A New York newspaper's startling revelation today about the Sandy Hook School shooter's highly planned plot to kill prompted a quick response from Connecticut State Police.
The leak, from an unnamed veteran law enforcement official, served as the basis for an article today in the New York Daily News. The source reportedly attended the recent International Association of Police Chiefs conference, during which Connecticut State Police Col. Danny Stebbins spoke about the Dec. 14 shooting in Newtown, Conn.
Lt. J. Paul Vance, Connecticut State Police spokesman, called the leak "unfortunate."
The article quoted a source on specific, previously undisclosed findings of the investigation into the shooting that claimed the life of 20 first-grade students and six educators. Specifically, the source referred to a "sickeningly thorough ... spreadsheet" that the 20-year-old shooter had reportedly compiled over several years, in which he "graded" previous school shootings.
"The recent seminar during which the Newtown case was discussed was designed for law enforcement professionals only," Vance said. "Following each tragic mass murder incident in this country it is customary for law enforcement to share their lessons learned from the investigation so that other law enforcement agencies can learn."
Vance says Connecticut State Police policy asks that information not be released until victims' families have been notified.
"The families of the victims continue to be a priority in this investigation and this fact was clearly stated at the seminar," Vance said. "It is unfortunate that someone in attendance chose not to honor Colonel Stebbins' request to respect the families' right to know specifics of the investigation first."
Vance said police are not releasing any new information at this time, and that a final report on their investigation is still several months away.
Another thing...why do you libs use the word 'probably' so often? "Lanza's mother probably...." you are assuming a number of things here. You libs always assume to make your points then run away and hide when confronted with statistics and facts. For you and Mark and all the other libs.....when you are in a New Haven parking lot getting car-jacked, being mugged in Bridgeport, assaulted at shopping center....I will use my weapon to save you. No thanks will be necessary. I'd only ask that you promise not to procreate as a matter of public safety.
The crux of the matter is, you are asking me to give up something so you can feel safer. But you are no safer if I have to reload more often. Essentially we are trading my time for your 'piece of mind'. This makes the REAL question: who is being unreasonable? I need nothing from you to carry on with my life. You need me to be inconvenienced to satiate your feelings. You aren't safer because you feel it, you are only safe from the lack of danger. My mag doesn't present a danger. I am not a danger. Even someone with a very low IQ knows a criminal will not honor a magazine limit so I ask again....who is being unreasonable? If you don't get that, there is no hope.
But that was an empty house burglary, what about home invasion, and all too familiar event here in CT. I have not updated this list in a about six weeks but take a look at this and then tell me there is nothing to worry about in CT: http://wilton.patch.com/blog_posts/home-invasions-rarely-happen-in-connecticut-not Last year, when that armed and armor-wearing home invasion crew were still on the streets, they hit a house less than a half mile from my home. Grabbed the old woman who was home, bounced her around and then duct-taped her to a chair. She was lucky. You can think you live in a risk free, threat free world. I do not think that way and do not have to accomodate your whims to do what I feel is necessary.
http://wilton.patch.com/blog_posts/gun-magazine-capacity-limits-dont-make-a-difference-and-wont-in-ct
Interesting point here because Stebbins pointed out that Lanza was constantly reloading his magazines even though they were not completely expended. He said this was the mark of someone whe either had lots of close combat training or video gaming. So, the Lanza's might have only had 10 round mags, but if he had 10-20 mags, which is quite "possible" we'd still be talking here. So make it a 10 round mag, it only takes 2 seconds to change it.
Want a fact? One should note that the three states with the highest rate of gun ownership (MT, AK, WY) have a gun death rate of 17.8 per 100,000, over 4 times that of the three lowest-ownership states (HI, NJ, MA; 4.0 gun deaths per 100,000). The relationship is a near-perfect linear proportion: on average, as gun ownership goes up, the firearm death rate goes up. And speaking of assumptions, why do you assume I need protection? I'm a gun owner too.
And has been pointed out, there have been several documented cases where the shooter has been tackled and brought down during a reload. (Still waiting on that Giffords reference, Paine.) Would it have made a difference in CT? Perhaps not, since most of the victims were kids. Aurora, on the other hand, where the theater was filled with adults? It can make a difference. It has made a difference. And yet, Daddy, above, is against it, apparently because he can't be "inconvenienced" in the pursuit of his "hobby". He probably feels inconvenienced too, when asked to show ID to buy alcohol, and when refused to be served more when he's had enough. Yet a few simple measures like these have reduced drunk driving deaths by 2/3's in two decades.
Ah, yes. The ever-omnipotent criminal, who always knows where to go to get whatever he needs. Need a dozen high-capacity mags in the middle of a ban? Why, just go to your local Mafia headquarters or hit up your local mob contact. Everybody knows one... right? One might point out that Columbine and Aurora and Newtown and Arizona and others were all executed not by the aforementioned criminal masterminds, but by people apparently without criminal contacts and resources, who obtained weapons from stores and gun shows and through friends. Make trafficking in guns, ammo, and high-capacity magazines a serious offense, and you dry up the supply to the majority of the "spree" killers out there.
The movie theater killer was only stopped when he stopped to reload.
It is very unsettling to see what is presumed to be a grown man use the term 'daddy'. But let's use your matrix for fun. I'd like to apply your gun ownership analysis to the entire country. When I do that, I see gun ownership and gun permits are up SIGNIFICANTLY across the nation yet violent crimes are down nearly everywhere. Your linear relationship may work for cherry-picked states but where is Vermont? Vermont has nearly ZERO gun laws yet it sits at the bottom of the list with just .3 gun murders per 100,000. That's fewer than 1 ...... Look at New Hampshire - same story and their laws also support freedom and liberty. District of Columbia is at the TOP of the list with over 16 gun murders per 100,000 yet they have the strictest laws around. Where are New Jersey, California and New York on your line? Starting to look more like a curve now, huh? How do you reconcile this? My stats are from 2010, the newest I have for comprehensive data. They are easy to find if you care to look. Here's some advice for you.....analyze the data. Don't try to form it to fit your agenda. You look more foolish after each post.
And if you want to grab the FBI Violent Crime data yourself, you'll see violent crime numbers in all categories have been steadily declining nationwide for the past 40 years. And that trend clearly precedes the the relatively recent increase in gun ownership and permits, which itself had been in decline since the 70s. That said, the recent increase in gun ownership in the past decade does tie in fairly nicely with CDC data showing a corresponding flattening and then rise in firearm accident rates. More guns, more guns dropped and misfired at gun shows. Have to "appreciate" that. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000
Dry up the sources, and you turn a bunch of disturbed teens with guns in a bunch of disturbed kids. Still a problem, but not nearly as dangerous. Lots of people used to be killed by drunk drivers. But we enacted stricter blood alcohol limits, raised the drinking age, ramped up law enforcement and penalties, charged bartenders that served drunks and launched a huge public awareness campaign to stigmatize the dangerous behavior in question... and all of those things have reduced drunk driving deaths by over 2/3's in just two decades. In short, we did something about the problem. Not one thing, but lots of things, some big, some small.
No one is trying to take your handguns or hunting rifles from you. That's not even part of anyone's argument, and to suggest so is a waste of time. And no, you don't have to justify anything to me. But I would think you would want to take this opportunity to make your case. Ideological impediment? You accuse me of this? That would be funny if it weren't so sad for us all.
In your example, the CAUSE was addressed. In the case of guns you are addressing the effect. The CAUSE here has nothing to do with guns. The CAUSE is being conveniently ignored. And when another massacre happens, you will say "see, we did all this and still there is murder...we MUST ban all guns to get it right!" So predictable.....
Automatic weapons are tightly regulated in the US. How many of those have been used in mass killings by angry men? Don't you think if they were available that these men would have liked to have used those to increase their body count and bloody glory? In any case, aren't we all after the same things? Keeping the vulnerable and the young safe? That's all I'm after, and up to this point, I still haven't been convinced that tighter gun regulation won't help. If you are in favor of preventing another mass shooting, then you could (and in anticipation of a angry, prickly reaction, I know in advance that you don't have to justify anything to me and I'm not trying to tell you otherwise) tell me what exact measures you think we should take to achieve that, remembering that Adam Lanza (as we know at this time) was under no mental health care or watch, and all the guns he used were his mother's.
A semi-automatic rifle is only an object in a closet or a safe or a trunk until it is put into use. It's the hands holding it that are lethal. You and all the other libs refuse to acknowledge there isn't a gun crime problem in CT. There REALLY isn't a rifle problem in CT or anywhere else.We already have strict gun laws that work. Further regulation will result in nothing because there is nothing to fix. Mass shootings occur randomly by crazy people, laws don't matter to them Now, if you want to be honest, which I seriously doubt, just say you want to ban guns from the public. Attacking a style of weapon is silly. It makes you look unintelligent - of course that may be accidental - and ignorant of the facts. People don't use modern sporting rifles to commit crimes. This is simple stuff, try to follow along....
I'd change nothing. There is no current safety hazzard that needs to be addressed.
The cause of these rare mass killings is mental derangement! Making law-abiding citizens LESS safe and able to protect themselves and their families--and other innocent victims--is NOT the solution. In Canada they found that universal gun registration resulted in MORE violent crime, not less! They have reversed that law and policy now. The true solution is identifying and getting treatment for those who are mentally ill/social misfits who are disconnected with humanity, like AL and the killers in AZ and CO. Anyone with the blank look of young Lanza in his photos, and the others--also their behavior/isolation from human interaction is a ticking time bomb, imo! If we see something like this in a person around us, or someone we have knowledge of (or even suspect needs help!), we must SAY something to their family, school/counseling authorities, or the police if all other options have been exhausted. The parents of the killers in AZ and CO should have gone to the police when they knew something was very wrong with their sons, who refused to get the mental health treatment which was obviously needed.
Do you know that going back to Columbine, that AR15s have only played a roll in three of the 49 mass shootings that the state's OLR examined. And that includes Newtown and Aurora. AKs have played a role in another four I believe but AKs are already banned in CT. Thus, between these two weapon types, they have accounted for only 1/7 of the 49 massacres. Handguns make up the balance. Full-auto weapons and shortened rifles and shotguns were outlawed on a federal basis in 1934 because of the criminal use by mobsters like Capone in that era. The feds did not outlaw any other type of firearm in that law, including semi-auto firearms which were available at the time. Devon, the AR15 was introduced in 1965 and yet there were no massacres then, using any type of firearm. Gun-related massacres start to show up in the late 1970s and then through the 1980s. Since the weapons were available during a period of no massacres, what changed in our society? The rise of cable news and violent video games? A coarsening of society? Gangsta music? Single motherhood explodes? Loss of faith and church-going in decline? Feminism? It is not only the guns.
With drunk driving, we see similar mangled analogies. Like a gun, alcohol sitting in a cabinet or on a bar's shelf is not a problem. A person drinking one or two drinks is likely not a problem even if they get behind the wheel. As Devon points out, it is excess drinking leading to a loss of personal control that results in drunk driving. The same can be said for firearms and people since a gun in a safe or drawer is an inanimate object and a threat to no one. The person near the gun is also not a threat and neither is the shooter who goes to the range. But, when mental stability degrades leading to a "loss of control", the individual combined with a firearm becomes similar to the overly drunk person behind the wheel - a public risk.
You cannot control a person's thoughts and intentions. You CAN control what weapons of mass murder they can get their hands on.
Your attempts to belittle me with your prickly condescension will not work, so stop wasting your time with the snarky comments. It distracts from the real issues.
You expect that the 99% plus of law-abiding gun owners should have their 2nd Amendment Rights "infringed" because of the rare wackjobs who are not getting the scrutiny and mental treatment they need? Chicago, with perhaps the strictest gun Law restrictions in the nation has the highest gun violence/murder incidence in the U.S.! Are those hundreds of children and youth needlessly slaughtered every year in Chicago somehow defying all of your GUN GRABBING logic? You and would be dictators like O and Sen. Feinstein would end up making law-abiding gun owners LESS SAFE! Did you know that Obama, as a state senator, declared his true desires to ban guns, when he voted for a 500 % increase in the Fed. taxes on firearms and ammunition?! www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv3p2lLmjGk "As a state senator in Illinois, President Obama opposed legislation providing an exception to handgun restrictions if the weapon was used in the defense of one’s home. "Obama’s vote would have maintained the status quo, which made it a violation of municipal gun ban law to use a firearm to save your own life in your own home."... In 1996, Obama answered “Yes” to a survey question asking whether he would support state legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.”... www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/01/11/obama-opposed-gun-ban-exception-defend-home/
In a country with 300-320 million firearms, how are you going to prevent the dedicated potential mass murderer from getting a firearm? The vast majority of rampage killings are done with handguns which you can not ban without violating the 2A. So we must focus on secure storage and preventing unauthorized access to firearms. I have suggested repeatedly a state funded program that subsidizes the cost of a gun owner buying a safe. Use a tax credit process up to a certain limit. Reduce the cost and those without safes or secure lockers will buy them. Combine that with increased penalties for not securely storing firearm. Carrot and stick approach. Then there is the entire mental health issue that the Legislature is afraid to touch.
In any case, I am tired of wallowing around in this never-ending rabbit hole of debate with you comment posters here. Signing off this debate......................................."the 2nd amendment was written in the time of muskets before there were automatic and semi-automatic weapons and large magazine capable of mass murder". Discuss amongst yourselves....................bye
Regards, SH
I'm sure you've already come to the realization that this Patch website is not a forum with members focused on being civil, as suggested by SH Dad. Prior to Dec. 14, 2012, it used to be somewhat more civil, dealing with issues such as town budgets, potholes, restoring electrical services after major storms, etc. After the Sandy Hook massacre, the gun control debate has taken over with many local gun owners coming out of the woods to defend their 2nd Amendment rights, which have never been an issue. But we can humor them and let them go on and on. But going forward, they'll have to register their magazines that hold 11+ bullets, or they will be liable for felony charges. Come to think of it, there was one 6 year old child at Sandy Hook Elementary School that had exactly 11 bullets shot into his body. I apologize for the graphic image, but apparently that was not enough bullets for many of these gun owners.