The Sandy Hook Massacre

[Guest fountainhall]

In opening this thread, I’m not going start another gun ownership/gun control debate. That was quite extensively covered earlier this year in this thread –

 

http://www.gaythaila...e__hl__massacre

 

Like vast numbers of people all over the globe, I have been horrified at the deaths of these innocent little children and their incredibly brave teachers. Hearing their personal stories from their families over the last few days, I have been reduced to tears on more than one occasion. I cannot begin to comprehend the depth of the grief these families must feel. And yet, amidst it all, some of the reactions of the families have been incredibly touching. None more so, I think, that that of the father of 6-year old Emilie Parker, who tearfully spoke of his child in the present tense, and yet still found it in his heart to ask for support for the family of the killer.

 

Photo: wcvb.com

 

It does seem that there will now be some movement in Congress towards the banning of semi-automatic weapons. No doubt this will reawaken all the pros and cons of the gun control debate. I only hope that the campaign (for that is that it will be) to change the law will use one photograph to accompany its arguments – that of six-year old Emilie. Who could possibly not be moved by the smiling photo of this beautiful, blonde-haired, blue-eyed little girl?

 

May they all rest in pleace.

[KhorTose]

Yes, may they all rest in peace and may the families eventually find healing from this terrible tragedy. It is my hope that better care, treatment, and council will be provided for people suffering from mental health conditions. The current standard of care and aid provided for the mentally ill is one of the greatest shortcomings of the American society.

[Guest fountainhall]

It is my hope that better care, treatment, and council will be provided for people suffering from mental health conditions

 

I totally agree, and am sure this will be part of the upcoming political discussions. But not just treatment, I think. There is a need to identify those who might be in need of help but who are either not aware of it or concerned about seeking treatment. I believe this leads to one further issue.

 

On a personal note, I had occasion more than 35 years ago to seek assistance from a psychiatrist. It was a small matter but one which concerned me and I was encouraged by a friend to see a particular doctor. After four sessions, both the doctor and I decided there was no need for any more. The issue had been pleasantly resolved.

 

Not long after that, though, I moved to Asia and had to fill in several insurance forms. One question asked if I had ever been treated by a psychiatrist (or it may have been "had I ever suffered from any mental illness?" - I cannot now remember the wording). The implication was that if I answered 'yes', there would be additional questions asked and perhaps authority sought to speak to the doctor. I had no problems with anyone consulting the doctor, but I was very concerned at having "mental illness" anywhere in a file, when in fact the issue had been extremely minor. After all, who knows for how long that 'tag' would stay on file. I thought long and hard about it, before deciding I would enter a false answer. I ticked the 'No' box. I lied.

 

How many others, I wonder, might actually know that they have some sort of mental health or societal problem but either do not have family or friends who can direct them towards treatment, or worse, will not seek treatment because of the possible stigma that will stay with them long after they are 'cured'?

[Bob]

Yes, a terrible tragedy. And I thought that President Obama's comments at the vigil on Sunday were most appropriate for the occasion of trying to deal with the deaths of all these little kids. He, like almost all of the Newtown folk, have been incredibly compassionate and kind to each other.

[Rogie]

I've been looking at a few commentators to see if there are any fresh insights, not having any myself.

 

it's just too awful what happened - I feel really deflated whenever I try and make sense of it. I reckon you either need a big ego, or some genuine knowledge and experience of guns, mental illness, the American psyche etc, in order to chip in on this, and I possess none of those.

 

This item's author is Nadin Abbott: I quote just the first few paragraphs:-

 

December 18, 2012 (San Diego’s East County)--It's not easy to speak of what happened last week at Sandy Hook elementary school in Connecticut, where a gunman opened fire. It is harder because this is not the first mass shooting, and probably will not be the last. But with the slaughter of 20 innocent children and 6 adults, we might finally hit a tipping point in how we look at guns and our culture.

 

I come at this not just as a gun owner, but also as a former first responder who saw firsthand what a NATO round or a Warsaw round can do to the human body. Mexico, where I worked with the Red Cross, is a place where these weapons are used regularly by the cartels.

 

It is a searing experience to have to transport an eight year old to the trauma center, with one or more of these rounds in his little body. It is even more searing when you have to reach for the sheet and cover the now lifeless body.

 

I can imagine what those first responders in Newtown found at Sandy Hook Elementary. It was, quite frankly, a war zone.

 

So, we all ask, what do we do? I have a series of proposals.

 

First, we need to ban all high capacity magazines. So, I have to reload my magazine more often at the range. So what? It also takes a well trained shooter three seconds to change a magazine. That is a valuable three seconds if you are trying to find cover. This has to be a federal ban. It does not work if one state does it and not others.

 

Second, we need to actually look at mandating smart technology on all personally held weapons the moment the technology becomes good enough to be widely deployed. Smart gun technology will do a couple things. If I own a gun, and I whip it out in a self defense situation, and it is taken away from me, it cannot be fired by the person who took it. The Sandy Hook shooter could not have gunned down 26 people with his mother’s guns if the weapons had smart technology. Smart guns will also increase police officer safety and reduce accidental shootings involving children. It may very well reduce them to almost zero if every owner does this. New Jersey already has that law on the books. This needs to be federal. http://sciencenetlinks.com/science-news/science-updates/smart-gun/

 

The part of the quote in blue was something I knew nothing about before. Anyone know anything more about it?

 

Abbott finishes on a pretty dismal note. I guess I am lucky and have lived a sheltered life. I live in a nice area where people are polite and helpful, a place where often, but not always, if you pass a stranger when you're out walking they acknowledge you. Safe to walk anywhere at night and where robbery is rare, let alone violence of any kind. So I can't contemplate what is being suggested. I just can't put myself into that kind of situation.

 

What kind of world have we got ourselves here?

 

With that, I will leave you with this though. Mass shootings in movie theaters, places of worship and schools have left me with reaching back to the skills I developed way back when I was a first responder, going to real life shootouts. Looking for cover and being aware of my surroundings is right now the best defense. We should not live in a situation where we need to think of everyday tasks as if we were in a low intensity combat zone, but we are. This is how many in our society have been living for decades in disadvantaged communities. It is now becoming national.

 

http://eastcountymag....org/node/11963

[Rogie]

At last, the NRA have responded:

NRA chief breaks post-Newtown silence to call for armed guards at schools

 

 

The National Rifle Association, one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the US, has called for armed security guards to be posted in every school in the country and insisted that the only solution to gun violence in the wake of the Newtown massacre was more guns.

 

A week almost to the hour after a gunman blasted his way into Sandy Hook elementary school in Connecticut, killing 20 first-grade children as well as six staff members, the NRA's executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre finally broke his silence and delivered a defiant message to the nation.

 

Throwing down the gauntlet to Barack Obama, he declared: "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." That is a mantra that he has used after several previous mass shootings.

 

His statement dashed hopes of gun control advocates that the NRA would be willing to engage in debate about tighter restrictions on gun ownership, such as a ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines of the type used by Adam Lanza in Newtown. On Tuesday, an NRA statement promised the organisation would make a "meaningful contribution" to prevent mass shootings.

 

In the course of about half an hour, LaPierre laid blame for the Sandy Hook massacre on several other parties including the media, politicians in favour of gun-free zones, the country's mental health services, gamers and the film studios that make violent movies – but brooked no criticism of the NRA itself.

 

He warned that there were "dozens, maybe more than 100 … monsters" out there already planning the next attack on an unprotected school. The only way to stop another gun rampage was to put guns in schools.

 

He said: "If we truly cherish our kids, more than money, more than our celebrities, we must must give them the greatest level of protection possible and the security that is only available with a properly trained – armed – good guy."

 

If Lanza – who also killed his mother last Friday before the attack on the school – had been confronted by a qualified armed security guard as he began his shooting spree, LaPierre ponderedI "isn't it at least possible that 26 little kids might have been spared that day?"

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/21/nra-newtown-armed-guards-schools

[KhorTose]

Rogie as to your items in blue. Been out for some time, but while it works it is easy to bypass. See the latest James Bond movie for an example, and try this wiki article.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Gun

[Rogie]

Piers Morgan Unrepentant As Petition Passes 65,000

 

 

Piers Morgan has renewed his call for a ban on assault rifles as the number of Americans signing a petition to get him out of the country rises.

 

More than 65,000 people have now signed the petition on the White House website, ensuring the Obama administration will respond.

 

He has also repeated his view that assault rifles should be banned in the US following the latest shooting in which two volunteer firefighters were shot dead in New York state.

 

The pair were killed, and two others injured, by a gunman who set fire to a car and a house and ambushed them when they arrived at the scene.

 

The CNN host and former Daily Mirror editor tweeted: "Americans murdered with assault weapons in movie theaters, temples, schools, shopping malls - now, as they put out fires. Where does it end?

 

"Come on America, ENOUGH: Ban assault weapons & high-capacity magazines, and enforce background checks on 100% of gun sales. Do it now."

 

Mr Morgan's outspoken views on gun control have sharply divided opinion in the US.

 

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/piers-unrepentant-face-59-000-petition-123737811.html

[Guest fountainhall]

CNN must be thrilled, assuming it believes any publicity is good publicity. Now another upright citizen of the US named "Janusz J" has got a poll up and running petitioning to keep Piers Morgan in America!

 

The petition is worded less passionately than the one calling for the Briton's deportation, reading: "We want to keep Piers Morgan in the USA. There are two very good reasons for this. Firstly, the first amendment. Second and the more important point. No one in the UK wants him back. Actually there is a third. It will be hilarious to see how loads of angry Americans react."

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/dec/26/petition-us-piers-morgan-uk

 

I hope that one works, because as it points out I expect most Brits would rather not have him back . Mind you, I think the roasting he gave a couple of pro-gun lobby folks last week probably did some good to his ratings. But if he'd used that tone on this Board he'd probably be 'off' by now

[Rogie]

But if he'd used that tone on this Board he'd probably be 'off' by now

 

You mean the "stupid man" outburst?

 

What kind of reaction would we have seen if Morgan was an American? The same, or would it have been muted? The old saying "methinks you protest too much" sometimes used to convey the feeling another person may have a few skeletons in his own cupboard. Ditto America? Many Americans must be feeling pretty low as a result of Sandy Hook and know in their hearts things ought to change . . . Morgan has succeeded in rubbing the NRA up the wrong way, but because the NRA is an American institution and Morgan is British, the average American won't like it. Imagine what would happen if one of us went on to Thai TV and attacked the government or some Thai institution, calling them "stupid".

 

Mr

, on his nightly chat show, came five days after gunman Adam Lanza killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary school.

 

Mr Pratt said tighter controls on gun sales would not put an end to similar tragedies.

"The problem occurs in those areas precisely where we have said 'no guns'," he said.

 

"Where the guns are allowed freely to be carried... we have very low murder rates.

 

"We only have problems in our cities and, unhappily, in our schools, where people like you have been able to get laws put on the books that keep people from being able to defend themselves."

 

Mr Morgan responded: "You're a very stupid man, aren't you?

 

"You have absolutely no coherent argument. You don't actually give a damn about the gun murder rate in America."

 

He ended the combative interview by calling Mr Pratt "a dangerous man espousing dangerous nonsense" and declared, "you shame your country".

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...t-arts-20838729

[Guest fountainhall]

Not just the "stupid" part. More his attitude. As though he has a divine right to be correct in his views and those he lambasted were morons. I happen to agree with him, but I thought it was degrading to him and his side of the argument to subject guests to his show to that sort of tirade without letting them finish answers etc.

[Rogie]

FH, that sounds like a good assessment. I can see now there's more to it than I suggested, more than just an Englishman firing a few broadsides at a juicy target. An interviewer has to allow for the feelings and honour of the person being attacked so as to ensure a fair balance between probing questions and the interviewees replies. If an person being interviewed tries to wriggle out of a pertinent question, it is quite within the rights of the interviewer to be persistent, but if the questions are answered fully and honestly according to the beliefs of the interviewee he should be shown some respect. Maybe grudging respect, but respect nevertheless.

 

I haven't watched any videos of the show so far but may do.