27 Dead in Conn School shooting

[johnhannibalsmith]

Damn it... literally the best source I can find is that videographer that has his link on the HuffPo that was claiming 170 or something last year... that's not who I was looking for, nor the site LivingUnderDrones, which is far too politically bent. I know I found something that was pretty solid and well-written that made the case for the 150 plus range for children, representing something like 7% of all civilian casualties if I remember. I'll keep digging because now I'm pissed Goooogley has things out of whack.

I saved a PDF not that long ago from Columbia I think that dealt with the entire program much more broadly and didn't get too much into numbers because they were obviously trying to be a bit more scientific and the best they could do was cite a variety of estimates from several sources that showed the disparities. I can attach it if you want, but it's about 100 pages.

I'll concede any number, 20, 200, or 2000, may be off-the mark. If 20 is the absolute minimum and we're ready to turn the world upside down here over that number, to quote the great skate, welpers...


Edited... Dang it, not what I was looking for because it references the same Stanford/NYU report that uses data produced by a group out of City University in London, but at least its an actual news source reporting it... I'll keep poking for a bit more... getting slleeeppy.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/...kes/index.html

[xtb]

Originally Posted by highnote

There used to be a lot more mental hospitals. These were shuttered in the 80s by the Regan administration because they felt local communities should deal with the mental health problems of their citizens in an out-patient setting and that this would save a lot of money.

This is an old myth. The "Community Mental Health Act" of 1963 and the supreme court case of "O'Connor vs Donaldson" in 1975 are big reasons why mental hospitals were closed.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

I'll keep digging because now I'm pissed Goooogley has things out of whack.

You know, I respect your opinion way too much to put you through so much grief.

Your point is well taken, whether it be 200 children or 20 children. One is way too many. All children are innocent, no matter their country of origin or their skin color.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

You know, I respect your opinion way too much to put you through so much grief.

Your point is well taken, whether it be 200 children or 20 children. One is way too many. All children are innocent, no matter their country of origin or their skin color.

Well, I regret firing off the number 200 for dramatic effect as it added a zero to the number 20. In reality, if the government claims its closer to 20 and the total wingnuts are adding two zeros, and the investigators that probably have an agenda but are at least trying to be taken seriously are adding one zero - I'm going to generally assume that the total wingnuts are lying and always assume the government is lying. Especially since the two pseudo-Indies in Congress are the only two fighting for more clarity with no success.

That 167 number is the one that stuck with me as being the most believable. Maybe a little high, maybe even a little low, but if the government says that its way off the mark, then it must be close enough for this cynic.

And yes, frankly, my only true point is that we aren't even in any actual war, like usual these days, and are using whatever rules we want to justify our actions with no accountability. War is a necessary evil, to use a cliche, but I'm only becoming less convinced that this is all necessary at all, and it isn't even a war. There is no true comparison between civilian casualties, even children, in war, and what happened on Friday.

But simply put, considering ALL that we know, even the made-up stuff about these civilian deaths in Connecticut, and all the anguish over these civilian deaths in the media, it is sort of depressing to me that we just blow right by all this devastation of families elsewhere without a thought - even applauding it - mainly because I think it just doesn't get the grizzly coverage that the domestic murders get. I'm not passing any judgment, just opening a door.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by xtb

This is an old myth. The "Community Mental Health Act" of 1963 and the supreme court case of "O'Connor vs Donaldson" in 1975 are big reasons why mental hospitals were closed.

Sounds reasonable. Still, no matter what the reason, it is wrong that society has to wait until a mentally ill person commits a crime before they can get help. And it is wrong that the mentally ill person has to be jailed after the crime and before going to a mental health facility.

The time to get a person checked into a mental health facility is before they commit a crime!

[nijinski]

I would never applaud a death of any child , it's tragic no matter where or who they are .

Many can relate in some ways to these children , it hits home . They look like your son or your niece or neighbor . It's close to your backyard and then you look at your own and the fear , sadness and reality sets in .

It needs to be evaluated as it looks to be a middle to upper middle class
phenomena . Those who fled the inner cities and payed a nice chunk of
money for a safe place to live and raise their kids . Now they worry about
the kids being safe in school . iIt's a big concern .

[Tom]

Originally Posted by highnote

Maybe .01% is too large of an estimate. I have no idea what the correct number is. My point is that most people with a mental illness pose no danger -- especially if they are getting treatment. The dangerous ones are are probably more likely to be those who are not getting treatment. And there are probably some who are getting treatment who are still dangerous. And there are probably some who are not getting treatment and who are not dangerous.

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.....

[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).


I may not know the answer but I am 100% sure that licensing guns or gun control or anything else along those lines will not work. Why? Cause only the honest would put up with that crap. That is people like us. People like us do not commit crime. You are wasting time energy and money.

[badcompany]

Originally Posted by HUSKER55

I may not know the answer but I am 100% sure that licensing guns or gun control or anything else along those lines will not work. Why? Cause only the honest would put up with that crap. That is people like us. People like us do not commit crime. You are wasting time energy and money.

It's, yet, another example of the Ludwig Von Mises Theory of Government Intervention: that it will produce the opposite of the intended effect.

Tough gun laws create a situation where only the criminals have guns. Is that really what we want?

[Robert Goren]

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).


I may not know the answer but I am 100% sure that licensing guns or gun control or anything else along those lines will not work. Why? Cause only the honest would put up with that crap. That is people like us. People like us do not commit crime. You are wasting time energy and money.

It has been tried in other countries and those countries have generally have lower murder rates.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I think it's widely known (or at least it's been reported lately in the wake of this tragedy) that asperger's syndrome is not something thought to make people prone to violence, and although I haven't read much media today, I take it nobody is blaming asperger's on what happened. Or am I wrong on that?

Something else was deeply wrong with this man, obviously.

What mother brings a kid/young man with Asperger's** to a gun range on a regular basis? This article may be off base (much of the early reporting has been), but it seems to answer that question...

"Nancy Lanza portrayed as 'survivalist' who stockpiled food, water and guns
She was shot four times in the head, possibly as she slept, by her son
Collection of guns included handguns, assault rifle and two hunting rifles
Son Adam was reclusive, spending most of his time in adjoining bedrooms
Fiercely protective mother insisted he was never left on his own
Moved to Sandy Hook in around 1998 but Mrs Lanza and husband divorced
Funerals for the young victims are to begin today "

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ing-spree.html

**people with Asperger's often suffer from depression - why bring guns into the mix?

[Tom]

Tough gun laws create a situation where only the criminals have guns. Is that really what we want?

We create schools where there are no weapons, no means of defense, no protetion. As we saw Friday, when that happens, it is not good.

I would rather see armed guards, or cops assigned to schools. We have them in some banks, in public buildings, why not where we put our most precious assets?

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

[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.

[Robert Goren]

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.

or a gun owner

[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.