News Why Would an Adult Target Kindergarten Students in a Shooting?

[Evo]

Because fact that the majority of people who read about this event feel terrible about this and know it is bad seems counterproductive to your claim that humans are truly terrible creatures. By taking isolated and extreme cases like this and then using it as an example as to why humans are bad is to broad. Can people do terrible things? Of course. However, the key point is that behavior people engage after such event is disingenuous. In the coming days, we'll blame everything from, the parents, the mental stability, the 'obvious signs of instability', tv, games, music, whatever anyone else thinks of, and just not state the obvious. People sometimes just do bad things because they want too. I think we do that because we have a need to feel as if there is a reason for it. In my experience, the reason is just because the person wanted too.

One of the arguments to keep guns is that it's the mentally unstable people with access to them, not that someone that owns guns can be evil and choose to misuse them. IIRC.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Because fact that the majority of people who read about this event feel terrible about this and know it is bad seems counterproductive to your claim that humans are truly terrible creatures.

I can copy paste tons of comments from pages on facebook with people saying all kinds of disgusting things about the incident. It isn't so cut and dry. The potential to do evil is great and I hate that people have the audacity to hail the human race as a largely benevolent one (not saying you are personally of course). Anyways, I think this is a topic for a different day.

 

[CAC1001]

And before someone says again that I am against gun ownership, no I am just against certain guns, and artillery. And the capacity and the number. A homeowner doesn't need a highpowered arsenal to scare off a robber.

Well artillery is already illegal. "High-powered" is a rather arbitrary term. Neither an AR-15 nor a Kalashnikov ("AK-47") are high-powered rifles (the AR-15 is too weak a rifle to be used to hunt any kind of large game even). I also don't see how number of guns owned has anything to do with committing crimes. All one needs is one rifle or handgun to go and commit a mass killing.

 

[surajt88]

This is supposedly a letter written by one of the killed kids during lockdown.

Source: Zee News India
Otherwise couldn't identify its authenticity. If true, its heart breaking. Also I'd appreciate if anyone can provide a reliable American source for this.

 

[Pythagorean]

Well artillery is already illegal. "High-powered" is a rather arbitrary term. Neither an AR-15 nor a Kalashnikov ("AK-47") are high-powered rifles (the AR-15 is too weak a rifle to be used to hunt any kind of large game even). I also don't see how number of guns owned has anything to do with committing crimes. All one needs is one rifle or handgun to go and commit a mass killing.

To your last point, having more guns floating around the citizenry increases the chances that someone wig bad intentions can get that one gun.

 

[MarneMath]

I can copy paste tons of comments from pages on facebook with people saying all kinds of disgusting things about the incident. It isn't so cut and dry. The potential to do evil is great and I hate that people have the audacity to hail the human race as a largely benevolent one (not saying you are personally of course). Anyways, I think this is a topic for a different day.

Which I think was the point I was making in my reply. It isn't cut or dry. I never claimed people were naturally good. I don't care for such broad premise. I can tell stories of a private I had who placed his body in front of a wounded Afghani soldier and held him during a particularly bad time in the valley. I can also tell stories of villagers who set land mines near a rival village's school. People have the power to do tremedous evil, people have the power to do temedous good.

My problem when events like this occur is a simple one. When someone does something amazing, we don't look for why such a person did good things. We just toss it off as a character thing. When someone does evil, we look for reasons. I'm not an expert, but I truly believe some people just do bad things because they can. I'm sure we can break down every action and get detail analysis and find reasons; however, I think in the end, the only reason that matters is this: The person wanted to do it.

I have PTSD, depression, grew up so poor that some months we had to make a choice between food or heat. I went to the worse school in the inner city. The first time I witness someone get killed, I was 4 yrs old buying ice cream with my mom. If I went out and committed some violent crime, I believe I would be easy to toss off and be profiled as just another guy from a broken home torn by the war. Yet, I'm not violent, or abusive, or have urges to kill. No one thinks twice about that fact.

I'm not sure if I'm coming off clearly, but I hope I am.

 

[nazarbaz]

Such an event has no meaning, no cause and no purpose. I come from a country that went from a quite stable polity to what is often called a "civil war" in a blink of an eye. We weren't that violent before nor after it.
The language of causality is completely irrelevant in understanding human behavior.The context could lead "normal" people, not only the "unstable", to awful atrocities. No structural reasons, factors or causes are needed to turn a nice guy to a monster. It's all random : an inextricable nexus of individual and collective choices, necessities and chance.
There's probably a mimetic phenomenon here, but don't blame your "culture", it has nothing to do with it. That said, I can't understand why a responsible governement allow the trade of war weapons to its citizens and industries : it makes no sense at all. The very definition of the state is the guarantee of peace by exerting the monopoly of war and "legitimate violence".

 

[julcab12]

Right now i don't care much of how people think of the incident. Give him stone/pencil/pillow or whatever. The fact remains that he INTENDED TO KILL doesn't change the nature of the case. I want constructive/probable solution and prevention. I'm sick of hearing prayers as emotional relief. I really felt uneasy, sad and afraid for my 2 siblings.

 

[nsaspook]

*Yes, I know you weren't addressing me with this post, but I did reply to you earlier on this very topic.*

It's still a better use of time to better understand the mental illnesses themselves rather than examining every material or object that a mentally ill person comes into contact with, just to see if it might have some negative affect on them.

We don't have to look at every item because I don't think these events are truly random in nature. There could be a set of reinforcing profile factors that might allow us to inform the parents or teachers while they are still young how to watch for signs and maybe change long-term behavior.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kinkel/profile/avenger.html

Because these events are so rare I don't think we can prevent them but maybe we can reduce the persons desired level of destruction when they do.

 

[Evo]

This is supposedly a letter written by one of the killed kids during lockdown.

Source: Zee News India
Otherwise couldn't identify its authenticity. If true, its heart breaking. Also I'd appreciate if anyone can provide a reliable American source for this.

It's bogus. No child named Brian was killed and it's not in any American news source.

 

[enosis_]

I mean this is totally practical for self defense. A "semi automatic":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fW_HMBLvzuU



I'm sure the forefathers foresaw this technology becoming a reality when they drafted the constitution. Get real, the forefathers are not demigods.

A "semi auto" that shoots 400 shots a minute:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WDAIN-Onc0&feature=player_embedded



I feel sooooooo much safer knowing the fact that there's probably 1000s of people walking around out there with one of those that aren't law enforcement or the military.

I thought the killer used hand guns?

 

[enosis_]

It doesn't get any more violent than this. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/15/connecticut-school-shooting-adam-lanza/1771021/

from your link edward... ""All of the wounds I know of were caused by a rifle,'' he said."

Apparently the primary weapon used has not been reported yet?

 

[Astronuc]

I thought the killer used hand guns?

I have heard and read several variants regarding the guns used. I have heard 2 handguns, a rifle or combination. I heard 3 guns were found by the body of Adam Lanza, or 2 handguns with the rifle still in the car.

But

All the victims at the school were shot with a rifle, at least some of them up close, and all were apparently shot more than once, Chief Medical Examiner Dr. H. Wayne Carver said. There were as many as 11 shots on the bodies he examined.
. . . .
The rifle used was a Bushmaster .223-caliber, according to an official with knowledge of the investigation who was not authorized to speak about it and talked on condition of anonymity. The gun is commonly seen at competitions and was the type used in the 2002 sniper killings in the Washington, D.C., area. Also found in the school were two handguns, a Glock 10 mm and a Sig Sauer 9 mm.
. . . .

Gov.: Gunman shot self as 1st responders closed in
http://news.yahoo.com/gov-gunman-shot-self-1st-responders-closed-152837726.html

It seems in the absence of facts, some media fill in the details themselves. In other words, stuff gets made up on the fly in order to tell a story, and grab an audience. Clearly there is an economic incentive to sensationalize the news in order to attract/build an audience and sell advertising.

The media seem reluctant to admit that they don't have the facts or that what they are reporting is preliminary and unverified/unsubstantiated. That's shameful.


It's now being reported that the principal, Dawn Hochsprung, and school psychologist, Mary Sherlach, tried to rush Lanza and were killed during the attempt.

 

[justsomeguy]

It seems in the absence of facts, some media fill in the details themselves. In other words, stuff gets made up on the fly in order to tell a story, and grab an audience. Clearly there is an economic incentive to sensationalize the news in order to attract/build an audience and sell advertising.

The media seem reluctant to admit that they don't have the facts or that what they are reporting is preliminary and unverified/unsubstantiated. That's shameful.

This isn't really new. I know some psycho shot a bunch of little kids at a school, doesn't really matter to me how many or what kind of guns he used or what his exact path through the school was.

 

[edward]

from your link edward... ""All of the wounds I know of were caused by a rifle,'' he said."

Apparently the primary weapon used has not been reported yet?

The fact that the Bushmaster was used in all of the shootings had been clarified. The "HE" is the local coroner and he did know what weapon was used. Shooting the victims multiple times with a .223 caliber was what I meant when I stated "it doesn't get any more violent than this".

As a matter of fact this was a slaughter. IMHO This guy apparently wanted to see a lot of blood. Blood keeps gushing from wounds as long as the heart is still beating.

Now we know that the shooter had also pulled the hardrive from his computer and smashed it.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-connecticut-school-massacre-20121216,0,3053853.story?page=2

 

[edward]

This isn't really new. I know some psycho shot a bunch of little kids at a school, doesn't really matter to me how many or what kind of guns he used or what his exact path through the school was.

This thread isn't about what matters to you.

 

[enosis_]

The fact that the Bushmaster was used in all of the shootings had been clarified. The "HE" is the local coroner and he did know what weapon was used. Shooting the victims multiple times with a .223 caliber was what I meant when I stated "it doesn't get any more violent than this".

As a matter of fact this was a slaughter. IMHO This guy apparently wanted to see a lot of blood. Blood keeps gushing from wounds as long as the heart is still beating.

Now we know that the shooter had also pulled the hardrive from his computer and smashed it.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-connecticut-school-massacre-20121216,0,3053853.story?page=2

Your link says the killer was known to play a violent video game

 

[SixNein]

If anything came out of this shooting, it is the outpouring of love for guns. I mentioned on facebook that some regulations need to come down on weapons, and one would have thought I declared myself a follower of Hitler or Stalin from all of the reactions. But the fact is America does have a very severe gun problem, and it also seems to have a very poor perception of risk.

Any proposed regulation on gun sales will be ineffective because we have an estimated 300 million guns in circulation. So I think the only way to prevent these types of events is to begin rationing bullets. One should have to go through a rigorous background check to obtain bullets, they should state the purpose of buying the bullets, and the bullets should be rationed based upon the stated purpose. If one needs bullets for home protection, he or she should be given enough bullets to provide such protection and not a single bullet over it. All of this should be put into databases, and people violating the rules should be identified and punished.

So under such a plan, people can keep their guns and have all they want. But the bullets are rationed without respect to how many guns one owns.

 

[OmCheeto]

This thread isn't about what matters to you.

Did I ever tell you about the time I thought you were from Oregon, because your avatar looks like a Chia-car?

 

[nsaspook]

Your link says the killer was known to play a violent video game

Not surprised, as it's consistent with the overall "threat assessment" profile. In isolation it means nothing. We need to use a threat assessment approach when dealing with these kind of people at a young age. It's not classic profiling or looking for possibly dangerous people. It's looking at "pathways to violent action", what set of behaviors and conditions that have lead to violence in the past.

http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ntac_bsl99.pdf

 

[Astronuc]

I'm sure the FBI and law enforcement agencies are collecting evidence and working hard to build a profile of Lanza in order to cevelop a better threat assessment model.

Meahwhile Yahoo reports that police report -

Investigators said he possessed "multiple high-capacity magazines" for all three weapons.

Police haven't revealed how many bullets Lanza fired during his 10-minute shooting spree, but admit he still had many more live rounds with him when he took his own life as first responders closed in.

"Hundreds of bullets, yes," said Lt. J. Paul Vance, a spokesman for the Connecticut State Police.

. . . .

The victims at the school were shot multiple times, and apparently Lanza shot his mother multiple times. He was apparently determined to take many more lives.

So I would imagine that investigators will explore the accumulation of his stockpile and try to decide how to apply that in the future.

I would imagine that the question to be asked at some point is "how to keep guns out of the hands of people who are intent on committing mass homicide?"

 

[edward]

Your link says the killer was known to play a violent video game

That is true. ??

 

[edward]

Magazines that fed bullets into the primary firearm used to kill 26 children and adults at a Connecticut school would have been banned under state legislation that the National Rifle Association and gunmakers successfully fought.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-16/ban-on-30-round-gun-magazines-in-connecticut-died-after-pressure.html

 

[nsaspook]

I would imagine that the question to be asked at some point is "how to keep guns out of the hands of people who are intent on committing mass homicide?"

I'm sure the question will be asked and answered. A more useful question is how do we find the people who are likely to have the intent to commit mass homicide with guns or any other weapon before the decision is made.

 

[encorp]

I think once we find out what the school district suggested for the killer that the mother opposed, to the point of taking him out of school and home schooling him, we'll have the answer if not be very close.

From what school friends have said, it's likely the school wanted him assessed for mental problems. Especially his talk of wanting to "blow things up".

I think the mother wanted to "cover up" her son's mental problems.

Mom: you want to "blow things up? I bought a bunch of guns, let's go to the shooting range". IMO to above. Except these are all things that happened, with the exception of the exact conversation. and THIS IS OFF TOPIC, ok? so let's not go there.

Rule of thumb, if it's part of the investigation, guns used, mother, mental illness, etc... that's ok.

See previous posts with links to the items in this post.

And before someone says again that I am against gun ownership, no I am just against certain guns, and artillery. And the capacity and the number. A homeowner doesn't need a highpowered arsenal to scare off a robber.

That and his mother was preparing for the "end of the world" so to speak, so she probably impressed a lot (of bad) on his fragile mind.

Though I believe strict gun control is super important.. I don't think it would have stopped this in this situation, I think that there are a lot of issues. One of them being that we so easily allow the media to propagate "end of world" hype that feeds people like this guys mother and sets the stage for this kind of thing.

 

[Adyssa]

I'm sure the question will be asked and answered. A more useful question is how do we find the people who are likely to have the intent to commit mass homicide with guns or any other weapon before the decision is made.

a) read minds
b) make generalizations about various types of people and lock anyone who ticks enough boxes up
c) lock everyone up

It all gets very Orwellian. Personally, I think

d) make weapons less available

is a far more reasonable choice. Of course, people that like shooting things are going to be upset, but you know what, I don't care two hoots about people that like shooting things, for sport, for protection, for whatever. The rest of us enjoy non-violent hobbies and deal with problems of personal safety in non-violent ways.

At the macro level, we are all people of the world but we fence ourselves in. Go and get to know your neighbours (even the ones that dress funny, or talk funny), be compassionate towards the poor and outcast, help out in your community, be the person that helps some young rascal find a path that doesn't lead to violence and despair. We all turn a blind eye to the parts of society that don't match our own little happy ideals, and it is we that are guilty of ignoring problems until they become massacres. You don't need more security, you need more heart. If this young lad had a well-intentioned friend he might not have done what he did. It's not an instant fix, but there is no instant fix. The road to peace requires patience and diligence from everybody.

People throw their arms up and say it's all too hard, and I say they're the weakest most pathetic example of what a human could and should be. Nothing worthwhile is accomplished with ease.

I guess we could always arm the teachers, and the kids, and the parents, and lockdown the schools, and install CCTV everywhere, and predict what crimes this and that individual might intend to commit and take them out pre-emptively, and I mean, if we're heading down this road, why not just put everyone who doesn't act and look like Everybody Loves Raymond in a big dark hole and bury them all? The couple of million white, middle class Americans that are left can all have a great time together.

 

[Evo]

a) read minds
b) make generalizations about various types of people and lock anyone who ticks enough boxes up
c) lock everyone up

It all gets very Orwellian. Personally, I think

d) make weapons less available

is a far more reasonable choice. Of course, people that like shooting things are going to be upset, but you know what, I don't care two hoots about people that like shooting things, for sport, for protection, for whatever. The rest of us enjoy non-violent hobbies and deal with problems of personal safety in non-violent ways.

At the macro level, we are all people of the world but we fence ourselves in. Go and get to know your neighbours (even the ones that dress funny, or talk funny), be compassionate towards the poor and outcast, help out in your community, be the person that helps some young rascal find a path that doesn't lead to violence and despair. We all turn a blind eye to the parts of society that don't match our own little happy ideals, and it is we that are guilty of ignoring problems until they become massacres. You don't need more security, you need more heart. If this young lad had a well-intentioned friend he might not have done what he did. It's not an instant fix, but there is no instant fix. The road to peace requires patience and diligence from everybody.

People throw their arms up and say it's all too hard, and I say they're the weakest most pathetic example of what a human could and should be. Nothing worthwhile is accomplished with ease.

I guess we could always arm the teachers, and the kids, and the parents, and lockdown the schools, and install CCTV everywhere, and predict what crimes this and that individual might intend to commit and take them out pre-emptively, and I mean, if we're heading down this road, why not just put everyone who doesn't act and look like Everybody Loves Raymond in a big dark hole and bury them all? The couple of million white, middle class Americans that are left can all have a great time together.

Excellent post, thank you.

 

[edward]

Did I ever tell you about the time I thought you were from Oregon, because your avatar looks like a Chia-car?

Is this post your way of telling me I need to CHILL a bit? If so you are right. I do.

 

[nsaspook]

a) read minds
b) make generalizations about various types of people and lock anyone who ticks enough boxes up
c) lock everyone up

It all gets very Orwellian. Personally, I think

d) make weapons less available

is a far more reasonable choice. Of course, people that like shooting things are going to be upset, but you know what, I don't care two hoots about people that like shooting things, for sport, for protection, for whatever. The rest of us enjoy non-violent hobbies and deal with problems of personal safety in non-violent ways.

I hope you feel better now but "Orwellian make weapons less available" ranting won't solve anything. "I don't care" is a very effective argument about your position.

 

[Drakkith]

Perhaps the best thing would be to do nothing. Further gun control? Less freedom. More safeguards in schools? Less freedoms for our younger citizens. Where do you stop? You are NOT going to be able to stop people from killing each other. Period. End of story. So you MUST accept the fact that people are going to kill other people. Knowing this, how far do you go to try to curb it? At what point do you say "You know what, we've done enough."

I know that I don't know. I suggest everyone think long and hard about how far you would be willing to go and ask yourself if you are willing to give up freedoms YOU like in the name of safety. Because I believe that is the issue here.

 

[justsomeguy]

I know that I don't know. I suggest everyone think long and hard about how far you would be willing to go and ask yourself if you are willing to give up freedoms YOU like in the name of safety. Because I believe that is the issue here.

This does bring the whole thread of discussion full circle. It's worth asking if giving up additional freedoms will make you more secure as well, before considering giving them up. For that matter, you need to ask, secure against what? In some cases, especially the gun control argument, more security against one type of threat leads directly to less security against another kind.

 

[encorp]

What bothers me most is that there are people out there who feel completely comfortable with a loss of life such as this being an acceptable price of admission for gun freedom.

 

[justsomeguy]

What bothers me most is that there are people out there who feel completely comfortable with a loss of life such as this being an acceptable price of admission for gun freedom.

I haven't heard of anyone expressing such a feeling, though there are many who believe that had that freedom been less restricted than it is, that this tragedy would have been averted.

 

[Drakkith]

What bothers me most is that there are people out there who feel completely comfortable with a loss of life such as this being an acceptable price of admission for gun freedom.

And some people are bothered that there are people out there who are completely comfortable with banning guns just because a small portion of people overall do bad things with them.

 

[edward]

This does bring the whole thread of discussion full circle. It's worth asking if giving up additional freedoms will make you more secure as well, before considering giving them up. For that matter, you need to ask, secure against what? In some cases, especially the gun control argument, more security against one type of threat leads directly to less security against another kind.

Actually no, the question will turn out to be do we give up high capacity magazines for the ones we all used a few years back before the high capacity magazines became available.

The original purpose of the NRA was to teach young American males to be better marksmen. More recently that bastardized into spraying as much lead as possible, when the profit potential became obvious.

 

[justsomeguy]

Actually no, the question will turn out to be do we give up high capacity magazines for the ones we all used a few years back before the high capacity magazines became available.

Who's "we all"? I've had so called "high capacity" magazines my entire life.

The original purpose of the NRA was to teach young American males to be better marksmen. More recently that bastardized into spraying as much lead as possible, when the profit potential became obvious.

The NRA has always been about protecting the second amendment, but what's that got to do with anything?

 

[nsaspook]

This does bring the whole thread of discussion full circle. It's worth asking if giving up additional freedoms will make you more secure as well, before considering giving them up. For that matter, you need to ask, secure against what? In some cases, especially the gun control argument, more security against one type of threat leads directly to less security against another kind.

When you see a defacto police state like China having the same problems it makes you think about how effective the tradition containment solutions of "limits on weapons" and government people control will be in controlling these types of events. They have restrictions on the length of knives you can buy without having to register them with their national identity cards and overall crime is low but mass attacks still happen with frightening frequency there.

 

[Evo]

When you see a defacto police state like China having the same problems it makes you think about how effective the tradition containment solutions of "limits on weapons" and government people control will be in controlling these types of events. They have restrictions on the length of knives you can buy without having to register them with their national identity cards and overall crime is low but mass attacks still happen with frightening frequency there.

But fatalities are limited.

Let's not make this another "gun thread" as they very quickly get closed as people become overly emotional.

Discussion needs to be about the shooter, you can discuss his use of his guns specifically, his family, and the impact on the community.

Thanks.

 

[justsomeguy]

"make weapons less available...I don't give two hoots about people that enjoy shooting" gets an "excellent post, thank you" but refutation of that position gets a "lets not make this about guns?" Sorry, but I'm smelling a double standard.

 

[Evo]

"make weapons less available...I don't give two hoots about people that enjoy shooting" gets an "excellent post, thank you" but refutation of that position gets a "lets not make this about guns?" Sorry, but I'm smelling a double standard.

I can lock the thread now and go back and delete every off topic post in this thread and reduce it to two pages, or I can request that the thread get back on topic before it gets locked.

Which do you prefer?

 

[justsomeguy]

I can lock the thread now and go back and delete every off topic post in this thread and reduce it to two pages, or I can request that the thread get back on topic before it gets locked.

Which do you prefer?

Either is fine. What I'm raising a flag over is you participating in the line of discussion you're asking to be stopped. I expect you to enforce the rules of course. I don't expect you to do so only when the comments disagree with your personal positions.

The warning, I must say, was entirely expected.

 

[Evo]

Either is fine. What I'm raising a flag over is you participating in the line of discussion you're asking to be stopped. I expect you to enforce the rules of course. I don't expect you to do so only when the comments disagree with your personal positions.

The warning, I must say, was entirely expected.

Many people have expressed their opinion, including me. When the thread starts to get too derailed, it's time to bring it back. This is not my first request to get back on topic.

 

[russ_watters]

We should probably always create parallel threads for these sorts of things: one to talk about the incident itself, one to talk about gun control.

 

[Evo]

We should probably always create parallel threads for these sorts of things: one to talk about the incident itself, one to talk about gun control.

We've had too many gun control threads and recently. Another is not going to go anywhere the previous haven't gone. So, no gun control threads until a new law is proposed that could change things and that bears discussing.

 

[mheslep]

This is a dreadful event, and my condolences to all Americans in general.

Thanks Arildno.

 

[nitsuj]

My guess at the majority of violent crime in the US:

Parents in neglected communities who have to work hard leave their kids to run the neighborhood; education system (or lack of) in a neglected area doesn't make the most effective child care. Children get raised by other children who have children before they become adults. Emotions and tribal behavior dominate the culture. Warped sense of family values and no education.

For the most part, I agree.

 

[mheslep]

These are the types of people who claim God will punish America for embracing gay marriage (like the Chick-Fil-A guy).

"the types of people"?

No, Huckabee is not a Falwell, God-will-punish-you type of homophobe.

 

[mheslep]

... All one needs is one rifle or handgun to go and commit a mass killing.

With a bolt action only rifle, even a very high powered model, a mass killing would require a fairly high degree of planning, skill, and probably training, especially indoors.

 

[jedishrfu]

Baltimore Sun article on the Bushmaster:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-gun-control-20121217,0,2421497.story

Sentiment may be changing.

and on I am Adam Lanzas Mom

http://healthland.time.com/2012/12/...fraid-of-their-children/?iid=tl-main-mostpop2

These articles should be the ones that frame debate on how to solve this problem.

 

[turbo]

With a bolt action only rifle, even a very high powered model, a mass killing would require a fairly high degree of planning, skill, and probably training, especially indoors.

My hunting rifle is a Ruger Model 1 chambered for .45-70. If you need more than one shot, you shouldn't be shooting at deer. One shot, one deer.

I have no particular beef against semi-automatic rifles with clips, but anybody who has to own a rifle styled like a military issue (M16 or AK47 for instance) has issues. One of the companies I consulted with many years back was Bushmaster, with a plant in southern Maine. The manager was quite proud of their ability to produce accurized and heavy fluted target barrels. That's all well and good, but most of their clientele wanted the Bushmasters because they looked "bad".

I don't want a fringe of gun-owners to ruin it for the rest of us.

BTW, the sicko could have killed a lot of kids with very old technology, if he had wanted. I sold my collection of antique Winchester lever actions years back to buy a couple of Canon cameras and some lenses. Some of those Winchesters were deadly tack-drivers. .38-55 is not such a popular caliber these days, but out on the target range, it was impossible to beat. You don't need to have a Bushmaster to kill a whole bunch of people. I probably won't be able to watch the evening news for the rest of the week, while idiots blather about the killer's arsenal and re-trace his route through the school. [rant mode off]