Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

[prizrak]

Simply this: Passing more laws to make it harder for people to get guns would only make it harder for those who are law abiding to get them. It would not make it harder for criminals or the mentally disturbed to get them.

Also, Lanza killed his mother then (somehow, we don't know how just yet) stole her firearms. If she was in compliance with CT laws, she should have had those things locked up in a safe. Whether she did or did not, we don't know yet. One thing is certain - he did not buy any of the weapons he used, and he was rejected when he tried to buy one from a dealer.

Minor point, Lanza (and his mother obviously) was from NJ - a state with stricter gun control rules than CT.

 

[Spectre]

Minor point, Lanza (and his mother obviously) was from NJ - a state with stricter gun control rules than CT.

No, it was his father who lived in NJ. His mom lived in Newtown CT and had her weapons there.

Not that the slight difference in gun control rules between the two states would have made a difference, though. Of the three guns he entered the school with, two (the pistols) were weapons he could not have legally possessed, purchased or carried in *any* case as he was 20 years old. Federal law bars those under 21 from purchasing or carrying handguns. Fat lot of good that law does, of course.

That said, I need to correct something - earlier reports had Lanza killing his father in NJ then traveling to CT. His father survived the incident in NJ and has claimed Lanza's body for burial, I have just been told.

 

[prizrak]

No, it was his father who lived in NJ. His mom lived in Newtown CT and had her weapons there.

Not that the slight difference in gun control rules between the two states would have made a difference, though. Of the three guns he entered the school with, two (the pistols) were weapons he could not have legally possessed, purchased or carried in *any* case as he was 20 years old. Federal law bars those under 21 from purchasing or carrying handguns. Fat lot of good that law does, of course.

That said, I need to correct something - earlier reports had Lanza killing his father in NJ then traveling to CT. His father survived the incident in NJ and has claimed Lanza's body for burial, I have just been told.

Oh I see where the confusion was, yes doesn't make a whole lot of difference at the end of the day what the laws were when he clearly didn't follow any of them...

 

[Spectre]

Oh, also.

Yes, he stole them from his mother, but until you're convicted of that or any other crime, it's not illegal to have them.

In CT, you only need a licence to buy a handgun, but not one to own a handgun or own or buy a rifle or 'long gun'.

So, up until he killed his mother and those people, he was legally allowed to have them in his hands. This is what I mean by saying the current laws really mean diddly squat in the real world. And why we need better ways to keep them out of the hands of those who have no business with a gun.

Again, you don't seem to know what the current laws actually say. He was not allowed to possess, transport, or purchase those two handguns, even without a conviction. You do NOT have to be convicted to have the right restricted, persons are barred from handgun ownership or carry until age 21 at the Federal level. The moment he took those and the other weapons from his mother without permission he committed a direct crime as that is theft of firearms. This is illegal on the face of it - once you steal the firearm (or anything else) it is illegal for you to possess it - possession of stolen goods is a crime in and of itself.

So, no, it WAS illegal for him to possess them. Just like it's illegal to take someone's car without permission.

Further, it was illegal for him to even bring any firearm within 1000 feet of the school. See the Gun Free Schools Act. Possession of any firearm within that radius is de-facto illegal without written permission of the institution.

 

[_HighVoltage_]

I think we are beating a dead horse at this point. It comes down to whose rhetoric will turn out more persuasive. The anti-gun lobby clearly ignore technical details and gun specifics. You can point to all of the problems in their logic, point out that rifles weren't used in many of the recent shootings, but they will still use the simplistic, and persuasive trump card - guns are dangerous, they kill people.

Sure, you can fight against that claim, but the pro-gun lobby is let down by their own people. Another person just posted this on Facebook: "went shooting today and think I'm sold on the Springfield xd! should've asked for one for Christmas! it was a lot of fun haha" All the hard work done to persuade the public that guns are a necessity, and we need them to protect ourselves are let down by people who go out in public and say "yeah it's a lot of fun."

This makes it really easy for the anti-gun people to create a logical opposition: Guns are dangerous. They kill people vs. Guns are a lot of fun. How do you lose an argument like this? All the details, the facts about past shootings become irrelevant. Is it fair? No. Is it persuasive - sure it is. If the pro-gun lobby wants to win the debate, they need to stay far, very far, away from any statements that suggest guns are fun (are they? Maybe. But if you want to win this, don't use this argument.)

 

[Spectre]

I think we are beating a dead horse at this point. It comes down to whose rhetoric will turn out more persuasive. The anti-gun lobby clearly ignore technical details and gun specifics. You can point to all of the problems in their logic, point out that rifles weren't used in many of the recent shootings, but they will still use the simplistic, and persuasive trump card - guns are dangerous, they kill people.

Sure, you can fight against that claim, but the pro-gun lobby is let down by their own people. Another person just posted this on Facebook: "went shooting today and think I'm sold on the Springfield xd! should've asked for one for Christmas! it was a lot of fun haha" All the hard work done to persuade the public that guns are a necessity, and we need them to protect ourselves are let down by people who go out in public and say "yeah it's a lot of fun."

This makes it really easy for the anti-gun people to create a logical opposition: Guns are dangerous. They kill people vs. Guns are a lot of fun. How do you lose an argument like this? All the details, the facts about past shootings become irrelevant. Is it fair? No. Is it persuasive - sure it is. If the pro-gun lobby wants to win the debate, they need to stay far, very far, away from any statements that suggest guns are fun (are they? Maybe. But if you want to win this, don't use this argument.)

I love how you seem to think all firearms owners and the industry in general are one monolithic Borg-like bloc that thinks with one mind that can be easily slapped with the 'firearms lobby' label. Congratulations, you just fell victim to a deliberately generated meme. A rather stupid one at that.

 

[_HighVoltage_]

No, I don't believe that. I just used it as a placeholder to signify the two opposing camps. Outside of this forum, I haven't heard a lot of moderate position. People tend to be digging in their trenches, just like everything political - pro vs. anti. Very few people are in the middle ground.

 

[Spectre]

No, I don't believe that. I just used it as a placeholder to signify the two opposing camps. Outside of this forum, I haven't heard a lot of moderate position. People tend to be digging in their trenches, just like everything political - pro vs. anti. Very few people are in the middle ground.

Welcome to the new America - where politicians get to power through identity politics and exacerbating polarizations and the favored of the faction in power can commit felonies on video and get away scott free.

It won't be pretty in the near future, whether gun control is the issue or not, because the price for exploiting polarization has to be paid somehow - eventually.

 

[_HighVoltage_]

What do you mean "new" America? A brief look at history suggests it has been like this for quite a while. The name of a certain Senator Joseph McCarthy comes to mind. The guy was a complete flop, until he started his anti-Communist rhetoric which landed him the senatorial position and quite a lot of popularity for a few years. Most of his claims were fabricated, but they sounded satisfying for a lot of people at the time.

 

[prizrak]

Welcome to the new America - where politicians get to power through identity politics and exacerbating polarizations and the favored of the faction in power can commit felonies on video and get away scott free.

It won't be pretty in the near future, whether gun control is the issue or not, because the price for exploiting polarization has to be paid somehow - eventually.

I hate this personally, I like guns and am all about 2A but then I get clustered with all the other "conservative" opinions which I do not share...

 

[Spectre]

What do you mean "new" America? A brief look at history suggests it has been like this for quite a while. The name of a certain Senator Joseph McCarthy comes to mind. The guy was a complete flop, until he started his anti-Communist rhetoric which landed him the senatorial position and quite a lot of popularity for a few years. Most of his claims were fabricated, but they sounded satisfying for a lot of people at the time.

But we were told that the Historic Election of Obama, A Black Man presaged a 'new America' - so it must be true!

Meet the 'new America' - initially just like but now worse than the 'old America.' The 'old America' didn't have journalists that supported the Administration's agenda committing felonies on national TV then getting rewarded with 'an exclusive interview' with the President and getting off scott free.

We appear to be a nation of men now and no longer a nation of laws. This is something that *is* relatively new.

 

[GRtak]

The media always have to brand stuff, doesn't make it so, or even that the general public believe it.

Why is Rush Limbaugh not in jail for all the felonies (state and federal) that he commited?

 

[Spectre]

The media always have to brand stuff, doesn't make it so, or even that the general public believe it.

Why is Rush Limbaugh not in jail for all the felonies (state and federal) that he commited?

Tell me again how many blatant intentional felonies Mr. Limbaugh has committed on live national television with millions of witnesses.

 

[narf]

Ah, but see, the United States is not a democracy. It's a constitutional republic, which means that the constitution comes first and foremost. If tomorrow 100% of the population votes to abolish the second amendment, that will mean absolutely nothing. The constitution is above all else.

...and who gets to decide what's in the constitution? Ultimately, the people do. There may not be a way for having a direct vote, but if 100% of the population agrees the 2nd amendment should be abolished that will of the people will make it through the democratic processes in your constitution. After all, 100% of the population includes 100% of senators, congressmen, and state officials.

Elaborate?

See above. He claimed there are more anti-gun nutters than pro-gun nutters, in essence. If that's the case then the will of the majority shall rule through elections and other democratic means.

 

[GRtak]

Tell me again how many blatant intentional felonies Mr. Limbaugh has committed on live national television with millions of witnesses.

I don't give a damn how many witnesses there are, Limbaugh was guilty, period! Caught red handed with pills he was not supposed to have, and obtained through illegal means as his maid laid out.

I really don't care about either case. The only reason you brought this case up is because he is liberal, anti gun, and he technically broke a law he supports. (Limbaugh is anti drug, except for him that is)

 

[Spectre]

I don't give a damn how many witnesses there are, Limbaugh was guilty, period! Caught red handed with pills he was not supposed to have, and obtained through illegal means as his maid laid out.

I really don't care about either case. The only reason you brought this case up is because he is liberal, anti gun, and he technically broke a law he supports. (Limbaugh is anti drug, except for him that is)

It's not even technically, it's whole heartedly, utterly, intentionally just to make a point breaking the law. And no, it's not because he's liberal. It's because DC has been busily busting people passing through with ammo or magazines and since they're not famous they get to go to jail and have their lives ruined - even honorable serving soldiers and honorably retired. See here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog...-dc-arrests-vet-arrested-unregistered-ammuni/

But one of the rich and famous that are well connected to the administration? Not even so much as a slap on the wrist.

Laws for thee, not for me, apparently.

 

[Cellos88GT]

I thought these ideas were interesting:

Gun Control: What to Do
People have the right to own firearms. I get that. And I'm perfectly fine with that, but let's be honest - we can do better than this. Right? Isn't the point of any society to strive toward its ideals? And shouldn't we ideally live in a peaceful world? Naive, certainly, maybe unattainable, but it's a goal. Here's a thought exercise: picture your perfect world. Try not to be pessimistic or cynical - your perfect world... Are there guns? Is there death? If so, maybe you should aim a little higher.

I'm no politician, and I fully welcome any gun-owning readers to correct me, but what follows are some ideas/solutions that I think might help... Not solve (I don't know that we'll ever be without gun violence), but help.

(1) Obvious stuff - background checks, keeping guns out of the hands of convicted criminals/mentally ill, waiting periods, etc - should be mandatory.

(2) Graduated licensing... This is my alternative to an assault weapons ban. People cannot even agree on the term "assault weapon" - let's remove the semantics by introducing graduated licensing. Similar to graduated driver's licenses, a graduated gun owner's license would simply mean that the longer you've been a gun owner, the fewer restrictions you would have on future gun purchases. Say, for instance, that for the first two years you can only own a revolver (or some sort of low-capacity, long-reload weapon), then after that you can "graduate" to a rifle, and so on. Like I said, I'm not a gun guy, so the details could be hammered out by people with the proper experience, but I like the idea.

As anyone who's done his homework is fully aware, most mass shootings are done with legally purchased weapons. What a graduated license would help prevent (at least in theory) is the man who plots out a mass killing, and then goes about exacting his plan by legally buying up everything he needs. Is the plan perfect? Of course not - there is the obvious possibility of someone planning a mass killing and then waiting the requisite years rather than months - but the lengthy wait is a deterrant.

(3) Required training classes... Again, this could be similar to drivers' education. If "required" training for everyone is too much to ask, what if we decreased the wait time for those who've taken the training course? The whole idea behind this, again, is to keep guns out of the hands of those who are acting hastily, or at the very least, to slow them down.

(4) Annual certification... Basically, this whole list is modeled after the DMV, haha. I don't know what it takes to get a gun license, much less what it takes to prevent one from expiring. But I think an annual eye test and perhaps a practical (ie, you know how to properly disassemble/reassemble, clean, etc) might be a good idea. The idea for this one is to encourage responsible gun ownership, as I'm sure the vast majority of gun owners do these things already (though they probably substitute the shooting range for an eye exam).

(5) A universal ban on high-capacity, rapid-fire weapons, unless you've had requisite training/licensing... I realize this is extremely unlikely, which is why it's listed lower than the others, but I really don't understand why a civilian would need a military-grade weapon. I know hunters - you don't go hunting with an AR15. You can defend yourself just as well with something less conspicuous... So why do these need to bought by regular people? Simply because they can? Maybe a gun owner can explain this one to me because I just don't get it.

src: http://ishotamoose.blogspot.com/2012/12/gun-control-honest-discussion.html

 

[prizrak]

...and who gets to decide what's in the constitution? Ultimately, the people do. There may not be a way for having a direct vote, but if 100% of the population agrees the 2nd amendment should be abolished that will of the people will make it through the democratic processes in your constitution. After all, 100% of the population includes 100% of senators, congressmen, and state officials.

See above. He claimed there are more anti-gun nutters than pro-gun nutters, in essence. If that's the case then the will of the majority shall rule through elections and other democratic means.

That wasn't really my point, I was stating that when you compare pro-gun and anti-gun people there are more of the latter who are completely uneducated and know very little about guns. Case in point the video posted upthread where someone voted to ban barrel shrouds without actually knowing what they are.
@Cellos I'll address each point:

(1) Obvious stuff - background checks, keeping guns out of the hands of convicted criminals/mentally ill, waiting periods, etc - should be mandatory.

How is a waiting period going to stop illegal use of a gun? Background check issues have been highlighted, we need a better DB and integration between state/fed for them to really be effective.

(2) Graduated licensing... This is my alternative to an assault weapons ban. People cannot even agree on the term "assault weapon" - let's remove the semantics by introducing graduated licensing. Similar to graduated driver's licenses, a graduated gun owner's license would simply mean that the longer you've been a gun owner, the fewer restrictions you would have on future gun purchases. Say, for instance, that for the first two years you can only own a revolver (or some sort of low-capacity, long-reload weapon), then after that you can "graduate" to a rifle, and so on. Like I said, I'm not a gun guy, so the details could be hammered out by people with the proper experience, but I like the idea.

As anyone who's done his homework is fully aware, most mass shootings are done with legally purchased weapons. What a graduated license would help prevent (at least in theory) is the man who plots out a mass killing, and then goes about exacting his plan by legally buying up everything he needs. Is the plan perfect? Of course not - there is the obvious possibility of someone planning a mass killing and then waiting the requisite years rather than months - but the lengthy wait is a deterrant.

Makes no sense whatsoever, if I want a gun for hunting only a revolver would be useless. In a self defense situation a rapid reload weapon is better than a slow reload (unless you are an expert marksman somehow). A better way would be requiring more training to use more powerful weapons but that still wouldn't do much for illegally obtained guns.

(3) Required training classes... Again, this could be similar to drivers' education. If "required" training for everyone is too much to ask, what if we decreased the wait time for those who've taken the training course? The whole idea behind this, again, is to keep guns out of the hands of those who are acting hastily, or at the very least, to slow them down.

This is pretty much the case already.

(4) Annual certification... Basically, this whole list is modeled after the DMV, haha. I don't know what it takes to get a gun license, much less what it takes to prevent one from expiring. But I think an annual eye test and perhaps a practical (ie, you know how to properly disassemble/reassemble, clean, etc) might be a good idea. The idea for this one is to encourage responsible gun ownership, as I'm sure the vast majority of gun owners do these things already (though they probably substitute the shooting range for an eye exam).

Might prevent some accidents doesn't really make much sense otherwise

(5) A universal ban on high-capacity, rapid-fire weapons, unless you've had requisite training/licensing... I realize this is extremely unlikely, which is why it's listed lower than the others, but I really don't understand why a civilian would need a military-grade weapon. I know hunters - you don't go hunting with an AR15. You can defend yourself just as well with something less conspicuous... So why do these need to bought by regular people? Simply because they can? Maybe a gun owner can explain this one to me because I just don't get it.

As he himself points out he doesn't know much about guns so I will be nice. It doesn't much matter, mags take all of a second to switch so whether you have 10 rounds in 2 clips or 5 in 4 makes little difference to your target. Also rapid-fire weapons are already banned, semi-auto is as rapid as you can cycle it but so is a pump or a bolt action.

 

[biggie]

^to be fair, quite a lot of people use certain revolvers for hunting as well, espeically large caliber ones with a scope.

 

[prizrak]

^to be fair, quite a lot of people use certain revolvers for hunting as well, espeically large caliber ones with a scope.

But then it would likely be not allowed under the guys proposal as it would be "high powered"