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

Originally Posted by motownbear

I hear yeah wolf. The mantra of dont give an inch cause they will then take a mile really isnt going to work anymore. Anyone who wasnt shaken after this tragedy just isnt human. I see the end of the line for allot of stuff. So be it. But Im not buying it is going to help one iota. I want something to be enacted that will work. The last three tragedies could have been avoided

1. movie shooter=his psyciatrist broke confidentiality and contacted authorities about the shooter in advance to the shootings yet nothing was done and people died

2. mall shooter= never owned a fire arm so stole it from someone he knows. Could have been prevented with a 100 dollar gun safe

3. school shooter= mom a gun owner, didnt secure her stuff. Tried to get him instituted but so much red tape to get that done her actions were just too late. You cant be committed as an adult without court approval unreal.

all Im saying if gun laws have to change analysis shows allot more shit needs to change too. Banning guns is the easy part and just something politicians can say hey we are saving you. bologna there is so much more they can fucking do that will impact us positively

The government mandating that someone buy something for their own good and the good of our society? Where have I heard that song before and the MASSIVE argument against it?

But seriously, I agree we need to do more than just ban a few guns and I agree banning those gun will probably be the easy part, at this point...

However, going beyond a ban to included something of thing you are talking about will require something, that many (perhaps yourself and certainly many that high-fived your post) have routinely balked at in the past...the expansion and reach of BIG government...

I love the idea of requiring every gun owner to have a gun safe and/or use gun locks...as responsible gun owners, they should already being using both...but how do you mandate that? More importantly, how do you verify that? What are the punishments or consequences for non compliance? Regulation without proactive verification is pointless, toothless, ineffective...which is precisely what we are trying to avoid....

These questions don't seem to have any easy answers...and the answers I can come up would be probably be very probabilistic and objectionable with the anti-government crowd...

Originally Posted by Wolfman

The government mandating that someone buy something for their own good and the good of our society? Where have I heard that song before and the MASSIVE argument against it?

But seriously, I agree we need to do more than just ban a few guns and I agree banning those gun will probably be the easy part, at this point...

However, going beyond a ban to included something of thing you are talking about will require something, that many (perhaps yourself and certainly many that high-fived your post) have routinely balked at in the past...the expansion and reach of BIG government...

I love the idea of requiring every gun owner to have a gun safe and/or use gun locks...as responsible gun owners, they should already being using both...but how do you mandate that? More importantly, how do you verify that? What are the punishments or consequences for non compliance? Regulation without proactive verification is pointless, toothless, ineffective...which is precisely what we are trying to avoid....

These questions don't seem to have any easy answers...and the answers I can come up would be probably be very probabilistic and objectionable with the anti-government crowd...

A few things:

First, there is a difference between a government mandating a purchase just for living, vs. mandating a purchase based on one choosing to own/purchase something. For instance, I have no problem with the govt. mandating that i own liability insurance if I choose to own a car. I do, however, have a problem with the govt. mandating that I own health insurance for myself just for being alive... not to mention the fact that the prior is to reduce the risk of causing someone else a loss, and the latter is to reduce the risk of causing myself a loss.

Second, I and many others (other than the very vocal extreme right wing, and the NRA) probably wouldn't balk at reasonable govt. oversight of gun ownership. It seems like many of us, left and right, are agreeing on a lot of points in this thread (if only congress could do the same). I think that many of us that you would classify as anti-government are actually anti- useless and innefective government. We all agree that the government is usefull to an extent; such as protecting our freedoms and providing a military to protect us from other countries, etc.

I too, love the idea that every gun owner be required to have their guns secured. I think we agree that most citizens will follow the law, and only criminals will not. Access to guns that were purchased lawfully is the issue... whether stolen, or whatnot. (I don't think we have a huge gun trafficing problem where guns are illegally brought into the country). So implementing some requirements for gun ownership will be very effective.

As you may know, I am an avid hunter. I only own one firearm that is a semi-auto, and it's a .22 caliber rimfire (used for hunting squirrels). I have several rifles, a couple shotguns, a couple muzzleloaded rifles, and one revolver for personal protection. All of my guns are secured, not by safe, but by breechlocks.... each one requireing it's own key. When my father decided I was old enough to hunt, he required me to complete shooting courses through 4h, which start with several hunter safety courses and then courses on how to properly load/unload, and handle a firearm. This type of course is now required in my state for any youth hunter, and should be required for all hunters. My 15 year old has taken these courses and must put his number in for completing those courses in order to obtain a hunting license every year. I wish it was that way for all hunters, and not just hunters, but any gun owner. Each and every owner should have to complete a course yearly (similar to driving requirements) in order to be a lawful gun owner. That course should require the specifics on how to safely secure your weapons.

I'm not a huge proponent of preventative govt. oversight (other than certain instances). So with that, I bring a solution to your last assertion, "How do we verify that?". The answer is, we don't. We impose ramifications if one is caught not following the guidelines that require a gun to be secured. This will make the regulations come at a minimal cost since there wont need to be any new government to oversee things. Simply put, if a person's firearm is used (stolen, or a child used, etc.) in a crime they are held legally responsible through neglect to follow the law.

This accomplishes a few things that banning assault rifles will not. One, most crimes, murders, mass murders are caused by the use of non-assault weapons. Therefore the regulation of all weapons, not just assault rifles will be more effective (according to statistics, 90 to 99% more effective).

So, in essence, what I would propose that I think is more effective would be as follows:

1. All gun (conceal carry, etc.) licenses require a yearly (or reaccuring) training course that implements gun safety situations, such as knowing your background, when to shoot and when not to shoot, how to properly handle your firearm, and how to properly secure your firearm, at home and while on one's person.

2. A single network needs to be in place which tracks all gun ownership, similar to the prescription one that is in place and the one that tracks ephedrin purchases (meth labs).

3. No ban on assualt type weapons, as they only account for 1% of murders, but all firearms account for 40%. All weapons need to be tracked and accounted for, and require the same gun safety laws and training courses.

As you mentioned earlier, this isn't perfect, but I think it is much more effective than an outright assault rifle ban.

Originally Posted by blinddeafmute

I too, love the idea that every gun owner be required to have their guns secured. I think we agree that most citizens will follow the law, and only criminals will not. Access to guns that were purchased lawfully is the issue... whether stolen, or whatnot. (I don't think we have a huge gun trafficing problem where guns are illegally brought into the country). So implementing some requirements for gun ownership will be very effective.

I disagree with that general premises...many non-criminal, otherwise law abiding citizens routinely ignore and skirt laws they find trivial and/or inconvenient...

The same people of who think it's no big deal to drive a few miles over the posted speed limit will be the same people who will think not using a safe or a gun lock is no big deal...in other words, just about everyone...

I'm not a huge proponent of preventative govt. oversight (other than certain instances). So with that, I bring a solution to your last assertion, "How do we verify that?". The answer is, we don't. We impose ramifications if one is caught not following the guidelines that require a gun to be secured. This will make the regulations come at a minimal cost since there wont need to be any new government to oversee things. Simply put, if a person's firearm is used (stolen, or a child used, etc.) in a crime they are held legally responsible through neglect to follow the law.

This doesn't seem very effective if we are trying to stop gun violence in the first place as opposed to simple punishing someone extra after the fact...your solution would have done nothing to stop or lessen what happened in CT...and if your point is that if such a law had been the books already you're claiming nutjob's mom would have properly secured her weapons, please refer back to my first point...

1. All gun (conceal carry, etc.) licenses require a yearly (or reaccuring) training course that implements gun safety situations, such as knowing your background, when to shoot and when not to shoot, how to properly handle your firearm, and how to properly secure your firearm, at home and while on one's person.

All for it...is this a government course or a private one? How much will that training cost? Will all or part of the cost be government revenue? (ie a new "tax")

2. A single network needs to be in place which tracks all gun ownership, similar to the prescription one that is in place and the one that tracks ephedrin purchases (meth labs).

Sound expensive, sound like big brother at its finest...I love it!

3. No ban on assualt type weapons, as they only account for 1% of murders, but all firearms account for 40%. All weapons need to be tracked and accounted for, and require the same gun safety laws and training courses.

Completely disagree...I find no compelling reason why these weapons should be in civilian hands...barring a reasonable, legitimate reason, they need to go...

Originally Posted by Wolfman

I disagree with that general premises...many non-criminal, otherwise law abiding citizens routinely ignore and skirt laws they find trivial and/or inconvenient...

The same people of who think it's no big deal to drive a few miles over the posted speed limit will be the same people who will think not using a safe or a gun lock is no big deal...in other words, just about everyone...

Hence the ramification part. If the punishment is sustantial, such as if your gun is used in a crime you could serve jail time, then most law abiding citizens will follow the law. The reason people speed is due the the fact that the punishment isn't substantial enough to deter anyone. It's nothing but a small fine for a speeding violation. You mentioned that the laws pertaining to drug use have stopped you from using. I am in the same boat. I was not an occasional user in my teen years, but have not used since due to the potential loss of my children, etc.

This doesn't seem very effective if we are trying to stop gun violence in the first place as opposed to simple punishing someone extra after the fact...your solution would have done nothing to stop or lessen what happened in CT...and if your point is that if such a law had been the books already you're claiming nutjob's mom would have properly secured her weapons, please refer back to my first point...

I disagree. If there were laws in place that held the mother responsible for the oversight of her guns, she more than likely would have had them locked and unavailable to her child.

All for it...is this a government course or a private one? How much will that training cost? Will all or part of the cost be government revenue? (ie a new "tax")

I have no problem with this being handled by a government agency, and the cost be reflected directly to the individual seeking to own firearms. A self contained system. It can even be left up to the states, such as drivers' licences renewal costs, etc.

Sound expensive, sound like big brother at its finest...I love it!

Not necessarily. I don't see the oversight of pseudoephederin as a big brother type scenerio. Maybe it is, but it is one that I am willing to deal with. It eases the "regulation" without needing a costly government oversight. Maybe a compromise, if you will.

Completely disagree...I find no compelling reason why these weapons should be in civilian hands...barring a reasonable, legitimate reason, they need to go...

Whether we disagree or not. (Which I do, of course. I find the ability to hold similar weapons to that of the government crucial to maintaining our second amendment rights.) Oversight of every firearm, which accounts for 40% of our murders, rather than just assault rifles, which account for 1 to 7% of our murders, would be much more affective. If the desired end result is less murders, then we need to focus on how people are murdered, not simply the original intent of the weapon.

None of this is perfect, but it's definitely a start, and much better than the extreme right wing stance of "no regulation" vs. the extreme left wing stance of "ban everything."

Originally Posted by 4th and 26

All guns are designed for killing but that is not the problem, it is the people doing the crazy shit with them or something else that kills innocent people. You can get the same results with a hand gun and it probably is easier to use inside a building that a rifle of some sort. I think the real problem is how to you help people like this type of mentality? How do you prevent the next person from going on a killing spree? If you want to make things more difficult then shut the internet down because I am willing to bet most nut jobs are doing research on weapons and other means of terror.

I agree that the readily availiblity of assault rifles does not keep people from dying. As I have said over and over, guns account for 40% of murders in the united states, while only 1 to 7% are from assault rifles. So either we are sick of people being murdered, or we are simply sick of assault rifles... regulating the former seems like the logical solution, while the latter seems like nothing more than an innefective regulation that produces no results.

Originally Posted by blinddeafmute

Hence the ramification part. If the punishment is sustantial, such as if your gun is used in a crime you could serve jail time, then most law abiding citizens will follow the law. The reason people speed is due the the fact that the punishment isn't substantial enough to deter anyone. It's nothing but a small fine for a speeding violation. You mentioned that the laws pertaining to drug use have stopped you from using. I am in the same boat. I was not an occasional user in my teen years, but have not used since due to the potential loss of my children, etc.

Will have to agree to disagree...I believe there is too much ingrained denial (I will never get caught/that would never happen to me), not to mention outright ignorance and apathy, in our society for such a post facto punishment to be a very effective deterrent...

I have no problem with this being handled by a government agency, and the cost be reflected directly to the individual seeking to own firearms. A self contained system. It can even be left up to the states, such as drivers' licences renewal costs, etc.

Of course the 800 pound gorilla in the room is the Constitution and 2nd Amendment...taxing the execution of constitutional right is general frowned upon by the counts....ban or limiting certain weapons is far less constitutional problematic than outright "taxing" an individual's right to keep and bear arms...

Whether we disagree or not. (Which I do, of course. I find the ability to hold similar weapons to that of the government crucial to maintaining our second amendment rights.) Oversight of every firearm, which accounts for 40% of our murders, rather than just assault rifles, which account for 1 to 7% of our murders, would be much more affective. If the desired end result is less murders, then we need to focus on how people are murdered, not simply the original intent of the weapon.

I would love to hear more on that...that is where the really interesting debate lays imo...what is the intent of the 2nd Amendment, what was it originally, what is it today? I believe we have to far too long completely ignored the entire Amendment in favor of merely the second half it... the well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state always seems to be forgotten and over looked as if it means nothing...individuals standing up to a tyrannical government outside of a well regulated militia (and only governments regulate)was never the intend of the 2nd...I think we have long forgotten that....

Originally Posted by 4th and 26

All guns are designed for killing but that is not the problem, it is the people doing the crazy shit with them or something else that kills innocent people. You can get the same results with a hand gun and it probably is easier to use inside a building that a rifle of some sort. I think the real problem is how to you help people like this type of mentality? How do you prevent the next person from going on a killing spree? If you want to make things more difficult then shut the internet down because I am willing to bet most nut jobs are doing research on weapons and other means of terror.

Yes, all guns can be used to kill...yet only certain types of guns are designed from the ground out to kill other human beings...there is a reason our military uses an M-4 and its not because they look cool...

Let's play a fun game....say you need to kill 20 people as quickly and efficiently has possible...you weapons of choice are:

A Smith and Wesson Model 42 with 5 speed loaders..
or
A Glock 18 with three 17 round mags...
or
An AR-15 with two 30 round mags...

The one you honestly choose is the one I want banned...