Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting

User avatar
Theoden
Posts: 398
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:20 am
SL Name: Theoden
Caste: Warrior

Re: Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting

Postby Theoden » Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:59 am

Sorry about the late replies, you guys brought up some interesting points so I thought I would think about it for a day before answering.

Glaucon wrote:
The people being 'armed' so they can fight a tyrannical government usually doesn't lead to less violent deaths. In places in which there are many (semi) autonomous entities (many city states, or autonomous villages/tribes, or competing kingdoms, etc.) there is generally more violence than in areas that are part of a large empire or a large stable state/kingdom, however tyrannical and absolute the power of that state may be. For example, the Pax Romana (the enforced peace coming with being ruled/conquered by the Romans) did mean that it became a whole lot more rare for people to die because of violence.


Glaucon wrote:
Looking at Europe after WW2... probably the greatest autrocities over the last 50 years were committed in areas where citizens had access to a lot of weapons. Think of the 'militia's' in former Yugoslavia, for example.


Yes, you are right. Violence and warfare happens a lot more when there are numerous factions of approximate equal strength. See China in the Warring States era. There also is a relative peace when the state monopolizes all forms of force and violence. I actually remember that part being mentioned in the definition of a state in one of my college courses. Force monopoly within territorial boundaries. Of course, the same argument is also made for the international hegemonic peace theory... Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, Pax Americana. So proponents of this would also argue for a unipolar world where America continues to reign supreme and is preferable to a more multipolar world where we see the 'rise of the rest' ;) Sorry. Getting off tangent.

So yes, when there is a state force monopoly, we often see more peace. But I wonder, if the amount of lives saved by state force monopoly is offset by the amount of people killed in Pol Pot's regime, PRC Cultural revolution, and the formation of the USSR and what the Ukrainians called a genocide of their people through forced collectivization and the subsequent famines counting in the millions of deaths alone.

It's rather impossible to get numbers of the amount of lives saved through force monopoly. But it is possible to get all the numbers for the lives lost in governments wielding the full force of their power against their unarmed people.


Glaucon wrote:And as for armed citizens not needing equal weapons in order to defeat an army: Sometimes this is true. Generally, it is not (especially in times where a government could go 'all out' against such armed rebelling citizens without foreign pressure or interference). Part of the Lybian military defected, went over to the rebels. Same in Syria. Both got/get weapons from outside. (The Lybian rebels got a lot of arms from the west, plus air support, etc.) The taliban got a lot of outside help as well (arms and soldiers, including Ben Laden and friends). The United Provinces had foreign aid (from other protestant countries). They hired lots of mercenaries to fight their war of independence for them (a lot of germans and swiss among them). Even the United states got significant support from outside (France, in particular) during their struggle for independence. The Vietcong got aid from outside as well. Most of the rebelions against European colonizing powers got aid from outside (international pressure, from the USA, for example, but also aid from countries that had already send the Europeans home). Historically, in times when there was less of an international 'moral code' of assistance to rebelions, when the 'state' could go 'all out', most such rebelions were simply crushed. The USA could have nuked Vietman, technically. But it couldn't because of modern ideology and it's international position. And it probably didn't want to. Times change.


Again, you are right in that many successful partisans and rag tag fighters had help and aid in their struggles. But how did they get help and aid in the first place? They didn't secure all this help before they fought. They fought first... and aid came. An armed citizenry is the first line of defense against atrocities against people like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Gadaffi. It slows them down. It buys time. It wears down the enemy's morale. Through guerilla fighting, it bogs down the main army until help can arrive from abroad. With firearms, you can raid supply depots and arm yourself with the enemies grenades and personal anti-armor or SAM missiles. You can cut off reinforcements.



Glaucon wrote:Of course, there are the state-driven autrocities of Hitler and Stalin (and Mao, in a way). But those had little to do with them monopolizing weaponry. Hitler came to power aided by partially armed 'militias' (The SA). Stalin had no qualms about arming lots and lots of Russians to engage in a sort of guerrillia warfare during WW II.


Hitler mostly came to power via democracy. The SA weren't that armed. They were mostly thugs. If the German jews were armed they could have fought back and formed partisan groups, like Polish jews did.

Stalin armed lots of Russians during WWII. Not during the formative years of the USSR. Imagine if all those kulaks and peasants fought back when the communists were trying to force them to collectivize, sending them off to the gulags and stole their grain even though they were starving.



Okay I'll get to Carter after I have some breakfast :D
User avatar
Theoden
Posts: 398
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:20 am
SL Name: Theoden
Caste: Warrior

Re: Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting

Postby Theoden » Sat Dec 22, 2012 5:22 am

Carter wrote:
Mmmm adding to your points Glaucon regarding the self arming of a civilian population to counter balance or oppose a government force... and I want this keep relevant to the immediate past (less than 100 years ) and also current world events.

1. Russia 1917 - Bolshevik Revolution
- Lenin, Stalin etc primary leaders post revolution

2. China 1946 - Peoples Revolution
- Mao Zedong appointed leader of the Peoples Republic

3 Iraq 1968 - 17 July Revolution -
- Saddam Hussein was one of the main leaders

3 Libya 1969 - Civilian/Miltary Coup
- Mohar Ghaddifi was the leader of this Revolution

4. Syria 1970 - The Syrian Corrective Revolution
- Hafiz Al Assad (former president)
- Basheer Al Assad current president

5. Egypt 2004 - The Islamic Brotherhood take power

6 Rwanda 1990 - Civil Revolution descends into mass genocide

7. Yugoslavia 1990 - Serbian militia executes thousands of Croatian and initiates ethnic cleansing programme

I could mention a few other examples where the civilian population armed themselves to overthrow or take centre stage of a political movement against a democratically elected Government

ie .. Iranian Revolution 1979 , but perhaps the most notable civilian para military organisation of the 20th Century - the Nationalist Socialist Party of Germany led by Adolf Hitler.

So I guess, based on a current and past experiences.. the arming of a populace, the creation of civilian based militia to provide a counter balance to the military strength of a Government doesn't look too promising and for some reason, despite original intent or purpose.. the outcome seems to be racial/ethnic genocide and dictatorship.


Carter wrote:The most relevant example I guess of opposition to a Federal Government and the creation of a civilian based army formed around loosely defined armed local militia to oppose a Federalist/National Army

American Civil War (1861-65)

Depending on your point of view.. the good guys won didn't they ?



In all these cases you've brought up, they don't really match with what we're talking about, which is an armed citizenry to balance possible tyranny and mass slaughter from the government.

None of the countries have given citizens the RIGHT to bear arms. None of the countries has had nearly the amount of gun ownership that the United States has.

What you are seeing with these armed revolution examples are very small armed factions relative to the overall population, rather than an armed citizenry.

The Bolsheviks - very small armed faction, at least the armed portion

PRC - started off as a small armed faction, the underdog compared to the KMT, and definitely not so large as to be considered armed citizenry

Iraqi Baathists - very small armed faction

Libyan military coup - very small armed faction

Syrian Assad revolution - very small armed faction

Egypt 2004 - What? The ones that were armed were the regime military, not the protestors silly :D Some Islamic brotherhood might have been armed but there was no armed conflict between the military and the brotherhood.

Rwanda - small armed faction

Yugoslavia - small armed factions compared to overall populations. The serbian militia was basically backed by its military, and thus the governing Serbians. This is an example of the government killing its own people... imagine if the Croats were all armed. They could have fought back instead of being lined up and massacred.



Carter wrote:
I could mention a few other examples where the civilian population armed themselves to overthrow or take centre stage of a political movement against a democratically elected Government


So the examples you gave are not where the civilians armed themselves to overthrow democratically elected governments. The examples you gave were small armed political factions that are hardly large enough in armed manpower compared to the overall population to be considered 'armed citizenry' or 'civilian population'.

The one good example I see from all of this is the American Civil War example, which is worthwhile to explore.

The American Civil War is a case of armed citizenry and militia of the southern states seceding from what they saw as a tyrannical federal government, and they fought against this tyranny, with European support I might add.

But the thing is, the southerners fought for the wrong reasons.

They were not standing up to a tyrannical government causing mass slaughter of its own citizens and destroying its liberties.

They were 'standing up' for slavery. Slavery was one of the reasons why the south seceded from the Union, and the secession is the real reason of why the North fought the South.

Defending slavery is hardly a reason to take up arms against the government. And slavery is not a liberty to be defended.

So I guess you are right in this example. It is a case where an armed citizenry didn't use that right to defend against tyranny and mass slaughter and threats to liberty, but rather they took up arms to defend slavery. This is a poor decision and a good example where armed citizenry can go wrong.

It is still only one example, however. ;)
User avatar
Glaucon
Posts: 2832
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 am

Re: Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting

Postby Glaucon » Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:23 am

Always nice to someone actually read and respond seriously and intelligently to the stuff you write. Will repond later (if Carter doesn't beat me to it, we seem to be making some parallel arguments.).
Resolver Bouchard
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:26 am

Re: Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting

Postby Resolver Bouchard » Sat Dec 22, 2012 11:10 am

Didn't Columbine have armed security? They were off sick or something but how were the killers supposed to know that?

Didn't Virgina Tech had a campus SWAT team or something crazy?

Did they deter or stop the killers? Nope, not in the least.

As Kaitlin, I think, said earlier in the thread 15 out of 25 of the top 25 massacres occured in America. It's a numbers game, armed security or teachers might prevent or reduce the severity of a few of these massacres but the only way you'll stop them is to reduce the number and type weapons. Or maybe they'll attack a swimming pool, good luck concealing a weapon in your speedos.

Change your second ammendment or, even better, learn to read the whole text, learn what "regulated" means and actually do it. Stop killing 6 year olds that love horses.
User avatar
Drevan
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 7:47 pm
SL Name: Drevan Darkbyrd
Caste: Caste of Scribes
Role: Head of Caste
Home Stone: Vonda
AkA: Drevan

Re: Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting

Postby Drevan » Sat Dec 22, 2012 11:34 am

I am a gun owner and a member of the NRA. My opinion is that this was a terrible tragedy and to politicize it would be wrong. That said I would actually like to see part of both sides arguments come to pass. I think posting guards atleast within a 1 min response time and offering those jobs as well paid to returning Veterans could be a great way to help reaclimate them. I also would not be opposed to more requirements for the purchase a gun, within reason.

I am not opposed to required certified training and proficency training for gun owners. Though I do have concerns about banning some types of guns. Besides as sad as the Newtown situation is. the Overwhemling majority of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally banning them from law abiding citizens isnt going to help that much. The Illegal gun trade has become almost as profitable as drugs now.
User avatar
Drevan
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 7:47 pm
SL Name: Drevan Darkbyrd
Caste: Caste of Scribes
Role: Head of Caste
Home Stone: Vonda
AkA: Drevan

Re: Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting

Postby Drevan » Sat Dec 22, 2012 11:54 am

No, I am not misinformed I view the question differently, read this Article it explains what I meant better than I can
http://extranosalley.com/?p=30635

ETA: I should explain that in my family, having 1-10+ guns is the norm. We have reloading shops in our basements and keep all the guns loaded at all times. None of us has ever had a accidental shooting, or gone and committed a crime with any of these guns. Why? Because aside from the fact gun accidents are extremely low considering how many people own guns. Its because we are taught from the time we are able to crawl through our parents watching us and constant reinforcement about how to handle a gun with care and respect that by the time we are older we would not even consider using a gun inappropriately. But, make no mistake if one of us were to pull a gun on someone for what ever reason brought us there. It wouldnt be to scare or wound or warn. In my family a gun is pulled because something is about to die.
User avatar
Glaucon
Posts: 2832
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 am

Re: Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting

Postby Glaucon » Sat Dec 22, 2012 1:08 pm

Resolver Bouchard wrote:Didn't Columbine have armed security? They were off sick or something but how were the killers supposed to know that?

Didn't Virgina Tech had a campus SWAT team or something crazy?

Did they deter or stop the killers? Nope, not in the least.


Columbine did, yes.

And didn't the adult shot first have lots of fire-power to protect herself, even teaching her two sons kids to use them? That didn't keep her safe either.

I think saying that people have a right to their guns is one thing, blaming lack of gun-ownership (and the people in favor of gun-control) for the shooting is so perverse that only the blinding force of ideology could make otherwise nice and upstanding people defend such a perverted argument.
Resolver Bouchard
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:26 am

Re: Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting

Postby Resolver Bouchard » Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:13 pm

Glaucon wrote:
Resolver Bouchard wrote:Didn't Columbine have armed security? They were off sick or something but how were the killers supposed to know that?

Didn't Virgina Tech had a campus SWAT team or something crazy?

Did they deter or stop the killers? Nope, not in the least.


Columbine did, yes.

And didn't the adult shot first have lots of fire-power to protect herself, even teaching her two sons kids to use them? That didn't keep her safe either.

I think saying that people have a right to their guns is one thing, blaming lack of gun-ownership (and the people in favor of gun-control) for the shooting is so perverse that only the blinding force of ideology could make otherwise nice and upstanding people defend such a perverted argument.

I don't know, after smoking some crack and eating a few mushrooms I think I've worked it out:

Technically her guns she bought to protect herself from the impending breakdown of society caused by the financial crisis did actually do that. So that's +1 for guns. :thumbup:

The deaths of 26 students and teachers are obviously a result of lack of good people with guns in the school, so another +26 for guns. :thumbup:

The suicide of the gunman....hmmm not sure there, I think I'll have to score it as a -1 for guns, based on the cumulative score so far. :thumbdown:

So an overall score of +26 for guns. :roll:
Carter
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:52 pm
SL Name: ***

Re: Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting

Postby Carter » Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:42 pm

Theoden wrote:
They were 'standing up' for slavery. Slavery was one of the reasons why the south seceded from the Union, and the secession is the real reason of why the North fought the South.



It is still only one example, however. ;)



The major reason of the American Civil War was not slavery..that may have been the catalyst, but it was the reaction to federalism and centralisation of government in Washington... something which appears to be a theme in America at the moment and some on this board have restated why citizens need to be allowed to carry arms.

I could have added the English Civil war.. which initiated the rights of Protestants to bear arms against the threat of Catholic Monarchy...which is the foundation of the American Constitutional Right.. and led to mass killings and destruction in Scotland/Ireland.

and again.. .. I listed 10 plus examples where a faction of the country armed itself to oppose its government or in reaction to a political decision and the end result was dictatorship, genocide, ethnic cleansing....

So I am sorry, the principle of the right to bear arms and/or the formation of militia to oppose/counter balance the Government has led to a destabilisation of the country and mass killings and only in the example of the American Civil War, did the good guys win.. (and it was close run thing at times)..

It is an easier option to get a group of civilians with guns together to get what you want, rather than follow a program of discussion, debate, political and institutional reform.

and let me add another perspective with the assassination of 37 elected politicians in American in the last 200 years and I am not adding the failed attempts to kill elected citizens who hold public office.

Compared to the UK.. 1 in 1814 (it only just crept into the 200 period I was discussing)

So again...it can be seen the right to bear arms undermines the democratic institution it was supposed to support. ;)

So lets face it..this historic right argument

a) kills innocents on a daily basis
b) leads to war, genocide, ethnic cleansing
c) undermines/compromises the ability of a civil police force to enforce the law
d) destabilises the democratic process through the assassination and attempted murder of elected officials
f) creates a society with the highest murder rate in Western civilisation

ooh..it also leads to the formation of some of the most profitable organisations in the world selling weapons for domestic use..

Is this the real reason for a historical right to be upheld so vehemently ... money ?
User avatar
Dren Bernard
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:05 pm
SL Name: Dren Bernard
Caste: Physician's
Role: On sabatical
Home Stone: Salernum
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting

Postby Dren Bernard » Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:57 pm

Rob wrote:
In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. [...] And in recent rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, they not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed.

source: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... otings-map


I remember reading Rob's contribution and followed the link again to find this:

In the wake of the unthinkable massacre in Connecticut, pro-gun ideologues are once again calling for ordinary citizens to arm themselves as a solution to mass shootings. If only the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School had possessed a M-4 assault rifle she could've stopped the killer, they say. This latest twist on a long-running argument isn't just absurd on its face; there is no evidence to support it. As I reported recently in our in-depth investigation, not one of the 62 mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years has been stopped this way. More broadly, attempts by armed civilians to intervene in shooting rampages are rare—and are successful even more rarely. (Two people who tried it in recent years were gravely wounded or killed.) And law enforcement overwhelmingly hates the idea.

Those pesky facts haven't stopped the "arm America more!" crowd from pressing the argument with alleged examples of successful armed interventions. The problem is, the few examples they keep using—in which they depict plain old folks acting heroically and with definitive results—fall apart under scrutiny. Here are five of them and why they don't work:

Read on:http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings


How does a society who loves their gun ownership so much it is in the blood, come to realise they have been wrong about the communal benefit of owning (high powered) arms by every Tom, Dick and Harry. I don't think research results will do it.
It is a matter of the heart; no rational thought weighs ever as much in this discussion.
Dren & Kait's Gorean Physician's resource:
http://teslikandsiproot.webs.com/

Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron