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.

Originally Posted by loki520

Anyone that implements a "gun free zone".



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.

"gun free zone" is not the same thing as "disarming." If a person wants to keep their guns, then they can stay out of said zone. And "Law abiding citizens" are welcomed, its their guns that are not.

and 99.9999% of the time, mass murders happen in locations relevant to the person (for the most part), the school they attend, where their spouse works or goes to church, or where the person was employed. The fact that they are "gun free zones" is coincidental, not causal.

Even if you want to draw a causal relationship, it still completely ignores the tens of thousands of people who are murdered each year in places where guns ARENT banned, but since its only one or two people, guess it doesnt matter? Killers (particularly mentally disturned ones) will kill ANYWHERE, regardless if its "gun free" or not.

Problem with guns is, they provide the potential to kill, irrespective of how "responsible" the owner is. That is why they are banned from certain places.

Yes, 99.999999999999% of all mass murders via guns being held in gun-free-zones is entirely coincidental. You keep believing that. The idiot in Aurora went past 3 or 4 theaters, JUST AS BUSY as the one he eventually arrived at... all of which were closer to his house... and the only known difference is that the one he ended up in is the only one that was "gun-free".

And if any of this bullshit was about the other murders that occur, outside of the mass murder scenario, you would be able to point to the success of gun-limiting regulations in Chicago, NY, etc... You can't. It doesn't exist. Chicago has some of the strictest gun-control laws in the land, and it's not working out very well for them at all... is it? What is it.... 60 dead and more than 460 wounded children in 2012? You can tell how effective this shit is as the AWB was in effect for five years BEFORE Columbine, and yet... there we are. There is nothing government can legislate or regulate that will stop this shit. The best thing they can do is PROTECT people, or allow people to protect themselves.

Secondly, if this isn't about "disarming", why even bring up those non-mass-murder cases since those cases are... more than 98% of the time... done with weapons OTHER than "assault rifles". These crimes aren't committed with anything under any proposed ban, but plain vanilla shotguns, long guns, pistols, etc... Why even MENTION those in the pursuit of regulation entirely unrelated to their function if the goal is NOT to eventually try and disarm?

You are either trying to attempt an emotional response to achieve a political agenda (lets talk about ALL gun murders while we try to end availability of assault weapons), or you are trying to set this up as the first step towards more extreme gun regulation (not enforcement, which is lacking) than we already have.

But... we will have to agree to disagree on these specifics. You trust the government to do the right thing. I trust them to do the exact opposite, just like they always do. We'll end up with more regulation that fucking achieves NOTHING, but makes you feel better. I would rather have something effective at the schools my grandkids attend (doors that lock from the inside, armed principle or staff on grounds, doors that are hardened, etc.) than anything currently in place. The "style-over-substance" regulation against anything has never been effective.

Originally Posted by loki520

Yes, 99.999999999999% of all mass murders via guns being held in gun-free-zones is entirely coincidental. You keep believing that. The idiot in Aurora went past 3 or 4 theaters, JUST AS BUSY as the one he eventually arrived at... all of which were closer to his house... and the only known difference is that the one he ended up in is the only one that was "gun-free".

I said "for the most part." Columbine was chosen because that is where they attended, same with VTech, same with Ft Hood and so on. So yes, i believe in the vast majority of these cases, it is coincidental, not causal.

And if any of this bullshit was about the other murders that occur, outside of the mass murder scenario, you would be able to point to the success of gun-limiting regulations in Chicago, NY, etc... You can't. It doesn't exist. Chicago has some of the strictest gun-control laws in the land, and it's not working out very well for them at all... is it? What is it.... 60 dead and more than 460 wounded children in 2012? You can tell how effective this shit is as the AWB was in effect for five years BEFORE Columbine, and yet... there we are. There is nothing government can legislate or regulate that will stop this shit. The best thing they can do is PROTECT people, or allow people to protect themselves.

And NYC also has very strict gun laws and their murder rate is much lower, so if your argument is that tough gun laws dont lead to lower gun violence, then you should base that argument on more then just a single city, there are many other major metro cities with tough gun laws and low homicide rates, so perhaps the problem in Chicago or New Orleans is not caused by gun laws but by other factors? Or maybe a combination of both. Its a complex question, and as such has a multitude of factors to consider when making any assertion, something you are oblivious too by using chicago as a lone example to bolster your argument.

Secondly, if this isn't about "disarming", why even bring up those non-mass-murder cases since those cases are... more than 98% of the time... done with weapons OTHER than "assault rifles". These crimes aren't committed with anything under any proposed ban, but plain vanilla shotguns, long guns, pistols, etc... Why even MENTION those in the pursuit of regulation entirely unrelated to their function if the goal is NOT to eventually try and disarm?

You are either trying to attempt an emotional response to achieve a political agenda (lets talk about ALL gun murders while we try to end availability of assault weapons), or you are trying to set this up as the first step towards more extreme gun regulation (not enforcement, which is lacking) than we already have.

Its the latter...im all for a complete gun ban. But, im a realist and i know this will never happen, so i accept that fact. Just voicing my opinion on the matter. Fact is, if we are just discussing homicides done by actual criminals (not crimes of passion incidents), then to start with...the majority of them are drug related. So that right there is an option to address...our drug problem. Legalizing drugs would reduce gun homicides dramatically (they would still happen, but not nearly at the levels we have now). Many other crimes are robbery, which aare typically done out of desperation, so if we addressed the socio-economic problems of this country, this also would reduce robbery and assault homicides (as well as suicides). So yes, there are other non-gun related laws and legislation that can be used to address the problem of gun violence in this country, and it IS a problem.

But... we will have to agree to disagree on these specifics. You trust the government to do the right thing. I trust them to do the exact opposite, just like they always do. We'll end up with more regulation that fucking achieves NOTHING, but makes you feel better. I would rather have something effective at the schools my grandkids attend (doors that lock from the inside, armed principle or staff on grounds, doors that are hardened, etc.) than anything currently in place. The "style-over-substance" regulation against anything has never been effective.

No, i trust the government to do absolutely nothing. Which is exactly what will be done: nothing. Right now, its all talk and debate, but nothing will come of it, as usual. And its damn ironic, considering the gun lobbyists like the NRA feed off this paranoia of "theyre gonna take your guns!!" even though the government has been doing the exact opposite for 20 years now, but hey, get people scared, they buy more guns, and that funds the NRA. Cant raise funds if you preach the truth and have rational discussions with your members.

Originally Posted by loki520

Yes, 99.999999999999% of all mass murders via guns being held in gun-free-zones is entirely coincidental. You keep believing that. The idiot in Aurora went past 3 or 4 theaters, JUST AS BUSY as the one he eventually arrived at... all of which were closer to his house... and the only known difference is that the one he ended up in is the only one that was "gun-free".

I am also going to call BS or at least strongly question your claim regarding the theaters in Aurora, Co (sounds like internet bullshit to me)...a quick check of the major theater chains in Aurora (Century, AMC, Regal) show they all have similar "gun-free/anti-gun" polices...where are all these 3-4 gun friendly theaters JUST AS BUSY as the Century 16?