Connecticut Massacre

Remove all ads!

No they died as a result of gunshot wounds, the autopsy's were very simple with that.

How so many americans struggle with this concept eludes me. With increased legislation and the removal of many if not all types of weapon from society his mother would have never had the weapons for him to steal.

 

Holy crap, gunshot wounds just happen? Thanks! That would have made my years chasing insurgents in Baghdad and Kirkuk infinitely more difficult if I'd factored that in. I feel so silly for focusing on the Sunnis who decided to shoot Shias, instead of trying to gather all of the Ak47s off the streets. I better let my brother know this--since he is a career police office, I'm sure he'd be overjoyed to let in his department know of your wisdom.

It would have had no effect on his motivation to kill, or the fact no one was prepared for it. A lack of handguns or a rifle in his hands last week does not mean that his mother (murdered in her sleep before he left his house) or the kids or the schoolteachers would still be alive today. Clearly he was a disturbed individual who wanted to kill people. Maybe it wouldn't have happened if his mother had somehow been denied access to the purchase of these legal weapons which she lawfully purchased, but to argue that with no proof (i.e., a statement from him indicating "I would only kill 27 people if I had access to pistols and a rifle") is counterfactual.

 

Research published in 2010 in the American Journal of Law and Economics found that firearm homicides, in Australia, dropped 59 per cent between 1995 and 2006. There was no offsetting increase in non-firearm-related murders. Researchers at Harvard University in 2011 revealed that in the 18 years prior to the 1996 Australian laws, there were 13 gun massacres (four or more fatalities) in Australia, resulting in 102 deaths. There have been none in that category since the Port Arthur laws. Source.

 

Oh my GOD. Why are you being deliberately obtuse? We've been over this a thousand times. Guns facilitate bad decisions! If Lanza had walked into this school pointing his finger at people and shouting 'BANG', I don't think he'd have taken so many people with him. He might have had someone if say the principle had a heart condition, but I don't think the carnage would have been the same. You can't control every single person, so you have to try, as much as possible, to remove their opportunities to perpetuate this kind of violence. Take away firearms, especially things like ****ing semi-automatic assault rifles, and you'll see a marked drop in these kinds of things, especially when attitudes really start to change due to the inevitable culture shift. See Arkites post above.

 

Its called 'risk assessment', being a career security officer and ex intelligence operator with the forces this is something I have done for a long time. you can't control people and you can't control events but you can control how events can unfold. Think of it like a game, you are incontrol of the environment but not the character, you can influence that character to make the choices you want them to by effecting their environment. I used to work in a shop that used flammable chemicals so to prevent fire we remove any source of ignition, it is still not impossible that a fire could occur. Same with guns if someone wanted me to risk assess mass killings I would suggest the removal of guns, that is not to say that killings would then be impossible, just that they would be more difficult to carry out.

If I don't want someone to smoke near a tank of industrial solvent heated to pressure then I think... hmm, how can I prevent this, first I start with signs "highly flammable, absolutely no smoking" that may appeal to a thinking mind who'll think, "oh, $h!t yeah, I'd better not smoke here."
but that won't work for everyone, so we'll add a threat to that "employees smoking in this area will be severely reprimanded" that may appeal to the risk takers, people who don't really give a crap about the risks of death to so many people, but think "$h!t if I smoke here, I could lose my job and be fined" once again, we need to go further than that. I think smoke detector's to enforce my policies above so now people who are happy to flaunt my threat above thinking "oh I won't get caught" now know that they will set of an alarm, and to add to this since it is such a dangerous area I'll add a static security guard and CCTV cameras. Now we can agree that I could do nothing more than this to prevent what I am trying to prevent, It is still not impossible that someone may smoke in the area, but I have made it so difficult to do this that most won't bother trying.

Same with guns if someone wanted me to risk assess mass killings I would suggest the removal of guns, that is not to say that killings would then be impossible, just that they would be more difficult to carry out.

I disagree, as I said earlier, guns empower people, Ill use a war example take 2 marines and drop them in a heated contested area, give one his gun and the other a knife, get on the radio 10 mins later and I guarantee you you'll have one marine $h!tting his pants and another who will not be so moved. You tell me which one is which.

Guns make people feel big, strong, confident like they can take on anyone - other weapons don't have that effect.

 

Yeah, if only "attitudes change", there wouldn't be any conflict or violence in this world whatsoever.

But that's not an available political option, and thus largely irrelevant when discussing a policy response to tragedies. People's thoughts and choices cannot be commanded through government coercion, nor does the government have a right to attempt such a thing. Several socialist governments of various alignments across the world have tried, and the harm they have caused has been disastrous.

And I must say, the fact that (further up this thread) the very first concrete example you suggest for a potential liberal anti-gun-violence policy is a restriction of free speech, does make me wonder if conservatives do have a point in framing the liberal anti-gun campaign as an attack on private civil liberties as a whole.

As for laws directly restricting the availability of guns, would they indeed prevent most of those "10k~ handgun killings a year"? I wouldn't be so sure. In Wikipedia's list of countries by homicide rate, the USA comes in at position 108. Many countries further up the list have few private gun owners, yet that doesn't prevent killings there.

Most of the "10k~ handgun killings a year" in the US are either felon-vs.-felon shootouts/'executions', or suicides.
The cases where a mentally unstable person spontaneously grabs a gun and starts to shoot at innocents, are comparatively few, they just get by far the most media coverage.

From what I remember from the news reports, I thought both were pretty well planned in advance.

 

Yep, because that's exactly what I've said all along.

Reading a thread - you're doing it wrong.

 

Lets bear in mind that the list there is 'intentional homicides' it doesn't count in the thousands of gun deaths or injuries that are not intentional.

The list also doesn't help your argument that much when you see that you are less likely to be intentionally killed in Iraq, Iran and afghanistan then you are in the US. It should also be noted that for one of the worlds wealthiest countries that was paraded as a shining light of hope and freedom to the world to fall into the list among some of the worlds poorest and most violent many of which have serious problems with organised drug crime - its a pretty bad statistic at any level.

 

Jesus, the vast majority of countries above the US in that list are African nations, or war-torn areas. The only fair comparisons are against stable and settled countries. Look at the US against the main European countries like the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, Sweden. It's 4 times as much in most cases. Doesn't even Canada own more guns per head than the US? And their numbers are even close. Such a fail post from top to bottom.

I really can't see how anyone can support the gun policy in the US as it is now. I can only imagine they're happy for innocent children to be shot dead. Either that or they are just so damn stubbornly protective of their country - either way, they're not helping themselves.

I will never grasp the mindset of the American pro-gun people. I don't particularly want to visit somewhere where the general consensus is it's acceptable for thousands of innocent kids to be killed because an outdated 221 year old piece of paper says so.

That country just makes me uncomfortable.

 

You did see the "but" that followed, right?

Actually, at the very top are mostly Central and South American countries.

So what exactly does that tell you about the hypothesis that killings are caused by the existence of guns?

Way to keep the discussion on a constructive level.

---------- Added 0 hours, 2 minutes and 58 seconds later... ----------

So does the US.

In fact one policy measure that I would totally subscribe to, which would probably reduce gun killings in the US quite a bit, would be to legalize most drugs.

 

What? So what was it you were trying to say?

Yes, but my previous point about fair comparisons still applies.

I've said all along it's a culture and attitude thing in the US, AIDED by the availability of guns. But only one of them can be fixed easily.

I've tried to keep is contructive all along. I feel I've given a good account of myself in this thread, despite 'having a debate' being far from one of my strongpoints. It's just pro-gun Americans keep coming back with bad arguments to try and hide, mask or shift the problem and it gets exasperating.

I'm done here to be honest. I'm going to shrug my shoulders, shake my head and walk away, like Harbs and gang.

 

I have a question and I'll probably come across as stupid (in fact I hope so). I'm serious about it, but you can laugh at my stupidity, if you want.

Why do people want to keep guns? For protection, I guess, but from what?

 

I can't find that 2010 report, either through Google or via the library where I just earned my master's (I still have full access to the research library and their massive journal database). Regarding this study, there has been another mass shooting--the Monash University shooting--but the 2010 study authors chose not to include it in their study--perhaps because their study was being fast-tracked through the scholarship process in order to tout the benefits of gun control? At least, that is the allegation from other Australian academics. Other scholars say there is no empirical evidence in support of an alleged thesis that there is a correlation between the laws and a drop in gun-related violence.

A report I can find is the 2006 Neill and Leahy report, and after reading it, I concur with criticisms of their methodology (of course, at the post-graduate level, criticism of methodology is an easy way to "make your hay," so to speak).

No matter what, I am suspicious of any opinion piece generated by a national-level politician who helped push through Austrialia's gun laws. His opinions are interesting but do not constitute unbiased data.

For more reading:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia (the portion labeled "Contention Over the Effect of the Guns" about 2/3's down the page is especially interesting reading)
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html ("Austrialia's Murder Rate History" at the bottom of the page is particularly telling)

 

That would be complete news to me. According to Wikipedia, we're about 1/3 the per-capita rate of the US. I'm surpised it's even that high. But I think it's more rifles than AR-15's

From other people with guns.

 

Many Americans want to keep guns for protection from criminals.

I lived in Alaska at one point in my life and many people there carry weapons on them when they do otherwise mundane outdoors tasks (camping, hiking, fishing, etc) to protect themselves from large game (not just grizzly bears, but there was a fatality due to a wolf attack just a couple of years ago in AK, and moose are very large and can be aggressive in certain situations, so they can be very dangerous too)--of course, Alaska is a isolated part of the country where very few people live, so that's not common in most places.

There is a fairly large hunting culture in the U.S., especially in the West, Midwest, and Southeast, and many people who enjoy hunting like to maintain several weapons for several types of game (shotguns are far better for ducks or geese, for instance, while rifles are good for deer). I personally know many people who use semiautomatic "assault-style" weapons for hunting, as well as people who claim to use pistols for hunting (though it's always very vague as to what they actually use those for--the range on a pistol is so limited, and with a short barrel-length, it's very easy to miss with one compared to a rifle, so my suspicion is they are actually shooting bottles or cans out in the woods with their pistols).

Collectors.

Many people who work in national security fields (like myself) like to own weapons in order to maintain proficiency. With defense cutbacks (there is never enough dough for adequate training budgets, even in the best of times) and ongoing defense spending in places like Afghanistan, there simply isn't enough "official" money to go around in some places for people to maintain their proficiency--or to improve it, which generally takes lots of time and shooting--on the "government watchclock," so they like to have handguns and even carbines in order to shoot on what little time they may have on the weekends in order to maintain or improve their proficiency. I have a good friend who purchased weapons originally with that intent and who is now a highly-ranked competitive shooter (believe it or not, you can earn money shooting).

 

I believe those people are referred to as "hit men".

 

Ok I'll bite.

I recently went back to university myself, I've got 6 months left on my current degree, if you're just finishing off a master's, you should know very well by now that not every article from every journal will end up online, and especially not for free.

Hold on a minute,

Researchers at Harvard University in 2011 revealed that in the 18 years prior to the 1996 Australian laws, there were 13 gun massacres (four or more fatalities) in Australia, resulting in 102 deaths.

The Monash University shooting refers to a shooting in which a student shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five. source.

Really? The New York Times used the same references as recently as this week.
source.

But your references are impeccable? I've got some time at the moment, so I had a look. The gunsandcrime site is owned by one Jerry Phillips. The last article I could find that he put out was titled:

---

Who's Gonna Protect You From Thieves...
When They're the Police?

by Jerry Phillips, 22 Aug 00
http://www.GunsAndCrime.org

source.
---

The main thrust of the article?

CONCLUSION:
The police in this case relied upon Welfare and Institutions Code 8102 because all it requires is an officer to claim on the application to the mental care facility that he has probable cause to believe the person is a danger to self or someone else, regardless of facts. This route then permits the police to steal the firearms through the court because all that's required in the hearing is "proof" that there is any likelihood that the person would be such a danger.
Don't think for a moment that the kind of story I've just told is about a rare event. It is happening every day somewhere in our country.

----

Even the mentally ill shouldn't have their guns taken away by the police.

This kind of ...scribbling (by the author), for lack of a four letter word is beneath this discussion.
The rest of the articles on the site are all really, really out there pro-gun propaganda, even the most casual critical reading should have alarm bells ringing. But this brings me to my next point, when you mentioned bias...

John Howard hasn't been the prime minister for 6 years, and hasn't been a politician for 6 years. He isn't looking to raise his profile, he has no (financial or otherwise) investment in this issue, save his beliefs, and has nothing to gain by expressing an opinion on the issue of gun control.

Finally if I can just say, I wasn't going to reply, but I don't think you're doing your side of the argument any favours by accusing a former head of state of a major developed nation, who was referencing research from Harvard University, in an opinion piece in a national publication, of bias.


edit:
Oh just for full disclosure, I voted against John Howard twice.

 

Sure, no arguments here. But your response is irrelevant to the fact I could not find the actual article in order to read it or comment on the points in it. Which was really the point of my comment about the article, which I guess I didn't make very well.

All I have access to, regarding this study, is the commentary on that study.

A study co-authored by Simon Chapman argued that reduction in firearm numbers had prevented mass shootings because in the 18 years prior to the Port Arthur massacre there were 13 mass shootings and in the decade since 1996 there have been none. The 2002 Monash University shooting of seven people, two of whom died, is ignored by Chapman because Chapman's definition requires four deaths.

Media reports gave Chapman wide publicity while failing to note his long history as an anti-gun lobbyist, which continues to this day. Since then, evidence to a Senate Inquiry showed that Chapman's research was fast-tracked for publication by the journal Injury Prevention, which bypassed the standard peer review process. The original emails between Chapman and Pless (not sure who that is), and reviewer comments, are contained in a Senate Inquiry submission.

Baker and McPhedran have also published a meta-study pointing out that differing authors' conclusions were based on the same data, but that interpretations diverged.

A 2008 study on the effects of the firearm buybacks by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi of Melbourne University's Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research studied the data and concluded, "Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates."

While the above is from Wikipedia and is not necessarily inherently accurate, it seems pretty reasonable to me. Maybe Chapman's study was great and did a great job of going through the data and coming to valid conclusions. But I can't find it to confirm that myself, there seem to be problems with the process by which it was published (by-passing peer-review? that's a pretty serious thing in U.S. academia), and other scholars dispute his conclusions. So to me it's questionable and shouldn't be accepted at face value.

The fact that the NYT used an opinion piece in an opinion piece of their own does not constitute facts or proof of anything.

I never said they were. But I do feel between you and me, we may be the only people who are actually looking up data, parsing through statistics, and analyzing the propaganda and nuance and attempting to establish fact.

I concede your point regarding his own bias. I didn't really research his own opinions or the bias on the website (this is an ongoing problem in the gun control "debate"--there are hardly any unbaised, factually-based data-sets out there--everything seems financed by, and heavily swung in favor of, one side or another). So you're right, he seems to be a pro-gun hack, and his opinions are probably biased.

Doesn't change the fact that Time normally publishes fairly well researched and unbiased articles, or that the Wikipedia link covers the scholarly debate fairly well. Nor, in fact, does it mean that Phillips' data was in itself incorrect or his assertions regarding statistical analysis inside the gun debate were themselves wrong.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Do you personally know John Howard? Not to be overly smarmy (I apologize but I know I sound like I'm overly needlish here), but I think it's very hard to conjecture reliably about the inner motivations of most people, let alone people who clearly have as much experience, influence and as many connections as senior-level politicians/bureaucrats do. Even retired politicians.

Why? One can't be critical of what a former head of state says, especially in an opinion piece? Aren't opinion pieces, by definition, merely personal convictions, presented in such a way as to sway the beliefs of other people? I can't look with a critical eye on that? (After years in Afghanistan and Iraq, I certainly have a critical ear towards almost anything U.S. politicians and even senior military officers say when it comes to conflict, the Middle East, U.S. foreign policy, or those particular states).

Again, to refer to the academic environment, you and I both know you can't use opinion pieces to bolster your argument--unless part of your evidence is reliant on proving what John Howard said on a particular issue--in any sort of effective scholarly work. An opinion piece published by a national level politician on a highly charged political problem of the day--that is the very definition of bias.

What is my "side?" What do you think it is? My side is on the side of gathering as much empirical evidence as possible, avoiding hyperbole and propoganda on each side, analyzing what the real problem(s) are when it comes to "gun violence" in the U.S., and then instituting substative reform aimed at positively affecting the situation. My gut feeling is most people, especially on the so-called "left" for some reason, don't want to talk about perpetuators of gun violence, while it seems like those on the "right" prefer not to talk about gun control.

I've worked in the government for awhile, I've been in a lot of different places, and over the years I've done my bit to help manage people, budgets, systems, and politics (including in places where they are starting from "zero"). I tend to think of things not just in terms of what can be proved, but also with a sense of historical perspective.

Real reform is expensive, difficult, painful, time-consuming, contentious, and frustrating--and that's when it's done right. If reform, aimed at preventing more mass shootings, should be done, it should be done right.

 

Actually, the need to validate one's own life decisions is one of the strongest forms of bias there is.

I think it would be silly to assume that an ex-politician commenting on the success of his life's work would not be biased.

 

Actually, a minimum of four people getting killed isn't just one person's definition of a mass killing. It's the standard by which these statisitics are tracked. So an event such as the mall shooting in Oregon last week, in which three people died (if you count the perpetrator) doesn't count.

Just today while I was waiting for an oil change on my car, I was reading the Baltimore Sun, and they had an article on the front page that while the mass shootings like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut get the most media attention, they are actually not the most common type of mass killing. Most of the mass killings are when a family member kills his spouse, kids, and then himself. And it happens a lot more than you think. I was actually shocked to learn that in the last two years, there have been 23 such incidents in the US. A significant majority, but by no means all of the mass killings were carried out using firearms. (Second on the list was arson, and finally there was one mass stabbing.)

It should also be pointed out that while many members of Congress are talking about introducing legislation early in 2013, that the proposed legislation is likely to only address assault rifles, and possibly banning the sale of magazines that contain more than 10 rounds. No one is talking about banning the sale of firearms such as handguns or hunting rifles. I think it's fair to say that a handgun of some type is probably the best choice for personal protection (especially since most states have "must issue" concealed carry permits - meaning that if a perosn applies for one he/she doesn't need to prove he needs it, but rather there has to be a reason to deny it). And you definitely don't need an assault rifle to go hunting. (In fact, in most states it's actually illegal to hunt with an assault weapon outside of your own property. You cannot, for example, hunt with an assault rifle on state gamelands.)

The use of an assault rifle with 30+ rounds in a single clip is the optimal choice only if you're looking to kill a whole bunch of people. Given that each victim in Connecticut was shot a minimum of 3 times, and as many as 6 times, that's a hell of a lot of reloads if you got 9 in a clip. Of course, if Lanza didn't have an assualt rifle he may not have been able to shoot his way through the door in the first place.

I only bring this up because I think banning assualt rifles and limiting clip sizes makes sense, while banning handguns and hunting rifles makes no sense at all. The real shame here is that the assault rifle ban expired in 2004. Bans on sales and clip sizes are never retroactive - you are always allowed to use stuff you already purchased. So the strength in such bans are their effect over time. I have no idea when Ms. Lanza purchased her Bushmaster, but unless it was prior to 1994, she likely wouldn't even have had it.

The other story I read about Lanza that was pretty shocking was that he apprently held a very deep resentment for his father - not his mother. The article stated that his parents separated back in 2000. The father was a vice president for GE, and was apparently making a very good salary, as he agreed to pay $300K a year to his ex-wife in alimony and child support payments. (Mrs. Lanza has not reported income from employment on her tax returns in several years, and given this information, it explains why.) Anyway, two years ago, Mr. Lanza remarried, and from that point on, his son refused to meet with him, speak with him, or even talk to him on the phone. And yet, he killed his mother, and a bunch of kids in a school who he presumably didn't even know.

I also still take issue with the mother for having multiple firearms in the house when she knew her son was mentally unstable with severe emotional issues from Asperger's Syndrome. Granted, most people with Asperger's Syndrome don't become mass murderers, but I imagine most parents have the good sense not to provide them with easy access to assault rifles either.