Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

That American Girl said:
It's not a blind assumption. If you take the examples of Japan and mexico, you could almost skew it either way.
Click to expand...

If you can use either method to explain the data in a nearly equally plausible manner, you have no explanation.

Here are studies that agree with the "no effect" stance.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2003.tb00002.x/abstract

(Kinda informal but good data)http://thisainthell.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Brady_Score_Article_20120622.pdf

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj26n1/cj26n1-6.pdf

http://jpfo.org/pdf03/gun-control-myths-92.pdf


Of course, in some cases limiting guns impact gun-related crime. But as the overall rates of violence are not discussed, we cannot imply any effect on the total violent crime rate.

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/191/3/253.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1730132/pdf/v010p00280.pdf
 
Last edited:
MadCat360 said:
You said each measure reduces frequency or extent. I'm telling you, there is no data that I have seen showing that.
Click to expand...

I guess you didn't get my point. Here it is again: "Throwing out some measure for the sole reason that it won't fully wipe out the problem is a fallacy."

That applies to every measure mentioned in this thread, whether it's stopping 24/7 "celebrity-style" news coverage, healthcare measures, whatever. I too often see people say "that doesn't solve the problem entirely, so it's pointless".

You are turning it into a gun control issue, I did not once mention gun control.
Besides, we all know that legislating the sale of new guns has no statistically significant effect on the availability of guns, hence any study comparing the control of new guns with anything will yield no statistical significance.
 
The issue with that argument is, when does it stop? How much given-up liberty does it take to buy a 10% drop? For instance, people have brought up traction control and airbags in reducing automotive deaths from accidents. You know what would reduce it even more? A national 5mph speed limit. Would that be worth doing, even though it would virtually eliminate road deaths? Oh...wait...people who speed now, will still speed. How about a requirement that all cars manufacturered must only have a built-in top speed of 5mph. There. That should keep everyone nice-n-safe.

Simple solution: ban students from schools.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely horrible tragedy. People at work started talking about it before lunch yesterday at work. Needless to say, I didn't have much of an appetite after that. Have to send out some thoughts/prayers to the families and friends directly effected. What a nightmare. :(
 
narf said:
I guess you didn't get my point. Here it is again: "Throwing out some measure for the sole reason that it won't fully wipe out the problem is a fallacy."
Click to expand...

Which is not what I'm doing.

If you know that reducing available guns will reduce crime, show the proof.
 
That American Girl said:
I saw this online the other day:

http://www.suntimes.com/index.html

Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. "Wouldn't you say," she asked, "that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?" No, I said, I wouldn't say that. "But what about 'Basketball Diaries'?" she asked. "Doesn't that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?" The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it's unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.

The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. "Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory."

In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy.
Click to expand...

This makes sense to me!

The media needs a code of conduct to make these events victim-only lead on the news. There should be no photos or naming of the perps nationally/internationally, hence no instant "celebrty" status for them.
Fuck them!

It's always the victims I think about not the idiots who do the crimes, the media plays up the criminal way too much.

Never mind about gun control and futile arguments for or against, try this first a let the losers always be annonymous, then maybe there would be fewer of them.
 
MadCat360 said:
You very strongly implied it.
Click to expand...

You're reading that into the posts and trying to steer the discussion in that direction.

Take Heathrow's post, that's one of the directions I explicitly mentioned. Get rid of the celebrity-style 24/7 coverage. Can only work on a voluntary basis of course, which will be hard to do because it sells well.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
narf said:
You're reading that into the posts and trying to steer the discussion in that direction.

Take Heathrow's post, that's one of the directions I explicitly mentioned. Get rid of the celebrity-style 24/7 coverage. Can only work on a voluntary basis of course, which will be hard to do because it sells well.
Click to expand...

I'm just raging because you're so god damn enigmatic you make me want to pull my hair out.
 
I have written something in Random Thoughts, but I might as well add something here.

I am horribly saddened by the shooting. It's just eternal tragedies like these that show us how fragile each human being is. Last year, we experienced the death of a lot of children. I used to think I could understand the sorrow and fragility of a nation steeped in shock, but I was kidding myself. Not now. I get it now.

It's a political question, but I'm not inclined to talk politics directly related to this. I'm just sad.

jetsetter said:
I will not sacrifice my liberty any farther for some perceived notion of "safety". If I could I would do away with most firearm laws already in place. Those who would curtail our rights are tantamount to oppressive dictators.
Click to expand...
You and Michael Moore, Jetsetter. On two pedistals. Both wallowing in self rightousness and sure of being in the absolute right.

It's beyond contempt to liken such debates to opression by dictators, it is as stupid as Michael Moore blaming Charlton Heston for Columbine. Quit while you're ahead.
 
I think US problem does not reside in the firearms.

Sure, there are way too many firearms in the US than they are necessary or even serious. Sure, assault rifles and war weapons are ridiculous as self-defense weapons. Sure, a greater control on the matter should really be put in place. But after all... this case in particular shows it all.

If I understood correctly, the killer did everything with just two handguns (the rifle being left behind in a car). The weapons were registered by his mother, whom he killed. The weapons were not otherwise legally accessible to him and weapons are not allowed near schools. If I understood correctly, moreover, CT requires a permit to purchase a gun and a permit to carry it.

If all those things are correct, this massacre could have well happened where I live, because the killer basically disattended all and every regulation he had around.

Sure, less weapons equals less chance a psychopath like that gets hold of a pair of guns and starts shooting around, but ultimately, what I found lacking is the ability to help the killer beforehand, helping him with his problems, with his loneliness, with his pain. Avoiding him snapping and becoming a killer.

What I see from the sheer amount of similar episodes is a society letting less fortunate people slip in holes of desperation and solitude, and failing to offer them a cultural and practical way of improvement, while at the same time bombarding them with life models they will never reach.

I think helping people like this killer to find a less painful path in their lives will reduce the frequency of these situations much more than even the most strict gun control law.
 
Last edited:
Australia: guns are strictly regulated - low gun death rate.

Mexico: guns are strictly regulated - high gun death rate.

The lesson is?

Note: I'm not saying I fully agree with either side...I tend to play devil's advocate, just because...force of habit.
 
Last edited:
The lesson is that there's not a war for dominance between the Australian government and drug cartels. Well, not at the same scale anyway.
 
A friend posted a tribute to Miss Soto on her Tumblr account. In her tribute she wrote: "I talked to Vicki Tuesday and she told me that she loved her 16 angels and never wanted to let them go. Today when the shooting started Vicki hid her kids in closets and when the gunman came into her room she told them the class was in gym. She was then murdered. Not one of her students were harmed. Words can not express how heartbreaking and tragic this is. I will miss you dearly."
Click to expand...

Although the same news article mentions Victoria Soto threw herself in front of her kids, it's pretty courageous stuff and I felt it warrants a mention here.

http://www.news.com.au/world/teacher-victoria-soto-threw-herself-in-front-of-her-students-to-save-them-at-sandy-hook-elementary-school/story-fndir2ev-1226537530317
 
NecroJoe said:
Australia: guns are strictly regulated - low gun death rate.

Mexico: guns are strictly regulated - high gun death rate.

The lesson is?

Note: I'm not saying I fully agree with either side...I tend to play devil's advocate, just because...force of habit.
Click to expand...

I think what American Girl said is probably true. While Mexico is on paper a gun-free country, there is a large supply of arms and lots of people have them anyway. That would line up with the research paper into Australian gun control, particularly the part about reducing the number of owned guns via collection (700,000 firearms collected and destroyed), not just banning them with legislation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top