Connecticut massacre fallout

[joeydb]

Should there be gun law changes made in response to this incident?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Should there be gun law changes made in response to this incident?

Suprised that you support changes to gun control laws.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

Suprised that you support changes to gun control laws.

I didn't vote yet...

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Should there be gun law changes made in response to this incident?

Like what specifically? It's hard for me to say unless I have an idea of what kind of changes we're talking about.

(Not intended sarcastically; interested in your thoughts)

[Danzig]

i find it odd that a poll is posted, but the poster doesn't vote...


there should be an immediate ban on all private sales. all sales MUST involve a thorough background check. all physicians who have a patient that they feel is a danger to society MUST immediately report them. all felons, all that have restraining orders and the like against them, should be kept in databases. those databases must be accessible by registered dealers. also, if someone bought a gun, and then subsequently is arrested and convicted, or has a restraining order placed on them, they should be flagged for confiscation of firearms. married to a felon, no guns. parent of a felon that lives with you, lose your guns. child of a felon that lives with you, no guns.
if you own guns and wish to sell them, they must be consigned thru a licensed broker. wish to hand them down thru a will, the inheritor must be cleared for ownership.
anyone who attempts to illegally purchase a firearm that is flagged should be arrested for attempting to illegally purchase a firearm. they know if they have a felony on their record that they can't own them.
gun shows-no background checks, no sales.
auctions that have guns-no check, no sale.

none of the above changes the ability of a law-abiding citizen from owning a gun, or several guns.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i find it odd that a poll is posted, but the poster doesn't vote...


there should be an immediate ban on all private sales. all sales MUST involve a thorough background check. all physicians who have a patient that they feel is a danger to society MUST immediately report them. all felons, all that have restraining orders and the like against them, should be kept in databases. those databases must be accessible by registered dealers. also, if someone bought a gun, and then subsequently is arrested and convicted, or has a restraining order placed on them, they should be flagged for confiscation of firearms. married to a felon, no guns. parent of a felon that lives with you, lose your guns. child of a felon that lives with you, no guns.
if you own guns and wish to sell them, they must be consigned thru a licensed broker. wish to hand them down thru a will, the inheritor must be cleared for ownership.
anyone who attempts to illegally purchase a firearm that is flagged should be arrested for attempting to illegally purchase a firearm. they know if they have a felony on their record that they can't own them.
gun shows-no background checks, no sales.
auctions that have guns-no check, no sale.

none of the above changes the ability of a law-abiding citizen from owning a gun, or several guns.

The restraining order in concept is good but is dicey. What evidence must you provide in order to put a restraining order on someone? Seems wide open for ****ing with someone if you know they have guns to put a restraining order on them for no reason.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

The restraining order in concept is good but is dicey. What evidence must you provide in order to put a restraining order on someone? Seems wide open for ****ing with someone if you know they have guns to put a restraining order on them for no reason.

i understand that there could be some people who might try to abuse those...but you can't just go to a judge and say 'i'm scared' and they issue an order. now, repeated texts, calls, drive-bys, etc..that's another story. just being vindictive isn't enough to get these.

i think that many of these incidents point to a major flaw in people-we choose poorly who to hang out with, what to let pass without comment, too quick to excuse irrational behavior, etc. people spend years with abusers, or people in denial, or people who don't want to deal with a tough situation so they ignore it. but it doesn't go away, or get better. who here knows someone, whether family or friend, or aquaintance, who might need some intervention? probably most of us. but does anyone do anything?
lady works for me part time. her son needs help. i've mentioned more than once about the 17 yr old who is in jail, how he'd been known to be 'out of it' for years. but no one did anything, and now another boy is dead. i was hoping she'd get my point, that she would intervene with her son.
in one ear, out the other. she's in denial, just like a lot of people.

[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.

[cal828]

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.

Actually, I think we had two. One was called The Revolutionary War. The government did not win that one.

[cal828]

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.

Don't think that a limit should be placed on guns, but I think that owning guns carries a responsibility for securing them in someway under lock and key, gun safe, trigger locking mechanism, etc. which I am not sure should not be part of gun laws.

Assault weapons should either be banned or their capacity to fire multiple rounds should be modified and high capacity clips should be banned. Just my opinion. Connecticut shooter could have killed a lot more kids. He had the right guns to do it. Maybe if those guns had less capacity for firing, more kids would have been saved.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i find it odd that a poll is posted, but the poster doesn't vote...


there should be an immediate ban on all private sales. all sales MUST involve a thorough background check. all physicians who have a patient that they feel is a danger to society MUST immediately report them. all felons, all that have restraining orders and the like against them, should be kept in databases. those databases must be accessible by registered dealers. also, if someone bought a gun, and then subsequently is arrested and convicted, or has a restraining order placed on them, they should be flagged for confiscation of firearms. married to a felon, no guns. parent of a felon that lives with you, lose your guns. child of a felon that lives with you, no guns.
if you own guns and wish to sell them, they must be consigned thru a licensed broker. wish to hand them down thru a will, the inheritor must be cleared for ownership.
anyone who attempts to illegally purchase a firearm that is flagged should be arrested for attempting to illegally purchase a firearm. they know if they have a felony on their record that they can't own them.
gun shows-no background checks, no sales.
auctions that have guns-no check, no sale.

none of the above changes the ability of a law-abiding citizen from owning a gun, or several guns.

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.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by cal828

Actually, I think we had two. One was called The Revolutionary War. The government did not win that one.

Yeah, but the revolutionaries were bankrolled by another government. Though his own people got pretty pissed at him for that. Heads rolled over that decision, I hear. (ba dum dum)

Showing once again, if you want to overthrow a government, talk to the French.

[dellinger63]

There are 250 million plus guns out there.

How many, white, from middle class and above families, males, between 12-27, who are loners and whose classmates consider them strange are there in the U.S.?

Kind of like focusing on animals with teeth following a bear attack. IMO

Guns don't need to be controlled, lunatics do.

[cal828]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Yeah, but the revolutionaries were bankrolled by another government. Though his own people got pretty pissed at him for that. Heads rolled over that decision, I hear. (ba dum dum)

Showing once again, if you want to overthrow a government, talk to the French.

You could be right. I think the French practically invented revolution. Can't think of the French thinkers though that expounded on the right of the people to over throw an unjust government. Will have to look that up.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

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 think if 'abortions' were substituted for 'guns', the light bulb would appear in many heads.

[cal828]

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.

I think she should have said mental health professionals instead of doctors. Actually, the Brady Law already provides for "Court ordered dangerously mentally ill persons" to be added to the background check database. Not sure how that works, but I think that most states, if not all require that a person have a court hearing before commitment to a State Hospital and I think that they must be found to be a danger to themselves or others for the commitment to occur. I am guessing that the court then has them added to the database. Having said this though, this does not seem to cover the persons that a therapist might just think are dangerous like the Aurora, Colorado shooter. I think these persons should be in my opinion added to the database.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by cal828

You could be right. I think the French practically invented revolution. Can't think of the French thinkers though that expounded on the right of the people to over throw an unjust government. Will have to look that up.

And I should know that- the book I recorded on the history of Western Europe discussed it. Sigh. Memory fail.

In Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" (which really is a pretty decent doc- it discusses the culture of fear in America and how that contributes to gun violence) he interviews a former member of British Parliament who talks about the difference between Americans and the French. He said the difference is that in America, the people fear the government and in France, the government fears the people.

I sometimes wonder if that's one of the reasons France ended up with such a strong social safety net and such generous benefits- history has shown that when the French populace feels the government has pushed too hard, they will burn that sh*t down. So best to keep them content.

Though the National Front movement is pretty creepy. And it seems to be gaining strength there.

[cal828]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And I should know that- the book I recorded on the history of Western Europe discussed it. Sigh. Memory fail.

In Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" (which really is a pretty decent doc- it discusses the culture of fear in America and how that contributes to gun violence) he interviews a former member of British Parliament who talks about the difference between Americans and the French. He said the difference is that in America, the people fear the government and in France, the government fears the people.

I sometimes wonder if that's one of the reasons France ended up with such a strong social safety net and such generous benefits- history has shown that when the French populace feels the government has pushed too hard, they will burn that sh*t down. So best to keep them content.

Though the National Front movement is pretty creepy. And it seems to be gaining strength there.

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

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i find it odd that a poll is posted, but the poster doesn't vote...


there should be an immediate ban on all private sales. all sales MUST involve a thorough background check. all physicians who have a patient that they feel is a danger to society MUST immediately report them. all felons, all that have restraining orders and the like against them, should be kept in databases. those databases must be accessible by registered dealers. also, if someone bought a gun, and then subsequently is arrested and convicted, or has a restraining order placed on them, they should be flagged for confiscation of firearms. married to a felon, no guns. parent of a felon that lives with you, lose your guns. child of a felon that lives with you, no guns.
if you own guns and wish to sell them, they must be consigned thru a licensed broker. wish to hand them down thru a will, the inheritor must be cleared for ownership.
anyone who attempts to illegally purchase a firearm that is flagged should be arrested for attempting to illegally purchase a firearm. they know if they have a felony on their record that they can't own them.
gun shows-no background checks, no sales.
auctions that have guns-no check, no sale.

none of the above changes the ability of a law-abiding citizen from owning a gun, or several guns.

I'll go with thiis for awhile!

[cal828]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And I should know that- the book I recorded on the history of Western Europe discussed it. Sigh. Memory fail.

In Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" (which really is a pretty decent doc- it discusses the culture of fear in America and how that contributes to gun violence) he interviews a former member of British Parliament who talks about the difference between Americans and the French. He said the difference is that in America, the people fear the government and in France, the government fears the people.

I sometimes wonder if that's one of the reasons France ended up with such a strong social safety net and such generous benefits- history has shown that when the French populace feels the government has pushed too hard, they will burn that sh*t down. So best to keep them content.

Though the National Front movement is pretty creepy. And it seems to be gaining strength there.

I think the one I was thinking of was Jean-Jacques Rousseau.