School sercurity

That's a bizarre argument to make. Surely having 2 shots before a slow reload is a better option than having a magazine with 15 shots or whatever and that takes a couple of seconds to reload, if someone is going to be on a public rampage?

I'm not against the ownership of guns, by the way. There's plenty of legitimate uses for many people to own certain types of firearms. I just think the exceptionally relaxed gun control in many US states exacerbates the ease with which mass killings such as these can happen.

Yes, it's bizarre, but do you seriously think that in this situation, a few 5/6 year old children and a teacher would be able to think quick enough to react and disarm a mentally unstable man, with a weapon? I just don't buy the argument that allowing shotguns and nothing else is a viable option at all, as has been proven. Most people, when looking at the business end of any kind of gun would like to think that they would be a hero and tackle the person. Reality is, they wouldn't.

With all the talk (on facebook mostly) of how the US "has to do something" - not one person has made a reasonable suggestion as to how to go about it, without leaving the average person at risk. The amount of weaponry in the US, in homes is a real threat to criminals - they do not know if they're going to face a person in the street they're trying to rob/homeowner they're trying to burgle with a legal right to defend themselves and their family and property.

As I said previously, it's gone too far - you can introduce all the laws you like regarding firearms -the only people who will obey them are those who would not use their 2nd Amendment right for anything other than self defense.

And for the record - I don't know what the answer is either, although I do (as previously stated) think that it's too easy to get and keep a firearm, but I also understand the thought process of people here who want to defend themselves.
 
I'm not suggesting a 5 year old will tackle the gunman, of course not. What I'm suggesting is that the capability to fire 20 shots in a given time with a shotgun that has a far more limited effective range is hugely preferable to a semi-automatic rifle that's deadly over a longer range and capable of delivering 100+ rounds in the same time before law enforcement turns up.

Obviously the ideal solution is to treat what creates the motivation/compulsion to commit such a deplorable crime in the first place, but I appreciate that's far easier said than done. In place of such an ideal solution needs to be an approach towards damage limitation.

I also feel the entire notion that guns are needed for self defence is flawed. It's a self-perpetuating problem. The more homes that arm themselves for self-defence, the more criminals then have access to and feel the need for guns to commit crimes.

The problem that needs addressing is why people feel so insecure in their own home that they feel they need access to one or more firearms at a moment's notice to protect themselves.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to split this into 2 to address 2 separate points.
I'm not suggesting a 5 year old will tackle the gunman, of course not. What I'm suggesting is that the capability to fire 20 shots in a given time with a shotgun that has a far more limited effective range is hugely preferable to a semi-automatic rifle that's deadly over a longer range and capable of delivering 100+ rounds in the same time before law enforcement turns up.
Some research (by a civilian, admittedly) was carried out a while ago, taking 100 "mass" (quoted because it's difficult to define a mass shooting in this example as you'll see) shootings into account.
It was found that these shootings when stopped by law enforcement had an average of 14 killings. When stopped by a civilian, there was an average of 2.5. (Hence the definition being difficult, as a shooter killing 2 people may have only wanted/intended to shoot 2 people)
Clearly this is because of the time it takes for law enforcement to arrive, compared to a nearby civilian with a firearm may be right there and willing to put a stop to the situation.
Now obviously, this kind of leads into your 2nd point - but I believe this is why such people choose soft targets such as schools/movie theatres etc.

Obviously the ideal solution is to treat what creates the motivation/compulsion to commit such a deplorable crime in the first place, but I appreciate that's far easier said than done. In place of such an ideal solution needs to be an approach towards damage limitation.

I also feel the entire notion that guns are needed for self defence is flawed. It's a self-perpetuating problem. The more homes that arm themselves for self-defence, the more criminals then have access to and feel the need for guns to commit crimes.

The problem that needs addressing is why people feel so insecure in their own home that they feel they need access to one or more firearms at a moment's notice to protect themselves.
And that's the real issue - it's a vicious circle that's got out of hand. Back in 1791, the 2nd was put in place to prevent the government going all out on the people - but of course these days the firepower in the average home is no match for the government anyway.

I fear there will never be an end to this, anywhere. Norway had a mass shooting a few years back, and they have some of the strictest firearm controls going. As a percentage game of people vs victims or people vs shooters I doubt there's a great difference. These kinds of people will do what they do, regardless - they do not obey laws, or in the case of this event - may not comprehend the consequences.
 
Here's a wonderfully rational view. It's being credited to Morgan Freeman, but there's some doubt as to the certainty of that. It does sound great if you read it in his voice though.

“You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here’s why.

It’s because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed
people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he’ll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN’s article says that if the body count “holds up”, this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer’s face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer’s identity? None that I’ve seen yet. Because they don’t sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you’ve just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man’s name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news.”

And here's one by John Bradshaw Layfield, who is a big old super-patriotic Texan.

I agree Americans have a constitutional right to own guns-'The Right to Bear Arms' is a protected right. However, we can't own nuclear weapons or chemical weapons, so there is a limit. The question is where that limit is.

The guy in China
used a knife to cut 22 kids this week, the murderer in Connecticut used a gun. Evil people do evil things and there is no way to stop it. However, look at the differences in murders by handguns per country.

The NRA lobbies up to $200 million a year to buy off our crooked politicians to protect their money making ventures. All of this is legal. I don't fault the NRA, I fault the politicians who can be bought off and the system we have that allows lobbying.

Pres Obama got accused of being anti gun by Gov Romney, that is not true. Pres Obama has NO gun policy, good or bad. For that matter neither did the flip flopper Romney who had said he was against the NRA before he said he was for it.

After Columbine we said it was too early to discuss guns, after Denver we said it was too early, every time this happens we say it is too early. I hate what happened and I feel pain for these families of the innocent who died for no reason. We must not use this as a political event for any reason, however, we need to discuss how to best prevent this from happening.

We need to outlaw assault weapons, and if assault weapons are found-the person that sold them or made them should be prosecuted. The ability to make an automatic weapon into a semi automatic should also be banned, again punish the manufacturer or seller.

I believe handguns at best have to be registered. Shotguns are the best home defense weapon, not pistols. If you want to own 1,000 shotgun or rifles it is fine with me, I still think these should be registered and a background check should be done.

Robberies are not done , generally, by shotguns as they are too large. Handguns and assault rifles are our problem, along with pistols that can be easily hidden.

We have the right to bear arms, but not all arms-the debate should now be made as to how to implement real gun laws that matter.

I mourn for the loss of our fellow Americans.

Both excellent, excellent commentaries.
 
HMansfield said:
Here's a wonderfully rational view. It's being credited to Morgan Freeman, but there's some doubt as to the certainty of that. It does sound great if you read it in his voice though.

And here's one by John Bradshaw Layfield, who is a big old super-patriotic Texan.

Both excellent, excellent commentaries.

Both precisely in line with my views, thanks for these.

As it happens I've not watched the news on tv or read a single related article online because I hate the way the media jump on in it for their own means. The same way I hate how every murder enquiry turns into a who-dunnit drama, only with real consequences. The latter is a point I've raised several times on here where discussions have been raised. A point that has fallen on entirely deaf ears previously.
 
Both precisely in line with my views, thanks for these.

As it happens I've not watched the news on tv or read a single related article online because I hate the way the media jump on in it for their own means. The same way I hate how every murder enquiry turns into a who-dunnit drama, only with real consequences. The latter is a point I've raised several times on here where discussions have been raised. A point that has fallen on entirely deaf ears previously.

TBH, the way the media reports most things here is a little "odd" to say the least.
 
I very much agree with the view on the media behaviour.

Over a thousand dead in the Philippines this weekend, did it get on the news? Not the few TV reports that I saw.
 
I very much agree with the view on the media behaviour.

Over a thousand dead in the Philippines this weekend, did it get on the news? Not the few TV reports that I saw.

Whilst the news from the Philippines is very sad indeed the two events are entirely different, one a 'natural disaster', the other a lunatic rampaging with a gun in a primary school - hardly much doubt which would create more intensity of feeling. On another day things would have been different, e.g. a report a week or so ago about a 1 metre 'tsunami' off the coast of Japan.
 
OutLore said:
No, I think we get it, you're saying that allowing shotguns is ok because you can only kill 2 people with them before possibly being stopped - these people generally don't care about being stopped or caught. The fact is, banning some types of firearm and not others is not really worth it. You've still got the chance of having people on the streets/in schools/wherever with a firearm capable of killing multiple people.

"Allow shotguns"???? Please elaborate.
 
Last edited:
OutLore said:
Yes, it's bizarre, but do you seriously think that in this situation, a few 5/6 year old children and a teacher would be able to think quick enough to react and disarm a mentally unstable man, with a weapon? I just don't buy the argument that allowing shotguns and nothing else is a viable option at all, as has been proven. Most people, when looking at the business end of any kind of gun would like to think that they would be a hero and tackle the person. Reality is, they wouldn't.

With all the talk (on facebook mostly) of how the US "has to do something" - not one person has made a reasonable suggestion as to how to go about it, without leaving the average person at risk. The amount of weaponry in the US, in homes is a real threat to criminals - they do not know if they're going to face a person in the street they're trying to rob/homeowner they're trying to burgle with a legal right to defend themselves and their family and property.

As I said previously, it's gone too far - you can introduce all the laws you like regarding firearms -the only people who will obey them are those who would not use their 2nd Amendment right for anything other than self defense.

And for the record - I don't know what the answer is either, although I do (as previously stated) think that it's too easy to get and keep a firearm, but I also understand the thought process of people here who want to defend themselves.

The children wouldn't have tacked him (though looking at the shooter, he wasn't much of a challenge for anyone if he didn't have use of a weapon) but they could have at least stood a chance by RUNNING. Something they wernt able to do when faced with a Bushmaster equipped with multiple 30 round magazines. Think about it!
 
Last edited:
Press Blackout!

Let them die in anonymity and maybe one major reason 'to outdo the last ****ed up nut job would be removed from the equation. I realise that it is not going to be 100% but at least it would be a step in the right direction. The press are totally appalling when they report on these incidents it's like a feeding frenzy. I try to avoid it all and don't buy their rag mags. Every little helps :)
 
"Allow shotguns"???? Please elaborate.
OK, possible poor choice of words, I got the impression you were ok with people having shotguns - but as you can legally own a shotgun in the UK, it does kind of fit. Man bursts into a school, goes into a classroom, stands in the doorway and fires. Now I'm no firearms expert, but I would consider that close range, and the damage that can do would be pretty devastating. While he's reloading, you're expecting the kids to run by him in the doorway? Fact is, it doesn't really matter what kind of firearm this guy had.
The children wouldn't have tacked him (though looking at the shooter, he wasn't much of a challenge for anyone if he didn't have use of a weapon) but they could have at least stood a chance by RUNNING. Something they wernt able to do when faced with a Bushmaster equipped with multiple 30 round magazines. Think about it!
Run where? Out of what could have been the only door, where the shooter is standing? Right towards the guy with the gun? Who might (and actually did) have other weapons?

I get the point, the death toll was probably higher due to the weaponry he had, I'm still not convinced it would have made much difference though in this case - this guy could have just gone from class to class, with whatever weapon he chose.

Press Blackout!

Let them die in anonymity and maybe one major reason 'to outdo the last ****ed up nut job would be removed from the equation. I realise that it is not going to be 100% but at least it would be a step in the right direction. The press are totally appalling when they report on these incidents it's like a feeding frenzy. I try to avoid it all and don't buy their rag mags. Every little helps :)
Yeah, I'm actually liking that idea, not mentioning the killer at all in the media. Seems like they're all racing to be able to reveal the name before each other - and they actually got it wrong over here, naming the older brother first.
 
Haven't heard the news today but my mum was saying that the killers mum had taught her kids to shoot and that she was a doomsday pepper.
 
Haven't heard the news today but my mum was saying that the killers mum had taught her kids to shoot and that she was a doomsday pepper.

I've taught some of my own kids to shoot, there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

Yes, there are sensationalist reports that she was one of these people who think that they need to arm themselves and stockpile food for when the economy melts down and law and order completely breaks down, but even if that's true, that isn't exactly unusual in the USA. There are people like that here, who are convinced that the moslems are going to overthrow the government. And there are people who still believe that the earth is flat, and all sorts of other oddities. And despite what the Daily Mail says, her collection of guns was pretty modest by US standards, where there are more guns than people.

At the end of the day, the person who was responsible for the murders was the murderer.
 
Had the murderer's mother not obviously been obsessed with guns and in possession of a number of guns and 100's of rounds of ammunition, would the killer have had access to the means of committing such an atrocity. He tried to buy others and was refused allegedly.
 
Haven't heard the news today but my mum was saying that the killers mum had taught her kids to shoot and that she was a doomsday pepper.
She had taken her kids to the shooting range according to my local news. They did not say from what age, but it is "normal" for kids in a household where there are weapons to be able to use those weapons should it be required.
Edit: I'm saying "kids" here - I'm talking about late teens onward.
I've taught some of my own kids to shoot, there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

Yes, there are sensationalist reports that she was one of these people who think that they need to arm themselves and stockpile food for when the economy melts down and law and order completely breaks down, but even if that's true, that isn't exactly unusual in the USA. There are people like that here, who are convinced that the moslems are going to overthrow the government. And there are people who still believe that the earth is flat, and all sorts of other oddities. And despite what the Daily Mail says, her collection of guns was pretty modest by US standards, where there are more guns than people.

At the end of the day, the person who was responsible for the murders was the murderer.
There are definitely people like that here!!!

There is nothing wrong with teaching your kids to shoot - firstly they will (hopefully) learn the destructive power of guns and what they're capable of, and gain a little respect for them.

However, if the reports are true that her son was diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome, which typically leaves the affected person not really understanding the consequences of their actions, and can sometimes only see situations in black and white, no shades of grey - I don't think I would have been encouraging gun use, supervised or otherwise.
 
What I don't understand is why we all make such a huge fuss when there are murders in the USA, yet far worse child murder rates occur in many other countries (South America, Eastern Europe, Russia, etc etc).

We seem to care far more about murders of USA children than children of other countries.
 
There is nothing wrong with teaching your kids to shoot - firstly they will (hopefully) learn the destructive power of guns and what they're capable of, and gain a little respect for them.

i was shooting a .22 at the age of 14-15 (i think, it was a long time ago :D). in a controlled environment and correct attitude i think its perfectly fine...

However, if the reports are true that her son was diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome, which typically leaves the affected person not really understanding the consequences of their actions, and can sometimes only see situations in black and white, no shades of grey - I don't think I would have been encouraging gun use, supervised or otherwise.

..however not in the above situation where the possibility of a learning/behavior disorder is present.
 
I've taught some of my own kids to shoot, there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

Yes, there are sensationalist reports that she was one of these people who think that they need to arm themselves and stockpile food for when the economy melts down and law and order completely breaks down, but even if that's true, that isn't exactly unusual in the USA. There are people like that here, who are convinced that the moslems are going to overthrow the government. And there are people who still believe that the earth is flat, and all sorts of other oddities. And despite what the Daily Mail says, her collection of guns was pretty modest by US standards, where there are more guns than people.

At the end of the day, the person who was responsible for the murders was the murderer.

Gary, I wasn't saying there was, I have also taught my eldest daughter to shoot. And again you correct, guns don't kill people, people kill people.
 
Last edited:
careful, people were getting slated for that earlier.. ;)

I don't care if I get slated, a gun can not kill someone without the intervention of a person pulling the trigger, a gun is just a piece of metal.
 
Had the murderer's mother not obviously been obsessed with guns and in possession of a number of guns and 100's of rounds of ammunition, would the killer have had access to the means of committing such an atrocity. He tried to buy others and was refused allegedly.

He would have found a means to carry it out, with illegal firearms more than likely.
 
He would have found a means to carry it out, with illegal firearms more than likely.

But would he have had the influence from his mother that put such emphasis on weapons :shrug:
 
But would he have had the influence from his mother that put such emphasis on weapons :shrug:

I don't think that has much if any bearing on it, the type of person to commit these crimes will commit them anyway, with or without any influence.
 
Davec223 said:
He would have found a means to carry it out, with illegal firearms more than likely.

Where would such a geek / loner / socially inadequate person with no criminal past find the connections to purchase an illegal assault rifle, and the means to pay for it? It would have been pretty hard for him.

More to the point though, I wonder what security she had at home for her firearms?
 
Last edited:
I don't think that has much if any bearing on it, the type of person to commit these crimes will commit them anyway, with or without any influence.

Think it has every bearing on it, without having the extreme gun influence on his life would he ever have been "the type of person to commit" this sort of crime ... even more so if it is true that he has some sort of 'personality disorder'?
 
Davec223 said:
I don't think that has much if any bearing on it, the type of person to commit these crimes will commit them anyway, with or without any influence.

Do you really think there's a "type of person" who commits these crimes? I wonder about that, personally. I'd be more inclined to say its human nature to completely lose the plot now and again. Go out in any city centre on a Saturday night and you see all sorts of people fighting over something or other. We all have the capacity to lash out violently. It's not something that "the type" have exclusive rights to.

Which is precisely why a civilised society needs to limit access to guns, as much as possible.
 
Johnd2000 said:
Do you really think there's a "type of person" who commits these crimes? I wonder about that, personally. I'd be more inclined to say its human nature to completely lose the plot now and again. Go out in any city centre on a Saturday night and you see all sorts of people fighting over something or other. We all have the capacity to lash out violently. It's not something that "the type" have exclusive rights to.

Which is precisely why a civilised society needs to limit access to guns, as much as possible.

Saturday night town centre fights have far more to do with the combination of low intellect and alcohol than anything else.
 
Do you really think there's a "type of person" who commits these crimes? I wonder about that, personally. I'd be more inclined to say its human nature to completely lose the plot now and again. Go out in any city centre on a Saturday night and you see all sorts of people fighting over something or other. We all have the capacity to lash out violently. It's not something that "the type" have exclusive rights to.

Which is precisely why a civilised society needs to limit access to guns, as much as possible.

There are definitely personality "traits" that more often than not pop up in these people's past. Of course, that doesn't mean that everyone that has these traits is going to commit this kind of crime, but looking at past killers they do form a pattern.

While we do all have the capacity to lash out violently, the majority don't - and those that do only lash out at the thing/person that's caused them anger/whatever.
 
What I don't understand is why we all make such a huge fuss when there are murders in the USA, yet far worse child murder rates occur in many other countries (South America, Eastern Europe, Russia, etc etc).

We seem to care far more about murders of USA children than children of other countries.

Well, since on average, 8 Americans aged 19 or under are killed by firearms every day, I don't think it's just a blindness to what happens in other countries, just that it attracts a lot of attention when 20 of them are killed in one go.

There was plenty of coverage of the Belsan massacre in Russia in 2004, though 186 children died in that incident.
 
Surprised little has been mentioned on mental health policy in the US, seems to be as much of an issue in many shootings as the access to guns.
 
Rapscallion said:
Surprised little has been mentioned on mental health policy in the US, seems to be as much of an issue in many shootings as the access to guns.

I'm sure the NRA is, as I type this, lobbying for a ban on mental illness.
 
there really is a very easy and simple solution which is already employed both in South Africa and much of Spain in banks. Timelock doors..

You enter through door 1. You are checked out. Door 2 does not open until both door 1 closes and security have approved you.

OK it's not foolproof, but a long way ahead of where we are now...
 
Lynton said:
there really is a very easy and simple solution which is already employed both in South Africa and much of Spain in banks. Timelock doors..

You enter through door 1. You are checked out. Door 2 does not open until both door 1 closes and security have approved you.

OK it's not foolproof, but a long way ahead of where we are now...

Sounds a lot like a prison to me. Can't see it working in a school, especially at times where large volumes of students will be in transit.
 
Lynton said:
there really is a very easy and simple solution which is already employed both in South Africa and much of Spain in banks. Timelock doors..

You enter through door 1. You are checked out. Door 2 does not open until both door 1 closes and security have approved you.

OK it's not foolproof, but a long way ahead of where we are now...

A place I frequent a client of mine has got a three tier system like that. Works fine.

Pop some biometrics and automated full body scanning on it and job done. Get a millimetric wave imager in place for the cars entering the grounds.

And as a last resort train and arm the teachers.
 
The Second Amendment grants Americans the right to bear arms. But that right must be balanced against the Declaration of Independence's commitment to the "self-evident" and "unalienable" rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yesterday, twenty young children were deprived of those "unalienable" rights, in no small part because the government failed in its duty to protect innocent people from attack. When civilians are permitted to carry assault weapons (and we should remember too that in 1789, "arms" meant flintlock muskets), they will inevitably be used to destroy innocent lives and wreck families and communities. At this point, further inaction is inexcusable.
 
Back
Top