Topic: Newtown Massacre

[8ullfrog]

Sent you a reason in PM. Friend doesn't like me telling that story in public.

[6pairsofshoes]

The news has updated the situation.  The mother was not a teacher at the school.  The school was locked and the shooter shot his way in.  The mother was a gun enthusiast who regularly took both her sons target shooting.  All of the weapons were owned legally.  The owner's son shot her dead in the face in their home.  He clearly has mental problems.  The fact is that he used a semiautomatic assault rifle commonly deployed in the field of war in Afghanistan to shoot his way into an elementary school.  He should not have been able to do so.  You can argue that he could have gone to buy fertilizer, constructed a homemade bomb and wreaked the same havoc, but it would have raised the bar, made this attack more difficult to execute and required much more planning and premeditation.  In short, making access to such weapons more difficult might have prevented this tragedy or reduced its scale.  How many first graders' lives must we pay for our liberty?  Try telling the parents of those children that their kid's life is less important than your desire to have semiautomatic weapons at your disposal 24/7.

Again, why such extremely dangerous firearms are not required to be kept at a firing range and not in a domestic environment is beyond me.  There is a point where some weapons, like tanks, rocket launchers and hydrogen bombs are deemed too dangerous for personal use and their deployment restricted.  These kinds of incidents should make us question just how restrictive our regulations regarding guns with such kill power should be.

[goldshirt*9]

Unfortunately the second amendment didn't foresee the manufacture of semi / automatic weapons / grenades
etc etc.
as stated he and his family had guns legitimately, how can anyone have foreseen this.
Even if a law was passed ensuring guns and ammo are retained at clubs only, would they have been able to prevent this.
A sad year for children being killed indeed 

Have seen some of the comments on Fbook and they are varied, mostly about keeping guns legal for anyone to keep.Havent seen any "pro-killer" and i hope i dont

[bubu]

I absolutely agree with 6pairofshoes what do you need all this guns for, to kill each other ? We live in violent societies and this kind of actions because of the notoriety involved ,will increase. We as Italian are only 60 millions but have killing almost every day, I can't imagine if some of this people had free access to any kind of firearms what will happen then...
Of course you have a very powerful guns lobby to contend with, so I don't think a law making them loosing their business will easily pass....

[8ullfrog]

AR-15 is a civilian model, not military 6.

I'm not sure if your line on ammo/weapon restriction was a question or a statement. But no, that would not prevent a criminal from gaining access to / using a firearm.

[smokester]

A long time ago I realised that trying to implant my British ideology of gun ownership into that of the Americans, was futile and perhaps even a little insulting.  I realised then that American culture, as is that of all nations of the world, is theirs to do with what they want and is not the business of outsiders.  Not only that, but we have had at least 3 incidents here that compare (Dunblane being the worst) so having a society all but bereft of firearms does not mean it cannot happen.  The stark difference here is that after a gun incident where innocents have died, the country is pretty unanimous in agreeing that there should be even tighter laws on these types of weapons - i.e. no one beyond farmers should own them.

[8ullfrog]

Dirty politics? Gun control is a pyrrhic battle. Gun control advocates want guns taken away or banned. It can be done, but it will be washed away by the next set of politicians.

Right now on MSNBC Tom ridge is talking about surveillance and law enforcement control of the internet to try and prevent the next shooting.

Dianne feinstein is going to resubmit the assault weapons ban. The last time the law was rammed through, it cost the democrats everything, and the bush administration allowed it to quietly die.

This is becoming a cultural divide, urban against rural. I grew up in the middle of that divide, and the urban side is coming off as patronizing and condescending.

[6pairsofshoes]

I question the need to have semi automatic weapons, period.  But you have discussed elsewhere some reasons for this.  My assertion is this:  hold people liable for the damage that is caused by misuse of their firearms.

I have a car.  If I kill someone, either accidentally, or intentionally, I have insurance that will cover some of the losses and damages.  I have to take exams periodically that prove my continued fitness to operate a car.  I have to have a license to drive one that is predicated on my understanding how to operate the car, my ability to see adequately, and my knowledge of traffic laws.  I have to renew my registration every year and periodically, I have to submit my car to inspection to insure that it does not pose a health hazard (pollution) and that it is safe to operate.

Why gun ownership should not be subject to the same oversight escapes me.  If I want to avoid this scrutiny, I can ride a bicycle or take public transportation. 

[dweez]

I fully agree with what you're saying 6pair.  No "but...", "or...", or "except...".  I don't think guns should be banned, but there definitely needs to be some sort of training and accountability.  Extending the driver's license analogy, I can be licensed to drive a car, but if I want/need to drive a motorcycle, bus, or multi-axle vehicle, I need to take special classes and a test to prove my proficiency in handling said vehicle responsibly and safely.

A waiting period and cursory background exam is a good start, but something more needs to be done.  Yes, people should have the right to bare arms (my opinion) but that shouldn't give them the right to ownership without responsibility.

[8ullfrog]

I have a DOJ certified certificate of safe handling which shows I went through the required safety course.

It expires every 3 years and requires me to pay a $25 fee and demonstrate safe handling. The re-cert is much easier than the initial course, all you have to do is show how to safely load and unload the weapon.

I don't have to do a behind the wheel exam every time I renew my drivers license.

As to semi-automatic vs. single action, I posted another thread in the members area that discusses the different models of handgun, and the reasons someone would select one over the other.

No but, or, or except. If you're asking me to pay insurance on my weapon? I'm not interested, and neither are a majority of voters. The democrats passed an assault weapons ban in 1994, and it cost them everything politically. And their law was washed away by the next administration.

Semi-automatic does not mean burst fire. It means a round is chambered after the previous round is fired.

[6pairsofshoes]

Thank you for that clarification.  I've been scratching my head all day about what "semi automatic" means.  I assume "automatic" refers to the ability of the weapon to reload itself.  That the woman who owned the guns used in the most recent massacre did not exercise sufficient caution in keeping them from a child who was demonstrably mentally unstable is obvious.  The problem is:  how to force people to be accountable in such situations.

8ully, I am sure that paying liability insurance is not popular, but let's look at it this way:  when I was in college, they decided people could have pets in the dorm if they paid a deposit in case their pets caused damage.  One woman did not pay her deposit.  Her cat got into my room, pissed in my bed, urinated on my pillow.  She did not want to be responsible for paying for replacing the pillow and cleaning the damaged bedclothes.

The damage we are discussing here, many dead 6 year olds and their teachers, is astronomically worse.  Who should pay for that damage?  The taxpayers?  or the gun owners?  I think you can see where this is going.  The woman who owned the cat who pissed in my bed didn't want to take responsibility.  Who, then, can mete out justice?  The body politic, that's who.

[8ullfrog]

Owner of the guns is dead. No one left to tax, unless you want to pass it on to me.

[smokester]

... and it metes out justice to the woman who owned the cat who pissed in your bed, as she is only avoiding her responsibilities.

But what if the woman who owned the cat who pissed in your bed committed suicide to avoid justice? What does the body politic do then?

(I assume that you are not recommending that cats are banned - but maybe you are?)

Liability insurance is great for those cases where money can resolve the issue: for instance in the cat case, a new bed, new pillows, and a few dollars for the indignity. Liability insurance is not so good when the casualty is something that money can't buy (like schoolchildren).

The issue (for me) is that some people do bad things. The rest of us just need to learn that poo happens, and that we cannot always get revenge/ restitution/ justice, and we cannot prevent a bad person from doing a bad thing.

We seem to be having this problem all over - people do things that people just shouldn't do, and then the legislators, supported by the rabid pitchfork carrying mob - whipped up by the ever-populist press - pass laws that just cannot solve the problem. Politicians have to be seen to be doing something, or the media pillory them, and the public in their turn crucify them. It has to be someone's fault, and the miscreant is just too small a thing to blame, therefore "society" feels that we have to be seen to be doing something, even if that something is worse than useless. Churchgoers blame it all on moral breakdown, and recommend that the legislators make Church attendance mandatory (and that we execute anyone that won't sign on the dotted line).

More security at airports slows the world down, but doesn't prevent bad people, similarly more security at schools - "Megan's Law" wouldn't have helped Megan, and gun control can't stop Columbine/ Newton/ Virginia Tech/ Anders Breivik/ William Calley or Dunblane. Harold Shipman killed a bunch of folk, but the law changes wouldn't have stopped him, and vicious dogs are still vicious.

Until we can find a way to legislate against the bad things that people can/ may/ will do we are stuck and I think (hope?) that this is eternal, as I, for one, don't want to live in the Brave New World where people cannot do bad things because some way has been found of identifying and stopping them in advance.

^ Needs to be kept.

....vicious dogs are still vicious....

Vicious dogs with their teeth removed find it a lot harder to do harm.

There can be no mistaking that guns could give any one of us the ability to take someone's life at will.  I cannot think of another item that could do that.  Sure you could run me over, but not while I am sitting on the second floor like I am while writing this, nor could the majority of you kill me with a knife (excluding RG and possibly Red).  That said, I completely understand that if the public is already armed in that way, as it is in the U.S, you need to then arm yourself equally to at least create the illusion of security.  Is that the argument?

[ohcheap1]

Im working up the strength to read this thread. Its effecting me pretty harshly, cant seem to stop crying. I look at my girl scouts and remember when my daughter was young and all of her friends and those images are just stuck. Havent really reached a point where I want to place blame or figure it out, just trying to let it soak in. Maybe by the time Im ready someone will of come up with an answer..... a start to a solution.

[goldshirt*9]

If he didn't have a gun, would he not just get a knife / machete .
as in Wolverhampton machete attack occurred at St Luke's Church of England infants' school, on July 8, 1996.

There will always be a way for "the wrong " person to do harm.

" Until we can find a way to legislate against the bad things that people can/ may/ will do we are stuck and I think (hope?) that this is eternal, as I, for one, don't want to live in the Brave New World where people cannot do bad things because some way has been found of identifying and stopping them in advance. "

believe a movie was made about that.