Why Did Newtown Happen? Grieving for our Country; Working to Find Answers
Like many, when I learned of the Newtown shootings, I felt compelled to do something. I wanted to dry the tears of the victims' families. I wanted to tell the families that I'll work to make sure this never happens again. I wanted to tell them that I'll be thinking of them and their lost ones when I try.
I feel a responsibility to the victims. While a blog post in a local, online publication isn't the comfort of open arms, I hope the post offers some context for the tragedy and tools for preventing another. I believe there is much to be accomplished if all of us try.
“I thought that I heard you laughing
I thought that I heard you sing
I think I thought I saw you try
But that was just a dream
Try. Cry. Why. Try.
That was just a dream”
- R.E.M., Losing My Religion
The overwhelming grief and helplessness that school shootings engender compel us to ask, “Why?” If we can answer this question, if we can explain why school shootings occur, we are less helpless. Further, if we know why they occur, we can prevent another attack, and our grief is slightly assuaged. In researching this article, I didn't find an answer. I found useful and confusing information in trying to answer why school shootings occur. I'll present information that appeared consistently across the literature and offer implications for school safety.
First, it's important to put a context around school shootings.
School shootings are not new phenomena ( Safe Schools Initiative, 2002, Muschert, 2007 ). One source identifies the first targeted school shooting in 1974 (Safe Schools Initiative, 2002 ). Another source identifies the first school shooting in 1966 (US News, 2008), and still another identifies the first targeted school shooting occurring in 1927 in Bath, Michigan by a school board member who killed 38 children and six adults (heritage.com, 2012). Despite this history, schools are still safer than children's homes and neighborhoods. More violent crimes and serious violent crimes happen away from school than at school. Further, the rates of violent crimes and serious violent crimes decrease consistently from 1992 through 2010 (Muschert, 2007, OJJDP, 2010).
“It is the way of scholars to show all they know and oppose further information.”
- Francis Bacon
As the above paragraph indicates, there is inconsistency in the literature concerning school attacks, even disagreement as to when the first occurred. In understandable haste to discover why school shootings happen, researchers may force conclusions. After the Columbine shootings in 1999, violent video games, Goth culture, and race were identified as causes, and all were discovered to be inadequate explanations by subsequent scholarship (Muschert, 2007). Also, because school shootings are very rare, and some end with the shooter's death, the study sample is small. Iron-clad conclusions are difficult to draw from small samples. Further, scholars disagree on the definition of a school shooting ("school shootings" are sometimes defined differently than "school attacks") which will alter the participants, the sample size, and the conclusions (Langman, 2010).
This post relies heavily on The Final Report and Findings of the Safe Schools Initiative, a seminal document on school shootings by The U.S. Secret Service and The U.S. Department of Education (Safe Schools Initiative, 2002). The document was written in 2002 after the Columbine shootings and contains a rigorous examination of school shooters. This source and others are able to find some consensus in scholarship. School shooter behaviors, the nature of school attacks, and implications for safer schools are areas where scholarship demonstrates more united findings.
Mainstream media and much of the literature tries to develop a “profile” for school shooters, but a definitive profile doesn't exist. Despite media focus on what school shooters look like, there isn't a set of demographics that indicates the likelihood of students becoming school shooters. Most school shooters are white, male, good students, are involved in extra curricular activities, come from two-parent homes, have no prior history of violence, and no mental health history (Safe Schools Initiative, 2002). These statistics might as easily indicate students who are likely to be admitted into a state university. Using this set of demographics to identify potential school shooters would mistakenly identify the innocent and overlook potential perpetrators (Sulkowski & Lazarus, 2012, Safe Schools Initiative, 2002).
“How overcome this dire Calamity,
What reinforcement may we gain from Hope,
If not, what resolution from despair.”
- John Milton, Paradise Lost
It's far more useful to track behaviors of students to determine the potential of violence (Safe Schools Initiative, 2002, Sulkowski & Lazarus, 2012). In most school shootings, attackers will tell someone else about the attack. In 81% of the cases studied in the Safe Schools Initiative, at least one other person knew that a shooting would occur. In 59% of the cases studied, more than one person knew about the attack. In 93% of these cases, the person who knew was a peer. Telling a peer about the attack is one behavior that most school shooters share.
In addition, prior to the attacks, many shooters display “concerning behaviors” (Safe Schools Initiative, 2002). These behaviors, as in the case of telling someone else about the attack, are far from subtle. Shooters may ask others about procuring a weapon, talk about building bombs, talk about how they would like to kill others, or even talk about how they would attack the school. Expressing homicidal or suicidal ideation, especially in poetry, essays and journals, is common. Experience with shooting guns is also a common behavior. Many school shooters seem to behave in ways that overtly demonstrate their interest in violence.
Most shooters felt persecuted and bullied and had difficulty coping with a recent loss or perceived rejection. Some of the bullying was severe. Some of the persecution was more perception. Regardless, many school shooters are unable to manage social difficulties (Safe Schools Initiative, 2002). The coping abilities of school shooters are diminished. Focusing on behaviors of school shooters is more helpful than a set of demographics to prevent school attacks. Examining consensus on the nature of school attacks offers further insight into prevention.
Like school shooter behaviors, school attacks have commonalities. School attacks are short in duration. From the time the shooting begins until the shooting stops, less than 15 minutes have passed in almost half of the attacks. Over a quarter of attacks lasted less than five minutes (Sulkowski & Lazarus, 2012, Safe Schools Initiative, 2002). School attacks are planned in advance 95% of the time and are stopped by someone other than law enforcement. The weapons used in 68% of school shootings were guns from the shooters' homes or from their relatives' homes (Safe Schools Initiative, 2002 ). Conclusions regarding scholarly consensus in school shooters' behaviors and in the nature of school attacks have implications for preventing other school shootings.
“Tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world.”
- Aeschylus
The preventive strategies for school shootings are establishing a warm school climate and constructing an effective threat assessment team to evaluate students' potential for violence. Establishing a warm, caring climate in a school sounds like a soft option when considering the hard reality of school shootings. However, given that most school shooters tell someone about their attacks, that school shooters demonstrate “concerning behaviors”, that they express homicidal and suicidal ideation, and that attacks are planned in advance, a school climate that is supportive makes sense. Students and staff may be more likely to report concerns about the potential for violence. Schools where bullying is taken seriously, where students' voices have resonance, where staff are perceived as invested in students' work can create an environment where students are active in their schools' environs (Sulkowski & Lazarus, 2012, Safe Schools Initiative, 2002). In addition to a supportive campus, an effective threat assessment team is essential in preventing school shootings.
After students are identified as concerns, a threat assessment team collects information for evaluation and monitors the students. “A growing body of research supports the efficacy of threat assessment approaches for mitigating threats of violence” (Sulkowski & Lazarus, 2012, p. 343). Systematic threat assessment may be a more effective method of reducing violence than criminal profiling, more punitive discipline policies, and allowing concealed weapons in schools (Sulkowski & Lazarus, 2012). The team collects information about students through interviews, school records, and if needed, contact with law enforcement. After information collection, the team makes recommendations for interventions – mental health, disciplinary, or law enforcement. The team then monitors students through the interventions and tracks their progress. A threat assessment team is generally available in school districts but all stakeholders in a school district, particularly students, need awareness of the teams and access to them. The Safe Schools Initiative has a complete guide to threat assessments (Safe Schools Initiative, 2002).
“We have a responsibility to the victims of crime and violence. It is a responsibility to think not only of our own convenience but of the tragedy of sudden death.”
- Robert Kennedy
School shootings result from “a constellation of contributing causes, none of which is sufficient in itself to explain a shooting” (Muschert, 2007, p. 68). “Knowing everything about the perpetrator, his family, his social experience and the world he inhabits does not answer the question “why” in any way that will resolve the problem” (Solomon, 2012). Being unable to answer “why” is not cause for inaction. Stakeholders in school districts can act in ways that prevent school shootings. Parents can raise their children vigilantly. School staff can be educated in “concerning behaviors” and about the importance of establishing relationships with students. School districts can build effective threat assessment teams. Students can invest in their own safety and report their concerns. Law enforcement can work closely with schools. We keep working.
We grieve for our country, the Newtown community, the Lanza family, the Sandy Hook staff, and those sweet children. But there is work to be done.
We grieve, but we are not helpless.
Jack Klarr
11:19 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Well reasoned, thoughtful, detailed and worth considering.
Meredith McCutcheon
1:39 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
This was an outstanding post. And I could not agree with you more about establishing a warm climate in our schools. As a former educator, this was my goal on a daily basis. Nevertheless, our schools can only do so much. I know that many people will not agree with me, but I still have to think that part of the problem is increased access to guns, especially assault rifles. I totally get that attacks with assault rifles are rare, but when they do occur, they are incredibly destructive. Nothing can be done to stop someone when they have an assault rifle in their hands. I can't help but wonder why the average person would ever need to possess these types of weapons.
cookiepro2
4:18 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Agree, Meredith. I have a relative who's been working in Japan for a year now and he says you see obviously mentally disturbed people on the subways (probably less mental health care treatment available than here) but no access to guns.
I agree with the blogger that being vigilant (parents, students, teachers, counselors) toward concerning behaviors, as well as creating a warm, tolerant of differences environment, and placing of students according to their abilities is important in the long run for protecting schools from threats from within (from the student body itself). I think our schools are doing a good job at this, no news is good news! Even so, I still would feel more comfortable if each high school had a police liason officier assigned to it.
Possibly the tragedy of Sandy Hook could partly be attributed to the perpetrator's social isolation. He was taken out of HS and home-schooled, didn't have any outside contacts for the subsequent four or five years, who was there to observe his erratic behavior, except his mother who was reportedly trying to get him committed. Perhaps this is what the NY legislation is trying to capture in having therapists report patients who have made credible gun threats to the state.
At any rate, I also agree with the blogger that there is work to be done. We can't throw up our hands and do nothing to protect the most innocent in our community.
laplateau
4:18 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Increased access to guns? Meredith, the 2nd amendment to our constitution allows us to have access to, keep and bear them. And why do we now have "increased access" to guns. Please expalin that. Assault rifles? Hey, the only thing different with that supposed "assault rifle" is mainly that it has a pistol grip and can hold more bullets. We had a 10 year ban on "assault rifles" and magazines that held over 10 rounds and statistics show that it did virtually NOTHING to decrease gun crimes. And, let's just say that you were to get your wish about banning "assault rifles and magazines over 10 rounds. A person could still buy multiple 10 round magazines and have as many, or many more bullets as any "assault rifle". Meredith, these is simply NO law that can be passed to prevent a mass murder if a person is intent on committing one. The only thing I would consider is creating a data base of those with mental disorders, but wouldn't that then violate the doctor/patient privilege? Me thinks so, Meredith. I have this strong feeling you have not much knowledge about firearms, as do not many that rant or speak out about needing stricter "gun laws
cookiepro2
2:39 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
laplateau,
re doctor/patient privilege..IMO, public safety trumps it. Here's another take, if I was so out of my mind that I was hearing voices that told me to go shoot up someplace, and I confided that to a shrink, my prior sane self would want me to be stopped. I'm hoping the NY legislation will free up therapists who may fear legal reprisal if they report a legitimate concern...this is new ground, will see how it pans out for NY.
laplateau
4:24 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
And Meredith, in Michigan, one needs to go through and training session conducted by a state certified firearms instructor, including a half day firing range instruction. Then you have to fill out a pretty comprehensive questionnaire asking for about every conceivable piece of personal information,, be fingerprinted, have your picture taken, submit all to the local sheriff’s office for them to submit to the state police and federal background checks. You must be cleared of all that before you can get a CPL (Concealed Pistol Permit) . Even if you don't have a CPL, you have to go through the background checks to purchase one just to keep in your home. All gun purchases MUST be registered with your police department. What more do you want? It sure isn't the good people that are using their guns to commit crimes, Meredith, it the BAD people. More un laws will only restrict honest law abiding people, not the criminals. A good analogy is like having a lock on your house door or on your car...it only keeps the honest people out. If it prevented the criminals in any way, we would have no home invasions or car thefts. And, guess what? We have LOTS of laws against home invasion and car theft, as well as assualt, sexual or otherwise, murder, etc, etc,...but it sure does bot prevent those things from happeneing all the time. So, why is you think more gun laws will reduce gun crimes?
laplateau
4:29 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Hoiw about a few quotes from our founding fathers about guns:
"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
- George Washington
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams
"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason
And they go on and on.....just look for yourself.
Larry D
11:41 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
How many of our founding fathers had rifles, or shotguns, or banana clips? The pistols of the day weren't accurate beyond about 20 feet. The weapons they were talking about had nothing to do with modern weapons. And if you do want weapons to take on modern law enforcement and military, you are talking about automatic weapons, hand grenades, bazookas, flamethrowers, etc. Do you seriously think the average person on the street, including your next door neighbor, should have those weapons and materials?
John
12:26 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
The founding fathers only considered white men to be "citizens". Should everything they wrote, spoke, or thought go unquestioned?
No one is saying that the people should be disarmed. But why is regulation out of the question?
Meredith McCutcheon
4:30 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Laplateau, I think you may be overreacting a little bit. I never said that they should be banned. I never said anything about "stricter gun laws". And I certainly wouldn't say that my comments were "ranting". I just raised the question on WHY we need them. And unfortunately, it's often not the people who go through the training and background checks that use these guns to kill people; as in the case of Sandy Hook, the shooter (whose name I refuse to write or speak, as he is of no consequence to me) obtained the guns from a family member.
laplateau
8:04 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Meredith..to say that the crazy person at Sandy Hook "obtained the guns from a family member" is truly misleading and trivializing He did not simply "obtain" these weapons from a family member, he STOLE them from his mother, shot and killed her, then went on his rampage. And, you comment about being in wonderment why anyone would need an "assault rifle" certainly leads one to believe you don't fee we should have them and would be in favor of banning them. Then, you go on to say "Nothing can be done to stop someone when they have an assault rifle in their hands". Oh yes there is something that can be done,,,specifically an armed school guard or teacher or principal. Certainly another gun on premises could have been used to neutralize the perpetrator before he killed so many innocents. Again, I refer to selected quotes above from our founding fathers.
Kathy
4:33 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Meredith,
As an former educator, you should be well aware of the 2nd Amendment. Also, you should educate yourself on the definition of an "assault style" weapon. This is not machine gun...it is an "assault STYLE" weapon. Ignorance is what fuels the unnecessary fire when things like this happen. And when someone say they are an educator or a former educator, people listen to you. So you have a definite responsibility to be factual. We all know that there only a few things would have stopped Adam Lanza. Some of those things are bullets. Unfortunately, there was no one in the school armed. So the government and Obama, in their infinite lack of wisdom, want to make sure that absolutely no one will have a chance to stop anyone on a rampage with a weapon. HIPPA laws will not allow disclosure of mental health patients. Stricter gun laws will do nothing about this. I'll bet you did not hear about the movie theater shooting just a few weeks ago where a patron has his weapon on him and shot the bad guy. You sure didn't because the media could not report it as it would not agree with their agenda. Please, educate yourself. And please check your facts before presenting yourself as an educator. You have that responsiblity.
Larry D
11:51 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Why do countries with strict gun laws have far fewer homicides than we have in the US? Why do the gun people want research on gun violence prohibited? If small clips can be changed quickly, and more shots fired without delay, why do you oppose the ban on large ammo clips?
Erin
11:37 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
Kathy - I agree, we need to argue based on the facts. RE: "the movie theater shooting just a few weeks ago where a patron has his weapon on him and shot the bad guy"
The actual story sadly stemmed from yet another case of a domestic dispute. A young man upset over a girlfriend breaking up with him.
Jesus Garcia went to his workplace (a Chinese restaurant) to, as he texted ex-girlfriend, "shoot someone". When employees fled and entered a nearby theater, the Garcia pursued, and continued to shoot at them (specifically restaurant employees).
Trained, veteran off-duty San Antonio Sargeant Lisa Costellano, who was working Theater security that night, engaged pursuit, shot and subdued Garcia.
This was not a random civilian with a concealed carry watching "The Hobbit" who saved the day.
"Breakup sparked theater shootout", December 18, 2012
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Officials-Breakup-sparked-Santikos-shooting-4123414.php
Meredith McCutcheon
4:39 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Oh my goodness people. Please reread my post. I spoke about being a former educator ONLY in the context that I agree it's important to cultivate a warm, nurturing school environment for our students (of which I certainly have the authority and educational background to speak on). Then, as a citizen, I simply wondered why we NEED assault rifles in our society. I did NOT suggest stricter gun laws. I did NOT say anything about banning them. And I certainly did NOT suggest revoking the 2nd amendment. You don't know me. To call me ignorant is just plain mean. Let's move on please.
laplateau
8:05 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Meredith, to be ignorant means to not know or be unaware....not stupid.
Helen Rieland
2:22 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Did anyone ever answer the question. Can someone experienced with guns please explain why you want or need an assault rifle or a hunting gun that would be the same or more powerful. For people that don't use guns regularly and have never gone hunting we're truly just asking the question. What are these types of guns used for other than shooting up people?
vincent
5:13 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Some people can't think outside the words they read, and like to have people so frustrated, that they clam up. Please, continue to contribute to the patch.
Kathy
4:50 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
That was not a personal attack. Ignorance does fuel fires. You are still refering to assault rifles as if you understand what an assault rifle is. You need to do your homework. And yes, when you put yourself out there as an educator, former or current, people respect your thoughts....all of them, not just those as an educator. That's all. There is nothing mean about this, it's a discussion. But the lack of knowledge on hot topics provides information that is harmful. Surely you agree with that. I did reread your post. My comments stand.
Meredith McCutcheon
7:39 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Kathy, to me, a conversation is one in which people share their perspectives (similar or different) and try to gain a deeper understanding of an issue at hand. A meaningful conversation lacks attacks on the character or background of other participants and avoids assumptions. A true conversation contains respect for all of the people involved and focuses on the issue. This is not a conversation.
Meredith McCutcheon
5:39 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
An assault rifle is a weapon that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It can be fully automatic (fires until the magazine is empty), burst-capable (multiple rounds with one trigger press), or semi-automatic (one round per trigger press). I fully understand what it is; I didn't feel compelled to give the definition because I assumed others would know, too. I still wonder why we need them. But we've strayed off-topic of what was a wonderful post. There's lots of work to be done as a society, and these preventative strategies of which the blogger spoke are a crucial place to start.
Richard Happening
5:01 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Meredith,
You both cut and pasted that definition like a champion!!! Nice work.
See you at the range.
Lianne Mathie
8:26 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Richard, wow, smh. Must of fell off the wrong side of the bed. Cranky much?
ConcernedParent
10:46 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Richard, you make comments like this, and show your anger and rage at the world, make pseudo-threatening statements towards people who are expressing an opinion that differs from yours... and then wonder why citizens are concerned about your 'right' to own assault weapons?
laplateau
8:12 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Meredith...apparently you finally Googled to find out what an assault weapon is. But, that definition can also apply to an semi-automatic hunting rifle such as a 30.06 caliber which is much more powerful than a .223 that most Bushmasters use. So, anyone using deer rifle could inflict the same damage, perhaps much more.
mamamac
9:00 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
laplateau -- some people are just never going to understand and continue to cry/complain until ALL our rights are taken away. I shudder to see what will be left when they are all done.
Meredith McCutcheon
9:32 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
Mamamac, perhaps it's not that people are "crying and complaining" and perhaps it's not that people "don't understand". Perhaps they DO understand, and perhaps they just don't agree with your position. And that's ok. In fact, it's essential for all sides to listen (not just hear, but REALLY listen) to opposing viewpoints if our society can adapt and grow.
Meredith McCutcheon
9:35 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
And that sometimes means that we must listen more than we talk. That we must wait to speak until we have really thought about what we want to say. And that we try to understand that everyone is human and entitled to their own options...and then we must give them the respect that everyone deserves, even when we disagree.
Meredith McCutcheon
6:55 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
It's clear to me that we are going to be unable to continue this conversation, which is a shame. I think as a society, we have some hard questions to ask and some real work to do. This cannot begin if we cannot have open and honest discussions without accusing people of ignorance (and thank you for the definition of the term, although I already knew it). Everyone is entitled to his or her opinions, regardless of occupation. I was hoping to hear yours. Instead, we once again turned on each other and made assumption of people's backgrounds and knowledge. I don't feel compelled to share my entire life history with you, but rest assured that I do understand what I am talking about. Hopefully someday we can begin a real discussion. Take care, everyone.
Laura Vogel
10:01 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
"It's clear to me that we are going to be unable to continue this conversation"
a polite way of saying: this post should have never had the comments section opened up in the first place, because you knew it was going to be a train wreck of spewing trolls before it even began.
laplateau
7:58 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Meredith, when people begin to question the limits of our constitutional rights, you are going to begin to ruffle feathers, and rightfully so. The 2nd amendment was defined and reviewed over and over for the last 200 years, as have been many of the other amendments to the constitution. tens of thousands of people have died in defense of these rights. I was an Army infantry rifleman and have fought for our country and saw many of my comrade’s fall as well as becoming horribly maimed for the rest of their lives. I, as well as all servicemen, take an oath "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. That does not mean that I will support only the parts of it I choose, or to interpret it in my own way. It means what is says and if there is any doubt as to what the founding fathers who wrote our constitution meant, there is a plethora of their writings to further underscore their intent.The 2nd amendment is a sensitive issue and when people, as you have done, begin to ask why anyone should have a particular weapon, it causes great concern.
Meredith McCutcheon
8:11 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
I really do understand where you are coming from, laplateau. But, as a citizen, I also have the right to ask questions. We all do. Of course, everyone has right to respond however he or she wishes, but it would be nice if we could do so in a constructive way. And I appreciate your thoughtful response this time. I honestly do. Have a good one.
Larry D
12:12 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
You are not correct about the second amendment being defined and reviewed over the last 200 years. The first Supreme Court opinion recognizing an individual second amendment right (as opposed to the states using a well-regulated militia) was only about two years ago. The phrase about a "well-regulated militia" certainly gave rise to a dispute as to whether the second amendment applied to an individual as opposed to the states, even though the Supreme Court has now ruled it applies to individuals. More importantly, even if something is protected by the constitution, that does not mean it can't be regulated. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, notwithstanding freedom of speech.
A machine gun is a form of armament, and it is banned. Do you think any form of arms, machine gun, bazooka, grenade, etc. should be legal? Since this right has only been defined in the last couple of years, I don't see how servicemen have died protecting this particular right. Far more significant in terms of threats to constitutional rights is the wholesale disregard we have had for fourth and fifth amendment rights because we are afraid of terrorists.
laplateau
8:11 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
To continue Meredith, I would begin to have the same kinds of concerns about any governmental intrusions on any of the other amendments as well. I certainly respect and uphold your right to say what you feel in any way you want. I certainly respect your right to worship your God in any way you want. I respect your right to a speedy trail and a trial by jury and against unreasonable search and seizure, etc. When my government starts to chip away, little by little, at any of my rights, I become VERY concerned. If someone wants to amend any of the constitution the way it is written now, it clearly states there is a way to do it, and it clearly is not by government fiat! The adage of how to cook a frog comes to mind here...do not get your water boiling and then toss the frog into it. His reflexes are too quick and it will simply jump right back out. Toss it into cool water then turn up the heat slowly. It will become cooked before it knows it. When I begin to feel the heat, I react and become concerned. And, you should too…. for any right the government begins to question or tamper with.
laplateau
9:05 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
My sincere apologies to you, Meredith, for any comments I have made to have had the effect to denigrate you in any way. It is a fault of mine that I hope to constrain in the future. Now,with all being said,I do support thorough background checks,as I have had to go through. I don't want the thugs and criminals out there that want to prey upon society to have guns...any guns of any type. I refer to this internet link: http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10929--,00.html Go there and click on "Application" and read through what it takes to get a CPL in this state. I have not read each and every state's statutes, but I am told that they are basically the same. It is VERY thorough and investigative. I truly feel that the collapse of our societal mores is the real culprit here,not our constitution or our guns. If guns were never invented,I really believe people would carry out their carnage upon others with knives or rocks,or whatever is at hand. It sure isn't the 1950's Leave It To Beaver society anymore.“Our morals and principles have been declining since the 60's. Social decline or moral decline is typically characterized as reduced adherence to cultural or social norms or values and widespread lapses in ethical behavior”. Looking at what happens these days,that statement cannot be ignored. What should be focused upon is our kids and what they are taught and what they are exposed to. I will help do that in any way I can. Thanks, Meredith!
Richard Happening
9:48 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Why was my comment about Meredith's smiling face removed? If she were to go, at least I would miss her.........
Jim Sparks
10:30 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
This thread illustrates why we will not get anywhere close to a viable solution to a real crisis in American society. The mere mention of anyone's ideas sets off a deluge of name-calling and denigrating rants.
Couple of points here: While a robust background check for those who would purchase weapons of mass destruction is a good first step, the NRA and the politicians it so completely owns have opposed this and any restrictions in the past, in spite of what they may say today. When you have an organization that has fought against things like banning "cop-killer" armor-piercing bullets, or the sharing of data amongst law enforcement entities, or has worked to emasculate the ATF so that they cannot possibly enforce even current laws already on the books, the "conversation" is a futile one, and as I said, precludes any serious discussion about real, viable solutions.
Point two: Your Second Amendment rights are not absolute. When one "right" interferes with someone else's (thinking specifically of the First Amendment), BOTH are to be considered, and a reasonable compromise called for.
Point three: There has been the argument that a ban on assault-type weapons will not be effective, therefore shouldn't even be tried. The oft-used example goes something like, "there are laws banning heroin and the like, but it hasn't stopped people from using it anyway". So, the logic there suggests that we repeal laws against even murder, because, you know, people do it anyway...
Dee Kay
11:56 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Background checks only matter for the initial purchase. That is the same thing that a mental evaluation would do, check mental status at the time of purchase. There needs to be a way to have a time frame for gun licenses to expire. Each 3-5 year license period should also include a current mental check that can be administered like a drivers written exam. Too many wrong or questionable responses would mandate a full mental exam by a licensed shrink before the permit could be renewed.
Several of the comments that you find in discussions about guns shows that mental status definitely changes with certain subject matter. If people are unable to control their thoughts because of their feelings, they sure aren't the most trusted people to be waving guns around. Anger, hatred, and fear, are dangerous to mix with guns of any kind, let alone assault weapons. Those who are predisposed to any of those emotions should be fully tested before any gun permits are issued/reissued. NRA chief Lapierre is a perfect example of how dangerous delusional people can be.
Guns aren't going away, but there can be thoughtful tests to make sure the process is safer than it currently is. Common sense needs to replace heated emotions. If it takes an amendment to the constitution to get the importance of safety through to people, then so be it.
Richard Happening
10:58 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Hey "ConcernedParent". I have zero anger or rage at the world. I am a LOVE guy. I don't like violence of any kind. Even on TV. I am a parent. I have made no threats on Patch or elsewhere- implied or otherwise. "See you at the range" meant that I was assuming that since MMC had the (extensive) knowledge of firearms that she was displaying, that she must be a regular at the shooting range. That's all. RELAX, as Frankie told me growing up. I love everyone and told my little one just today that nothing in life is more important than life and that's why safety is so important. That's how I roll..........
laplateau
11:39 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
I think we should all take our wives and dates to the range and show our love and concern while practicing our aims and safe shooting practices.
laplateau
11:30 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Jim, your points have major flaws. I have no idea how the 2nd amendment in any ways trumps the first amendment! Certainly as written, it does not. Assault weapons were banned for a 10 year period and statistics show it had little, if any, effect. I have been an NRA member for years and it has never been in opposition to background checks! You are being extreme and duplicitous in your use of "weapons of mass destruction". I always thought those weapon nuclear bombs and such, not rifles. I suppose a deer might consider the hunter's 30.06 as a weapon of mass destruction, but that's about it. And, the police can always, and have always been able, to access the federal data base of criminals and any records though the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). We certainly have many, many firearm laws now and have for many years. Allowing each and every police department to search a data base of gun owners invades our privacy rights, and what good will those do anyway? That only shows them who has obtained a gun legally. Local police departments will certainly share information with another if required
And Tom, the point is that no law is ever going to prevent murders by use firearms unless we confiscate each and every one of them and ban the manufacture of them completely. Is that what you want? I certainly hope not. I believe Hitler implemented something like that in 1933.
Erin
2:14 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Laplateau - Jim is not being hyperbolic RE: NRA and their more recent stance on background checks. You may have missed this ongoing NRA backed legislation:
Dec 12, 2012
"The Michigan Senate has rejected a National Rifle Association-backed proposal to let people buy handguns without undergoing criminal background checks. The Senate voted 27-11 Wednesday for a substitute bill that makes it easier for people to apply for gun permits but retains the checks. The NRA says the bill falls short of its goals and says IT WILL KEEP WORKING TO END MICHIGAN'S BACKGROUND CHECKS in the Legislature's 2013 session."
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/12/michigan_senate_votes_to_keep.html
The NRA USED to be supportive of background checks when we were members back in the 80's and 90's.
Jim Sparks
9:48 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Sorry, lap. You need to do your homework. The NRA has, at least until recently, actively opposed background checks at gun shows and for private sales. They virtually wrote an addendum to the Patriot Act that bars the ATF from accessing state or private gun purchase and registration data. They have even tried to get all gun purchase records destroyed within 24 hours of taking the background check - pass or fail. The list goes on and on. Simple denial is not a valid defense...
Rick Shoup
12:05 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Since we will never be able to stop a crazed person from killing innocent people just as we can not stop insane radicals from blowing up people with body bombs by banning the sale of items that make those bombs. I have a suggestion.As our troops come home from the wars that they have had to participate in to protect our freedom why doesn't the military use them not only to patrol our borders along Mexico and the U.S. but to also be stationed in our schools?Not all of them are being discharged and during peacetime they are available at no cost other than their regular pay which they receive in whatever capacity they are used in.We then would have trained individuals that would be able to protect our schools and malls and even movie theaters.People that are thinking of doing something crazy would think twice knowing that there were trained/armed military personnel waiting just for them.
cookiepro2
2:58 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Appreciate the suggestion, Rick Shoup, but I am concerned about PSTD among the troops. Our soldiers have served under incredibly stressful armed situations and the least we can do is not subject them to more of the same. Education, jobs in the energy sector or technology YES!
If I were thinking of protecting schools, it would be a secured perimeter with a guard gate similiar to what you see at some work places, e.g., GM tech center or TARDAC. I wouldn't do it for high schools since it wouldn't be practical with the student body traffic (taking off for co-op, classes at other schools). Plus I think most of the threats come from the high school students themselves and efforts can be concentrated along that avenue.
cookiepro2
3:05 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Excuse me, PTSD not PSTD.
Larry D
12:17 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
Or, rather than incurring the tremendous expense of providing armed guards throughout our schools, stores, businesses, recreational areas, governmental offices, etc. and etc., why don't we see what the countries are doing that have a far lower homicide rate than we do?
cookiepro2
1:49 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
True, Larry, but realistically, we already have a "gun culture" in this country and it is not going to change. I don't want armed guards all over the place, just ONE guard in a guard house at each elementary school. It is not so unusual. There are guarded gated communities, office buildings, research centers, can't we do this...it is heartbreaking and abhorrent what happened to those little children. If our society trends to "schools of choice", i.e., private schools and charter schools, I bet parents will be looking at safety and security as an issue on where to send their children. Find some retired cops already pensioned out looking for extra part-time pay (no benefits) to man the guard stations.
laplateau
12:24 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Hey, Dee Kay...I think you should be the one to be evaluated! According to you, and I quote…"Several of the comments that you find in discussions about guns shows that mental status definitely changes with certain subject matter. If people are unable to control their thoughts because of their feelings, they sure aren't the most trusted people to be waving guns around." So, if one feels strongly about our constitutional rights, we should just shut up and be denied our constitutional rights?? Based on your view, and since you don't agree with most of us posting here about this subject, YOU should be tested for delusional thoughts. My GOD, are you serious? I can scroll through ALL of the above postings, and there isn't anything to suggest that those writing them are filled with "Anger, hatred, and fear". Yours is the first post of this kind to suggest certain thought and emotion is reason to be tested. I would laugh at your position if it were not so scary and pathetic! But, thanks for your thoughts Dr. Freud!
nahshal
6:25 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
Whatever happened to the first phrase in the 2nd Amendment? “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” A well-regulated militia receives training, is screened for those who may have mental or emotional problems, and abides by safety and security measures. Maybe the tools to address part of this issue are already in the law.
laplateau
3:31 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Helen, many people who own guns, both pistols and rifles, use them for a variety of reasons. Many simply like to go to the firing range, other join shooting clubs that have completive shoots, both for marksmanship and skeet shooting with a shotgun. So called assault rifles are rifle that have a different outer design than do classic hunting rifles. Both types can have multiple bullet capacity and are semi-automatic in nature, meaning that you don't have to cock the rifle after each shot and another round is automatically loaded. Hunting rifles are usually use a more powerful bullet because of the range to reach a deer or bear, or whatever is being hunted, at greater distance is required...up to 100 yards or more. Pistols are used for competition or personal protection, or both. Many like me, like an assault rifle purely for the fun it offers in plinking away at targets. Please remember that virtually all killings are not done with a rifle regardless of what kind of rifle it is. I keep mine, as do every other gun owner I know, under lock and key in a gun safe. I know a lot of people that simply like guns, collect them, and never fire them.
I hope this helps you understand a lot more clearly. Please feel free to ask any other questions.
charlene flaherty
9:15 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
laplateau, I always enjoy a passionate conversation. Let me start by saying I have been called a"liberal". Isn't the 2nd amendment referring to militia? Please clarify. I find fault shooters mother for extremely bad judgement exposing him to target practice but telling the babysitter never to turn her back on him! I despise the trite statement, Guns don't kill, people do. In a free society its not that simplistic! The president is not banning firearms as pres Bush Sr and Clinton did. It was legislated after a school shooting in Stockton CA and a terrorist tragedy. He is not exploiting the children who died at Sandy Hook by relating to their loss. The hate is not helping move forward and I blame the gun manufacturers who are behind this NRA ads. Is money paramount to everything else? Also, in 1776 woman were not allowed to vote, slaves were 3/5 in value and presidents had no term limits etc! What is your solution to this horrible situation we can't agree upon Char
CT
11:34 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Keep the crazy people from owning/having access to guns. How? I do not know. Btw, the overwhelming majority of non-self-defense and non-suicidal firearms deaths are young urban handgun deaths. See: Chicago and Detoit. Meredith, way to stay civil. As a gun guy, I'll be the first to admit that gun people tend towards obnoxious
philosophical absolutism. Charlene...the NRA didn't tell Americans in 50 states to buy 3 million AR-15s. They choose this purchase themselves. Meredith's post meant to say, "let's just be nicer." kinda hard to argue against that. Peace.
cookiepro2
2:40 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
Yes, CT, we as a country, do ignore the horrible carnage that happens on a daily basis in our cities. However, every parent assumes that when they send their child to school they're going to come home in the same condition. That assumption has been shaken by Newtown, now we know how easily; in 10 minutes, happy lives can be brutally taken. This needs to be fixed.
Jeff Scott
10:09 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
There is information now coming out that the mentally ill shooter DID NOT USE the dreaded "assualt rifle" after all....he used 3 automatic pistols.
Now after the Obama administration used that misinformation in their headlong rush to strip away more of our 2nd Amendment rights we start hearing some facts! I was watching this terrible tragedy and the police response live on TV that morning and there was a second person that the police chased up into the woods along side the school. He was wearing camo pants and a black shirt and police reported that he was yelling that he "hadn't shot anyone"....whatever happened to that person who may have been with the shooter in the car? He just didn't evaporate! Where is he and who is he?
There are many questions that have not been answered while Obama presses his precieved political and emotional advantage to press his and the liberal's wish list on gun control....this bothers me!
I watched the President's news conference and still cannot believe that not one single supposed journalist asked this question of President Obama.
How can a President who allowed the "Fast and Furious" gun running operation to go on within his administration and then instructed his Attorney General to withhold information and obstruct the Congressional investigation into what happened stand before the nation and misinform people after they allowed MILITARY GRADE, fully automatic weapons to go drug gang members who murdered people, even children, with them!
Lianne Mathie
10:18 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
Jeff, please provide links to all of these stories, otherwise it's pure rhetoric.I don't remember Obama puling the trigger.But you just threw a bomb.
Thank you
Erin
10:28 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
Jeff -well-respected Right-wing blogger on www.redstate.com, Erik Erickson, asking folks like you to resist conspiracy theory:
"The media did a horrible job getting its facts and figures straight during and after the tragedy in Connecticut. Gun control advocates have seized on a lot of information and ignored a lot of information in an effort to push their agenda.
But I'm seeing gun supporters do the same. Most troubling, over the past week on radio filling in for Neal Boortz I’ve heard from dozens of callers, tweeters, Facebook friends, and email correspondents assuring me that Adam Lanza never used the AR-15 in his possession. Most people linked to a video purportedly showing the police retrieving the AR-15 from Adam Lanza’s car after the incident.
I don’t blame these people for getting the facts wrong. The media caused a lot of the misinformation in their rush to cover the story. But as the nation begins to set policy (or not) based on this random act of violence, we should all have our facts straight.
The fact is, Adam Lanza used a handgun to take his own life, but he relied on the Bushmaster AR-15 to kill most of the victims. He did use that gun. You don’t have to believe me. Believe Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance:
"The primary weapon used in the attack was a “Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon,” said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance."
Let’s keep to the facts, not the grainy videos on YouTube purporting to show what is not true."
Erin
10:54 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
Jeff - Fast and Furious? A program W started, Holder discontinued. Most documents that were offered for public view, and others offered for private viewing for Rep. Issa and his committee - private to protect the law enforcement officers involved in ongoing investigations. Even though ultimately ALL documents for were offered for viewing just days prior to the vote- Issa declined and decided to hold a Contempt vote anyway. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77433.html
Why? Because just days prior - the NRA notified Congress that they would "Score" the vote - in other words - threatening to torpedo their NRA rating when they went to run for re-election. http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/02/politics/contempt-vote-political-survival/index.html
How is this supposedly a Second Amend Rights issue? Fast and Furious is thought by some as part of a conspiracy emanating from the White House (started by Bush apparently) and the Justice Department to turn guns over to Mexican cartels knowing that would provoke a wave of violence, which could then be used to scare Americans into backing more gun regulations.
NRA owned Repubs DECLINING the very documents they requested to instead hold a Cabinet member in contempt for the first time in US history and legislate based on conspiracy theory and partisan brinksmanship. Any wonder why Congress has single digit approval ratings?
Jeff Scott
10:29 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
You don't listen to the news Lianne? The story about the 'assualt rifle" not being used is just now starting to be reported...weeks after the terrible murders occured...funny how that worked out isn't it? As far as the second person....there is NOTHING being written or said about what I saw and anyone else who watched the coverage saw for themselves....funny how that works too isn't it? As far as Obama pulling the trigger I never said that so don't try putting words in my mouth because every single fact I wrote about is checkable....if you really want to know the truth including the Fast and Furious statement.
Erin
11:17 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
Jeff - be careful what you consider "the news".
According to CT State Police press releases - The "second shooter suspect" in the woods was arrested, questioned, home searched and released by CT SWAT team after finding he was a dad trying to get to daughter. Unless, local, state and FBI investigators are actually "all in on it" - whatever this week's conspiracy is...
Lianne Mathie
11:54 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
Links Jeff, links, post the links otherwise it's purely ranting on your part as far as I can tell. I am very well read, so one needs to question your sources and I'm doing just that. Otherwise it's rhetoric, plain and simple.
Erin
5:04 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Jeff + Lianne - I just figured out the source of the "new reports/evidence" Jeff is quoting. You guessed it - a Jan. 7th 30 min viral video "Sandy Hook Shooting - Fully Exposed!!" from a group of Sandy Hook "Truthers".
These "Truthers" are convinced that the whole thing was, you guessed it again, just like the conspiracy theory of the failed Fast and Furious operation - it was REALLY all staged to drive public support for more gun laws! Sandy Hook Truthers say that Homeland Secuity has a regular stable of "crisis actors" ready to pose and cry with the POTUS. They're also harrassing the Good Samaritan neighbor who took in some of the children who fled the school that day accusing him of lying.
Here's a couple of good articles debunking all the crazy Sandy Hook stuff. Including Snopes: "a well-known resource for validating and debunking urban legends, Internet rumors, e-mail forwards, and other stories of uncertain or questionable origin."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/sandy-hook-conspiracy-theory-video-debunked_n_2487427.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/newtown.asp
The week starts out with the NRA's well-funded lobbying arm (Institute for Legislative Action) releasing that desperate ad featuring Obama's daughters (how low can they go???), now the "Truthers" are here with another whopper. Despicable -
Lianne Mathie
7:20 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Thanks Erin, I really wish this had not devolved in to a gun rights fest. The whole point was mental health and recognizing people within our mist as being troubled and how to identify them. Sadly it's clearer sometimes then others,lol, if you get my drift.
That being said, I wish Ann would have addresses some parents denial that their own children's mental health reflects on them as bad parents. So they choose to ignore the warning signs . Mental illness is so misunderstood and stigmatized that not once in this thread has it been discussed.How do we keep the guns out of the hands of paranoid schizophrenics and other deeply disturbed, unmedicated individuals while preserving individual rights? That, in my opinion is what we should be discussing.
Thanks