A Call to Action from the Nation's Nurses in the Wake of Newtown A Call to Action from the Nation's Nurses in the Wake of Newtown - pg.6 | allnurses

A Call to Action from the Nation's Nurses in the Wake of Newtown - page 6

Reposting from PSNA Communications email. Karen A Call to Action from the Nation's Nurses in the Wake of Newtown More Than 30 Nursing Organizations Call for Action in Wake of Newtown Tragedy ... Read More

  1. Visit  Spidey's mom profile page
    #65 0
    LaPierre volunteered NRA resources to help train and protect America’s children as part of a National School Shield Safety Program. The NRA has 16,000 trained police officers ready and willing to train others. Former Drug Enforcement Administration Director Asa Hutchinson reiterated the need for trained and armed security at American schools.

    “I believe trained, qualified, armed security is one key component among many that can provide the first line of difference and the last line of defense,” Hutchinson said, adding that the National School Shield Safety Program won’t require massive federal and local resources, but is based on local volunteering and can be tailored to fit the needs of each school.
    Another idea for volunteers being trained to help out. It was in LaPierre's speech the other day but the focus was on the more inflammatory comments.
  2. Visit  Spidey's mom profile page
    #66 0
    10 Facts for Liberals: Why Gun Control Can't Stop Another Newtown Massacre - John Hawkins - [page]

    There are now calls from the Left for gun control legislation in response to Adam Lanza's unconscionable mass killing of innocent children at Sandy Hook Elementary. However, very few people seem to be asking the most basic question of all before getting started: What gun control legislation could have stopped Adam Lanza?
    The answer is "none."
    Let's consider a few alternatives:
  3. Visit  kcmylorn profile page
    #67 0
    Our police are over burdened now with trying to stop the drug trafficking. What are they going to do when gun smuggling comes to town. You all know that when we ban all guns, there are still going to be those that want to keep a weapon in their home- they will purchase it illegally. If it's purchased illegally does that mean a kid can't get ahold of it and take it to school? I just don't see how a ban on guns is going to stop anyone from doing these things. There a ban on illegal drugs, does it stop those who want to use- NO.

    Then what about the guys that go deer hunting or duck hunting every season?

    we need to build better people and try to repair the ones we have. The money woud be better spent in the mental health arena.
    Why don't we start teaching people respect and boundaries, spell it out for them- this is what you say and what your don't say because.....!! Our entire culture needs to change- stop the emotional violence and the verbal violence.
    Last edit by kcmylorn on Dec 23, '12
  4. Visit  InfirmiereJolie profile page
    #68 0
    Quote from HM-8404
    You are correct. The Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791. A few years years before the internet came about. Does this mean the First Amendment should not apply to the internet since it had not been put into the Bill of Rights? Hey, it's much more powerful than a newspaper.

    Actually the reason for the Second Amendment is so we will not have to fear our government.

    You keep confusing the so-called assault rifles with hunting rifles. Big difference.
    The First Amendment is NOT about technology which can be used to kill and injure an entire crowd of people. Therefore, it is unrelated to the discussion.

    I knew you feared the government... Further, there is no use in needing to overthrow it with semi-automatic weaponry. This is, yes, illogical and based purely off your OWN fears (many others do NOT fear it, but feel it is PROTECTIONIST).

    I am not confusing the two. This entire time I have been discussing weapons which are semi-automatic, have numerous rounds, and have to capabilities to injure numerous people in seconds (and excessive... ultimately useless in recreational use).
  5. Visit  InfirmiereJolie profile page
    #69 0
    You are chopping up my arguments and not responding to my post in full... nevertheless, I will not chop up yours and I will respond to it with a fluid, complete thought.

    Although you are not afraid of these objects capable of being used to kill, others are, as I already stated. Further, you are speaking of continuously advancing technology of the military. Your argument supporting to "never attempt to create improvement or ban any assault weapons ever, because the military will always have stronger weapons," is a futile and pointless attempt to halt all progress, creating a climatic affect of conflict. If we following this argument, we would continuously allow stronger weapons onto the streets, no matter the cost of life or its potential danger, simply due to the fact the military will always have stronger weapons. This is not only dangerous, this is never-ending, as your position is inflexible.

    Using the internet and other forms of media are not only irrelevant, they are straw arguments. You are using straw men to deflect the subject of the discussion.

    Further, "the militia" segment can be interpreted in various ways. However, seeing this segment in context to the time period, the 1700's. There was a rising up against the government to create a new one. They created militias to do this, i.e., what we would consider to be soldiers, i.e., part of the military. "Militia" does, yes, mean military. Centuries later with more governmental protection, branches of power, a supreme court system, more amendments to protect us (e.g., from the states as well), support from other countries by the UN "Universal Human Rights Agreement," there is LITTLE use to arm the public with semi-automatic assault weapons as if part of a modern militia, especially since these weapons will be used, 99.9% of the time, not against the government, but against other PEOPLE doing little to no harm to the person wielding them. Not only this, they are FAR more dangerous today than they were then.

    I think it is interesting that you point to Norway. Norway, however, has other correlating effects causing this narrow event, as there are other countries which have bans, but far less violence, even great success. One does not necessarily cause the other, post hoc. E.g., Norway has weak punishments for crime. The person who perpetuated this event in Norway ONLY received 22 years in prison - Norway's maximum sentence for ANY crime. This by itself would be a significant cause of the problem, as this person and others would not feel they would be punished for their crimes, no matter their negative effects. Since laws differ for punishment by each country with these bans, yet many of these countries have SUCCESS, this likely to be one, if the most, important of the main issues.

    The so-called "ban" you point to in Connecticut did NOT ban the sale of the semi-automatic assault weapon bought legally and used in the crime. This person also bought the ammunition LEGALLY. This "ban" you speak of is a mild, watered down version and not TRULY the semi-automatic assault weapon ban needed to stop many of these events, nor is it strong enough. Essentially, you are attacking this "ban" and trying to use this as a failed example to support your argument for full use of semi-automatic assault weapons, no matter how dangerous they are, when this event ACTUALLY would portray an event OF NOT ENOUGH regulation, since EVEN WITHOUT the ban (as you are arguing for) this event would have STILL occurred.

    I'm not attacking you personally, I am attacking your argument, which I found to not be thoughtful to others views and fears of semi-automatic weapons capable of shooting entire crowds of people in seconds, minutes (as if minutes are any better).
    Quote from PMFB-RN
    *** Actually I am not afraid of any inanimate objects. Your assertion that they are copy cats of military weapons is only true in apperence. In function they are not very different than other very old and widely used firearms.

    *** Me too.

    *** I respectfully disagree with my brothers and sisters in arms. If any of them wish to discuss the issue with me I am willing to have that discussion. However I don't view their opinions as being more valid than the opinions of all the vets who happen to disagree with them.

    *** I am doing no such thing. I understand that the authors of the constitution were wise men who, having witnessed world changing technology in their own lives, fully understood that things would continue to change. It's why in documents like the Fedralists Papers they expand on their thinking. As it relates to the current subject we are discussing the "arms" mentioned in the Second Amendment refer to those "of current type". The First Amendment was also written in the late 1700's before the invention of TV, radio and the internet. Should we ban waching TV news since the authors of the constitution could not possibly forsee the effects of mass media?

    *** Well theres your answer. If you no longer believe in the protections afforded to Americans in the Bill of Rights you are welcome to advocate for amending the constitution. Doing so would be much more honest than simply ignoring our constitution and gutting the protections for Americans it provides.

    ***The milita is NOT the military. I am AM in the milita. As is your husband, brother, maybe son depending on his age. In any event the the justification clause doesn't negate the right clause. If you care to read further and educate yourself on this issue I suggest reading this, it's from UCLA Law School, hardly a bastion of conservative thought.
    The Commonplace Second Amendment:

    *** Well as I said you can advocate for amending the constitution. That is perfectly within your rights as a citizen of a free society and country like the USA. I wish you luck.

    *** Your sense is way off. I do not fear my government at all. I suggest you stop attempting to read into my comments things that are not there. Your not very good at it.


    *** Wow, so I am not only illogical but selfish and fearful of the goverment too? I am actually none of those things and your name calling won't change that.


    *** I think if you look into it those countries demonstrate the ineffectivness of bans like are being proposed here. You might remeber the 2011 shootings in Norway were 77 people were killed in a country that bans military style assault rifles. Australia has had it's share of tragic school shootings resulting in the deaths of children. Fewer than us but it's a MUCH MUCH smaller country. Also consider Switzerland. A country where most house holds are required by law to keep and maintain a real assault rifle (as opposed to cosmetic appearing like we have been discussing) in the home. Switzerland has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world and their government subsidizes the sale of assault rifle ammunition.

    *** But it doesn't get anything off the streets. I know this. You only have to look to Connecticut where the shooting occured. They already have an "assault weapons" ban in place. We also have examples from other states like California and the federal ban from 1994 until 2004. They simply did not work and neither will a new law.

    *** Nearly all firearms in cilivian use are based off military models. In WWI our soldiers learned to use bolt action rifles since there were standard issue at the time. When they came home the bold action became very popular. The same thing happend in WWII when the semiautomatic was standard issue. The troops came home and the semi auto became very popular. This has alwasy been true in US history. Semi automatic firearms have been very popular and heavily used in sports for over a hundred years. There is no new technology here, though the look of the firearms has changed, not their function.
    In any event a particular firearms usefulness for sporting purposes is irrelevent as shooting sports are not related to the reason we have Second Amendment protections in our Bill of Rights.

    *** So not only illogical, selfish, fearful but I am also self centered? Why stick to valid arguments when you can insult and name call?

    *** No, it's not. It's about passing feel good laws that will not make any children safer.
  6. Visit  InfirmiereJolie profile page
    #70 0
    Quote from chiromed0
    Horse-puckey!

    Stick to what you know. Yes to more mental health services, yes to student access to mental health professionals. No, no, no to meaningless, useless, gun bans.

    I am sick and tired of this tirade about so-called assault weapons by people and politicians who know nothing of the existing statutes or the proposed new ones. There are gun laws, if law enforcement had the ability to enforce all of them maybe some of this wouldn't have happened. Maybe some of this would have happened regardless of any new laws you want politicians to push through without looking at facts.

    Answer a simple question first before you jump all over this; what is an assault weapon? Specifically. Are you informed enough to know what constitutes an assault weapon vs. any other? If not, then I would suggest you read the former "weapons ban" and you quickly learn it was a farce. In fact, murder rates have steadily gone down for over a decade even after the ban was lifted. Murders with so-called assault weapons, statistically, are so rare that banning them has negligible effect on over all murder rates.

    Do people need dozens of guns? No, of course not but we don't need dozens of cars either and how many people die from drunk drivers every year? Do you want the gov't to start telling you how many cars you can own? What you can own? (oh, wait...they are trying to do that anyway). Quit thinking the answer to everything is some federal government intervention. It isn't.

    The answer may actually lie in the opposite of what anti-gun activists are ranting about. We have school nurses, why not campus police at every school; on-site, trained and armed? I actually think communities would gladly pay for the extra protection and peace of mind. At the very least arm teachers, administrators with non-lethal devices and have the ability to lock rooms/windows from off-site.

    Yes, what happened is a sick tragedy. Yes, everyone wants to "feel" like something was done about it. Yes, you would "think" that laws would prevent bad events from happening but the TRUTH is they don't. Do you want to just "feel" better that something was done or do you want a real solution? Politicians act on public sentiment and not facts just to gain favor. They are not as intelligent and omnipotent as we would assume so handing them our keys to our rights out of pure trust is not very wise.

    Wait. Get all the facts. Get some real proposals from the people who do the work and then try it before slapping a new federal law. Has anyone ever asked the local PD what they want?

    I'm not a true gun rights activist. I'm fine with some meaningful scrutiny with commensurate rights and privileges. Is it a little to easy to own a gun? Yes, but guns aren't the problem...people are. Find a better way to ban people and not guns. If criminals obeyed laws then new laws might work...but that doesn't happen. Frankly, I'm more scared of people having the right to vote without the intelligence to know the issues or candidates. Anyway, this is just 1 person's opinion.
    This is not about politics. I am a moderate, I feel not significant strength toward any particular side and am willing to hear both sides until I make my decisions. Stating it is all about politics is avoiding the issue of these events occurring with the use of semi-automatic assault weapons meant to kill.
  7. Visit  InfirmiereJolie profile page
    #71 0
    Quote from kcmylorn
    Our police are over burdened now with trying to stop the drug trafficking. What are they going to do when gun smuggling comes to town. You all know that when we ban all guns, there are still going to be those that want to keep a weapon in their home- they will purchase it illegally. If it's purchased illegally does that mean a kid can't get ahold of it and take it to school? I just don't see how a ban on guns is going to stop anyone from doing these things. There a ban on illegal drugs, does it stop those who want to use- NO.

    Then what about the guys that go deer hunting or duck hunting every season?

    we need to build better people and try to repair the ones we have. The money woud be better spent in the mental health arena.
    Why don't we start teaching people respect and boundaries, spell it out for them- this is what you say and what your don't say because.....!! Our entire culture needs to change- stop the emotional violence and the verbal violence.
    The OP did not say to ban all guns (the ones which cannot injure or kill entire crowd of people and would be excessive in regular recreational use). They said to ban the semi-automatic, dangerous assault weapons used mainly for one purpose: to attack people.

    Further, drug trafficking is a different subject (and I am against the regular use of narcotics which are illegal as it can cause crime and other problems burdensome for the health system...)... which is for a different board...
  8. Visit  PMFB-RN profile page
    #72 2
    Although you are not afraid of these objects capable of being used to kill, others are
    *** For those who are afraid of inanimate objects I would suggest seeking the help of a mental health professional as they may be suffering from automatonophobia.

    ,
    as I already stated. Further, you are speaking of continuously advancing technology of the military. Your argument supporting to "never attempt to create improvement or ban any assault weapons ever, because the military will always have stronger weapons,"
    *** You use quotes on a statement I never used. I think you may have confused me with a different person and their comments. The argument you quote above is nonsensical and illogical and not one I would make.

    i
    s a futile and pointless attempt to halt all progress, creating a climatic affect of conflict. If we following this argument, we would continuously allow stronger weapons onto the streets, no matter the cost of life or its potential danger, simply due to the fact the military will always have stronger weapons. This is not only dangerous, this is never-ending, as your position is inflexible.
    *** The "progress" you refer to is only your opinion. I really have no idea who made the argument you are attributing to me.

    Using the internet and other forms of media are not only irrelevant, they are straw arguments. You are using straw men to deflect the subject of the discussion.
    *** Well I understand compairing the First Amendment to the Second Amendment is very inconvenient to your position but it exactly refutes the silly argument that technology has advanced thus redering the Bill of Rights obsolete.

    Further, "the militia" segment can be interpreted in various ways. However, seeing this segment in context to the time period, the 1700's. There was a rising up against the government to create a new one. They created militias to do this, i.e., what we would consider to be soldiers, i.e., part of the military. "Militia" does, yes, mean military. Centuries later with more governmental protection, branches of power, a supreme court system, more amendments to protect us (e.g., from the states as well), support from other countries by the UN "Universal Human Rights Agreement," there is LITTLE use to arm the public with semi-automatic assault weapons as if part of a modern militia, especially since these weapons will be used, 99.9% of the time, not against the government, but against other PEOPLE doing little to no harm to the person wielding them. Not only this, they are FAR more dangerous today than they were then.
    *** The justification clause does not negate the rights clause. While you are quite incorrect that the US military is the milita it doesn't matter. The rights of citizend in the bill do not go away when the jutification does.

    I think it is interesting that you point to Norway. Norway, however, has other correlating effects causing this narrow event, as there are other countries which have bans, but far less violence, even great success. One does not necessarily cause the other, post hoc. E.g., Norway has weak punishments for crime. The person who perpetuated this event in Norway ONLY received 22 years in prison - Norway's maximum sentence for ANY crime. This by itself would be a significant cause of the problem, as this person and others would not feel they would be punished for their crimes, no matter their negative effects. Since laws differ for punishment by each country with these bans, yet many of these countries have SUCCESS, this likely to be one, if the most, important of the main issues.
    *** Yes I understand that the fact that mass shooting occure in countries with far more restrictive gun laws is very inconvenient to your argument.
    I am curious as to why you have consistantly refused to address any questions you have been asked about what you are advocating for?

    I'm not attacking you personally, I am attacking your argument, which I found to not be thoughtful to others views and fears of semi-automatic weapons capable of shooting entire crowds of people in seconds, minutes (as if minutes are any better)
    *** No you indicate that since my position is different than yours I am selfish and self centered (among other things). I admit that i am not very sympathetic to UNREASONABLE fears of others. I am not willing to go along with a useless ban that would do nothing to make anyone safer simply to make those with unreasonable fear feel better.
  9. Visit  IndianaHH profile page
    #73 6
    A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
    In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million 'dissidents', unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
    In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
    China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
    Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
    You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
    Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
    Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
    The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
    With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.
    During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
    If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends.
    SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
    SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
    SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
    IT'S A NO BRAINER!
    DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.
    Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

    It's time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us.
    You're not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people.


    Okay.. yes that was long winded. However it IS factual. The horrific nightmare was caused by a loner determined to inflict pain and suffering, if not by a armed weapon.. then some other means. And remember...he chose a GUN FREE ZONE, FULLY AWARE he faced NO resistance. It was ONLY when law enforcement showed up did he do us a favor, and took his own life.

    Guns are inanimate objects, incapable of self action. It takes a PERSON to cause harm. Its time to start seeing the forest instead of the trees. Time to reach out to PEOPLE whom are hurting and let them know they are cared for and valued. The human touch is needed... not another gun control law.
  10. Visit  IndiCRNA profile page
    #74 1
    Quote from InfirmiereJolie
    You are chopping up my arguments and not responding to my post in full... nevertheless, I will not chop up yours and I will respond to it with a fluid, complete thought.

    Although you are not afraid of these objects capable of being used to kill, others are, as I already stated. Further, you are speaking of continuously advancing technology of the military. Your argument supporting to "never attempt to create improvement or ban any assault weapons ever, because the military will always have stronger weapons," is a futile and pointless attempt to halt all progress, creating a climatic affect of conflict. If we following this argument, we would continuously allow stronger weapons onto the streets, no matter the cost of life or its potential danger, simply due to the fact the military will always have stronger weapons. This is not only dangerous, this is never-ending, as your position is inflexible.

    Using the internet and other forms of media are not only irrelevant, they are straw arguments. You are using straw men to deflect the subject of the discussion.

    Further, "the militia" segment can be interpreted in various ways. However, seeing this segment in context to the time period, the 1700's. There was a rising up against the government to create a new one. They created militias to do this, i.e., what we would consider to be soldiers, i.e., part of the military. "Militia" does, yes, mean military. Centuries later with more governmental protection, branches of power, a supreme court system, more amendments to protect us (e.g., from the states as well), support from other countries by the UN "Universal Human Rights Agreement," there is LITTLE use to arm the public with semi-automatic assault weapons as if part of a modern militia, especially since these weapons will be used, 99.9% of the time, not against the government, but against other PEOPLE doing little to no harm to the person wielding them. Not only this, they are FAR more dangerous today than they were then.

    I think it is interesting that you point to Norway. Norway, however, has other correlating effects causing this narrow event, as there are other countries which have bans, but far less violence, even great success. One does not necessarily cause the other, post hoc. E.g., Norway has weak punishments for crime. The person who perpetuated this event in Norway ONLY received 22 years in prison - Norway's maximum sentence for ANY crime. This by itself would be a significant cause of the problem, as this person and others would not feel they would be punished for their crimes, no matter their negative effects. Since laws differ for punishment by each country with these bans, yet many of these countries have SUCCESS, this likely to be one, if the most, important of the main issues.

    The so-called "ban" you point to in Connecticut did NOT ban the sale of the semi-automatic assault weapon bought legally and used in the crime. This person also bought the ammunition LEGALLY. This "ban" you speak of is a mild, watered down version and not TRULY the semi-automatic assault weapon ban needed to stop many of these events, nor is it strong enough. Essentially, you are attacking this "ban" and trying to use this as a failed example to support your argument for full use of semi-automatic assault weapons, no matter how dangerous they are, when this event ACTUALLY would portray an event OF NOT ENOUGH regulation, since EVEN WITHOUT the ban (as you are arguing for) this event would have STILL occurred.

    I'm not attacking you personally, I am attacking your argument, which I found to not be thoughtful to others views and fears of semi-automatic weapons capable of shooting entire crowds of people in seconds, minutes (as if minutes are any better).
    Why do you insist of attributing arguments to PMFB that he didn't make? Stop putting words into others mouth and stick to your point. To me it is very revealing that you can only name call and argue aginst points NOT EVEN MADE.
    Why don't you address some of the questions you have been asked?
  11. Visit  HM-8404 profile page
    #75 2
    Quote from InfirmiereJolie
    The First Amendment is NOT about technology which can be used to kill and injure an entire crowd of people. Therefore, it is unrelated to the discussion.

    Wow. Delusional much? Technology such as the internet has been used to control or kill millions of people.

    I knew you feared the government... Further, there is no use in needing to overthrow it with semi-automatic weaponry. This is, yes, illogical and based purely off your OWN fears (many others do NOT fear it, but feel it is PROTECTIONIST).

    You know I fear the government? Please O Swami let us in on your secret since my only mention of the government was to say that the purpose of the Second Amendment was so citizens would not have to fear their government. If you don't believe that I suggest you stop posting on this thread and read the Second Amendment because you are starting to look silly.

    I am not confusing the two. This entire time I have been discussing weapons which are semi-automatic, have numerous rounds, and have to capabilities to injure numerous people in seconds (and excessive... ultimately useless in recreational use).

    Yes your lack of knowledge of weapons is showing. Do you have any idea what the last law banned as assault weapons? Here are three things I can remember off the top of my head, 1) Cannot have a collapsable stock, 2) Cannot have a flash suppressor, 3) Cannot have an attachment point for a bayonet. The law didn't change the function of ANY weapons. It was a useless piece of crap so those that voted for it could pat themselves on the back afterward.
  12. Visit  Sadala profile page
    #76 3
    A lot of people advocating for weapons bans seem to have very little/to absolutely no knowledge about guns. There seems to be a paucity of knowledge about the US Constitution as well. And some of you are missing the point. The Constitution doesn't JUST allow us to have weapons to hunt and to protect ourselves, it allows us to have weapons so that our own government doesn't get too far out of hand.

    The framers understood that sometimes a government can forget who "we the people" are. They were fine gentlemen who had seen it all before. They wrote a document that stands, for generations, without losing its relevance. That is because its intentions are clear.

    And if you don't like that, then take some action to amend the 2nd amendment (and good luck with that).

    That said, the LARGEST loss of life at an American school was in 1927 in Bath, MI. It was committed with a bomb. Three bombs, to be exact, but only one at the school (the others were in his house and in his truck). He managed to detonate all three. There were 44 killed and 58 wounded, including 38 children killed at the school. The perpetrator had been the school treasurer and he was angry about losing the election for town clerk. He killed his wife before he left setting off the bombs. Sound familiar? Evil, mental illness, and dysfunction have not changed over the years. Human motivation is the same. Bath School disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Not all mass shooters are Rhodes scholars. But I would say that both the Newtown and the Aurora shooters, mentally ill as they were, were also very capable of building an effective bomb had firearms been unavailable. The loss of life could have been much greater. In fact, there have been many mass attacks in China (against children lately) where only a knife was used. Crazy and/or evil people will use whatever is available.

    In fact, I think you can credit the Newtown police for stopping the young man in Newtown. Unlike the police at Columbine, they came straight into the school. He killed himself at first SIGHT of someone who was armed. I'm one of those who thinks that perhaps if some school staff had been trained and armed, he might have been stopped even sooner.
    Last edit by Sadala on Dec 23, '12 : Reason: my OCD
  13. Visit  traumaRUs profile page
    #77 3
    This is a very charge thread - lets keep it civil, no name calling, debate the topic, not the poster.

Must Read Topics


close