Solutions For CT: There Are Some

Karl Denninger offers a rather lengthy piece on CT shootings, brief excerpt here, worth reading more (with numerous links) at link above.

Zitat

---

Solutions For CT: There Are Some

But they're not what people are promoting, especially those who are always looking for a way to shove you in the hole -- right after they remove your ability to resist.

And let's not kid ourselves -- that's exactly what happened in Connecticut. The teachers and staff in that school had no lawful means to resist, because they accepted (and probably even supported) the fallacious argument that laws (paper) stop bullets. They learned, too late, that this argument is and always has been false.

A murderous thug, enabled by foolish reliance on pieces of paper, shoved them in the hole.

If you believe that "gun control" (of any sort) will stop these events you're suffering from a severe case of logical fallacy -- or delusion. The worst mass-murder in a school wasn't committed by Adam Lanza. That distinction belongs to former school board treasurer Andrew Kehoe, who got*****ed off about a property tax levy and detonated three bombs in Bath Township, Michigan, killing 38 elementary school children, two teachers, a handful of other adults and himself. Nearly 60 were injured.

That murderer also killed his wife and set his farm buildings on fire just before he set off the bombs.

Believe it or not, Bath Township got off light. There were over 500lbs of additional explosives planted in the buildings that failed to go off; he intended to destroy the entire school and presumably kill everyone inside, but the second device failed to explode.

Nor do you need a gun to commit mass-murder in general. One of the worst mass-murder events in US history was committed in 1990 with a gallon of gasoline; Julio Gonzalez, who was later convicted of arson and murder, spread gasoline on the entrance to the club and set it ablaze. 87 people died. Not only did the gasoline cost far less than a gun, it is much easier to obtain. Do you recall any hue and cry for the banning of gasoline, or even for gasoline-powered weed-eaters and lawn-mowers (or, for that matter, portable generators) -- the predicate items that for sane people compel them to buy and use a portable gas can, and thus make portable gas cans available to homicidal maniacs?

Next, let's talk about the school once again, because here we see an over-reliance on half-measures and "feel good" ideation as well. The school locked the doors and required a buzzer to enter, which sounds reasonable. The problem is that they didn't armor the glass in the immediate vicinity of the door, making possible a trivial forced entry. A person intent on homicide doesn't care if he breaks a window (a petty crime) first. You can't reasonably replace all windows with shatter-proof panes (e.g. wired-mesh glass that can be shot through but will not break in a fashion that allows entry) but you can do so for that glass in an entry door or in its immediate vicinity, and you can for small windows in and immediately in the vicinity of classroom doors. You can also equip classroom doors with cylinder deadbolt locks that require a key from the outside to open, but can be operated without a key from the inside. These enhancements, which are pretty inexpensive, would have thwarted the shooter's forced entry into the school and if he gained entry to the building would have prevented his entry into the classrooms. There are reports that teachers had to use file cabinets and their bodies to barricade the doors; one was shot and injured doing so. That's outrageous when a quality deadbolt-equipped door and metal frame bolted to the structure of the building costs only a few hundred dollars.

I want to know who was behind the changes made to "secure" this school and what sort of analytical process was undertaken, whether it was debated in the open at a school board meeting, whether the public was involved, and whether the public was invited to think about and comment on the path undertaken and its expense. Again, while hindsight is always 20/20 if the fact that a plate window was in the immediate vicinity of a "locked" door was not looked at as a security problem then I question both the people and the process involved in "hardening" this installation.

Next, let's talk about the adults in the school. We already require training on sexual assault, child abuse and similar issues for school teachers and administrators. Why do we omit self-defense from this list, when our teachers and administrators claim the right of in loco parentis during school hours for our children?

That omission is asinine.

No, not all teachers will want or be comfortable with the responsibility for defense of the children in their care during class hours. So what? Not all parents are comfortable with that responsibility either! Witness the myriad parents who right here and now are screaming for symbolic acts that the above two events document will not insure their child's safety.

But there are also teachers who are comfortable with these duties and responsibility. Indeed, at least one teacher at this school died while covering her students with her body, the only means of defense she had available to her. There are also parents who believe in the same, and who take such a responsibility seriously. To those who don't or are on the fence, let me ask you a simple question:

Zitat

---

Let us assume you are in the school when Adam Lanza enters and begins to shoot children. You see him murder a child in cold blood. He has his back turned to you and beyond him is a solid concrete-block wall -- no innocent children or adults. On the table next to you, within arms reach, appears a loaded gun. You have 2 seconds to decide before Adam kills another child: Will you shoot Adam Lanza and stop his assault or not?

---

---

Gun owners need to get in front of this and focus the issue on the menatlly ill in society. ALL of the recent mass shooters had significant mental issues. The latest school shooter was said to be doing self mutilation and apparently was not under head shrinker care. The guy in the theater shooting was nuttier than hell and no one really did anyhthng about it.

There is a theroy beign floated that Lanza was the victim of sexual abuse and wanted to make sure those kids didn't suffer like he did. I think an honest look at this will show he may of been abused but had some serious mommy issues. BTW I can spot these guys from 100 feet. I have interviewed many of that generation that were drugged from an early age and are basically useless in the workforce. They are socialy inept and do not fit well into teams to accomplish tasks. Easily offended and generally have the "that's not fair." attitude. The evidence is of course these were all lone gunman events. I have a friend that runs several fast food restaurants. He will not hire boys that are 18-2 if they come off as twitchy at all. If that can't sit still in an interview for more than five minutes he flushes them. He tells me he has interviewed several that he considered to be complete social misfits - even psycho. Not even sure how they finished high school.

What's going to happen? All gun transfers will require an FFL action and a backround check. High cap mags are going to be made illegal. Handguns will have to be registered and DiFi is going to try and ban semi-autos and make you turn them in - IMHO not going to happen.

All true, but some republican needs to get off his ass and write a law about reporting these people from the day they are given drugs and/or they apply for disability. They need help put them where they can get it and away from dangerious weapons.

Have asked permission from the source of the PM that sent me this info. I think he'll be cool with it and I just don't feel like waiting so I'll reduce his PM to this and the links:

Watch this video -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...d&v=j_fI0hm1dqY

*BOTH* of the fathers of the perps in Aurora Colorado and Sandy Hook CT shootings are linked through a scandal in a British Financial Exchange.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal

The facts have been around in many online sites for some time.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&...20scandal&type=

I do not believe in coincidences.

FP123 thanks for the post.

Zitat

---

. . . If you believe that "gun control" (of any sort) will stop these events you're suffering from a severe case of logical fallacy -- or delusion. . . .

---

One thing in particular has been making me very angry.

There is a major logical disconnect I have noticed in the reporting. Several reporters have said that as bad as it was it could be worse. Adam stopped killing children and committed suicide when it became apparent that the police were on the scene. The reporters seem incapable of taking this idea one step further and wondering how many lives would have been saved it the school had not been a gun free zone. How many lives would have been saved if the principal, psychologist, or one of the teachers had been armed?

Contrary to the prevailing myth, pretty words don't stop someone who is delusional, demented, or evil. Gun control may have stopped Adam from buying his own rifle, but it didn't stop him from killing to steal guns. If he hadn't been able to steal guns I'm certain he would have used some other means to kill.

In addition there is an unrealistic belief that laws will eradicate or contain evil.

Another gem from this article

Zitat

---

And finally, we must confront the fact that many of those who hold the levers of power are in fact low-level functional psychopaths themselves, and it is their grasp for power, influence and control that at many levels is inhibiting the application of logical debate and fact-finding to incidents like this, as they choose instead to protect themselves and their power while increasing the harm done to society as a whole.

---

Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #5

---

FP123 thanks for the post.

Zitat

---

. . . If you believe that "gun control" (of any sort) will stop these events you're suffering from a severe case of logical fallacy -- or delusion. . . .

---

One thing in particular has been making me very angry.

There is a major logical disconnect I have noticed in the reporting. Several reporters have said that as bad as it was it could be worse. Adam stopped killing children and committed suicide when it became apparent that the police were on the scene. The reporters seem incapable of taking this idea one step further and wondering how many lives would have been saved it the school had not been a gun free zone. How many lives would have been saved if the principal, psychologist, or one of the teachers had been armed?

Contrary to the prevailing myth, pretty words don't stop someone who is delusional, demented, or evil. Gun control may have stopped Adam from buying his own rifle, but it didn't stop him from killing to steal guns. If he hadn't been able to steal guns I'm certain he would have used some other means to kill.

In addition there is an unrealistic belief that laws will eradicate or contain evil.

---

Great point, alger. And how about flipping it around a bit, how much more carnage would have ensued if the police that showed up were just carrying samll wooden sticks? (But of course, the nanny staters never have a problem with the State being well armed.)

Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #6

---

Another gem from this article

Zitat

---

And finally, we must confront the fact that many of those who hold the levers of power are in fact low-level functional psychopaths themselves, and it is their grasp for power, influence and control that at many levels is inhibiting the application of logical debate and fact-finding to incidents like this, as they choose instead to protect themselves and their power while increasing the harm done to society as a whole.

---

---

Yup; if you know KD, he gets to the root of the matter across a whole host of subjects, and does it fearlessly as well!

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #7

---

. . .

Great point, alger. And how about flipping it around a bit, how much more carnage would have ensued if the police that showed up were just carrying samll wooden sticks? (But of course, the nanny staters never have a problem with the State being well armed.)

---