Connecticut school shooting

  • Start date
    • •
  • Replies 453 Comments
  • • Views 24,995 Views
Wow kato-san. Wow.

Speaking of Bieber, everyone on our team got a Bieber tattoo today. Will apply his name across my knuckles during lunch.

m9c3M.jpg
 
FairWarning
Something has to change, the size of the magazine or whatever. There are too many people running around like they are Rambo with 3-4 guns shooting up public places.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure there wouldn't be any less fatalities if the shooter left the rifle home and went to the school with just the Glock and the Sig Sauer pistols which he didn't use. In fact he could have finished the job sooner since there was no one there to stop him and the pistols fire and get loaded faster. I own a 10 mag and a 20 mag. I can unload the 10 mag in 3 seconds and the 20 mag in 6 seconds. If I had to unload two 10 mags in a row it will take me an additional 3 seconds.

Banning a specific type of gun will not solve the problem. Adding security at public places will. If we have to use the National Guard for a few months until the funding is secured for added security then so be it. Most crimes are preventable if there is even one single security person at the premises.
 
Look at this and their location ......

National Shooting Sports Foundation, Second Most Powerful Gun Lobby, Headquartered In Newtown, Connecticut

Just across the highway from Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in a stately white building with an American flag flying out front, is the headquarters of the United States premiere industry association for gun retailers.

also .......

Connecticuts laws are strict by comparison to many other states, but they still fall short of what many gun control advocates want. In 2011, Connecticut was rated the fifth toughest by the pro-gun control Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence on a scorecard which gave points for each restriction the group favors.

I know by my home when a Republican Pres candidate comes to visit a school it in a pro-Rep town and a Democratic candidate goes to a pro-Dem school! Looks better on following newscasts to get cheered than heckled, right!

So I only guessing here but would like to know how many families own a gun in Newton and the surrounding area? Wouldn't be surprised if there's lots of families who do! And will tougher gun laws really put an end to this madness? :dunno:
 
My brother and his wife are teachers. All school systems are doing are cutting programs, now we want to add security? The Gun Lobby is the tail wagging the dog here.
 
FairWarning
My brother and his wife are teachers. All school systems are doing are cutting programs, now we want to add security? The Gun Lobby is the tail wagging the dog here.
Click to expand...

FW, I think what Saulty suggested was the parents of each school district would vote on whether they would put out (instead of the state automatically taxing you) the funds to hire protection! Locally controlled!

Just like I know in NJ where you see the affluent towns HS have say lacrosse and the sort while poorer areas don't even know sometimes what is lacrosse! Local town taxes pay for it or what has become norm here among public schools is certain sports like lacrosse the parents have to pay the fees (equipment and the sort) for their child to participate!

It's like the rich have an advantage but at least the poor towns aren't automatically obligated to have to pay for what they can't afford!
 
Last edited:
Exactly what type of gun laws or additional restrictions would work?

Gang bangers average 18 years of age do you think the weapons they have are legally obtained? Do you think their parents (provided they have parents in the picture) have guns laying around the house or do you suspect they get their guns on the streets or from robberies ect.?

Stick-up guys, do you supose they went through proper channels and waited to be cleared through background checks to get the firearms they use to rob convenience stores and banks?

The point still remains, gun laws, more restriction ONLY apply to those willing to obey laws. Criminals by definition don't abide by the law. Persons with issues dealing with reality or suffering from mental illness don't recognize gun laws. You can pass laws that make it illegal to own any and all firearms, that would still ONLY apply to those willing to abide by the law. Not to mention would probably cause an upheaval like none has seen since the Civil War.
 
MrMonkey
FW, I think what Saulty suggested was the parents of each school district would vote on whether they would put out (instead of the state automatically taxing you) the funds to hire protection! Locally controlled!

Just like I know in NJ where you see the affluent towns HS have say lacrosse and the sort while poorer areas don't even know sometimes what is lacrosse! Local town taxes pay for it or what has become norm here among public schools is certain sports like lacrosse the parents have to pay the fees (equipment and the sort) for their child to participate!

It's like the rich have an advantage but at least the poor towns aren't automatically obligated to have to pay for what they can't afford!
Click to expand...

Yes this should be left to each school district. The parents would decide whether they want the security and what level. It should not be taken out of teacher's salaries. Like hey can you call this private security firm and lets say it costs $200,000 a year and we have 1000 students, each parent would pay $200 a year or $15 a month. My wife trains HS football players after school on stretching and agility sessions and the parents pay $100 for each session 3 times a week.
 
wal66
Exactly what type of gun laws or additional restrictions would work?

Gang bangers average 18 years of age do you think the weapons they have are legally obtained? Do you think their parents (provided they have parents in the picture) have guns laying around the house or do you suspect they get their guns on the streets or from robberies ect.?

Stick-up guys, do you supose they went through proper channels and waited to be cleared through background checks to get the firearms they use to rob convenience stores and banks?

The point still remains, gun laws, more restriction ONLY apply to those willing to obey laws. Criminals by definition don't abide by the law. Persons with issues dealing with reality or suffering from mental illness don't recognize gun laws. You can pass laws that make it illegal to own any and all firearms, that would still ONLY apply to those willing to abide by the law. Not to mention would probably cause an upheaval like none ha
s seen since the Civil War.
Click to expand...

You know many gun murders there are in Great Britain annually?
 
There are far less gun murders in Great Britain but there is a completely different culture there as well. Even with less there are still illegal weapons in the hands of criminally minded people the world over. I don't care if it's Canada, France, England or where, laws only work for those willing to abide by the laws.
 
In England the knife murder rate is three times larger than the firearm murder rate. Point is if you ban guns the weapon of choice for crimes changes but it doesn't reduce the crimes themselves.
 
Saulty
In England the knife murder rate is three times larger than the firearm murder rate. Point is if you ban guns the weapon of choice for crimes changes but it doesn't reduce the crimes themselves.
Click to expand...

Good luck going into a movie theater and stabbing 20 people to death.
 
In my experience, Saulty doesn't actually believe anything he types.
 
Matty
Surprised that Canada aren't THAT far off the States'. :clueless:
Click to expand...

List is stupid as data comes from different years. Canada's # is from 1992.

The murder rate in Medellin in 1992 was 381 per 100k people.


What's interesting is people think Mexico is a war zone, when most of the country actually has murder rates around the same as the usa.
 
Oksana
Can you elaborate on this? I realise it's not like what we saw growing up but I'm truly not sure what special ed consists of today. Thinking back to the stuff I remember from grade school and even high school, it was pretty mortifying. I'm just curious how it is now.
Click to expand...

Bay Bud did a pretty good job of explaining it. They try to "mainstream" children as much as possible. Self-contained classrooms for children that have disabilities are increasingly rare. The goal is to put children in a general education classroom as much as possible. A lot of this varies according to the district and what resources that are available. For example, a child that has a behavior issue (like Bay Bud mentioned) would be in a general education classroom, with the exception of the "resource" time that he would receive from a special education teacher/behavior specialist.

In a severe case (which we all hope is just an exception and not a reality), a child with severe behavioral issues that fights/tantrums/throws things could be in a general education classroom for most of the day with the exception of the 60 minutes that he spends in special education. In severe cases, most children have a one-on-one aide to assist the teacher with that specific child. Usually, the special education teacher can assist, but they can't exceed the time that they spend with the child, according to the IEP, without having a meeting to have the time adjusted. Of course, I'm not a special education guru, so this is just surmised from what little I know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.