27 Dead in Conn School shooting

[Tape Reader]

Originally Posted by Jay Trotter

Just got an email from my son where he indicates a memo had just been sent out by the company CEO announcing that four people (2 children & 1 wife passed away and 1 wife survived) connected to their firm were directly involved in the shooting.

So sad how this touches so many.

Me too, similar. Christmas party canceled as one of the participants sister is being buried that day. Teacher at the school.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by fast4522

As we dive into the strange thoughts of arming teachers or armed guards in schools it becomes time to be real and suggest that with every right we have an equal or greater responsibly that goes with that right. Real gun people know and accept that responsibly. The woman who was the mother of this monster knew upfront that she had a son with problems and she still brought guns into the home, but most stupidly failed to secure them properly. The real problem is that so many are not up to the responsibly of even being a parent or a good neighbor.

So only "Real gun people" should have guns?

Originally Posted by HUSKER55

GUYS and gals, do you mean to tell me that limiting guns will stop homicides. you are playing with numbers. maybe a neighbor to neighbor spat once in a while but normal people don't cause crime and those that do crime know where to go. Hell, even I know where to go to buy a gun off the street. I also know how to turn a 22 into full automatic. (actually, I know of two ways).

The answer is yes. fewer guns and gun control have been shown just what you are denying. Not eliminate but REDUCE homicides


ONE MORE TIME........

Originally Posted by hcap

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/researc...eath/index.html

Harvard Injury Control Research Center
Homicide

citations for each study are listed


1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review)

....Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide..

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide 1 study

4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2nd) study


Also

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/com...p?ind=113&cat=2

Number of Deaths Due to Injury by Firearms per 100,000 Population, 2009

I hate to tell you this guys, but it looks like there is a correlation between red states/more deaths by firearms and blue states/fewer death by firearms.

And

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...nd-gun-control/

Six facts about guns, violence, and gun control

[Steve R]

Originally Posted by hcap

So only "Real gun people" should have guns?
The answer is yes. fewer guns and gun control have been shown just what you are denying. Not eliminate but REDUCE homicides.[/B]

That's exactly right. The attached chart shows data from 33 of the 34 OECD countries published by the Guardian in the UK. Only the data for Iceland was unavailable. It displays gun ownership vs gun homicides by country rank. Clearly there is a correlation between the average number of guns owned and the homicide rate. The correlation coefficient is about 0.4.

[thaskalos]

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingne...tim?source=rss

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Steve R

That's exactly right. The attached chart shows data from 33 of the 34 OECD countries published by the Guardian in the UK. Only the data for Iceland was unavailable. It displays gun ownership vs gun homicides by country rank. Clearly there is a correlation between the average number of guns owned and the homicide rate. The correlation coefficient is about 0.4.

Careful Steve. The crew here KNOWS your info is worthless because it after all uses Socialist countries to support your thesis. You are obviously wrong. I used info from Harvard, but then again I have been called a Commie for lesser crimes like quoting the Congressional Record
.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Hey, you won't bother Steve by tagging him with those labels...

I'm a bit dejected that my baby killing drone diatribes last night didn't engage Steve's attention so he could maybe point me to some of that data that I couldn't relocate last night... and was too lazy to mess with today.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by hcap

Careful Steve. The crew here KNOWS your info is worthless because it after all uses Socialist countries to support your thesis. You are obviously wrong. I used info from Harvard, but then again I have been called a Commie for lesser crimes like quoting the Congressional Record
.

Here is some more info from Harvard:

There is a compound assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is
why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate.
Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement
(b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so.**
Since at least 1965, the false assertion that the United States has
the industrialized world’s highest murder rate has been an artifact
of politically motivated Soviet minimization designed to hide the
true homicide rates.

Since well before that date, the Soviet Unionpossessed extremely stringent gun controls that were effectuated by a police state apparatus providing stringent enforcement. So successful was that regime that few Russian civilians now have firearms and very few murders involve them.

Yet, manifest success in keeping its people disarmed did not prevent the Soviet Union from having far and away the highest murder rate in the
developed world.

In the 1960s and early 1970s, the gun‐less Soviet Union’s murder rates paralleled or generally exceeded those
of gun‐ridden America. While American rates stabilized and then
steeply declined, however, Russian murder increased so drasti‐
cally that by the early 1990s the Russian rate was three times
higher than that of the United States. Between 1998‐2004 (the lat‐
est figure available for Russia), Russian murder rates were nearly
four times higher than American rates.

To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more
guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions
in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are
not observed when a large number of nations are compared
across the world.

Over a decade ago, Professor Brandon Centerwall of the Uni‐
versity of Washington undertook an extensive, statistically sophis‐
ticated study comparing areas in the United States and Canada to
determine whether Canada’s more restrictive policies had better
contained criminal violence. When he published his results it was
with the admonition:
If you are surprised by [our] finding[s], so [are we]. [We] did
not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate” hand‐
guns, but there it is—a negative finding, to be sure, but a nega‐
tive finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us
where not to aim public health resources.
150

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

[hcap]

The guys simply got published by the Harvard Law School.

Geographic Patterns within Nations


Credentials

* Don B. Kates (LL.B., Yale, 1966) is an American criminologist and constitutional lawyer associated with the Pacific Research Institute, San Francisco. He may be contacted at dbkates@earthlink.net; 360‐666‐2688; 22608 N.E. 269th Ave., Battle Ground,
WA 98604.

** Gary Mauser (Ph.D., University of California, Irvine, 1970) is a Canadian criminologist and university professor at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC Canada.He may be contacted at www.garymauser.net, mauser@sfu.ca, and 604‐291‐3652.

Big difference between these two and the well known institute I linked to.
The Harvard Injury Control Research Center

BTW, when was this study published?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by hcap

BTW, when was this study published?

Since they cite the latest Russian data being 2004, I would assume it was published a little bit after that, as I can find no date on the document itself.

However, why should that matter? They cite evidence that even in a relatively gunless developed nation, the murder rate far outshone the United States during that time (when gun laws here were even less stringent then they are now).

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by hcap

...BTW, when was this study published?

Within the last five years. There are many citations from 2006 and one on page 19 from early 2007, so I would speculate that it was published mid to late-2007, perhaps later.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Since they cite the latest Russian data being 2004, I would assume it was published a little bit after that, as I can find no date on the document itself.

However, why should that matter? They cite evidence that even in a relatively gunless developed nation, the murder rate far outshone the United States during that time (when gun laws here were even less stringent then they are now).

Curious that it was published under Harvard Law School's auspices and not the Harvard organization that specializes in these studies. I guess there is always an outlier. Steve posted data from 33 of the 34 OECD countries that correlates with my data. Any studies found that correlate with this study?

But at least your guys have credentials.

When I have more time I will see what else is around and legit.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by Tom

I'm agreeing with you. With so many people, there are bound to be a few that do this crap. One is too many.

How do you address the .0001% while not stifling the rights of all the rest?

We really need to get all the facts in about this one.....

The problem is, guns are neither good or bad. They're neutral. Mentally ill people and criminals with assault rifles are the problem. I don't think a bunch of new gun laws are the answer.

It seems to me there need to be more hospitals and health care centers built that cater to the mentally ill. The Newtown shooter would have probably had a better life if he had lived in a special facility that gave him the treatment he needed and a safe environment in which to live. A person with his condition probably should not be running around without supervision. His former babysitter said that the mother instructed him to never leave the kid alone for a second -- not even if he had to go to the bathroom. That is a kid with a serious disability. And to think his mother had assault rifles in the house! That is no environment for a severly mentally ill person.

[Tom]

http://southernoklahoma.com/schoolshootings/

History of School Shootings in the United States

A Fairly good list of School Shootings in history..

Not all that new....

[Greybase]

Originally Posted by Tom

Why not let teachers, who want to, pack heat? Have special training for them, to teach them how to react.

THIS is one of the few real, practical ideas coming out... A State Rep out here in Oregon name Dennis Richardson is getting some coverage. Caught him on CNN today in fact.. Link below to HuffPO article.

Schools can't afford to hire full time Rent A Cops. Budgets have been cut and are being cut further... Maybe the only workable solution is to designate 1 person in a small school, more in a large school. They would be trained by Law Enforcement to respond. Guns would be locked in a safe/ secret location.

Since each responder identity is unknown, and the location of the gun safe is unknown, and it's different for every school... No criminal could easily plan for this. In fact, the very idea might serve to discourage any "shooter" from entering a school since it would be known that "someone" in every school ...IS armed!!

Oregon State Rep. Dennis Richardson - Teachers should have guns

[hcap]

Here is an article that examines the various studies for and against gun control.

The majority of carefully examined serious studies have come out on the side for fewer guns and more gun control

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/the_...not_more_guns/

The answer is not more guns
A trendy argument suggests we'll be safer if more people carry guns. It's dangerous, wrong and terrible policy

For instance.

...Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, explained in an interview: “It’s hard to make the case, as some have done, that right-to-carry laws will lead to an enormous increase in violence. That does not appear to be the case. But it also does not appear to be the case that there is any beneficial effect.”

“So if you want to argue that the reason we have so many mass shootings, the reason that the United States has a homicide rate about seven times higher than other developed countries, is because we don’t allow enough concealed carry of firearms, the data just don’t bear that out. And the thought experiment that you do is almost laughable,” Webster added.

...We know, for instance, that the mere presence of a gun inside a house is associated with a nearly fivefold increased risk of suicide and threefold increased risk in homicide, according to a 2004 paper published by Centers for Disease Control researchers in the American Journal of Epidemiology. (That finding has been replicated in numerous studies.)