What do you think could have been done to prevent the Shootings at Sandy Hook?

[YoshiMonsta]

The Connecticut shooting was a tragedy, what do you think could have been changed so that this wouldn't have happened?

 

[Lolcrawler]

#1

 

[Nabber]

Children having more Self-Defense

Yes, they're going to teach kindergartners to take down a madman.

As it is, I think it was the increased security at the school that started the whole thing. The guy must have taken it as a challenge to break into the school.

 

[EctoBiologist]

More insanity tests and give teachers the guns so they can defend their students.

as far I know I think that killing is valid as long it's self defense.

 

[Daniel Dyce]

#1

because no one ever breaks the law am I right

 

[Mario4Ever]

Banning the manufacture and sale of firearms on a global scale.

 

[Zae]

By not having retarded parents that let their kid play a utterly violent game who also has mental problems.


Mario4Ever also has a pretty good point too, however don't think that'd be the ultimate solution, as there are plenty of ways that can be bypassed.

Improving school security is also an option too, but not sure how big of a difference that might make.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Reducing the use of assault weapons. However, I would support the spread of sidearms. You can't kill a bunch of people with just a pistol, but you can defend yourself from a lone killer.

The only downside with an assault weapons regulation is that it cuts down on the people's ability to keep the government in check. Imagine if the rebels in Libya only had sidearms against their tyrannical government. I'm not saying that our government is tyrannical, but the possibility always exists that it could become that way (see nazi germany for details on how democracy elected a dictatorship).

 

[Xluidi]

While the poor gun control is an issue, I think in this case the problem was the stigma society has against mental disesase treatment. I mean, from what it's been shown of the killer, everyone though he was batshit insane, but I guess his parents though it was "weak" or something to have a mental deficient-child, so they never seeked help. Of course, that's just my opinion.

 

[Ray Trace]

I won't vote, because I think both increased gun regulation and funding of mental health care should be addressed

 

[BEEEEEAAARRRS]

However, I would support the spread of sidearms. You can't kill a bunch of people with just a pistol, but you can defend yourself from a lone killer.

I don't think giving everyone a glock would be a good idea

 

[Stooben]

Banning the manufacture and sale of firearms on a global scale.

This, although I can't even imagine the difficulties involved to make this work on a global scale. Just banning them in the country alone would be a decent start, even if smuggling would still be an issue. The number of gun-based murders/crimes would decrease greatly.

I also think this is partly about terrible mental health care options, and lack of resources (or just lack of care) from those who should be providing it. Though I still stand by the opinion that sometimes people just snap, instances like Sandy Hook could have been avoided if the culprit was given proper care for his mental instabilities. (Even if he just had autism, I think that still could have contributed to things depending on his case. Something was missed somewhere.)

You can't kill a bunch of people with just a pistol, but you can

still take down a few pretty easily and quickly? yeah

you can defend yourself from a lone killer.

In what situation? When the gunner has his back towards you? On the off-chance that the person who's threatening to kill hesitates? How quickly do you think it takes someone to grab their sidearm, ready it (i.e. remove the safety which should be turned on if it's not in use, or cock the gun if it's an older/simpler revolver), aim it, and then fire it...in comparison to pulling the trigger to a gun that's already pointed at you or another person?

If it's an attacker that's up-close, you can defend yourself adequately with weapons such as blades and tasers. You can actually attack with those more quickly in a situation like that than you could a gun. All you would need to to is grab them and shove them into your enemy. Against someone with a gun, your chances of survival might still be shaky, but you'd at least have a better opportunity in most cases.

Maybe I'm being rude here, but I just seriously do not understand the concept of "giving citizens more guns will help", especially when it's more than clear already that the citizens can hardly use the ones we have available to us now responsibly.

 

[KPH2293]

Personally, I would like to see school security improved by having police officers stationed on the premises at all times, or something of that nature. Had police been there from the start, they could have stopped the perpetrator before he had harmed anyone. It may have even discouraged him from trying this altogether if he knew that he was immediately going to be met with resistance.

 

[Daniel Dyce]

No offense but i'm pretty sure the first thing i'd do if there was an armed police officer is kill him it wouldn't be very hard

 

[KPH2293]

Possibly, but an armed officer (or several) would have a better chance of stopping a gunman than teachers and students.

 

[Daniel Dyce]

several armed guards at each school seems like overkill

 

[KPH2293]

"Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst."

 

[Anton]

"Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst."

Then I certainly hope you'd be happy having your taxes skyrocket in order to pay for these officers, including their wages, training, supplies, planning at the school, etc. Coming up with all of these plans is nice and all, but no one is really thinking of the feasibility of this stuff. You can't just magically have police officers spawn inside schools, just as equally you can't suddenly have people not use their guns to massacre people; but I guess this is why we have politicians and experts decide these things and not the common folk.

On the other hand, money could instead go towards plans that prevent the problem, rather than react to it. It's nice to be prepared for the worst when it happens, but wouldn't it be nicer to have it happen less or not at all.

In addition:

Personally, I would like to see school security improved by having police officers stationed on the premises at all times, or something of that nature. Had police been there from the start, they could have stopped the perpetrator before he had harmed anyone. It may have even discouraged him from trying this altogether if he knew that he was immediately going to be met with resistance.

I'm pretty sure that someone who's just lost his mind enough to think that killing a school filled with children is a swell idea wouldn't give two shits if there's a bit of resistance wandering around somewhere within the vicinity. The guy was packing a lot of high-powered weapons, too, and could arguably easily overpower a regular officer. The only way something like that could be guaranteed is if we built fences with razor wire around the school with strategic sniper towers, like they do with prisons, and have a platoon of heavily armed and armored guards patrol the grounds and classrooms at all times. That way no one can cop out and say "if only" because the maximum had been done. Turning schools into prisons sounds like a great idea, right??

It could also be said that if the guy had proper medical care for his condition, this wouldn't have happened.

It could also be argued that if his mother didn't have any guns in her house because she had a mentally unstable child living on the premises, he wouldn't have had access to them to be able to shoot people.


There are a thousand things that could've been done to prevent this, but that's hindsight and speculation. This entire issue cannot be solved by using just the Sandy Hook shooting as an example, nor can this issue be resolved by choosing Option A or Option B of anything. Guns won't be banned completely. Schools won't be filled with guns. Neither work. Both are unrealistic and quite frankly poorly thought out. What will need to happen is what our government was built to do--compromise--something that has been increasingly rare in this country at a frightening rate. What will likely occur is a mix of each idea on the table,and I certainly hope that we look at the example set by other countries to see what works for them and to get new ideas; and even with that tragedies like this will still occur. All we can hope for is that whatever solution we come up with helps prevent these situations from becoming such a common part of our lives as they have been getting now.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

No offense but i'm pretty sure the first thing i'd do if there was an armed police officer is kill him it wouldn't be very hard

yeah, we've only got one on our campus, which is home to two schools

any attacker could easily take out the one guard

you can defend yourself from a lone killer.

In what situation? When the gunner has his back towards you? On the off-chance that the person who's threatening to kill hesitates? How quickly do you think it takes someone to grab their sidearm, ready it (i.e. remove the safety which should be turned on if it's not in use, or cock the gun if it's an older/simpler revolver), aim it, and then fire it...in comparison to pulling the trigger to a gun that's already pointed at you or another person?

You're assuming he's holding you at gunpoint, which doesn't have to be the case - if you hear gunshots but can't see the gunman, you'll have plenty of time to ready yourself.

If it's an attacker that's up-close, you can defend yourself adequately with weapons such as blades and tasers. You can actually attack with those more quickly in a situation like that than you could a gun. All you would need to to is grab them and shove them into your enemy. Against someone with a gun, your chances of survival might still be shaky, but you'd at least have a better opportunity in most cases.

the age of guns is over

the time of the sword has come

 

[Pyro]

By not having retarded parents that let their kid play a utterly violent game who also has mental problems.

This, and improving school security.

 

[KPH2293]

Then I certainly hope you'd be happy having your taxes skyrocket in order to pay for these officers, including their wages, training, supplies, planning at the school, etc. Coming up with all of these plans is nice and all, but no one is really thinking of the feasibility of this stuff. You can't just magically have police officers spawn inside schools, just as equally you can't suddenly have people not use their guns to massacre people; but I guess this is why we have politicians and experts decide these things and not the common folk.

I'm well aware that it would take federal funding. In my opinion, though, school security is actually worth it, unlike many of the other things that the government currently spends tax-payers money on (such as our welfare system that's too easily exploited). Personally, I would rather take the money that's currently funding those types of things and spend it on something that's very important (like school security). I hate taxes, and they're too high as it is. The government needs to stop raising taxes and start spending responsibly.

On the other hand, money could instead go towards plans that prevent the problem, rather than react to it. It's nice to be prepared for the worst when it happens, but wouldn't it be nicer to have it happen less or not at all.

What would you suggest?

I'm pretty sure that someone who's just lost his mind enough to think that killing a school filled with children is a swell idea wouldn't give two shits if there's a bit of resistance wandering around somewhere within the vicinity. The guy was packing a lot of high-powered weapons, too, and could arguably easily overpower a regular officer.

Perhaps, but as I said before, I think an armed officer (or several) would have had a much better chance of stopping the gunman than teachers and students.

Also, the perpetrator killed himself as soon as the police arrived. Nobody knows what was going through his head, but I've heard many people interpret that as him not wanting to fight against armed resistance. That, and criminals (from what I see) almost always seem to pick spots that are "gun free zones" for killing sprees like this.

The only way something like that could be guaranteed is if we built fences with razor wire around the school with strategic sniper towers, like they do with prisons, and have a platoon of heavily armed and armored guards patrol the grounds and classrooms at all times. That way no one can cop out and say "if only" because the maximum had been done. Turning schools into prisons sounds like a great idea, right??

I never suggested that. I understand the point you're trying to make, but you're criticizing an argument that I never made.

It could also be said that if the guy had proper medical care for his condition, this wouldn't have happened.

True.

It could also be argued that if his mother didn't have any guns in her house because she had a mentally unstable child living on the premises, he wouldn't have had access to them to be able to shoot people.

Possibly, but there are many illegal ways to obtain firearms. It could also be argued that he could have acquired the guns some other way. Like you said, it's all speculation.

There are a thousand things that could've been done to prevent this, but that's hindsight and speculation.

That's basically what this thread is about. We're all speculating about what could be done to prevent tragedies like this. There is no clear cut solution, but there are things that can be done to help. In my opinion, having police officers stationed on school grounds is better than any of the other ideas I've heard.

What will need to happen is what our government was built to do--compromise--something that has been increasingly rare in this country at a frightening rate.

Indeed, unfortunately.

 

[Pokemon DP]

guys why won't you properly respond to all the comments about how gun control has worked beautifully in countries like Australia, United Kingdom, and Japan? You seem to be ignoring the proof that tighter gun control - a preventative measure, not a response measure - is a solid idea, even if it'd need to be a gradual process for it to work in America.

I don't see why you people are so in love with the idea of fighting the problem directly with more guns, when you could reduce the chances of the problem ever arising in the first place by reducing the availability of guns. Why would you want there to be tight school security when that shouldn't be necessary in the first place? Or is this just bullshit American exceptionalism again?

 

[Stooben]

I agree with Dippy. Seems like everyone who is in support of keeping guns (or adding more guns...!) is ignoring the perfectly valid argument that first-world countries with tight gun control laws have done wonders for the safety of their societies, at least when it comes to gun-based crimes.

You're assuming he's holding you at gunpoint, which doesn't have to be the case - if you hear gunshots but can't see the gunman, you'll have plenty of time to ready yourself.

No, I asked one scenario where that wasn't the case, which seems to be the very one you brought up.

So, you can't see the shooter and he can't see you. You know he's nearby, but you still have enough time to:

A) Ready your weapon entirely. Then you can approach the location where the gunshots are being fired from and hopefully get a clear shot.

B) Call the cops and tell them there is a public shooting going on. They're going to react quickly to something of this nature and are going to come more-than-prepared to take down the shooter.

C) Hightail it out of there.

Option A is nice in theory, but what if this guy has more than just one gun on him? What if there are innocent people in the path to him, or behind him (i.e. near spread-out crowds, if it's a shopping center or something)? What if when you go to make your shot, he sees you? (He's probably going to fire at you, which is going to be even worse if there are other people near you.)

You seem to be awful sure that one trained security guard could be taken down with ease; how is one untrained civilian supposed to be so much more effective?

Option B, unfortunately, it is going to take time for the police (and FBI, since they typically show up for these kinds of instances) to arrive, but they're going to come prepared to take this guy down -- at least more prepared than a single citizen with a pistol. They're also going to arrive with medical help to provide to anyone in the vicinity (that they can reach without the gunman retaliating) who has been injured, possibly saving their lives.

Option C may be cowardly, but isn't a reckless option. Especially if, say, you're the only care-provider for your family. Or if you're the parent/guardian of a minor, period. I know I'd rather have my mom or dad than the memory of them dying in the process of trying to be a hero and failing. Option B can also be used in conjunction with this scenario, making you still useful to those who are trapped by the gunman.

the age of guns is over

the time of the sword has come

way to miss the point

You know I meant knives, which are still plenty lethal and effective.

actually, your inability to argue my point and instead be a sarcastic blockhead about it makes me wonder if i should even be acknowledging your posts at all

 

[Dr. Javelin]

the age of guns is over

the time of the sword has come

way to miss the point

You know I meant knives, which are still plenty lethal and effective.

actually, your inability to argue my point and instead be a sarcastic blockhead about it makes me wonder if i should even be acknowledging your posts at all

whoa there

Just because I was taking your post in a humorous way doesn't mean I'm being antagonistic. Or at least not intentionally. Am I?

And personally, I'd rather do something than simply run away. Living with the guilt that I might have done something for the rest of my life would be horrible. You might be different, and that's fine - I'm just saying that I'm willing to risk or sacrifice my life for that of others - which in your scenario would be those who are still pinned down my the shooter.

And about how he took down the trained security guard and how I wouldn't be able to take him out? It's all about something called element of surprise. Training isn't worth anything if you aren't expecting anything to happen, and a guard can't remain on high alert for all eternity. Neither can the gunman.

 

[Pokemon DP]

whoa there

Just because I was taking your post in a humorous way doesn't mean I'm being antagonistic. Or at least not intentionally. Am I?

And personally, I'd rather do something than simply run away. Living with the guilt that I might have done something for the rest of my life would be horrible. You might be different, and that's fine - I'm just saying that I'm willing to risk or sacrifice my life for that of others - which in your scenario would be those who are still pinned down my the shooter.

And about how he took down the trained security guard and how I wouldn't be able to take him out? It's all about something called element of surprise. Training isn't worth anything if you aren't expecting anything to happen, and a guard can't remain on high alert for all eternity. Neither can the gunman.

JAVELIN

FOR FUCK'S SAKE

guys why won't you properly respond to all the comments about how gun control has worked beautifully in countries like Australia, United Kingdom, and Japan? You seem to be ignoring the proof that tighter gun control - a preventative measure, not a response measure - is a solid idea, even if it'd need to be a gradual process for it to work in America.

I don't see why you people are so in love with the idea of fighting the problem directly with more guns, when you could reduce the chances of the problem ever arising in the first place by reducing the availability of guns. Why would you want there to be tight school security when that shouldn't be necessary in the first place? Or is this just bullshit American exceptionalism again?

RESPOND TO THIS