27 Dead in Conn School shooting

[OntheRail]

Ok I've heard he was buzzed in... and that he broke the window to get in. If the latter... back in the day our school had windows that had chicken wire in the glass on the doors... you could not easily defeat this stuff. Now days they have films that can not be breached with a ball bat. If they had either of these might that of given time for Police to arrive? How about a video feed that's monitors the grounds? Car pulls up guy has guns in hand and has to walk or run to the doors... some one could of seen that and had them on the way... add in the wire or film and he may not of made it in.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by badcompany

Is it not standard operating procedure for Governments to use a tragedy to take away rights from its citizens?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley...b_2321878.html

"[Police are] going to be in SWAT gear and have AR-15s around their neck," Stovall said. "If you're out walking, we're going to stop you, ask why you're out walking, check for your ID."
Stovall said while some people may be offended by the actions of his department, they should not be.

"We're going to do it to everybody," he said. "Criminals don't like being talked to."

Gaskill backed Stovall's proposed actions during Thursday's town hall.

"They may not be doing anything but walking their dog," he said. "But they're going to have to prove it." . . .

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

I hope all of you who want to put armed people in our schools are ready to come up with the dollars to do it because it going to be expensive, very expensive.

How much is our kid worth?
Do you suppose maybe governments now waste billions of dollars a year?
How many kids could we have protected for the billions lost on Solyndra?
How about we replace the cafeteria staff with guards and let parent be in charge of feeding their own kids?

[highnote]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

I hope all of you who want to put armed people in our schools are ready to come up with the dollars to do it because it going to be expensive, very expensive.

It would be expensive to build more mental health facilities, but this is a cost that will have to be borne. Which is more costly -- losing innoncents to violence committed by individuals with mental illness or or building facilities to treat people with mental illness to prevent their potential acts of violence?

Even if assault weapons are banned, there will be a cost. It's called opportunity cost. Opportunity cost is the money lost from potential sales of the weapons and all the goods and services employees of weapon manufacturers will not spend on goods and services.

No matter what, there is going to be a cost. I think it is better to treat the underlying cause -- mental illness, rather than treat the symptoms -- mentally ill people committing violence.

You can ban assault rifles, but there will still be untreated mentally ill people roaming free. Doesn't it make more sense to start with treatment of the individual?

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by highnote

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley...b_2321878.html

Absolutely disgusting. I sincerely hope that I am run over by a herd of loose horses before I'm forced to live in a society like that.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

Absolutely disgusting. I sincerely hope that I am run over by a herd of loose horses before I'm forced to live in a society like that.

The article also states:

"Individuals who do not produce identification when asked could be charged with obstructing a governmental operation, according to Stovall."

[Tom]

Naw, we don't need the second amendment.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by highnote

The article also states:

"Individuals who do not produce identification when asked could be charged with obstructing a governmental operation, according to Stovall."

I don't think this man understands the law cited. Maybe I don't. Good luck proving that someone knowingly is impeding a governmental function by not carrying identification. Those statutes almost always clarify that it exempts anyone that isn't actively or affirmatively interfering with government if they believe to be subject to a search or other conduct by the officer which is unlawful.

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by highnote

It would be expensive to build more mental health facilities, but this is a cost that will have to be borne. Which is more costly -- losing innoncents to violence committed by individuals with mental illness or or building facilities to treat people with mental illness to prevent their potential acts of violence?

Even if assault weapons are banned, there will be a cost. It's called opportunity cost. Opportunity cost is the money lost from potential sales of the weapons and all the goods and services employees of weapon manufacturers will not spend on goods and services.

No matter what, there is going to be a cost. I think it is better to treat the underlying cause -- mental illness, rather than treat the symptoms -- mentally ill people committing violence.

You can ban assault rifles, but there will still be untreated mentally ill people roaming free. Doesn't it make more sense to start with treatment of the individual?

At best they are treating the symptoms of mentally ill when they treat them at all. They have no idea what the underlaying cause is of most mental illness. They always site some mysterious chemical imbalance. They have no clue what causes that chemical imbalance or that matter in most cases even exactly what chemicals are out of balance. How well many of treatments of mental illness work is another question! We are along way from having the knowledge to just throw a few drugs at the mentally ill and turn them loose with guns and expect that something bad isn't going happen. I would agree with you if we had good treatments for the mentally ill, but unfortunately in many forms mental illness we don't.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

...just throw a few drugs at the mentally ill and turn them loose with guns and expect that something bad isn't going happen. ...

This line pretty much gets to the root of what has to be utterly intentional misrepresentation of the concept being presented.

[highnote]

We are along way from having the knowledge to just throw a few drugs at the mentally ill and turn them loose with guns and expect that something bad isn't going happen.

I think you misunderstood my point. I am not advocating that if we treat the mentally ill in an institutional setting that, once treated, they will be able to return to their communities and live unsupervised in a house full of automatic weapons.

I'm saying that better treatment facilities are needed so that individuals with mental illnesses can get the treatment they need. Currently, a person with a mental illness has to commit a crime before they can be committed to a treatment facility. And after they commit the crime they are often sent to jail and then prison before it is determined that they are mentally incompetent and should be sent to a mental health facility. Jail and prison facilities do not have the right kind of staff to rehabilitate people with mental illness.

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by highnote

I think you misunderstood my point. I am not advocating that if we treat the mentally ill in an institutional setting that, once treated, they will be able to return to their communities and live unsupervised in a house full of automatic weapons.

I'm saying that better treatment facilities are needed so that individuals with mental illnesses can get the treatment they need. Currently, a person with a mental illness has to commit a crime before they can be committed to a treatment facility. And after they commit the crime they are often sent to jail and then prison before it is determined that they are mentally incompetent and should be sent to a mental health facility. Jail and prison facilities do not have the right kind of staff to rehabilitate people with mental illness.

At least in Nebraska, a person can be commited if he is found to be a danger to himself or others by the county mental health board. He does not have to commit a crime. I know of a person who has been committed several times. They get him back on his meds and release him. In a few months he goes off his meds and gets himself recommitted. This has happened at least 10 times. He is not a danger as long he is on his meds. He is really scary when he is not.

[fast4522]

There is a huge difference from a challenged person and a physio bastard. Liberal thought is that you can treat both types, this is why you see CVS & Walgreens popping up on every single block. Closer to the truth is that the challenged person is very unlikely to be of any harm to others and does not go around singing the Soprano's song and often more caring than the normal person. The physio bastard is a very rare bird indeed, and while you feel they number in the thousands it is closer to just a small handful world wide. Granted there are the gang banger's, the KKK, the Hell's Angel's, the Latin Kings and who and what has been left out here who are on another scale we are not talking about. Get a grip on your thoughts we are not at the stage we have to arm people in schools, the next place something happens will be just as unthinkable, unlikely, and probably not in this country. But certain to happen and equally horrific to normal law abiding people.

[sammy the sage]

Originally Posted by highnote

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley...b_2321878.html

Yep...movie "V" vendetta comes to mind...amazing how movies PREDICT the future...20k leagues under the sea...and MANY more

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Pace Cap'n

What a coincidence...the most populous country has the most shootings.

Guns are to homicides as knives and forks are to obesity.

Originally Posted by delayjf

"I used info from Harvard"

Yea, they're not political. Might as well quote NBC.

1-Add up the populations of the countries listed in and around Europe. Don't forget to include Asian Pacific countries like Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Tell me what the rate of all homicides per 100,000 by firearm is.

Guns are to homicides as knives and forks are to obesity
Guns enable 5x the number of homicides of knives.


.................................................. .......................................


2-I sed The he Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Epidemiological studies are the way to analyses this problem. That's what they do and are the gold standard along with CDC. I also used data from the CDC and quoted John Hopkins.

You seem to suffer from Conspiracy on-the-brainitis