Posted by beyond frustrated, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Dec 17, 2012 at 2:04 pm
In response the the Sandy Hook shooting, our middle school sent a reminder email us to check in at the office before coming on campus and "wear a large badge". This may be useful for detouring overzealous cupcake baking mommies or scantron salespeople but it isn't going to do squat against an armed pyschopath. The reminder was frankly insulting in the wake of such unthinkable horror.
I'm not suggesting that anyone has any solutions today -- perhaps there will never be any -- but so far the responses from the schools has been pathetic. I would like to think that there will at least be a deep re-evalaution of the status quo.
How about, "We will be holding community gatherings in the near future to come up with more comprehensive approaches to these situations. All input is encouraged. Please stay tuned, and in the interim all families will be mailed a hard copy of our present relevant policies and procedures."
Posted by RW, a resident of another community, on Dec 17, 2012 at 3:48 pm
"Roll over and go back to sleep until the next group of kids are slaughtered."
This incident was horrible and sad and very very rare. The poster above seems to believe it's very likely to happen again,and soon. It's not. Scare tactics are pretty potent, so be careful how you use them.
Posted by Dwayne, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on Dec 17, 2012 at 4:38 pm
RW says "This incident was horrible and sad and very very rare." Thankfully, RW was wise enough not to use her real name. Let's just stay with the high carnage shootings in the last few months. Since they are VERY VERY RARE.
* December: Adam Lanza, 20, shot his mother dead at their home then drove to Sandy Hook Elementary school. He forced his way inside and opened fire, killing 20 children and six adults before committing suicide. Total injured and killed: at least 28
* Also in December, the mall shooting in Oregon.
* Sep. 27 Accent Signage Systems shooting: Andrew Engeldinger, 36, upon learning he was being fired, went on a shooting rampage, killing the business owner, three fellow employees, and a UPS driver. He then killed himself. Total injured and killed: 8
* Aug. 5 Sikh temple shooting: Oak Creek, Wisconsin by a neo nazi: U.S. Army veteran Wade Michael Page, 40, opened fire in a Sikh gurdwara before he died from a self-inflicted gunshot would during a shootout with police. Total injured and killed: 10
* July 20 Aurora theater shooting: Aurora, Colorado, James Holmes, 24, opened fire in a movie theater during the opening night of "The Dark Knight Rises" and was later arrested outside. Total injured and killed: 70
RW says this is all a scare tactic. Really?
Hundreds of families ruined forever.
30 gun deaths a day.
Maybe RW meant to say that 20 children sustaining multiple entry wounds from an military grade rifle is "very very rare."
Posted by RW, a resident of another community, on Dec 17, 2012 at 10:27 pm
"Thankfully, RW was wise enough not to use her real name. Let's just stay with the high carnage shootings in the last few months. Since they are VERY VERY RARE."
That's only a slightly threatening comment so thanks for that.
And I'll stick with statistics that tell me that school shootings are very very rare. Google tells me that 100 people have been killed in school shootings in the last 20 years.
That doesn't mean that it's not tragic for the families involved. But, it's certainly not common. I'm just as safe going to school (I work at a school) today as I was on Thursday, before the tragedy in Sandy Hook.
Posted by Robert Cronin, a resident of the Menlo Park: The Willows neighborhood, on Dec 18, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Let us agree that mass shootings of school kids don't happen every day. Here's what does happen every day in this country: Twenty-nine people die from gun shots. EVERY DAY! Feel free to compare these numbers with those of other countries with stricter gun laws.
Posted by Diane, a resident of the Menlo Park: Menlo Oaks neighborhood, on Dec 18, 2012 at 9:46 pm
There is an old saying that gun-control advocates should consider and address: Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns. Of course, government officials could continue to carry guns as they would be exempt from the law, but how many government agents would we need to protect every school and office and home from assailants? Regulate guns, sure. Outlaw them all, no way. Indeed, the Second Amendment - in the beginning - concerned the importance of persons being armed against abusive government officials. The truth is that not all government officials are "good guys" to borrow a phrase from Sandy Hook.
Posted by Camino, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on Dec 19, 2012 at 11:26 am
[Editor's note: Portions removed. The comment referred to doesn't suggest she is freaking out about a communist takeover.]
"...Adam Gadahn, an American-born spokesman for al Qaeda, released a video informing followers that, "America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms" and urging them to exploit what is commonly known as the gun show loophole.
"You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check and, most likely, without having to show an identification card," Gadahn added. "So what are you waiting for?”
"A terror suspect can't take a regular sized tube of Crest into the airport, much less board a plane, but they can buy an AK-47 with no questions asked," said Mark Glaze, Director of the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns. "I'm pretty sure if the NRA membership knew its leadership was fighting to protect that special privilege for terrorists, they'd object."
(note: you can't get a full auto, but you can get semi-auto's and conversion kits at the gun shows without a background check)
Diane brings out the biggest straw man of all: outlawing ALL guns!
Time to ban all assault weapons, all high capacity clips/magazines; all gun purchases require a background check. Register all guns.
The 2nd amendment, written in a time of muskets and slave ownership: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Dec 19, 2012 at 3:19 pm
a couple factual errors:
"note: you can't get a full auto, but you can get semi-auto's and conversion kits at the gun shows without a background check"
Possession of the conversion kit, at least in this state, is the same as possessing a fully auto firearm. They don't sell them at gun shows here for that reason. Possesion of either carries a hefty jail sentence.
"The 2nd amendment, written in a time of muskets and slave ownership: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.""
The Supreme Court has already ruled that the second amendment doesn't mean gun ownership is restricted to members of a militia. We all have a right to own firearms. The fonuding fathers included this particular amendment because they feared government power. So they felt the citizens should be as well armed as the military. The military then carried muskets. The military now carries fully automatic assault rifles. We are allowed to own something that's close to what the military carries.
Posted by willy, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Dec 21, 2012 at 10:28 am willy is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online
Menlo Voter said: "So they felt the citizens should be as well armed as the military. The military then carried muskets. The military now carries fully automatic assault rifles. We are allowed to own something that's close to what the military carries."
While I may disagree with the last part of that, the current Supreme Court *definitely* disagrees with that statement ("We are allowed to own something that's close...") No, sir. Not true. I can't have something close, whether a tank, RPG or a nuke. And I shouldn't have assault weaponry.
SCOTUS (Scalia's majority opinion, Heller): "We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”"
So there ya go, if we'll ignore SCOTUS and go with Menlo Voter's interpretation, that means if I'm to have a militia with equal access to weapons, I'll start with sufficient defensive weaponry to repel bombers and tanks: TOW missiles, surface-to-air missiles and machine guns, to start. Then go shopping at Littlefield's for some old hardware...
Yippee. What could possibly go wrong with sufficient self defense armaments? As Country Joe said: "Open up the pearly gates, Well there ain't no time to wonder why... Whoopee! we're all gonna die." Web Link
Or we can once again constitutionally outlaw assault weaponry.
Not a difficult choice. Outlaw high cap mags/clips, assault rifles. Mandate waiting periods and background checks for all purchases.
- Charlotte Bacon, 2/22/06, female
- Daniel Barden, 9/25/05, male
- Olivia Engel, 7/18/06, female
- Josephine Gay, 12/11/05, female
- Ana M. Marquez-Greene, 04/04/06, female
- Dylan Hockley, 3/8/06, male
- Madeleine F. Hsu, 7/10/06, female
- Catherine V. Hubbard, 6/08/06, female
- Chase Kowalski, 10/31/05, male
- Jesse Lewis, 6/30/06, male
- James Mattioli , 3/22/06, male
- Grace McDonnell, 12/04/05, female
- Emilie Parker, 5/12/06, female
- Jack Pinto, 5/06/06, male
- Noah Pozner, 11/20/06, male
- Caroline Previdi, 9/07/06, female
- Jessica Rekos, 5/10/06, female
- Avielle Richman, 10/17/06, female
- Benjamin Wheeler, 9/12/06, male
- Allison N. Wyatt, 7/03/06, female
Doesn't 2005 seem like just yesterday? For the above victims, that was the entirety of their full life. For their families, the pain will last through their lifetime.
- Victoria Soto, 11/04/85, female
- Lauren Rousseau, 6/1982, female
- Mary Sherlach, 2/11/56, female
- Anne Marie Murphy, 07/25/60, female
- Dawn Hochsprung, 06/28/65, female
- Rachel Davino, 7/17/83, female
There were two others that died that day, of course.
Since the Sandy Hook tragedy, 80 more Americans have died by gunshot.
Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Dec 21, 2012 at 6:30 pm Menlo Voter is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online
it's obviously a valid response since you choose to ignore it. Far more people are killed in car crashes every year, yet I don't hear you singing the clarion call for banning automobiles.
Automobile deaths are a fact of life. They're terrible, but we seem to accept them as a given. Murders are an unfortunate fact of life as well. Just as terrible and they occur with less frequency than auto deaths yet we get all twisted up about something that happens with less frequency than automobile caused deaths. Both are preventable.
Banning guns is not the answer. That horse long ago left the barn. Unless you're suggesting seizing weapons from private citizens that are legal owners of weapons, you're never going to eliminate them. You can create all the laws you want against firearms. Do you think criminals or crazy people give a damn?
In the Sandyhook case the mother was totally culpable for not properly securing her firearms. We as a society are culpable for not putting the mentally insane in institutions as we once did. No, we let them out into society with a bottle of pills which they won't take and then they become psychotic. Many become violent. Big surprise.
You want to solve this problem? Here's what you need to do. ONe, let your local DA know that there is ZERO tolerance in our area for bargaining away gun charges. Don't believe it? Do a little research. You'll find your local DA kissing off gun enhancements and gun charges to get the easy conviction and help their conviction stats.
Two, demand that we start institutionalizing psychotic people. They are not "curable." Curing psychotic people involves giving them drugs. They won't take those drugs unless they are required to do so. They are dangers to society and need to be removed from society. There is no permanent fix for their problem and thus no permenent prevention for the danger they represent to society.
Three, make it a felony for an owner of a gun to not properly secure it. Make it have a penalty so severe that people will pay attention. Ten year minimum sentence ought to get everyone's attention.
Those are the things that might actually prevent future Sandyhooks. Simply banning guns of any kind aren't going to get it done.