GeorgiaDon

No, just a more productive way to waste time. Stuck working again, and feeling grouchy about it. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Would you please post links to credible sources that prove, to the standard you want to apply to the information given out by the police (not the media in the first few hours of the incident), that Adam Lanza was known to be violent and mentally ill? I have not seen any such sources. In fact all I have seen is reports that Lanza was extremely socially withdrawn, but very intelligent. And, anecdotal reports that he liked video games. Are you arguing that poor social skills = mental illness? Should people have to prove they have a certain number of friends before they can "bear arms"? What in your professional opinion would be the minimum number of friends one should have? Do facebook friends count? Or perhaps you are arguing that people who like video games, especially those that involve shooting people, should be disqualified from bearing arms? I suspect that would disqualify a very large fraction of the gun-owning population. I'm pretty sure that will earn you some push back from the gun enthusiasts, though it might get you a blow job from Senator Feinstein. Also, I am curious about how many gun owners make a practice of ensuring that their guns are inaccessible to their 20-year-old children who have no felony convictions or history of violent behavior? Are you prepared to argue that every parent who takes their kids (under the age of 21, that is) hunting or to the shooting range should be prosecuted for committing a crime? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I heard they were shot with a home-made potato gun, made from a roll of Christmas wrapping paper. Of course the potatoes were especially lethal, as they had been dipped in melted Chinese lead-based Barbie dolls. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Yet, you thought it important enough to start a thread about it. Go figure. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Interesting, then, that the Bushmaster was recovered in the school, and a shotgun was recovered from the car, according to the police. Lest you argue that that there is some vast liberal conspiracy to "plant" blame on the "assault gun", I think this fellow, writing in the very conservative publication Red State, has a more rational view. FFS, next thing you know we'll be hearing that Lanza killed all those people using only a slingshot and pebbles he picked up in the playground, David and Goliath style. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

What does that mean? Are you suggesting he should have used a gun against the cop? How could this be made better by putting more guns in the mix? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Just FYI, you have just nicely stated the reason many people want to ban high-capacity firearms. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Suicide by cop? Wouldn't be the first time. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I thought the idea was to hide kids in cabinets/closets, or at least get them out of line of sight of any windows, and turn out lights/lock the door so the room looks to be empty. At Sandy Hook, in the second classroom Lanza entered the teacher hid all the kids but she was killed when she told Lanza the kids were in the gym; six kids in that room also were killed when they left their hiding places and tried to escape, but the rest survived. At least one teacher at Sandy Hook was able to save all the kids in her room by hiding them (and herself) in a locked bathroom. So, most of the kids were killed in the first room Lanza entered, before the teacher had time to hide them; perhaps in that case the teacher might have been able to do something had she been armed. The point is, in several classrooms teachers were able to take action (hiding the kids) that was effective in saving their lives. The only "fish in a barrel" were the kids in the first classroom, which was entered almost immediately after Lanza entered the school. Would the outcome have been better or worse had the teachers spent their few seconds retrieving their firearm and positioning themselves to cover the door, instead of getting the kids hidden? Who knows. Certainly this is true. However, how much training would be necessary? With what frequency? We're talking about a very low-frequency but extremely high adrenalin situation. Swat teams and special forces types train constantly for these situations (or so I understand), yet still mistakes are made and innocent people end up dead. We all know that in a high-stress situation people will revert to their training, and in the absence of training anything can happen. How do you train for a situation that will almost certainly never happen in the entire career of almost all teachers? Who is going to pay for that? Also, so far no-one has commented on the much more likely problem of an out-of-control student getting hold of the gun in the classroom. Incidents of student-on-teacher violence are all too common. Will things be better if we put access to firearms in the classroom into the mix? How can firearms be secured from students, yet still be readily available in the event of an actual crisis? Is it possible to do this without having the "cure" be worse than the "disease"? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'd be curious to know what topics are covered in that course. Personally I'm not opposed to the idea of teachers who volunteer to be armed, but I'd oppose making it mandatory as has (to my understanding) been proposed in some states. My daughter is in her last year of college so she can teach, and doesn't have an interest in being forced to carry in the classroom. I do have a couple of things I wonder about, though. Here's a comment from the article that I think is a legitimate concern: "How would I keep that gun safe?" she said. "I wouldn't carry (it) on my person while teaching, where a disgruntled student could overpower me and take it. And if I have it secured in my office, it might not be a viable form of protection." Here is another one: during an actual incident, at some point well-armed law enforcement will enter each classroom in the school, open each closet, etc, to clear the school. From the teacher's perspective, they will see an armed person enter the room and they will have a fraction of a second to decide if it is the shooter or not. What will happen if the teacher opens fire on a law enforcement officer? What will happen if they hesitate, and the person entering the room is the actual shooter? Are teachers going to be trained in how to make such split-second decisions? Just curious what people think of these issues. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

What about it? I don't watch the Houston news, and I certainly can't read your mind to figure out what you "really" meant when you wrote your post. Lets put it this way. We have a situation where there has been a terrible tragedy, and many people are looking for any course of action (i.e. new laws) that will make that less likely to happen again. When people on the pro-gun side offer logically contradictory positions, it sends the message that they have nothing constructive to add to the discussion. Then the danger is that they get cut out of the discussion, and laws get passed without their point of view getting a fair hearing. Anyway, SC is just a tiny corner of the internet universe where we get to BS about whatever we want. So in that context you don't "have" to follow logic, or anything, if you don't want to. Oh and for the record I have no wish to confiscate your guns. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Just having fun with you, pointing out how you use completely contradictory arguments depending on what is convenient for you at the moment. So much for "logic". Also in the post I responded to you talked about defense against invasion of the country. I have no idea what orifice you are pulling this crap about home invasions or having your shit robbed out of. Well, actually I do. You might want to wash your hands. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

However, it does contradict the pro-gun dogma that no-one ever tries to shoot up a police station because of all the well armed people there. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I thought the argument against restricting "assault weapons" was that would-be school shooters would just use their car/knives/bombs/whatever. So the essence of your complaint is that school-shooter whack jobs are creative enough to find alternative methods to kill people, but if you take guns from people like you, you'll be "unable to fight back"? Isn't that basically saying you're not as smart as a whack-job school shooter? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

There is no evidence that I have seen in any of the reporting that Adam Lanza was involved in even a single violent episode or incident before this school shooting. He was pathologically "shy", forming no friendships and having a difficult time relating to people, which has suggested an armchair diagnosis of autism/Asbergers to many, though I haven't heard that he was officially diagnosed with either condition. He was also an exceptional student, completing university courses in computer programming at the age of 16, which is also consistent with Asberger's syndrome. Many people with Asberger's are exceptionally intelligent, often very successful in careers that require a lot of specialized training (engineering, computer science, veterinary medicine, etc), though they all have difficulty reading social cues (facial expressions, body language) and they have a hard time forming close relationships with other people. So (up until Sandy Hook) we have a kid/young man with no history of violence, a high intelligence, but extreme difficulty interacting with people. What in that precludes participating with a parent in what is described in the thread on the Swiss as a "wholesome family activity"? Should parents have to apply some "social skills test" to their kids before teaching them how to use guns? "I'm sorry little Johnny but you don't seem to have many friends, so I don't think firearms are for you, but your sister has lots of friends so I'll take her to the firing range instead". It's easy to say Mrs. Lanza was "misguided", but only in hindsight I think (based on everything that has been reported so far). Or course it's always easy to blame "bad parenting" for these things, but no-one is able to predict with complete accuracy everything their kids may choose to do down the road. If I have some activity I really enjoy, I'll want to include my kids in that, unless I have good reason to believe they aren't capable of handling that activity responsibly (such as a history of violence). Do you favor people having to pass a "social skills test" before being allowed to use firearms, even under parental supervision? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'm sure the cost of the security is included in the tuition parents pay to send their kids to that private school. It's also somewhat disingenuous to pretend that kids of the ultra rich or famous are no more likely to be kidnapped for ransom, or targeted for political purposes, than "run of the mill poor children"are. The city where I live has 21 public schools (14 elementary, 4 middle, 3 high). At 11 assigned police officers/school, that would require 231 officers. The entire city police department has 240 officers. So, you could assign virtually the whole police department to guard the schools, leaving just 9 officers to police the entire remainder of the city. Alternatively you could double the size of the police department, or have the school district create its own police department which would be equal in size to that of the rest of the city. Either way would require essentially doubling the city's budget for police services, which would require a very substantial property tax increase. Do you really believe this is a practical solution to the problem? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Perhaps. But I find it interesting that the US has much harsher penalties than most other Western democracies, but the crime rate is not lower than in those countries. I guess if you actually put someone behind bars for 20 years for stealing a car,then they won't be stealing any cars for the next 20 years, but what is the expense to society? The problem with deterrence is that most criminals seem to think they are smarter than the rest of us and won't get caught. Really, it's only people who plan ahead and weigh risk vs reward who are likely to look at harsh penalties and decide it isn't worth the risk. It seems to me most criminals (the Bernie Madoff types excepted) aren't geniuses at planning for the long term. One thing that might make a big difference in the long run is to break up public housing projects; for those who truly need help, they should be integrated into "normal" neighborhoods. When kids (especially male children) grow up in an environment where no-body they see around them has a job, and all the male "role models" are in jail or on probation, and the ones who have any money are dealing drugs or pimping, it's hardly surprising that they grow up to regard that as "normal". When the girls grow up surrounded by single mother families, where me are not expected to take care of the children they produce, that too will be whatthey expect from life. Put kids into an environment where all the neighbors are self-supporting, where almost all the kids they know have two parents, where almost no-one goes to jail, and where "success" is defined by growing up and taking care of yourself through honest work, and they will almost certainly turn out better than they would growing up in the projects. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

question on any observation at this point is correlation vs cause vs effect.....but you pretty much come to the point of responsible ownership requires training and periodic reassessments seems that would be something the NRA could offer that would be constructive What a refreshingly constructive concept. I couldn't agree more. However, when I suggested this, a long time ago in a thread far far away, I was totally flamed for suggesting that law-abiding gun owners should have to answer to anyone to prove their competence. Nothing in the 2nd amendment about "training" and "assessments", just "shall not be infringed", you know. There is also the difficult issue of due process: suppose someone does go through an NRA-taught firearm safety class, and the instructors are concerned that the student is dangerous for whatever reason. What would be a lawful process by which that student could be restricted from accessing firearms? Unlike AFF, where an especially unpromising student can be given the bowling speech, one would (and should) have to go through the courts to take away someone's constitutionally guaranteed access to arms. People who instruct the courses would have to be trained to recognize "red flags", and have some power to initiate the judicial process. Nevertheless, if this problem can be solved, I think "training and periodic reassessments", coupled with good background checks for all gun purchases (even private sales) and enforceable penalties for circumventing the checks, would help enormously. No doubt those who are intent on causing mayhem, and are deranged enough that they can't hide their intent for long enough to get through the class, will just try to acquire guns through some other means, which is why rigorous background checks and completion of the training before being able to purchase firearms, would be necessary for the system to make much of an impact. The question is, can any of that be done in a manner that doesn't infringe to an impermissible extent on constitutional rights? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

He was certainly an interesting character, and made valuable contributions to his fields of law. However, I think he would have been an unmitigated disaster as a supreme court judge, and had he been confirmed I think his legacy would have been an America that was totally changed, and not for the better. You characterize his views on individual liberties as "leftist"; I would consider them to be fascist. He believed that "free speech" referred to in the 1st amendment applied only to political speech; in all other aspects he felt the principle duty of government was to maintain order. To that extent, he wrote in favor of severe censorship of music, movies, teaching of evolution, and anything else that could upset the existing social order. Needless to say, music/art/etc that conformed to his tastes would be all that would be available for the rest of us to "enjoy". Here in his own words is his thinking on "freedom of speech": “Constitutional protection should be accorded only to speech that is explicitly political. There is no basis for judicial intervention to protect any other form of expression, be it scientific, literary, or that variety of expression we call obscene or pornographic. Moreover, within that category of speech we ordinarily call political, there should be no constitutional obstruction to laws making criminal any speech that advocates forcible overthrow of the government or the violation of any law.” He dismissed the 9th amendment as an "inkblot", where "original intent" was unknowable and therefore the amendment meaningless. That view was also reflected in his response to Griswold v. Connecticut, the case in which the supreme court struck down laws banning the use of contraceptives, even by married couples, where Bork wrote: “No activity that society thinks immoral is victimless. Knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral.” In Bork's America, the "majority" should be able to impose their moral choices on the "minority", even in personal matters between consenting adults, such as use of contraceptives. I could go on, but those two examples serve to illustrate that our freedoms would have been drastically diminished had Bork's view been allowed to dominate the Supreme Court. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

this has been said enough times to be a poor cliche. The response is also old hat- it's it funny how many ACLU types will defend Nazi's right to march and Christian Scientists the right to let their kid die rather than get improper medical attention...no infringement on the 1st will be tolerated. But fuck the second amendment, the one that talks about the right of the people and is the one that actually maintains our right to the first. Real Americans (Fuck Ya!) are somehow able to support both. Usually I'm at least able to discern what you are talking about, but not this time. If you think I was arguing for gun control in my post, you are quite mistaken. I was simply responding to RonD's post that stated that the remedy to the gun issue is to force us all to be Christian. Nothing more than that. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

More specific timeline (from

I find it interesting that any discussion of "gun control" is off the table, as it would violate 2nd amendment rights. Yet, some of the same people have no problem with proposing that the solution to the problem is to be found in eliminating our 1st amendment right to freedom of religion, proposing instead that the government impose Christianity on us all regardless of our personal beliefs. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

How many permanent, open every day, gun shows are there? How many permanent, open everyday malls or movie theaters? One would have to have a specific reason to target a gun show, find out when/where one would be held, and plan specifically for that event. If someone was to do that, it would very much imply that they were specifically targeting gun shows (not just looking for places where people could be found in large numbers). That would suggest they had a grudge against guns, so it's not likely they would choose to use a gun to express their anger against guns, don't you think? Maybe the notion that it would be a bad idea to try to shoot up a gun show might cross their mind, but the logistical issues suggest other explanations may apply. As a comparison, I have never heard of a mass murder at a dog show either (same issues of having to plan for a specific day/location; why bother when the mall/movie theater is open every day). I'll grant the police station, perhaps, though even there would you expect to have access to hundreds of potential victims like you would at a theater/mall? Sometimes people do target police stations, but only if they are intent on "suicide by cop". Fort Hood, I think, was a different sort of beast altogether. I think it's pretty clear that was a terrorist attack, motivated by religion and specifically targeted to military personnel. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

One can't deny that there is a common theme of targeting places where there are a large number of potential victims,which would prominently include schools, malls, movie theaters, and fast food "restaurants". People bent on mass murder go to those places, it would be logical to assume, for the same reason bank robbers rob banks (because that's where the money is). Most of those places have a no-guns policy, I'm guessing because of concerns about liability issues. Alternatively, people commit mass murder at a place that has a specific connection to them, such as a work place. Are you aware of any incidents where it is known for a fact that the killer targeted a specific site because of a "gun-free" policy? Can you point me to any study that has compared the risk of a mass murder incident occurring in movie theaters/shopping malls with a "gun-free" vs "gun-friendly" policy? A single study that suggests that permitting concealed carry makes a movie theater or shopping mall or school less likely to be targeted? I doubt that people who plan such attacks are thinking at the level of calculating the risk that they will be stymied by a private citizen. Either they are motivated by a specific attachment to a place (such as a place of work), seeking revenge against people who have "done them wrong", or they go to where there a lot of people they can take by surprise. In most cases it seems the perpetrators are trying to make some sort of a statement, though what that is may not be apparent to anybody else, and they don't expect to live through the incident (often killing themselves), so it seems unlikely that they would be put off by the chance of being resisted by an armed civilian or even the police. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

A la Star Wars, right? Yep, but hopefully without Jar Jar Binks. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)