January 7, 2013 7:09 AM
Who is the real culprit----something to ponderIn the wake of the terrible tragedy at Sandy Hook, everyone has been rushing to blame guns, etc. And of course the Left is going to use the opportunity to try and take away our 2nd amendment rights.....but what is the real source of this evil act? You have read Barbara's concerns in the past regarding "Big Pharma." The following article raises some real concerns and clearly exposes the claims of conventional wisdom as to where at least some of the blame really lies. As usual.....follow the money.
The giant gaping hole in the Sandy Hook reporting
In her stead,
Posted in | Permalink
There is the problem that horrific crimes also hae been committed throughout time even without any drugs involved. These days, it makes sense that those from families who are monitoring members who are acting off, will get them help, and the standard is to get them those drugs. The question is whether that course of action is accelerating the problem for more of them, than helping them? That has not been detrmined.
Living within an hour of this school, and knowing an number of people who live and work there, the word is that there is absolutely no info as what caused this. The tox report was inconclusive. You had better believe that drug companies will be sued if the young man was on some meds. His dx and problems have been lack of interest and aversion to dealing with people, not aggression in the least bit towards them. The guns were all legal, and the mom of the shooter made sure she and her family knew how to use and care for them. No laws were broken until the perp took the guns ammos and started his shooting rampage. I don't see how this could have been prevented.
An armed guard at the school could have meant an additional body count of the guard or perhaps the perp would have gone to another high density area and shot even more people. At least at the school he had to go from room to room. Letting loose in a dense crowd at an event would have netted more kills. Also putting an armed guard at every school, day care, community center, where ever there are groups of kids is going to cost more than we can raise, as each such guard needs to be trained, vetted and continued to be trained and vetted. Our police force couldn't cover all of such places.
We don't allow the purchase and ownership of very single type of gun out there. Certain automatics are deemed illegal. If those semi automatics that shoot over 6 bullets are outlawed, it would give those in such situation some chance, some time to stop a shooter. In that school, they were mowed down with that semi automatic. The same at the movie theater. Military who were at the Aurora theater have said that the shots had claimed so many before anyone really knew what was happening and even if they were armed the time gap would not have meant they could have stopped the guy so armed in that situation. By lowering the boom on what weapons one can own--a boom already in place, just lowering the level, more people would have a chance when someone does something like this. Won't eliminate it , but would maybe reduce the carnage.
Posted by: Cath Young | January 7, 2013 11:16 AM
I just read the article and found it very interesting. This is such a power grab. They want to relieve us of our constitutional rights. Did you see the article about a mother in Georgia protecting her children from a home invasion because she had a gun? I would be surprised if they gets much press.
Posted by: Sue from Buffalo | January 7, 2013 12:12 PM
Thanks for the link Tripp. I read it and it is food for thought.
Posted by: Imajackson | January 11, 2013 12:13 PM
There is a balance in all things, and our attention is now drawn again to personally owned lethal weapons.
Our laws currently prohibit (or very tightly control) many weapons, such as machine guns, grenades, and other weapons of war.
If we look at the UK, we find that their gun laws have resulted in a gun death rate that is 50 times less than ours. 50 times!
At some point, we have to ask ourselves why we would want to have assault weapons and high capacity magazines. If some persons' whims create an environment that results in 50 times the number of deaths of a comparable society, then I believe it is time to learn from the successes of others, not re-entrench in failed mindsets.
Some instill fear by saying that only criminals will have guns. A minimum sentence of 5 years in prison would quickly rid our society of those weapons we deem undesirable, with more severe sentences for repeat offenders.
I say this not as an anti-gun activist - indeed, I am a Class III FFL who already owns guns (as most sheep farmers do), so I believe in a balance where there is private ownership of guns. I believe, however, that we need far more stringent requirements for the sale and possession of various classes of lethal weapons, and strongly support legislation that does so, even if it means I give up one or more of my own, or have to register them. Will I agree 100% with any legislation that finally is turned into law? Highly doubtful, but that's the case for just about any law, and in a democracy (or republic), that's how we all live together peaceably.
Posted by: Will Stewart | January 12, 2013 10:00 AM
I don't doubt that there is a woman in some state who protected her children with a gun. The statisztics, however, show us that the chance for women and men to be killed by a gun goes up rapidly as soon as there is a gun in the house.
The most dangerous place in the US for women is at home. Women are not attacked, molested and killed by strangers. Women are attacked, molested and killed by their spouses, boyfriends, fathers,etc. This is a problem that guns will not fix, because it women are hesitant to use guns on these men.
Posted by: miriam | March 5, 2013 6:24 PM