20 elementary school children plus 6 adults shot dead by a guy with a gun

@ Corwin, So what is the answer? Seems that nobody wants to take responsibility for these kids.
Unless the govenment is willing to pay for the help in schools, make social responsibility a core teaching principle and provide regular mental health 'check-ups' I do see how the situation will improve. Maybe the NRA could do something on that, but it's doubtful.

 

The NRA has suggested the schools implement a stronger security system, even armed guards. Take the "weakness" out of the schools and it would be tougher for a shooter to gain entry. This would be costly, however. But it does make sense. Schools are responsible for the kids while they are there, why not provide them with armed security. There are plenty of ex-military members getting back from the war that need jobs. I don't think there would be a lack of people willing to serve, but I think schools would have a tough time finding the funds to hire even 2 or 3 full time guards. This should be something that each school district decides. Not a federal government program, not a law. Just a push for higher security measures for the kids. In an increasingly unsafe world, why not protect kids with the same kind of things that protect the president, congressmen, VIP's, etc.

There have also been suggestions about creating a concealed carry system for teachers. Allow trained teachers to carry concealed weapons if they want to. This program is very similar to what happened on planes after 9/11. The federal flight deck officers program allowed pilots to become armed, to prevent any hijackings. They also added air marshals to flights, giving armed security to the passengers. Now I know your first thought would be what if the teacher lost the gun and a child got hold of it, etc. etc. The chance of that happening is very slim, depending on the method of concealed carry. And once again, serious training would be involved for those that want to carry. I don't think it would be an issue.

 

1) No surprise there.
2) The US Tax system requires declaration of all income as well. Our driving code also requires everyone drive no faster than 65mph, yet for some reason, the average speed on the freeway is 85. The standard calculation goes something like
(reward for breaking the law/(risk of getting caught * realistic and likely penalty for getting caught )). Higher numbers yield more law breakers, to a point where the majority if not nearly all people involved in the process are breaking the spirit of the law, if not the letter. This is not an admission of guilt, but rather an observation of behavior.
3) Again, I assumed nothing. I'm just trying to work with what you have written.
5&6 (what happened to 4?)) Not criticizing you or anyone else for working from home, and certainly not for doing what you need to do to survive and feed your children. What I absolutely would criticize you, and anyone else for, is for existing in a perpetual state of government financial assistance. Lets just call it a cultural difference.

I was inspired by Ben Carson's speech at the President's Prayer Breakfast.

 

@ O-nation
Obviously it is cultural differences, 4 is there it just moved.
My employment status really has no bearing on the thread in question.
In the UK there seems to be a culture from the government to keep the poor in the gutter.
Everything that I am doing IS above board and within the laws of the UK.

 

Well...I can tell you, as an American living in the northeast in a small central part of the Constitution State where I am a proud and responsible owner of firearms and a damn fine shot if I do say so myself, have a problem with hearing about 'The Yanks' and them being referred to and portrayed as rampant murderers with stupid children that feel entitled. I am as Yankee as you get and being referred to as a waste of space is rather a personal and broadly scoped and quite arrogant assessment. If I were to make the same type of generalized and broadly scoped instigation that you provided I would say something like ... well by the statistics*(wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics) one could assume that the aussies are a bunch of sex hungry rapists seeing that they have three times the average rape rate than my country. That would be dirty and a completely inaccurate assessment and completely not my place to say in any civilized debate and to be clear do not believe that I think like that because I don't...I have more respect for human kind that that.

Moving on...

As I said I live here in CT and yes it is a damned problem that a person with mental problems was able to illegally acquire an improperly stored firearm and before you even get into the atrocities you need to address the root cause right there...AN IMPROPERLY STORED FIREARM is the first problem.

Have you even looked at the Connecticut general statues applying to firearms...if not read this quick summary... cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0001.htm

Second, because of a series of criminal acts which is what should have harsher punishments such as improper storage of a firearm (if you own firearms you need a real safe...period, I am an avid gun supporter and I wish this was a requirement), a mentally unstable youth was able to steal weapons and go to a school with them which in and of itself is another felony charge and commit another series of criminal acts which led to the deaths of a lot of people many being children.

Before he even committed the murders...at the point where he entered school property with a loaded firearm before encountering and posing a direct threat to even a single person he had already committed enough felonious acts to put him in jail for a good portion of what would have been the rest of his life.

He knew he was going to die that day and in his mind he was set on taking as many people as he could with him...his reasons, all speculation (if anyone is interested in my not-so-professional opinion quote this note) but no one goes to a school and kills a whole bunch of kids and thinks they are going to live after that...they wouldn't have freedom and people who hurt kids don't really make it in jail. By all accounts the kid who did the killing was really an intelligent person, by the series of actions that had to be taken in order for him to end up at that school firing on children he had to have been dedicated to the idea he had in his head and therefor this was an unstable person who committed premeditated murder and had he not had stolen the guns I am convinced he would have brought it to an even more extreme level which would have take more innocent lives.



___________________________________________________
time passes----I read about this thread and paste the above copy in
------------------------------------------------------


From reading onto skimming the last pages of this thread I have come to the conclusion that people are not happy in general regardless of location period (note the widespread topical changes and not so topical rants of some), and with people jumping at the chance to tear this whole event and anyone they can involve in it apart, it becomes apparent that people want a force that they can rally behind and see a real resolution to something...anything, people want to feel like they are significant and when you hear about a bunch of kids, peoples' children getting killed in a horrible way you can't help but realize how most insignificant life can feel when another person, with a weapon or not... can take your existence in seconds.

Violence in general is the offspring of hate, anger, greed, jealousy and/or envy turned inward and then projected outward...

If less people were running about spreading the seeds of negativity which when passed on to someone have the potential to grow into full blown hate and can be catalyst to destruction , we would probably find more people showing random acts of kindness in a reciprocating fashion with exponentially reproducible results.

 

That's fine. I'm sick of talking about it as well. I still refuse to acknowledge the fact you are a citizen of the UK living on government assistance has no bearing on this thread, or any other thread pertaining to US laws and politics. It is relevant in a number of ways I wont waste my time spelling out again.

That is true of any culture that breeds dependency on mother government. Dependency on the government = poverty, pure and simple.

That culture has become a lot more popular over here, among your dumber cousins, ever since your beloved Barack Obama became our president. Yet another reason your ideas and advice should be looked at through the lens of who you are and where you live.

 

A law requiring people to have gun safes is just as an invasion of my freedom as banning guns. Not everyone needs a gun safe. If you have small children that are too young to understand firearms I would suggest a safe or storage out of their reach, but why does someone who lives alone need one? Is your alcohol locked up in a safe? What about cleaning chemicals? Car keys? More laws and more government interference is not the answer. I don't know about you, but I am not going to go to a safe and unlock my guns when I need them the most, in an emergency where time is critical. They are at my bedside, loaded, and ready when needed. Now, in my situation, no one but me and my girlfriend have access to it. Obviously a family with small children would be a little different. Every situation is different.

 

Emma has stated she declares her income. This means her "state support" is based upon this (income based). I don't know if you have such a system in the USA, but it exists here. In this instance, the government does not require a business plan (and is completely legitimate - the programme I mentioned is for if you are receiving government funds to assist with starting up a business, as well as benefits), but adjust benefits received based upon income. They do rigorous checks regularly to ensure you are not under/over-paid any benefits.

Is your business plan hard-on now over? Seems like you have one about plenty of other things, though. (Sorry, that was a bit rude of me. I don't know you, so it's not nice to get personal.)

 

It doesn't exist in the US, as far as I know. We have unemployment benefits, for those without work, and welfare, for those without assets and no employment for a very very long time. We have the EITC, which is a refundable tax rebate up to $4800 per year, so long as you have worked some portion of the year, which sounds like the closest thing to what you describe.

We have a variety of other poverty assistance programs, such as free day care, education, and food assistance for those with low/no income.

No my hard-on has not subsided, thanks for asking. I do get a hard-on frequently, and they tend to last a really, really, really long time. Why do you ask?

While you work up an answer to that question, perhaps you can explain to me the British obsession with US politics. Do you guys have no problems of your own to solve?

 

Meant in the slang sense, so not literal but metaphorical. Read #5 at http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hardon

Ask someone else who's interested in US politics. How you can take providing you with some information about the UK system as an interest in US politics is beyond me.

 

Oops. Sorry for the misunderstanding .

In that sense, I get a hard-on for pretty much anyone who sums up my countrymen as your dumber cousins. In fact, I tend to abuse anyone who perpetuates stereotypes, whether they refer to me or not. Stereotypes tend to highlight the ignorance of those who believe in them, even more so when the stereotype runs counter-factual, like Americans referring to the Japanese as our math-challenged friends from the orient, or the Chinese as frivolous spenders.

I was referring to the countryman you have stepped up to defend from my vile and abusive attacks. I was referring to your Guardian newspaper, and that jackass Piers Morgan.

 

No it is not a violation of freedom.

A front door or a window on your average civilian home is not stopping someone from getting in and stealing a gun or anything for that matter if they want it and it is the owners responsibility to secure their firearm. Any gun not on your person or is not under your direct control or immediate vicinity should be locked up. Hint, if your home gets burglarized and the weapon is used in the commission of a felony you can be held partially responsible, if you don't report the theft (say you didn't notice that firearm missing for some reason at this point) and they trace the rounds or weapon to you, you will have a warrant for an arrest out for you possibly under the charges of negligent homicide.

Having a safe does not mean your gun always has to be locked up...it just can not be in a position where any unauthorized person can gain control of it...and unless it has a biometric scanning trigger, your gun not being locked up somewhere where you are not, can and probably will lead to it being used in a crime if it is stolen someday...

Anyways let's say you have no safe at all, what if you get called for jury duty, you can't bring a firearm into a court house or any govt building, school etc etc as a civilian or for that matter even to a student teacher conference meeting at a school, your firearm is now somewhere that is not with you and it is not locked up, a properly anchored safe is much more secure than your homes front door...be it picking a lock, or trying to muscle it with brute force, I promise you that. You also can't leave a firearm in your car when you are not in it because it is illegal for one and two you would be making a thief's job much easier...a slimjim or an emergency hammer would get them a stolen gun in seconds.


By requiring gun owners to present proof of owning a certified safe to purchase a firearm... pistol, revolver or long bore... you could be assured that anyone who legally owns a gun HAS the capability of locking their firearms up. This will greatly reduce crimes related to stolen civilian firearms without removing any freedoms and while at the same time relieving the govt from the responsibility that is and should be recognized solely as the gun owners.

However...you are entirely free to keep a firearm on your nightstand when you sleep...and keep it loaded as well...there is nothing more useless than an unloaded gun. A gun with an empty mag and none in the chamber is only about as useful as a hammer and it doesn't even do that job well.


I am not suggesting interference from the govt...infact it is the opposite...if the govt can be sure that less guns are ending up in the wrong hands simply by requiring you to have a permit that basically says "I have a safe deemed suitable for firearms storage" they have no reason to stop you from owning almost any firearm. If a non-criminal can safely store any weapon and safely discharge it at a legal firing range or private property I really dont see the point with any weapon firing standard ammunition under .50 caliber being illegal. However if your trimmed out piece of hardware gets stolen and used in a crime, you should get the same charges the person who used your weapon...or at least conspiracy to commit for each charge they receive for inadvertently surrendering your arms to a would be criminal.

That would say 'Ok you are an adult, make good choices and value the safety of others, if you don't and something bad does happen because of your choice, you will be held responsible.'

 

Personally, I like Americans. My best friend's wife is American. Some of the nicest people I know are Americans. I know other English people who share the same view. I know English people who don't like Americans, but I've also met people from the USA who don't like English people. That is their choice though, as silly as it seems to me (there are good and bad everywhere, being from a country doesn't make you bad by default).

I would not say I am defending Emma. You are not from the UK, so you don't know how the system works here, so I mentioned how it works (which is very different from defending someone). Like I don't know how it works in the USA, as I don't live there.

It's interesting you mention Piers Morgan and The Guardian. How do you feel about the First Amendment? Regardless of if someone says something we do/don't like, I am a strong believer in free speech. (Some countries have written it into law, others have not felt the need to and just don't restrict it by default.) They said things you don't agree with, you can speak out in turn, have petitions, etc. The system is working as it should.

(FYI, their [Guardian and Morgan] words are their own and don't represent mine or my views. My words and views are just my own.)

PS: Have you been making vile and abusive attacks? Your words, not mine.[/quote]

 

If the gun is in my home, it's secure. Someone would have to break the law and trespass in order to get it.

Once again, in my home no unauthorized person can get it... Unless of course they break a law!

Wrong. In Missouri you don't even need a concealed carry permit to carry a gun concealed in a car. There is no law saying you need to be in the car for it to be legal either. Once again, if it's in my car it is considered secure and someone would have to break the law to get it.

No, you are suggesting more laws and regulations. In many state's it is already a law that all new guns purchased must include some sort of trigger lock. This is similar to the idea you are suggesting, that owners need to be able to secure the weapon. Not only does this add cost and hassle, it is just another reach into our individual lives.

How do you plan on enforcing such a law that requires gun owners to own a safe? You are not required to register guns, only to fill out a background check in order to get them. Are you suggesting in order to purchase a gun you should need to apply? And have an inspection of the place you plan to keep the weapon? Not only would this be extremely expensive, it is a huge overreach by the government.

And how would you cover private sales? Right now no background checks are required for private sales. No documentation of any kind is required to privately sell a gun. So people could bypass this gun safe law by not having to prove they have a safe.

Typical anti-gun arguments. You blame the gun and the gun owner, and completely ignore the fact that someone pulled the trigger. And you are even trying to tell me that locking my door is not enough, and I should make sure no one breaks into my house. Pretty silly if you ask me.

 

Personally, I've never met an American who doesn't like the English as a group. I suspect a few such people were created during the 2004 election cycle, when the Guardian took it upon themselves to meddle in our presidential election, but that withstanding, I simply have never encountered such an animal. I personally get a huge grin watching your PM do his business in the house of commons. I wish we had someone like that here, dealing out the hard facts in a similar fashion to the idiots representing us in Washington, but we don't. Obama only rarely communicates with either branch of congress, and only in closed door meetings.

I have however, encountered the stereotype put out by Emma, mostly from what I would call lower caste Brits. I'm not sure where the US apathy came from, but it is definitely real.

Acknowledged, though I would say your use of the words "hard-on" let on that you felt I was being a bit aggressive with her.

Ignoring for a moment the first amendment has nothing to do with them, as they are not US citizens, I agree that they are and should be 100% free to express their views. I simply raised the question about their obsession with US politics, and exercised my first amendment rights to give voice to my opinion of their views.

That said, if we hauled Rush Limbaugh's fat ass to London and gave him a prime time talk show to wail away on why your NHS should be abolished, I doubt it would be received very well. You would be perfectly within your rights, and furthermore justified, in responding with a few vile and abusive words of your own.

Do you think attacking a single mother, divorced from her drunk and violent husband, trying to raise a few kids with the help of government assistance could be construed as vile and abusive? In my opinion it could be.

Now add the context of that same woman from the UK telling Americans how most people in the UK think of us as their dumber cousins, and how happy she is we have elected a socialist to office two times in a row, and explaining to us why our gun laws are in need of changing, and why our businesses need to pay more in taxes, and how unashamed she is to be on long term government assistance, and one is left with the problem of appearing vile and abusive while pointing out the obvious problems with the philosophy and standing of the person on the other side of the argument.

In my opinion, allowing political correctness and self pity to trump glaring and obvious facts serves no purpose but to perpetuate bad ideas. Call me vile and abusive all you want.

 

Newspapers... they are often full of crap. If I want opinions, I'll go to a forum. If I read a news site, I want facts, so I usually read (or watch) BBC News, as they are usually impartial.

There is actually the BBC Parliamentary channel... I wonder if you have seen this? (I know some BBC channels are shown abroad and differs depending upon country, it seems.) Or just what's shown on news channels? Politics is something that shouldn't be done behind closed doors. If they're going to do dirty deals, those should be shown live to the public too, heh. No need to hide, politicians!

No idea where it came from either (maybe your explanation is right, regarding 2004), but I won't let a few wankers change my view of a country.

I did kind of apologise, as it was a bit rude, I wouldn't say aggressive is the right word (fixation).

I mentioned the First Amendment as it's what you're familiar (and Americans I know are very passionate about it, with a good reason), but generally speaking I meant freedom of speech.

Exactly, the system is working, you expressed your views, they expressed theirs, etc. I don't know why they are obsessed with it. I guess it's about viewer-ship, publicity, human nature (enjoy gossip and opinions on current affairs), nothing better to do with their time. Anyone's guess.

Don't get me wrong, I totally supported your free speech and was in no way saying you shouldn't speak out.

As for Rush, send him over. From my view, it would be a good laugh and interesting to hear his view. Communication and availability of information is so much easier these days. There are things we can learn from another country and consider, "should they be implemented here?" I'm often trash talking our rail system and point to other European countries I've visited as good examples (where prices are the same regardless of when you book). (I just mention this as an example.)

I look at it as a whole. You are having a debate on a forum, expressing your opinion. She is expressing hers. Freedom of speech. It's text words. You're not going around beating up single mothers (as far as I know ). Sure, debate can get heated, but that's the nature of debate, particularly when people are passionate about their views.

Regarding long-term government assistance, there can be circumstances (such as with my friend's American wife - she is now at a point where she has lost all mobility) where it is required. That is my (and other people's) tax money paying for her care when she wasn't born here, hasn't worked here (but did in the USA), just lives here with her English husband. (Who cannot work as she needs full-time care that the state can't provide - as well, he has to take care of his daughter - and he always needs to be close by whenever he leaves the house, due to her needs.) His wife doesn't receive any assistance from her family back in the USA, her parents won't even visit her. Her parents are not poor. My friend always paid (before he could work and was a telecoms engineer) for them to visit her parents. (And I am not saying that they should receive any assistance from her parents either.)

I do not begrudge her at all, and not just because she is my best friend's wife. I acknowledge there are circumstances where government assistance is required. And I don't begrudge Emma either as she will have to (and does) declare her income and also pay taxes on income/benefits, if it meets a certain threshold.

Again, you're the one mentioning vile and abusive. That's not my view.

 

Myth...your gun is not secure just because it is in your home...a door or a window is not considerable as a secure barrier to a gun...that's why stores that sell guns have bars on the doors and windows...

One again we are trying to stop criminals from illegally obtaining guns...having your attitude about it can cost someone there life...in my opinion if someone steals your gun and kills someone with it , you should share their penalty.

In Missouri you dont even need a permit to buy a gun of any kind...in Connecticut you have to go through a pistol training course and get a signature from a certified instructor and then apply for a pistol permit where you can be denied...before it was amended you couldn't even get a permit if you got caught with some pot in your life. In connecticut where this event happened....you CAN NOT just leave a gun in your car, you have a permit to carry...not use your car as a firearms storage locker.

I am suggesting making someone (at least in the state which is THE TOPIC of this thread) register an approved safe from a list of safes and in return the state gives them a card...period...that card would then be one of the things you need to present when buying a firearm.

You do realize we are talking Connecticut in this thread right? In Connecticut if you have a permit and go to buy a pistol today, you are paying and then waiting and not getting it for a while. And then again you have to apply for that permit in the first place,and it can be denied. Private sales would require a person to show their safeID, criminals would not be able to get one. People with honor don't do business with criminals.

One...you are barking up the wrong tree young chap...I am a PROUD GUN OWNER, not a law enforcement officer, am pro gun despite being shot by a criminal illegally possessing a firearm.

I didn't ignore the facts...if you read my entire post which you obviously didn't...you would see that I blamed him for his choices as well as those who enabled him and pointed out that before he even pulled a trigger he was already spending most of the rest of his life in jail....how am I ignoring anything representing the shooters faults.

Two you should not rely on a lock on a door that has a door frame that can be kicked in by a man weighing 150 lbs. It is easier to break into a house than it is a safe...I did not imply that you have to make sure no one can get into your house....however...leaving your gun around in your home where anyone who enters can get to it and leaving your house with it like that....yes that is irresponsible...period.

What is pretty silly is that you only heard what you wanted to in my post, you zoned in on one thing...

A few notes...legal and secure have two totally different meanings...saying it is illegal to break in does not make it secure or not. A criminal does not care about the law...that is the whole reason you need to lock up your gun that is not at the ready in your vicinity or on your person.

 

This thread has taken quite a route. We have been to the UK, Australia, etc. so I was talking about the national gun debate. I'm not sure of the laws in Connecticut, and from what you are saying I am sorry if law abiding citizens have to go through that mess.

I am against the idea that as a gun owner, I have to defend my possessions within my own property. It's bad enough that someone is breaking the law and robbing my house, but then you blame me for it? Or suggest that I need to do more than lock my doors, which it is already bad enough I need to do that. I know your intentions are good, keeping criminals from getting guns. But in the process you are throwing the guilt on law abiding citizens.

If you really felt this way about guns, you should feel the same way about alcohol, knives, and everything else in this world that kills people. How many times do criminals running from the cops steal a car and then get in a chase, only to kill a cop or innocent motorist that happened to be in the wrong place? Should the original owner share the penalty because they were not in the car, protecting it from the criminal? We don't punish bars, stores, or alcohol manufacturers for alcohol deaths, which outnumber gun deaths every year. Does burger king have to pay for people's medical bills due to obesity? If you don't feel the same way about these other subjects, that makes your argument hypocritical.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself. The small dose of British Parliament I get comes from CSPAN, our government funded TV here in the states, which I watch religiously. They have all kinds of interesting viewing, such as leaving the camera rolling in congress, as well as the occasional footage of sausage making in your country.

I said it before, and I'll say it again. Watching David Cameron debate is a pleasure, and not just because I tend to agree with what he says. The man fields questions at random and seems to not only have all the information at his fingertips, but a bit of wit to throw in with his responses. Obama, without his teleprompter, is a complete train wreck, in many ways worse than George W. Bush, who seemed to genuinely struggle with the English language at times. Obama's gaffes tend to be more along the lines of true insight into his thinking (Spread the wealth, etc), than English language gaffes, though he definitely has those as well.

I completely agree that there are things we can learn from each other, but I strongly suspect your take on having Rush come over there and tell you how it is, would not be shared by many if not most of your countrymen. For an accurate comparison, he would have to host his show at prime time on BBC, as Piers Morgan does here on CNN. A few people would applaud it, calling it, "Straight Talk". The rest I suspect would form a lynch mob (Or is that an American thing only?)

That is a very sad tale, but only tangentially applicable to the point I was making, in my opinion. Long term disability is a whole different class of government assistance, and one I fully support. We can't be leaving our disabled and elderly out to rot.

I say tangentially because, even there, the system sees quite a bit of abuse. In an economic downturn, people file disability claims for mental duress, as well as a myriad of other aches and pains which are only loosely identifiable by an MD. On an anecdotal, one of my employee's brought her husband to the company Christmas party where he made mention of the fact he was on permanent disability. Another employee, having a sibling in the orthopedic care business, mentioned that perhaps his sibling could help with his condition. He protested with a wink and a nod, stating he didn't want anything to disturb his permanent government funded vacation.

Able bodied people, in my opinion, should be moved off of direct government financial assistance as soon as possible. It is corrosive as hell.

It isn't that I begrudge Emma anything, assuming her story is exactly as presented. In my opinion, prolonging that type of existence is bad for her, and bad for her children. It teaches dependence, not independence.

The impact to the tax payer is an entirely secondary issue, but one also worth a conversation as fraud and waste, at least in this country, appear to be more the norm than the exception.

200 million in savings from people who abused the system, acquiring more than one cell phone. It is a little over 1/3 the 2008 budget for the whole program.

Lets call it liberal guilt. I do live in California.