18 Children Among 26 Dead in Conn Elementary School Shooting

LadyJazzer wrote: Yes, to protect them from the wackos that break into schools WITH ASSAULT WEAPONS THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE. (Kinda useless against head-shots, wouldn't you say? I mean, if you're going to kill a 1st-grader, you should shoot them in their little heads, right? Then you get the "full splatter effect.")

Emotion and shock value is all you have to support your misguided opinions. Unfortunately, people in general are gullible and stupid enough to fall for your tripe and you're probably going to win this one.

Oh, god, I HOPE SO....

BadgerKustoms wrote:

ZHawke wrote: There is no "one size fits all" answer.

And that, is the correct, bare root statement and way of thinking that is necessary to address the issue.

This very country was founded on differences and similarities, all united under several documents.... but "all united" does not mean "all the same" and the sooner everyone realizes that the better. America's own citizens often forget that long after 1776 there were sometimes differences that varied state by state. Some of those differences actually lead to defining the distinct borders that shaped these states. It wasn't always water, mountains, or geographical features but differences of opinion sometimes called for a defining of borders to maintain peace. And that supports the "no one size" element of this. Each state should have to decide on what works for them, and then to break it down even smaller, each county, each school district, etc. until it filters down the the individual themselves.

1. If they are given the right to carry.... do they want to? If they don't, fine. But if you simply take away the right to begin with, it doesn't leave the flip-side element of that for the individual that would prefer to does it? People, (not specifically you Z), talk about wanting equality, then in a hypocritical turn announce they want to ban something.... where's the equality then?

2. A state decides by vote their individual carry laws and as that state's rights, shall not be infringed by the federal government. The best/worst (depending on opinion), of the above mentioned documents was such elements of allowing the state to perform in its own ways, so long as it doesn't violate basic individual rights. (Feel like I'm teaching history class again...and perhaps digressing)

Moving on:

ZHawke wrote: So has technology (improved, at least). That being said, what makes these tragedies so horrific, in my opinion, is the type of instrument(s) being used. It seems to be morphing.

And a ban on firearms will not prevent the morphing of these or any instruments. What will definitely morph if a ban is enacted is other materials being used in creative/destructive ways. We're utilizing instruments this very minute that hold the keys to the manufacture and orchestration of very deadly acts. Again we return to the people factor.

How do we preempt a possible catastrophe by reforming, correcting, or terminating individuals with such capability? To start, there needs to be a method of finding such people. How do we do that? I've got no logical answer for that one just yet. There is the possibility that some of the responsible persons that have committed such acts might very well pass a psych evaluation which might suggest there is a problem with psych evals. I don't know how to figure that one out. I've personally seen first hand how a seemingly normal individual you've known for years can one day just "flip" like a lightswitch and become someone completely different and dangerous. A pen passing through the flesh of the forearm is quite painful, but no one has banned pens and as far as I know Bic is still a large manufacturer of high-capacity ink pens.

Badger

I agree, in principle, with virtually everything you say here. The only concern I have, if you even want to call it that, is your pointing out my reference to "morphing" technology. I'm not now, nor have I ever, called for a firearms ban. I just want to make that clear from the get go.

The entire issue of school safety is very complex with a multi-faceted approach being necessary to effect that paradigm, in my opinion. I'm being "told" in that "other" message board that even a discussion of guns isn't to be on the table without effectively explaining whether that means it's their way or the highway (which it appears to me is being implied) which thereby translates to mean gun free zones need to be eliminated altogether and school district staff must be armed. I believe anyone who comes to the teambuilding table with that kind of an agenda is going to doom the process from the start. What I've been advocating is an open forum of sorts in which the team must consider all issues brought to the table. That means the team should NOT, I repeat NOT, deny those on the pro-gun side of the issue their right to discuss what they see as a possible solution. The problem, as I'm seeing it anyway, is some on both sides perceive themselves as being "under attack". In a teambuilding scenario, I believe personal agendas need to be set aside as much as possible, and open discussion of the issues with a goal of hopefully being able to resolve those issues should take precedence. This isn't pie in the sky, starry eyed naivete I'm advocating for. Although, there are some (not you, Badger) who continue to make that stretch. In my own professional experience, this is a proven methodology that does, in fact, work. It ain't easy. It ain't something that'll happen overnight. But for some to "dismiss" this process before even trying it is saddening to me.

BadgerKustoms wrote: Ordinarily I tend to have a lot of patience except when something like this keeps being repeated:

LadyJazzer wrote: the ACTUAL GUN THAT DID THE KILLING.

How difficult is it to realize that a PERSON pulled the trigger?!?!?!? That gun didn't jump up all by its lonesome and start cracking off rounds. To think so, not only pisses on standard logic and further supports various "mental illness", but it is possibly another reason why other countries think Americans are stupid.

I heard that a SUV drove him to the school, too.

[youtube:26uqe1fk][/youtube:26uqe1fk]

Newtown shooter's guns: What we know

(CNN) -- Adam Lanza brought three weapons inside Sandy Hook Elementary school on December 14 and left a fourth in his car, police said. Those weapons were a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle and two handguns -- a Glock 10 mm and a Sig Sauer 9 mm.

In the car he left a shotgun, about which police have offered no details. Lanza used one of the handguns to take his own life, although police haven't said whether the gun was the Glock or the Sig Sauer.

Bushmaster AR-15 rifle

The primary weapon used in the attack was a "Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon," said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance [/u]. The rifle is a Bushmaster version of a widely made AR-15, the civilian version of the M-16 rifle used by the U.S. military. The original M-16 patent ran out years ago, and now the AR-15 is manufactured by several gunmakers. Unlike the military version, the AR-15 is a semiautomatic, firing one bullet per squeeze of the trigger. But like the M-16, ammunition is loaded through a magazine. In the school shooting, police say Lanza's rifle used numerous 30-round magazines.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connec ... index.html

Story Retraction: Authorities Say Newtown Shooter Did Not Use Assault Weapon

Earlier today I posted an NBC News report about the type of weapons Adam Lanza used during his Sandy Hook rampage. That report was from December 15 and contained false information. According to the Newtown coroner, Lanza used a semi-automatic AR-15, not four handguns as the report said. The entire post has been retracted. I apologize for the error.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli ... n-n1475045

Newtown shooting: Connecticut State Police confirm shooter as Adam Lanza

NEWTOWN — State police late Sunday afternoon confirmed what has been reported since Friday, naming Adam Lanza as the gunman in the Sandy Hook Elementary School slayings and his mother, Nancy Lanza, as another victim.

According to Lt. J. Paul Vance, the chief state medical examiner found Nancy Lanza’s cause of death to be multiple gunshot wounds in a homicide in her 36 Yogananda St. home, while her son, who also lived in the home, died of a gunshot wound in a suicide. Adam Lanza was found dead in the school after police arrived Friday.

An assault rifle, which Vance labeled a Bushmaster AR-15, was the firearm most used during Friday’s shooting. Adam Lanza also had a Glock 10 mm and a Sig Sauer 9-mm handgun, along with additional ammunition and multiple magazines for each gun that could hold “hundreds” of bullets, Vance said.

A shotgun was also recovered in the vehicle Adam Lanza had parked outside the school. Vance said it “is impossible to say” how many bullets were fired, but that some were found to be unspent. Investigators are also continuing to establish a timeline, and Vance said he did not know when Nancy Lanza was shot.

Search warrants have been executed, and “a great deal” of evidence has been seized.

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2012 ... 784125.txt

AR-15 with high-capacity magazines used by Adam Lanza in Sandy Hook School shooting

NEWTOWN, Conn. - Adam Lanza was equipped with an assault rifle and two handguns inside Sandy Hook School, Conn. State Police said. An additional weapon, a shotgun, was found in Lanza's vehicle outside the school.

Sunday was also the first official confirmation that Lanza was the shooter who killed six adults and twenty children inside the school.

According to Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance, Lanza had multiple high-capacity magazines for the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle. Those high-capacity magazines held 30 rounds each, Vance said. Lanza also had multiple magazines for the Glock 10mm and Sig Sauer 9mm handguns. As a result, Vance said, Lanza was armed with "hundreds of bullets."

Saturday, Connecticut medical examiner Dr. H. Wayne Carver said the 7 victims he examined had each been shot between three and eleven times. He also said he believed each victim was shot multiple times. If the three-to-eleven shot estimate is accurate for each victim, and Lanza used only 30-round magazines, he would have used between four and ten magazines.

State Police refused to comment on precisely how many magazines were emptied or shell casings were found, but said they had collected those items for examination. Still, the shooting ended while Lanza still had enough unused ammunition to carry out significant additional carnage.

"There was a lot of ammo, a lot of clips," State Police Lt. Paul Vance. "Certainly a lot of lives were potentially saved."

Vance said Lanza used one of the handguns to take his own life, but wouldn't speculate on when or why Lanza decided to end his spree.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/ne ... l-shooting



OH, you mean reports from 12/15 WERE IN ERROR?!?!?! Oh, I forgot...If Bear saw it on YouTube, then it MUST BE TRUE!!


Here, Bear...Believe this:

Sexuality Of The Antichrist In Gangnam Style

[youtube:1kc8ais8][/youtube:1kc8ais8]

Gee, Bear... Caught lying again....

ZHawke wrote: I agree, in principle, with virtually everything you say here. The only concern I have, if you even want to call it that, is your pointing out my reference to "morphing" technology. I'm not now, nor have I ever, called for a firearms ban. I just want to make that clear from the get go.

I sort of vaguely capitalized on the the morphing aspect, not just in technology but methods. For the most part it sounds like you and I are relatively on the same page, or at the very least the same table of teamwork.

ZHawke wrote: The problem, as I'm seeing it anyway, is some on both sides perceive themselves as being "under attack".

I definitely agree here too and it might be partially due to the particular thread we're participating in. When the initial post and more than half are discussing the issue of 'gun control' there's an immediate and metaphorical line drawn in the sand and people instantly jump to either side clenching their beliefs so tightly they may as well also be clapping hands over their ears and going "la,la,la, la". (We're well aware of one particular member here that does this routinely, but anyway...) Let's face it, this thread isn't exactly about "How to make schools safer" anymore, it rather evolved into "Bushmaster AR-15s are bad", which I would lightly agree with..... Colt and Daniel Defense are much better platforms. :thumbsup:

The team idea is excellent, where to begin would be the question though. And another question would be, "is it worth it?". I mean at the end of the day, we're all just different people, some with strong opinions voicing those to any and all that hear, but something is going to be voted on by a Nation. At the end of the day we're just regular folk, sitting in a room talking and the rest of the country has no clue we're even here. Opinions voiced with so few ears listening. Sure it means a lot to reach out to someone here locally and express differing views but there is that part of me that wonders if I'm just wasting my time in here.

On a more personal note, that "other" message board is one that has denied me freedom to waste my time as I see fit. I'm still a member there, but cannot make too many solid points in the study without being threatened with banning, even though I don't break any of their beloved ToS. Digressing quite a bit in this post now, but just wanted to say that its definitely been cool reading your posts ZHawke and rewarding knowing that in areas of disagreement, civility and common courtesy is still forefront. Rock on!



Badger

BadgerKustoms wrote:

ZHawke wrote: I agree, in principle, with virtually everything you say here. The only concern I have, if you even want to call it that, is your pointing out my reference to "morphing" technology. I'm not now, nor have I ever, called for a firearms ban. I just want to make that clear from the get go.

I sort of vaguely capitalized on the the morphing aspect, not just in technology but methods. For the most part it sounds like you and I are relatively on the same page, or at the very least the same table of teamwork.

ZHawke wrote: The problem, as I'm seeing it anyway, is some on both sides perceive themselves as being "under attack".

I definitely agree here too and it might be partially due to the particular thread we're participating in. When the initial post and more than half are discussing the issue of 'gun control' there's an immediate and metaphorical line drawn in the sand and people instantly jump to either side clenching their beliefs so tightly they may as well also be clapping hands over their ears and going "la,la,la, la". (We're well aware of one particular member here that does this routinely, but anyway...) Let's face it, this thread isn't exactly about "How to make schools safer" anymore, it rather evolved into "Bushmaster AR-15s are bad", which I would lightly agree with..... Colt and Daniel Defense are much better platforms. :thumbsup:

The team idea is excellent, where to begin would be the question though. And another question would be, "is it worth it?". I mean at the end of the day, we're all just different people, some with strong opinions voicing those to any and all that hear, but something is going to be voted on by a Nation. At the end of the day we're just regular folk, sitting in a room talking and the rest of the country has no clue we're even here. Opinions voiced with so few ears listening. Sure it means a lot to reach out to someone here locally and express differing views but there is that part of me that wonders if I'm just wasting my time in here.

On a more personal note, that "other" message board is one that has denied me freedom to waste my time as I see fit. I'm still a member there, but cannot make too many solid points in the study without being threatened with banning, even though I don't break any of their beloved ToS. Digressing quite a bit in this post now, but just wanted to say that its definitely been cool reading your posts ZHawke and rewarding knowing that in areas of disagreement, civility and common courtesy is still forefront. Rock on!



Badger

Thanks, and back at you. I agree again, with virtually everything you've said in your post. In answer to your question, "is it worth it", I feel it resoundingly is. A starting point might by our website. Someone is going to necessarily be required to take the lead. That someone may or may not ultimately wind up becoming the "team leader". In the role of team leader, facilitation becomes of prime consideration. There's a very active discussion nationally right now about safer schools. What that ultimately will "look like" is up to those who choose to get actively involved. I know sustainability is an issue. Volunteerism historically has been problematic. Budget considerations have also been a problem. The methodology I'm advocating addresses both issues up front, and makes it very clear from the start that determination, perseverance, hard work, and an eye on the prize are of paramount importance. If parents really are concerned about the safety of their children while at school, then they are just as responsible to provide for that safety as are the school districts and the local community they live in.

A statement from our website:

Please think about whose responsibility it is to ensure, to the extent possible, that our children are safe when they are sent off to school. This includes on their way to school, too. Think about at bus stops and on the bus ride to school, and on the walk to school for those who live close enough. Whose job is it, really?

If you believe it is solely the responsibility of the school they attend, please think again. If you believe it is solely the responsibility of response organizations in your community, please think again. Students, parents, and community are also responsible to help ensure our schools are safe places to be, not only for the kids, but also for the faculty, administration, and maintenance staff of every single school nationwide. If students, parents, and community members mobilize, get educated, get informed, and offer to help, then there can be no more excuses. Students, parents, and community can, no - MUST, have a say and MUST play a role in enhancing safe schools everywhere!

And the link: http://www.thepeacechallenge.org/introduction/safe-schools.html There's also a link on this page to a video we participated in produced by Penn State University and the Department of Justice called "It Can Happen Here". I encourage everyone to consider watching it. Thanks.

If you actually look at the FBI statistics, homicides by rifles are a very small percentage of deaths compared to handguns. Bright side of this horrible tragedy? It is actually very rare to have a school shooting like this.