Connecticut school shooting

[Atlanta Dan]

Originally Posted by Wallace108

I've heard that reported several times, but there's never been a source given. The media has reported so many wrong details in this tragedy that I won't believe anything until it's confirmed by a reliable source. In this case, it would be nice to hear from the babysitter.

That was the source upon which I was relying -

A man who says he once babysat for Newtown, Conn., gunman Adam Lanza says he recalls Lanza's mother warning him never to turn his back on the boy - not even to go to the bathroom.

Ryan Kraft now lives in Hermosa Beach, in Southern California.

But, he tells CBS station KCBS in Los Angeles, he was once a student at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and babysat for Lanza when Lanza was about 9 or 10 and Kraft was 14 or 15.

Police say Lanza, 20, went on a rampage in the school Friday, killing 20 six- and seven-year-olds and six adults before taking his own life. Lanza also shot his mother, Nancy Lanza, to death in the nearby home they shared before heading to the school, authorities say.

Kraft tells KCBS when he first heard about the shooting and that Lanza was involved, "I just couldn't think for a little while. I was shaking."

He says he recalls Nancy Lanza cautioning him never to turn his back on Adam -- "to keep an eye on him at all times ... to never turn my back, or even to go to the bathroom or anything like that."

http://www.ktvq.com/news/ex-babysitt...urn-your-back/

Originally Posted by Atlanta Dan

That was the source upon which I was relying -

A man who says he once babysat for Newtown, Conn., gunman Adam Lanza says he recalls Lanza's mother warning him never to turn his back on the boy - not even to go to the bathroom.

Ryan Kraft now lives in Hermosa Beach, in Southern California.

But, he tells CBS station KCBS in Los Angeles, he was once a student at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and babysat for Lanza when Lanza was about 9 or 10 and Kraft was 14 or 15.

Police say Lanza, 20, went on a rampage in the school Friday, killing 20 six- and seven-year-olds and six adults before taking his own life. Lanza also shot his mother, Nancy Lanza, to death in the nearby home they shared before heading to the school, authorities say.

Kraft tells KCBS when he first heard about the shooting and that Lanza was involved, "I just couldn't think for a little while. I was shaking."

He says he recalls Nancy Lanza cautioning him never to turn his back on Adam -- "to keep an eye on him at all times ... to never turn my back, or even to go to the bathroom or anything like that."

http://www.ktvq.com/news/ex-babysitt...urn-your-back/

Oh, OK. Every time I heard it, it sounded like second-hand accounts. I didn't know that it was coming straight from the babysitter.

Sheeeesh. If the mother felt that the babysitter should never turn his back on her son, what the heck was she doing leaving him alone with a 14- or 15-year-old babysitter?

As of right now, I still think she was a good person, but her judgment was very suspect.

[Atlanta Dan]

Originally Posted by Wallace108

Oh, OK. Every time I heard it, it sounded like second-hand accounts. I didn't know that it was coming straight from the babysitter.

Sheeeesh. If the mother felt that the babysitter should never turn his back on her son, what the heck was she doing leaving him alone with a 14- or 15-year-old babysitter?

As of right now, I still think she was a good person, but her judgment was very suspect.

Knowing the kid was nuts and taking him to the range to learn how to shoot semi-automatic weapons caused me to question her judgment more than the age of the babysitter she hired

[SCMom]

Originally Posted by ricardisimo

You assert this as fact, that gun control laws are completely worthless. Where do you get this idea? In almost the same breath you say you aren't completely opposed to gun control laws, so you are conflicted at a minimum. Also, you and I both know that the claims about lives saved by guns are creative accounting at best. Real people are killed every minute by guns; wishful anecdotes and hero fantasies are saved by them.

Well, because I believe it to be fact. Gun laws aren't going to fix what's wrong with people (never said they are completely worthless). You can ban guns all you want, but that's not going to take the crazy out of people, or even come close to being a deterrent for criminals.

As for the number of people saved/crimes twarted by guns, the numbers certainly are overblown by gun groups. I've never claimed they weren't. Actual numbers are probably closer to 50k-100k /year. It's hard to say for sure, because some may never be reported...but there's nothing concrete saying it isn't though. At worst, it's still a much higher number than gun death rate. We've discussed this before though, and I feel I stated my case from a reasonably objective standpoint. I don't dabble in hero fantasies and wishful thinking.

I'm not conflicted when I state that I am for some gun regulations...and I've even stated what I think some of them should be. Mandatory training and very intensive background checks (for all sales) along with being updated in your training and background checks at least every four years (I'd be fine with annually). I'm also glad that fully automatic weapons are not allowed. What I am opposed to is knee jerk reaction gun bans...because like I said before and above, that does nothing for the deeper issue, which is why are there more and more people who are running around screwed in the head enough to do something like this?

[SCMom]

Originally Posted by Atlanta Dan

He killed off more kids with a semi-automatic and a big clip than he would have with a six shooter in the same amount of time - as soon as the first responders arrived he killed himself so he was working in a tight time frame

Every life has value and hearts are broken with very loss, but there were a lot more losses and a lot more hearts broken because of how that lunatic was armed

When Australia instituted significant increases in gun regulation the stats showed a significant reduction in deaths , so i am uncertain what your statistical basis is for saying any increased regulation of guns would be a "band aid"

On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.

Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia.

What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/201...provide_a.html

You busted on Vis earlier about not proposing any specific solutions but when specific solutions are suggested all I am hearing in return that it will not work with no explanation as to why it clearly will not work, other than it is "the wrong direction."

So I guess your position is you have a zero tolerance approach to barring the sales of any types of ammo or weapon? You may regard any such action as an unjustified impingement upon a fundamental right but to say it would be futile is not a foregone conclusion.

So what are "the real issues"? Mental health treatment can be improved but the shooter's Dad was a senior executive at GE Capital and his Mom was gettimng $325K per year in alimony and child support - it was not as if the family lacked the financial ability to get teh finest psychiatric treatment $$ can buy.

No, I never said I have a zero tolerance approach...and have actually said that I'd be ok with some regulations. That does include clip size. Sorry if it came off as sounding like me being totally against it...I'm not. I just don't think it would have stopped this guy (or any of the other shooters) from doing what they set out to do. There still would have been tragedies.

[SCMom]

Also, I believe the Mac 10's they used in Columbine were banned, weren't they?

As far as real issues go, I don't know how exactly want to describe it. Yes, mental health is one of them. And I was talking about overall issues, not family issues. There is something wrong with these people who are capable of doing this. There will still be something wrong with the same types even if strict gun laws are implemented.

[Quackjack]

My 2 cents.

Instead of focusing on gun rights, how about we provide mental care to the people who need it?

I am a hardcore democrat, but seriously, banning guns solves nothing. Banning cocaine doesn't stop it being sold, does it?

To help limit these disasters, stop it at the source; not the guns, the people.

[Atlanta Dan]

Originally Posted by SCMom

There will still be something wrong with the same types even if strict gun laws are implemented.

True that

But people still die in auto accidents - that does not mean you eliminate equipping vehicles with air bags and seat belts

[MACH1]

Originally Posted by Atlanta Dan

True that

But people still die in auto accidents - that does not mean you eliminate equipping vehicles with air bags and seat belts

Thats because it's not the cars fault.

[Atlanta Dan]

Originally Posted by Quackjack

My 2 cents.

Instead of focusing on gun rights, how about we provide mental care to the people who need it?

I am a hardcore democrat, but seriously, banning guns solves nothing. Banning cocaine doesn't stop it being sold, does it?

To help limit these disasters, stop it at the source; not the guns, the people.

Outlawing murder does not stop that either - so i guess we should no longer prosecute murders?

Any stats on banning guns solving "nothing"?

As far as improved mental health , what do you do if (as Drudge & Fox report - it must be true) the shooter goes off because he is going to be forced to obtain mental health treatment

The gunman who slaughtered 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school may have snapped because his mother was planning to commit him to a psychiatric facility, according to a lifelong resident of the area who was familiar with the killer’s family and several of the victims’ families.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18...adman-to-snap/

It is a complex problem with many causes - access to high powered munitions in this society is one of them