(Greek: κρυπτεία / krupteía, from κρυπτός / kruptós, “hidden, secret things”)

First There’s Unimaginable Tragedy: A Statement On Sandy Hook and Its Fallout

with 6 comments


First off….

I live in Connecticut and have much of my life. I have friends and family who were directly affected by this tragedy and since last Friday I have been out of sorts over this dealing with the deaths and in one case the survival, of someone there. As the days have passed I have begun to deal with all of this emotionally and try to rationalize the events as well as the aftermath. It is with my perspective here in Connecticut, with direct ties to those involved that I now write this post that is not Information Security oriented, but more “security” oriented.

Please beg my indulgence here because I feel that it all needs to be said.

Life is fraught with dangers.

Today we humans go about our business mostly free of the fight or flight mechanisms we used to have to deal with every moment of our lives when we lived on the Savannah. We have formed societies to work together to make our lives safer and to move forward and strive for a better existence. We often forget that even today, there are dangers in every situation from falling in the shower and killing ourselves by accident to just having a heart attack where we sit eating a cheeseburger. Unfortunately today though, another threat is from mass spree killings either by terrorist types or, as we have seen in more recent times, spree killings with assault weapons and IED’s.

In other parts of the world there are of course other daily threats for those living in them. In the Middle East we see every day on the news how dangerous it can be just to go and get food at a local market because a Jihadi has placed an IED in a car. It’s all a variable of where you live really that accounts for the number of daily threats to your life there are. In our society in the US, we live a pretty safe existence for the most part and we seem to forget that every day, anywhere, can be fraught with danger from the mundane to the extraordinary.

Now, here, in this country we are once again afraid that some mentally ill individual will take up arms against us or our kids. We reflexively flinch at every copycat report of threats to schools now being perpetrated by other mentally ill individuals seeking to fulfill whatever deranged fantasies they have and we most of all, fear it. Exactly what those people doing these things wants. So reactions and reactionary statements on the parts of many are assuredly going to fly on the internet as well as the media and in person.

What I want you all to remember is this; Death can come for you at any time, in any way and you cannot live your lives in fear.

Gun bans won’t help.

Since the shootings talk of gun bans whether they be on so called “assault weapons” or en mass and I am already sick of it. Statistically the previous ban on assault weapons did not affect the shootings rates at all here in the US whether they be spree killing or not. As a matter of fact the nature of humans seems to be if I can’t have a gun and I am determined to hurt people, then I will find another way. Britain for example had to ban the import and sale of Katana’s because as you may know, they do not allow the ownership of pistols as a rule. It seems that since people couldn’t really get and use guns, they’d just go for the old Edo period be-headings instead.

In the US though, it would be pointless to try to ban guns altogether as they are a part of our culture that can never be removed. I also agree that it would be stupid and yes, once again it would not change things. We have the Second Amendment here and I bear arms too with a license to carry. Guns are easily procured here legally as well as illegally and this will not change. It’s really the illegally part that I see as the larger of the problems when it comes to this issue of banning them or banning “types” of guns. In the end unless they are all collected and melted down, there will be assault weapons out there on the black market and people will pay for them.

If a mentally ill person is organized enough to legally or illegally obtain weapons they will do so because it is their will to do it.

Assault weapons… Do we really need them as civilians?

With the above statement on bans, I also find myself in the position of asking myself if I, as a civilian, really need to have access to and possession of an assault rifle. In point of fact, my wife and I did have an AR-15 but sold it a while ago so mea culpa, I did have one. However, I for one never thought that I would indeed “need” one to protect myself as others seem to think today. While some would argue even that the AR-15 is not an assault weapon because there is no “selector” on there, I still say that it is indeed one, automatic fire or not. It was designed as one, it is used as one with slight modifications, and it’s sole purpose is to be used as a weapon of war.

Can someone kill just as many just as quickly with a pistol or another kind of rifle? Yes, it is possible and the linchpin may in fact be the magazine loads allowed. In the case of the Bushmaster AR-15 type weapon used by Adam Lanza, it had a 30 round mag potential and he had enough magazines to kill everyone in that school twice over. What makes the difference is the rapidity of reload here and that goes for any gun with a magazine. In the end though, do we really need a 30 round magazine to sport shoot or to hunt? The answer is no. But that is not the problem, it’s not a matter of need. It’s a matter of want here. People “want” to feel that they have power and to have an assault weapon with a 30 round magazine gives them a real sense of empowerment.. Albeit a false one.

So, back to the issue of do we really need assault weapons or high capacity clips. The Second Amendment speaks of a “Well Regulated Militia” and for me that would in fact be the National Guard, but the intent by the founders was to mean the populace would “regulate” the militias. Many hang their logical fallacy hat on this little statement within the amendment as their right to bear arms as well as the right to bear assault weapons. I’m sorry, but you are not a militia and in fact, I have yet to see any real data on just how many citizens have in reality had to react with the force of an assault weapon to protect their homes or families. Frankly, a pistol will do and in a pinch a rifle or a shotgun, there is no need for overkill. The stark reality is that many of the nutters most vociferous over this issue are the types who feel so inadequate that they need to over-compensate with a big gun.

On the other hand many people just like to have them and shoot them and at present, it is not illegal and you know what, they shouldn’t be. I just think that if you say that you “need” one because you fear that the government or the aliens or the zombies are coming to get you..

Well, then I fear that you are unbalanced.

Mental illness management.. No, it’s not a panacea.

Another hue and cry is over mental health issues within this country. I agree that there are many issues here and for the most part it is a problem that has been ignored by the state. The arguments going on now though are just the same arguments that went on post the Virginia Tech shootings and it’s been some time since that happened. To my knowledge nothing substantial has been done either in the means of preventing the mentally ill from procuring weapons, nor having a better system to detect, deter, and treat the mentally ill who might harm others. So what good came of all the talk back then? Sure, it would be good to have better means to determine who might be a threat but it will never stop every determined person from committing heinous acts like that in Sandy Hook. Nor is it possible to detect every person who may go over the edge and do such things. Mental health reform is needed, but not as a panacea to the issue of spree killings.

So if you are going to work on the mental health issues.. Please do so for the benefit of those who are mentally ill and not to be some prophylaxis for spree killings.

A determined attacker will find a way.. No matter what measures are in place.

Meanwhile, we have people wracking their collective brains to protect schools from these types of attacks. Frankly Sandy Hook Elementary had good measures in place but only lacked a full bullet proof glass shield around the whole building. You do see the lunacy of such a statement as being a measure of protection right? This goes back to my statement above that danger lies in our every waking and sleeping moment. It’s a fact and we can take precautions, but at what point does it become counterproductive to keep laying on protections?

All of this talk of guns and mental health as well as the protections for facilities like Sandy Hook Elementary is just so much babble. Lanza fired through the glass and the buzzer and locks protecting the facility were defeated. It’s a simple thing but the problem is that many people just could not conceive of the idea that someone would do that to attack innocent five and six year old’s. Unfortunately now, it is conceivable because it has happened. Now what do we do? Do we make each school a bunker? Do we equip each school with bullet proof/bomb proof panic rooms?

It’s time to reflect on all of this and make some sane choices.. I am afraid though, that sanity has left us all because of this horror.


Finally, for those of you on my twitter feed and elsewhere that I frequent who are gun enthusiasts please take a step back and think. I have laid out my position here quite clearly. It’s fine to disagree but please, stop the constant fearful chatter that your rights are going to be infringed and that the gubmnet is taking away your guns. They aren’t, and I don’t think they will be. All of this solipsism is making me sick. Let the politicians talk and then let the people decide. Stop the mental masturbation over your guns and your perceived rights because it makes you look desperate and silly.

Keep your bravado to yourselves and let us all grieve for a while.


Written by Krypt3ia

2012/12/19 at 14:55

Posted in Sandy Hook

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. All good points here. I am glad to see many of us saying the same thing. Leave it alone for a time… we can argue later.


    2012/12/19 at 16:01

  2. The problem is that most of the features that people use to identify “assault weapons” are almost completely cosmetic. If you look at the features that the 2004-expired ban listed, they were almost completely cosmetic and had little to do with the functionality of the weapon. I say “almost” because some had limited functionality (e.g. folding stock), but not to the extent that they were somehow more lethal than others. These features don’t enhance the power of the weapon, at all.

    People also say that they are “weapons of war”, which is a fabrication of the media. These weapons aren’t used in war zones like people claim, they may LOOK like weapons that are, but that doesn’t change how they function. If you disassembled an AR15-type gun and a semiautomatic hunting rifle, you’d find they function very similar internally. There isn’t anything that makes these so called “assault weapons” more dangerous than any other semi-automatic rifle. That’s why you’ll hear a lot of gun people talk about “scary black rifle syndrome”, indicating that people are fearful of the way the gun looks, but not the way it functions.

    Further, even if they were, so what? The M24 rifle used by the Army uses common bolt action components from the Remington 700, a very popular bolt action hunting rifle. Should we ban that simply because parts of it are used in military weapons? You can list off any number of very popular guns that are used by the military in various circumstances that aren’t “assault rifles”. The fact remains that what most people identify as “assault weapons” are semi-automatic rifles that are functionally no different than any other semi-automatic rifle, whether they are used by the military or not is irrelevant.

    The ONLY functional ban that impacts the power of the gun is the magazine capacity. I won’t argue that the magazine capacity doesn’t impact how lethal the gun is, that point is argued well enough already, but it does impact the performance of the gun. Whether you need it or not, is also an issue up for debate that I don’t want to touch on. While I may disagree with a ban, I do understand why people are targeting high capacity magazines because they are a functional component that impacts the gun itself. What I fail to understand is why cosmetic features have anything to do with the ban at all.

    If you owned an AR15 before, what exactly makes you think it’s more dangerous (magazine capacity aside) than any other semiautomatic rifle?

    Also, keep in mind that the emotional reactions you are seeing by the gun community really aren’t any different than the reactions you are seeing by the gun control community. The only difference is the argument, I’ve seen gun control advocates talk about some really stupid stuff over the past few days and being very unwilling to discuss other possibilities. The difference in both groups is whether you are willing to consider the sides points and actually think about them, which is why I’ve stayed silent on the issue (until now, anyway). I felt that 99% of the people I’ve encountered that disagree with me will do so without any further thought about what I’ve said, simply as an emotional reaction. Again, both sides of the argument are acting this way, but it’s not worth arguing with people that will react emotionally only and without thought.

    Anyway, I chose to comment on your blog because you seem fairly reasonable and willing to actually evaluate what you are saying. I have to honestly say that it’s the first time I’ve encountered someone in the past few days that is willing to do so.


    2012/12/19 at 16:09

  3. Jake, thank you and yeah, overall the idea of just what makes an “assault weapon” is equally cosmetic as well as functionary. I think that perhaps I was more so alluding to the mag capacity than anything else. However, the whole aegis of the AR-15 is to be the “civi” model of a warfighting weapon so in that alone it is to me, an assault weapon.

    Banning it though will not help.. Nor would banning the large clips as they would just be obtained by those wanting to use them for ill purposes. It’s all just reactionary claptrap that has been making me sick. Reason needs to win out but unfortunately people seem to lose their reason fairly quickly.


    2012/12/19 at 16:13

  4. It is a well thought arguement…If you are a strict constitutionalist. What I find ironic is when the “other side of the aisle” then argues for a living constitution regarding other rights for this but not that. But, as you have written as rationally as one can in these emotional times there needs an examination of what is acceptable and then running our conclusions with the people and then abiding that decision.

    I fear we will live in even more interesting times.

    Peter Lee

    2012/12/20 at 06:53

  5. Unfortunately both the anti and pro-firearm arguments were made long ago, ready for events like this. If it’s any consolation, this particular incident couldn’t have been predicted, or even prevented – it’s near impossible for a normal person to find a motive behind it. We just can’t imagine how anyone would gain anything from committing an act like this.
    More firearm controls won’t solve the problem, as the nutters are still out there, and they will act out some other way. People are going off the deep end, unnoticed for whatever reason. Here in the UK, there was a period when nutters went mental in churches armed with katanas (hence the ban, which has since been relaxed somewhat). We still get the odd problems with machetes, quite a few stabbings, glassings, etc. etc.

    The circumstances that created the core problem still exists.


    2012/12/20 at 13:02

  6. I heard a leo say he used 4 handguns in the attack.
    I generally agree with you though. I’ve been kinda a cat in the water about the whole gun thing because it really sends my geographic area into a tailspin when it comes up. I think it’s really a bad strategic issue for democrats, and it’s really divisive for us all.
    We’re really divided politically and I think it’s a bad time for all this. It’s just dividing us more.


    2013/01/09 at 22:36

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: