School Shooting in Connecticut

Off Topic
421

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[/quote]

This is from another blog. The author is a father on the East Coast.

â??We are a Jewish family, and all our minor children attend a Jewish elementary school. The school itself does its best to maintain a low profile, but due to its academic excellence, its appearance and location are well known in the area. We Jews, whether in Israel or here, are acutely aware of the continuing threat to us and our children, no matter where we live. It is not paranoia, as Iâ??m not talking about â??imaginedâ?? threats, am I? Because of our communityâ??s ability to accurately comprehend threats and threat-levels, we have elected not to do what is currently common in this civilization: (1) pretend threats donâ??t exist, and (2) wager our lives on police arriving sometime before the last shot is fired. So, this is what weâ??ve all agreed upon and instituted . . .

â??Each father, including me, is on a mandatory, rotating duty-schedule. Each of us is thus â??on-dutyâ?? several days each month, all day. Yes, we have to take days off from work. We are posted in the back of each classroom, visibly armed with both an AR and a pistol. All our weapons are constantly loaded and ready, and can be plainly seen as such.

Each child thus knows and understands that there is always a father, their own or that of one of one of their schoolmates, there with them in the classroom all the time, and he is able, willing, and committed to defending them with his life.

We consider this system the only logical and effective solution to our security challenges. Again, it is as low-profile as we can reasonably make it, and from the outside, a casual observer canâ??t see any of this, but all of us, children, parents, teachers, and administrators know, and are thankful for, what we have put in place. And, as you might say, we donâ??t care who likes it!â??

422

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
He was smart enough TO NOT use a shotgun (hard to conceal, heavy, small ammo capacity, slow to reload). [/quote]

He used a Bushmaster AR-15. It’s likely larger than tactical shotgun, both length and height.

You can conceal a shotgun in a long coat; ask the victims of many a mob hit.

Round capacity is lower (typically 7), but anyone with any skill can reload a round a second, which is about as fast as you can shoot.[/quote]
Seeing as how he supposedly shot his way in the concealment question is irrelevant in this case. However, given what happened in Columbine, a young person entering a school in a trench coat will get noticed. I worked in an inner city school where kids had to remove their coats and jackets before entering the school and had to keep them in their lockers.

Having experience with shotguns, pistols and assault rifles, as an MP, I can say that if my aim were to kill as many people as I could, in the quickest and easiest way possible, a shotgun would be last on my list. The seven seconds, in your example, it would take to reload a shotgun (a feat that I personally know is difficult) would allow how many to run away? Allow someone, or a group, the opportunity to engage the shooter? It’s a lot faster to drop a mag, reload, and charge an M4 (I assume an AR 15 is the same) than it is to reload a shotgun.

423

[quote]BeefEater wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]BeefEater wrote:
This is where we will simply have to disagree as I don’t believe that the 2nd Amendment was at all concerned with concealed carry or stand your ground laws.
[/quote]

Please see my post above where the 7th Circuit explicitly stated that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to not only keep arms in the home, but also to bear them, in other words, carry for self-defense.
[/quote]

This would be an example of where I feel that the 2nd Amendment has been expanded based on a later judgement. This judgement appears to focus solely on what the founders meant by “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” based on an educated guess. Regardless the intent of my discussion all along has been that the way we are using the 2nd Amendment now is problematic.[/quote]

OK, I understand what you’re saying and I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but I would point out that the Justices pointed to the English Bill of Rights circa 1689 in noting that people were allowed to keep weapons and by 1765 the right to bear weapons outside the home for the explicit purpose of self-defense had been established. Perhaps what we’re seeing now isn’t an expansion of the 2nd Amendment, but instead a move back towards recognizing it’s original intent.

Edited for clarity.

424

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]BeefEater wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]BeefEater wrote:
This is where we will simply have to disagree as I don’t believe that the 2nd Amendment was at all concerned with concealed carry or stand your ground laws.
[/quote]

Please see my post above where the 7th Circuit explicitly stated that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to not only keep arms in the home, but also to bear them, in other words, carry for self-defense.
[/quote]

This would be an example of where I feel that the 2nd Amendment has been expanded based on a later judgement. This judgement appears to focus solely on what the founders meant by “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” based on an educated guess. Regardless the intent of my discussion all along has been that the way we are using the 2nd Amendment now is problematic.[/quote]

OK, I understand what you’re saying and I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but I would point out that the Justices pointed to the English Bill of Rights circa 1689 in noting that people were allowed to keep weapons and by 1765 the right to bear weapons outside the home for the explicit purpose of self-defense had been established. Perhaps what we’re seeing now isn’t an expansion of the 2nd Amendment, but instead a move back towards recognizing it’s original intent.

Edited for clarity.[/quote]

I agree that it is possible that we are just turning back toward the original intent and the evidence that they used is very compelling, but it’s another thing that isn’t completely certain. It’s similar to whether or not the 2nd allows for and individual to keep bombs or RPG’s. Based on what it states it could be interpreted this way but it would be ludicrous to allow that. Was the original intent of the 1st Amendment to allow celebrity harassment? I guess my point is that so much has changed since then that their original intent may not always work today.

425

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

However, aren’t most teachers of a liberal inclination?

What are the chances they would want to be armed?
[/quote]

Very possible. And not all need to be, or should be armed. A couple coaches. The principals, front desk lady. And this would have ended at the front door.

But it does take a change of mindset.

It should not be hard. I am not sure how guns because a liberal issue in the first place.

Guns are a means of protection for the oppressed. The great equalizer for women and men. The first gun laws in the USA were aimed at disarming blacks, so the KKK could have free reign. The natural liberal position, to me, would be make sure that the rights of minorities to keep and bear arms would not be impinged.

And the mindset is changing, at least in the Jewish community. You will not find a more “liberal” place than Jewish schools and Reform “Temples” in the USA. Guns are increasingly more common than you would think at such locations.*

Our shul has armed guards — off duty SWAT with M-4s (“Goys with Guns” – we have a party for them every year.) And this is New York City.

  • No doubt because the number one victim of hate crimes in the USA are Jewish people, despite making up a grand total of 1.7% of the USA. Statistically, every Jew, even in the safest country in the world for Jewish people, excepting Israel, will face some sort of violent attack in his or her lifetime just because he or she is Jewish.
426

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
As far as the intent is concerned, no amount of assault rifles or munitions really will even remotely protect civilians against the threat of a military-run tyranny these days.
[/quote]

Not really. The USA would be ungoveranable by a domestic-based military tyranny, simply because the soldiers and their families would have no where safe to go.

The USA can project force to other countries (e.g., Iraq, Afganistan) with SOME success because the means of production of weapons are safely back in the USA.

In a borderless war, the means of production, etc., would be fair game.

In such a circumstance, rifles and handguns would be devastating.[/quote]

I see. Ok.

I was imagining a situation like, say, right-now Syria, with US Military capability.

But now I have a renewed appreciation for the design of Congress.[/quote]

There’s a great article about “pistol that saved the world.” It’s a project from WWII to give partisans really basic pistols in Europe and later China.

It had a real effect in Denmark (?) and really caused havok in China for the Japanese. Basically, soldiers (or cops for the puppet government) would be on patrol and grandma would shoot one.

Really made a mess of things and forced the Nazis and Japanese to keep large forces in the capured territories to keep a lid on things, which permitted invasion.

The effect would be magnified greatly in a domestic situation.

Incidently, this is why Robert E. Lee’s demand that the South NOT fight a guerilla war probably saved the USA in the long run. That could never have been put down.

427

I’ve thought about this a lot over the weekend, and I’ve determined that the only thing anyone can really do about any of this is to get their CCW permit (and use it) and stay vigilant. So that’s what I did/am doing.

Horrible things can happen, so it’s best to be prepared for them if they do. It runs along the same line of thinking with what I was talking about in the thread about the kid getting mauled by the dogs at the Pittsburgh zoo; protecting my family is one of my core functions as a man, father, and husband. Carrying a firearm is only logical in that sense, and failing to do so is a failure to prepare for the worst. If the worst were ti happen and I was not prepared, I would have failed as a man, father, and husband; that is unacceptable.

It is not society’s duty to protect my family.

428

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

However, aren’t most teachers of a liberal inclination?

What are the chances they would want to be armed?
[/quote]

Very possible. And not all need to be, or should be armed. A couple coaches. The principals, front desk lady. And this would have ended at the front door.

But it does take a change of mindset.

It should not be hard. I am not sure how guns because a liberal issue in the first place.

Guns are a means of protection for the oppressed. The great equalizer for women and men. The first gun laws in the USA were aimed at disarming blacks, so the KKK could have free reign. The natural liberal position, to me, would be make sure that the rights of minorities to keep and bear arms would not be impinged.

And the mindset is changing, at least in the Jewish community. You will not find a more “liberal” place than Jewish schools and Reform “Temples” in the USA. Guns are increasingly more common than you would think at such locations.*

Our shul has armed guards — off duty SWAT with M-4s (“Goys with Guns” – we have a party for them every year.) And this is New York City.

  • No doubt because the number one victim of hate crimes in the USA are Jewish people, despite making up a grand total of 1.7% of the USA. Statistically, every Jew, even in the safest country in the world for Jewish people, excepting Israel, will face some sort of violent attack in his or her lifetime just because he or she is Jewish.

[/quote]

Yeah my wife used to work at a Jewish camp here in California, and the compound is always well-manned with guards, typically from israel on an exchange type program.

429

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

However, aren’t most teachers of a liberal inclination?

What are the chances they would want to be armed?
[/quote]

Very possible. And not all need to be, or should be armed. A couple coaches. The principals, front desk lady. And this would have ended at the front door.

But it does take a change of mindset.

It should not be hard. I am not sure how guns because a liberal issue in the first place.

Guns are a means of protection for the oppressed. The great equalizer for women and men. The first gun laws in the USA were aimed at disarming blacks, so the KKK could have free reign. The natural liberal position, to me, would be make sure that the rights of minorities to keep and bear arms would not be impinged.

[/quote]

I agree with you.

I did not know about the KKK and the gun control link you mentioned above.

I agree the natural inclination of the “liberal” mind should be to empower the minorities, however, their mindset is one of enabling. That ensures a co-dependent society.

Where the government is acting somewhat like the mother of this mass murderer ( though he was admittedly special needs - but too much smothering could have caused resentment in his being and maybe even go ahead and shoot the children with a twisted reasoning that he was saving them from a similar parental experience ).

I also heard the Jews are mostly liberals, though I can see how their reason may spring from feeling blessed and wanting to give back and for society to take care of the poor and disadvantaged - not from a mental illness which is liberalism as a co-dependent disorder.

430

Some thoughts/questions.

  • Under what situations are citizens allowed to decide that their government is bad enough (“tyrannical”) to start using their guns against it? Isn’t that a conceptual problem since I can feel that the current situation is tyrannical and start acting accordingly.

  • Even when you believe that people should be able to carry guns for self-protection, you have to acknowledge that the downside is that also the black sheep among the population can arm themselves (gangs, psychos etc.). Hence, you need to show that the benefits really surpass the costs. Just saying that you believe that you will be better at protecting your family with a gun doesn’t seem to be enough.

  • Do you think that the situation in most European countries with very strict gun laws is worse than in the US? If so how exactly? To me it seems to work just fine. Nothing can prevent crimes 100% and Hitler-Germany is not good example btw.

431

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

  • Under what situations are citizens allowed to decide that their government is bad enough (“tyrannical”) to start using their guns against it? Isn’t that a conceptual problem since I can feel that the current situation is tyrannical and start acting accordingly.

[/quote]

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

So, because of the abuses of .01%, you would take away the rights of 99.99%?

So I guess, to be consistent, you’d be for imprisoning muslims and outlawing Islam since some fraction of muslims are radicalized?

Actually, under strict Constitutional analysis (which is what applies when taking away a fundamental right), the State has the burden to prove that the harm far overshadows the good.

432

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
Some thoughts/questions.

  • Under what situations are citizens allowed to decide that their government is bad enough (“tyrannical”) to start using their guns against it? Isn’t that a conceptual problem since I can feel that the current situation is tyrannical and start acting accordingly.

  • Even when you believe that people should be able to carry guns for self-protection, you have to acknowledge that the downside is that also the black sheep among the population can arm themselves (gangs, psychos etc.). Hence, you need to show that the benefits really surpass the costs. Just saying that you believe that you will be better at protecting your family with a gun doesn’t seem to be enough.

  • Do you think that the situation in most European countries with very strict gun laws is worse than in the US? If so how exactly? To me it seems to work just fine. Nothing can prevent crimes 100% and Hitler-Germany is not good example btw.[/quote]

Response to Question 1: One point of an armed populous is make the prospect of a government becoming tyrannical impractical so it never gets that far. That said, conditions leading to “tyranny” sufficient to justify revolution are listed, for example, in the Declaration of Independence. In short, it has to be pretty fucking bad.

Response to Question 2: You’ve got the burdens exactly backwards. My individual right is one of self defense and the right to bear arms. For the state to take that right away it would need to amend the constitution, or, short of that, demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that there is a compelling state interest to limit that right and that the limits imposed are narrowly tailored to remedy a specific and particularized harm.

Also, you can’t punish me or take away may rights because someone else abuses their rights. This implicates substantive-due process and equal protection. For example, drunk drivers kill people with cars. If someone abuses their rights and drinks and drives, the remedy is to punish the drunk driver, not take away everyone else’s license to drive.

Response to Question 3:

Norway has very strict gun control and that nut job still managed to get ahold of guns and take out 70 people. I would rather that others there had guns to stop him. Also, at a deeper level, the question isn’t as simple as just stating that “it works ok in Europe.” The police aren’t always there to protect you, as witnessed by these events, and its just not enough to defeat my rights to self defense to say that “Europe” works ok, or “gun control works ok.” Again, I would dispute this assertion, but even if it were true, that’s not enough to defeat my right to self defense, IMO.

Edits: for typos.

433

Looks like Jewbacca bet me to it.

434

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

So, because of the abuses of .01%, you would take away the rights of 99.99%?
[/quote]

I bet that percentage looks more like .0001%

435

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
What specific legislative measures would have prevented this tragedy from occuring?

[/quote]

Armed teachers.

Here are my observations:

  1. This is a tradgedy, but keep it in perspective. Your kid is much more likely to die from a falling big screen TV than being shot. I don’t see the media demanding big screen TV control. Gee, I wonder why?

  2. The USA has a crazy loner problem, not a gun problem.

If someone wants to kill people, they will find a way. I can go make an amonium nitrate bomb today and blow up a school, if I was so inclined. So can you.

The root causes I see on this are the isolation of people due to a break down of the family unit AND, more importantly, since the Earl Warren Court, it’s basically impossible to lock up crazy people.

Yes, I know there is a sordid history in this country with sanitariums, but if done right, they are a great, safe, place. This is also the problem with homeless people, too, BTW.

  1. The attached picture is from Israel. It’s a school trip. The guys and lady with rifles are teachers.

You see, we have a much more common problem in Israel with sadly very sane people plotting to kill masses of Jewish children because their prophet told them we should be killed wherever we are found.

They use whatever is at hand — my wife was killed with a bomb; my daughters at about age 6 narrowly avoided being run over by a gentleman who just decided one day to drive along the sidewalk because it was filled with little Jewish girls. (He was gunned down by an off-duty IDF soldier with his sidearm.)

The world is a scary place. The USA has lived in a bubble for the better part of a century, but that bubble is popping. You need to get over the irrational fear of firearms because you are going to need them in the hands of sane, good, people.

[/quote]

Damn Good Post

436

Posted in other thread as well (gun control)

We need More institutions for the mentaly ill not more gun control laws.

Please read everyone, kinda of eye opening.

437

[quote]four60 wrote:

Damn Good Post[/quote]

Thank you, but I am going to be more explicit.

This shooting was done by an untrained 90 lb loser crazy fuck.

Don’t think for a second that Al Quada, Hamas, and the like haven’t studied this attack.

They are not stupid people.

The next 9/11 is going to be a 9-10 well-trained guys who come in to a school or several schools one day (or any of the other stupid “gun free” zones) and slaughter everyone.

All cops can do is file reports.

It is way past time to train civilians in schools, shopping malls, and the like to be the first line of defense, because that is where the spear is going to strike.

I am a victim of terrorism, and I ask. No, I implore you, to fucking wake up.

438

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

Damn Good Post[/quote]

Thank you, but I am going to be more explicit.

This shooting was done by an untrained 90 lb loser crazy fuck.

Don’t think for a second that Al Quada, Hamas, and the like haven’t studied this attack.

They are not stupid people.

The next 9/11 is going to be a 9-10 well-trained guys who come in to a school or several schools one day (or any of the other stupid “gun free” zones) and slaughter everyone.

All cops can do is file reports.

It is way past time to train civilians in schools, shopping malls, and the like to be the first line of defense, because that is where the spear is going to strike.

I am a victim of terrorism, and I ask. No, I implore you, to fucking wake up.[/quote]

It will be a mall, a few well placed people in the second floor right into the people below, ducks barrel massacre.

439

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I wonder how much damage the guy would have done with just a pistol.
[/quote]

The same amount.

And if the guy wanted to carry 50 rounds with him he could’ve carried 5 ten round magazines or 3 seventeen round magazines.

I’m not sure where you’re going with this.
[/quote]

Really? Even knowing that people tried to charge him to stop him, you think with a pistol he would have done the same damage?

440

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

Damn Good Post[/quote]

Thank you, but I am going to be more explicit.

This shooting was done by an untrained 90 lb loser crazy fuck.

Don’t think for a second that Al Quada, Hamas, and the like haven’t studied this attack.

They are not stupid people.

The next 9/11 is going to be a 9-10 well-trained guys who come in to a school or several schools one day (or any of the other stupid “gun free” zones) and slaughter everyone.

All cops can do is file reports.

It is way past time to train civilians in schools, shopping malls, and the like to be the first line of defense, because that is where the spear is going to strike.

I am a victim of terrorism, and I ask. No, I implore you, to fucking wake up.[/quote]

Understood,

I’ve been saying for years that we have become complacent with the thought that someone (the Police) will come to save us when we are in danger. That grew into a bigger lie that the Government can pass a magic law that will make everyone safe.
The truth is on a smaller scale we must find better ways to protect not just ourselves but our communities. It’s beyond hypacritical to be anti gun but expect an armed stranger to come when you need him or her.