Someone mentioned on Facebook that in 2000, Alameda’s Encinal High has its own school scare when three students were eventually arrested after creating a “hit list” of classmates. Another kid got tied up in the arrest too for taking credit in a chat room but the police dismissed his involvement as a prank. I don’t know if there has been an uptick in gun related deaths or if I’m simply more sensitive to reports of it in the news, but even the weekend after the Sandy Hook shooting there was, yet another, movie theater shooting and trickles of individual gun related deaths have made its way into various police blotters.
I noticed a comment on Alameda Patch yesterday about the question of gun control and some commenter linked to a Washington Post article and attempted to contend that Canada and the US has similar gun ownership and gun violence incidents. Clearly they didn’t bother to look at the map on the link they had posted:
On the subject of gun control, I really want to thank folks who who stayed on topic and brought their relevant experiences as public safety officers or hunters to help further frame the discussion.
But even when we talk about the proliferation of guns in the United States and really begin to have a thorough and rational conversation about gun control, Denise S. brings up a good point about needing to have a serious discussion about the state of mental health care in the United States as well. When you read accounts of parents trying to access the mental health system and the system failing them and their children, it’s just depressing. We have a local connection when the parents of Daniel deWitt recounted their challenges with getting help for their son but were unable to access the proper care.
However, as mentioned by Li_ these two conversation: both the mental health care and the gun control should be discussed but one topic shouldn’t trump another and we should be able to devote equal attention and care to each of these topics. We have seen the impacts of the lack of good mental health care and yet it becomes one of the easiest line items to cut because the population of folks don’t have high powered lobbyists ensuring that those budget item remain intact.
At no time would I suggest that one part of the “violence in America problem” trumps another part. It isn’t a competition event. What I am saying is the following: if we want to actually act, to do something to get enforcable laws on the books regulating guns and their use, then we need to concentrate on that subject. We need to focus all our attention and devote all our assets to gun control. Prioritizing tasks is not the same thing as weighing the value of a cause. Mental health and several other things are equally important, but they don’t add appreciably to going after and getting guns controlled now. As I mentioned before, governance is a one trick pony. We won’t get a law about gun control passed if we go to a council, senate, congress talking about mental health, education and home life.
On the other hand, if we still feel the need for several more months or years to talk all around the subject, then what is out there is fine and meaningful. It is good education and helps us to get to know us. Be aware it just won’t get anything material accomplished, i.e. laws passed.
Comment by Li_ — December 18, 2012 @ 7:17 am
The remarkable article in this morning’s NYT, titled “I am Adam Lanza’s mother” was stunning in its raw exposition of the reality of having a child with serious mental health issues. I have a great nephew with many of the same problems – sometimes they have diagnosed Asberger’s; sometimes other stuff, but another quite brilliant kid who has a brain which is wired wrong and who cannot control his violent impulses. Intermittently o.k. and then totally not o.k. His parents have struggled for 16 years to keep him in school and in control. They are “good people” but get little in the way of real help because, even with health care coverage, our mental health system is poorly prepared to deal with this issue.
So high powered weapons, with very little controls on them, coupled with the miserable state of our mental health care system is a combination that surely leads to the kind of tragedy we just experienced in CT. We need to deal with both, seriously and with purpose. Put politics aside and just get on with sensible solutions.
Comment by Kate Quick,. — December 18, 2012 @ 7:27 am
Lauren, I’ll try to make remarks a little more sober than yesterday, but the Patch thing you mention is exactly one of my points yesterday in that a really productive discussion is a challenge because the very excited gun enthusiasts are ready to make up “facts”. The issue is obviously two pronged. The mental health issue seems to be much more complex. A) because the human aspect just is more complex in terms of understanding the vast array of mental conditions, and environmental factors, but also B) how we go about developing and funding effective programs and policies at this time when we have become hyper focused on cutting the deficit. It will take years to implement solutions even we can agree. The chickens are really coming home to roost on this one.
I’m sorry to be partisan but it’s odd that the people who are dragging their feet seem to be the same on both issues of funding programs and legislating gun control. It’s Tea Party who wraps itself in the Revolutionary War era nostalgia of both second amendment and fighting taxation, think Charlton Heston’s line about ripping his guns from his cold dead hands while he waved a Revolutionary era musket. After 101 California shooting is when our senator Diane Feinstein pushed through the semi-automatic weapons ban in 1993 under Clinton. Cheney voted against that one and it was 2004 under his reign along with Bush the ban was allowed to expire. Cheney was one of only four who voted against legislation requiring detectable levels of metal in guns back in the 1980s. That legislation is set to expire soon.
I’ve been reading Andrew Solomon’s book “Far From The Tree” which deals with a classification of development he calls, “horizontal”, which refers to manifestations which don’t appear to be passed directly as common genetic traits from parents, which he refers to as vertical. The array includes sexuality like LGBTQ, but also deafness, dwarfism, autism, downs syndrome, schizophrenia, and he also includes criminality. The brains of some criminals like the truly psychotic are physically different. Solomon interviews the parents of Dylan Klebold, but the book is 700 pages and I haven’t gotten there yet. I hear the interview with the Kelbolds is compelling in that they come off as very empathetic and responsible people. The point I’m trying to make by mentioning it is to reinforce the point I just made that the mental health half of this is very complex and can’t simply be legislated. The layers of complexity compounded by modern culture with it’s various alienations makes it tougher. I heard a psychologist yesterday say that the levels of video game type aggressive habits in Canada and other countries are NOT vastly different than the Us yet the violence is. Those countries like Australia all digest our media, but what is different? their health care? In order to sort this out we will undoubtedly have to have discussions about the effects of things like media and violent video games and possible legislative restrictions etc. along with discussions about permissive or irresponsible parenting.
Meanwhile what we can immediately legislate the reintroduction of bans on semi-automatic weapons and large magazines which it can be argued would reduce the numbers of casualties while we continue to watch our culture devolve into madness.
Comment by M.I. — December 18, 2012 @ 9:08 am
Lauren, I’ve been thinking about the Sandy Hook massacre.
The problem looks overwhelming and gigantic. But I’ve been thinking of concrete things that can be done, right now.
You probably heard about the gun buyback last weekend in Oakland.
I think this is promising and a positive step. If there is a fund that can be started specifically for gun buybacks. I’ll contribute. Kickstarter campaign perhaps?
Comment by medablog — December 18, 2012 @ 10:23 am
All you hopeless liberal hypocrites need only look in the mirror to identify the problem. To a wo/man, you all gang up on anyone you perceive to have a different viewpoint than your own. [as you will on me after you read this post]. That is bullying in its worst form, and when you do it to the wrong person, it can have devastating consequences. It isn’t just the weapon used, and it isn’t just an American problem: last night NHK [Japanese] news, reported the stabbing of some 20 schoolkids by a single individual in China:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/22-kids-slashed-in-china-elementary-school-knife-attack/
Adam Lanza rightly perceived that there was a whole universe of loving kindness in the tightly knit small town in which he was trapped living. Unfortunately, it excluded him.
When John P Liberal writes that he enjoys beating up on people like Dave H, “because its so much fun”, I wonder why such a tragedy hasn’t happened in Alameda yet.
Comment by vigi — December 18, 2012 @ 10:32 am
vigi, if you can refrain from labeling people as “hopeless liberal hypocrites” it would be a start.
Interesting how you bring up bullying and in the same breath you’re blasting people and acting as one.
Comment by medablog — December 18, 2012 @ 10:49 am
Evidently, knives have been a problem for some time, & more government regulation didn’t seem to help:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html
Uncanny that it happened on the same day, half a world away. Maybe God is trying to tell us all something [hint:stop killing the unborn!].
Comment by vigi — December 18, 2012 @ 10:49 am
medablog, you should look up the meaning of a word like bullying before you attempt to use it [incorrectly] in a sentence. It doesn’t apply to me, because there are always more of you than there are of me. This blog, by the way, pretty much meets the definition of a Bully Pulpit.
Comment by vigi — December 18, 2012 @ 10:57 am
@Vigi–Your post was disturbing. I hope you don’t routinely label people as you did here by calling us “hopeless liberal hypocrites”, especially since a number of us are not all that liberal, at least not on all issues. De-humanizing others and establishing an us vs. them barrier is not a positive move. Bullying may well have played a part in what happened, and many of us have felt how horrible it is to be bullied and excluded but have not acted out in the way that Adam Lanza did, even those with personality disorders or other issues. It’s pretty clear that this situation was a perfect storm of circumstances that triggered this very disturbed young man to do what he did. His mother was under extreme stress from the time he was born. Did his condition contribute to the break-up of his parents’ marriage? Even if it didn’t, did he believe he was responsible? His brother, when interviewed by police said he hadn’t seen his brother in two years. He was only in Hoboken. What about Thanksgiving, Christmas? Clearly, the brothers were not close, to put it mildly. Often kids who grow up with a disabled or autistic sibling can’t wait to get the hell away from the situation and get on with their own lives–he can’t be faulted, but it may have been a factor. The boy’s father left and had recently remarried. He does not seem to have been in the picture much either. Did Adam feel abandoned? Then there is Mom’s fondness for guns. Shooting was probably a way of coping with her extreme stress, which ironically, gun advocates would point out was a beneficial aspect of gun ownership. Clearly she had absolutely no clue that Adam was inclined to use a gun on another human being or she would probably have found another hobby. The big constant is that everybody says he was quiet, which means he didn’t communicate, which means nobody knew what the hell he was thinking about. I have a friend with a daughter who has Asperger’s who is also 20 years old. It has become apparent that she is not ready for the work force, and was unable to handle college life, even while living at home. Her future is a big question mark, just like other people her age, but in her case, instead of “the sky’s the limit” she’s faced with very few options. In this economy, particularly. It’s not about working harder, or keeping a good attitude, or making the right connections. She’s not even in that ballpark but she is one of many people her age who look to the future with foreboding rather than optimism. So yes, if we break down the situation of one person’s mental collapse, gun control may or may not have prevented this particular tragedy. The guns he used were legal. There were front office security measures in place at the school, but Adam Lanza broke in through a window. We can only do so much, and we can’t hope to prevent all tragedies, but if Nancy Lanza had not been able to legally buy those weapons, those people, or most of them, might still be alive, no matter how deranged her son had become. That’s where we need to start. Ban all automatic and semi-automatic weapons for personal use. The mental health part will take years, and we should pursue that with everything we’ve got. The ban on weapons needs only a pen stroke. Let’s get it done.
Comment by Denise Shelton — December 18, 2012 @ 11:24 am
The difference between a knife attack and a gun attack is that as horrific as the knife attack was the children are still alive, albeit maimed.
Comment by Lauren Do — December 18, 2012 @ 12:16 pm
Lauren mentions an incident at EHS in 2000.
AHS also had an incident this last October. Turned out to be a student with a starter pistol and a knife. The whole school went into lockdown, as was appropriate.
The school also had a major drill in October, 2011, run in conjunction with APD and AFD, Unfortunately some teachers insisted on leaving right at 2:55, even though the drill was still going on. Some also filed a grievance because the drill interfered with their prep time. Here’s hoping whatever they missed that day isn’t included in a real life test.
And here’s hoping they’ll be more cooperative next time there’s a drill.
Comment by Kids First! — December 18, 2012 @ 12:41 pm
There is no role for guns in a civil society. Public safety has to trump the right to bear arms when it causes so much devastation. Ban the awful things like they are in most other countries.
Why does anyone – police, citizen or the armed forces (when on home soil) need to have them? They are not a way to settle a real or imagined (contrived in an unhealthy mind) altercation.
Those still wishing to use hunting as an excuse should either learn the bow and arrow or be subjected to onerous restrictions like the UK imposed decisively after it suffered a similar event to Sandy Hook.
Why can’t we see this issue clearly and stop wasting innocent lives?
Comment by Adrian Blakey — December 18, 2012 @ 12:58 pm
This School shooting stuff is not New to Alameda…..We had a Student who baracaded himself at AHS back in 1973 and started shooting at the School Bus and hit a few students…….We had plenty of mental health services at the time and he was later released a year later and went on to Teach at Berkeley High School…..You just can’t make some of this up…..Just like the California Teachers Retirement Fund owned 60% of the Freedom Group a 750 million dollar investment that was the maker of one of the rifles that was used in CT……Interesting Times…I wish I had one easy solution.
Comment by John — December 18, 2012 @ 3:30 pm
Adrian Blakely asks, “Why does anyone – police, citizen or the armed forces (when on home soil) need to have them?”
‘Need’ is not an issue on whether one decides to purchase a firearm. Absent any disqualifying traits anyone who ‘wants’ a firearm can purchase one (or many). The 2nd amendment guarantees that right. Unfortunately no one has found a way to keep those with disqualifying traits to not enjoy the 2nd amendment guarantee as well.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 18, 2012 @ 5:56 pm
One of the best comments I’ve heard so far is also one of the simplest: why is it all or nothing? Why does the NRA claim that absolutely any restriction on gun ownership will threaten Second Amendment rights — and why has that argument been so effective, when it doesn’t make any sense. Frankly I’d be glad to see all guns disappear, but regardless and in reality, we have to do whatever we can, and a restriction on assault weapons in a civilian society is a necessity, and given that these weapons were banned in the past, then it’s doable.
As for “need”: I need to feel safe from lunatics with guns, and I need to ssee other people safe as well, children especially. In a sane society, why should we put up with a threat like that, it makes no sense. It’s not something that anyone should be forced to live with, and it’s a testament to the NRA’s twisted logic — and effective political lobbying — that we put up with this insanity as much as we do.
Comment by Darcy Morrison — December 18, 2012 @ 7:59 pm
Mike probably has more up to date information but some of these numbers are staggering.
Rifles seem to be used only 3% of the time and what percentage of that 3% used assult rifles is unclear which still is not a comfortable number and really shows how big of a problem we face as a country.
U.S. Murders: All 13,636; Hands and Feet 801; Assault Rifles: less than 348
It is often said that guns, particularly assault rifles, are designed for one thing, and one thing only: to kill lots of people.
Assault rifles in the United States are failing miserably in this purpose. There are tens of millions of assault rifles in America. Because the definition of an assault rifle has been rather fuzzy, the number can be said to be anywhere from 10 million to 30 million. Of those, the AR-15 type is fairly common with numbers between 5 and 10 million.
The FBI murder statistics do not differentiate between types of rifles. There are about 100 million rifles in the United States. In 2009, the last year in which numbers have been reported, there were 13,636 murders. Guns were used to murder 9,146 people. Hands and feet were used to murder 801 people. Blunt objects were used to murder 611 people. Rifles were used to murder 348 people, and that is all rifles, of which assault rifles are only a small fraction. Assault rifles are used so infrequently in homicides that many police departments almost never see them; in 2009, there were nine states that did not have a single murder committed with any rifle.
More than 30,000 people die every year from guns in the U.S., and more than 400,000 are victims of nonfatal crime committed with guns.
Comment by John — December 19, 2012 @ 12:20 am
The problem with an assault rifle is that it can do so much damage in a single incident. It’s the potential for massive harm that’s at issue. We haven’t had many deaths by atomic bomb lately either but that’s because few people have access to one. Not sure where you were going with your post, John, but if anyone assumes these statistics mean that assault rifles account for fewer shootings than handguns so they really aren’t a problem needs to think again. I would like to see handguns banned as well but I don’t see that happening.
Comment by Denise Shelton — December 19, 2012 @ 7:54 am
“More than 30,000 people die every year from guns in the U.S., and more than 400,000 are victims of nonfatal crime committed with guns.”
Comment by John — December 19, 2012 @ 12:20 am
Thanks, John. You don’t say, but I assume this data has been being collected for 15-20 yrs? So, as a nation we have been mindlessly allowing the extermination of 30,000 people each year for decades. Extrapolating from that, that is an amazing number of our neighbors here in Alameda Co. that we have been willing to allow to die each year.
What does it say about us that in just a couple of years we can mobilize enough people and clout to pass a law to ban less than 6% of our neighbors from smoking nearby on the off chance that we might get hurt, but we don’t feel compelled to do anything about the certain death of other neighbors? How much of money, resources, county personnel time went into getting a law passed to regulate and ban plastic bag use vs how much have we done to protect our neighbors from terror and maiming due to guns?
How much more time do we need to talk about this?
Comment by Li_ — December 19, 2012 @ 8:52 am
12
Nearly all my hunting is by archery, for a variety of reasons. But it’s interesting to note that bowhunting is illegal in the UK.
Comment by dave — December 19, 2012 @ 9:05 am
#9:Denise, your posts are disturbing for many reasons. How can you regularly pass so much judgement on so many other people without realizing that what you say is exactly what goads the unstable into senseless violence? And you “know” so much about guns, and other things you regularly pontificate about. How much time do you spend at the range? I don’t worry much about disturbing you with a label, because I doubt you’ll ever pick up a gun, much less fire one. Maybe all of you posting ideas about locking up everyone & their guns aren’t smart enough to be liberal hypocrites. Maybe you’re just stupid. Stupidity kills.
It is not coincidence that, with the re-election of a liberal government, sales of guns & ammo have skyrocketed-probably to people afraid of the liberal agenda. Nancy Lanza, by her own account, seems to have been one of them.
I am an NRA member & I learned target shooting in PE at MIT. I have a healthy respect for guns & I think any clip or loading device holding more than 10 rounds should be banned/highly restricted. But ranting on senselessly the way many of you do just goads the real nutjobs into hoarding more guns & ammo! Stupidity or hypocrisy-either way, not a good thing. .
Comment by vigi — December 19, 2012 @ 11:11 am
Denise I was just pointing out some statistics i read….I thought the numbers were staggering.
Everyone hammers the NRA but I appreciate their teaching me how dangerous a gun is a a very young age and respect it.
I don’t think these are all NRA members are out doing these 400,000 crimes commited with Guns…….and these 13,000 murders. I would bet they are less than a percentage point.
Assult rifles are a whole new world……….Probably agree with most on their assesment and what needs to be done with them.
Here is my response to a friend regarding ban on assult weapons.
It is a start.
How about educating our people and make it mandatory to attend NRA classes to buy a gun…..People have NO clue on the power of guns.
How about mandatory education on guns before purchasing a video game that involves the player using a gun to gun down people.They are being rewarded in these games for killing people……. It is crazy.
Comment by John — December 19, 2012 @ 11:52 am
@20
“It is not coincidence that, with the re-election of a liberal government, sales of guns & ammo have skyrocketed-probably to people afraid of the liberal agenda.”
Hmm … let me guess, to protect themselves against UN invading United States to enforce disabilities treaty.
… oh wait, it was not ratified.
I am sorry, my bad.
Comment by oleczek — December 19, 2012 @ 3:43 pm
Good piece in the Washington Post:
A Middle Ground on Gun Limits
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-schumer-after-newtown-pursue-a-middle-ground-on-gun-limits/2012/12/19/69e36a98-4964-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html?hpid=z3
“Now that Heller [Heller v. DC] has ruled out the possibility of anyone ever taking away their weapons, gun owners should be more open to some reasonable limitations. No individual right is absolute, after all. While the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, no one has a right to falsely shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, nor to traffic in child pornography. Likewise, the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms also comes with limits.”
Comment by Darcy Morrison — December 19, 2012 @ 9:50 pm
16. “Assault rifles are used so infrequently in homicides that many police departments almost never see them; in 2009, there were nine states that did not have a single murder committed with any rifle.” Really? And what exactly does that prove? Statistically “crime rates” (over all) are down since the assault rifle ban was lifted as they were also on the decline for some time before, but to cite those stats with regard to mass killings is irrelevant, yet gun advocates continue to do just that. Do you want to somehow correlate your rifle stats to criminals being a thwarted by the threat of assault rifles which you yourself claim are not very effective? Many assault rifle advocates have used that stat in the media and it’s so meaningless I don’t know why they bother. It seems they are grasping at straws.
“It is often said that guns, particularly assault rifles, are designed for one thing, and one thing only: to kill lots of people. Assault rifles in the United States are failing miserably in this purpose.” did you really mean that? tell that to the folks in Connecticut who are burying their children. How many dead six year olds does it take for you to deem assault rifles effective for killing lots of people ? You must have love the NRA speech yesterday. You seem to share the same logic. While the NRA used to be the sort of organization which actually fostered sound gun practice about which you wax nostalgically in other comments, they now get the fast majority of their funding from sources other than membership dues and they have devolved into a crass partisan lobbying organization, not for gun owners but for the gun industry.
Comment by M.I. — December 22, 2012 @ 11:05 am