Pittfan03 wrote:

kimbatiste wrote:

Pittfan03 wrote:

kimbatiste wrote:

Pittfan03 wrote:If I was that Ryan Lanza guy, I'd be suing all the major news outlets for libel. Holy #$!&@.

And he will lose.

Why? They plastered his name and photo all over the TV and websites saying he murdered 30 people. How would he lose?

1. Because no jury is going to make this guy rich based on his brother killing 30 people especially if he was involved in any way (which the fact that he is in custody would suggest)
2. My understanding is that these newspapers were just reporting what they were being told by the police. If that's case, no libel as it would typically be covered under the fair reporting privilege.

I get that if he had something to do it, then what I said is irrevalent. But if he just has the misfortune of being related to the asshole who did, then he should. I hate that news media are in such a rush to report news first that they'd be reckless like that. I'm guessing that they took him into custody just to be safe, and see if he knows anything.

@ABCWorldNews: Ryan Lanza, brother of gunman Adam Lanza, tells authorities that his brother is autistic, or has Asperger syndrome.

Eddie Jordan wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248357/Let-Let-Hero-music-teacher-saved-15-children-barricading-closet-gunman-Adam-Lanza-hammered-door.html

how does she know it was the shooter and not someone looking for a safe place to hide

Trent Steele wrote:Not trying to get political....but I though Obama really struck the right tone in his speech on this.

Trent Steele wrote:

Eddie Jordan wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248357/Let-Let-Hero-music-teacher-saved-15-children-barricading-closet-gunman-Adam-Lanza-hammered-door.html

how does she know it was the shooter and not someone looking for a safe place to hide

Maybe the voice? Tough call. If I had 15 small children, I probably wouldn't have open the door either for one person.

drsmooth wrote:The confusion about which of his parents he killed before going to the school is odd. Early reports were he had killed his dad, then gone to the school. his mom worked at the school, and school would have been in session at the time the shootings took place.

Would obviously add to the horrible strangeness of this if he killed his mom at home, THEN went to the school where she wouldn't be, to shoot up the kids in her classroom.

Gimpy wrote:

kimbatiste wrote:

Gimpy wrote:(I really don't want to turn this into a gun control debate, but...) Regarding gun laws, states with the strictest gun laws (California and New Jersey) have serious problems with gun violence. Connecticut is probably the third strictest gun control state in the country and that's where this tragedy happened. Criminals use guns illegally. Laws won't stop them.

Saying gun laws will prevent gun violence is like saying drug laws prevent people from getting high.

Also from that article (can't figure out how to post the map)

9. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.

Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths. The disclaimer here is that correlation is not causation. But correlations can be suggestive:



“The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state,” explains Florida. “It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place – assault weapons’ bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements. Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).”

New Jersey has very strict gun laws. Feel free to come over and take a stroll through Camden in the middle of the night sometime. Preventing gun violence comes down to diagnosing mental health problems and thoroughly teaching people that do own guns (and the people in their homes) about proper gun safety.

I'm not going to keep posting about this because it's really derailing this thread about an awful tragedy.

WilliamC wrote:

Trent Steele wrote:Not trying to get political....but I though Obama really struck the right tone in his speech on this.

He did a nice job. I can't begin to imagine the state of mind those with young children might be in.

Napalm wrote:The criminals that have guns like the ones you're referring to don't attack innocent people like that. They shoot at other criminals or people in shady dealings as retaliatory, and they're acquiring their guns illegally. Who was the last shooter to commit a spree that didn't purchase their weapons legally?

Pittfan03 wrote:

kimbatiste wrote:

Pittfan03 wrote:

kimbatiste wrote:

Pittfan03 wrote:If I was that Ryan Lanza guy, I'd be suing all the major news outlets for libel. Holy #$!&@.

And he will lose.

Why? They plastered his name and photo all over the TV and websites saying he murdered 30 people. How would he lose?

1. Because no jury is going to make this guy rich based on his brother killing 30 people especially if he was involved in any way (which the fact that he is in custody would suggest)
2. My understanding is that these newspapers were just reporting what they were being told by the police. If that's case, no libel as it would typically be covered under the fair reporting privilege.

I get that if he had something to do it, then what I said is irrevalent. But if he just has the misfortune of being related to the asshat who did, then he should. I hate that news media are in such a rush to report news first that they'd be reckless like that. I'm guessing that they took him into custody just to be safe, and see if he knows anything.

In the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing, Richard Jewell sued the #$!&@ outta people for naming him a suspect. He won, IIRC.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Pittfan03 wrote:

kimbatiste wrote:

Pittfan03 wrote:

kimbatiste wrote:

Pittfan03 wrote:If I was that Ryan Lanza guy, I'd be suing all the major news outlets for libel. Holy #$!&@.

And he will lose.

Why? They plastered his name and photo all over the TV and websites saying he murdered 30 people. How would he lose?

1. Because no jury is going to make this guy rich based on his brother killing 30 people especially if he was involved in any way (which the fact that he is in custody would suggest)
2. My understanding is that these newspapers were just reporting what they were being told by the police. If that's case, no libel as it would typically be covered under the fair reporting privilege.

I get that if he had something to do it, then what I said is irrevalent. But if he just has the misfortune of being related to the asshat who did, then he should. I hate that news media are in such a rush to report news first that they'd be reckless like that. I'm guessing that they took him into custody just to be safe, and see if he knows anything.

In the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing, Richard Jewell sued the #$!&@ outta people for naming him a suspect. He won, IIRC.

Just stop. The media repeated what a police spokesperson said publicly. The Jewell case isn't even close to the same thing.

Gimpy wrote:

Napalm wrote:The criminals that have guns like the ones you're referring to don't attack innocent people like that. They shoot at other criminals or people in shady dealings as retaliatory, and they're acquiring their guns illegally. Who was the last shooter to commit a spree that didn't purchase their weapons legally?

I said I wouldn't keep posting about it, but I severely doubt that all of the 60+ people that have been murdered in Camden this year have been criminals.

Eddie Jordan wrote:

Gimpy wrote:

Napalm wrote:The criminals that have guns like the ones you're referring to don't attack innocent people like that. They shoot at other criminals or people in shady dealings as retaliatory, and they're acquiring their guns illegally. Who was the last shooter to commit a spree that didn't purchase their weapons legally?

I said I wouldn't keep posting about it, but I severely doubt that all of the 60+ people that have been murdered in Camden this year have been criminals.

It's a process to get guns off the street, having laws in place to make it more difficult for citizens to acquire them legally doesn't change gun violence statistics overnight. It's a process, to remove gun ownership from the fabric of being an American citizen doesn't just happen instantaneously. You seem really hung up on Camden as a beacon for why gun laws are a failed attempt, If you'd like criminal activity reduction in Camden, the drug laws have a major impact. Felony drug charges for selling marijuana are insane. You put people in jail for selling weed in an area where it's really difficult to get ahead. You essentially ruin someones future for adapting to their surroundings and trying to survive.