It's just so very sad

[8893]

Come on Fishy. You're one of the brightest posters here, and don't allow emotion to lead you to conclude that UConn is headed to the B1G. This was the act of a mentally disturbed, depraved and evil person. As such it is one of the least preventable types of tragedies.

Far more children die in cars every year than by firearms (it isn't close). Pools are also more dangerous. Many kids die each year on bicycles or from falls. Poisoning is a more common cause of accidental death in kids 5-9 (firearms related ranks 14th on the list).

I'm open to real suggestions that are feasible and likely to be effective. For example, Lanza tried to buy a gun and failed. So the physchological profile on him made it into the database and he was denied. That's good. But, were authorities notified that he tried to buy a gun? If not, why not? If yes, did they question him? That's a real change that actually could have prevented this and which I doubt would be objectionable.

No one is saying it is preventable. What many recognize is that it could be less tragic, with fewer lives lost, if weapons like the semi-automatic rifle and 30-round magazines he used were not as readily available to the public. We now know that he had hundreds more rounds with him--enough to wipe out the entire school--and that he apparently killed himself as he heard the sirens approaching. Simple logic says that reducing the ability to fire as many shots as quickly would have led to fewer lives lost before someone could get to him.

I do not believe your information about his attempted gun purchase earlier in the week is accurate. First, it has not been confirmed by any authorities as far as I know. Second, the information that was reported was that he did not want to undergo the background check or wait for the mandatory waiting period we have here in CT. He did not fail due to any psychological profile, so there was nothing to notify anyone about, and nothing to question him about.

The weapon he used is a military weapon designed for mass killing. It is not designed for self-defense against intruders or the like, and it is not designed for hunting. It is designed for killing as many people as quickly as possible.

The hypocrisy of those who claim to recognize the sanctity of life while simultaneously arguing for greater availability of weapons designed to take as many lives as possible is astounding. Thankfully, it is starting to be outed with such force that there is finally a chance that we will be smart enough as a country not to tolerate it any more.

 

[Excalibur]

I just get sick of people blaming video games and guns. I've played many a violent game, and live in a house with many guns, and have never physically harmed anyone. But as mentioned, there is no need for civilians to possess guns that are intended to kill many people in a short amount of time. We will find out why he had access to these kind of guns.

Maybe, but what effect does that game have on someone who is not mentally stable?

I don't think that we can ignore any of the issues that can lead to incidents like this. Access to guns, media (including games), treatment of the mentally ill -- all need to be on the table and re-assessed.

 

[Excalibur]

I'm open to real suggestions that are feasible and likely to be effective. For example, Lanza tried to buy a gun and failed. So the physchological profile on him made it into the database and he was denied. That's good. But, were authorities notified that he tried to buy a gun? If not, why not? If yes, did they question him? That's a real change that actually could have prevented this and which I doubt would be objectionable.

All valid points. Of course, if, after failing to purchase a weapon, he didn't have the ability to acquire an arsenal by visiting his mom, that might have prevented this as well.

 

[ZenConn]

Yet no gun and nobody died in the china attack,

Do we really have to wait until someone dies for this to hit home and for us to do something?

I'm not going to get into this raging gun control debate nor am I a mental health expert, but something would need to be done with detecting and treating of people with mental health issues.

It could be a gun, knife, stones or even pointed sticks, the horror and agony of the people affected is something this world could do without.

 

[jibsey]

As I said before, the right to bear arms when the amendment was written was not for hand held guns that could spray out hundreds of bullets in a minute, and it was written by people and not on stone tablets. So I guess I'm saying the unthinkable to some, rewrite the second amendment. The world can change a bit in 230 years so update it from 1791 to 2012 to make sense with the world we live in.

 

[noeynox]

If the perp was 20, as reported, he couldn't legally buy in CT as you have to be 21, so there would be no psychological profile that he passed. Also that doesn't exist in CT, and CT is one of the toughest states to obtain a hand gun in as far as getting your permit. All of the background CT does is for criminal history.

Now, I've been told you could buy long guns in CT, without a permit. I have never tried since I have no practical use for ever needing one. I don't hunt, and I don't think having something that big would all that useful for home defense (I would prefer a small handgun with a laser so I can come up on target in an instant). Someone correct me I'f im wrong about long gun purchases in CT please.

 

[ctchamps]

Indeed we can attack things from any number of ways.

If we want to talk about identifying mental health problems, that works too. I would suggest that we hire more teachers for smaller classes, so that the teacher has time for more individual interaction. It's easier to slip through unnoticed in the back of a room with 40 kids in it than the one with 20. The sooner a problem is identified, the less deeply ingrained it gets in that kid's psyche.

Also more school psychologists to help diagnose problems or work with troubled kids. Is a 7 year old just simply lashing out or is there something worse behind it? A 10 year old? A teacher won't always know, but it would be good if they could have someone more experienced evaluate.

Greater access to health care is also key. Does no good to flag the problem, if you can't treat it. If that means meds, or extended counseling to a child or teen, we can't say "never mind" and hope for the best.

You know what else helps a lot of kids and teens? After school programs. Music. Art. Sports (competitive or recreational). Science projects. Drama clubs. Volunteering. Other chances to be social. Find peers with common interests.

If the problem is so bad as to require institutionalization, we need to make sure those facilities are available and can handle a possible increase in clientele.

You can see where I'm going with this. Budgets are going up with every suggestion. How much are we willing to pay for? If your taxes went up 2 percent, would you sign up on all of this? My guess is many would say no. And don't get me wrong, they are entitled to that opinion - even all this won't stop everyone from flying off the deep end, just like every gun control measure won't stop every massacre. So perhaps a lot of it is indeed wasteful spending. It's a worthwhile discussion to have at least.

People who point to European numbers of homicides being lower than the US would have to include analyzing these point in their medical systems as well as gun laws. Do those countries implement any or all these points? The cost is certainly important. Psychology majors are the bait fish in university programs. There degree is the least valued in this country, which implies to me that this country, as a whole does not value, mental health understanding or care.

But even if it did, where are we going to get the funding?

 

[Gurleyman]

People who point to European numbers of homicides being lower than the US would have to include analyzing these point in their medical systems as well as gun laws. Do those countries implement any or all these points? The cost is certainly important. Psychology majors are the bait fish in university programs. There degree is the least valued in this country, which implies to me that this country, as a whole does not value, mental health understanding or care.

But even if it did, where are we going to get the funding?

European countries do a lot of this and more, although it can vary a little from country to country. They pay higher taxes (so forgive the word 'free' in the following), but typically two years of paid maternity leave is given for the child's first two years, free day care (in some countries this also can include free in-home care) is provided until the student is of school age, class sizes are small, free health care is provided, and then free higher education and vocational training is provided during the later years. European countries typically offer around six weeks of vacation time as well, which gives more chances for family bonding.

And even with all this, a Norway whackadoodle went crazy and slaughtered 76 teenagers, a Scotland whackadoodle shot up a school in the 90's and killed 16 kids, etc. So the extra taxes and extra spending don't fix everything. Their philosophy and culture is different in Europe - they could certainly learn some lessons from us and we could probably learn some lessons from them.

 

[ctchamps]

European countries do a lot of this and more, although it can vary a little from country to country. They pay higher taxes (so forgive the word 'free' in the following), but typically two years of paid maternity leave is given for the child's first two years, free day care (in some countries this also can include free in-home care) is provided until the student is of school age, class sizes are small, free health care is provided, and then free higher education and vocational training is provided during the later years. European countries typically offer around six weeks of vacation time as well, which gives more chances for family bonding.

And even with all this, a Norway whackadoodle went crazy and slaughtered 76 teenagers, a Scotland whackadoodle shot up a school in the 90's and killed 16 kids, etc. So the extra taxes and extra spending don't fix everything. Their philosophy and culture is different in Europe - they could certainly learn some lessons from us and we could probably learn some lessons from them.

There is a price for everything. And some things you get more value for what you pay. Crud: I almost wrote bang for your buck!

Determining the value is threefold. You mentioned the first. No matter what we do, bad things will still happen. The second is we have limited resources including monies with lots of important needs that far exceed our resources. Third, we cannot see the future well enough to know how to prioritize our limited resources for the best possible future outcome. Without this, it is difficult to do a cost/value evaluation.

People criticized the one child law in China. They thought (rightfully so) it was inhumane. But they didn't factor in the numbers of people who were starving in that country or how many people were building inferior homes along river banks and became yearly statistics of several thousand to several hundreds of thousands of fatalities. So the law was implemented, a lot of programs were instituted and the number of yearly tragedies decreased significantly. I believe India just surpassed China as the worlds most populous nation as a result of the Chinese law being so effective. But the Chines never anticipated a major problem the one child rule would have. They always knew there would be a shortage of females to males. But they did not realize that there won't be enough young people to support their elderly. Because as they improved their economy and living standards, people in that country started living longer. That was not factored in when the law of one child was instituted, and that problem will have significant consequence for that country and perhaps the world.

The same could be said about SS in this country. It had a lot of merit when it was introduced. But people never took into account that longevity could significantly increase. I don't have answers for the issues being discussed in this thread. I just caution people that implementing new things always has unknowns, risks, and complications. When all the ideas suggesteed are put together, after eliminating the argumentative discussions, you still won't include all of the possibilities around this issue.

 

[minidarren]

If the perp was 20, as reported, he couldn't legally buy in CT as you have to be 21, so there would be no psychological profile that he passed. Also that doesn't exist in CT, and CT is one of the toughest states to obtain a hand gun in as far as getting your permit. All of the background CT does is for criminal history.

Now, I've been told you could buy long guns in CT, without a permit. I have never tried since I have no practical use for ever needing one. I don't hunt, and I don't think having something that big would all that useful for home defense (I would prefer a small handgun with a laser so I can come up on target in an instant). Someone correct me I'f im wrong about long gun purchases in CT please.

Long guns can be purchased without a permit. There is a waiting period for them though.

If you have a pistol permit you can buy one the same day.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Charlie Brown]

And I hate the fact that at this late date, I can't dismiss your worst case scenario for our current government either . . .

I gotta say - that reply was impressively balanced and not what I expected.

It is a worst case scenario. I wish, too, that I could write it off as closet-paranoid fantasy. Unfortunately, the trend is in the wrong direction, with greater concentration of power every year.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

I gotta say - that reply was impressively balanced and not what I expected.

It is a worst case scenario. I wish, too, that I could write it off as closet-paranoid fantasy. Unfortunately, the trend is in the wrong direction, with greater concentration of power every year.

Sorry, but no. I'm sure you're well intentioned but if you're really going to justify the necessity of private ownership of certain weapons by resort to the potential rise of a despot in 21st century America you get lumped in with the lunatic fringe, and rightfully so. It's no more persuasive than saying you need them in the event of an alien invasion.

Incidentally, the idea that there is a "greater concentration of power every year" in the federal government is flatly wrong, and in fact the opposite is true. The federal government has less of a hand in the day to day of the average citizen in 2012 than it has at any point in this country's history. The difference between today and even 30 years ago is stark. I wonder where some of you get your information sometimes.

 

[nomar]

I assume your last sentence is rhetorical, Ern.

 

[Charlie Brown]

The federal government has less of a hand in the day to day of the average citizen in 2012 than it has at any point in this country's history.

The question isn't "day-to-day" silliness.
It's power.
Way back in the day Congress was required to declare war. No more. Now, 1 man does.
Back in the day, there was no federal health care - now you are obligated to buy health care and it's controlled by the Feds.
Back in the day, a man kept his income. Now, the govt. takes a portion of your income to do with as it pleases.
Back in the day, you didn't have govt. employees checking out your rectum every time you got on a plane.
Back in the day, there was no department of homeland spying with thousands of employees spread all over the country to watch what you're doing. By the way - nice tidbit for those olde enough to remember KGB translates from Russian to "department of homeland security."
Back in the day, there was no FEMA, who go to whatever region is declared an "emergency," for whatever reason declared, and impose temporary martial law, like in New Orleans, where homeowners were forced to give up their protective weapons.
Back in the day, Teddy Roosevelt issued 3 Executive Orders. Clinton issued 15. George Bush 62. Obama? Already has issued about a thousand.
Back in the day, the govt. could not take private land under eminent domain and give it to other private citizens who will, allegedly, make "better" use of it. Now, they can.
Back in the day, the President didn't have hit lists and did not order assassinations of American Citizens. Obama has ordered the assassination of at least one American Citizen, and it was public information, but all the sleeping fatso's watching football seemed unfazed by it, because the dead guy had dual citizenship and looked different than them.


Point is, there has been a very definite concentration of power in the Federal Govt. and specifically in the Executive branch, and only those who are content to be asleep at the wheel and pretend that the Great America that existed through the 1900s still persists can fail to see it.

 

[ctchamps]

The question isn't "day-to-day" silliness.
It's power.
Way back in the day Congress was required to declare war. No more. Now, 1 man does.
Back in the day, there was no federal health care - now you are obligated to buy health care and it's controlled by the Feds.
Back in the day, a man kept his income. Now, the govt. takes a portion of your income to do with as it pleases.
Back in the day, you didn't have govt. employees checking out your rectum every time you got on a plane.
Back in the day, there was no department of homeland spying with thousands of employees spread all over the country to watch what you're doing. By the way - nice tidbit for those olde enough to remember KGB translates from Russian to "department of homeland security."
Back in the day, there was no FEMA, who go to whatever region is declared an "emergency," for whatever reason declared, and impose temporary martial law, like in New Orleans, where homeowners were forced to give up their protective weapons.
Back in the day, Teddy Roosevelt issued 3 Executive Orders. Clinton issued 15. George Bush 62. Obama? Already has issued about a thousand.
Back in the day, the govt. could not take private land under eminent domain and give it to other private citizens who will, allegedly, make "better" use of it. Now, they can.
Back in the day, the President didn't have hit lists and did not order assassinations of American Citizens. Obama has ordered the assassination of at least one American Citizen, and it was public information, but all the sleeping fatso's watching football seemed unfazed by it, because the dead guy had dual citizenship and looked different than them.


Point is, there has been a very definite concentration of power in the Federal Govt. and specifically in the Executive branch, and only those who are content to be asleep at the wheel and pretend that the Great America that existed through the 1900s still persists can fail to see it.

Back in the day, no one had an income. They didn't get one until the government stepped in. Now we have an income and the government takes about half of it. The trade off is we're living longer, healthier, happier even with our moaning. You can live back in the day. Me, no thanks.

There is always a danger for too much centralized authority. I'm not a fan of it. And I'm well aware of the dangers that can arise from it. So I'm not laughing at you. But the converse is just as dangerous. If not we all be hopping on planes and living in Somalia.

 

[8893]

Hate to break it to you Chuckles, but although that AR-15 that you love so much does a helluva number killing lots of innocent children quickly, it ain't gonna stop the government from turning you into vapor if it wants to.

 

[ctchamps]

Hate to break it to you Chuckles, but although that AR-15 that you love so much does a helluva number killing lots of innocent children quickly, it ain't gonna stop the government from turning you into vapor if it wants to.

Sadly, I have more disturbing thoughts about that possible scenario than thinking about the next rampage. That doesn't mean I don't feel for the loss of life that takes place during these savage events. It just means the situation you hypothetically proposed would make all these massacres look like a Sunday picnic.

 

[tykurez]

Come on Fishy. You're one of the brightest posters here, and don't allow emotion to lead you to conclude that UConn is headed to the B1G. This was the act of a mentally disturbed, depraved and evil person. As such it is one of the least preventable types of tragedies.

Far more children die in cars every year than by firearms (it isn't close). Pools are also more dangerous. Many kids die each year on bicycles or from falls. Poisoning is a more common cause of accidental death in kids 5-9 (firearms related ranks 14th on the list).

I'm open to real suggestions that are feasible and likely to be effective. For example, Lanza tried to buy a gun and failed. So the physchological profile on him made it into the database and he was denied. That's good. But, were authorities notified that he tried to buy a gun? If not, why not? If yes, did they question him? That's a real change that actually could have prevented this and which I doubt would be objectionable.

I think your last point is important. This should be one of the main talking points in the coming weeks/months.

But the "more children die in cars/drink poison/drown in pools each year" argument is stale. We're talking about murders vs. accidental death here. How can people make those parallels and take it seriously?

 

[arnie3]

He didn't "fail" in buying a gun, he withdrew, when told that there would be a waiting period. Also, someone pointed out that you have to be 21 to buy a gun in Connecticut. He was not. So that opens up more speculation as to how deeply the salesperson looked into this.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I think your last point is important. This should be one of the main talking points in the coming weeks/months.

But the "more children die in cars/drink poison/drown in pools each year" argument is stale. We're talking about murders vs. accidental death here. How can people make those parallels and take it seriously?

A dead child is awful regardless of how it happens. Stopping someone like Lanza is all but impossible. Preventing accidents is much easier than preventing homicides.

 

[8893]

A dead child is awful regardless of how it happens. Stopping someone like Lanza is all but impossible. Preventing accidents is much easier than preventing homicides.

Wrong again. He was stopped. He had hundreds more rounds of ammunition and he stopped and killed himself when he heard the sirens of the first responders. If he didn't have ready access to a semi-automatic weapon with 30-round magazines he would have killed fewer children before they got to him. What is so hard for you to understand about that? Why do you love these mass children-killing guns so much that you would rather strip people of cars before denying them access to these weapons?

 

[jleves]

A dead child is awful regardless of how it happens. Stopping someone like Lanza is all but impossible. Preventing accidents is much easier than preventing homicides.

This argument of doing only one thing and not another gets really old. We do tons of things and spend tons of money on preventing accidental deaths: child car seats, safety caps on pills and poisons, helmets for riding a bike, seat belts, air bags, gfi outlets, etc. etc.

There's no reason not to keep doing more things to help prevent accidents and we'll see new things all the time. But there's also no reason not to remove semi automatic weapons and 30 round clips as another, not instead of, change to protect both children and adults.

I agree that there was little if any chance of stopping this one kid - there's no reliable way to identify the next one to go off - but if he only had access to a couple of revolvers with 6 bullet capacity that he had to reload by hand one round at a time, it is very likely that at least some and possibly many of the 20 kids would be alive today. The fact that he stopped when he heard sirens makes it pretty obvious that slowing down his ability to put rounds on target would have reduced the carnage.

Anyone who argues that it's more important for people to have semi automatic handguns or semi automatic rifles than to save even one 6 year old child is beyond being reasoned with.

 

[minidarren]

This argument of doing only one thing and not another gets really old. We do tons of things and spend tons of money on preventing accidental deaths: child car seats, safety caps on pills and poisons, helmets for riding a bike, seat belts, air bags, gfi outlets, etc. etc.

There's no reason not to keep doing more things to help prevent accidents and we'll see new things all the time. But there's also no reason not to remove semi automatic weapons and 30 round clips as another, not instead of, change to protect both children and adults.

I agree that there was little if any chance of stopping this one kid - there's no reliable way to identify the next one to go off - but if he only had access to a couple of revolvers with 6 bullet capacity that he had to reload by hand one round at a time, it is very likely that at least some and possibly many of the 20 kids would be alive today. The fact that he stopped when he heard sirens makes it pretty obvious that slowing down his ability to put rounds on target would have reduced the carnage.

Anyone who argues that it's more important for people to have semi automatic handguns or semi automatic rifles than to save even one 6 year old child is beyond being reasoned with.

I do not think that anyone would say that it is more important for people to have semi auto hand guns/rifles than to even save one 6 year old child. And your right that they are beyond to be reasoned with if their stance is any different. But semi automatic hand guns and rifles are not going anywhere. And the faster the anti-gun folk understand this the better off they will be.

The reason is simple. The actions of a few severely messed up individuals, who chose to use a gun as their weapon of choice, is not going to make it so that the millions of law abiding gun owners have to turn in their weapons. It is just not going to happen.

What I see happening is along the lines of what happened on the assault rifle ban. In 1994 (during the Clinton era) a ban was put in place on weapons produces after that date. This did not eliminate weapons produced before 1994. The ban expired after 10 years (during the Bush era) and has yet to be renewed. I could see a new ban being put into effect w/ possibly provisions including semi-auto hand guns. But it will only make a difference from this period onward. There will still be gun owners and there will still be death.

It is unlikely that any law will be passed during Obama's presidency. If a Republican is voted in as president in 2016 you may never see the law passed.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[gibhunter]

The law to limit clips down to 20 from 30 has a chance, sadly I doubt it would make a difference. Changing such cartridge takes seconds and wouldn't have made a difference here.

They need:
1) Ban assault weapons - not gonna happen.
2) Have at least one, better two police officers at each school - most likely not gonna happen. It's on this week at some schools but it won't hold up for long because getting seat belt ticket revenue is more important.
3) Have free psychiatric care for people that need it. Obviously this guy was a highly intelligent psychopath but it may make a difference in some other cases.

CNN reported in their timeline that it took 20 minutes for cops to get to the school after the 911 call. That is unacceptable. With a police officer on premises, schools would have a deterrent in place and a first responder there that would have a small albeit a real chance of stopping a guy with an assault rifle. At least he could buy some time for backup. You can't seriously say that if the principal had an AR she could go and take this guy out. She would be fired for having a rifle in school in the first place. Then in case she had one you can't seriously think that a person who dedicated her life teaching little kids would have anything to do with an assault rifles.

I'm all for having rights to bear arms in self defense and to have hunting rifles. Assault rifles though have no business in civilians' hands.

 

[jleves]

I do not think that anyone would say that it is more important for people to have semi auto hand guns/rifles than to even save one 6 year old child. And your right that they are beyond to be reasoned with if their stance is any different. But semi automatic hand guns and rifles are not going anywhere. And the faster the anti-gun folk understand this the better off they will be.

There is such a huge problem with this idea. Either you are saying: 1) The semi automatic weapons used in this tragedy didn't increase the body count. I don't know how anyone could make that argument. 2) The people who want to own semi automatic weapons can't be reasoned with - in which case they shouldn't be allowed to own any weapons. 3) They actually do believe that owning semi automatic weapons is more important than even one 6 year old's life. If you have a different interpretation from one of those, let me know.

The reason is simple. The actions of a few severely messed up individuals, who chose to use a gun as their weapon of choice, is not going to make it so that the millions of law abiding gun owners have to turn in their weapons. It is just not going to happen.

The entire idea that a few messed up individuals who have killed hundreds does not necessitate that no person has automatic weapons is ludicrous. The fact that a few of the large group that wants to own such weapons have show without a doubt that the group does not have the ability to not kill innocent people with those weapons is the very reason that the entire group should not have them. It's a really fun argument to say 'it's only a few loonies that are doing it' but the fact is legal semi automatic weapons result in many innocent people being killed who wouldn't otherwise. As a group, as far as I'm concerned, they have lost the right to own those weapons.

The rest of your post is up for the future to decide. We'll see.

 

[minidarren]

The law to limit clips down to 20 from 30 has a chance, sadly I doubt it would make a difference. Changing such cartridge takes seconds and wouldn't have made a difference here.

They need:
1) Ban assault weapons - not gonna happen.
2) Have at least one, better two police officers at each school - most likely not gonna happen. It's on this week at some schools but it won't hold up for long because getting seat belt ticket revenue is more important.
3) Have free psychiatric care for people that need it. Obviously this guy was a highly intelligent psychopath but it may make a difference in some other cases.

CNN reported in their timeline that it took 20 minutes for cops to get to the school after the 911 call. That is unacceptable. With a police officer on premises, schools would have a deterrent in place and a first responder there that would have a small albeit a real chance of stopping a guy with an assault rifle. At least he could buy some time for backup. You can't seriously say that if the principal had an AR she could go and take this guy out. She would be fired for having a rifle in school in the first place. Then in case she had one you can't seriously think that a person who dedicated her life teaching little kids would have anything to do with an assault rifles.

I'm all for having rights to bear arms in self defense and to have hunting rifles. Assault rifles though have no business in civilians' hands.

The problem is that you believed the news. 20 minutes or arrive on scene? Lt Vance stated that the duration of the incident was 10 minutes. The incident was terminated when the gun man heard sirens and took his life. Something that he just should have done long before and left these innocent children out of it.

Someone said it best. If you were to have stopped listening to the news on Friday you would believe the shooters name was Ryan Lanza and that his mother was a teacher at SHES. You would believe that the father was dead in NJ. Early on in the story you would believe that only one person was dead and that a second shooter was found in the woods and was arrested.

The media did a piss poor job in reporting this incident. Being first came before any sense of reporting factual news. Get the story at all costs.



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[8893]

Pretty well put by Scarbrough imo:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc_tv-morning_joe/

 

[Dogbreath2U]

I do not think that anyone would say that it is more important for people to have semi auto hand guns/rifles than to even save one 6 year old child. And your right that they are beyond to be reasoned with if their stance is any different. But semi automatic hand guns and rifles are not going anywhere. And the faster the anti-gun folk understand this the better off they will be.

The reason is simple. The actions of a few severely messed up individuals, who chose to use a gun as their weapon of choice, is not going to make it so that the millions of law abiding gun owners have to turn in their weapons. It is just not going to happen.

What I see happening is along the lines of what happened on the assault rifle ban. In 1994 (during the Clinton era) a ban was put in place on weapons produces after that date. This did not eliminate weapons produced before 1994. The ban expired after 10 years (during the Bush era) and has yet to be renewed. I could see a new ban being put into effect w/ possibly provisions including semi-auto hand guns. But it will only make a difference from this period onward. There will still be gun owners and there will still be death.

It is unlikely that any law will be passed during Obama's presidency. If a Republican is voted in as president in 2016 you may never see the law passed.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I read this and I shake my head. This is the way you justify blocking any change. Why does anyone need an assault rifle? Why shouldn't they be banned? Why shouldn't all these guns be required to be turned in or face prosecution? Reimburse the owners and they can buy a hunting rifle if they desire. There is no justification for these weapons. They are reported to be good at killing police officers. What else are they good for? Playing Rambo at the shooting range? I don't accept the belief that there cannot be any change.

Perhaps we should have a right to buying bazooka or the modern day equivalent. We can play at Red Dawn scenarios and scream "Wolverines" while we shoot up cans or put holes in targets. Twenty dead children is a very good reason for us to grow up a little as a society and be willing to give up something that has no functional value except to make men feel a little more powerful.

 

[minidarren]

You have the right to believe what you want. Be stressed out over the gun laws and the rights of Americans to own them. I'll keep my AR's and hand guns. Because, they aren't going anywhere.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[minidarren]

There is such a huge problem with this idea. Either you are saying: 1) The semi automatic weapons used in this tragedy didn't increase the body count. I don't know how anyone could make that argument. 2) The people who want to own semi automatic weapons can't be reasoned with - in which case they shouldn't be allowed to own any weapons. 3) They actually do believe that owning semi automatic weapons is more important than even one 6 year old's life. If you have a different interpretation from one of those, let me know.



The entire idea that a few messed up individuals who have killed hundreds does not necessitate that no person has automatic weapons is ludicrous. The fact that a few of the large group that wants to own such weapons have show without a doubt that the group does not have the ability to not kill innocent people with those weapons is the very reason that the entire group should not have them. It's a really fun argument to say 'it's only a few loonies that are doing it' but the fact is legal semi automatic weapons result in many innocent people being killed who wouldn't otherwise. As a group, as far as I'm concerned, they have lost the right to own those weapons.

The rest of your post is up for the future to decide. We'll see.

The weapons used certainly did have an effect on the casualties that occurred. I believe that the same damage could have occurred by just using the two hand guns. However, I believe greater damage could have been done by using a shot gun w/ buck shot. Are we adding shot guns to the list of guns we want banned?

Its a broad stroke to say that people with assault rifles can't be reasoned with. I don't recall saying that. I simply stated that nothing is going to happen. Guns are not going away. Cooler heads understand civil liberties. I think we are going to see a push towards the mental health aspect of things. Obama made mention of it in his speech on Sunday night. I also believe that a push will be made to curtail the gaming/movie industry as well. The desensitization of society to gore and death is, IMO a greater threat than guns. Guns are just the tool of the crime. Remove guns and the tool may become a bomb, knife, chemical, or other object that is available. There will be some type of gun reform as well, but it won't be the banning of guns.

I don't believe the weapons that I own are worth any life, let alone that of a child. However, my weapons aren't killing anyone since they are locked up in my home.

If Lanza's mother knew she had a deranged child living in the home. It was her responsibility to either remove the child, remove the guns, or ensure that the child would never gain access to them. The details of what actually happened will come out in the investigation.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2