Thread: Connecticut school shooting: Reports say more than 20 dead

Originally Posted by Jimmors

My solution: treat it similar to motor vehicle licensing. You need different licenses for different vehicles, a class C license is pretty simple to get, but lets say you want to drive a Semi truck, getting a Class A license is more difficult, requires MORE class, MORE tests, a DOT physical every 2 years, a drug screening. The more dangerous the equipment you wish to operate, the more hoops you must jump through, and the more responsible you must be. Same should go for guns:

Class C: Hunting. This is pretty basic, just need a criminal background check, and demonstrate that you know how to safely operate a hunting rifle (including cleaning, loading, what attire to wear and what to look out for). Limited to purchasing hunting rifles only.

Class B: Self defense: same as above, and must attend a class given by police or other qualified person on proper gun safety procedures, as well as pass a mental exam stating you are fit to carry a gun. Limited to hunting rifles and handguns only. Also, i propose banning all semi-automatic hand guns. Only revolvers. If revolvers were good enough for Dirty Harry and Charles Bronson, they are good enough to defend yourself with.

Class A: Recreation. Same restrictions as class B, Background check extended to your immediate family as well, Psych eval required every 5 years, must attend training course on firearm use and safety procedures (ex-military and police can get an exemption). Can use all of the above guns, as well as semi-auto assault rifles in a recreational setting only.

There...people can still have their guns, but the more dangerous the gun, the more responsible the person must be. Those who are law abiding, sane, responsible gun owners should have no problem getting a class A license, and those who fail any of the criteria can not. At bare minimum, most people should at least be able to get a hunting rifle, which still keeps in line with the 2nd Amendment. And note...the 2nd doesnt say jack shit about "self defense" or anything else, only that people are allowed to "bare arms." If muzzle loaded guns were good enough for our forefathers (beat the British with em), then a hunting rifle is good enough for the rest of us. Also, this way we dont need to ban assault rifles, we merely strictly enforce those who can acquire them.

Closing Gun Show loopholes is a must as well.

First, I like the idea...I really do...in a perfect world, your plan makes a lot of sense...

I am just not sure it can pass Constitutional muster...happy or not, gun ownership is a right, not a privilege, like driving a car...all these hoops and associated "costs" your plan calls for smacks of "poll taxes" and "literacy tests" in reference to another one of our rights, voting...and I know how the courts (and I believe you) feel about those mechanism and attempts...I agree all of our rights can be reasonably limited and restricted...however, they cannot be overly and excessively regulated, especially if the sole reason for those regulations is to flat out diminish or impede those rights...as effective and practical as your plan maybe, I don't think it would ever survive judicial review...maybe I am wrong, I would love to be wrong, so if you have a legal defense for you plan, I would love to hear it....

I believe, on the other hand, an assault weapons ban is much more Constitutionally acceptable...we already ban fully automatic weapons primarily on the grounds that it is not reasonable that civilians need to own such weapons; the legal precedent has already been set...there is no Constitutional conflict with that reasonable restriction...we as a society simply need to shift what we consider reasonable...if We the People through our elect officials pass a law banning semi-automatic military style weapons, the Courts will have no problem allowing it to stand imho....

Originally Posted by loki520

I also notice that you failed to discuss the issue that NOTHING in an assault weapons bad would address the weapons Cho had at VT.

Its not going to solve every problem. But it WOULD prevent some future tragedies, which is the point.

Damn straight guns don't kill people. Car's don't get drunk, knives don't stab without assistance, forks don't make you fat, pencils don't make you misspell, and planes don't simply fly into buildings without being guided into them. Tools. Nothing more than tools, and any tool if used incorrectly can cause death.

Guns.
Cars.
Knives.
Forks.
Pencils.
Planes.

Yes...all are tools. But only one of them is a tool with a single purpose: to kill something. Whether you use a gun correctly OR "incorrectly," it can still cause death, that is the entire purpose of it.

But, that's ok. Lets just disarm those that would follow the law so they can be at the mercy of those that won't. Makes perfect sense.

Ah yes, the standard rhetoric. Who is talking about DISARMING? Anti-gun people want CERTAIN arms banned, and more regulations on other types, combined with closing certain lethal loopholes. But oh yes...straight from the NRA playbook, ANY new regulation is the same thing as "disarming" people.

Assault Rifles. There is absolutely ZERO reason why civilians need them. I propose this challenge...show me ANY case where a "bad guy" was stopped from killing people by someone with an Assault Rifle (non military or police).

Originally Posted by Wolfman

First, I like the idea...I really do...in a perfect world, your plan makes a lot of sense...

I am just not sure it can pass Constitutional muster...happy or not, gun ownership is a right, not a privilege, like driving a car...all these hoops and associated "costs" your plan calls for smacks of "poll taxes" and "literacy tests" in reference to another one of our rights, voting...and I know how the courts (and I believe you) feel about those mechanism and attempts...I agree all of our rights can be reasonably limited and restricted...however, they cannot be overly and excessively regulated, especially if the sole reason for those regulations is to flat out diminish or impede those rights...as effective and practical as your plan maybe, I don't think it would ever survive judicial review...maybe I am wrong, I would love to be wrong, so if you have a legal defense for you plan, I would love to hear it....

I believe, on the other hand, an assault weapons ban is much more Constitutionally acceptable...we already ban fully automatic weapons primarily on the grounds that it is not reasonable that civilians need to own such weapons; the legal precedent has already been set...there is no Constitutional conflict with that reasonable restriction...we as a society simply need to shift what we consider reasonable...if We the People through our elect officials pass a law banning semi-automatic military style weapons, the Courts will have no problem allowing it to stand imho....

Oh, i know its not going to pass. Honestly...i dont think ANY type of gun legislation is going to get passed. We are on holiday break, then its a lame duck session, and by the time the new congress is in session, i guarantee that gun control will have slipped from our collective minds (Newtown will be remembered, but the heated debate on gun control will die down), especially if we end up going off the fiscal cliff, then we will have a brand new thing to be arguing, fighting and bitching about.

I was merely trying to approach this volatile topic from the middle and try and come up with a solution that would appeal to BOTH sides (even though one side isnt going to move an inch, well not untill they have cold dead fingers anyway)

Originally Posted by Jimmors

I propose this challenge...show me ANY case where a "bad guy" was stopped from killing people by someone with an Assault Rifle (non military or police).

Challenge accepted.

Originally Posted by Jimmors

Ah yes, the standard rhetoric. Who is talking about DISARMING?

Anyone that implements a "gun free zone".

Anti-gun people want CERTAIN arms banned

ALL of them in a "gun free zone".

And the certain ones they want banned are fucking nothing more than "scary" looking. There is no FUNCTIONAL difference between various rifles that meet, or don't meet, that ban as it was last time and probably as it will be this time (if).

CCW's have jumped the wickets. They've done everything legally required of them. But there are areas where these LAW ABIDING citizens are not allowed... they are not welcomed. And 99.99999999% of the time, that is where you find your tragic mass murders.