School Shooting in Connecticut

[Black Eye Guy]

That's exactly what I thought when I read it too. She can clearly see where her child's life could end up and there is nothing she can do but carry on as best she can and hope it doesn't happen. Not to mention how hard it must be for the other children in the home. It's a cruel situation for all involved.

You may have heard this story at the time, but there was a murder in the place were I live where a guy stabbed 3 people killing 1. I actually knew all the people involved, the guy who attacked the 3, was a friend of a friend, we all used to hang out when we were younger. The guy that was killed and his girlfriend were in my class in college.
He suffered from depression and his family was all aware of it, they'd tried therapy and stuff, and he was proscribed an anti-depression medication, he OD'd on it in an attempt to kill himself, when it didn't work he told his mom and they went back to the doctor, who proscribed the same anti-depressant but at a lower dosage as he'd OD'd and it was still in his system.
I think it was a few day later, he was out at a club and his ex-girl friends new boyfriend was there, he offered to give him and his friends a lift home, when he dropped him home, he tried to make an excuse to come in, but they wouldn't let him. He went to the 24 hour shop nearby bought a kitchen knife set and went back to the house, he killed the ex-girlfriends boyfriend, stabbed his brother and the ex-girlfriend. Then Killed himself.

Since then his mother has been on a campaign to prove that the medication had a part to play in what her son did, apparently there is violent tendencies associated with the medication, she's been running a blog since then where she discusses things, like just general things about losing her son, and about her mission to get the medication process reassessed.
The murder was 3 year ago, and she's still doing it, you never really hear from the family of the murderer, probably out of respect and a sense of responsibility for the murdered family.
But it's scary to think of a mental condition that can have such horrible consequences.

 

[Kean]

You may have heard this story at the time, but there was a murder in the place were I live where a guy stabbed 3 people killing 1. I actually knew all the people involved, the guy who attacked the 3, was a friend of a friend, we all used to hang out when we were younger. The guy that was killed and his girlfriend were in my class in college.
He suffered from depression and his family was all aware of it, they'd tried therapy and stuff, and he was proscribed an anti-depression medication, he OD'd on it in an attempt to kill himself, when it didn't work he told his mom and they went back to the doctor, who proscribed the same anti-depressant but at a lower dosage as he'd OD'd and it was still in his system.
I think it was a few day later, he was out at a club and his ex-girl friends new boyfriend was there, he offered to give him and his friends a lift home, when he dropped him home, he tried to make an excuse to come in, but they wouldn't let him. He went to the 24 hour shop nearby bought a kitchen knife set and went back to the house, he killed the ex-girlfriends boyfriend, stabbed his brother and the ex-girlfriend. Then Killed himself.

Since then his mother has been on a campaign to prove that the medication had a part to play in what her son did, apparently there is violent tendencies associated with the medication, she's been running a blog since then where she discusses things, like just general things about losing her son, and about her mission to get the medication process reassessed.
The murder was 3 year ago, and she's still doing it, you never really hear from the family of the murderer, probably out of respect and a sense of responsibility for the murdered family.
But it's scary to think of a mental condition that can have such horrible consequences.

Jesus Christ, I'm sorry hun, I had no idea. I know exactly which incident you're talking about. I remember it vividly. There's thousands of cases like that around the country, I'd say. Actually, my mother just told me about a customer she had who told her about her son who was mentally ill, kept getting prescribed medication that didn't help or didn't suit him. He began to feel like he was going to do something, he couldn't handle it any longer so he went out to the hospital and asked them to admit him, but they had no beds so they turned him away and he killed himself that night. God only knows how many more stories like that are going around the country. It's appalling.

 

[Buffy Summers]

I don't think anyone said it's as easy as picking one up from the local shop, I'm aware there is an application process before you get the licence and the gun - but that's the process I'm saying is to easy, not some hypothetical one of buying one from every shop.

I was talking about illegal guns, and yes, people are saying it is super easy to go get an illegal gun here. And aren't Americans so terrible because there are just guns EVERYWHERE. Please.

I'm also not anti-American, or America bashing, discussing an issue relevant to a law America has, and disagreeing with it doesn't automatically make it bashing.

Of course it doesn't. But there are a heck of a lot of comments in this thread based on generalizations and directed at Americans rather than the laws. We're not talking about gun control, we're talking about how stupid Americans are because they don't have stricter guns laws. That IS bashing.

I think the reason it may come across as if everyone seems to think your only talking about it now is because nothing seems to have changed since these school shootings first got media attention, after each one there is allot of talk and then it goes away then the next shooting happens and again it comes back again.

Actually a lot of changes have been made. The three day waiting period for example came after Columbine. Which is not to say more doesn't need to be done, but comments like [paraphrase] "Stick that in your right to bear arms" are NOT discussing the issue. Just because it's the US doesn't mean that free-for-all is okay. If I started a thread saying, "Why is it so easy for people in the UK to buy bomb-making supplies? Haven't they learned anything?" this board would be in an uproar and you know it.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

I was talking about illegal guns, and yes, people are saying it is super easy to go get an illegal gun here. And aren't Americans so terrible because there are just guns EVERYWHERE. Please.

Oh sorry, I misread your initial post, I'd thought you said legal where you'd said illegal, sorry that was me misreading that.
Although, I think the only people saying there were illegal guns everywhere and easy to get where the people who have said making guns illegal wont fix the problem.

Of course it doesn't. But there are a heck of a lot of comments in this thread based on generalizations and directed at Americans rather than the laws. We're not talking about gun control, we're talking about how stupid Americans are because they don't have stricter guns laws. That IS bashing.



Actually a lot of changes have been made. The three day waiting period for example came after Columbine. Which is not to say more doesn't need to be done, but comments like [paraphrase] "Stick that in your right to bear arms" are NOT discussing the issue. Just because it's the US doesn't mean that free-for-all is okay. If I started a thread saying, "Why is it so easy for people in the UK to buy bomb-making supplies? Haven't they learned anything?" this board would be in an uproar and you know it.

I honestly dont believe there would be an uproar, I can't recall an issue being discussed of another country, where people immediately call it bashing.
I think a number of people do bash America for every little thing, and I can imagine it feeling like having to defend everything all the time, but not everyone is bashing. It doess seem very hard to comment in a negative way about America where it's not immediately called bashing.


I heard on the way home, the schools in the area are on lock down because of a suspicious person spotted with a rifle, the news was very vague, and I'd say there is a good chance it's paranoia, I'd say it will just make it ever harder to keep sending kids to school for the last days of term. Are school closing up for Christmas on Friday in the US?

 

[white avenger]

Oh sorry, I misread your initial post, I'd thought you said legal where you'd said illegal, sorry that was me misreading that.
Although, I think the only people saying there were illegal guns everywhere and easy to get where the people who have said making guns illegal wont fix the problem.

Guns are readily available at flea markets and yard sales all over the country. While the gun itself might be perfectly legal (not stolen or of some illegal configuration) the transaction itself might be in violation of state or federal laws for any number of reasons, regardless of whether either the buyer or seller have any sinister intentions.

 

[Washburne]

I can't say that it's right or fair but it's these kind of news that reach us. How small or big part of americans that agree with him I don't know. Obviously. From your perspective, does he have a point?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/16/gun-free-zones-larry-pratt/1773473/

A gunman whose name we do not need to memorialize took advantage of our gun-control laws to slaughter 20 children and six adults in a Newtown, Conn., elementary school.

In addition to the gunman, blood is on the hands of members of Congress and the Connecticut legislators who voted to ban guns from all schools in Connecticut (and most other states). They are the ones who made it illegal to defend oneself with a gun in a school when that is the only effective way of resisting a gunman.

What a lethal, false security are the "gun-free zone" laws. Virtually all mass murders in the past 20 years have occurred in gun-free zones. The two people murdered several days earlier in a shopping center in Oregon were also killed in a gun-free zone.

Hopefully, the Connecticut tragedy will be the tipping point after which a rising chorus of Americans will demand elimination of the gun-free zone laws that are in fact criminal-safe zones.

One measure of insanity is repeating the same failure time after time, hoping that the next time the failure will turn out to be a success. Gun-free zones are a lethal insanity.

Israel finally came to grips with this in the early 1970s and have decisively stopped these attacks after a busload of children was massacred by Muslim terrorists. When I was there in the late 1990s, if you saw a busload of students, you saw at least one young teacher with a machine gun protecting the groups of students.

The Israelis have decisively stopped these school-related attacks and proved they want to live. Do we?

During the decade of the Clinton ban on semiautomatic rifles (the so-called assault weapons) and high-capacity magazines, crime did not go down. Reinstating it would simply be another example of repeating the same failed policy and being surprised with the same failed result.

We must tell our elected officials that they are acting as the criminals' friends as long as they continue to support legislation that protects only criminals, not decent people.

Oh, and we must also insist that these criminal-friendly elected officials not even try to blame gun owners and our "gun culture" for what a criminal did.

Had a few of us been available with guns at the Newtown school, most of the victims might still be alive.

Larry Pratt is executive director of Gun Owners of America.

Here's the swedish link that I read. http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article15943869.ab

 

[brinkster130]

I can't say that it's right or fair but it's these kind of news that reach us. How small or big part of americans that agree with him I don't know. Obviously. From your perspective, does he have a point?

American's support for stricter gun laws has declined over the past two decades; from about 78% to just under 50%. This could have to do with the fact that the decade long assault weapons ban did little to change the number of crimes committed with guns, or it could have more to do with anti-government > government mentality. That being said, it doesn't mean the majority of American's are against there being rules and regulations about who can legally own guns. (Part of this is also undoubtedly due to the difference of opinions in what is considered an assault weapon.)

As far as the article you posted, I think what the author is saying, at best, makes more sense in theory than in reality. Sure having someone on campus who could have stopped the shooter could have saved lives, but there is no guarantee of that. Also, a huge problem that the author doesn't even seem to consider is who would be responsible for training said people to protect their students in an emergency situation like that? The government? Personally, I think expecting the government to train teachers and school staff in counter terrorism and gun accuracy is absurd and I don't have faith that they could even do so effectively. I just don't see how the general public could ever be proficient enough with guns to eliminate these problems.

The one thing I think the author got right (or implied) was the fact that in these mass murders, the gunmen went into a location where their intended targets were trapped and defenseless. This fact wasn't lost on the murders but rather the reason they chose those locations. They planned these murders to take revenge on society and/or people they hated all while glorifying themselves in their death.

Edit: also in the aftermath of the Newton shooting there has been a "We The People" petition started for gun control that has become popular.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2012/12/17/gun-control-petition-is-most-popular-ever-on-white-house-site/

 

[Gum Gnome33]

Also, a huge problem that the author doesn't even seem to consider is who would be responsible for training said people to protect their students in an emergency situation like that? The government? Personally, I think expecting the government to train teachers and school staff in counter terrorism and gun accuracy is absurd and I don't have faith that they could even do so effectively. I just don't see how the general public could ever be proficient enough with guns to eliminate these problems.

Exactly. What the author fails to take into account is that in Israel, every man and woman must join the army at age 18 and serve for several years. So, given that unique scenario, any teacher not only knows how to use a gun but has had practice in defending lives. Israel is a nation that, as soon as it came into existence, had to begin defending itself from its neighbors who have called for its destruction. Are we advocating now that all American citizens over 18 must join the army in order to defend themselves from their fellow citizens, with guns? Has it come to that? (Btw this is not a commentary about how I feel about how Israel has been handling itself lately or my take on the crisis in the Middle East--the fact is that some of Israel's neighbors have wanted to destroy it from the beginning and as a result its defense forces are a priority there, in a unique way).

I've been shaking while posting here, thinking about how we come here to discuss vampires with souls, evil creatures without souls, and a character called the First Evil. And then, here, in this corner--in "the bronze..." Not that this is the first time, but...I'm finding it very difficult to post much else at the time, even though I have so much to say.

 

[white avenger]

I can't say that it's right or fair but it's these kind of news that reach us. How small or big part of americans that agree with him I don't know. Obviously. From your perspective, does he have a point?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/16/gun-free-zones-larry-pratt/1773473/



Here's the swedish link that I read. http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article15943869.ab

I've heard this argument before, and, yes, it does have a certain amount of merit if you consider the targets of choice of predators like this. It's always a school campus, a church, a shopping mall, or some office building, all of which have strict "no firearms allowed" policies, assuring the shooter a fish in the barrel environment. Never a police station, military base, shooting range or gun show. As I say, it does have a CERTAIN amount of merit. That doesn't mean that I would approve of a school where every teacher goes armed at all times. What I WOULD say is that, in my opinion, establishing some sort of "lock down and take cover" alarm, and training school personnel on what to do in this sort of situation, coupled with very fast police support would go a long way in making our schools safer.

As was pointed out, the so called assault weapons ban and other such actions have shown little or no noticeable effect on gun violence, and the cities with the most stringent gun control regulations also seem to be the ones with the highest crime rate. We've tried that, and, basically, for whatever reason, it simply doesn't work. So, what would be so wrong with trying something new?

 

[Black Eye Guy]

American's support for stricter gun laws has declined over the past two decades; from about 78% to just under 50%. This could have to do with the fact that the decade long assault weapons ban did little to change the number of crimes committed with guns, or it could have more to do with anti-government > government mentality. That being said, it doesn't mean the majority of American's are against there being rules and regulations about who can legally own guns. (Part of this is also undoubtedly due to the difference of opinions in what is considered an assault weapon.)

As was pointed out, the so called assault weapons ban and other such actions have shown little or no noticeable effect on gun violence, and the cities with the most stringent gun control regulations also seem to be the ones with the highest crime rate. We've tried that, and, basically, for whatever reason, it simply doesn't work. So, what would be so wrong with trying something new?

Would I be correct is saying the weapons ban that ran for 10 years only applied to weapons made after the ban came into effect?

Meaning any weapons made before 1994 could still be held and sold without breaking the law? The law also referred to a number of specifications that designated a weapon as an assault weapon, so by making simple cosmetic changes to guns, they could get them released under a new name!

If I am correct, I don't see your point at all of how it 'simply doesn't work', that's like half heartedly trying something and when it doesn't work, saying it never will.
There is no reason why a proper ban wouldn't have a proper effect like it has in other countries.

 

[brinkster130]

Would I be correct is saying the weapons ban that ran for 10 years only applied to weapons made after the ban came into effect?

Meaning any weapons made before 1994 could still be held and sold without breaking the law? The law also referred to a number of specifications that designated a weapon as an assault weapon, so by making simple cosmetic changes to guns, they could get them released under a new name!

If I am correct, I don't see your point at all of how it 'simply doesn't work', that's like half heartedly trying something and when it doesn't work, saying it never will.
There is no reason why a proper ban wouldn't have a proper effect like it has in other countries.

Yeah, guns made prior to 1994 were grandfathered in. Whether or not you could still sell them legally varied state to state since states also has their own individual laws regarding guns. As to making small changes to the firearms to make them legal, I honestly don't know. The biggest change we saw with the ban was the increased value of "assault" weapons.

One of the reasons preowned guns were grandfathered in is because according to the Fifth Amendment the government cannot take private property from the citizens without just compensation. The number of guns in the US would make a "buy back", like Australia's, extremely costly; not to mention the uproar from the majority of the public who don't believe the government has the right to do so. (I'm not advocating for this decision just explaining some of the US governments thoughts on it 😉 )

I totally agree that the attempt wasn't strict enough to really judge the true impact of a ban like that. I only mentioned it in response to the general attitude that gun control has never been seriously discussed or acted on in the US. Gun control laws have become stricter in recent years and gun violence remains a problem. Personally, I fully support more gun control, and think it would be good for the US to look at what other countries have done and learn from their models.

 

[November]

Such a terribly sad thing to happen. I think it is the perfect time to talk about gun laws, if not now then when? It wont be "the right time" after the next shooting and the next... (because I have no doubt that it will happen again and again in America if they dont change things).

I find it hard to comprehend that people wont look at the facts here when it comes to guns. Less guns = less gun violence. Sure the real crazies will still blow a place up, but there would be many people who just make a silly split second decision, and without easy access to a gun their plans will never come to be.

 

[white avenger]

Would I be correct is saying the weapons ban that ran for 10 years only applied to weapons made after the ban came into effect?

Meaning any weapons made before 1994 could still be held and sold without breaking the law? The law also referred to a number of specifications that designated a weapon as an assault weapon, so by making simple cosmetic changes to guns, they could get them released under a new name!

If I am correct, I don't see your point at all of how it 'simply doesn't work', that's like half heartedly trying something and when it doesn't work, saying it never will.
There is no reason why a proper ban wouldn't have a proper effect like it has in other countries.

That's pretty much the point. Any law written has to be "from X date onward," it can't be made retroactive, and any existing firearms prior to the ban have to be "grandfathered' (which means that the ban doesn't apply to them) Because of that, the ban was totally useless.

As for the "assault weapons' that the law did affect, they themselves were nothing but ordinary semiautomatic rifles modified to look like real assault weapons. True assault weapons have what is called a "select fire" mechanism which allows it to be either fired as a semiautomatic (firing only one round each time that the trigger is depressed) or as a full automatic (keeps firing as long as the trigger is depressed and there is ammunition in the magazine) are covered under the Gun Control Act of 1928, which required fully automatic weapons to be registered and licensed, and as such are actually exempt from the weapons restriction (nothing was really ever banned) to which you refer.

What everyone thinks of as the Brady Assault Weapons Ban is nothing more than a restriction on certain cosmetic features, primarily a collapsible stock, extended magazine, and/or bayonet lug, added to an otherwise perfectly legal semi automatic rifle.

There can never be a true assault (or any other kind of) weapon ban in the United States, because it would have to apply to already existing firearms, and no elected official would ever attach his or her signature to a law that involves the confiscation and destruction of private property, obtained by legal means, and not used in any crime. Our Constitution forbids that in several ways.

Without violating the Constitution, there is no law that can be passed in the United States involving the ownership and availability of firearms that could be so stringent as to truly affect their criminal use. That's why gun control laws don't, and can't, work in the United States. Our Founding Fathers created guidelines and restrictions within our Constitution which make it impossible for the government to totally disarm its citizens. Like it or hate it, that's the situation.

But the government CAN pass laws and grant funding that would help increase the security on school campuses and other places targeted by this type of predator. It could never be total protection, obviously, but it could definitely be made better than it is today, and without actually turning the schools into armed camps. Maybe it's time for the government to recognize the truth, and start working on things that have a better chance of success.

 

[Washburne]

But the government CAN pass laws and grant funding that would help increase the security on school campuses and other places targeted by this type of predator. It could never be total protection, obviously, but it could definitely be made better than it is today, and without actually turning the schools into armed camps.

Sounds good. Any example on how and where the money would come from? Higher taxes? Talking politics it's "easy" to say that money should be spent on this and that but the reality is that to give money you have to take money from somewhere else. Something that at least here too often is overlooked by the "average" man.


I realize that this might sound "attacking" to some. It's not at all meant that way. It's an important issue and I'm curious. My mind is so narrowminded in this case that I have a hard time putting my thoughts in the right mindset.

 

[white avenger]

Sounds good. Any example on how and where the money would come from? Higher taxes? Talking politics it's "easy" to say that money should be spent on this and that but the reality is that to give money you have to take money from somewhere else. Something that at least here too often is overlooked by the "average" man.


I realize that this might sound "attacking" to some. It's not at all meant that way. It's an important issue and I'm curious. My mind is so narrow minded in this case that I have a hard time putting my thoughts in the right mindset.

Well, the simplest solution would be to use the money saved by bringing our military forces home from the Middle East (which Obama said was his goal during his first term) to finance a new, more extensive security system for our schools and other prime target areas. In addition, partial funding could be cut from foreign aid programs, on the grounds that, as dire as their situations might be, the security of American citizens has to come first. Simply being more careful in the management of other programs and expenditures (like the infamous $500 toilet seat) could make funds available. And those troops from the Middle East mentioned above, transferred to some agency like Homeland Security, would provide the needed manpower, with only a minimum of additional training required.

And as far as raising taxes goes, when has Congress NOT been willing to do that? Or, as an alternative, Obama's infamous plan to "make the upper class pay their fair share" would, in theory, provide at least some funding.

Of course, all of this is just speculation on my part, as rhetorical as anything else, but it seems to me that, if the ultimate goal is to make people more secure in their schools and places of employment, maybe it would be better to make it our primary objective as well, It has as much of a chance of working as anything else that has been tried so far.

 

[Washburne]

Thanks. What kind of extensive security systems are we talking about? I may be working at a school but my mind is blank. Well except for having armed guards but that's not what you mean right?

 

[white avenger]

Thanks. What kind of extensive security systems are we talking about? I may be working at a school but my mind is blank. Well except for having armed guards but that's not what you mean right?

More like alarm systems and fast response teams, coupled with random patrols by unmarked vehicles and personnel (that way, anyone planning anything wouldn't ever know when they're there and when they aren't.) We're not talking about large numbers of security personnel in any single location. Rather, three or four people, trained specifically to handle this type of situation, similarly to the way that police SWAT teams or Navy SEAL teams, to name just a couple, are trained to do their specific jobs, and authorized to use deadly force where required.

Also, school personnel would have to be trained and multiple "panic rooms" installed in all schools to provide proper shelter in the case of an actual incident.

There is no simple solution to this sort of thing, and it isn't going to be fixed overnight, but I think that this is a viable alternative to ineffective gun control legislation, and it has the advantage of being a solution that could be supported by both sides of the gun control issue. I honestly believe that men like Biden and Schumer are using this tragedy as much to push their own agenda as from any real concern for what actually happened here. Schumer has already made at least one public statement about reenacting the Brady Bill, but on a permanent basis, despite the fact that the two handguns in question could have been used just as effectively with smaller capacity magazines by simply reloading once the original magazines were empty, a process that takes less time to accomplish than to mention.

 

[Tueuse de Vampires]

Why complicate things even further? Why not just give up guns, like most developed countries?

It's not like you have to raid houses and illegally take from people what they paid for and legally obtained. There are other ways. First of all, stop selling them. This way at least no new weapons will be put into circulation.

As a next step, you could offer gun owners some lucrative deals for turning in their weapons. Maybe a higher tax return or something like that. I can already hear people scream about the costs of that, but on the long run, I think something likethis carries out for a relatively short amount of time will cost less than keeping up security systems all around schools etc. across the nation!

After the number of guns is lower then, it's time for the final strike. The third step could be to make involve some element of illegality. It doesn't actually have to be the gun (which is the property, and I guess some people do have antique guns that are inherited or something they would not be willing to give up), it could also me the ammo. For example, do not ban the possession of guns, but rather of loaded guns. That way, a gun would not be as dangerous aymore.
Of course there could be exceptions for shooting ranges and and hunting, but then there hould be stricter laws connected to that.

 

[white avenger]

Why complicate things even further? Why not just give up guns, like most developed countries?

In order to enact a plan such as you suggest, the United States Constitution and Bill Of Rights, and the Constitutions of every state in the United States would have to be rewritten. Then the importation of foreign made firearms, which make up probably 40% of all the new guns being sold in the United States would somehow need to be stopped, a much simpler thing said than done. Then there is the problem of the domestic manufacturers of firearms, ammunition, and countless accessories. Put them out of business, and you put thousands more workers in the unemployment lists, and all of the stockholders in all of those businesses lose their investment.

All of that has to be done in order to fulfill just the first step of your "solution." Just that first step alone would take years, if not decades to enact. Implementation of the entire thing would take the greater part of a lifetime.

That doesn't sound very simple to me.

 

[caitaintdead]

There was also an attack in China where a man stabbed 22 kids to death. He used a knife, not a gun... My point is that if people want to commit an evil act, they will use whatever they can to hurt others and commit that evil. Laws are not going to change that.

This should NOT be turned into an argument over gun laws, though. My point in posting this was to share my condolences with the victims and their families. This should not have turned so ugly. People need to put their political beliefs aside and have some heart for the families who are going through this horrible time.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about this too heavily. Honestly I haven't read through majority of the discussion because I know that shootings are something that are quite close to me at the moment.

I just wanted to share my perspective.

On August the 29th my boyfriend that I loved deeply was shot and killed by someone in the Afghan army that he was mentoring while serving in Afghanistan. Most of the people I am close with from here already know about this. It was the most horrible time of my entire life. I was shocked and grief stricken and honestly unless you have been through something this brutal and senseless you really can not understand it.

You know what really hurt though? People turning the death of my boyfriend, the worst time of my entire life into a political discussion. It was sitting on a bus, fighting back tears for weeks on end, and overhearing someone say that we are only over there to suck up to USA. It was sitting at the pub, trying to forget about things for just a couple of moments, and hearing someone say 'well we shouldn't have been there in the first place'.

I know that these kind of events make people want to talk about it but really it should be something done in private. Not on a public forum, not sat on a bus, not sat on a high horse.

Guns laws are incredibly complex. Lets all just shut the hell up about it for 5 minutes and use the passion that we have to stand behind the hundreds of people around the world that are suffering the deepest feelings of grief you can possibly imagine.