Connecticut massacre fallout

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I'm the first to admit I don't know much about firearms; never had a particular interest in them, and no real desire to own one. So, since a lot of you are gun owners, I'll ask you-

Do you think a limit on number of guns someone who is not commercially involved in firearm sales may own is a good idea, and if so, what would that number be?

I understand there is a lot of argument over what constitutes an "assault" weapon. As a non-gun person, my question is over the necessity of a private citizen owning something that fires a large number of rounds in a short amount of time, as it seems to me the purpose of such a weapon is to hit a large number of targets in a short amount of time, which doesn't seem to me, to be useful either in self-defense or in recreational shooting (where, I assume, developing the skill required to shoot accurately is part of the appeal). Basically, other than as a item to brag about or to have swiped by someone planning to carry out a large-scale assault on a movie theater or school or whatever, can someone explain to me under what circumstances a private citizen would actually have use for a high capacity, rapid discharge firearm?

Again, sincerely asking.

And for the record, "To defend oneself against the guvmint" is not an acceptable answer, as the guvmint, should it decide to come against a private citizen, will be able to do it. To my knowledge, we've only had one citizens' uprising on a scale that had any chance of success and it ended in 1865 with the government winning.

That is a huge question, how many guns. For instance, whether i owned 1 or 1000, i wouldnt be any more inclined to break the law. For others, one is one too many. Who decides?
As for type...that is probably a slightly easier question. There is already a line between arms a citizen can own and what the military has. I doubt i could ever own a fully functionable rocket launcher for instance.
We do need to have a serious dialogue. And i mean serious. But people do need to understand that we cannot prevent every tragedy. Nor can we tell a lot of law abiding gun owners that they must give up their weapons.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Background checks are vastly overrated as a deterrent IMO. I agree that they should be a requirement but unless there is a obvious smoking gun they are pretty much not dq'ing many other than the obvious.

I'm not a lawyer and didnt stay in a Holiday Inn express last night but I think a few of your suggestions like the Doctors and databases open to gun dealers may be illegal. Who would Doctors report the dangerous patients to? How would you be able to determine what is crazy and what is dengerous crazy?

The felon restrictions are nice for the media and for politicians looking to make points but felons are probably the group most able to acquire firearms by non-legal means.

The number of people who attempt to illegally acquire guns through legal means has to be a small number right?

I get where you are going with this but there are millions of guns out there already and like illicit drugs it just isnt that hard to get your hands on them if you have the desire and cash.

Background checks probably need to be more in depth. As for doctors reporting, perhaps to the atf? Just like a medical doctor reports you to the dmv if you have unexplained blackouts...you get your drivers license suspended for a year in that situation.
As for illegal purchase, thats why i said ban all private sales.

[SOREHOOF]

So banning private sales will stop criminals from acquiring guns? Punks in Chicago have killed more people than the Taliban this year. I don't think they are going to gun shows. More gun control equals more crime. It hasn't been mentioned much in the media because it doesn't fit the anti-gun narrative being belched out, but the guy that shot up the mall in Oregon didn't stop until he was confronted by an armed citizen.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by cal828

Such things happened here in the 60s. Don't you remember "burn baby burn"?

I was not yet here. But of course, you know what they say- if you remember the 60s, you weren't really there.

In all seriousness, Rick Perlstein's Nixonland goes into great detail about some of the riots of that decade. We certainly weren't learning about THAT in my Central PA Social Studies classes...

[cal828]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I was not yet here. But of course, you know what they say- if you remember the 60s, you weren't really there.

In all seriousness, Rick Perlstein's Nixonland goes into great detail about some of the riots of that decade. We certainly weren't learning about THAT in my Central PA Social Studies classes...

Sorry, I sometimes forget that everyone's not an old coot like me.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Background checks probably need to be more in depth. As for doctors reporting, perhaps to the atf? Just like a medical doctor reports you to the dmv if you have unexplained blackouts...you get your drivers license suspended for a year in that situation.
As for illegal purchase, thats why i said ban all private sales.

Another of the challenges is, what gets defined as a mental illness severe enough to warrant a handgun restriction? More people die from suicide via gunshot each year than homicide. So does anyone who's ever been diagnosed with depression get a no-gun rule due to fear they'll kill themselves with it? Or just men, because they're more likely to use guns. I'm exaggerating for effect, of course, but that's the challenge- trying to find a mental health rule of thumb for what is a very individualized condition.

I do think greater resources for treating mental ill health. Which would be good, not just for dealing with gun violence, but all kinds of situations.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by cal828

Sorry, I sometimes forget that everyone's not an old coot like me.

Having moved permanently from "Miss" to "Ma'am" at some point over the past few years, I sure don't feel like no spring chicken.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

So banning private sales will stop criminals from acquiring guns? Punks in Chicago have killed more people than the Taliban this year. I don't think they are going to gun shows. More gun control equals more crime. It hasn't been mentioned much in the media because it doesn't fit the anti-gun narrative being belched out, but the guy that shot up the mall in Oregon didn't stop until he was confronted by an armed citizen.

If a crook buys a gun on the street, isnt that a private sale? Yew, it is. Can you prevent all illegal sales? No. But right now, anyone can sell a gun to anyone. No check done, no records, nothing.
I have no problem with guns personally, i own many. I may get a concealed carry permit. But these laws arent for people like me. Theyre for people who find a gun for sale in the paper, so they buy it. Maybe they have a record, so they know they wont be able to buy one in a store. So they buy where they know they dont have to fill out paperwork. Not all felons in possession stole a gun, or bought one 'on the street'.they can just answer an ad. Banning private sales imo is common sense. Its an amazingly easy way for anyone to buy and circumvent regulations.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Another of the challenges is, what gets defined as a mental illness severe enough to warrant a handgun restriction? More people die from suicide via gunshot each year than homicide. So does anyone who's ever been diagnosed with depression get a no-gun rule due to fear they'll kill themselves with it? Or just men, because they're more likely to use guns. I'm exaggerating for effect, of course, but that's the challenge- trying to find a mental health rule of thumb for what is a very individualized condition.

I do think greater resources for treating mental ill health. Which would be good, not just for dealing with gun violence, but all kinds of situations.

I dont know. Maybe its like porn, you know it when you see it?

i don't know. i'm just trying to suggest some things that may or may not bear thinking about. of course whatever happens-we have to understand that life, no matter how much we try to make otherwise, is still random. sometimes sickeningly so. i just know i don't want to read or hear about another mass shooting like this one..any of them for that matter.

[cal828]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Another of the challenges is, what gets defined as a mental illness severe enough to warrant a handgun restriction? More people die from suicide via gunshot each year than homicide. So does anyone who's ever been diagnosed with depression get a no-gun rule due to fear they'll kill themselves with it? Or just men, because they're more likely to use guns. I'm exaggerating for effect, of course, but that's the challenge- trying to find a mental health rule of thumb for what is a very individualized condition.

I do think greater resources for treating mental ill health. Which would be good, not just for dealing with gun violence, but all kinds of situations.

Present law seems to indicate a person has to have already demonstrated that they are dangerous to themselves and others. What if a person indicates in therapy sessions that they fantasize about harming others? Do they actually have to harm someone to be put on the database? Therapist for the Movie theater shooter in Colorado indicated that she was afraid he might do what he eventually did. Must have been something that gave her this impression. Maybe the definition should be expanded to include even threats to other persons from persons that have mental illness, but illness that has not yet presented itself as psychosis.

[Danzig]

why am i surprised??

it seems westboro baptist 'church' has plans to protest at sandy hook elementary.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...GlvbnM-;_ylv=3


After the Westboro Baptist Church posted on Twitter its intention to picket the Newtown, Conn., site where 26 shooting victims died, including 20 children, hackers retaliated.

The reason for the protest? Reportedly because Connecticut has legalized same-sex marriage.

Shirley Phelps-Roper, a spokesperson for the Topeka, Kan., Westboro church and daughter of church founder Fred Phelps, put on Twitter, "Westboro will picket Sandy Hook Elementary School to sing praise to God for the glory of his work in executing his judgment."

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

why am i surprised??

it seems westboro baptist 'church' has plans to protest at sandy hook elementary.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...GlvbnM-;_ylv=3


After the Westboro Baptist Church posted on Twitter its intention to picket the Newtown, Conn., site where 26 shooting victims died, including 20 children, hackers retaliated.

The reason for the protest? Reportedly because Connecticut has legalized same-sex marriage.

Shirley Phelps-Roper, a spokesperson for the Topeka, Kan., Westboro church and daughter of church founder Fred Phelps, put on Twitter, "Westboro will picket Sandy Hook Elementary School to sing praise to God for the glory of his work in executing his judgment."

The Constitution garantees freedom of speech..Maybe we should re-visit that and the 2nd amendment...said a million times, too many fkn nuts in the country...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

The Constitution garantees freedom of speech..Maybe we should re-visit that and the 2nd amendment...said a million times, too many fkn nuts in the country...

i just wish they'd lose their exempt status. maybe that would put a bite in their finances, and they wouldn't be able to make these trips. it's just a shame that these morons think they have something meaningful to say. they should be classified as a hate group. how in the world are they able to stay a 'church'??

[Arletta]

Sign the petition(s)

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Arletta

Sign the petition(s)

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions

Ror !! There are some classics ones in there. This deserves its own thread.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

So banning private sales will stop criminals from acquiring guns? Punks in Chicago have killed more people than the Taliban this year. I don't think they are going to gun shows. More gun control equals more crime. It hasn't been mentioned much in the media because it doesn't fit the anti-gun narrative being belched out, but the guy that shot up the mall in Oregon didn't stop until he was confronted by an armed citizen.

So more guns are the answer? Just arm everyone?

Something tells me when the second amendment was passed, they didn't think society would erode to the point of people shooting up malls and schools. Time for us as a society to understand we suck and make the necessary changes and I don't see how the rational answer could be to arm more people.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

So more guns are the answer? Just arm everyone?

Something tells me when the second amendment was passed, they didn't think society would erode to the point of people shooting up malls and schools. Time for us as a society to understand we suck and make the necessary changes and I don't see how the rational answer could be to arm more people.

Less guns are not the answer. More guns? Everything has a practical maximum, after which you get diminishing returns for a good effect, or a negative effect emerges. Medicine for a condition is great until you overdose and it becomes a toxin.

Think of many people you know. Do you think the good guys, if armed, would hurt anybody? Even the guys you might know who get into barfights, would they suddenly start whacking people, knowing full well that they will be locked up or executed? More guns would not inspire non-criminals to undertake criminal acts. But, in the hands of would-be victims, it would inhibit the plans of those who have already decided to undertake a criminal act. Predator and would-be prey would then be on more equal terms.

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/201...provide_a.html


joey, i suggest you read the above. maybe it will give you some perspective on where some of us are coming from, and will show that certain laws have done what they were intended to do.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Less guns are not the answer. More guns? Everything has a practical maximum, after which you get diminishing returns for a good effect, or a negative effect emerges. Medicine for a condition is great until you overdose and it becomes a toxin.

Think of many people you know. Do you think the good guys, if armed, would hurt anybody? Even the guys you might know who get into barfights, would they suddenly start whacking people, knowing full well that they will be locked up or executed? More guns would not inspire non-criminals to undertake criminal acts. But, in the hands of would-be victims, it would inhibit the plans of those who have already decided to undertake a criminal act. Predator and would-be prey would then be on more equal terms.

More guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have guns would absolutely increase death and injuries by guns. Of that I have no doubt.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

More guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have guns would absolutely increase death and injuries by guns. Of that I have no doubt.

A lot of statistics tend to say otherwise about gun control laws.

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less...uns+less+crime

Ironically, we all pretty much agree with you about "those who shouldn't have guns." It's just that punishing everyone else for fear of a few, who, if criminals, will get them anyway, is not something gun owners are interested in contending with.

Track the nutty people better and make sure THEY never get a gun.