearms Colonial American's could have. England knew it would be far more difficult to control an armed population.

The American revolution was successful, largely, due to virtually everyone ignoring those laws. (and lots of other things, but still, it was a key aspect)

The founding fathers recognized that.
They also recognized (first hand) the need to violently overthrow the government.

So they did what they could to ensure American's will be ready and able to overthrow their government, should the need arise. They formalized it into the second amendment; ensuring the right to guns and to form militias.

People like to split hairs over the second amendment and claim that it doesn't apply because, 'back in the day' they needed 45 seconds to load one bullet....but anyone who has even a basic understanding of the revolution, the well documents views of the guys who wrote the thing....well, it's pretty clear that the purpose of guns is protection *FROM* the government.

wordsmithi · 16-12-2012 02:48AM

allthedoyles wrote: »

Thought this was way too premature from Mr paedrician Parker........He should be grieving , but instead has opened a Facebook page looking for donations worldwide to help funeral expenses etc.

( btw the FB page is www.facebook.com/emilieparkerfund )

Perhaps, he feels that this is his way of coping with his grief.

wordsmithi · 16-12-2012 02:51AM

Raoul Moat, in that case it was important for the news to cover it as he was still loose in the area.[/QUOTE]

That's it. I know it was important in that sense. It is just awful to hear these stories in the news so often.

Suryavarman · 16-12-2012 02:55AM

robluvshandegg wrote: »

But doesn't needing a military grade or at least close to military grade weapon for home defence seem like a problem? I'm assuming for home defence it needs to be readily accessible also? As for using it for hunting, what do they hunt that needs that much fire power? ( I looked up those guns and why do you need a 20 or 30 round mag?)

There are situations where a semi automatic weapon with a large capacity magazine might be the most suitable weapon for self defence. Such a situation might be the riots in the UK last year. There are even examples of "assault weapons" being used for self defence purposes during the LA riots by business people in Koreatown.

robluvshandegg · 16-12-2012 02:55AM

Blay wrote: »

I'm in Ireland, ya open the safe for that and the next thing you'll see will be the back of a cell door in Mountjoy:pac:

I dunno, didn't Padraig Nally do it and he never saw a prison?

I'm still just tryin to figure out how this home defence thing is supposed to go down for Americans.....

Suryavarman · 16-12-2012 02:57AM

robluvshandegg wrote: »

I dunno, didn't Padraig Nally do it and he never saw a prison?

I'm still just tryin to figure out how this home defence thing is supposed to go down for Americans.....

Padraig Nally was sentenced to 6 years but only ended up serving 1 year iirc

robluvshandegg · 16-12-2012 03:00AM

Suryavarman wrote: »

Padraig Nally was sentenced to 6 years but only ended up serving 1 year iirc

True, and all the charges were quashed.

Witcher · 16-12-2012 03:01AM

robluvshandegg wrote: »

I dunno, didn't Padraig Nally do it and he never saw a prison?

I'm still just tryin to figure out how this home defence thing is supposed to go down for Americans.....

Spent 6 months or so inside and was only really acquitted on appeal because he had been living in fear for a long period. Bit of a unique situation really.

It's a big thing for them, probably the main reason for people owning firearms in America.

Bruthal · 16-12-2012 03:04AM

UCDVet wrote: »

Despite what you might have heard; loaded guns aren't just laying around all over the streets of the United States.

It would take me less time to buy and assemble a bomb, with no previous knowledge on how to do it, than it would take for me to legally purchase a handgun in the US. And, it would cost considerably less money.

Yea, but the problem is, the guns are already owned, bought, in possession, within easy reach, whatever you want to call it, of most of the people who carry out these massacres. Its not a case of, "O I cant wait for a gun to carry out my plan, I`l make a bomb instead".

When someone flips, the guns are already within easy reach.

This "easier to make a bomb" thing you mention, is your own perspective. The would be mass murderer will have one thing in mind when whatever possesses them takes over, guns and shooting.

I think myself there is more to these events than simply having access to guns. Something about the american way is the cause of relatively regular massacre`s possibly. Maybe the level of gun ownership is that factor, or else its something else, and the availability of guns just makes the carnage more frequent than it otherwise would be.

If we had such ease of access to guns here, including kids possibly learning to shoot from early ages, would some of the school kids relentlessly bullied, in some cases eventually crack, get the handgun from the press at home, and shoot the bullying gang in the school? Possibly.

UCDVet · 16-12-2012 03:23AM

robbie7730 wrote: »

Yea, but the problem is, the guns are already owned, bought, in possession, within easy reach, whatever you want to call it, of most of the people who carry out these massacres. Its not a case of, "O I cant wait for a gun to carry out my plan, I`l make a bomb instead".

When someone flips, the guns are already within easy reach.

This "easier to make a bomb" thing you mention, is your own perspective. The would be mass murderer will have one thing in mind when whatever possesses them takes over, guns and shooting.

I think myself there is more to these events than simply having access to guns. Something about the american way is the cause of relatively regular massacre`s possibly. Maybe the level of gun ownership is that factor, or else its something else, and the availability of guns just makes the carnage more frequent than it otherwise would be.

If we had such ease of access to guns here, including kids possibly learning to shoot from early ages, would some of the school kids relentlessly bullied, in some cases eventually crack, get the handgun from the press at home, and shoot the bullying gang in the school? Possibly.

In all of the cases I'm familiar with, the shooters spent a considerable amount of time building up a stockpile of weapons.

The 'Batman' shooter warned his friends MONTHS before the incident that he was dangerous. He also spent months building up his stockpile of weapons and ammunition.

In the Columbine High School shooting, they obtained their weapons from a gun show in Dec, the shooting wasn't until April (nearly five months later). They also built roughly 100 homemade bombs.

The Virginia Tech shooter bought one gun in Feb and one in March for his shooting spree in April.

In all of these cases, they had PLENTY OF TIME to think of other ways of killing people. If they couldn't get the guns, I don't think any of them would have just given up and decided to get a 9-5, settle down, and raise a family.

robluvshandegg · 16-12-2012 03:29AM

UCDVet wrote: »

A lot of it has to do with the views of the 'founding fathers' towards government. After all, they went to war to overthrow their government. They fully believed that governments, left unchecked, will grow corrupt.

Leading up to the American Revolution (after the Tea Party, when things were getting 'heated') Parliament banned the import of firearms and gunpowder. The following year they started banning and limiting the types of firearms Colonial American's could have. England knew it would be far more difficult to control an armed population.

The American revolution was successful, largely, due to virtually everyone ignoring those laws. (and lots of other things, but still, it was a key aspect)

The founding fathers recognized that.
They also recognized (first hand) the need to violently overthrow the government.

So they did what they could to ensure American's will be ready and able to overthrow their government, should the need arise. They formalized it into the second amendment; ensuring the right to guns and to form militias.

People like to split hairs over the second amendment and claim that it doesn't apply because, 'back in the day' they needed 45 seconds to load one bullet....but anyone who has even a basic understanding of the revolution, the well documents views of the guys who wrote the thing....well, it's pretty clear that the purpose of guns is protection *FROM* the government.

I kinda had a feeling someone would bring it back to this thing. Its always this vague protection from the government argument. What does this actually mean?

Loomis · 16-12-2012 03:54AM

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4

Pretty much a cliche at this point but still doesn't happen.

Sentiments echoed in this quote:

“Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. “Wouldn’t you say,” she asked, “that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?” No, I said, I wouldn’t say that. “But what about ‘Basketball Diaries’?” she asked. “Doesn’t that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?” The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it’s unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.
The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. “Events like this,” I said, “if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn’t have messed with me. I’ll go out in a blaze of glory.” In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of “explaining” them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy.”
— Roger Ebert

Da Shins Kelly · 16-12-2012 04:02AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/15/what-makes-americas-gun-culture-totally-unique-in-the-world-as-demonstrated-in-four-charts/

Manic Moran · 16-12-2012 04:03AM

Article on a US police website on a talk by Dave Grossman, psychologist and author of "On Killing:"

http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Lt-Col-Dave-Grossman-to-cops-The-enemy-is-denial/

Wondering why it is that so many kids are killed in violence in schools, but not one has been killed in a fire in fifty years.

NTM

UCDVet · 16-12-2012 04:09AM

robluvshandegg wrote: »

I kinda had a feeling someone would bring it back to this thing. Its always this vague protection from the government argument. What does this actually mean?

So you asked a question to which you already knew the answer?

It's not a 'vague' argument. In the American revolution, citizens fought a war against their government. They used guns to win that war.

Without an armed civilian population, there would be no United States.

The second amendment was written by people who were distrustful of governments and foresaw a potential need for an armed civilian population to overthrow the government again, in exactly the same way they overthrew their government. With guns.

It's not nice, but it did work pretty well for them in 1776.

That's not to say there aren't other reasons why American's own guns; but I think it address the most fundamental 'need' from the perspective of the country as a whole and the reason it's in the second amendment.

A close second would be the right to protect oneself and one's property. That actually does include 'from the government'. In very specific situations it is legal for a citizen to shoot police. But it's most often considered with criminals. Everywhere (Ireland included) you can find stories of criminals breaking into law-abiding citizen's homes in the middle of the night, stealing, raping, and/or murdering. Guns certainly carry an inherent danger - but let's be honest - there is very little (short of a gun) a tiny old lady can do to protect herself from criminals who break into her house at night.

Then you've got people who just like guns, or enjoy shooting, or hunting, or use them in a work-related fashion (like cops).

The argument 'against' guns is that, people would be safer. And there's mountains of data on the subject - but nobody has been able to show a causal link between gun-ownership and violent crime.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/violent-crimes-and-handgun-ownership/

spix · 16-12-2012 04:36AM

America is a country of violence. So many kids brought up around guns, no wonder they resort to using them to solve their problems.

I remember going on holidays there, when I left the airport I heard gunshots,someone probably killed. Went to the hotel room, turned on tv and news report about how someone was decapitated in a bus in the city I had just arrived in (only one person died, I wonder what would happen if a gun was thrown into the mix?) Typical day over there I guess.

I have no doubt that if the possession of guns wasn't so common in America, those 20 children would be still alive. Take away the guns and these things will stop happening. It's no good relying on mental health checks if every house within arms reach of the crazy guy has its own private armory.

Da Shins Kelly · 16-12-2012 04:38AM

Apparently those fcukers from the Westboro Baptist Church are planning on making their way to Connecticut to picket the school in order to "praise God's judgement". Ugh. :mad:

metaoblivia · 16-12-2012 04:55AM

Haven't seen it posted yet, but they've released the names and ages of those who were killed in the shooting. I know a lot of the discussion on this thread has been about gun laws, but let's take a moment to remember the victims. The gunman entered a 1st grade classroom, so all of the children who were killed were 6-7 years old:

Charlotte Bacon, 6
Daniel Barden, 7
Rachel Davino, 29
Olivia Engel, 6
Josephine Gay, 7
Ana Marquez-Greene, 6
Dylan Hockley, 6
Dawn Hochsprung, 47
Madeleine Hsu, 6
Catherine Hubbard, 6
Chase Kowalski, 7
Jesse Lewis, 6
James Mattioli, 6
Grace McDonnell, 7
Anne Marie Murphy, 52
Emilie Parker, 6
Jack Pinto, 6
Noah Pozner, 6
Caroline Previdi, 6
Jessica Rekos, 6
Avielle Richman, 6
Lauren Rousseau, 30
Mary Sherlach, 56
Victoria Soto,27
Benjamin Wheeler, 6
Allison Wyatt, 6

DEFTLEFTHAND · 16-12-2012 05:05AM

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Apparently those fcukers from the Westboro Baptist Church are planning on making their way to Connecticut to picket the school in order to "praise God's judgement". Ugh. :mad:

Now that's just disgusting, I respect all organised religion but I find this particular Christian militant group appalling. I remember they picketed funeral's of soldiers. Set aside the wrongs or rights of the war in Iraq but you do not interfere with a person's final ceremony. If were a family member I'd beat one of these people to death if I got the chance, I'm an emotional person and nobody gets away with fcuking with my family.

Table Top Joe · 16-12-2012 05:06AM

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Apparently those fcukers from the Westboro Baptist Church are planning on making their way to Connecticut to picket the school in order to "praise God's judgement". Ugh. :mad:

Sounds ****ed up even for them......why dont any of these nutcases shoot them? theyll really be pushing their luck if they go there i think

Another mass shooting in the U.S

Comments