Adam Lanza - CT Massacre

[92 SVX]

Originally Posted by icingdeath88

I may be in the minority here, but I think that all of this has very little to do with guns or gun laws. I think that as a species we are not quite mentally prepared to handle this crazy world we've made for ourselves. A lot of people are saying that we need to focus more on mental health in this country and I agree with that 100%. I think that's a part of it, but I think as a society we need to develop ways to stop these kind of problems long before they even become mental health problems in the first place. Raising kids better would be a good start. Parents who try desperately to ignore signs that these sick kids display are not helping their kids...

Society is getting on the parents though you can't discipline the children and I don't mean beat them I mean discipline them, without an agency stepping in and getting after the parents

[oab_au]

Originally Posted by svxfiles

Actually everywhere in the United States that has a concealed carry law/provision has had a noticable DECREASE in violent or confrontational crime!
Did you notice that these monsters are NOT ATTACKING biker bars, redneck bars, police stations?!
When one sick person attacked an Air Force Base He KNEW no one was allowed to have guns there except the base police and the guards at the entrances.
If you have ever been on a military base they can be the size of a small city, far from someone who could return fire!

They, (the monsters) are going where they can act out their sick fantasies.
without reprisal!

I was just informed that the shooter in Colorado had four theaters in the neighborhood to choose from.
He picked the one with the "No Weapons Allowed" sign.

We have a couple of SVX Members who live near there,
they are licenced to carry, I absolutely believe that had they been there, carring, the outcome would have been less dead patrons.

And do not try to tell me that "everyone" panics under pressure!
Alot of have made the decission to stay alive while under duress.
Sometime that means shutting up, sometimes it means running away, sometimes it means reasoning with the person trying to kill you.

If there was a teacher or teachers aide who was trained and able and armed it this rash of sick school shootings they could/ would at least have a fighting chance to protect the children.

Agree with that.
We live in a remote area, and if trouble comes, I wait for nobody.

http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=30...1A8646DC564AA4

Harvey.

[WYOSVX]

What do we teach our children in the US? Drugs are dangerous: let's have a war on drugs. Terrorists might come to our country: let's all pack guns and send troops and bomb them wherever they might be. Flying is dangerous: let's put people up there with guns. Our neighborhoods aren't safe: let's put up gates or get more security. Let's incarcarcate a ridiculous proportion of our population. Our response to anythiing uncomfortable is force. Kids are watching, learning. I have NO clue if that is the problem. I have guns and wouldn't give them up. But I just wonder if our way of solving problems- with force- is the real problem. I live in a small town in Wyoming, a place you'd think is safe to raise your kids. Two months ago, a nut came into town, abducted a 12 year old girl, assaulted her. She was let go, miraculously. The guy was a loner, into child porn, used force to get his way. Obviously didn't question right/wrong, just made the jump to using force. No one seems to know what would have changed any of this: Connecticut, Colorado, anywhere there is senseless violence. But I think, somehow, it is learned.

[92 SVX]

Originally Posted by WYOSVX

What do we teach our children in the US? Drugs are dangerous: let's have a war on drugs. Terrorists might come to our country: let's all pack guns and send troops and bomb them wherever they might be. Flying is dangerous: let's put people up there with guns. Our neighborhoods aren't safe: let's put up gates or get more security. Let's incarcarcate a ridiculous proportion of our population. Our response to anythiing uncomfortable is force. Kids are watching, learning. I have NO clue if that is the problem. I have guns and wouldn't give them up. But I just wonder if our way of solving problems- with force- is the real problem. I live in a small town in Wyoming, a place you'd think is safe to raise your kids. Two months ago, a nut came into town, abducted a 12 year old girl, assaulted her. She was let go, miraculously. The guy was a loner, into child porn, used force to get his way. Obviously didn't question right/wrong, just made the jump to using force. No one seems to know what would have changed any of this: Connecticut, Colorado, anywhere there is senseless violence. But I think, somehow, it is learned.

Force and senseless violence is nothing new look back to anytime in history the Crusades of the world world wars the Roman empire the dark ages the only difference between then and now is the technology

[WYOSVX]

No, it's not new. People haven't changed a bit. The list of atrocities, on a major scale and smaller scale is endless. Maybe it's time to change?

[92 SVX]

Originally Posted by WYOSVX

No, it's not new. People haven't changed a bit. The list of atrocities, on a major scale and smaller scale is endless. Maybe it's time to change?

I agree, however the only way to change is more violence.

Some one said, I cant think of who, nor the actual quote but it went something like
The only protection is men ready to do violence.
for the first 150 years of our country men were expected to defend themselves, I say men because as we all know womens movements is a relatively recent occurrence. And because they defended themselves there were fewer mass atrocities.

Dont get me wrong there were and will always be bad people doing bad things but few of them were able to conduct atrocities on a major scale as they were instead killed or stopped by the men they were attacking.

[WYOSVX]

Yeah, you might be right. If the teachers had been packing, they could have fought back. The guy didn't care if he died, apparently, so he may have still attacked and not as many would have died. Or, had he known that the teachers were armed, would he have, instead, chosen- like McVeigh - to use a big truck loaded with fertilizer? So, say that we arm most people and train them to be safe with guns. Do we then put our schools in 'green zones' like Baghdad? Even there, where a bomb-filled truck couldn't get in, violent people found a way to massacre. Determined people seem to find a way.

Further violence only works until the enemy adapts to it, in my opinion.

[92 SVX]

The problem though as I see it is if you try to use nonviolence you get dead

[WYOSVX]

Yeah, if someone comes a shootin', I'm not gonna lay down and die! It's already too late if they've come with their guns a blazin'.

Just seems like there should be some way to prevent this. I'm as clueless as anyone as to the way to do that, though. Probably too ingrained in human nature.

I just read an article on Pop Sci online, "Would Arming Teachers and Students Really Have Prevented a Tragedy." They refer to a 2009 Univ Penna study that claims that if a victim had a chance to resist, he or she was 5.5 x more likely to be shot. There's a lot more to it and I can't say that I'm convinced of the validity of the study results. Interesting reading, though.

[Conn SVX]

No glass in the front door.
Electric power doors or gates, hit one button and all door lock and all hallways are blocked .If there is a breach the school can go into a total lock down just like a jail.

[92 SVX]

Originally Posted by Conn SVX

No glass in the front door.
Electric power doors or gates, hit one button and all door lock and all hallways are blocked .If there is a breach the school can go into a total lock down just like a jail.

So now the solution is to imprison our kids?

I know that is not what your talking about but it sure made a good point.

[92 SVX]

Originally Posted by WYOSVX

Yeah, if someone comes a shootin', I'm not gonna lay down and die! It's already too late if they've come with their guns a blazin'.

Just seems like there should be some way to prevent this. I'm as clueless as anyone as to the way to do that, though. Probably too ingrained in human nature.

I just read an article on Pop Sci online, "Would Arming Teachers and Students Really Have Prevented a Tragedy." They refer to a 2009 Univ Penna study that claims that if a victim had a chance to resist, he or she was 5.5 x more likely to be shot. There's a lot more to it and I can't say that I'm convinced of the validity of the study results. Interesting reading, though.

I dont believe those studies as the information can be distorted.

Look at it this way if one gunman walks into a room with 200 other gunmen/and women, and he knows every one there is armed and knows how to shoot would he be willing to die after one or 2 shots?
Yes some of these people are willing to die but they want easy targets, and multiple body count.
Also dont forget the pain. If the gunman is shot in a part of the body that wont immediately kill the pain of that would be a deterrent

[subi-crosser]

It all comes back to colon furguson. Walking through a NY train shooting people as the lay under train seats. HE knew they were un armed. He took his time, then gave UP! He got to 'defend himself' and 'Cross examine' his SURVIVORS!! Had ONE redneck been on that train and dis-reguarded' the local laws and had his piece with him, he could have 'offed' that puke and saved many lives!
The Va Tech thing came to an end when MORE guns got there. The FIRST gun that got there was a 'permit holder' instructor that ran 2 blocks to his car to get HIS gun, then ran 2 blocks back. If he had it in his lunch box, he could have saved many lives. PERIOD! Criminals pick those places because they know there are no guns there!

[1986nate]

Originally Posted by WYOSVX

Yeah, you might be right. If the teachers had been packing, they could have fought back. The guy didn't care if he died, apparently, so he may have still attacked and not as many would have died. Or, had he known that the teachers were armed, would he have, instead, chosen- like McVeigh - to use a big truck loaded with fertilizer? So, say that we arm most people and train them to be safe with guns. Do we then put our schools in 'green zones' like Baghdad? Even there, where a bomb-filled truck couldn't get in, violent people found a way to massacre. Determined people seem to find a way.

Further violence only works until the enemy adapts to it, in my opinion.

Your point actually brought up something I didn't think of and did make me do some thinking.
Here's the difference. McVeigh was an act of terror and had no intention of killing himself. This is usually how terror attacks are. The difference would be ones carried out by those that believe they will prosper in the afterlife for doing what they did. These are planned out very long term. Very methodical. There isn't a point where they "snap". They plan, and plan, and eventually pick a good time.
Now, take this into account about the Batman shooter. Had he wanted to die, he would have likely stayed in a standoff with police until he was shot, or stayed around to be shot. In his case his was more planned out. He didn't just "snap". He obviously thought out that he wanted to do this on the opening night. Found the theater that had signs up saying guns weren't allowed, etc. Perhaps if every location allowed weapons, he might go to further levels. It's impossible to know.
Most of these mass shootings (especially at schools) are done by people who seemingly want to die, but don't want to just "off" themselves at home in their basement. If there is even a single deterrent, they are likely too much of a coward to go through with it.

Of course none of these apply for every case. Every case is indeed unique. The real issue at hand is the fact that there are very, very few mental hospitals anymore. Insurance companies won't cover the care, and doctors make more off writing prescriptions than actually figuring out the root of the problem. If anyone wants mental help for their son, daughter, or other family member, they are encouraged to wait until they do something violent so it goes on their police record, and eventually possibly go into the jail/prison system for acting out. All the while, the leading cause of the actions are never learned, never figured out, never solved, never helped. This is the true root of the problem at this point. The secondary issue typcally coming down to how the person acting out may have been raised.

[subi-crosser]

Originally Posted by 1986nate

Your point actually brought up something I didn't think of and did make me do some thinking.
Here's the difference. McVeigh was an act of terror and had no intention of killing himself. This is usually how terror attacks are. The difference would be ones carried out by those that believe they will prosper in the afterlife for doing what they did. These are planned out very long term. Very methodical. There isn't a point where they "snap". They plan, and plan, and eventually pick a good time.
Now, take this into account about the Batman shooter. Had he wanted to die, he would have likely stayed in a standoff with police until he was shot, or stayed around to be shot. In his case his was more planned out. He didn't just "snap". He obviously thought out that he wanted to do this on the opening night. Found the theater that had signs up saying guns weren't allowed, etc. Perhaps if every location allowed weapons, he might go to further levels. It's impossible to know.
Most of these mass shootings (especially at schools) are done by people who seemingly want to die, but don't want to just "off" themselves at home in their basement. If there is even a single deterrent, they are likely too much of a coward to go through with it.

Of course none of these apply for every case. Every case is indeed unique. The real issue at hand is the fact that there are very, very few mental hospitals anymore. Insurance companies won't cover the care, and doctors make more off writing prescriptions than actually figuring out the root of the problem. If anyone wants mental help for their son, daughter, or other family member, they are encouraged to wait until they do something violent so it goes on their police record, and eventually possibly go into the jail/prison system for acting out. All the while, the leading cause of the actions are never learned, never figured out, never solved, never helped. This is the true root of the problem at this point. The secondary issue typcally coming down to how the person acting out may have been raised.

If any of my children would have been 'like that', (insert opinions here), there would be NO way for him to access my weapons! I would be taking notes with crayons, because there would be no pencils or pens that were not locked up! The knives would be brought out to cut meat, then put away.
She KNEW he was a 'problem'. She let her guard down.

I was raised in a house with 'foster' kids. I had a collection of models that I loved. I found my 55 Chevy convertable in the attic. It had been heated with a match and pressed into another one. (That boy was later charged with 'arson')

There are 'signs'. People need to pay attention.