Okay, I do have thoughts on gun control, and I promised to start a thread where we could discuss guns, and peoples thoughts on guns. But I didn't start the thread about the Connecticut massacre to discuss gun control. That was about the families and their loss.

So, to keep that Connecticut thread clear of gun talk, and argument, I started this thread.

Obviously I'm all for gun control. But apparently my brilliance (laugh, I'm being funny) isn't realized by everyone.

I do believe that everyone has a right to their opinion, even when they disagree with me, a know it all (it's another joke, laugh!), but I don't agree with guns. Many of my friends on this site, love guns. It's a hard tight rope to navigate.

So lets discuss it. For guns? Against guns? Give your reasons.

Let's keep it civil, and realize that there's very little chance that any of what either "team" says, will change the mind of the "opposing" team.

In other words, be nice. It's my thread, and I'm not a super mod, but I can shut it down, and I will if this turns into a fight.

So play nice. No guns here. :)

Darlin' you know I am all about guns! It puts bread and butter on my table. Without the hunters, I wouldn't eat as well.

I would like to know exactly what you know about the US gun control laws. In your other thread it seems that you believe that anyone can go into a store any purchase a gun. If so, that's where you are wrong. There are serious background checks that happen before a firearm is purchased.

This kind of senseless violence is horrendous. Especially when it involves children. But we look at the tool as the problem instead of the person responsible. Guns are the favorite scapegoat. 31-32 people are killed daily by drunk drivers. But we don't blame either the car or the alcohol. What if this mentally ill person had walked into the school with a samurai sword? Or an explosive device? Lizzy Borden used a hatchet. The tool is not the issue, it's the person using the tool.

So, address the alcohol and the drugs? They kill more people daily than guns do.

Alcohol is legal and no one has to go through a background check to buy it. So people get drunk and drive. Killing more people daily than firearms do.

Firearms are legal to the person who passes the background check. Drugs are illegal but anyone can get them. Drugs kill more people than firearms do.

I have the right to protect myself, legally, from some insane lunatic who steals a gun and breaks into my home. Take that away from me and how do I protect myself? With a steak knife?

What it appears that you don't understand (any maybe you do) is that the people who commit these crimes, for the most part, are unstable at best and don't go about getting their firearms legally.

Im for guns. And to me gun control is hitting the intended target on the first round. Alty we do have a gun section on AMHD. Most that own guns for self protection realize that when seconds count the police are minutes away. Lets say its boys night out. So you and your daughter are watching a movie. You hear glass break. Do you look for the phone and hope someone comes and addresses the problem before it gets nasty. Or would you reach for a gun and prepare while getting the phone ?

The biggest problem I see with guns is that we don't train people how to use them enough through education. Also people tend to get lazy and don't shoot it often enough. The person is responsible for the bullet no matter where it lands. The same goes for criminals. They are the ones responsible for them. So should they pull the trigger they do so in a committed fashion. Its not the gun that determines right and wrong it's the owner.

Don't know if Clete will follow this thred here. But I can't let this go without comment:


Originally Posted by tomder55
What part of free will should God take away from us to prevent the acts of the evil ?
The murderer lived in Connecticut and New Jersey ;two of the states with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.But the strictest law in both states is the one about committing murder. Guess that law didn't prevent it either. When you get tired of blaming guns ,you can jump on a number of other bandwagons like violent video games and movies ;or the prescription drugs he may have been on.
...
This isn't a matter of action by God Tom and you know it. You cannot tell me a person like this wasn't noticed as being a potential problem. I have just seen a news article that states this was a troubled person for a long time. You want to strike up your liberty bandwagon and play guns forever but you are avoiding the issue, there is a higher right, and it is the right to life. How many lives have been traumatised by this event, yes, twenty-eight are dead but the impact must be in the hundreds and why, so some nut could own assault weapons, because it is his right to kill people don't you know.

You want to tell us strict gun laws didn't stop this person and you were right, they weren't strict enough. I would have no doubt this person planned his actions for a long time, who knows what the trigger was, but as soon as he went over the edge he reached for a gun and look what he had to choose from, automatic weapons. Killing made easy

1st I did not call it an act of God and YOU know it. You are affixing the fault on the weapon ;.and I'm placing the blame squarely on the person ;and the existence of evil in the world.
Think about it . Guns have always been a part of America. Yet until recently you did not see such manifestations of evil in the form of mass murder as we have seen recently . So it is simplistic at best to attribute blame on American gun laws.

I'll also point out that not a single gun was used in Oklahoma City ,April 19,1995.On that day 168 lives were lost , including 19 children under the age of 6... and over 680 people were injured . That blast was created using fertilizer . Would you ban that too ?

You are also jumping to conclusions that are not supported by fact. Latest info is that the murderer did not bring the rifle into the school. He used 2 handguns... and these weren't guns with clips that had a lot of bullets . He stood there and reloaded in front of the terrified children.
As J-9 said... perhaps an armed guard ;or a properly trained teacher with a conceal and carry permit could've made a difference.

I would like to know exactly what you know about the US gun control laws. In your other thread it seems that you believe that anyone can go into a store any purchase a gun. If so, that's where you are wrong. There are serious background checks that happen before a firearm is purchased.

Actually, that's not true in all states. I have a friend in the US. I won't mention a username, as this person isn't here anymore, and no longer wants any part of this site. But, this person has a fine collection of guns, 5 in total. When I asked how this person obtained the weapons, all handguns, I was told, "easy, I go to the gun store and buy one". No background checks, no permits, nothing. If you have cash, and you want a gun, here you go. This person moved to a different state, and without permits, brought the weapons and was able to purchase more. Both states are well known states, big places, not a small hick town in the backwoods.

Apparently you do need a permit to carry the gun, but no one gets one. This person carried all the time, and it was never an issue, even without a permit.

So that's why I believe what I do about the US and guns. I got it that info from someone that lives in the US and has guns, and never ever got a permit for any of them. It wasn't required.

But again, I realize that's no the case in all states. Still, even one state having this sort of lax concern about who buys weapons, is too much.

But I digress.

I didn't start this thread to participate in it. I started it to give everyone that was more concerned about gun control and their opinion, than they were about paying their respects to those that died in Connecticut today, a place to voice their opinions. I have no desire to start this war again. No matter what anyone says I won't agree that giving anyone a gun is okay. That's my opinion. You all have a right to yours.

I started this thread so you'd have a place to voice that opinion, so that the thread I started for mourning the children and adults that died today, would be left alone, and not turned into a war about gun control. :(

But, this person has a fine collection of guns, 5 in total. 5 is a fine collection? LMAO... I could open a museum. 5 to me is a measly amount. I own more than 5 alone and I have a gunsmith as a husband. We own, not in our home, over 100 guns. Most of them are relics and collectors items, but they work. Some are from as far back as WWII.


I was told, "easy, I go to the gun store and buy one". No background checks, no permits, nothing. If you have cash, and you want a gun, here you go. Then you were either lied to, or this person obtained these guns illegally. Remember, I owned a gun shop. I know how this works. There is a federal form that has to be filled out for every gun purchase. If you buy one today, you have to fill out the form. If you buy one 2 hours later you have to fill out the form again. Some states are stricter than others, but ALL states require this one particular form. That information then gets sent to the Bureau of Investigation of the particular state. Almost instantaneously, in most cases, the approval or denial of the gun purchase comes back to the store to allow or deny the purchase.

I currently possess a FFL (Federal Firearms License). My husband has the ability to buy, sell, or trade firearms with the general public. There are hoops that have to be jumped through in order to buy, sell, or trade.

There is always a background check with a legal purchase. Whatever this person told you is incorrect or an illegal purchase. Period!

Here is the pdf form that is required for every purchase of a firearm. If you fill this out and have it sent in electronically you either pass and get the gun, or you get denied and you don't get the gun. If you don't fill this out and get the gun, it is an illegal purchase.

This is a federal form that all gun shops must use. In some states there are other forms that have to be filled out as well.

Bottom line, this is the easiest way to get a gun if your state allows only this. You cannot purchase a firearm without this.

www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

There is always a background check with a legal purchase. Whatever this person told you is incorrect or an illegal purchase. Period!

If I told you who this person is, you'd know that not only was it not an illegal purchase (not this persons nature) but also, this person would have no reason to lie. You'd be shocked if you knew, but I won't mention the name of this person without clearing it with him/her first. As I said, this person is no longer a member of this site.

But again, I digress.

To everyone posting here, or on the other thread, I have no desire to discuss this issue. I started this thread so the other thread would be left alone, would stand for the purpose I started it for, not for a battle about gun control, but to mourn those that died today.

I don't want to talk this gun issue to death again. Been there, done that, and it almost cost me many people I consider friends on this site. I don't want to go there again, and I won't.

The other thread was about mourning, support, coming together as a community, sharing our feelings about this tragedy in Connecticut, and consoling each other. It wasn't about guns, or a gun war, but that's what it was turned into.

I started this thread so everyone that wishes to can continue your war, but I want no part of it. So discuss.

I just ask that you keep your gun war stuff on this thread, and not taint the other thread. Please, at least respect me enough to do that, since I wasn't respected enough to have this whole thing avoided in the first thread.

Alty, this person misrepresented the truth then. As a gunshop owner, I know how the system in the US works legally. Some states are more stringent than others, but all have to file the Form 4473. The person you are talking about, and I don't profess to know who, nor do I want to know who, doesn't know the legalities.

When we had our shop, we also had 4 lawyers working for us to make sure all t's were crossed and all I's were dotted. If what you were told was true, they were illegal purchases in the end.

According to a newly released article in the online Chicago Tribune, the shooter's mother (Nancy) was an avid gun collector, and it doesn't seem to be clear that she was a teacher at the school.

By evening, many media accounts indicated that Lanza's mother was the fatality at the second crime scene. Her connection to the school was unclear.

Nancy Lanza was "very nice, very pleasant and always very appreciative of our work," said Dan Holmes, owner of Holmes Fine Gardens, a landscaping firm in Newtown.

Holmes, who last week decorated her yard with Christmas garlands and lights, said Nancy Lanza was an avid gun collector who once showed him a "really nice, high-end rifle" she had purchased.

"She said she would often go target shooting with her kids," said Holmes. "She was always very concerned about her son."

State police refused to confirm any details about the Lanzas, saying they hoped to have more information on Saturday.

1st I did not call it an act of God and YOU know it. You are affixing the fault on the weapon ;.and I'm placing the blame squarely on the person ;and the existence of evil in the world.


I see... and tell me what YOU know Tom. What theory of omnipotence do you subscribe to for explaining evil in the world?

Perhaps,the idea that such things are inevitable because there will always be people who choose to do evil things in the world? An inevitability that comes about because God has given us free will?

I think you need to talk to Clete again, your defense of the above statement is pretty ordinary to say the least.


Tut

A lot of the initial reports were wrong. They named the older brother ,Ryan Lanza as the shooter .The mom is apparently a teacher's aid and not a teacher. An "assault rifle " was mentioned as the weapon used etc.
Here are the facts known about the weapons :
Two pistols, a Glock and a Sig Sauer, were found inside the school. A .223-caliber rifle(maybe or maybe not an 'assault rifle' ) was found in the back of the car that Lanza drove to school. Lanza's mother had four weapons legally registered, and his father had two. A Henry repeating rifle, an Enfield rifle and a shotgun were also recovered by police; it was not clear where they were found. I don't know the circumstances about how Adam Lanza got possession of his mom's weapons . That is information that has not been disclosed yet.

There is plenty of room for speculation about the murderer .I've heard reports all over the scope from him being an honor student 'geek' to being a 'goth ' loner type who was treated with all the popular fad psychotropic medications of our days . That is a subject worthy of it's own discussion ,because if I discern any pattern at all in the mass shootings in the US of the last decade ,that could be the common denominator .

As far as gun laws go... The biggest mass murder in a school in the US occurred May 18 1927 in Bath Michigan. 38 elementary school children, two teachers, four other adults and the murderer were killed... at least 58 people were injured. Most of the victims were children in the second to sixth grades .
The only gun play involved as the use of a Winchester rifle that was used to set off a series of detonations. What else do we ban ?

In Norway they had always banned guns but a psycho got a gun on the black market and killed 70+ kids .There were no armed security guards to defend against that.There were no armed security guards to defend the students at V Tech .Students at the school were not permitted to have guns on campus... Yet the murderer managed to use them on campus. The theater in Colorado was in a 'gun free zone' .

Federal and state laws combined to insure that no teacher, no administrator, no adult had a gun at the Newtown school . Our children are our most innocent and most vulnerable and deserve at least to have the protection a shepard would provide a herd of sheep . Children in Israel confront the possibility of violent death all the time. Yet in their schools they are pretty secure against an armed thug shooting them. Why ? Because the Israelis allow for armed security in their schools.

Oh my son, my son! Would God I had died for thee!( 2 Samuel 18:33 )

Deliver us from evil Amen .

I see.....and tell me what YOU know Tom. What theory of omnipotence do you subscribe to for explaining evil in the world?

Perhaps,the idea that such things are inevitable because there will always be people who choose to do evil things in the world? An inevitability that comes about because God has given us free will?

I think you need to talk to Clete again, your defense of the above statement is pretty ordinary to say the least.


Tut

Read the bible ;the fall from grace ;a whole chapter devoted to Cain. That will be a good start.

Read the bible ;the fall from grace ;a whole chapter devoted to Cain. That will be a good start.


So Clete was right all along? I guessed as much.

Tut

No he isn't . My comment was... What part of free will should God take away from us to prevent the acts of the evil ? Clete seems to think that humans can legislate evil out of existence .He has called for bans on guns ,movies ,music ,speech etc. That is what I dispute. He twisted my words to make it sound like I was attributing acts of evil to God.. I did no such thing.

The problem is that you have left yourself wide upon for criticism by invoking such a statement. There always people who think that free will is bound very much in the idea of God's sovereign plan for us. And they could be right.

I asked for a clearing up of this matter when I said could I have your ideas on free will, determinism and how these are related to problems of good and evil.

Nothing in this area was forthcoming. On that basis I would avoid resorting to these types of 'higher justifications'.

Just a suggestion.


Tut

I'm for the right to own guns. Not all types of guns and not without background checks. I own a gun. My hero as a child was Annie Oakley. I suppose she still is.

I don't think of a target as a person any more than a baseball player thinks of the ball as someone's head, despite the fact that his bat could be lethal too.

I just got an email from MoveOn last night (I live in CT) asking me to host a vigil in my tiny town. One phrase stuck in my craw: "to demand a plan to end gun violence." I felt such a pit in my stomach reading that. Frustration and anger and sadness at the pitiful notion that we the people can 'demand' this, and that I should feel obligated to hold a vigil or maybe I'm a horrible person. Murderous rampages have afflicted us since the beginning of homo sapiens. A rampage in Europe a few hundred years ago was lopping off the heads of peasants for no reason at all. Before that we put our neighbors in the stew pot.

This country does have a history with a shoot them up stereotype that is based on truth. Even my townspeople got out their guns before elections and shot them into the air during arguments, according to my grandfather, a hundred years ago. Never mind the wild west, where people shot their guns just watching a movie.

The states set their gun laws and I agree with that. We keep working on those state laws. It's not perfect. No system of government ever is, but it's the best there is.

Hello, J_9:


There is always a background check with a legal purchase. Whatever this person told you is incorrect or an illegal purchase. Period!Not exactly... That would be true ONLY if he bought the guns in a gun shop.. But, if he bought them at a gun SHOW, then he doesn't have to provide ANYTHING other than his money.. We have LOTS and LOTS of gun shows all summer long, from coast to coast in this fair country of ours...

Just saying...

Excon

PS> (edited) Ok, all WINTER long too (http://www.gunshows-usa.com/)... GET them guns... We have a black man running things..

I am deeply saddened by this as are most others. My feeling is it is not about gun control nor mental illness. We have had those issues/rights for a long time. What is now shifting us as humans to this violence? Why are we killing so much more now than before? I have no answers just lots of questions.
Heading on over to the other thread to talk about the tragedy just wanted to put my two cents in this thread and keep the other one as a memorial thread.

There always people who think that free will is bound very much in the idea of God's sovereign plan for us. And they could be right.

There is no conflict between free will andGod's plan . Our having free will was always part of God's plan . That is what the tree in Eden represented... a choice. God did not compel Adam and Eve to either eat of the tree or obey God's law . They screwed up and faced the consequences. I ask how do I benefit if God were to compel me ? How would we be any different than a household pet ;or a slave ?
Free will is a gift from God. If that means we allow make bad choices and allow evil in our heart ,it does not stand to reason that the course we take is part of God's plan.It is up to us to use God's gifts to the best of our ability ;and if we stray ,to accept the responsibility as ours alone.

I can't help it if Clete intentionally misread my comment . I'll say it again.for God to truly get rid of evil God would have to censor all of our thoughts and actions and thus eliminate free will.(sorta like what Clete would do banning guns ,banning certain violent movies ,banning certain types of speech and thoughts ) .

I think it has more to do with there being a lot of desperate or angry or mentally ill people in the US. Once they get their hands on guns the damage they can inflict multiplies rapidly.

There is no conflict between free will andGod's plan . Our having free will was always part of God's plan . That is what the tree in Eden represented ...a choice. God did not compel Adam and Eve to either eat of the tree or obey God's law . They screwed up and faced the consequences. I ask how do I benefit if God were to compel me ? How would we be any different than a household pet ;or a slave ?
Free will is a gift from God. If that means we allow make bad choices and allow evil in our heart ,it does not stand to reason that the course we take is part of God's plan.It is up to us to use God's gifts to the best of our ability ;and if we stray ,to accept the responsibility as ours alone.

I can't help it if Clete intentionally misread my comment . I'll say it again.for God to truly get rid of evil God would have to censor all of our thoughts and actions and thus eliminate free will.(sorta like what Clete would do banning guns ,banning certain violent movies ,banning certain types of speech and thoughts ) .

*** Greenie ***

I am deeply saddened by this as are most others. My feeling is it is not about gun control nor mental illness. We have had those issues/rights for a long time. What is now shifting us as humans to this violence? Why are we killing so much more now than before? I have no answers just lots of questions.Heading on over to the other thread to talk about the tragedy just wanted to put my two cents in this thread and keep the other one as a memorial thread.

I have an answer. But it's a bitter pill to swallow. Its called being PC. It needs to stop. It is ruining us as a world at our very core. We need to go back to responsibility and consequences. Those lessons taught to us when we were little. Yeah you know like getting a spanking or a time out. Losing at some game you played with your friends. Those little lessons when you were growing up that helped you when you spread your wings to participate in the world.

In today's world of PC we see the coddling of humanity in such a way that it is believed that a blanket or protection as well as nonfailure is something that is good. It is not. There are lessons to learn from losing and from participating in activities that have risk. We all experienced them unless your below a certain age.

Stop drinking the koolade and start with a reality check for the children.

I have an answer. But it's a bitter pill to swallow. Its called being PC. It needs to stop. It is ruining us as a world at our very core. We need to go back to responsibility and consequences.
I totally agree. And less focus on "rights."

There are lessons to learn from losing and from participating in activities that have risk.
And every team and team member doesn't end up with a prize or a trophy just because they participated. And a student doesn't pass the composition test because he at least wrote down something, even if it was his Christmas list. And so on.

I totally agree. And less focus on "rights."

To me the focus on rights needs to be shifted. By that I mean to not allow superior rights to anyone or any class of people.

For example. Why ban hate speech? If those people that choose to hate speak openly then they can be indentified for who they are and can be avoided and debated openly. The public at large can be the judge of it. There are many other restrictive rights that have been given out through the years that had good intention of protecting someone or something but they in fact have produced the oppisite effect. We need to review and evaluate what has been done so we can move forward.

I am not sure if allowing people to spew hate speech is a good thing. My concern would be would it be okay in the work place, would it just be speech that is okay? With jobs as they are many people would be stuck not able to leave a job full of people spewing venom. I do see how public opinion could be used against the person but would people really speak up and say You are a jerk for saying that?

Sorry I haven't figured out how to copy & paste on my Kindle.

Excon... about the gun shows... Form 4473 is required for all purchases at gun shows as well as gun shops. The ONLY exception would be a privare sale between two private individuals.

Don't know if Clete will follow this thred here. But I can't let this go without comment:



.

Yes Tom I did find this thread despite a link that didn't work. You keep missing the point about the gun issue and it may be a knife issue too for all I know, but it is about weapons in the general community and a level of responsibility that goes beyond individual rights. This is just one of many incidents where automatic weapons have been used to kill kids and innocent people in larger numbers, these are not situations of an individual murder.

I have no doubt that after that bombing you mention, ammonium nitrate became very regulated and hard to obtain despite it being an isolated incident, but has any action been taken to stop the slaughter using automatic weapons? no your politicians are cowered at the thought of offending the gun lobby.. You can cliam tradition and you can claim constitutional rights but what about the right to life, to not be killed and maimed because someone can't get it together. You claim this fellow had to relaod, well just as well or he would have killed more but I think you avoid the issue, the weapons he used were capable of concealment and he went to the school intending to kill more than one person.

I offer you the experience of what happened in my nation after an incident like this. Our leaders were courageous enough to ban these weapons and remove them from the community, hundreds of thousands were removed. This by no means means that all weapons have been removed from the community, but military and automatic weapons and large bladed weapons have have. There has not been another incident in the years that followed and the use of such weapons in crime has fallen dramatically. Further the quality of our democracy has not been diminished.

I can also offer you my life experience where inappropriate use of guns has been an issue. This incident hits very close to home reviving memories that are better left alone. My house was part of a siege where my teen age son stole weapons and went on a rampage. You cannot prevent people obtaining weapons in such situations while the weapons remain in the community, if the measures that were later put in place following the Port Arthur incident had been in place he may not have been able to do what he did.

The right to life transcends all other rights. Your nation has an opportunity right at this moment to stop the madness and remove certain weapons from the community. It will not stop hunting, those doing the hunting will have to become more proficient, but you are not allowed weapons under the constitution so you can hunt. You are allowed weapons for a specific purpose, a purpose which is fulfilled in your national guard and your military in a way that wasn't available to your forebears. It will not stop you from owning weapons for personal protection, once you have satisfied criteria that allows you to own weapons but your constitution doesn't allow you weapons for personal protection but for a specific purpose. Be courageous Tom

Funny your misinterpretation of automatic weapons. No automatic weapon was used in this shooting. One must be in possession of a FFL level 3 at least, to possess an automatic weapon. That costs, if I remember correctly when we got our FFL,approximately $5,000 along with a much deeper background check.

Hello again, J:

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States)... "...individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms)".

excon

You know I don't consider wiki a reliable source. But with that said... that would be for private individuals making private sales.

In PA, private sales of handguns have to be done at a sheriffs office or at a licensed gun shop so the proper forms can be filled out and the background check can be run. This is so in many states. So, the Wiki article is misleading. As it reads, it is correct but it fails to state that even though the private seller is not required to do those things, the transfer must be made at a legal location and there the work is done. This is not a federal law but is governed by individual states.

Also, I hate the scare tactics used by many. The term "Automatic Weapon" and "Assault Rifle" is thrown around way too much. Truth is, there were no automatic weapons used at that shooting. Truth is, most of the general population does not have and cannot afford to own a true automatic. But if you say that a shooting was done with an automatic weapon, it sounds much scarier than saying it was done with semi auto handguns.

My husband goes to the monthly gun show at the county fair grounds and says there are always guys walking around with guns slung over their shoulders and strapped to their belts, are selling them privately to other attendees. No FOID card is needed, nor is a background check.

On rifles, no background check is needed. On handguns, it depends on your state.

My husband goes to the monthly gun show at the county fair grounds and says there are always guys walking around with guns slung over their shoulders and strapped to their belts, are selling them privately to other attendees. No FOID card is needed, nor is a background check.

That is true about many gun shows. And as always there is a but to the story. I know from other dealers what has happened in the past. Many people have bought unknowingly stolen guns. If it is ever taken in for anything from being traded in to repairs the gun is confiscated and when possible returned to the original owner. Every gun sold at a gun store is checked through the registry so the chances of buying a "bad" gun are slim when dealing with reputable dealers.

Yes many do sell privatly and in most cases it is a win win but there at the gun shows your really taking your chances.

Here is an site for people that want to do private sales in their area.

ARMSLIST - Gun Classifieds (http://www.armslist.com)

Funny your misinterpretation of automatic weapons. No automatic weapon was used in this shooting. One must be in possession of a FFL level 3 at least, to possess an automatic weapon. That costs, if I remember correctly when we got our FFL,approximately $5,000 along with a much deeper background check.

Hate to make a correction here. But you do not have to be an FFL holder to have a fully automatic weapon. What you will have to do is pay the special tax stamp for a class III weapon. Its going to require a background check and signing off your local LEO.(Law Enforcement Officer). Tax stamps are required for a supressor as well as a SBR (short barrel rifle) and a fully automatic weapon. They may come to your home to do an inspection and make sure you have a place to keep the weapon. At a minimum those are the steps that will be taken for average joe/jane to get a class III weapon.

Thanks for the correction. It's been about 8 years since we got ours and I forgot. Glad you came along to clear that up.

Clete ; It saddens me that you had to confront the issue so close and personal .
Alty's point is that there is time for a reasonable debate on remedies. When clouded in emotion ,good policy rarely follows . It is time for John 11 :35 . Then we can decide if the course you prescribe it best for our nation .

Tom a more appropriate quote is John 11.37. Tom the time for debate is when the issue is fresh in the minds of the people, the idea that you can wait and have the debate months from now is a cop out. This is a tragedy, a terrible tragedy, and the correct course of action is to see it cannot happen again. Tom, I am a long way from there, but I am angry, angry at the stupidity that continues to allow such things to be perpetrated on a guillable community. You don't realise this, but you don't live in isolation, your attitudes are broadcast to the world and are taken up by some

Don't know where to put this... I am fuming mad. I have no issue saying violence against Westboro should be allowed for this. They are going to picket where it happened. OMG.
I also read another school shooting was prevented today as people spoke up ahead of time. I will say this again. I don't care about right to bear arms, and health care. I just want this fixed NOW. What can we do as a society. (if this is the wrong spot sorry.) What do we do as people... how do we protect our children, grandkids etc. Don't tell me to get a gun as I would not qualify (mental illness and prior suicide attempts.) Also I don't know if I can trust myself with one as I still have down days. I have thought I would like to have one as I am scared of the world but realize it is not a good idea for me.

don't know where to put this... I am fuming mad. I have no issue saying violence against Westboro should be allowed for this. They are going to picket where it happened. OMG.
I also read another school shooting was prevented today as people spoke up ahead of time. I will say this again. I don't care about right to bear arms, and health care. I just want this fixed NOW. What can we do as a society. (if this is the wrong spot sorry.) What do we do as people... how do we protect our children, grandkids etc. Don't tell me to get a gun as I would not qualify (mental illness and prior suicide attempts.) Also I don't know if I can trust myself with one as I still have down days. I have thought I would like to have one as I am scared of the world but realize it is not a good idea for me.

I had answered you question already as to what I believe can be done. And if you feel the need to arm yourself and aren't comfortable or can't purchase a gun there are plenty of nonleathal ways to do it. Pepper spray is but one of many. A stun gun is yet another. Check your local laws if you can carry or need a permit to do so.

Our nation bought into the notion of disposable youth as a policy in 1973.

Sorry I realize you did. I am venting as I have started to become overwhelmed feeling like this needs to be fixed and now. I have refused to read any news or watch it as it is affecting me negatively with my emotions. I did not mean to disrespect what you contributed at all.

I'm wondering if violent video games figure into this somehow -- say, if Adam Lanza didn't work, was home all day mostly in his room (playing video games?), was fairly impressionable, considered life disposable as per what he saw in movies or TV or on video games... Just thinking...

His mother apparently didn't work, was collecting a lot of money from alimony, so Adam didn't have to work either and maybe, based on what is coming out about his inability to relate to others, he wasn't able to hold down a job anyway.

Sorry I realize you did. I am venting as I have started to become overwhelmed feeling like this needs to be fixed and now. I have refused to read any news or watch it as it is affecting me negatively with my emotions. I did not mean to disrespect what you contributed at all.

Mogrann, you can't let this affect you. Mourn for the loss, sympathize, but don't let this put you in a bad place when you've made so much progress.

This is one person. One! One person that decided to do something evil. Yes, it was pure evil, and it shouldn't have happened, but you're reacting as if the entire world is made up of evil people.

That's not the case at all. This is one man, one unstable man, and sadly, he accessed weapons, one weapon that can shoot 100 rounds a minute (all those for guns, tell me again why anyone not defending your country should have access to a weapon like this?) and he killed innocent people. One man, that sadly had access to very dangerous weapons.

Everyone thinks I'm against guns. I'm not. If you want a weapon to protect yourself, I agree with that. I'm not against that. What I'm against is people owning weapons that can shoot 100 rounds a minute. Why? There's no need for that.

I do support stricter gun laws in the US. That doesn't mean that I don't think people should have the right to arm themselves, I just don't think they have the right to arm themselves as if they're going to war with the entire world. :(

I read Wondergirls post and thought how dare she blame video games. (I am a gamer). Then I thought I am looking for answers. I want this fixed. If it is something I like and it truly is the cause how can I discount it because I like it. I think that is the attitude we all need. To listen to each other, and figure this out.
Maybe it is not all or nothing and black and white thinking. Please hear me out. For some people violent games are okay yet for others it is not due to their own private issues, mental health etc. Same as gun ownership. Same as treatement for mental health issues. I have been looking for one fix. Someone to say do this now it is all better, but that is more of the black and white thinking. Maybe it is a bit of everything. It comes down to what the person needs. Now that I have said that how do we do this so everyone gets what they need. What kinds of safety nets do we need for parents, for caregivers, for schools, for doctors, etc. We as a society need to wake up and become a village for each child.
I will admit I have been on edge due to the person having a personality disorder.. that is what I have. It is scaring me so bad. I am trying to realize I am not that person, I have skills etc. The fear is still there.
I hope I have made sense in this post. This tragedy has affected me deeply as it has many others. Lets just be kind to each other... and I must say this thread has been very respectful. And kind.

That's not the case at all. This is one man, one unstable man, and sadly, he accessed weapons, one weapon that can shoot 100 rounds a minute (all those for guns, tell me again why anyone not defending your country should have access to a weapon like this?) and he killed innocent people. One man, that sadly had access to very dangerous weapons.

Everyone thinks I'm against guns. I'm not. If you want a weapon to protect yourself, I agree with that. I'm not against that. What I'm against is people owning weapons that can shoot 100 rounds a minute. Why? There's no need for that.


My understanding is that the AR was left in his car so the fact that he had access to it really didn't matter. It still seems that they are reporting that he had used 2 handguns.

As far as "100 rounds a minute"... That is nothing. You can do that with most any handgun. So again, it wasn't an "automatic" that he had. An "Automatic" AR has a cyclic rate of about 750-800 rounds a minute... that is the military version that most citizens do not have. Do not confuse the rifles simply because of how they look.

Thank you Alty. I have been doing some distracting to lower my emotions. There have been lots of good points being mentioned and I think it is helpful. I will not be reading the news though as that is counter productive for me at this point in time.

I read Wondergirls post and thought how dare she blame video games. (I am a gamer).
I have two gamer sons. My younger one started when he was 7 and grew up on D&D and Atari. He also painted miniature gaming figures for a few years (and may still do that for fun and relaxation). He is part of a gaming web site and writes for it, develops adventures the gamers can go on with their characters. I am in no way against gaming. And even violent games can be played and handled mentally/emotionally by most gamers. And part of my library cataloging job including helping our gamer staff member select, purchase, and catalog video games for patron use.

But this guy Adam Lanza couldn't handle life. So I wondered if he found his life in gaming.

My understanding is that the AR was left in his car so the fact that he had access to it really didn't matter. It still seems that they are reporting that he had used 2 handguns.
According to the M.E. Adam mostly used the Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic rifle at close range.

I just looked before and it's still confusing. I have to wonder if anyone really knows for sure.

Mogrann, you are one amazing lady. This story is upsetting to all of us. What especially frustrates me is all the inaccurate information that has come out. I am hoping there will be a clear and truthful story that eventually emerges.

From CNN --

"Lanza was found dead next to three guns, a semi-automatic .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle and two pistols made by Glock and Sig Sauer, a law enforcement source told CNN. All belonged to his mother.

Carver, who performed autopsies on seven of the victims, said the wounds he knew about were caused by a "long weapon." Asked by a reporter whether the rifle was the primary weapon, he responded, 'Yes.' "

My understanding is that the AR was left in his car so the fact that he had access to it really didn't matter. It still seems that they are reporting that he had used 2 handguns.

As far as "100 rounds a minute"....That is nothing. You can do that with most any handgun. So again, it wasn't an "automatic" that he had. An "Automatic" AR has a cyclic rate of about 750-800 rounds a minute....that is the military version that most citizens do not have. Do not confuse the rifles simply because of how they look.

My husband has two shotguns, one takes 3 bullets but can go up to 5, and takes around 2 minutes to reload. Not 100 shots a minute, but 5 at most, with time to reload. Plenty of time to get away if my husband goes postal. ;)

He also has another shotgun, one bullet, it's a breach. One shot, open, put another shot in, and so on.

He also has a semiautomatic 22, 10 shots per clip, but doesn't do a lot of damage.

Still, any of these weapons would protect us if someone decided to breach our home.

That's all I'm saying. I don't think anyone needs a weapon that can shoot 100 rounds in a minute. Not unless 100 people invade your home at one time.

Remember, I'm in Canada, we have very strict gun laws. We're also not in the news every few months because of another massacre. Just saying.

Wondergirl I think we all are amazing on this site. Look at how many passionate people are here with all different thoughts and beliefs. All I see is respect and caring. Yes we disagree but no one is being aggressive, angry or bullying. This site has allowed me to disagree with others over small things and the world did not end. I firmly believe we can figure this out here how to start a movement for change. We are only a few people but as we change and others see what we are doing it will grow. It can only be for the better for the future.

I totally agree, mogrann.

On rifles, no background check is needed I suppose that is state dependent as well. My state requires background checks on all firearms aside from blackpowder.

Gun laws in the United States (by state) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29)

According to the M.E. Adam mostly used the Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic rifle at close range. That firearm is also a popular hunting rifle. It just looks military.

Now, the problem In my opinion, is not gun control or lack thereof, but the reduction in the mental health fields since the 70s (I think that was around the time). Many state mental health hospitals were closed and folks without good insurance were lacking in mental health assistance. Our mentally ill were pushed into the streets without counseling and/or medications. It is also, to many, a stigma to be mentally ill so many do not seek treatment but rather self medicate.

Cain beat his brother Able with a club and no one held the club responsible. You cannot hold the firearm responsible. It did not grow legs and go in and shoot those children. A mentally ill man did.

Another focus is on the media. The media turns these people into overnight celebrities in the eyes of other mentally disturbed people. Just look at the attention these people get from our media. Days and days of psychobabble by the news anchors. An ill person is typically going to kill themselves one way or another, but if they can go down with a celebrity type status, hel! Why not!

You have to hold evil responsible, not the gun. Cain was evil, not his club.

Funny your misinterpretation of automatic weapons. No automatic weapon was used in this shooting. One must be in possession of a FFL level 3 at least, to possess an automatic weapon. That costs, if I remember correctly when we got our FFL,approximately $5,000 along with a much deeper background check.

You see there is always someone who wants to focus on minute detail and split hairs. The fire rate of these "semi-automatic" weapons is not that much lower than automatic weapons, the real difference is magazine capacity, and the need to reload.. In this case the victims had multiple gun shot wounds indicating a high rate of fire, This person caused multiple gunshot wounds in twenty eight victims in a short space of time, a few minutes at most. So you know what, let semi-automatic hand guns and rifles be banned along with automatic weapons, there is no need for these weapons to be in the hands of the general community. You want to defend yourself, there are weapons which will give you protection without the need to blow holes in your victim, you can even get a six shot .22 magnum hand gun, more than enough fire power for the average person

Gah... Have I mentioned how Wiki is not a reliable source? I could write a wiki article about treating gunshot wounds with my little ER experience.

With that said, you may not need a permit to purchase, but you still have to pass a background check using the Form 4473.

I'm not trying to split hairs, just speaking the obvious if you have any knowledge of firearms. These semi autos fire at a high rate, yes, but not near the speed of an auto. Magazine capacity is not really an issue as the general public is not allowed to purchase high capacity magazines legally. These are typically reserved for military and police.

I will not use a .22 for protection as it is more likely to pi$$ the perpetrator off rather than kill or seriously wound him depending on what he is wearing. Yes, I said wearing. A thick heavy leather coat will be enough to simply tick him off rather than wound. For a .22 to be adequate, your perpetrator must be almost directly on top of you for it to be effective. My 10 year old uses a .22 to snake hunt and shoot cans with. I carry a 38 or a 357, depending on where I am going and what I feel like carrying that day.

I choose to be able to protect myself. If someone breaks into my home I am not going to wait 8 - 10 - 15 minutes or more for the police to arrive. By that time my daughter could be raped, my son could be killed. I have the right to defend my home, family and children.

I have guns yes. I even have automatic weapons, I paid for that tax stamp and I passed the background check. I don't have autos because I'm some lunatic, but because I come from a long line of collectors. Many of our firearms are in museums in our area.

Because I have autos, and I have many guns, does that mean I'm going to open up on a shopping mall, or a hospital, or a school? No, I'm not mentally ill. We need to stop focusing on the gun. It did not sprout legs and walk into the school and open fire. A disturbed person did.

Shouldn't we focus on mental health? Should we bring back state mental facilities? This all started with the closing of mental health facilities. Look at Kent State for example.

Now, the problem In my opinion, is not gun control or lack thereof, but the reduction in the mental health fields since the 70s

Yes that seems to be a common denominator in recent mass murders here. A 20 something zombified white male who the system decided needed psychotropic drugs wheter really required or not .
Blaming guns for violence is like blaming forks and spoons for obesity.

- I am not impressed with the press. In their rush to report anything about this incident ,there has been more misinformation reported than fact. The litany would be comic if it wasn't so tragic.

I just don't understand why people are so quick to blame the gun. It cannot function of its own accord. It cannot grow legs and walk into a building and commit a murder. A person has to do that.

Why aren't we focusing on the people who commit these crimes rather than the inanimate objects?

Rather than changing the laws regarding gun control, why don't we try to regulate the mental health field?

I recently took a survey for my daughter's social work class. It was a blind survey. It took 2 hours to complete. I was shocked at some of the questions! The majority of them referred to things such as hurting children an animals etc. We need to bring mental health care back and affordable for everyone.

Forget the firearms... tell me which one of the most recent mass murderer's were declared sane.

That is a challenge. I doubt any of you could actually name one.

Blaming guns for violence is like blaming forks and spoons for obesity.

-


Hello Tom,

How about we put this ridiculous fallacy to bed right away.

You seems to like the circular reasoning. Spoons don't go around shoving food into people's mouths. Do you know any people who want to claim that spoons go around feeding people?

Let's put another popular fallacy to bed. The idea than an exception proves the rule.

There was a man in my city not long ago who died when his car it a tree.It turned out that he was drunk behind the wheel. This is despite a concerted effort by the police over a number of years crack down heavily on heavily on drink driving. It is pretty obvious the law doesn't work because it didn't stop this person from drink driving.

No it didn't stop him, but it cut the number of drink driving accidents and deaths by nearly 80 percent over the two years. I am sure you see the parallel to the fallacy you put forward elsewhere.Do you have any others?

Tut

Meanwhile 10 were shot Friday in Chi-town demonstrating yet again that strict gun control fails to prevent or deter criminal misuse of guns by criminals.

No it didn't stop him, but it cut the number of drink driving accidents and deaths by nearly 80 percent over the two years. I am sure you see the parallel to the fallacy you put forward. Do you have any others?

Show me then where gun laws in this country have prevented or even deterred gun crimes ;or put that ridiculous fallacy to rest.

Sorry I realize you did. I am venting as I have started to become overwhelmed feeling like this needs to be fixed and now. I have refused to read any news or watch it as it is affecting me negatively with my emotions. I did not mean to disrespect what you contributed at all.

No disrespect taken. I just didn't want to rewrite it again (Im lazy) lol

Show me then where gun laws in this country have prevented or even deterred gun crimes ;or put that rediculous fallacy to rest.


That is not a fallacy, you are asking for empirical verification. As far as I know the evidence suggests that the laws are largely ineffectual. That is just what I am thinking, but you would have to look at the data and conduct some type of comparison study.

Without such a study one would think that your laws are too weak to make a significant difference. Any others?

I read Wondergirls post and thought how dare she blame video games. (I am a gamer). Then I thought I am looking for answers. I want this fixed. If it is something I like and it truly is the cause how can I discount it because I like it. I think that is the attitude we all need. To listen to each other, and figure this out.
Maybe it is not all or nothing and black and white thinking. Please hear me out. For some people violent games are okay yet for others it is not due to their own private issues, mental health etc. Same as gun ownership. Same as treatement for mental health issues. I have been looking for one fix. Someone to say do this now it is all better, but that is more of the black and white thinking. Maybe it is a bit of everything. It comes down to what the person needs. Now that I have said that how do we do this so everyone gets what they need. What kinds of safety nets do we need for parents, for caregivers, for schools, for doctors, etc. We as a society need to wake up and become a village for each child.
I will admit I have been on edge due to the person having a personality disorder.. that is what I have. It is scaring me so bad. I am trying to realize I am not that person, I have skills etc. The fear is still there.
I hope I have made sense in this post. This tragedy has affected me deeply as it has many others. Lets just be kind to each other............ and I must say this thread has been very respectful. and kind.

Im going to address a few things here. For one thing you need to realize how normal it is to feel something when there are situations in this world like what has happened. If you didn't feel something then that would cross a line. When you look in the mirror please remind yourself your normal with a few tweaks. We all have them. We even have a long running thread about those tweaks. It can be found by looking up the word "peeve". We all have something. And the fact that you realize that your experiencing a response is normal. By expressing yourself and your beliefs your helping yourself to understand who you are and where your going. Those are all good things. Try not to beat yourself up for allowing the situation because there is nothing any of us can do. It has already been done. It is up to all of us to support those that survive in our own way and to express our "peeve" over how it is dealt with. It is all part of the big mix and what makes the world an interesting place. You are part of that world and you are part of our world here at AMHD. We may be divided on the micro issues but all in all we stand together as a people. If you look we are not as unique as you think. There are many that do good and spread good thoughts every day in silence.


Onto the gamers issue. I play video games. I have been for more years then Im going to mention. I play fps games. (first person shooter) The ones I won't play are the ones that are realistic in nature. Those that resemble the real world. I believe they contribute to the desensetizing of the soul. After you have seen real life action so many times it no longer holds the same shock value. That is why the ones I play are fantasy character types or have monsters in them. They are not some of the more popular ones like Men of War or Call of Duty and others that depict real persons in real worlds. How many times have we heard that something is bad for you when taken too much. Everything from too much intake of foods to porn. So lets not throw a blanket over the gaming issue until it has been studied over the long haul.

Without such a study one would think that your laws are too weak to make a significant difference.
Would a study by Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy suffice ? Not only does it find that the answer to their question "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? " is NO Instead it finds a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal
more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially
since they argue public policy ought to be based on
that mantra.To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more
guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions
in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are
not observed when a large number of nations are compared
across the world.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

They go further and note that the adoption of Concealed Carry laws results in the reduction of violent crime.

Would a study by Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy suffice ? Not only does it find that the answer to their question "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? " is NO Instead it finds a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal
more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially
since they argue public policy ought to be based on
that mantra.To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more
guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions
in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are
not observed when a large number of nations are compared
across the world.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

They go further and note that the adoption of Concealed Carry laws results in the reduction of violent crime.


Suffice for what? I already pointed out that I'm not sure about the empirical evidence. So yes, this was the type of study I was talking about. If you asking me what I think I will read it and get back to you,

Tom you like to point out the straw man argument, so perhaps you might understand that what you have posted was never a confirm commitment on my part, one way or the other. It is clear from my post that I am only guessing about the data. Again, this was never my preferred position.

I was actually pointing out that your statement has nothing top do with fallacies. This was my firm commitment. You were asking an empirical question. I then went into some speculation about possible findings in relation to the available data.

Tut

Tom are you going to sign the petition?

What petition ? If it is in support for stricter gun laws then probaby not. This week an assault happened at an elementary school. The attacker slashed 22 children in Henan province China .More evidence that it's not the weapon but the person using the weapon that needs to be addressed.

With that said, you may not need a permit to purchase, but you still have to pass a background check using the Form 4473.
For a private sale, you do not have to fill out that form and go through the background check. My NRA husband says this is the "gunshow loophole."

For a private sale, you do not have to fill out that form and go through the background check. My NRA husband says this is the "gunshow loophole."

Its different for many states. Where J is from if you're a dealer at a show you have to get them checked out before a sale. A private sale is very different.

There is no loophole in Tennessee. She is correct.

So lets not throw a blanket over the gaming issue until it has been studied over the long haul.
I don't think anyone here has. I agree with J_9 about mental institutions being shut down as early as the '50s but especially during the '70s when we all started being PC and realizing everyone has rights. Droves of mentally ill were consigned to their loving families who were supposed to monitor their meds or responsibly be in charge of them themselves. As we know, that sometimes doesn't happen.

We don't yet know if Adam was a gamer or if he was under doctor's care for a mental illness (or should have been, if he wasn't). And I agree it is a mental health issue in this situation, not a gun control issue. Bits and pieces of the story will come out every day. And yes, I wish the media would shut up.

From an article in today's Chicago Sun-Times regarding the media's influence --

From his review of Gus Van Sant's “Elephant,” a fictionalized account of a Columbine-like school shooting, here's Roger Ebert on the media's behavior while reporting these kinds of events.

Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking soundbites to support it. “Wouldn't you say,” she asked, 'that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?” No, I said, I wouldn't say that. “But what about 'The Basketball Diaries'?” she asked. “Doesn't that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?”

The obscure 1995 Leonardo DiCaprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office and it's unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.

The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. “Events like this,” I said, “if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. Kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory.”

In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, “The NBC Nightly News” and other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of “explaining” them.

The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy.

Ebert: News coverage, not movies, helps trigger Newtown-type tragedies - Chicago Sun-Times (http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/17040159-421/ebert-news-coverage-not-movies-helps-trigger-newtown-type-tragedies.html)

Hello again,

Last year (http://frrole.com/o/last-year-handguns-killed-48-people-in--tracylittle-uk), handguns KILLED: 48 People in Japan, 8 in Great Britain, 34 in Switzerland, 52 in Canada, 58 in Israel, 21 in Sweden, and 10,728 in The United States.

excon

I don't live in the USA and I have heard it is difficult to get mental health care but had no proof. I read this story and started crying this mother is trying. This is why we need solutions so mothers can get the help they need from their "village".
I Am Adam Lanza's Mother (http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother?utm_source=jezebel.com&utm_medium=recirculation&utm_campaign=recirculation&post=55295023)

I don't live in the USA and I have heard it is difficult to get mental health care but had no proof.
It's not difficult, but people don't know where to go and how to get it. You may have noticed that I often post, "Call your county health department [etc.]... and if nothing else, call your public library reference desk for help numbers and contact names."

Even the high cost can be reduced in various ways. My bone to pick is with parenting, that too many parents and other adults in their lives give children a sense of undeserved entitlement. Apparently, from what I have been reading, Adam Lanza's mom realized her son had a problem, had homeschooled him even, but what else was done we don't know yet. Whatever it was, it wasn't enough.

We are too intimidated by the need to be PC and kind. I sat quietly with mouth closed while I watched a bil raise his children very poorly. Both of his daughters are now on the edges of society with children by different fathers, in train wrecks of marriage and relationships, and raising their children with who knows what values. Would it have made a difference if I had spoken up? Can we make a difference when we see someone like Adam Lanza? And how?

Wondergirl did you read the article I linked? It brought me to tears again. I too sometimes blame the parents but to be honest we don't know what they did or did not do. It is another mom saying what she has been doing and trying. She needs help from her village to raise her son. She is saying her son could be Adam.

Wondergirl did you read the article I linked?
Yes, I read that article. And there IS help out there for that mother and others. As a counselor, mother, and former schoolteacher, I know there is no real reason not to seek help and be able to get it.

That takes us to the musical question, why doesn't a parent reach out for help?

what petition ? If it is in support for stricter gun laws then probaby not. This week an assault happened at an elementary school. The attacker slashed 22 children in Henan province China .More evidence that it's not the weapon but the person using the weapon that needs to be addressed.

There is a huge difference Tomder. In Connecticut the insane individual had a gun and killed 26 people. In China the insane individual had a knife and injured 22 people. See the difference?

I have already stated that I'm not against people owing guns. I'm against people having weapons that can hold a clip with 100 or more bullets. It's not necessary.

To answer J's post. I do know that it's the individual, and not the guns, that's responsible for this. But, had the individual not had access to the caliber of weapons he had access to, the death toll would have been far less. Yes, people still would have died, but most likely not 26 people. The death toll would have been far less, IMO.

I'm simply proposing that regular people that only have weapons to protect their homes and families, not have access to weapons that should only be necessary in battle.

Alty, the average person cannot have a magazine that holds 100 or more rounds. Those are reserved for military an police. That is where you are mistaken.

The 2nd amendment is not just about personal protection and hunting rights .

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Thomas Jefferson)

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Thomas Jefferson)
Let's just imagine there's government tyranny (hmmm, whose definition?) People don't even know their neighbors any longer. How on earth would any kind of a useful militia be formed?

Maybe part of the solution is to look to the past what worked before to have a sense of community? Yes bad things happened then but we have thrown out the bad and the good from the past.
1. Discipline notice I did not say abuse. Teaching right from wrong. Consequences.. Every child is different what works for one may not work for another.
2. Knowing your neighbors. Becoming friendly. Helping out when they need help. Being there when they need emotional support. Becoming like it is here. We all care about each other, we don't always agree (look at this thread) but we don't suddenly hate each other or stop talking.
3. Respect others beliefs or non beliefs. Respect others traditions and holidays. You don't have to agree with them but you can respect their right to believe it without belittling or trying to change them.
These are all things we don't need laws to start doing. We don't need to wait on others to start doing these either. I plan on making lots of changes in my life and if I am the only one that is okay. I will live my life knowing I tried. I am sure there are many more please share if you have any I will love to hear them.
Funny I was looking for someone to tell me what to do and as I shut up and listened to you guys and my inner voice I came up with this.

Let's just imagine there's government tyranny (hmmm, whose definition?) People don't even know their neighbors any longer. How on earth would any kind of a useful militia be formed?

Back in 1776 they said ,'how can a rag-tag group of farmers defeat the most powerful army on the planet' ?

back in 1776 they said ,'how can a rag-tag group of farmers defeat the most powerful army on the planet' ?
Now we're a rag-tag country of 314,952,339 and counting -- every religion, culture, language, political belief from A to Z. Build me a militia.

Hello WG:


Build me a militia.It doesn't take a militia. A few rag tag fellows whooped on us pretty badly with just IED's. A few Jews in the ghetto gave a well armed German army fits. If every American who HAD a sidearm resisted, nobody could prevail over us - not even our own government.

Excon

Dear excon:

I'll be waiting and watching. Oh, and what will bring us with sidearms to that point?

Fondly,
WG

back in 1776 they said ,'how can a rag-tag group of farmers defeat the most powerful army on the planet' ?

Time to get real Tom and stop living in the past, how many times have I told you that. That was then, this is now. Trying that sort of thing today will definitely get you killed

There is apparently a petition on the White House web site, I couldn't copy the link from my source it led to a news wire.

The 2nd amendment is very definitely about national emergencies, but remember in those days guns only had one shot and you couldn't fire more than two or three times a minute so you needed cannon fodder in the terms of lots of people firing together. If there is a crisis to which a militia could respond what sort of body count do you expect. Today's weapons and tactics are not appropriate to a militia of the type envisaged by the writers of the constitution

Just remember what happened to your most powerful army on the planet in Vietnam and they weren't defeated by a militia

There is apparently a petition on the White House web site, I couldn't copy the link from my source it led to a news wire.
The one about mental illness as the real thing that needs to be addressed?

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/address-shortcomings-current-mental-health-system-prevent-risk-people-becoming-violent-offenders/3sRkLcj6?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl

The one about mental illness as the real thing that needs to be addressed?

Yes there is more than one issue here, but gun ownership and access needs to be must more stringent, perhsps what you need is training and education about weapons in high school, it might take some of the glamour out of gun ownership and pick up people with wrong attitudes

Clete ;like Ex said...


Back in 1776 the people had basically the same weaponry as the government . Now with all the sophistication of weapons ,the strongest army gets defeated by strategically planted IED and men on horseback .The Syrian Army presumably is better armed than the so called Free Syrian Army.. Who's winning there ?

On rifles, no background check is needed. On handguns, it depends on your state.



I suppose that is state dependent as well. My state requires background checks on all firearms aside from blackpowder.

I made the mistake of posting that in response to the gun show/private sale thing without being detailed enough about it I suppose. Here, in PA, you need the check for anything other than BP as well if you are buying from a dealer. In a private sale, there is a required background check on handguns but not on rifles. That is what I was referring to.

Clete ;like Ex said....


back in 1776 the people had basically the same weaponry as the government . Now with all the sophistication of weapons ,the strongest army gets defeated by strategically planted IED and men on horseback .The Syrian Army presumably is better armed than the so called Free Syrian Army .. Who's winning there ?

So you advocate insurrection to solve politicaL problems, Syria is a good example of why military weapons shouldn't be allowed in the general population, indiscriminate killing, religious warfare, revenge taking and what, 2 years of hell. You are going to get kicked out of Afghanistan for the same reasons

Tom this shooter fired"" hundeds" of rounds from what they have now found to be three semi automatic weapons. There can be no reason why one person is permitted to own so many of those weapons. This person made a military style assault on the school, a one man militia, How ridiculous is that, that he should be able to do that.

Tom this shooter fired "hundeds" of rounds from what they have now found to be three semi automatic weapons.
The M.E. reported that only the Bushmaster was used to kill, and he used one of the hand guns on himself.

I made the mistake of posting that in response to the gun show/private sale thing without being detailed enough about it I suppose. Here, in PA, you need the check for anything other than BP as well if you are buying from a dealer. In a private sale, there is a required background check on handguns but not on rifles. That is what I was referring to.

Here it's a lot tougher. Just to own or buy a gun (not fire it) you need to fill out forms that would make applying for citizenship look like a kindergarten math quiz. It's intense.

The guns we have, we didn't buy. They all belonged to my father and Rod's. When they bought them the laws were less strict. Now, in order to keep weapons we don't even use (Rod has used them for target practice around 3 times in 11 years) Rod has to go through not only registration, a criminal and mental background check, a class, but more.

It took 6 months just to get a license to keep the weapons we already had before this law was passed. Weapons we didn't even buy. Weapons that to us, are sentimental. That license is just to own these weapons, not to buy new ones, or to fire the ones we own.

The fact that Rod has a license, but is married to a person that doesn't, also cause major issues.

Our weapons are required to be locked in a gun case at all times. The bullets must be locked in a separate case.

It's very involved, much more than I can even attempt to express in writing.

In other words. If Rod were to go postal, decide to go on a killing spree, had a mental break, he'd have to find the key to the gun case, the key to the bullet case, load the weapon (the one that holds the most bullets holds only 5) before he could carry out his plan.

I love my husband, but thankfully that's too much work for him, even if he were to go insane. :)

Our weapons are required to be locked in a gun case at all times. The bullets must be locked in a separate case.
Who checks that you have complied with the law?

Who checks that you have complied with the law?

Random checks. Trust me, we get checked often, because Rod is registered to own and fire the guns we have.

It's never an expected visit. One time we had two visits in a week.

Random checks. Trust me, we get checked often
Who checks?

who checks?

Rcmp.

Edit: I posted that in capitals, as it should be, but it posted in lower caps. :(

Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

population --
Canada = 35,007,972 or so
USA = 314,953,240 or so

And many guns in this country are not registered.

population --
Canada = 35,007,972 or so
USA = 314,953,240 or so

And many guns in this country are not registered.

And the stats Exy posted, for the number of deaths by handguns, well, the US beats all others (combined) by a whopping 10,000 plus per year. The second highest was 58, I believe. The US, over 10,000, closer to 11,000.

And the stats Exy posted, for the number of deaths by handguns, well, the US beats all others (combined) by a whopping 10,000 plus per year. The second highest was 58, I believe. The US, over 10,000, closer to 11,000.
And your conclusion is?

It's a no brainer, this list demonstates that the US is among underdeveloped countries where gun related deaths are concerned
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

And your conclusion is?

Figure it out yourself WG. It's not brain surgery. Stop asking questions instead of giving answers. That's all you ever seem to do. :(

Figure it out yourself WG. It's not brain surgery. Stop asking questions instead of giving answers. That's all you ever seem to do. :(
There is no way the police can do unscheduled checks (physically, legally, morally), plus too many guns are owned illegally. We have a huge problem in this country and any suggestion we do it the way Canada does just won't work.

There is no way the police can do unscheduled checks (physically, legally, morally), plus too many guns are owned illegally. We have a huge problem in this country and any suggestion we do it the way Canada does just won't work.

No one suggested that you do it the way Canada does it, but really, the numbers speak for themselves.

Last year handguns killed;

48 people in Japan
8 in Great Britain
34 in Switzerland
52 in Canada
58 in Israel
21 in Sweden
42 in West Germany
10,728 in the US.

Whatever the US is doing, it's obviously not working. If mental illness were really the cause, well, either the US has a lot of nut cases, or that's not the issue.

Like I said before, it's really a no brainer.

Like I said before, it's really a no brainer.
I don't understand "no brainer." I agree with you there is an incredibly huge and complex problem. The solution, if there is one, is yet to be thought of.

I don't understand "no brainer." I agree with you there is an incredibly huge and complex problem. The solution, if there is one, is yet to be thought of.

Actually, I think the solution has been thought of. Sadly, the majority of Americans are against that solution.

Edit: As for the "no brainer" part. It means, it doesn't take a brain to figure it out. Look at the stats. All the countries listed have strict gun laws, all but the US. All have under 60 deaths a year due to handguns. The US has almost 11,000. Those numbers really do speak for themselves. The answer is staring everyone in the face. Until there are stricter gun laws, the death toll will continue to accumulate in the US. All countries have people with mental issues. All countries have people.

The old quote "Guns don't kill people. People kill people", is bull.

It should be "Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people".

I personally think the real problem lies in how we parent our children. Most of the gangs in Chicago are made up of sons (and maybe some daughters) of single mothers, girls who got pregnant at 14, 15 -- plus Hollywood, TV, and women's magazines don't help. I like three sitcoms that used to be quite funny. Last season and this season they have degenerated into humor on a very low level, mostly about the human body and sex. And these are in prime time when children are watching. Why did they change? And why do parents allow their children to watch the movies and TV shows they do? We have lost our way as parents in teaching self respect and respect for others.

It is apparent that the mother was a survivalist nut and with a son with asperger's/autism the combination has proved lethal. It is very hard for a system of licensing to exclude such combinations. It is far better that the weapons are what is restricted

I can tell there is a solution it is very costly, try the Australian solution an amnesty and buy back where every surrendered weapon is valued and paid for and destroyed and no questions asked, and from that point on no military weapons, no semi automatics allowed, all weapons licensed, and secure, no carry permits except for cops and licenced security and no concealed weapons and just maybe you need a change to the constitution rewording the second amendment

You could even have a gun buy back led recovery with a lot of cash flowing from disused and surrendered weapons. Just think 280,000,000 weapons at say $500.

How about you start with this solution
http://www.news.com.au/national/adelaide-mum-sam-paior-plans-toy-gun-buy-back-after-sandy-hook-shootings-in-connecticut/story-fndo4dzn-1226538565645

It doesn't matter what we do Clete. Drugs are illegal, but there is still a drug problem.

In Australia there was a sharp decline of crimes committed with firearms, but there was also a sharp increase of crimes committed with kinve/sharp weapon(s).

Australian Institute of Criminology - Homicide weapon statistics (http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/weapon.html)

Your gun buy back program cost your country over $500 million dollars.

I'm sorry, but I will not surrender my guns so that the criminals can have the run of the streets any more than they already do.

This week an assault happened at an elementary school. The attacker slashed 22 children in Henan province China .More evidence that it's not the weapon but the person using the weapon that needs to be addressed.


Tom, still trying to perpetuate the circular argument? At least this time you have cited some evidence to back up your conclusion. The problem is that you only cherry picked the bit that supports your preconceived ideas. It would have been better to have to included the whole story. Alty's post gives some other equally important details.

Obviously you know about cherry picking arguments. Some made famous by certain global warming scientists. Some not so famous like the study in the Harvard link. I know you are not interested in my analysis of that particular study so I won't bore you with the details. Lets just say there is a fair bit of cherry picking going on in that study as well.

You know, all of this reminds me of a little story.

There were two alcoholics who couldn't accept the possibility that alcohol was making them drunk. Being the scientific types they decided to conduct a statistical and scientific approach to the problem.

At the end of the day they went to a bar and ordered what ever was on the menu that day. They also ordered strong spirits and water to dilute the spirit. As usual they drank to excess and got drunk.

The next day they went to a different bar and ordered a different meal to the one they had yesterday. They also ordered more spirits and water to dilute the drinks. But this time instead of Vodka they ordered Scotch Whiskey. Again they became very drunk.

On the third day they went to a different bar and yet again ordered a different meal. Once again they decided to drink spirits and thus ordered Bourbon and water.

Upon recovering from their hangover they concluded that all the variables pointed to the water being the cause of their drunkenness This is because water was the only thing that remained constant throughout the experiment.



Tut

asperger's/autism
Neither are linked to violence.He may have had some other mental health issues also ;but affixing the blame on Aspergers is a red herring .In my humble opinion ASPY is not even a mental problem . More likely I would explore which designer drug he was prescribed to deal with his 'mental health' issues ;and which of it's myriad of side effects was manifest .

Tut ;I see plenty of proposed solutions on this very posting that are not backed up by any serious empircal data . So why zero in on my comments except that they disagree with your preconceived perceptions?

Tut ;I see plenty of proposed solutions on this very posting that are not backed up by any serious empircal data . So why zero in on my comments except that they disagree with your preconceived perceptions?

Hi Tom,

Yes, I think you are right I am not being very fair to you. In the interests of fairness I should go through every other post as well. I am glad you have pointed this out. Yes,I think I was zeroing in mainly on your comments.

Believe it or not I was going to post a reply to J_9 saying that I was understanding of her position and that Australia is a very different culture. In fact, so different in certain areas we may as well be on different planets. Incredible as it seems from your point of view Australia legislation in this area is something most Australians are happy with.

One thing in my favour is that all of my comments were not aimed at specific domestic situations. There were of a general nature centred on studies and various types of arguments that can be employed.

Tut

Hello again,

I just read this and found it to be very profound:

Speaking of us,
We have a generally more violent mindset, based on many years of conditioning and some distorted ideas about manhood, nationalism, group identity, and assertiveness. Thus all the guns, the extreme violence in films, video games, etc.

Basically, it's a cultural difference that's pretty deeply rooted.

Excon

Agree with the above.

I'm sorry. I can't go with the violent movies or video games. Anyone of sound mind and body knows that these are fictitious. Those that act out due to multimedia are NOT of sound mind. Now we are back to mental health.

Clete, why do you think that the mother was a "survivalist" simply because she owned guns?

Hello J:

They guy was saying that violent video's are a SYMPTOM - not a cause.

excon

I could go with that. Maybe for a disturbed individual.

BTW there are 2 Aspy's in my town, brothers, they can be VERY violent at times and have had to be restrained in public on numerous occasions, one of which I have witnessed in our local grocery store.

They are well known to our police department.

I could go with that. Maybe for a disturbed individual.

BTW there are 2 Aspy's in my town, brothers, they can be VERY violent at times and have had to be restrained in public on numerous occasions, one of which I have witnessed in our local grocery store.

They are well known to our police department.

Probably also has other issues.

The hypothesis that individuals with AS are predisposed to violent or criminal behavior has been investigated but is not supported by data.[1][30] More evidence suggests children with AS are victims rather than victimizers.[31] A 2008 review found that an overwhelming number of reported violent criminals with AS had coexisting psychiatric disorders such as schizoaffective disorder.[32]
(from the hated Wiki )
Asperger syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome)

I can tell there is a solution it is very costly, try the Australian solution an amnesty and buy back where every surrendered weapon is valued and paid for and destroyed and no questions asked, and from that point on no military weapons, no semi automatics allowed, all weapons licensed, and secure, no carry permits except for cops and licenced security and no concealed weapons and just maybe you need a change to the constitution rewording the second amendment

You could even have a gun buy back led recovery with a lot of cash flowing from disused and surrendered weapons. just think 280,000,000 weapons at say $500.

How about you start with this solution
Adelaide mum Sam Paior plans toy gun 'buy-back' after Sandy Hook shootings in Connecticut | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/national/adelaide-mum-sam-paior-plans-toy-gun-buy-back-after-sandy-hook-shootings-in-connecticut/story-fndo4dzn-1226538565645)


Yes, because surely the criminals will surrender their guns... no doubt.

No the criminlas won't surrender their guns, that is what you have a police force for, in fact, a police force that will have the power to seize illegal weapons once the amnesty has passed. However you may get a few nutcases to surrender their weapons or at least have reduced access to them. The statistics speak for themselves all over the world

Do I think years after our amnesty there are no illegal weapons in our society, no I don't, Just the other day a licenced gun dealer was found with 1,400 illegal weapons, but oddly enough there have been no massacres either. Look when I was young I enjoyed gun ownership, even carried a rifle in my golf bag. But I am no longer young and stupid. That gun wasn't obtained by legal means, but it wasn't illegal for me to own it. Today it would be, and I no longer own a gun or feel the need of a gun to feel safe.

I must chime in as I see a lot of all or nothing thinking. I don't think this is a one size fits all bandaid. For example when doing mindfulness there are lots of ways to practice it. Why? Because not every way works for every person. Same as this issue. I don't think it is get rid of all guns versus keep all guns. It is not all or nothing.

No the criminlas won't surrender their guns, that is what you have a police force for, in fact, a police force that will have the power to seize illegal weapons once the amnesty has passed.

They already have the "power" to seize illegal weapons... how would you suggest that they find these illegal weapons?

And I do know of areas that do gun buys. Philadelphia does it. The high crime area of Philadelphia... they do buybacks... know what wonderful results they're getting? They get garbage. They get junk. Bolt action rifles, rusted handguns, single shot, ww2 relics that people had no idea of value... Never have I seen a gun that would actually be used in a crime in these piles. No AR's, no AK's, no semi-auto handguns of any significance. Big deal. What a great job they're doing getting all those killer guns off the streets. Guns like that are guns that someone had laying around and figured they could cash in on them.

Buybacks don't work.

I must chime in as I see a lot of all or nothing thinking. I don't think this is a one size fits all bandaid. For example when doing mindfulness there are lots of ways to practice it. Why? Because not every way works for every person. Same as this issue. I don't think it is get rid of all guns versus keep all guns. It is not all or nothing.
I agree. It also involves the home and parenting, education and improved outlook for one's future, how our society deals with mental health issues, gun safety training, crime and gang prevention in our cities and towns, and so much more. The problems that need to be addressed are mind boggling.

I agree. It also involves the home and parenting, education and improved outlook for one's future, how our society deals with mental health issues, gun safety training, crime and gang prevention in our cities and towns, and so much more. The problems that need to be addressed are mind boggling.


That's some good thought and you are right. There is so much more to all of this other than simply pointing the finger at guns only.

They already have the "power" to seize illegal weapons... how would you suggest that they find these illegal weapons?

I hear there is such a thing as probable cause which allows police to enter and search and I have no doubt they do seize weapons under such circumstances


And I do know of areas that do gun buys. Philadelphia does it. The high crime area of Philadelphia... they do buybacks... know what wonderful results they're getting? They get garbage. They get junk. Bolt action rifles, rusted handguns, single shot, ww2 relics that people had no idea of value... Never have I seen a gun that would actually be used in a crime in these piles. No AR's, no AK's, no semi-auto handguns of any significance. Big deal. What a great job they're doing getting all those killer guns off the streets. Guns like that are guns that someone had laying around and figured they could cash in on them.

Buybacks don't work.

You missed the point of general amnesty and buyback, no examination of the weapon to see if it was used in a crime and yes you might get some junk but you will also get some not so junk. If it is done when there is a time of high public feeling and the making of certain weapons illegal you will get a better result. You see the problem is also the high level of criminality associated with drugs, etc. This isn't a panecea for all the ills of society, just a way of dealing with one of them

The street gangs will not be in any hurry to hand over their guns for a buyback.

Buybacks happen right now but again I say, it is 95% junk that wouldn't be used by criminals anyway.

I hear there is such a thing as probable cause which allows police to enter and search and I have no doubt they do sieze weapons under such circumstances



You missed the point of general amnesty and buyback, no examination of the weapon to see if it was used in a crime and yes you might get some junk but you will also get some not so junk. If it is done when there is a time of high public feeling and the making of certain weapons illegal you will get a better result. You see the problem is also the high level of criminality associated with drugs, etc. This isn't a panecea for all the ills of society, just a way of dealing with one of them

Probable cause to enter a home is only used if there is a crime in progress. Otherwise it takes a search warrant to enter a private premisis.

As far as your buy back amnesty goes. What if someone turns in a stolen gun? It should be returned to the original owner and not destroyed unless that owner can no long have guns. Also if that gun was used in a murder why would you throw out a key piece of evidence?

Dad if you have a large response you will not have the investigative teams to pursue such investigations, you could check seriel numbers, but if the gun was stolen it was probably used in a crime anyway and in the logical conclusion to your argument kept as evidence, not returned. The point of the amnesty is to get guns off the streets and out of the cupboards and not to chase every litte lead that might or might not be there, but the reward could be paid to the owner, not the person who handed it in. You have 280,000,000 guns in your nation, the logistics of chasing even a small proportion of them all down is staggering. It may even mean more would be stolen just to hand them in and get the reward

What was gun ownership in Aussie ? Less that 7% of the population ? Here you try taking people's guns away you better bring an army with you.

It's not like we didn't try an assault weapon ban before. The ban was ineffective for a decade before it expired . And yes I have a study to back that statement .
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.

Yes our gun ownership is less for a number of reasons, both cultural and historical. The amnesty after the Port Arthur Massacre reduced the incidence of gun ownship considerablyand the most telling statistic is the reduction in crime generally, it is as though the nation came of age

One reason is we are not subject to the same level of lawlessness you are, a true catch 22 situation. As far as an assault weapon ban is concerned action has to be more than just a ban, there has to be conscious and deliberate enforcement. I doubt a real reduction would have been achieved without the buyback, we had had various amnesties previously. You see reduction in weapon ownership as taking your guns away, we see reduction in weapon ownership as an improvement in civic safety and making the task of law enforcement easier. We have a low incidence of death by firearm and a low incidence of firearms being used in suicide, Sorry, but we don't generally regard shooting someone as a manly act.

I have no doubt we harbour groups who think as you do, mainly recent immigrants from the middle east and Yugoslavia. It is surprising and instructive to observe the backgrounds of those engaged in violence of various forms

I see reduction in gun ownership as taking my civil rights away.

You must not take it personally, it is intended to make it safer for you

How would taking my protection away from me make me feel safer?

How would taking my protection away from me make me feel safer?

Because everyone else would have that "protection" taken away as well.

It's simple math. If everyone around you can't access high powered weapons, you don't need high powered weapons to protect yourself.

If a criminal is forced to use a knife because he can't purchase a gun, then you don't need an automatic weapon to defend yourself.

I think you all don't realize that gun laws would affect everyone. That would mean that you don't need to protect yourself to the level you are right now, because there wouldn't be any extremely dangerous weapons out there to protect against.

That's really silly Alty. Drugs are illegal but we still have a drug problem. Guns would be illegal and we will still have a gun problem.

By making guns illegal you take them away from the law abiding citizens. If you think criminals are going to give up their guns you aren't living in reality in America.

That's really silly Alty. Drugs are illegal but we still have a dry problem. Guns would be illegal and we will still have a gun problem.

By making guns illegal you take them away from the law abiding citizens. If you think criminals are going to give up their guns you aren't living in reality in America.

You're right, I don't live in America. Do you really think people are that different in Canada? The only difference is our laws. We have drugs in Canada, we have crime in Canada, we have gangs, we even have shootings. There's not an iota's worth of difference between Americans and Canadians, when it comes to issues and people. The only major difference is our laws. If you look at the statistics, those laws really do speak for themselves.

Are you forgetting that I live in a town that's only 4km away from a major city? Compare my Canadian city to any major city in the US and you won't see many differences. One major difference, we have "no knives allowed" postings on the bars in the city near me. In the US you don't need to worry about knives, you need to worry about guns, because most people have one. In Canada, seeing someone carrying a gun is like catching a glimpse of a siamese twin. Not a common occurrence.

I understand why most Americans are so against stricter gun laws. But you're literally shooting yourselves in the foot.

Bottom line, if you refuse to have stricter gun laws, follow the examples set by others, then you have to accept the deaths that result in that, as part of your right to bear arms, because sadly, everyone has the same right to high powered weapons that you do.

So, when you see a shooting where 20 children are killed, when you see a massacre in a theater where 12 people are killed, and numerous others are seriously injured, when you see this happening numerous times a year, you really have to accept that as part of your refusal to have stricter laws. You have to accept that as the price you pay to get what you want. It really does come down to that. It's really a matter of "I want to have the right to the weapons I wish to have, and I'm willing to sacrifice a few lives to maintain that right". I hate saying it, but that's really what it boils down to.

Edit: As for drugs. If someone wants to kill them self by doing drugs, I may not like it, but they're only hurting themselves. Guns, not so much. When that person hurts, they rarely limit it to themselves.

Basically the bottom line is that it is my Constitutional right to bear arms. 2nd Amendment to be exact.

Let's look at the theater killer. What has become of him? He has been found NGRI (Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity). He was mentally ill just as this guy was. So rather than focusing on the real issue here, you non-Americans are focusing on the method used. It's like blaming the car when someone dies rather that blaming the drunk who was driving the car. It's like blaming the fire but protecting the arsonist.

There are ways to fix the problem without taking away our constitutional rights, but no one wants to hear that. No one wants to focus on the actual root of the problem.

Alty... as for the drugs... come spend time with me when I work in the ER. The addicts are not hurting only themselves. They stab their significant others because of hallucinations. The molest and kill babies that are 17 days old. That's just two of my days lat week in the ER. Neither of those people used a gun. But both of those people were mentally ill and using drugs to self medicate.

The answer to this issue is to bring back affordable mental health care. Bring back state run mental hospitals.

It's not the sane people committing the crimes, it's the mentally ill and these people could have been stopped if there were programs in place to help them before they got this sick.

Basically the bottom line is that it is my Constitutional right to bear arms. 2nd Ammendment to be exact.

Let's look at the theater killer. What has become of him? He has been found NGRI (Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity). He was mentally ill just as this guy was. So rather than focusing on the real issue here, you non-Americans are focusing on the method used. It's like blaming the car when someone dies rather that blaming the drunk who was driving the car. It's like blaming the fire but protecting the arsonist.

There are ways to fix the problem without taking away our constitutional rights, but no one wants to hear that. No one wants to focus on the actual root of the problem.

J, that's ridiculous. I can't even respond to it because there's no way to. Your gun a laws are the very root of the problem. Comparing guns to drunk driving, that makes no sense. No disrespect intended, I think you know that I do respect you, I just don't agree with you, not at all.

Yes, you have your second amendment, and so does every one else in the US. Everyone! Every single person, has the right to bear arms. Every druggy, every insane lunatic, everyone.

Are you a responsible gun owner? Of course you are. I know that. I don't question that for a minute. But, since you have the right to bear arms, so does everyone else.

They can go out and purchase a weapon that should only be in the hands of a solider at war, fighting for your country, and if that person decides that he doesn't like pre-schoolers one day (because he's mentally ill, which I'm not disupting), he can take those weapons and gun them down. If that insane idiot doesn't have access to those weapons, then what happens? He takes a knife to the school and injures a few people? Still a tragedy, but not nearly the tragedy that unfolded on Friday.

You all keep trying to find the solution to this. Video games are too violent, parents aren't doing their job, mental illness, drugs, you name it. Instead of focusing on the one thing you can control, which is keeping weapons of mass destruction away from the people that are suffering through these issues. Why? Because it means you'll have to give up your weapons of mass destruction as well.

Do you not realize how ludicrous that is? If you have a toddler with a toy, and he constantly takes that toy and pokes himself in the eye, over and over and over, what do you do? You take the toy away! You don't try to figure out why he pokes himself, you don't blame it on everything else, you just take the toy away. Problem solved. No toy, no eye poking.

I adore you J, you know that. I just don't agree with you, and contrary to what you may believe, I'm not some naïve girl from Canada. I'm a pretty smart cookie, and I've looked at this from all angles. I see this issue very clearly. I also see that you and I are never going to agree on this issue. I stated that in my original post. I knew this wouldn't lead anywhere. I really didn't even want to be a part of this thread. I only started it so that the other thread would be left alone, and not turned into the war on guns we have going here. I don't want it to be a war that ends up costing me someone I care about, even if we can't agree on this one issue.

On that note, I'm going to bed, I have to deal with retail hell tomorrow, and frankly, most of the customers I had to deal with today should be grateful that we have strict gun laws. Just saying. ;)

One thing tio think about, where I come from we don't need to worry about bringing a knife to a gun fight

Alty... first I want you to know that I take no offense to ehst uou have said and I ask the same in return. I enjoy a friendly discussion.

I don't even know how to begin to respond because it is very clear that you really don't understand our gun laws the way you think you
Do. The weapons that are in the hands of the military cannot be purchased by an ordinary citizen. They are military only and not available to the public. The general public can purchase magazines (not clips) that hold a minimum amount of rounds. High cap Mag's are available to military and police only. The term "assault rifle" is very misleading. The rifle this man used is a popular deer hunting rifle, it just looks intimidating. You are very misled on what types of firearms are available to the general public.

Your comparison of a toddler poking himself in the eye is ludicrous as well. Because one toddler pokes himself in the eye the whole class should be punished?

Again, and no disrespect to you cause you are my online best friends, as a German-Canadian, you really haven't a clue about what kinds of guns are available to whom. What you said above is proof of that.

Let me give you a hypothetical and think before you respond. Please respond as I'm interested to hear what you have to say...

Rod and Jared have to go out of town for the weekend. It's just you and Syd at home. Syd is asleep in her room when the window breaks and a huge monster of a man climbs through the window and goes after Syd. He's going to rape her. You know you can't overpower him, but you have a revolver and you could shoot him to save her or you can call the cops. Now it might take the cops 15 minutes to get there. What are you going to do?

Now let's say that all you have to save her is a steak knife. What do you think will happen?

And no, it's not ludicrous, you are blaming the gun and not finding fault with the person who pulled the trigger.

Can any of you give an instance of when gun use actually saved lives? I can give a few examples but I want to hear from you first.

Funny how these don't make the main-stream liberal media.

I can think of an number of instances where they have cost lives even in the hands of police, there was one recent incident I believe where a citizen with a gun forced a thief to back off, but of course the outcome could have been very different. I heard of an 80 year old man who recently tackled two armed thieves and beat them, but if they came armed with guns he would have been dead

If there were less guns people would have to be trained in self defense wouldn't they? Look, you put forward an emotional hyperthetical but in reality you also tell us your right to have a gun is supposed to deter this situation. If your gun is stored as it should be you will not have time to retrieve it and load it so you will need to handle the situation differently

Where was the police protection in Newtown ? Late to the party .Perhaps the question might be asked. Why was an elementary school targeted ;why a theater in a 'gun-free zone' ? Why was a college campus that has similar restrictions targeted ? I'd bet Portland Oregon has similar restrictions like no conceal and carry . I'm sure no one in the Sikh temple attack in Wisconsin was armed except the attacker.
2 houses... one has a 'gun free zone 'sign in front and the other has a 'protected with an R-15 ' .Guess which home will get broken into.

Now let's say that all you have to save her is a steak knife. What do you think will happen?One person at the most possibly dies.

Yeah the one with the knife protecting self ,and property.

Alty... first i want you to know that i take no offense to ehst uou have said and i ask the same in return. I enjoy a friendly discussion.

I don't even know how to begin to respond because it is very clear that you really don't understand our gun laws the way you think you
do. The weapons that are in the hands of the military cannot be purchased by an ordinary citizen. They are military only and not available to the public. The general public can purchase magazines (not clips) that hold a minimum amount of rounds. High cap Mag's are available to military and police only. The term "assault rifle" is very misleading. The rifle this man used is a popular deer hunting rifle, it just looks intimidating. You are very misled on what types of firearms are available to the general public.



Im sorry J but I can't let this go. Im going to be sending to your room to do a little research and study. High capacity mags as well as drum mags are readily available to the general public. Mostly it is State law that puts the limits on capacity. Places like California have a limitation of 10 rounds for anything. Pistol or rifle it doesn't matter. Other states like Tennessee have no limitation on capacity. Also the AR15 in .223 is not a deer rifle. It is a varmit rifle. The difference being that it is considered cruel to the animal to not have a quick kill when hunting and hunters respect that. So this round is best suited for smaller game. The AR10 on the other hand (looks like the AR15) is a deer rifle because it shoots a 308 round and can drop a deer on the spot.

There's no doubt that your gun culture is too far gone to be retrenched. That's not the case in other countries.
My response was referring to mass killings reduced if they only had a knife.

You're right, I don't live in America. Do you really think people are that different in Canada? The only difference is our laws. We have drugs in Canada, we have crime in Canada, we have gangs, we even have shootings. There's not an iota's worth of difference between Americans and Canadians, when it comes to issues and people. The only major difference is our laws. If you look at the statistics, those laws really do speak for themselves.

Are you forgetting that I live in a town that's only 4km away from a major city? Compare my Canadian city to any major city in the US and you wont' see many differences. One major difference, we have "no knives allowed" postings on the bars in the city near me. In the US you don't need to worry about knives, you need to worry about guns, because most people have one. In Canada, seeing someone carrying a gun is like catching a glimpse of a siamese twin. Not a common occurrence.

I understand why most Americans are so against stricter gun laws. But you're literally shooting yourselves in the foot.

Bottom line, if you refuse to have stricter gun laws, follow the examples set by others, then you have to accept the deaths that result in that, as part of your right to bear arms, because sadly, everyone has the same right to high powered weapons that you do.

So, when you see a shooting where 20 children are killed, when you see a massacre in a theater where 12 people are killed, and numerous others are seriously injured, when you see this happening numerous times a year, you really have to accept that as part of your refusal to have stricter laws. You have to accept that as the price you pay to get what you want. It really does come down to that. It's really a matter of "I want to have the right to the weapons I wish to have, and I'm willing to sacrifice a few lives to maintain that right". I hate saying it, but that's really what it boils down to.

Edit: As for drugs. If someone wants to kill them self by doing drugs, I may not like it, but they're only hurting themselves. Guns, not so much. When that person hurts, they rarely limit it to themselves.

Alty I do accept the responsibility that goes with being a gun owner. Yes there are crazy people out there. That is part of the world we live in. I accept it as I accept driving a automobile / truck down the roadway. More people are killed by autos then are killed by guns. I see no need to eliminate them either. Does the shooting sadden me? Yes it does. Saying it is a tragidy doesn't seem strong enough. The difference that I see through my eyes vs what you see through yours is that in situations like this if more people carried responsibly and had access it could have been stopped sooner. There are countless stories of responsible gun owners putting a stop to situations before they got out of hand or stopping a crime in progress. Being responsible is a way to not only protect yourself but others as well. The fact that we may need a weapon may be a sad commentary about the society we live in but if that is part of living here Im going to stay. If everyone were to carry then criminals would think twice before even pulling a gun as they would know they are outnumbered.

One person at the most possibly dies.

Actually this is situational. Its going to depend on proximity. You can kill faster with a knife then you can with a gun. The rule of thumb is 20ft. That is what is taught to police as the danger zone for a knife. If a person doesn't have a gun pulled they are on the losing side of the situation when closer then 20ft.

You can kill faster with a knife then you can with a gun.I would imagine those situations are rare.
Anyway this thread can go on and on but nothing will change I'm afraid. Desperate people will still exist and they will use the most efficient method to do damage.

CDad... I want to thank you again for correcting me. I was at work and didn't have my husband available for corrections.

New info... 8 dead and 1 injured. The injured had a small laceration and was treated and released. To police. She was highly intoxicated. And driving. I suppose we should ban cars now? Or bring back prohibition?

Here are some videos in support of having a weapon handy. One is from a thread that was posted here.

Casper Police: Nail salon customer packs heat, gunman leaves (http://trib.com/news/local/casper/casper-police-nail-salon-customer-packs-heat-gunman-leaves/article_e3236de2-6756-539a-92b0-ae3aaf64c900.html)


This is from a thread here:

12-year-old girl shoots intruder | Fox News Video (http://video.foxnews.com/v/1929779225001/)

Thread discussion:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/firearms/teaching-children-about-firearms-713447.html

The fact that we may need a weapon may be a sad commentary about the society we live in but if that is part of living here Im going to stay. If everyone were to carry then criminals would think twice before even pulling a gun as they would know they are outnumbered.

Dad it must be sad to live in your macho fantasyland where everyone is a hero and you can be sure everyone will do the right thing. If that were true crime would be a thing of the past because the Vigilante Committee led by Zoro would have cleaned it up by now. Maybe you can talk big Arnie into coming on board? He'll get the job done with a small body count, Wait a minute, why didn't he get the job done while he was govenator?

Hello again,

A weapon for self protection ISN'T what we're talking about here. A lady in her house DOESN'T need a Bushmaster. She doesn't NEED a magazine that holds 100's of rounds. She doesn't need a Glock 10.

I believe we can do BOTH - protect the little old lady in her house, and protect our children.

excon

Yes Ex it maybe possible to give her peace of mind, but protection, she would be safer with an electric fence I think this tells a story
Guns in America: An interactive look at the shocking facts | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/world/guns-in-america-an-interactive-look-at-the-shocking-facts/story-fndir2ev-1226539874646)

An electric fence? Seriously? What planet do you live on to think that is protection?

Hello again,

A weapon for self protection ISN'T what we're talking about here. A lady in her house DOESN'T need a Bushmaster. She doesn't NEED a magazine that holds 100's of rounds. She doesn't need a Glock 10.

I believe we can do BOTH - protect the little old lady in her house, and protect our children.

excon

Then what are we talking about here? It seems some on this thread want to ban guns completely. What is your between solution ?

Hello again,

Every freedom we enjoy has a cost. How big a cost are we willing to suffer for unfettered access to mass killing machines?

I believe we've reached the tipping point.

Do you remember how we once dealt with drunk drivers?? It was really OK. We didn't really DO anything to them. It was kind of accepted... Everybody did it..

Then, we reached the tipping point.

excon

Hello d:


What is your between solution ?I don't HAVE a solution. I support the Second Amendment, and I LOVE our children.

Excon

Hello again,

Each and every freedom we enjoy has a cost. How big a cost are we willing to suffer for unfettered access to mass killing machines??

I believe we've reached the tipping point.

Do you remember how we once dealt with drunk drivers??? It was really ok. We didn't really DO anything to them. It was kind of accepted... Everybody did it..

Then, we reached the tipping point.

excon

To me the cost of tipping over that point came at a very high price. In today's world of cellphones for mobile communication it could have been handled differently. Instead we got check points. Im not happy with that one. Having reasonable restrictions and limitations as a society is one thing. But the continious erosion of rights is another against law abiding citizens.

Without balance the conflict continues.

Hello again, Dad:


Without balance the conflict continues.Well, we managed REGULATE drunk driving WITHOUT curtailing your right to drink. I don't know WHY we couldn't find some middle ground here.

Excon

My middle ground... no one should own a nuke.

Hello again, tom:

There are always a few dinosaurs. But, your party has moved LEFTWARD. The right wing has been REPUDIATED - FIRST by the election, and SECOND by the massacre of our children.

Jump on board or be left behind.

excon

So now you blame a massacre of children by a wacko to "right wing" ? Why am I not surprise ?

so now you blame a massacre of children by a wacko to "right wing" ? Why am I not suprise ?

Must be the fault of that "different America (http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/12/17/msnbc-host-chuck-todd-on-gun-rights-thats-a-different-america/)" you know.

I'll talk about (more) gun control when someone talks about fast and furious. Apparently it's OK to kill Mexicans and Border Patrol agents.

Must be the fault of that "different America (http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/12/17/msnbc-host-chuck-todd-on-gun-rights-thats-a-different-america/)" you know.

I'll talk about (more) gun control when someone talks about fast and furious. Apparently it's OK to kill Mexicans and Border Patrol agents.

Yes ,and the only massacre the President failed to mention happened at Fort Hood.

Hello again, wingers:

I KNEW you wouldn't be going along... The nation has taken a turn and is leaving you behind. We're just informing you to watch you squawk about it.

excon

Hello again, wingers:

I KNEW you wouldn't be going along... The nation has taken a turn and is leaving you behind. We're just informing you to watch you squawk about it.

excon

And you know every time you do it only drives gun sales higher. We'll be loaded for bear and then some.

Hello again, wingers:

Look. I'm trying to help. We're friends.. You were wrong on taxes. You were wrong on contraceptives. You were wrong on Obamacare. You were wrong about women & Hispanics...

Your party has accepted these realities and is moving on.. Oh yeah, there's some dinosaurs. But, you don't want to be one a them.

Here's the NEW reality... There WILL be comprehensive gun control. You're wrong about that one too.

excon

Look, there are already gun laws and there will probably be more restrictions, but you're not getting my guns. Period. It ain't going to happen. In fact, the wife and I are going for concealed carry permits.

Meanwhile, maybe you could work on our broken mental health system, a culture that thinks nothing of snuffing out human life by the millions legally, and encourage people to give their kids a mom AND a dad. Would be a start.

Hello again, Steve:

Oh, thou who's rightest knee jerketh. We ain't going to take away your guns... But, we ARE going to take away those huge magazines. We ARE going to take away assault rifles (whatever that means). We ARE going to get rid of the gun show loophole. And, we're going to make it a LOT harder to get a gun. Along with this, I think the government will get back into the business of running nut houses.

Now, I don't know if I nailed it, but I'm close.

excon

Similar restrictions didn't work for a decade . But what the heck . Who needs results ? That has never been a left priority before .

But will parents lock up their guns at home and hide the key? If they don't, it won't matter how loose or restrictive gun laws are.

Every first responder and cop I have ever talked to has said the availibility of better weapons than they have has always been a hindrance and danger to them and those they serve. Maybe more first responders and cops to be where ever they are needed is a better answer as well as banning certain weapons for the general public.

Seems some trained law enforcement types to screen people before they even enter the premises of vulnerable public places would go along way in protecting the public from the dangerous loons who threaten us all. Then we can argue the value of machine guns for personal protection and what to do about the rights we have or don't have.


6 million more cops should do nicely, or is that too much to spend on public safety and protection from the bad guys? I would trust them before I trusted some civilian that likes to carry a machine gun. If you need a few hundred rounds for protection, then its you that should be evaluated, or conscripted into the army.

A few well placed cops on the perimeter would have stopped a crazy guy with bad intentions before he gets started.

I've been predicting for years that sooner or later, there would be a shooting so horrific that it would finally change public opinion and force politicians to change gun laws. I think that this is the one. Even the NRA has been silent. I think they need to close the gun show loophole, I don't see how anyone could be against that yet the NRA and many politicians are, they are idiots. I don't see why gun owners are so afraid of requiring a licence to purchase and registering guns. Gun rights groups point out that Switzerland has a high rate of gun ownership, but they don't mention or probably don't that you need a licence to purchase handguns there, and they are registered. Culteral differences also explain their low crime rate. The Swiss don't have the same selfishness, sense of entitlement and disrespect towards authority and human life that Americans do.

my middle ground ... no one should own a nuke.


Tom, you say that I am too tough on your comments and I don't pay enough attention to other posts that lack credible evidence.

Could you tell me why I would not see this as fulfilling a preconceived idea I might have?


Tut

The Swiss don't have the same selfishness, sense of entitlement and disrespect towards authority and human life that Americans do.

The swiss also take that militia thing seriously, they are all part of their army at one time or another, but I have met some swiss who are gun nuts too. There are things that happen in Switzerland that don't happen in the US, people don't mind their own business

What did you mean when you said they don't mind their own business? I've heard that they are very private people and they don't interfere in other people's lives unless if affects them.

I just ordered a new AR.

Every first responder and cop I have ever talked to has said the availibility of better weapons than they have has always been a hindrance and danger to them and those they serve. Maybe more first responders and cops to be where ever they are needed is a better answer as well as banning certain weapons for the general public.

Seems some trained law enforcement types to screen people before they even enter the premises of vulnerable public places would go along way in protecting the public from the dangerous loons who threaten us all. Then we can argue the value of machine guns for personal protection and what to do about the rights we have or don't have.


6 million more cops should do nicely, or is that too much to spend on public safety and protection from the bad guys? I would trust them before I trusted some civilian that likes to carry a machine gun. If you need a few hundred rounds for protection, then its you that should be evaluated, or conscripted into the army.

A few well placed cops on the perimeter would have stopped a crazy guy with bad intentions before he gets started.

I think they had the same thing in Nazi Germany about the time of the war. Should we just throw out the constitution and let you libs do anything you feel like? This is the direct cause of why the states want to split apart. And as far as the police and first responders goes. Someone isn't telling you the truth. For one thing first responders don't carry weapons. It is not allowed. And the police have more military hardware then you can possibly imagine. Your living in a dream world if you think otherwise. Got proof ?

I just ordered a new AR.

Hope you got one of these ;)

Alexander Arms .50 Beowulf (http://www.gunblast.com/50Beowulf.htm)

That's next. We already have 2 but we need another. Hold on to them for a couple of years then sell for a profit. Oh yeah!

You're nuts

Nah. Just a collector, most are in our local museum. In all the guns we have are worth more than our house. Many have been passed down to us for a couple of generations. Nice liftoff nest egg should we ever need it.

The nra has realeased a statement according to cnn

Here is a copy and paste from cnn's Facebook page
BREAKING NEWS: NRA, in its first statement after the Newtown shootings, says it is prepared "to help make sure this never happens again" CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News (http://on.cnn.com/QZYZDc)

Every first responder and cop I have ever talked to has said the availibility of better weapons than they have has always been a hindrance and danger to them and those they serve. Maybe more first responders and cops to be where ever they are needed is a better answer as well as banning certain weapons for the general public.

Seems some trained law enforcement types to screen people before they even enter the premises of vulnerable public places would go along way in protecting the public from the dangerous loons who threaten us all. Then we can argue the value of machine guns for personal protection and what to do about the rights we have or don't have.


6 million more cops should do nicely, or is that too much to spend on public safety and protection from the bad guys? I would trust them before I trusted some civilian that likes to carry a machine gun. If you need a few hundred rounds for protection, then its you that should be evaluated, or conscripted into the army.

A few well placed cops on the perimeter would have stopped a crazy guy with bad intentions before he gets started.

Ah yes, always looking for the government to solve all your problems. At what point will it hit you that all those government "solutions" have zapped your freedom?

I think they had the same thing in Nazi Germany about the time of the war. Should we just throw out the constitution and let you libs do anything you feel like? This is the direct cause of why the states want to split apart. And as far as the police and first responders goes. Someone isn't telling you the truth. For one thing first responders don't carry weapons. It is not allowed. And the police have more military hardware then you can possibly imagine. Your living in a dream world if you think otherwise. Got proof ?

So having a principal with a AR is better than more trained cops, outside the building?


As passed by the Congress:


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What part of regulations are you not understanding? What country do YOU live in that puts more importance on supposed rights than protecting the common good?

Google mayors on gun control, then Google police on gun control and read my proof since the mayors, and cops I know personally don't bother with right wing talking points and are on the front line of criminal activity and loony carnage. You can't stop loonies and criminals from getting what the want illegally, we haven't yet but we can deny them through law the access to WMD.

You just keep waiting for the next shooting, while CT was only one of 4 around the country last week.

Brag about your rights after the funerals.

A principal with a gun could have stopped this man in his tracks.

Our elementary school is now on lockdown. You can't get into the school without going to the front office AND the principal is now carrying.

We need to ban spoons because they make people fat. We need to ban cars because they kill people when their driver is drunk.

A principal with a gun could have stopped this man in his tracks.
Where would the principal's gun have been kept so that she could have stopped Lanza in his tracks? She was just coming out of a conference room, supposedly at the end of a staffing. Would it have been a good idea that she was always carrying a loaded weapon ready to fire? Had the gun been in her office drawer, it wouldn't have mattered. Should other school staff have also been carrying?

I'm totally on your side in this, and am wondering how she could safely do this yet be effective if the time ever came to use the gun. If she were in the washroom or away from the building, all other faculty and staff would have to be armed in the same way?

Where would the principal's gun have been kept so that she could have stopped Lanza in his tracks? She was just coming out of a conference room, supposedly at the end of a staffing. Would it have been a good idea that she was always carrying a loaded weapon ready to fire? Had the gun been in her office drawer, it wouldn't have mattered. Should other school staff have also been carrying?

Oh, Lord WG, here you are over-analyzing again.

The principal's (or whomever has a permit) gun would be in a holster secured to their person by their belt.

Yes, it's a good idea to carry a gun that is ready to fire. You don't want to have to fumble trying to load the thing do you? Revolvers are simple point and shoot.

Had the gun been in her drawer she would have been a stupid principal to place it there now wouldn't she?

If other school staff are licensed to carry, why not? However, I don't believe that there should be more than one or two people carrying.

16,000+ people have been killed behind the wheel while texting in the last 6 years... I'm calling for an immediate, nation wide ban of cell phones... it's a rational solution, that should fix the problem

Like I said, I am totally on your side and not over-analyzing at all. Staff comes and goes from the school. The one person carrying could be anywhere and not available. One person carrying a gun wouldn't be good enough. Lanza came in hell-bent with purpose and was a total surprise.

No, you're right, one person wouldn't be enough. It would be wise to have the staff educated as well. However, the person(s) carrying should not be directly in the classroom with the children. They should most likely be the office personnel.

No, you're right, one person wouldn't be enough. It would be wise to have the staff educated as well. However, the person(s) carrying should not be directly in the classroom with the children. They should most likely be the office personnel.
My husband and have been talking about this a lot. He and I agree that there still could have been a lot of damage done before an armed staff person got to the scene -- say, if Lanza would have gone straight to a classroom instead of to the office. We concluded that there have to be even more safeguards put in without turning the school into a barricaded fortress.

How about passing a law limiting the amount of ammunition that a person can purchase and own at once. I've heard this is done in some European countries.

16,000+ people have been killed behind the wheel while texting in the last 6 years..... I'm calling for an immediate, nation wide ban of cell phones...it's a rational solution, that should fix the problem

Let's solve this entire death problem all at once, first we save 10,000 a year by outlawing guns, then we save 30000 a year by banning auto, next we save 16000 by banning cells, then we can save ,oh, 100000 a year at least by banning tobacco and at least another 100000 by banning alcohol, we have already banned drugs so that has saved us abunch

My husband and have been talking about this a lot. He and I agree that there still could have been a lot of damage done before an armed staff person got to the scene -- say, if Lanza would have gone straight to a classroom instead of to the office. We concluded that there have to be even more safeguards put in without turning the school into a barricaded fortress.

In our school, it has been in place just this year, all doors are locked at all times. Parents and visitors have to come in the front door directly into the office. You cannot get into the school any other way. Now our principal, who has a CCP, is carrying.

Oh, Clete... Don't forget we have to ban cancer as well.

I would propose more requirements for people to buy guns other than the obvious criminal and mental health background checks. I think a literacy test, minimum grade 12 education, owning property or a certain net worth, and having liability insurance. This would prevent some stupid people from buying guns, and the property/money requirement would help keep guns away from people with nothing to lose, nobody is more dangerous than an angry and/or mentally ill person with nothing to lose.

Tom, you say that I am too tough on your comments and I don't pay enough attention to other posts that lack credible evidence.

Could you tell me why I would not see this as fulfilling a preconceived idea I might have?


Tut

Maybe I should've used the sarcasm font to make it more obvious ?

I would propose more requirements for people to buy guns other than the obvious criminal and mental health background checks. I think a literacy test, minimum grade 12 education, owning property or a certain net worth, and having liability insurance. This would prevent some stupid people from buying guns, and the property/money requirement would help keep guns away from people with nothing to lose, nobody is more dangerous than an angry and/or mentally ill person with nothing to lose.

Interesting, but now you are leaving the people who use firearms to feed their families for the winter... foodless?

Having lived in Alaska I know many people who do not work because they homestead. Their only source of food is gardening and hunting. I suppose you could force them to be vegetarians.

Where would the principal's gun have been kept so that she could have stopped Lanza in his tracks? She was just coming out of a conference room, supposedly at the end of a staffing. Would it have been a good idea that she was always carrying a loaded weapon ready to fire? Had the gun been in her office drawer, it wouldn't have mattered. Should other school staff have also been carrying?

More likely this coward knowing that he would be confronted would've picked a different target.for that matter ,when the principle bum rushed the guy she could've disabled him with a can of pepper spray.

Gun free zones are a major target for lunatics like this. He knows he can get away with it. We need to do away with gun free zones whether it be a school or a hospital, or whatever. There is no threat there. No fear of danger to the person intending to commit the crime.

In our school, it has been in place just this year, all doors are locked at all times.
The Sandy Hook school was locked too, but Lanza broke the glass, or a window, to get in. All the schools around here are locked, there's a doorbell that rings in the office, and a visitor has to ID himself via an intercom and pass muster before a staff person will unlock the front door and let him in. But all front doors I know of are glass. Those should be replaced with bullet-proof, unbreakable glass?

We have no glass in our doors. Oh, wait, there is glass, it's about the size of an IPad.

Gun free zones are a major target for lunatics like this. He knows he can get away with it. We need to do away with gun free zones whether it be a school or a hospital, or whatever. There is no threat there. No fear of danger to the person intending to commit the crime.
And then my husband and I recalled the dark theater that was shot up not long ago. That would be a gun-free zone also, but much harder to manage any kind of protection.

And then my husband and I recalled the dark theater that was shot up not long ago. That would be a gun-free zone also, but much harder to manage any kind of protection. Not if they allowed anyone who has a CCP to carry their weapon.

Gun control is a sticky situation. Honestly, I have no problems with guns if they are being used in a productive manner. But, really who in there right mind has an arsenal like Nancy Lanza. Wow! She knew her son may have had mental illness and didn't lock the guns away! No one living in America needs to have semi automatic rifle, it is strictly made for brutal killings. Certainly not needed in hunting animals.

Unfortunately, who knows how many people have this weaponry stockpiled before we can get some law outlawing or limiting sales of these weapons used for war. God help us that we don't have to endure another tragedy like the Sandy Hook Elementary Massacre.

Gun control is a sticky situation. Honestly, I have no problems with guns if they are being used in a productive manner. But, really who in there right mind has an arsenal like Nancy Lanza. Wow! She knew her son may have had mental illness and didn't lock the guns away! No one living in America needs to have semi automatic rifle, it is strictly made for brutal killings. Certainly not needed in hunting animals.

Unfortunately, who knows how many people have this weaponry stockpiled before we can get some law outlawing or limiting sales of these weapons used for war. God help us that we don't have to endure another tragedy like the Sandy Hook Elementary Massacre.


Semi autos are also used for hunting. Not for brutal killings. I used one when living in Alaska to hunt and protect from bears.

Nancy Lanza had an arsenal? God forbid you should see how many I own! I could open a gun shop with the amount that I own. However, I am a responsible owner. Many of mine are on display at a military museum and the rest are locked in gun safes. Notice I said safe not cabinet.

My husband is a master gunsmith. Our children have been raised around guns and know the dangers of such.

But, really who in there right mind has an arsenal like Nancy Lanza. Wow!! She knew her son may of had mental illness and didn't lock the guns away!!
We don't know that. She wasn't a stupid woman, from what has been reported about her. The guns may have been locked up and Adam watched secretly to see where she hid the key. We just don't know if she was that careless.

She wasn't stupid, just slightly mad?

she wasn't stupid, just slightly mad?

Mad about what? What was she angry about?

Mad as in a few sandwiches short of a picnic

mad as in a few sandwiches short of a picnic
Why would you conclude that?

Sorry, I think my kids are better protected with a trained professional and can deal with many emergencies a well armed loonie can present before he gets inside of the school and unleashes mayhem and carnage. Many cities, big and small are redeploying police at the schools while we properly train your administrator or staff in the proper procedures.

And will you give these folk a raise for there CCP trained extra duties? Yeah an armed staff sounds great on paper, but I rather have a trained professional other than a secretary or principal.

Tal, why don't you think a secretary or principal can be properly trained?

Sure they can at a shooting range which is a far cry from police training or combat experience. Its unfair to have a civilian as the only line of defense of our children. I mean facing a guy that can spray 60 bullets a minute is not like a gun range or shooting a deer.

Sorry, trained professionals ONLY! Not inside, but protecting the perimeter. And just curious what the real purpose of 30 shot magazines other than the thrill of shredding a target? I don't think that thrill is worth having it fall into the wrong hands.

I am properly trained. Do you have a problem with that?

Unless you have the required hours of tactical training I would have a problem with JUST you protecting my kids. Or any other civilian no matter how well trained. No doubt you would try your best. Many would.

Now about those 30 round clips?

Why would you conclude that?

Aren't all gunnuts? They are like revheads

This is where your nonsense with guns is taking you
Utah boy, 11, takes gun to school after Newtown school shooting | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/world/utah-boy-11-takes-gun-to-school-after-newtown-school-shooting/story-fndir2ev-1226540399971)
You need to contemplate the damage gun culture is doing to children, its not just killing them it is putting them at serious risk.

This kid has has his life ruined because of careless handling of a gun. He will be charged, he will be banished from his school friends and this is so easy, just a careless moment. What if he had loaded that gun?

Tal ,perimeter defense is a very practical idea. Let's face it . Suppose a pickup truck full of readily available explosives had driven up to the school and detonated. There is a good chance there would've been a bigger tragedy .But a guard manning a perimeter fence could've made a difference.

I think the Principle had the right approach ;and if she had been armed or had a defensive weapon like a can of pepper spray ,the attacker may been disabled enough to be subdued.


Hundreds of school districts and colleges across the U.S. have also adopted a more controversial approach to safety: teaching staff -- and students -- to fight back in the face of danger.

The ALICE protocol, developed a decade ago by a former police officer in response to a series of school shootings, rejects as inadequate the traditional response to an armed intruder, which prompts teachers and students to lock themselves in their classroom, turn out the lights and hide as best they can.

Greg Crane, the retired police officer who developed ALICE, says rather than fall back on that response, students and teachers must develop the confidence that allows them to think on their feet.

If they can escape the building quickly, through a window perhaps, why huddle in a darkened classroom? And if an intruder enters the classroom, why remain passive; why not run around, scream, throw books and desks at the gunman, even try to tackle him, Crane asks.

"If a predator tried to snatch a child off the street, what part of our advice is for him to remain quiet, static, passive?" Crane asked. "We want you throwing things, yelling, trying to get out of there," he said. The same should hold in a classroom, he said, arguing that even 5- and 6-year-olds can cause enough distraction to confuse a gunman and perhaps buy a few minutes for escape.

"Chaos is not a bad thing," Crane said. "We want to see chaos. That makes it very difficult for the shooter to operate."

The ALICE program -- it stands for Alert, Lockdown, Inform, Counter, Evacuate -- has sparked concern in some communities, with parents protesting that terrified children can't be asked to confront crazed gunmen or make snap decisions about escape routes.

But Crane said his company, Response Options, which is based in Burleson, Texas, has been flooded with calls since Friday from officials eager to sign up for his $400 training workshop, which prepares participants to teach ALICE to students and teachers in their communities.

Rush to boost school safety sparks flurry of ideas and questions - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/rush-boost-school-safety-sparks-flurry-ideas-questions-213151055.html)

maybe I should've used the sarcasm font to make it more obvious ?



Well there you go. I though that your comment was an indication that you believed there is no middle ground in the discussion.

If it were up to you what would put on the table for starters?


Tut

If it were up to you what would put on the table for starters?

Automatic weapons like machine guns should be restricted to law enforcement and legit collectors. I have no problem with restrictions on the amt of ammo in a clip. I have no problem with more comprehensive backround checks . I have no problem with registration of all guns .I have no problem with license renewal. I have no problem with the elimination of the so called 'gun show exception'.
But the guns used in the attack ? Yes I have a problem with those being banned . Focus on the attacker . I'll say it again. He could've done more damage with a car full of legally obtained fertilizer .

Hello again, tom:


I'll say it again. He could've done more damage with a car full of legally obtained fertilizer .Nahhhh... He'd have to KNOW about a fertalizer bomb. He'd have to KNOW how to make it. He'd have to KNOW where to buy the makings. He'd have to HAVE the money to buy it. He'd have to MAKE it.

But, the GUN was right on the table... That makes it SOOOOOOO much EASIER to murder these children. I know you don't understand... I'm sorry.

Excon

Tom get real, that idiot used a military weapon, just because it didn't say M16 doesn't mean it wasn't an M16. You need to get real, the manufacturer is running for cover, the investors are running for cover and here you are saying you have a problem with them being banned, I don't think the NRA has a problem right now they want to salvage something or things might get like Germany where you can have the gun but the magazine will hold two shots. Thing is Tom very few people go hunting dangerous animals and very few people go hunting deer so very few people need these guns. There is only one reason to have guns like this and it is to kill people and if you can still buy that fertilizer without going through a licencing process, well what can I say, someone over there isn't serious

Now about those 30 round clips?

Why a 30 round magazine ? Since most riflles that are of the class that can take a 30 round mag are considered varmit rifles then the high capacity is made for that purpose. When getting rid of varmits it makes it much more easy then to have to reload constantly and to scatter groups to where they might not be reached.

Tom get real, that idiot used a military weapon, just because it didn't say M16 doesn't mean it wasn't an M16. You need to get real, the manufacturer is running for cover, the investors are running for cover and here you are saying you have a problem with them being banned, I don't think the NRA has a problem right now they want to salvage something or things might get like Germany where you can have the gun but the magazine will hold two shots. Thing is Tom very few people go hunting dangerous animals and very few people go hunting deer so very few people need these guns. There is only one reason to have guns like this and it is to kill people and if you can still buy that fertilizer without going through a licencing process, well what can I say, someone over there isn't serious

You are so far off base I don't even know where to begin. What the shoorter used was NOT a M16. It was not a fully automatic weapon. They make the guns different internally on purpose so they can't be converted without special machining.

And many many people hunt here in the U.S. as well as hunt very dangerous animals. In Texas and other southern states there is a huge wild hog problem. They are extremely dangerous.

Hello again, dad:

In order to have a few more children, HAVING a few more varmints MIGHT be one of the prices we have to pay.

excon

Hello again, dad:

In order to have a few more children, HAVING a few more varmints MIGHT be one of the prices we have to pay.

excon

The question was thrown out there and I had answered it. All things can be abused when used incorrectly. Try following the invention and life of dynomite and you will see abuses from its original intention.

Tom get real, that idiot used a military weapon No he didn't .He used one that looked like a military weapon.

Edit... even when we had a so called "assault rifle"ban... all they did was ban semi-automatics that looked like military rifles. Hunters that wanted one could legally get them... as long as it looked like a hunting rifle.

Hello again, tom:

Nahhhh... He'd have to KNOW about a fertalizer bomb. He'd have to KNOW how to make it. He'd have to KNOW where to buy the makings. He'd have to HAVE the money to buy it. He'd have to MAKE it.

But, the GUN was right on the table.... That makes it SOOOOOOO much EASIER to murder these children. I know you don't understand... I'm sorry.

excon
Materials for fertilizer bombs not regulated | Homeland Security News Wire (http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/materials-fertilizer-bombs-not-regulated)

If it was an impulse attack then yes I agree. But I am sure this was planned many days in advance ;despite the stupid FOX report this morning .

It shows the complete lack of knowledge of guns when a civilian AR is constantly referred to as a "military weapon". The similarity is the appearance. That's it. But I suppose we can create more panic and make the rifle look worse by calling it a military weapon... oh, and an "automatic weapon"...

Also, I keep seeing "weapons of mass destruction" in this thread. Really? I was always under the impression that WMD was in reference to bombs, missiles, bio-weapons... now we need to include an AR in that as well...

Well, I guess it does sound better... so much more evil.

Professor Adam Lankford wrote this op ed Monday comparing mass killers in the US to suicide bombers outside the US. He finds striking simularities:


There appears to be a triad of factors that sets these killers apart. The first is that they are generally struggling with mental health problems that have produced their desire to die. The specific psychiatric diagnoses vary widely, and include everything from clinical depression and post-traumatic stress disorder to schizophrenia and others forms of psychosis. The suicide rate was 12.4 per 100,000 people in the United States in 2010 (the highest in 15 years). Suicide is relatively rare, but it is rarer still in most Muslim countries. This is a very limited pool from which most suicide terrorists and rampage shooters come.

The second factor is a deep sense of victimization and belief that the killer's life has been ruined by someone else, who has bullied, oppressed or persecuted him. Not surprisingly, the presence of mental illness can inflame these beliefs, leading perpetrators to have irrational and exaggerated perceptions of their own victimization. It makes little difference whether the perceived victimizer is an enemy government (in the case of suicide terrorists) or their boss, co-workers, fellow students or family members (in the case of rampage shooters).

The key is that the aggrieved individual feels that he has been terribly mistreated and that violent vengeance is justified. In many cases, the target for revenge becomes broader and more symbolic than a single person, so that an entire type or category of people is deemed responsible for the attacker's pain and suffering. Then, the urge to commit suicide becomes a desire for murder-suicide, which is even rarer; a recent meta-analysis of 16 studies suggests that only two to three of every one million Americans commit murder-suicide each year.

The third factor is the desire to acquire fame and glory through killing. More than 70 percent of murder-suicides are between spouses or romantic or sexual partners, and these crimes usually take place at home. Attackers who commit murder-suicide in public are far more brazen and unusual. Most suicide terrorists believe they will be honored and celebrated as “martyrs” after their deaths and, sure enough, terrorist organizations produce martyrdom videos and memorabilia so that other desperate souls will volunteer to blow themselves up.

Similarly, rampage shooters have often been captivated by the idea that they will become posthumously famous. “Isn't it fun to get the respect that we're going to deserve?” the Columbine shooter Eric Harris remarked. He had fantasized with his fellow attacker, Dylan Klebold, that the filmmakers Steven Spielberg and Quentin Tarantino would fight over the rights to their life story.

Although we can only speculate, Adam Lanza's decision to target elementary school children in Newtown, Conn. may have been a calculated attempt to get as much attention as possible. Despite misconceptions to the contrary, many mentally ill people are quite capable of staging their attacks for symbolic effect. In 2002, the Washington-area snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo shot a middle schooler, then taunted the police with a note that said “Your children are not safe anywhere at any time.” Mr. Lanza may have realized that the only thing that generates more attention than killing random innocent adults is killing random innocent children.

It is tempting to look back at recent history and wonder what's wrong with America — our culture and our policies. But underneath the pain, the rage and the desire to die, rampage shooters like Mr. Lanza are remarkably similar to aberrant mass killers — including suicide terrorists — in other countries. The difference rests in how they are shaped by cultural forces and which destructive behaviors they seek to copy. The United States has had more than its share of rampage shootings, but only a few suicide attacks. Other countries are regularly plagued by suicidal explosions, but rarely experience a school shooting.

I can't help but wonder about Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Seung-Hui Cho and Adam Lanza. If they had been born in Gaza or the West Bank, shaped by terrorist organizations' hateful propaganda, would they have strapped bombs around their waists and blown themselves up? I'm afraid the answer is yes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/what-drives-suicidal-mass-killers.html?_r=0
Research on Suicide Terrorism, Mass Shootings, Criminal Behavior, and More (http://adamlankford.com/bio.htm)

Hello again, tom:


Professor Adam Lankford wrote this op ed Monday comparing mass killers in the US to suicide bombers outside the US. He finds striking simularities:All the more reason to make sure they CAN'T get their hands on weapons of mass destruction.

Excon

Now a semi-automatic is a wmd ? Lol

Today the President created a taskforce headed by Joe Biden to come up with gun control legislation... yes this Joe Biden

Biden and his Beretta - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XcyLeOm6yGc)

Today the President created a taskforce headed by Joe Biden to come up with gun control legislation
Do you know who will be on this taskforce? It sounds like the agenda will include discussion about
1. legislation to reinstate a ban on assault-style weapons (expired in 2004).
2. closing a gun show loophole allowing people to buy arms from private dealers without background checks
3. legislation limiting high-capacity ammunition magazines

I'm guessing other taskforces will be formed to discuss the mental health issues and maybe the impact of violent entertainment (?). And I hope it won't be only talk with no reasonable and worthwhile action.

It shows the complete lack of knowledge of guns when a civilian AR is constantly referred to as a "military weapon". The similarity is the appearance. That's it. But I suppose we can create more panic and make the rifle look worse by calling it a military weapon....oh, and an "automatic weapon"....

Also, I keep seeing "weapons of mass destruction" in this thread. Really? I was always under the impression that WMD was in reference to bombs, missiles, bio-weapons....now we need to include an AR in that as well....

Well, I guess it does sound better....so much more evil.

You have your head in the sand it is the same weapon as the M16, the armalite rifle used by military forces, It just doesn't operate on automatic and there is one verson of it that takes large calibre ammunition and WMD isn't just confined to things that kill many people in one place

You have your head in the sand it is the same weapon as the M16, the armalite rifle used by military forces, It just doesn't operate on automatic and there is one verson of it that takes large calibre ammunition and WMD isn't just confined to things that kill many people in one place

It's not the same "weapon"... It doesn't have a select fire option and the trigger group is made for semi only. The rifle would need to be modified to accept an auto trigger group. Therefore, it is not the same rifle.

And who has their head in the sand?
WMD as defined by the FBI: FBI WMD FAQs (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/wmd/wmd_faqs)