At Least 26 Dead in Shooting at Connecticut Elementary School

[BradW]

Originally Posted by NateR

I totally agree with that idea and I think simply the knowledge that the guns are there and that the faculty is trained to use them, would deter a large percentage of these shooters.

Kind of like that shooting in the movie theater during the Dark Knight Rises premiere. If just one of the theater patrons had been carrying a concealed weapon, then they could have stopped that shooter before the death toll rose as high as it did.

Of course, no security measure is going to stop 100% of threats, that's why you need overlapping security measures. Plus, I think the "if the guns are there then the crazy are going to get ahold of them!" argument is just nonsense. I'd like to see some statistics on how often these "crazy people" have been able to disarm police officers and use their own weapons against them. If the teachers are trained to use the firearms by the police, then you would almost totally eliminate that possibility.

so you think school teachers would be able to protect children with fire arms the same way police could ?
the answer isnt more guns...the answer is actually less guns.

[adamt]

Originally Posted by BradW

so you think school teachers would be able to protect children with fire arms the same way police could ?
the answer isnt more guns...the answer is actually less guns.

yes, there were dozens of teachers at that school and no police officers, so , yes, i think the teachers could have protected the kids better, unless of course you want to put a cop in every classroom.....with all due respect to the police officers, they were of no value in this scenario, 100 cops showed up 20 minutes late, if they were there, i have no doubt they would have done well, but they weren't there, teachers were

[adamt]

surely we have all seen the other school tragedy yesterday where 22 kids were stabbed in china,

should we ban knives???

Maybe we should anticipate tragedies. For instance, what if someone ran into a school classroom with gasoline and attempted to sling it around and set it on fire? To prevent that scenario from happening, maybe we should ban gasoline.


one last thought..... if guns are banned, shouldn't they be banned from movies and video games too? Tom cruise delayed the opening of jack reacher today, but shouldn't hollywoods glorification of death and evil and murder be permanently delayed? why don't we call for gun censorship before banning guns.... how many people would go for that? I haven't seen it, but correct me if I am wrong, but movies like the hunger games are derived from pure evil
and they are cheered on by society

[BradW]

Originally Posted by adamt

surely we have all seen the other school tragedy yesterday where 22 kids were stabbed in china,

should we ban knives???
Maybe we should anticipate tragedies. For instance, what if someone ran into a school classroom with gasoline and attempted to sling it around and set it on fire? To prevent that scenario from happening, maybe we should ban gasoline.


one last thought..... if guns are banned, shouldn't they be banned from movies and video games too? Tom cruise delayed the opening of jack reacher today, but shouldn't hollywoods glorification of death and evil and murder be permanently delayed? why don't we call for gun censorship before banning guns.... how many people would go for that? I haven't seen it, but correct me if I am wrong, but movies like the hunger games are derived from pure evil
and they are cheered on by society

none of them died from the knife attack but 26 died from the gun attack...

[BradW]

Originally Posted by adamt

yes, there were dozens of teachers at that school and no police officers, so , yes, i think the teachers could have protected the kids better, unless of course you want to put a cop in every classroom.....with all due respect to the police officers, they were of no value in this scenario, 100 cops showed up 20 minutes late, if they were there, i have no doubt they would have done well, but they weren't there, teachers were

there would have just been more dead teachers if they were all armed with guns.

[Bonnie]

Originally Posted by Neezar

I would like to know how he got into the school.

They are saying he forced his way in but they didn't elaborate.

Originally Posted by NateR

I totally agree with that idea and I think simply the knowledge that the guns are there and that the faculty is trained to use them, would deter a large percentage of these shooters.

Of course, no security measure is going to stop 100% of threats, that's why you need overlapping security measures. Plus, I think the "if the guns are there then the crazy are going to get ahold of them!" argument is just nonsense. I'd like to see some statistics on how often these "crazy people" have been able to disarm police officers and use their own weapons against them. If the teachers are trained to use the firearms by the police, then you would almost totally eliminate that possibility.

Are you referring to my comment to Mike's post or something else? I believe in our right to bear arms, and in the right to protect ourselves, but I don't think having loaded firearms at the ready in schools is the wisest road to go down. How do you protect people in the school from someone who is already there, a teacher or a student, someone who is supposed to be there, and who now has this weapon? It's naive to think that those weapons couldn't get in the hands of people it wasn't meant for, OR, that someone in the school who has access to it couldn't one day go postal themselves!

What I said is below, and I think it is totally valid and not nonsense.

Originally Posted by Bonnie

That wouldn't necessarily help if the "crazy" is a student (or teacher) in the school, who would then have access to that weapon. If they know it's there, believe me, they'll find a way to get ahold of it. Not to mention, if it's known publicly that there are loaded weapons to be had there, those that would try to steal them. I don't think there's any way to be totally prepared for people who are angry and decide others are going to pay.

[NateR]

Originally Posted by BradW

...the answer is actually less guns.

In your opinion, but I disagree. Why do you think these shooters primarily choose places like schools, movie theaters, political rallies, etc. to carry out these shootings? Because the chances of them encountering no armed resistance are pretty high.

Notice how places like police stations or military bases are rarely attacked like this? It's because potential shooters know that places like that hare heavily armed and the chances of them getting shot as soon as they brandish a firearm are really good.

All gun control laws do is ensure that only the insane and/or criminally minded portion of the population has access to guns. In other words, gun control laws actually make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

Originally Posted by BradW

none of them died from the knife attack but 26 died from the gun attack...

So that makes it all better? The problem is with people not inanimate objects.

Originally Posted by Bonnie

Are you referring to my comment to Mike's post or something else? I believe in our right to bear arms, and in the right to protect ourselves, but I don't think having loaded firearms at the ready in schools is the wisest road to go down. How do you protect people in the school from someone who is already there, a teacher or a student, someone who is supposed to be there, and who now has this weapon? It's naive to think that those weapons couldn't get in the hands of people it wasn't meant for, OR, that someone in the school who has access to it couldn't one day go postal themselves!

What I said is below, and I think it is totally valid and not nonsense.

Really? Does that actually happen? Teachers just decide to shoot up all the students that they work with every day? If you can cite some examples, then go right ahead. Otherwise, I think it's a pretty far-fetched scenario.

Besides, IF a teacher was truly intent on shooting up all of her/his own students, then I don't think the current laws would provide much of a deterrent at all.

As for the students being able to gain control of the guns, that could be prevented with the most basic of precautions.

Again, it's the knowledge that the shooter is going to be encountering armed resistance immediately after brandishing the firearm that I believe would provide the greatest deterrent to these kinds of shootings.

Of course, no law is going to stop all forms of violence, because human beings are evil and corrupted by our very natures. However, laws should never stand in the way of law-abiding citizens defending themselves from evil actions.

[NateR]

Also, the shooter was 20 years old and the legal age for gun ownership in the state of Connecticut is 21. So, again, legal gun ownership laws are NOT the problem here.

As soon as this kid picked up a loaded weapon, he was in violation of Connecticut gun laws before he fired a single shot. One more law would have made no difference.

[BradW]

Originally Posted by NateR

Also, the shooter was 20 years old and the legal age for gun ownership in the state of Connecticut is 21. So, again, legal gun ownership laws are NOT the problem here.

As soon as this kid picked up a loaded weapon, he was in violation of Connecticut gun laws before he fired a single shot. One more law would have made no difference.

if his mother didn't have all these "LEGAL" guns readily available to him in their home then this would probably never have happend...

[Silverback]

Originally Posted by BradW

if his mother didn't have all these "LEGAL" guns readily available to him in their home then this would probably never have happend...

Would that be like saying the gun was as sick as the shooter ?