It's just so very sad

[junglehusky]

Here's what I've read:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/with-a-3-d-printer-building-a-gun-at-home/

Its from October, so it may be outdated. According to this, they've printed parts of assault weapons and numerous types of hand guns, but never whole. It does postulate that printers could that. Color me skeptical of them being able a fully functioning gun with no need of assembly.

But, frankly, I've been wrong many times before.

I don't know about guns, but I know you can print machines with moving internal parts (at least on the simple side) such as an adjustable wrench without need for further assembly. The "ink" for a 3D printer comes as a powder so that when the machine is printed, you blow away the un-crosslinked ink. Not sure how complex of a mechanism you can get.

 

[NOTaDIME]

There has to be stricter controls. Few are asking or expecting across the board bans.

Also, I love when pro gun people use the " drugs are illegal, and people still can get them" argument as they unwittingly walking into a good argument for making guns illegal.

If I offered 30 people on this board 10,000 dollars to prove they could purchase a gun pretty much all of you would be able to do so. Maybe a few would fail background check, but at least 25 of you would be successful.

If I made a similar offer of 10000 dollars to prove you could purchase a bag of heroin I promise that fewer than 5 of you would come back with heroin. Some of you will be arrested in the process, some will be outright robbed by a dealer, some will purchase what is advertised as a heroin, but isn't, and some of you will just be plain beaten down.

This is about harm reduction, and making it tougher for people to access these weapons. Which odds do you like better?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree that there has to be stricter laws and no where in my reply did I mention odds. However if you want to get into that that is okay. Heroin is a deadly drug so you have to have the same variable for guns. See how many people can get their hands on an AK or a fully automatic shotgun (forgot the name). You comparing acquiring a run of the mill gun is like acquiring weed which everyone has already.
The problem isn't with people getting guns as much as it is the people that already have guns that let them get into wrong hands.

 

[upstater]

The first thing I thought of when Japan was brought up was the suicide rate. To a large degree, this is about guns. There is just as much, if not more, ostracization of the different everywhere in the world. I have seen good methods for treating it in the USA in certain progressive schools, but that approach is way too mamby-pamby for most Americans. In such schools, it amazes you to see the amount of respect children have for one another. Maybe they are indoctrinated into it, but it works. And maybe people are creeped out by Stepford children, but again it works. I'll note that there is one such school on the other side of Danbury, a Waldorf school.

The whole thing shares similarities to 9/11 and the Indian Ocean tsunami for me in that not only did I have nightmares about this last night, but it just gets worse and worse, and I expect I'll be even more horrified because the police now say there is a motive. I mean, come on!! Motive? Mental illness I can understand. But...

 

[TerryA88]

Timmy's law changed healthcare in terms of determining what health care providers could/couldn't deny as it related to psychiatric care.

Every firearm in the Unites States is supposed to be registered, and not in possession of felons. Why not have it so that any household in America where ANYONE has any mental/social/ disorder CAN'T own a handgun ? It's not at all discriminatory, just common sense.

Also , if a restraining order has been filed against you, you CAN'T get a handgun for 90 days.

The NRA - aka gun folks, is the largest lobby in politics. Schools used to have safety officers, but local budgets can no longer afford them. You'll generally only see police officers in High Schools , and some Junior High's depending on the area. Pay gym teachers an extra $5k annually if the obtain and maintain a concealed carry permit.

Place a dressed down National guardsman , or reservist at the front door with a concealed firearm and it will reduce tragedy's like this. Unfortunately..it won't stop them.

 

[Dogbreath2U]

Timmy's law changed healthcare in terms of determining what health care providers could/couldn't deny as it related to psychiatric care.

Every firearm in the Unites States is supposed to be registered, and not in possession of felons. Why not have it so that any household in America where ANYONE has any mental/social/ disorder CAN'T own a handgun ? It's not at all discriminatory, just common sense.

Also , if a restraining order has been filed against you, you CAN'T get a handgun for 90 days.

The NRA - aka gun folks, is the largest lobby in politics. Schools used to have safety officers, but local budgets can no longer afford them. You'll generally only see police officers in High Schools , and some Junior High's depending on the area. Pay gym teachers an extra $5k annually if the obtain and maintain a concealed carry permit.

Place a dressed down National guardsman , or reservist at the front door with a concealed firearm and it will reduce tragedy's like this. Unfortunately..it won't stop them.

There is no registry in regard to people diagnosed with any type of mental disorder. Such a registry would likely have the impact of making people even more reluctant to seek help. The privacy of medical records is a pretty big deal and such a registry would violate that privacy.

 

[jleves]

We have technology - why don't we use it. If you can make a smart phone, you can make a smart gun. If you have a handgun for home protection, it's disabled if it leaves your property. If you like to hunt, you submit your hunting plan, ie. area you plan to hunt in that doesn't include schools or malls or places of worship, and your hunting rifle only works in those places and only for the times you will be there. Both of those things can be easily done with GPS. Finally, have the grips recognize hand prints. If your hand doesn't match the prints registered to use the gun, you have a chunk of metal you can throw at people.

Would this cost more? Yup. So what. You want a gun, you pay the extra expense to enable those technologies.

I'm sure someone will say people will crack those protections and maybe in a few instances, they would. But it is about 99% likely it would have stopped this tragedy and most all others like it for the last 20 years. Some people might get some 'cracked' guns, but most of the time, it would prevent such events from happening.

You get your gun to protect your property and you get your gun to go hunting with. If you're dumb enough to have one in the house, you even get to shoot your spouse when you're pissed. You even get the opportunity to kill yourself of someone in your house accidentally (happens over 500 times a year). But it protects the rest of us from anyone taking those weapons into public and using them.

The technology could easily be developed - why aren't we?

 

[RS9999X]

You missed one assumption: the constitutional right to bear arms without government interference so as to create an informal army or militia when necessary as during the Revolutionary and Civil War and in border skirmishes today. The SCOTUS is moving away from this reading and simply citing an individual right to bear licensed arms for self-defense and allowing some prohibitions like assault weapons and by extension WMDs and military versus civilian weaponry

Crimes of passion face little barrier with many of the current limits . Suicide, Even pre-meditated crimes where several hand guns and clips are used,

80% of the crimes are illegal guns often in the hands of felons acquired through private sale and gun shows or from family members as in the case of Newtown.

I don't see the current SCOTUS allowing self-defense to apply only to the home. Much of this will be irrelevant as technology creates viruses and bio weapons of incredible effectiveness and the tech leaks to the general public. Incident like 911 and bomb usage will be back in vogue. If US weaponry gets too hi tech and expensive we'll see guns coming over the border that are low tech.

I don't much care about gun control laws. I have little reason to believe they will be effective. The NRA's position is we need aggressive enforcement of existing laws and there is something to be said for that. Gun Sweeps are hampered by constitutional challenges on minority profiling issues, etc.

 

[jleves]

You missed one assumption: the constitutional right to bear arms without government interference so as to create an informal army or militia when necessary as during the Revolutionary and Civil War and in border skirmishes today. The SCOTUS is moving away from this reading and simply citing an individual right to bear licensed arms for self-defense and allowing some prohibitions like assault weapons and by extension WMDs and military versus civilian weaponry

Crimes of passion face little barrier with many of the current limits . Suicide, Even pre-meditated crimes where several hand guns and clips are used,

80% of the crimes are illegal guns often in the hands of felons acquired through private sale and gun shows or from family members as in the case of Newtown.

I don't see the current SCOTUS allowing self-defense to apply only to the home. Much of this will be irrelevant as technology creates viruses and bio weapons of incredible effectiveness and the tech leaks to the general public. Incident like 911 and bomb usage will be back in vogue. If US weaponry gets too hi tech and expensive we'll see guns coming over the border that are low tech.

I don't much care about gun control laws. I have little reason to believe they will be effective. The NRA's position is we need aggressive enforcement of existing laws and there is something to be said for that. Gun Sweeps are hampered by constitutional challenges on minority profiling issues, etc.

Let me retort:

The constitutional right was written when a skilled gun man could get 3 or 4 shots off per minute, not 7 rounds per second. They had no idea what 200+ years of technology would produce. I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would not be in favor of people having the guns that are available now in the much denser and complicated society we have now.

Anyone who thinks a bunch of people with guns today could overthrow the US Government with the military might it has is delusional. I don't care how many people rise up with assault rifles, they aren't going to beat tanks and aircraft. That is another idea the flew 200+ years ago that makes no sense today.

While I agree (and said so in my original post) that there would be 'cracked' guns and as you say black market guns, in a case like which we are responding to, technology would have prevented the tragedy. The Mom wouldn't (probably) be buying illegal guns. If they had tech built into them, her son could maybe have killed her and that would be the extent. If he knew he couldn't leave and kill others, he probably wouldn't have bothered killing her.

If you can enable technology and stop one of these things happening, it's worth it (particularly as it's no cost to anyone who doesn't own guns). If you can stop most, it's a no brainer.

 

[Dogbreath2U]

I wonder how much these crimes are motivated, at least in part, by the attention they receive. Someone feeling insignificant can become "famous" in a few seconds.

 

[Dougsts]

I wonder how much these crimes are motivated, at least in part, by the attention they receive. Someone feeling insignificant can become "famous" in a few seconds.

An excerpt from an interesting article by Charles Cook:

"Contrarily, school shootings, such as the nauseating and heartbreaking spectacle we saw yesterday, are seemingly on the rise — as are other mass shootings, such as that which afflicted Aurora, Colo. earlier in the year. As Ezra Klein has observed, “of the 12 deadliest shootings in U.S. history, six have taken place since 2007.” This is a separate problem. What is causing this is not yet known and probably underinvestigated, but it is certainly not guns. The American republic stood for almost two hundred years before the first school shooting occurred. Something is awry, to be sure; to blame guns is a mistake."

It seems to certainly be something that has changed in our society

 

[Huskymaniac]

Good point. Not to distract people from their fear based knee jerk anti-gun crusade but has anyone heard any more information about the New Jersey connection to this incident? We now know his father is alive and lives in Stamford. We also know the brother was working and is not the other person taken into custody at the scene. So who was it that died in NJ and who was the second person taken into custody?

 

[tzznandrew]

An excerpt from an interesting article by Charles Cook:

"Contrarily, school shootings, such as the nauseating and heartbreaking spectacle we saw yesterday, are seemingly on the rise — as are other mass shootings, such as that which afflicted Aurora, Colo. earlier in the year. As Ezra Klein has observed, “of the 12 deadliest shootings in U.S. history, six have taken place since 2007.” This is a separate problem. What is causing this is not yet known and probably underinvestigated, but it is certainly not guns. The American republic stood for almost two hundred years before the first school shooting occurred. Something is awry, to be sure; to blame guns is a mistake."

It seems to certainly be something that has changed in our society

While I agree that there is something else going on besides guns, suggesting it has nothing to do with guns is also a problem. There weren't mass shootings in the Roman days, or in the Renaissance. Why? Part of it was that there weren't guns capable of doing this available to anyone, let alone the public. We didn't have mass shootings over the first 200 years or so because people couldn't get guns powerful enough to do this.

 

[mauconnfan]

I hate guns but know the necessity to many and will not get in to any of the politics and pretend I know.......I have a 34-32 demarini bat located in my house strategically just in case (2 actually) so if they have a gun I'm in trouble but at 53 why start now?

Anyway I get a single mom wanting to feel safe at home alone but 6 guns including an assault rifle? C'mon the world is ridiculous, how about the Glock in the drawer next to your bedstand and done?!?!?!

 

[Huskymaniac]

The atrocities that occured during the end of the Roman Empire and the dark ages were at least as ugly as this. They didn't need guns. Swords, a mace, rope and horses were sufficient to wipe out entire villages, including women and children. Humans are imperfect and humanity occasionally goes off the rails. Fix the people.

 

[upstater]

An excerpt from an interesting article by Charles Cook:

"Contrarily, school shootings, such as the nauseating and heartbreaking spectacle we saw yesterday, are seemingly on the rise — as are other mass shootings, such as that which afflicted Aurora, Colo. earlier in the year. As Ezra Klein has observed, “of the 12 deadliest shootings in U.S. history, six have taken place since 2007.” This is a separate problem. What is causing this is not yet known and probably underinvestigated, but it is certainly not guns. The American republic stood for almost two hundred years before the first school shooting occurred. Something is awry, to be sure; to blame guns is a mistake."

It seems to certainly be something that has changed in our society

I'd like to see more research on this. 2 weeks ago I was reading about the massacre of 73 kids in Calumet, Michigan in 1913. There was another one, a massacre of women and children, in Ludlow, Colorado about a decade later. Those weren't done by single crazed killers, however. But multiple men with a motive. Maybe that's the difference. But we've always had a lot of violence.

 

[tzznandrew]

The atrocities that occured during the end of the Roman Empire and the dark ages were at least as ugly as this. They didn't need guns. Swords, a mace, rope and horses were sufficient to wipe out entire villages, including women and children. Humans are imperfect and humanity occasionally goes off the rails. Fix the people.

Yes, committed by the armies, thugs, or roving bands of people. Therefore, either perpetrated by the state, or perpetrated because there was no state.

That's entirely different than one person killing 27 people. In the Classical or Medieval eras, one person didn't walk into a place and kill tons of people single-handedly.

 

[Dougsts]

While I agree that there is something else going on besides guns, suggesting it has nothing to do with guns is also a problem. There weren't mass shootings in the Roman days, or in the Renaissance. Why? Part of it was that there weren't guns capable of doing this available to anyone, let alone the public. We didn't have mass shootings over the first 200 years or so because people couldn't get guns powerful enough to do this.

Humans have been killing each other since we have started crawling on this earth. The point is, what ever weapon is available will be used if someone really wants to reek havoc. If this same guy had used his moms car to mow down a bunch of kids standing in line waiting to get on the bus, would it have been less tragic? I do believe our society has has soul searching to do on how to curtail this kind of thing. Is it the way we treat the mentally challenged, is it the violent video games these kids play, is it the violent rap music that is listened to, is it the breakdown of the basic family unit, is it a gun owner not securing his or her weapons properly, or a combination of many things? I also feel that taking the easy way out by banning guns will do next to nothing to solve the long term problem. The folks who think banning guns will bring about a safe society are the same folks who think throwing money at the inner city failing schools will magically do something to improve the education of these youths, when the problem has nothing to do with the cost per child being educated. But thinking or otherwise is just not politically correct even for discussion. Just one persons opinion.

 

[Charlie Brown]

It's enough - something has to change. I no longer care that a bunch of folks 250 years ago thought that they might have needed guns...I suspect they'd change their minds if they'd ever thought of what we'd start doing with those guns.

Well, this post won't get 33 or more likes, like the OP, to be sure. Reason, equanimity, circumspection - all lost in moments of emotion and panic, which is, of course, what the response to the massacre has been.

The OP posits that he "no longer cares" what a "bunch of folks 250 years ago" thought.

That's too bad. Because, unlike all of us with the leisure to eat Cheetos and type on message boards in the abundance of modern day America, in virtually absolute safety from attacks from other nations, with more freedom than most who have ever lived, those "folks" you refer to lived under the tyranny of a monarch and gave us the freedom we currently have.

The monarch they fought saw fit to implement laws after the fact, making criminals of "folks" who had behaved according to the law.
That monarch forced those "folks" to board soldiers in their homes.
That monarch taxed those "folks" at will, for whatever purpose deemed.
That monarch made it illegal to question his authority or speak out against him or assemble to protest him.
and
That monarch attempted to retain his dictatorship by making illegal the ownership of guns by his subjects - those "folks" to whom you refer.

Unlike us, those "folks," who lived under that tyranny, fought for their freedom and offered their lives. They knew what tyranny was, they fought it, they earned their freedom - and OUR freedom by extension, with their blood and courage.

Excuse me greatly if I believe that their perspective on the necessity of the personal right to defend oneself from aggression is far superior to your perspective on the matter. They fought for and created the greatest lasting bastion of liberty ever - as Jefferson said - they watered the tree of liberty with their blood. You? You post clever quips on a college basketball message board that other posters "like".

If the founding fathers were here today, the OP believes, they would not agree to the current right to bear arms because it's not what they would have wanted.

Excuse me. If the founding fathers were here today, they would look around aghast and wonder what the hell happened to the beautiful republic they left us. They would look at our rotting culture, breakdown of values and family, obesity, drug dependency, doping of children to cover for poor parenting, incarceration of victimless criminals, controlled election system, and rampant public debt and think, "wow. How did they let it get this bad?"

The founders were hardened men who lived through oppression and war, not suburban beer-bellies who lived through Jersey Shore. They would not only not entertain your visceral response to a tragic event, they would recognize that the real issue was the state of the country and the culture, which produced a monster who would kill children, and they would recognize that the evil that they fought to remove was returning through the erosion of personal liberty and the expansion of government control of the people.

They would, no doubt, recognize that the right to bear arms is more needed today than ever.

 

[Dogbreath2U]

I hate guns but know the necessity to many and will not get in to any of the politics and pretend I know.......I have a 34-32 demarini bat located in my house strategically just in case (2 actually) so if they have a gun I'm in trouble but at 53 why start now?

Anyway I get a single mom wanting to feel safe at home alone but 6 guns including an assault rifle? C'mon the world is ridiculous, how about the Glock in the drawer next to your bedstand and done?!?!?!

Having these guns in a house with a son who has serious behavioral or emotional problems was obviously a really, really bad idea. I am sure that there are many different problems that need addressing that can be brought to light by this tragedy, but his mother made a horrible mistake that cost her her life and the life of many others. I'm sure that many parents with teenage or young adult children with some form of autism or mental illness would never imagine this kind of act to be possible by their child, her decision to have guns in the home appears to have been extremely irresponsible. This assumes that the shooter showed indications of anger problems/rage, poor control, and strange thinking in the past.

Having said that, I would strongly support steps to immediately ban and retrieve all guns such as the semi-automatic rifle used to kill so many in so short a time. I would like to see all guns removed from the public, but one step at a time.

 

[metsfan2323]

Having said that, I would strongly support steps to immediately ban and retrieve all guns such as the semi-automatic rifle used to kill so many in so short a time.

It's time to start calling these weapons what they are: Weapons of mass destruction.

Why are WMD's legal in this country?

 

[zls44]

They would, no doubt, recognize that the right to bear arms is more needed today than ever.

This is stupid, this is scary and this is wrong.

You speak if monarchs and tyranny as if those are things that we interact with on an ongoing basis. We don't. The only remaining monarch on Earth of any significance was one of the first people to speak out about the horrors of what happened here, a friend to this country.

We don't need the right to bear arms in our communities. England learned this. Australia learned this. Japan learned this. They all learned this from seeing the horrors of gun violence destroy communities forever.

When is the blood enough? How many innocents need to die before you are satisfied?

If you think Jersey Shore is a sign of the end times, I get it. So why does that mean you need to own an M16? What is that doing to enhance your life? How is that helping your safety.

It isn't. It never has, and it never will.

Enough with the madness. It's Sunday. Go to church and hug somebody. Lay down your arms in peace.

 

[ctchamps]

Humans have been killing each other since we have started crawling on this earth. The point is, what ever weapon is available will be used if someone really wants to reek havoc. If this same guy had used his moms car to mow down a bunch of kids standing in line waiting to get on the bus, would it have been less tragic? I do believe our society has has soul searching to do on how to curtail this kind of thing. Is it the way we treat the mentally challenged, is it the violent video games these kids play, is it the violent rap music that is listened to, is it the breakdown of the basic family unit, is it a gun owner not securing his or her weapons properly, or a combination of many things? I also feel that taking the easy way out by banning guns will do next to nothing to solve the long term problem. The folks who think banning guns will bring about a safe society are the same folks who think throwing money at the inner city failing schools will magically do something to improve the education of these youths, when the problem has nothing to do with the cost per child being educated. But thinking or otherwise is just not politically correct even for discussion. Just one persons opinion.

It is a complex problem. People who want gun control are correct about one thing. If someone snaps (that is loses all resolve for self control) guns are very convenient and the technology of some types of guns do what they were meant to do, inflict large numbers of casualties in a short span of time. If they weren't available it would be a lot less convenient for the person who snaps to cause mass casualties.

My wish list would be simple: figure out a way to eliminate all greed, distrust, hatred, bigotry, paranoiac fear, inequity, and mental instability. And replace all this with love, compassion, responsibility, acceptance, caring, and resolve. Most rational people want this and that means most of the people in the world. The problem is we can't agree what specific parameters constitute these various attributes, nor can we determine the best pathway to evolve in this fashion. And the reason for this is that every solution is filled with potential problems equal to or greater than the problem. Furthermore the moment some grandiose idea is decided upon something or someone develops an idea to corrupt it.

I've literally tortured myself for decades trying to resolve this. I've thought of ideas like jleves, and the moment I come up with a solution like a chip in guns that monitor them I know someone will develop technology to subvert this idea. And that subversion will infiltrate itself rapidly in society starting off with the criminal element.

I think humanity is primarily good. As a whole we've come a long way. There have been studies that show the % of deaths due to violence has gone considerably down over the centuries. And that is a result of many changes that have taken place which have removed the need for our species to resort to force to survive. But the inherent attributes that give us the gift for survival, also can turn us into beings of destruction under the right circumstances and that is the fear all of us have should have. Can circumstances arise that revert us to conditions that existed centuries ago?

I've argued since the 80's that our technology was exceeding the rate of our dealing with human flaws. And of course I was late to the discussion. It has always been a concern throughout the ages, although not necessarily amongst the vast majority of people involved in the discussions. I've resolved myself that we have to be realistic, that implementation of any idea, no matter how noble and wonderful it appears, has limitations. But that doesn't mean we don't try things. It means that we have to monitor our ideas. The moment we see them going askew we fix the new problem or abandon the idea all together. But everyone gets together to ensure it has the best chance for success.

The contribution "The Boneyard" made to honor JC is a great example of how difficult even seemingly simple, very noble, deeds are to implement. There were a lot of great ideas being bandied about but it ultimately took five or six individuals to take the ideas, come up with one idea and implement it for JC's cardiac charity. It went relatively fast because there was no passionate divide amongst the people who wanted to do something. That is there were no voices that argued against contributions. There are certainly people who don't believe JC deserves that honor, but they were not being pressed upon to contribute and the only thing they had to deal with was the distaste of the idea.

Realistically, in many cases, this doesn't occur. First we fight amongst each other to see whose idea wins. An idea gets discussed, implemented, and most people go on with life without oversight of the idea. The losers leave angry hoping for failure, with some actively trying to destroy the idea. The winners believe the losers are acting immaturely and just need time to see their error. They are so sure of themselves, they forget entropy is inherent in the universe . And humans have the capacity to resist entropy or contribute to entropy.

 

[husky91]

Maybe it's an unfair characterization, but with what I've read so far I almost consider Nancy Lanza (mother) an accomplice and not a victim. I mean, the guns, taking her sick child to the range, giving him access to these illegally, etc.

Sure she had no idea, wasn't premeditated but reading about her makes me pissed and angry, not sad.

 

[Huskymaniac]

This is stupid, this is scary and this is wrong.

You saying it doesn't make it so. The first sign of a profound lack of wisdom is the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you must be "wrong". That is your ego talking and being scared is your mind fearing that it could be wrong.

Have you considered that a completely abusive government doesn't exist in our country because we have the ability to organize a large group of armed citizens to rise up against the government? No, the people can't fight tanks and fighter jets but they can do enough to scare the crap out of those in charge.

 

[metsfan2323]

Have you considered that a completely abusive government doesn't exist in our country because we have the ability to organize a large group of armed citizens to rise up against the government? No, the people can't fight tanks and fighter jets but they can do enough to scare the crap out of those in charge.

You should shorten your screen name to just "Maniac", it's more fitting....or maybe "Coo Coo Bird"