Mass shooting/killing at Connecticut elementary school

I want to hit that one again. Federal law prevents those adjudicated as mentally incompetent from buying or owning a firearm.

that law exists.

This kid was troubled for years, was mentally ill with a long history of issues at school, but he was never deemed "incompetent" in order to prevent him from owning a firearm. Nor does the ATF investigate people who commit a felony by lying when they try to buy one.

Here's a scenario that would have worked and not limited everyone's rights:

1) this young man is ruled some status of incompetent or mentally ill.

2) that level is legally a disqualification to own a firearm and hopefully a host of other things like holding jobs in and around children, etc.

3) When he goes to buy a gun he's turned down.

4) If he does try to buy one at a store he'd have lied on the form for it to get to the background check point. If he fails that the ATF/FBI know immediately he 99% likely committed a felony, and a person deemed mentally ill -- with his name,, address, social sec number, everything you need - is trying to buy a gun.

So now we not only limit him legally from owning a gun, we have a fair chance of identifying that he's become a GRAVE threat as he's trying to arm himself and we have a felony to prosecute to get him out of society.

Which is more likely to stop the next lunatic? A system that tries to identify and track them, esp. their actions to arm themselves with ANY firearm or one that just wholesale tries to limit what any person can buy in a store in hopes it slows him down?

Yes there are things we can do, there are discussions we can have, but let's walk through the process and have a discussion focused on what we can do to stop lunatics, not what we can do to have lunatics kill 10 people instead of 20.

Seriously, I know I'm rambling, but can anyone explain to me why the reaction is "let's limit these dangerous guns" instead of "let's limit these dangerous people"? Why we focus on the symptoms instead of the disease?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsky

What's "chilling", but "affirming of what I always suspected" is the "if our government were only more like China" sentiment so freely expressed on Facebook and by the HuffPo meme repeaters these last two days ("see, look at the knife attack, no kids died").

---

When you have a Supreme Court justice say if she were founding the nation today she wouldn't look to the Constitution as a guide, you know your "suspicions" are cold hard facts.

A lot of people don't trust liberty. It can't be defined, controlled, planned. If you think you know what is best for others that's the last structure you want for a nation. You want one where you can make them do what is best for themselves whether they agree or not b/c you know you're right and they just don't understand what is best for them.

Here is one of the biggest problems as I see it with what you said about the NRA coming to the table. They ahve come to the table in the past. But they know as do many of hte members that those on the left will not meet half way on anything, even though they will propose that it won't happen, they are democrats I remind you, and what they do is pretend they will meet at the half way point...taxes and cuts...but then screw you once you give in. IF the pendulum would stop at the half way point, fine, but it wont. The NRA knows it and so they fight for every point they want and even some they could give up.

Again I say, what does high mags have to do with the guy who slashed 21 kids in China this week, the young man in Pearl who purposely ran over a black man with his truck to kill him, the Ok city bombing and fertilizer, the boxcutters and 9-11.

The vast majority of people who use high mags are those who enjoy shooting for pleasure. So we take away their freedom to hopefully stop a nutcase which in reality won't stop him.

The left has DONE NOTHING about Fast and Furious and putting high capacity assault weapons in the hands of CRIMINALS but want more gun laws that will not stop nutcases. They do NOTHING to help the mental cases out there, cutting funding at state levels, because Govs must balance their budgets and with the Feds and the democrats demanding more to be spent on medicaid and foodstamps, those that are in need of being helped go w/o the resources that the states need.

So the democrats want to spend more on medicaid...in Miss they propose raising the number here to 1/3 of our population...foodstamps, illegals but neglect those that desparately need help. That is your Democrat party and the ultra liberals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bubbleup

I've read the links and your 2000 word treatise ;) in repsonse to my suggestion. As I said initially, it's a very complicated issue and I'm no expert. Somewhere between a musket in every cabin and an AK-47 in every home is a level of gun rights/gun control that might make it more difficult for these mentally ill (potential) killers to try to top this most recent killer. At the risk of oversimplifying the issue(s), I'm afraid that if the NRA and it's supporters don't want to come to the table and participate in the conversation, the "other side" will begin to build momentum for something more drastic...and as I said intially I'm somewhere in the middle. I've taken my 17 year-old daughter over to my brother's in the past 6 weeks to shoot, both a pistol and a 22. I'm not in favor of taking guns away but something has to change and Friday's events have changed a lot of attitudes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN;

[B

This boy was troubled for YEARS. His mother had to be repeatedly called to school to address the situation. At least one adviser knew he was a risk to himself and others and was assigned specifically to watch him. It was known he didn't feel physical or psychological pain, and our national discussion today on the talk shows centers on which guns he chose? Really? [/B]

So NO restriction including banning all semi-auto weapons was going to prevent those kids from dying, but that's still a better discussion than saying we need to forget his choice of method and focus on why a person capable of such things was allowed to wander among us for years?.

---

I think this statement is the tell-all of this particular incident. The young man was known to have mental problems, yet the Mother stocked the house with 4 weapons and ammo. I have absolutely NO problem with ANY person wanting to own, or carry, a weapon. I think alot of times it is more preventive of chaos than people want to believe. I am very much in favor of a person's right to bear arms, and as soon as this happened, I turned right to my wife and said, 'This is going to bring the gun control people out of the woodwork." But why in God's name did THIS woman think it was good idea to own them? Gun ownership comes with a responsibility, and clearly this wasn't very responsible on her part.

The article in today's Courier Journal here in Louisville stated that the young man had a somewhat fascination with realistic killing type video games. The investigators said after piecing together the events that took place, that he did what he did with precision, meaning there weren't alot of wasted shots. When asked if the children would have suffered, the answer was, "If so, not for long." Every person was shot at least twice. What was this woman thinking by having weapons in her home with this young man around? A gun control law shouldn't have had to keep her from owning a gun, common sense should have.

lfbj --- I hadn't read up today but you mean she OWNED these guns with a mentally ill son? Were they just left laying around, not even in a locked safe to which he didn't have the combination?

My God, why are we having a discussion about which guns/mags should be legal when she was arming a lunatic?

Again, pass a law that says those adjudicated mentally ill can't have a gun in the home. They already can't own one, but I'm fine with that law, or that they must be locked and the person not have any direct access. Something.

That would get NRA support b/c it would actually help.

Instead of "common sense gun control", how about some just plain common sense? No, we'd rather see what he could have done if she'd only had pump shotguns on hand. Jeez.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

lfbj --- I hadn't read up today but you mean she OWNED these guns with a mentally ill son? Were they just left laying around, not even in a locked safe to which he didn't have the combination?

My God, why are we having a discussion about which guns/mags should be legal when she was arming a lunatic?

Again, pass a law that says those adjudicated mentally ill can't have a gun in the home. They already can't own one, but I'm fine with that law, or that they must be locked and the person not have any direct access. Something.

That would get NRA support b/c it would actually help.

Instead of "common sense gun control", how about some just plain common sense? No, we'd rather see what he could have done if she'd only had pump shotguns on hand. Jeez.

---

According to the reports i have seen in the newspapers and on the TV, she legally purchased and registered all the guns in her name. So he only had to go into the next room for his weapon of choice, which as it turned out, was all of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lfbj00

According to the reports i have seen in the newspapers and on the TV, she legally purchased and registered all the guns in her name. So he only had to go into the next room for his weapon of choice, which as it turned out, was all of them.

---

Thanks. Jeez.

You've spend years dealing with a deeply troubled son, the prototypical lunatic shooter (white, middle class, loner, psychological disconnect with emotional pain and the pain of others) since the US was founded, and you buy guns he can directly access.

If this pans out as it is currently reported we had TWO lunatics in this mess, one of which was teaching those kids on a daily basis.

Yes. No law could prevent what happened, absent one that removes all guns from citizens.

She owned the guns, he didn't.
They were registered to her, not him.

In effect, this was like a criminal stealing guns to use in a crime. I know this is a slightly different thing, but I think the analogy works.

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

Attachment 1370

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darrell KSR

Yes. No law could prevent what happened, absent one that removes all guns from citizens.

She owned the guns, he didn't.
They were registered to her, not him.

In effect, this was like a criminal stealing guns to use in a crime. I know this is a slightly different thing, but I think the analogy works.

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

---

Very good point, well structured as always.

Were the guns secured though, or just in a closet? . When I teach the conceal carry class a big chunk of it from the state is on simple safety and not even carry, like safety in the home and how to balance storing guns with access to them for defense.

With an obviously troubled son in the home it would be irresponsible to not have them secured IMO, at least guns not used for crisis home defense. Even I was under that restriction as a child. This would limit his ability to defend himself but there's a balance between individual rights and public safety and this question is a lot closer to favoring public safety than a law imposed every American. I'm at least fine to have that debate.

Doc and I had this discussion about a boy who killed a friend with a gun. I don't want to spin off into that debate in this thread and the difference I see between a mentally troubled person and just any child but it seems even that debate may be more on point than general gun control laws. At least it focuses on individual situations and not just all guns and all Americans.

Regardless it paints a picture of a tragedy a result of a series of failed decisions and actions that have nothing to do with which guns are legal or illegal for purchase and ownership.

Personally if my child were that disturbed the only gun not locked in a safe would be the one on me at the time. No doubt though as a parent you never think your child capable of such things. So that's easily said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

Thanks. Jeez.

If this pans out as it is currently reported we had TWO lunatics in this mess, one of which was teaching those kids on a daily basis.

---

The latest report is that she did not teach at the school. She was unemployed, receiving $240,000/yr from her ex-husband. http://www.heavy.com/news/2012/12/na...-need-to-know/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CattyWampus

The latest report is that she did not teach at the school. She was unemployed, receiving $240,000/yr from her ex-husband. http://www.heavy.com/news/2012/12/na...-need-to-know/

---

I guess you never bet on media reporting accuracy, and the more serious the subject the worse the reporting.

Connecticut is one of the most strict states in the nation when it comes to gun control, and Nancy Lanza bought her guns legally and registered them.

A point lost on many, one I made to someone Friday. Also goes to my point that banning further production/sale of high cap mags etc. is useless. None of those laws would have kept him from having access to them.


Nancy Lanza's arsenal consisted of two powerful handguns, two hunting rifles and a semiautomatic rifle like the ones used by the military. Adam took the handguns and rifle to the school.

I don't know where to begin with all the lies in that statement. It wasn't an "arsenal", it was 5 guns. I inherited 4 guns, hardly an arsenal.

"two powerful handguns", as opposed to those that can't hurt you? More people are killed with 25 cal street guns than these Glocks and Sigs by a wide margin.

"semiautomatic rifle like used in the military". Uh, the military doesn't use semiautomatic guns, nor is that unusual at all for rifles of any design. The latest untruth is to associate "semiautomatic" with "military rifle" which has been associated with "machine gun" when they are utterly different things. 80% or more of all guns in the US are "semi-automatic", i.e. one trigger pull fires one round and the next trigger pull fires the next one.

5 rounds a second? Saw on that fox show too where he said that AR could get off 5 rounds a second. That's BS, utter BS. Is the gun theoretically capable of it? Possible, but can someone pull and cycle a trigger in 1/20th of a second five times in a row? No. They want to make it sound like any semi-auto gun is just spraying rounds and far more than what anyone needs.

I can get off 5 rounds in 3-4 seconds with a Kel Tec in point and spray mode, which is still a lot of rounds down range, but they spin it as bad as possible at every turn.


Anyway, thanks for the link. She isn't even a teacher. Wow.

Guarantee there's even more to this story and his situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

I guess you never bet on media reporting accuracy, and the more serious the subject the worse the reporting.

Connecticut is one of the most strict states in the nation when it comes to gun control, and Nancy Lanza bought her guns legally and registered them.

A point lost on many, one I made to someone Friday. Also goes to my point that banning further production/sale of high cap mags etc. is useless. None of those laws would have kept him from having access to them.


Nancy Lanza's arsenal consisted of two powerful handguns, two hunting rifles and a semiautomatic rifle like the ones used by the military. Adam took the handguns and rifle to the school.

I don't know where to begin with all the lies in that statement. It wasn't an "arsenal", it was 5 guns. I inherited 4 guns, hardly an arsenal.

"two powerful handguns", as opposed to those that can't hurt you? More people are killed with 25 cal street guns than these Glocks and Sigs by a wide margin.

"semiautomatic rifle like used in the military". Uh, the military doesn't use semiautomatic guns, nor is that unusual at all for rifles of any design. The latest untruth is to associate "semiautomatic" with "military rifle" which has been associated with "machine gun" when they are utterly different things. 80% or more of all guns in the US are "semi-automatic", i.e. one trigger pull fires one round and the next trigger pull fires the next one.

5 rounds a second? Saw on that fox show too where he said that AR could get off 5 rounds a second. That's BS, utter BS. Is the gun theoretically capable of it? Possible, but can someone pull and cycle a trigger in 1/20th of a second five times in a row? No. They want to make it sound like any semi-auto gun is just spraying rounds and far more than what anyone needs.

I can get off 5 rounds in 3-4 seconds with a Kel Tec in point and spray mode, which is still a lot of rounds down range, but they spin it as bad as possible at every turn.


Anyway, thanks for the link. She isn't even a teacher. Wow.

Guarantee there's even more to this story and his situation.

---

I'm glad you addressed the inaccurate info about the weapons. I expected that you would and your analysis would be far more knowledgeable than what I could have added. You didn't disappoint.

An undeserved compliment, but I'll take it. :)

I had a conversation today that really struck me how little some people know about guns and therefore how easy it is to convince them of the need for this or that law when they'd never support it if they hadn't been lied to about the guns themselves.

I was discussing the high cap mags and saying there are millions of them out there so banning new ones was meaningless, and she asked "and they can be refilled right?" She thought so but wasn't certain that once you fired off the rounds in a magazine you didn't just throw it away, which of course would mean that a ban would slowly be more and more effective.

This was not some dumb lady, this was a very smart person, a senior partner at a professional firm in Lexington, just not exposed to guns in any detail.

No wonder they can tell these outright lies and they work.

If you define semi-auto as I did above, the technical definition, it would include all "pistols", all revolvers, a HUGE percentage of all 22 rifles and a big chunk of all rifles, and even a lot of shotguns (they come in semi-auto).

All that would be left are bolt action and level action rifles, breech shotguns (double and single barrel), pump shotguns, single shot derringers and muskets. Other than pump shotguns the ability to defend oneself would be effectively eliminated.

I've sold many 100s of handguns at auction, I can think of 2 that wouldn't meet that definition, and even if we limited it to 5 rounds or more as well it would be maybe 15 of say 800.

banning "semi autos" is effectively a handgun ban, which is EXACTLY what they want and they have just found a way of saying it in an obfuscated manner that can get support b/c if they said "ban handguns" the vast majority of Americans would be against it.

One irony? JFK was killed with a bolt action Curcano rifle, and he got off 3 shots in under 5 seconds. Reagan was shot (and Brady shot) with a cheapo 6 shot 22 revolver.

Could confiscate them all and he still could have accumulated enough firepower to do what he did. Anyone seen Mad Max and what a double barrel shotgun can do and how easy it is to carry when you cut it down with a hacksaw?

Timothy McVeigh killed 19 kids with fertilzer and racing fuel, along with 149 others. Evil people will find the means to do what it is they are going to do. It's the risk of living in a free society.

Bad cases make for bad law. This shooting, and the prior few are on the way to creating bad law, and eroded rights for all Americans.

Quote:

---

Could confiscate them all and he still could have accumulated enough firepower to do what he did. Anyone seen Mad Max and what a double barrel shotgun can do and how easy it is to carry when you cut it down with a hacksaw?

---

Yeah but you told me it was illegal to do that and I could get in real trouble if I did.:outtahere:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan_bgblue

I think there are plenty of ideas in that article to stimulate reasonable discussion. Thanks for the link.

---

Like suggesting somebody could or would put forth the idea of shooting mentally retarded folks. That's always a good way to foster intelligent discussion. Present the absurd then try suggest that is what somebody else could or would claim.

I didn't pipe earlier because I thought in extremely poor taste to do so earlier, plus I wanted to avoid knee jerk type of over-reaction.

First off there is no law that could ever be passed or approved that would prevent such a tragedy. Folks who are intent on killing will find a way. The only thing that would stop this type of thing would be a 100% ban across the nation of any fire arm and even that would not stop it. It might decrease it but when there is a will there is a way. And just for clarification, I'm not suggesting that is a good idea, a plausible idea or a reasonable idea so while some might like to suggest any person who supports gun regulation is also for banning them...think again.

Second, as for "biased" individuals, isn't that what we base our opinions on? I'll confess my biases. I have two kids who I would do anything to insure they are safe. As some might recall my son who at the time was 11 was shot by another 11 year old. Fortunately nothing severe but certainly enough that it helped to form those so called bias. As many recall, one of my son's lacrosse teammates accidentily blew his head off with his gun. Nothing like the funeral for a 13 year old kid to help form a bias. My daughter attends college that recently made national news due to a gunman being reported on campus. Again, another factor in my bias. Additionally I attended an inner city/urban high school (Central for those in the Louisville area) where while not an everyday occurrence, it was not uncommon to encounter "guns". In fact on "Sr cut day" one of my buddies had his class ring stolen at gunpoint on campus property. Since the last gun thread my home situation has changed. We now have a tenant who resides in our guest room who owns a gun (my daughters boyfriend who's family moved north so he moved in with us to attend school). He owns a pistol (no idea make or model) but it is registered and he is licensed. When Tommy moved in he was told to keep it in a safe since we have a 14 year old in the house. He has been "slow" to take care of that so for Xmas he is getting a gun safe. If I had a gun issue or wanted a gun ban, I would kick him out of my home. Additionally my daughter also has a concealed carry weapons permit although she does not own a gun. I have no problem with any 21 year old owning a gun.

What can actually be done to minimize such event? Above it was suggested that we eliminate "gun free zones". Yeah because the idea that people in elementary, middle and high schools need to be armed is a good one :533: Personally I agree with a zero tolerance policy (note: my son was expelled 2 years ago for having a knife at school. School didn't hear a peep from me about how he should not be punished even though it was just a pocket knife. Knife, gun, etc... any weapon should not be allowed on a school campus, period.). To me the best solution would be an armed LEO in every school, not some security guy who is a wanna be police man but a real honest to goodness trained law enforcement officer assigned to the school whenever the doors are opened. At my kids elementary school they had an officer there most days but I'm talking 100% of the time. Consider that number of people confined into the area, is there a better use of resources? Imagine if an armed police officer had been in the school at that time, would it have made a difference? I believe so.

Others have suggested enforcing the laws on the books. No law on the books prevents a loon from entering a school (or theater or mall) and taking target practice. This is one of the more popular deflections by gun advocates. The other is getting rid of gun laws since with law "only criminals have guns". Huge straw man since that argument could be used for any crime. The laws allow for punishment when the law is violated. That is one of the purposes of laws.

Back on page 1, it was asked for suggestions. Some of these I have presented in the past but will do again:

1) See above...armed law enforcement officer in every school any time the doors are unlocked.
2) Personally I believe any individual convicted of any crime that involves a weapon be forever prohibited from owning a weapon. Would that stop all of these type of incidents? Nope but IMO gun ownership should be for responsible people and it might prevent some.
3) Additionally I believe gun ownership and usage should be confined only to people of responsible age. We have determined that one must be 16 to drive an automobile, that one must be 21 to use alcohol, that one must be 18 to smoke (I think that is the age) legally yet pappa can legally put a 22 in the hands of a 5 yr old kid. These examples are analogies and so we can be clear, an analogy isn't exactly the same but rather a similarity. Despite what some want to believe, a gun is a dangerous instrument, just like a car in the hands of a 14 year old, or alcohol in the hands of a 17 year old or smokes on a 12 year old.
4) I believe if one elects to own a gun, then they bear responsibility when that gun does damage regardless of the circumstances. As an analogy, (an analogy isn't exactly the same but rather a similarity) I'd offer ownership of an aggressive dog. If I elect to own a pit bull and that dog gets out of my yard and maims or kills somebody, I'm going to be held responsible even if I didn't intentionally "sick" the dog on that person. I believe gun owners should bear the same standard. They have elected to own something "dangerous" and therefore are responsible for the damage that comes from its use, even when that use isn't of their doing.
5) Finally, I don't really see much benefit by limiting what is owned. A pistol will kill somebody just as dead as an assault rifle. A clip that holds 20 will kill you just as dead as a clip that holds 40. The problem isn't the size of the magazine but rather the individual that holds the gun. I do believe that if one elects to own an assault rifle they should be able to however IMO "special permits" and oversight should be enforce. IE required storage etc.... Again, as an analogy (similarity, not exact comparison), I'm required to store certain drugs in a very specific manner with records to account for that and allow federal or state inspectors to examine those at any time during business hours. Its not for all drugs, just "controlled" drugs. I certainly would not have an issue with a private individual being able to own assault, automatics, etc in a similar manner.

Most of my gun concerns are not towards this type of tragedy but rather the accidental shootings that occur but there is an attempt to look at some aspect logically.

Several posts have discussed others desire to ban weapons but I've not run across to many of those folks in real life. Are there some ideologues that would want to do that? Sure but I think that is the vast minority. Not every person who sees problems with how our gun laws are today is for a "gun ban". Likewise, I try not see or imply every gun advocate as some type of Root'em, shoot'em vigilante. Most folks are reasonable.

Others have brought in other methods in which folks have committed mass murder to somehow justify not looking at gun regulation in support of their argument. When box cutters or fertilizer are used time and time again to commit mass murder then likely laws will be enacted to monitor its use. Its happened in a reasonable manner in the past where harmful material were monitored. Best analogy I can come up with (see post above for definition of analogy) would be the sale of ephedrine. Its not an all or none proposition for most.

Doc, I used to be in the AG retail business back before idiots were using ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel to blow up occupied buildings. I was in a retail ag store a few months ago and they were advertising ammonium nitrate for sale in 50 lb bags. I asked the lady at the counter if I could buy some and she said you sure can. I asked how much I could buy and she said all you want. I asked if there was any waiting period and she just gave me a funny look. I asked if I had to fill out any forms and she said I just had to sign a form indicating I was going to use it to fertilize my farm or yard and that I was not a convicted felon.

That is all there was to it. The authorities could trace the purchase I made to make a legal case AFTER I blew up the building I was mad at, but there really was no preventative to me doing as I wished, if blowing up buildings was what I wanted to do.

Wow, just got a bit of bad news. One of my clients dropped off their two dogs this AM for an unscheduled boarding. Seems their niece was one of the victims of the shooting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

Wow, just got a bit of bad news. One of my clients dropped off their two dogs this AM for an unscheduled boarding. Seems their niece was one of the victims of the shooting.

---

Awful. Brings it real to you, for sure. These are real people, real kids. Affects everyone at some level, others even more.

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

Like suggesting somebody could or would put forth the idea of shooting mentally retarded folks. That's always a good way to foster intelligent discussion. Present the absurd then try suggest that is what somebody else could or would claim.

I didn't pipe earlier because I thought in extremely poor taste to do so earlier, plus I wanted to avoid knee jerk type of over-reaction.

First off there is no law that could ever be passed or approved that would prevent such a tragedy. Folks who are intent on killing will find a way. The only thing that would stop this type of thing would be a 100% ban across the nation of any fire arm and even that would not stop it. It might decrease it but when there is a will there is a way. And just for clarification, I'm not suggesting that is a good idea, a plausible idea or a reasonable idea so while some might like to suggest any person who supports gun regulation is also for banning them...think again.

Second, as for "biased" individuals, isn't that what we base our opinions on? I'll confess my biases. I have two kids who I would do anything to insure they are safe. As some might recall my son who at the time was 11 was shot by another 11 year old. Fortunately nothing severe but certainly enough that it helped to form those so called bias. As many recall, one of my son's lacrosse teammates accidentily blew his head off with his gun. Nothing like the funeral for a 13 year old kid to help form a bias. My daughter attends college that recently made national news due to a gunman being reported on campus. Again, another factor in my bias. Additionally I attended an inner city/urban high school (Central for those in the Louisville area) where while not an everyday occurrence, it was not uncommon to encounter "guns". In fact on "Sr cut day" one of my buddies had his class ring stolen at gunpoint on campus property. Since the last gun thread my home situation has changed. We now have a tenant who resides in our guest room who owns a gun (my daughters boyfriend who's family moved north so he moved in with us to attend school). He owns a pistol (no idea make or model) but it is registered and he is licensed. When Tommy moved in he was told to keep it in a safe since we have a 14 year old in the house. He has been "slow" to take care of that so for Xmas he is getting a gun safe. If I had a gun issue or wanted a gun ban, I would kick him out of my home. Additionally my daughter also has a concealed carry weapons permit although she does not own a gun. I have no problem with any 21 year old owning a gun.

What can actually be done to minimize such event? Above it was suggested that we eliminate "gun free zones". Yeah because the idea that people in elementary, middle and high schools need to be armed is a good one :533: Personally I agree with a zero tolerance policy (note: my son was expelled 2 years ago for having a knife at school. School didn't hear a peep from me about how he should not be punished even though it was just a pocket knife. Knife, gun, etc... any weapon should not be allowed on a school campus, period.). To me the best solution would be an armed LEO in every school, not some security guy who is a wanna be police man but a real honest to goodness trained law enforcement officer assigned to the school whenever the doors are opened. At my kids elementary school they had an officer there most days but I'm talking 100% of the time. Consider that number of people confined into the area, is there a better use of resources? Imagine if an armed police officer had been in the school at that time, would it have made a difference? I believe so.

Others have suggested enforcing the laws on the books. No law on the books prevents a loon from entering a school (or theater or mall) and taking target practice. This is one of the more popular deflections by gun advocates. The other is getting rid of gun laws since with law "only criminals have guns". Huge straw man since that argument could be used for any crime. The laws allow for punishment when the law is violated. That is one of the purposes of laws.

Back on page 1, it was asked for suggestions. Some of these I have presented in the past but will do again:

1) See above...armed law enforcement officer in every school any time the doors are unlocked.
2) Personally I believe any individual convicted of any crime that involves a weapon be forever prohibited from owning a weapon. Would that stop all of these type of incidents? Nope but IMO gun ownership should be for responsible people and it might prevent some.
3) Additionally I believe gun ownership and usage should be confined only to people of responsible age. We have determined that one must be 16 to drive an automobile, that one must be 21 to use alcohol, that one must be 18 to smoke (I think that is the age) legally yet pappa can legally put a 22 in the hands of a 5 yr old kid. These examples are analogies and so we can be clear, an analogy isn't exactly the same but rather a similarity. Despite what some want to believe, a gun is a dangerous instrument, just like a car in the hands of a 14 year old, or alcohol in the hands of a 17 year old or smokes on a 12 year old.
4) I believe if one elects to own a gun, then they bear responsibility when that gun does damage regardless of the circumstances. As an analogy, (an analogy isn't exactly the same but rather a similarity) I'd offer ownership of an aggressive dog. If I elect to own a pit bull and that dog gets out of my yard and maims or kills somebody, I'm going to be held responsible even if I didn't intentionally "sick" the dog on that person. I believe gun owners should bear the same standard. They have elected to own something "dangerous" and therefore are responsible for the damage that comes from its use, even when that use isn't of their doing.
5) Finally, I don't really see much benefit by limiting what is owned. A pistol will kill somebody just as dead as an assault rifle. A clip that holds 20 will kill you just as dead as a clip that holds 40. The problem isn't the size of the magazine but rather the individual that holds the gun. I do believe that if one elects to own an assault rifle they should be able to however IMO "special permits" and oversight should be enforce. IE required storage etc.... Again, as an analogy (similarity, not exact comparison), I'm required to store certain drugs in a very specific manner with records to account for that and allow federal or state inspectors to examine those at any time during business hours. Its not for all drugs, just "controlled" drugs. I certainly would not have an issue with a private individual being able to own assault, automatics, etc in a similar manner.

Most of my gun concerns are not towards this type of tragedy but rather the accidental shootings that occur but there is an attempt to look at some aspect logically.

---

Long, but very good read.

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

Wow, just got a bit of bad news. One of my clients dropped off their two dogs this AM for an unscheduled boarding. Seems their niece was one of the victims of the shooting.

---

Wow Doc.


What can actually be done to minimize such event? Above it was suggested that we eliminate "gun free zones". Yeah because the idea that people in elementary, middle and high schools need to be armed is a good one

I just think they're useless at best and a signal to wackos where to strike at the worst. I don't think getting rid of them solves this problem, I just think it's dumb to have them.

I agree 100% that schools are a much more gray case. I think they should be gone for malls and movie theaters and "normal" places, but schools is a toughie b/c you have a lot of kids and more of a chance of a gun getting in the hands of a kid.

I don't have a good answer for schools re the "gun free zone" thing. Agree more than I could express with the idea of an armed security officer in every school, maybe 1 per X number of kids.

The police responded immediately and professionally and did everything right from what I've seen, but as the adage goes when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

That's one other thing people have taken away from this. My next concealed carry class may have to turn people away for the next one. People aren't stupid, they know a) no law will prevent this, and b) the police can't be everywhere at once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof

Timothy McVeigh killed 19 kids with fertilzer and racing fuel, along with 149 others. Evil people will find the means to do what it is they are going to do. It's the risk of living in a free society.

Bad cases make for bad law. This shooting, and the prior few are on the way to creating bad law, and eroded rights for all Americans.

---

there's a basic aspect of these tragedies, all of them from natural disasters to shootings to the girl that fell down the well: they grab all the attention legislatively and otherwise while even bigger tragedies go unreported and unaddressed.

I use Chicago as an example b/c they have by far the most draconian gun laws in the country. Before SCOTUS it was illegal to have a handgun in the city, period. There is no concealed carry whatsoever. Yet they are the gun violence capital of the country. They've disarmed their citizens, leaving them to the criminals.

Think about this: as of June this year, Chicago with the toughest gun laws in the nation had more deaths by gun than troops killed in Afghanistan.

This weekend alone 2 were killed, 16 wounded in Chicago. They had a weekend this summer with 8 dead and 46 wounded. These aren't outliers, it's just a normal weekend in the city that has effectively banned guns. Those are statistics out of a US city, not Iraq or Afghanistan. 46 wounded in 48 hours? I don't know if we had that bad a weekend in either of those places.

One person wounded every hour in Chicago that weekend. One every 3 hours this past weekend.

Same thing with the girl down the well. How many kids were abducted, killed, horribly abused during that same time span but the nation locks in on a single story. I guess I just don't get that in the big picture. The horror of this incident will stick with people, the 700+ murdered in Chicago this year will be white noise that doesn't register.

I don't mean to be cold, I just want us to make sound decisions. The goal isn't to prevent this from ever happening again, it's to prevent as many children from being innocently murdered everywhere in this country. Those two may be separate, but they may not be at all. How many kids will be killed b/c their parents couldn't protect them?

Doc -- glad you posted on this thread. We may disagree on some things but I have great respect for your views and the thinking behind them.

I tried to be logical but not wordy. Definitely failed on one, some might say both!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

I tried to be logical but not wordy. Definitely failed on one, some might say both!

---

You did good on both. I am the definition of "wordy". Starting to be like the Trek species the Sheliak.

One day I hope to be half as eloquent as any of you on this board. Excellent points (for the most part - not including our banned friend).

This still has me upset, I think more so than any such incident, particularly because of the way innocent young children were targeted and methodically killed. Short of episodes of children being targeted during genocide such as the Holocaust I can't think of something so purely horrifying. (If I remember correctly, I don't think McVeigh blew up the Murragh building with the intention of killing kids; and Klebold and Harris were targeting peers with whom they had some perceived grudge. This was an "adult" shooting his way into a school with apparent intent to murder 6 year olds.)

This is first time in a week I've felt like discussing guns. Just a few comments for now. First regarding the media. A few definitions. An arsenal is more then 1 gun (OK, definitely more then 2 or 3). Heavily armed means anyone with more than 1 weapon on their person. i.e. someone with a .22 pistol and a pocket knife is "heavily armed." High power means anything larger than .22 LR and/or anything with more than a 2 round capacity.

These noted, semi-automatic military weapon is not a complete misnomer. 1. most modern infantry rifles are selective fire, capable of switching between a combination of semi-automatic, 2-3 shot burst, and full automatic modes. 2. many modern sniper systems are semi-automatic. I've heard the term "assault weapon" used by knowledgeable military personnel as opposed to the more traditional "assault rifle" so it's definitely made it's way into military parlance.

Part that bothers me the most the mother knew he son was nuts yet she elected to keep guns in the house, where he could have access to them. To me that's like keeping dynamite at the Zippo factory! Were I a gun advocate, I'd be pissed. What she did was irresponsible and exactly the type of decision that paints responsible gun owners as bad people. Personally I hold her somewhat responsible for this as well. He son didn't know better, she should have

I should note the above is based on media reports. If it turns out inaccurate fine. I don't normally take media reports without a suspecious eye, and do here as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kritikalcat

These noted, semi-automatic military weapon is not a complete misnomer. 1. most modern infantry rifles are selective fire, capable of switching between a combination of semi-automatic, 2-3 shot burst, and full automatic modes. 2. many modern sniper systems are semi-automatic. I've heard the term "assault weapon" used by knowledgeable military personnel as opposed to the more traditional "assault rifle" so it's definitely made it's way into military parlance.

---

Ask me, this is one of the classic deflection techniques used on both sides. Some feel you need to know the difference between semi-auto, auto, assault to have an intelligent conversation or hold a valid opinion on gun regulation. Nothing could be farther from the truth but it makes some feel better if they can show how uninformed the other side is on a topic. By showing the other side as lacking the knowledge, they somehow feel that diminishes the value of their opinion. I mean its like how can you discuss something like gun control if you can't pick out the assault rifle? Really? That is the standard? Likewise, the gun regulations folks what to use a blanket terms like assault rifle because its a scary term. Oh, ASSAULT :533: IMO an assault weapons ban did little because its a term of convenience. To me, both sides use this assault rifle argument to diminish the real conversation. Was what Adam Lanza used an automatic, a semi-automatic, an assault weapon, a sniper rifle?? I don't know nor do I care. DOES IT MATTER??? What I do know is that he was a psychopath who had access to a gun and that gun was used to kill innocent children. To me the real conversation should be how to keep weapons (IE guns of any type) out of the hands of the irresponsible. I mean since "guns don't kill people, people kill people" why the focus on the type of gun? Why the need to show that those who can't classify a gun as a certain type are not informed and thus their opinion is less valid? I understand the anti-gun regulation crowd as using that point because its one that gun regulation advocates use however its not what should be the focus of the discussion.

And to reiterate, I think both side use this false argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

By showing the other side as lacking the knowledge, they somehow feel that diminishes the value of their opinion. I mean its like how can you discuss something like gun control if you can't pick out the assault rifle? Really? That is the standard? Likewise, the gun regulations folks what to use a blanket terms like assault rifle because its a scary term. Oh, ASSAULT :533: IMO an assault weapons ban did little because its a term of convenience. To me, both sides use this assault rifle argument to diminish the real conversation. Was what Adam Lanza used an automatic, a semi-automatic, an assault weapon, a sniper rifle?? I don't know nor do I care. DOES IT MATTER??? What I do know is that he was a psychopath who had access to a gun and that gun was used to kill innocent children. To me the real conversation should be how to keep weapons (IE guns of any type) out of the hands of the irresponsible. I mean since "guns don't kill people, people kill people" why the focus on the type of gun? Why the need to show that those who can't classify a gun as a certain type are not informed and thus their opinion is less valid? I understand the anti-gun regulation crowd as using that point because its one that gun regulation advocates use however its not what should be the focus of the discussion.

And to reiterate, I think both side use this false argument.

---

Doc those of us pointing out the details of the guns are doing so b/c we agree with you -- it's not the type of gun that matters but access to it and focusing on preventing ANY gun or bomb or car or anything from being so used.

We're forced into that not b/c a) we want people to feel ill informed or b) we even care to try to explain it (I sure don't, it's tedious and loses persuasive value). We do it b/c the calls are to BAN certain types of gun, calls from people who largely wouldn't know one from the other or which end to point where.

so when they call for a ban on "assault weapons" yes we have to discuss what that means and doesn't mean and what they are so we can try to explain how such a ban won't work and is thus not a good solution. I don't know how else to show such a law to be useless at preventing the next such tragedy if I can't get someone to see that what they are calling for is a ban on a specific type of gun when that type of gun isn't the problem. I have to define what type we're talking about and hopefully get them to see how it is not somehow the source of the problem.

In fact such guns account for less than one half of one percent of the gun deaths in this country. We want to go through this political hell and deny millions of their choice of what to use to defend themselves b/c of such a miniscule risk to society in general, a law that is absolutely useless in protecting school children?

to get people to see that I must define the guns. That's not my choice, that's just responding to this particular policy proposal.

Like the NRA and many others I'd far rather focus at the level you are focused, which is simply preventing this from happening again without focusing on the nasty looking rifle. That focus is not only on guns but on security and culture.

FWIW I agree 100% plus more about how she kept these weapons. One law I would support is that such things be locked up and not in a glass case, or that they be locked up under certain conditions like having a child in your home so messed up you were trying to have him institutionalized.

Absolutely she's in part responsible. She gave access to guns, any guns, to a person she and others knew was unstable and bordline in need of being institutionalized. Damn right that makes her responsible. As you said, she's every gun owner's nightmare, someone with guns and no idea how to handle them responsibly.

Doc, just thought of a good analogy.

Say I was calling for a ban on diesel engines b/c they're bad for the environment and more damaging than gas engines. All engines are bad but diesel is the worst, we have to stop them more than any others.

I base this on the smelly buses in town and the fumes from the big trucks I see.

To have that discussion wouldn't we have to discuss the differences between the two engine types, details like CO2 but also CO and other emissions as there are several factors to "polluting" from both engines? Break down whether the production of diesel fuel is maybe more efficient so it offsets the engine burning the fuel?

We couldn't just say "engines are bad so let's ban diesel and see how it goes", we'd have to discuss whether diesel is in fact worse and in what ways and how much and what impact that would have on the economy and what to do with all the diesel engines in use.

LIkewise calling for a ban on a specific type of gun necessarily means discussing what type we're talking about, if it is in fact more dangerous, what impact such a law would have given the number of them out there, etc.

It's not to obfuscate the issue, it's to clarify it and more bluntly to clarify that "ban assault weapons" is about as simplistic as "ban diesel engines b/c they smell bad". Feinstien defines as dangerous pistol grips and barrel shrouds, things that have nothing to do with the rate of fire of the gun and is about intellectually on par with "when I get behind the bus it smells bad, we need to make them all use gas engines".

Not our fault some are calling for a policy that doesn't make sense once you know the facts of the situation and we thus have to try to explain those facts,whether it be guns or diesel engines.

Adam Lanza would likely have gotten off one shot with a black powder muzzle loader, maybe two before he was subdued. It is a deadly weapon for sure but will never be confused with any description of an assault weapon. When the government is discussing gun regulations/laws I do think it is important to understand the definitions of what they are talking about.