"We cannot tolerate this."

[DizBelle]

CT school shooting tragedy - could anything have been done to prevent it?

And what can be done to prevent this from happening again?

 

[bored]

Guns have been around for hundreds of years. Guns haven't changed. Society has changed and lost it's moral compass. This is the issue.

 

[rszdtrvl]

More school security. Mandatory ID's to be carried and checked by ALL students/staff. Secured doors leading to/from school.

As my father says, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns".

I am all for stricter gun control though.

If you ask DH, he would say that if you are caught with semi-automatic & automatic weapons it should be mandatory 5 years in prison.

 

[DizBelle]

Does anyone know why his mother didn't have her guns better secured from her mentally unstable son? I'm thinking this is step number 1 in what could have been done to have kept this from happening.

 

[izzy]

Sadly, I really don't think there is anything that can reasonably be done if we want to continue to have a free and open society.

By the way, this school did have its doors locked and the killer forced his way in. Even if a police officer had been stationed there, the killer would have probably shot him before the officer could have done anything, especially given the type of weapon the killer was using.

To make certain things illegal doesn't matter to certain elements of society. Drugs such as heroin, cocaine, etc. are illegal, yet plenty of people still manage to be able to find them. As much as it pains me to say this, the same thing would happen assault-type weapons.

Controls only work on the good people.

 

[Robbi]

Does anyone know why his mother didn't have her guns better secured from her mentally unstable son? I'm thinking this is step number 1 in what could have been done to have kept this from happening.

How do we know she didn't keep them locked up? He may have searched for and found a key, he may have held her at knife point and forced her to tell before he shot her. We do not know.
No, it could not have been prevented. If he as determined to inflict harm, he would have found some way to do it even without guns. Would it have been better if he had made a bomb?

 

[OceanAnnie]

Sadly, I really don't think there is anything that can reasonably be done if we want to continue to have a free and open society.

By the way, this school did have its doors locked and the killer forced his way in. Even if a police officer had been stationed there, the killer would have probably shot him before the officer could have done anything, especially given the type of weapon the killer was using.

To make certain things illegal doesn't matter to certain elements of society. Drugs such as heroin, cocaine, etc. are illegal, yet plenty of people still manage to be able to find them. As much as it pains me to say this, the same thing would happen assault-type weapons.

Controls only work on the good people.

I think there is a lot of truth in your post, especially the bolded.

I agree, those intent on committing violent crimes will find a way.

There was an article shortly after the tragedy in CT, about a man that stabbed 22 children in China. There were no deaths but there were many hurt.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/12/14/china-school-stabbings/1770395/

 

[sam_gordon]

I think there is a lot of truth in your post, especially the bolded.

I agree, those intent on committing violent crimes will find a way.

There was an article shortly after the tragedy in CT, about a man that stabbed 22 children in China. There were no deaths but there were many hurt.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/12/14/china-school-stabbings/1770395/

Ask the Sandy Hook parents if they'd be willing for their child to be hurt vs. dead.

Personally, I don't know that anything could have been done to prevent this tragedy. I don't know that it's been confirmed the guy broke into the school, but there's a time when the doors MUST be unlocked (for kids to enter/exit). So even if the doors were bullet proof and unpenetrable, someone would just have to show up when kids are getting on/off busses and you still have a tragedy.

I also don't see the need for assault weapons, but IMO that horse is out of the barn. If someone wants one, it doesn't matter how many steps you take to make it difficult to own, a determined person will find a way. In this case, he took the weapons from his mother.

I would love for there to be some magic step that could be done to prevent Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, or Paducah, Ky (anyone remember that one?), but I don't think there is.

 

[newt2]

It's false to say that restricting access doesn't help.

In 1927, the worst school killing in US History took place. The weapon wasn't guns, it was dynamite. After the Bath killings, dynamite became severely regulated and there hasn't been a mass killing using dynamite in over 80 years since.

On April 19, 1995 Tim McViegh used fertilizer to make explosives that were used to kill 168 people. In the wake of that attack, rules were put into place limiting the amount of nitrate based fertilizer you can buy and the purchases that are allowed are tracked. There hasn't been a mass killing using nitrate based fertilizer bombs since.

In 1996 in Sydney Australia, 38 tourists were killed by a gunman with a semiautomatic rifle. Following that attack, guns were heavily restricted. There has not been a mass killing in Australia since then and the overall murder rate is down by more than half.

We're clearly never going to stop all violence and we're also never going to get rid of all guns. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything though. There clearly are measures that we can take to curb the worst of the problems while at the same time not overly restricting people's freedom and right to protect themselves.

 

[Stitchfans]

Sad to say I don't know of anything that could have prevented this. So often there are no signs or warning. Better security would have only slowed him down some. But then here again that might have saved a few more lives.

 

[Robbi]

It's false to say that restricting access doesn't help.

In 1927, the worst school killing in US History took place. The weapon wasn't guns, it was dynamite. After the Bath killings, dynamite became severely regulated and there hasn't been a mass killing using dynamite in over 80 years since.

On April 19, 1995 Tim McViegh used fertilizer to make explosives that were used to kill 168 people. In the wake of that attack, rules were put into place limiting the amount of nitrate based fertilizer you can buy and the purchases that are allowed are tracked. There hasn't been a mass killing using nitrate based fertilizer bombs since.

In 1996 in Sydney Australia, 38 tourists were killed by a gunman with a semiautomatic rifle. Following that attack, guns were heavily restricted. There has not been a mass killing in Australia since then and the overall murder rate is down by more than half.

We're clearly never going to stop all violence and we're also never going to get rid of all guns. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything though. There clearly are measures that we can take to curb the worst of the problems while at the same time not overly restricting people's freedom and right to protect themselves.

You can look up how to make a bomb on the internet right now if you wanted to make one. Fertilizer is not necessary. There are directions in fiction books. Restrictions will not prevent this. Someone determined will find a way.

Laws have made it harder to get guns in the US. There is now a check and no one can just walk up and buy a gun immediately. It hasn't stopped the violence. Look at the cities. There are murders almost every night. Most take place in high crime areas and are committed with illegally obtained guns.

 

[Tammi67]

I would ask too, why the escalation over the past few years? What's different with these young males that pushes them to commit these horrific crimes?
Guns may have changed but guns have been around since the country's inception. We did not hear about a lot of these outbursts until 15-20 years ago. Gun laws have become more restrictive yet we have more of these incidents. As people have posted, criminals do not obey the law. Anyone who wants to find a gun by illegal channels can and will. I'm not sure that further restriction is not a feel good measure. It's a frightening dilemma because in the end no matter what laws or restrictions, no matter how locked down and safe we think we are, someone determined to cause harm, will.

My belief is it's because how we are raising children these days. From their earliest days they are taught that everyone is a winner, everyone gets a trophy, everyone gets to play whether you are good at it or not, everyone passes and moves on to the next grade, there are no losers, etc. etc. We are coddling our children. Life is not all sunshine and roses. They are not prepared to be disappointed in life, and have not been taught any coping skills. So they end up a young adult, out in the real world and it slaps them in the face. Not everyone gets a job, or a raise, or the award. Not everyone likes you, your boy/girlfriend dumps you. Getting something/somewhere in life takes hard work, and even then it might not be attained. They are now too old to stomp their feet and throw themselves on the floor in a two year old's version of a temper tantrum. Instead, this is what we end up with.

 

[PlutosFriend]

More school security. Mandatory ID's to be carried and checked by ALL students/staff. Secured doors leading to/from school.

As my father says, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns".

I am all for stricter gun control though.

If you ask DH, he would say that if you are caught with semi-automatic & automatic weapons it should be mandatory 5 years in prison.

So I just learned today on the news that Lanza broke a window to get in the school. I had not heard that until today and was wondering how he got in.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

My solution would work, but nobody would like it. And all that has to happen is that I have to be made dictator.

 

[themilesfamily]

My solution would work, but nobody would like it. And all that has to happen is that I have to be made dictator.

 

[DizBelle]

My belief is it's because how we are raising children these days. From their earliest days they are taught that everyone is a winner, everyone gets a trophy, everyone gets to play whether you are good at it or not, everyone passes and moves on to the next grade, there are no losers, etc. etc. We are coddling our children. Life is not all sunshine and roses. They are not prepared to be disappointed in life, and have not been taught any coping skills. So they end up a young adult, out in the real world and it slaps them in the face. Not everyone gets a job, or a raise, or the award. Not everyone likes you, your boy/girlfriend dumps you. Getting something/somewhere in life takes hard work, and even then it might not be attained. They are now too old to stomp their feet and throw themselves on the floor in a two year old's version of a temper tantrum. Instead, this is what we end up with.

Interesting viewpoint. It makes some sense....

 

[Robbi]

It used to be that the mentally ill could be confined for long periods of time until they were well. This changed in either the late 60s or early 70s due to abuse of the patients. In some cases, people were wrongly incarcerated. We would need to have checks and balances- maybe more familial involvement, in order to keep patients in hospitals until they were stable on their meds and doctors proclaim they were ok to leave.
Insurance needs to change as well. I know a girl Sandy, who went into the hospital severely depressed and suicidal. After 3 days, the insurance company said she had to leave because she was no longer suicidal on that day. Her doctors tried to fight because they were afraid she might become suicidal again but the insurance companies refused so she went home. She was readmitted a few days later after taking a razor blade to her wrists. Let doctors take care of medical needs not bureaucrats.

 

[horseshowmom]

While the focus seems to be on gun control, I really think we should be looking at the need for mental health care. How often do you hear people say after the fact that these people had "issues"?

 

[Mkrop]

I am not a gun owner but I dont think guns are the issue, it is pure evil. Like someone else said guns have been around forever. Yes they took longer to load many eons ago, but who cares...any type of gun could have been used and I dont care if it was one life or 26 lives, that is one too many. Say he went in with just the handguns, bc most people are not hysterical over them. I have no idea how many rounds they hold but let say he only got to kill 10 innocent people, that still doesnt make it ok. We need to figure out what makes a person do something like this. It is the evil person who pulled the trigger!

 

[Ginny Favers]

Also-- "better mental healthcare".... is not that easy. It is not as obvious to diagnose conditions of the mind as it is to diagnose something like cancer. It is also not easy to treat, as there are no concrete "cures", and many ill people go through their entire lives with treatment, but without getting any better. At what point does that shy, introverted person become mentally ill and get treated? And what treatment do they receive that will ensure they're not a danger to society?