If you're still angry about Newtown, please read

[vanillacourage]

The article in this CE&P post has me in tears at my desk - but I'm sharing it because I worry that as time goes by, what happened to those little kids will lose impact or ability to effect real change.  We need people to stay riled up, and hopefully that includes MMers.

Article: Why Newtown Victim Noah Pozner Had An Open Casket
www.pandce.proboards.com/thread/130790/newtown-victim-noah-pozner-coffin

[mbcdefg]

I read that on CE&P yesterday. That poor little boy ... it's awful enough for anyone (much less a child) to be shot to death, but to be mutilated like that is just horrific.

I can't help but wonder if it'd make any difference in public opinion on gun control if a photo was printed online or on the TV news.

[CallingAllAngels]

Between this and the kid who is being held hostage in AL, I have the overwhelming urge to become a hermit with my kids.

[justjen]

I knew I shouldn't have read that... That will haunt me for a long time

[raangoli]

My heart goes out to Noah's mother, and the parents of all the other victims. The decision for an open casket was the right one and I hope that the dialogue continues.

While I understand that there are responsible gun owners, the risk the irresponsible individuals present is far too heavy. Something needs to change.

[raangoli]

Feb 1, 2013 10:08:44 GMT -5 swank said:

I hate that I am choosing ignorance but between this article and the one in the NYT about the first responders, I am going to have to avoid some of these articles for a while. It just unnerves me.

I had to do this after the news first broke in December, I couldn't watch the news without crying.

[aspentosh]

Tears. Lots of tears.

[gt7301b]

I can't even imagine what it must be like for these parents, but more than anything I am impressed by the strength of the ones who are able to stand up and speak out. I don't think I posses that inner courage.

It makes me furious when pro-gun folks essentially take the stand that there isn't anything in the current laws we should change. Why the fuck do you need semi-automatic weapons for hunting and what is wrong with limiting the number of bullets in a magazine?

[Deleted]

I'm glad I'm alone at work right now. So sad.

[Deleted]

All the more reason I want to punch all of the conspiracy theorists claming this tragedy was fake.

[ECB]

Feb 1, 2013 11:28:37 GMT -5 gt7301b said:

It makes me furious when pro-gun folks essentially take the stand that there isn't anything in the current laws we should change. Why the fuck do you need semi-automatic weapons for hunting and what is wrong with limiting the number of bullets in a magazine?

This is what I don't get either.  I don't think we should ban guns, but I do think there needs to be tighter restrictions.  The people against ANY kind of regulations just seem to yell "it's our right!!!!".  well- I have a right to LIFE, as did all these young children.  Why on earth is owning a gun- and specifically semi-automatic weapons - more important than these INNOCENT victims lives? 

[Deleted]

Feb 1, 2013 11:57:00 GMT -5 ECB said:

Feb 1, 2013 11:28:37 GMT -5 gt7301b said:

It makes me furious when pro-gun folks essentially take the stand that there isn't anything in the current laws we should change. Why the fuck do you need semi-automatic weapons for hunting and what is wrong with limiting the number of bullets in a magazine?

This is what I don't get either.  I don't think we should ban guns, but I do think there needs to be tighter restrictions.  The people against ANY kind of regulations just seem to yell "it's our right!!!!".  well- I have a right to LIFE, as did all these young children.  Why on earth is owning a gun- and specifically semi-automatic weapons - more important than these INNOCENT victims lives? 

There is a lot of misinformation surrounding the issue also.  My hometown is in a red area, and from reading the things on Facebook from those people you would think the government wants to ban all guns entirely. It's kind of crazy.  They are outraged.

[ECB]

Feb 1, 2013 12:01:47 GMT -5 papiercherri said:

Feb 1, 2013 11:57:00 GMT -5 ECB said:

This is what I don't get either.  I don't think we should ban guns, but I do think there needs to be tighter restrictions.  The people against ANY kind of regulations just seem to yell "it's our right!!!!".  well- I have a right to LIFE, as did all these young children.  Why on earth is owning a gun- and specifically semi-automatic weapons - more important than these INNOCENT victims lives? 

There is a lot of misinformation surrounding the issue also.  My hometown is in a red area, and from reading the things on Facebook from those people you would think the government wants to ban all guns entirely. It's kind of crazy.  They are outraged.

Exactly.  I mean, sure, there are people who probably want to outright ban all guns.  But that's not the answer AND realistically - it's not going to ever happen, or if it did, it's not going to work.  Guns would just go underground.

I really believe that most people who want change simply want stricter regulations/laws on the books.  But it's met with "It's our 2nd amendment right!!!!!!!!" and not w/ a real attempt at discussion.

[ladygrey]

Ugh, this is so heartbreaking.

[biscoffcookies]

Feb 1, 2013 11:57:00 GMT -5 ECB said:

Feb 1, 2013 11:28:37 GMT -5 gt7301b said:

It makes me furious when pro-gun folks essentially take the stand that there isn't anything in the current laws we should change. Why the fuck do you need semi-automatic weapons for hunting and what is wrong with limiting the number of bullets in a magazine?

This is what I don't get either.  I don't think we should ban guns, but I do think there needs to be tighter restrictions.  The people against ANY kind of regulations just seem to yell "it's our right!!!!".  well- I have a right to LIFE, as did all these young children.  Why on earth is owning a gun- and specifically semi-automatic weapons - more important than these INNOCENT victims lives? 

I can't agree more.  I literally cannot listen to the head of the NRA anymore without my vision turning red -- listening to him stubbornly refuse any sort of control (even universal background checks now) in light of what is happening makes my head explode.

That article broke my heart and made me sick to my stomach.  That poor, poor baby.  And his mother -- she is so strong and brave.

[Deleted]

Feb 1, 2013 10:06:39 GMT -5 CallingAllAngels said:

Between this and the kid who is being held hostage in AL, I have the overwhelming urge to become a hermit with my kids.

I had my kid sleep in our bed last night just to hear him breathe. My anxiety is really starting to get the best of me.

[CloudBee]

Our cousins were at this funeral as the kids were on a sports team together. Heartbreaking. It's so close to home that it's still really raw.

[susieq]

I think it was senseless that any children had to die. The laws in our country make it very easy to know where to go if you want to create mass hysteria. The media automatically gives you a name in the history books when you do. I believe most of these people would be suicides that go largely unnoticed except for what the media gives them so they decide to go out big.
This boy protected himself and sister with an Assault Rifle. Why is his life any less precious than the children at Sandy Hook? It does not matter if a weapon is needed in optimum circumstances. If it can be used to save a life, any life, is it not worth while.
Does something need to be done, yes! But taking away weapons from law abiding citizens when the criminals still have them is ignorant.

With just one exception, every public mass shooting in the USA since 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns.

In 1982, Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to just 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.

Today, the violent crime rate in Kennesaw is still 85% lower than Georgia's or the national average.

So if we know statistically what works why are we fighting against it?!?!

[jigsy]

I really want to include this story in a message we are sending out to our network regarding gun violence, but my boss thinks it is too graphic/disturbing for our members. I get that, but it's going to take a lot of public force to get anything done and if that means making someone uncomfortable by showing the reality of the violence, I think it is a good thing.

But I am just a peon so...

[mbcdefg]

Feb 1, 2013 12:54:08 GMT -5 susieq said:

I think it was senseless that any children had to die. The laws in our country make it very easy to know where to go if you want to create mass hysteria. The media automatically gives you a name in the history books when you do. I believe most of these people would be suicides that go largely unnoticed except for what the media gives them so they decide to go out big.
This boy protected himself and sister with an Assault Rifle. Why is his life any less precious than the children at Sandy Hook? It does not matter if a weapon is needed in optimum circumstances. If it can be used to save a life, any life, is it not worth while.
Does something need to be done, yes! But taking away weapons from law abiding citizens when the criminals still have them is ignorant.

With just one exception, every public mass shooting in the USA since 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns.

In 1982, Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to just 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.

Today, the violent crime rate in Kennesaw is still 85% lower than Georgia's or the national average.

So if we know statistically what works why are we fighting against it?!?!

Yeah! More guns! That'll solve the problem of too many gun deaths!

[Deleted]

Feb 1, 2013 12:01:47 GMT -5 papiercherri said:

Feb 1, 2013 11:57:00 GMT -5 ECB said:

This is what I don't get either.  I don't think we should ban guns, but I do think there needs to be tighter restrictions.  The people against ANY kind of regulations just seem to yell "it's our right!!!!".  well- I have a right to LIFE, as did all these young children.  Why on earth is owning a gun- and specifically semi-automatic weapons - more important than these INNOCENT victims lives? 

There is a lot of misinformation surrounding the issue also.  My hometown is in a red area, and from reading the things on Facebook from those people you would think the government wants to ban all guns entirely. It's kind of crazy.  They are outraged.

I have a few of these on my facebook page too. It makes me so frustrated that people are basing opinions on drama and lies instead of reality. I have felt this way about many elections, though. 

[aspentosh]

Susieq, why the hell would I want the gov't telling me I HAVE to have a firearm in my house. I thought it was the right to bear arms, not the requirement to bear arms.

[crazygame]

This article really resonated with me. My aunt was shot in the head when I was 10 years old. She had an open casket for the immediate family and that visual of her will always be with me. Although it may have been a good idea for closure purposes, I regret that I saw that at such a young age. My view on guns was cemented that day. I won't have one in my home and agree with strict gun control laws.

I have written and deleted so many sentences. I am not up for a debate, so I will just leave it at that.

[jigsy]

Feb 1, 2013 12:54:08 GMT -5 susieq said:

I think it was senseless that any children had to die. The laws in our country make it very easy to know where to go if you want to create mass hysteria. The media automatically gives you a name in the history books when you do. I believe most of these people would be suicides that go largely unnoticed except for what the media gives them so they decide to go out big.
This boy protected himself and sister with an Assault Rifle. Why is his life any less precious than the children at Sandy Hook? It does not matter if a weapon is needed in optimum circumstances. If it can be used to save a life, any life, is it not worth while.
Does something need to be done, yes! But taking away weapons from law abiding citizens when the criminals still have them is ignorant.

With just one exception, every public mass shooting in the USA since 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns.

In 1982, Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to just 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.

Today, the violent crime rate in Kennesaw is still 85% lower than Georgia's or the national average.

So if we know statistically what works why are we fighting against it?!?!

Statistically, when the amount of fire-arms increases in a county, so does the rate of fire-arm deaths...so no, that is not what statistically works.
www.salon.com/2012/12/18/the_answer_is_not_more_guns/ 

[aspentosh]

Also, correlation does not imply causation. Just because burglary rates dropped doesn't mean it was due to gun laws. Sorry.

[susieq]

Feb 1, 2013 13:06:25 GMT -5 jigsy said:

Feb 1, 2013 12:54:08 GMT -5 susieq said:

I think it was senseless that any children had to die. The laws in our country make it very easy to know where to go if you want to create mass hysteria. The media automatically gives you a name in the history books when you do. I believe most of these people would be suicides that go largely unnoticed except for what the media gives them so they decide to go out big.
This boy protected himself and sister with an Assault Rifle. Why is his life any less precious than the children at Sandy Hook? It does not matter if a weapon is needed in optimum circumstances. If it can be used to save a life, any life, is it not worth while.
Does something need to be done, yes! But taking away weapons from law abiding citizens when the criminals still have them is ignorant.

With just one exception, every public mass shooting in the USA since 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns.

In 1982, Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to just 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.

Today, the violent crime rate in Kennesaw is still 85% lower than Georgia's or the national average.

So if we know statistically what works why are we fighting against it?!?!

Statistically, when the amount of fire-arms increases in a county, so does the rate of fire-arm deaths...so no, that is not what statistically works.
www.salon.com/2012/12/18/the_answer_is_not_more_guns/ 

And I can bounce back with studies and statistics that say the opposite...
www.infowars.com/statistics-prove-more-guns-less-crime/
www.slideshare.net/kynize/statistics-prove-more-guns-less-crime

And I DO NOT want the government telling me that I have to have a gun.  But mass shootings are happening where guns are not allowed.  Where law abiding citizens obey the law and dont carry and the criminals ignore the law.

If you wanted to commit a crime where would you do it?  Where there is the possibility of people having firearms or where you KNOW they will not?  

[mbcdefg]

Feb 1, 2013 13:14:11 GMT -5 susieq said:

Feb 1, 2013 13:06:25 GMT -5 jigsy said:

Statistically, when the amount of fire-arms increases in a county, so does the rate of fire-arm deaths...so no, that is not what statistically works.
www.salon.com/2012/12/18/the_answer_is_not_more_guns/ 

And I can bounce back with studies and statistics that say the opposite...
www.infowars.com/statistics-prove-more-guns-less-crime/
www.slideshare.net/kynize/statistics-prove-more-guns-less-crime

And I DO NOT want the government telling me that I have to have a gun.  But mass shootings are happening where guns are not allowed.  Where law abiding citizens obey the law and dont carry and the criminals ignore the law.

If you wanted to commit a crime where would you do it?  Where there is the possibility of people having firearms or where you KNOW they will not?  

Wasn't there an armed guard at Columbine High School?

Plus, someone who's willing to burst into a school and shoot 20 first graders likely isn't in the frame of mind to care whether or not there's someone there with a gun to stop him. Especially since he planned to kill himself at the end anyway. He shot his way into the school, he didn't ask to be let in.

[jigsy]

Feb 1, 2013 13:18:22 GMT -5 mbcdefg said:

Feb 1, 2013 13:14:11 GMT -5 susieq said:

And I can bounce back with studies and statistics that say the opposite...
www.infowars.com/statistics-prove-more-guns-less-crime/
www.slideshare.net/kynize/statistics-prove-more-guns-less-crime

And I DO NOT want the government telling me that I have to have a gun.  But mass shootings are happening where guns are not allowed.  Where law abiding citizens obey the law and dont carry and the criminals ignore the law.

If you wanted to commit a crime where would you do it?  Where there is the possibility of people having firearms or where you KNOW they will not?  

Wasn't there an armed guard at Columbine High School?

Plus, someone who's willing to burst into a school and shoot 20 first graders likely isn't in the frame of mind to care whether or not there's someone there with a gun to stop him. Especially since he planned to kill himself at the end anyway. He shot his way into the school, he didn't ask to be let in.

So because America has been fortunate enough to see a decrease in violence (not taking into consideration the increase in imprisonment, many gang-wars ending, and other factors that are believed to be the reason for a drop in violence) we should just stop and say - eh, good enough. The fact is that there are still astronomical amounts of gun related deaths in America. And, mbc notes, there was an armed guard at Columbine who was not able to shoot the suspects. 

[mbcdefg]

MH's high school has an armed guard. But the school is so big that, unless a school shooting were to happen right in front of him, there's no way the armed guard could get there in time to help.

Plus, most schools nowadays barely have enough money to buy books or funds the arts. Where are they going to get the money to hire armed guards?

I'm already hyper-aware of my surroundings when I go to a public place nowadays, out of fear that one lone nut is carrying a gun. I wouldn't feel any safer if I thought that EVERYONE around me was carrying a gun. Who's to say that a law-abiding citizen carrying a perfectly legal gun isn't going to snap one day? Or get into an argument that gets a little out of hand? Or have his gun somehow wrestled away from him?

I don't see how throwing more guns at the problem is possibly going to help.