Topic: Newtown Massacre

[8ullfrog]

I had to authorize them to look into my medical records, but it's not like I had to get a physical. My buddy the pilot has to do those fairly regularly.

Pretty sure they just look into your medical history, but I don't know the extent they check up to. (I am not law enforcement)

Either way they don't allow teenagers to buy pistols.

[SACPOP]

I live in a state that is relatively permissive regarding gun ownership, but if you choose to buy a concealed carry license which allows you to carry a pistol on your person while in public, you have to maintain a certain level of expected behavior. If you get a DUI, drug charge or any sort of violence related conviction, even if you aren't carrying a weapon at the time, you will lose your concealed carry license.

[smokester]

I don't fully understand the nuances of American gun laws but they do seem pretty in depth which must be a good thing. 

I prefer the society I live in to be bereft of guns which includes the police not having them, that way, no particular person has direct control over whether I live or die.  I can perish by many other means I know,  but I would like to think that most of them I either have control over or can outrun.

To be frank I don't really care one way or the other about U.S. gun ownership as ultimately it is not my affair, but I would like never to have to read another story about so many beautiful children's lives being ended by one bent up family and their weaponry.

[smokester]

Something that confuses me is why guns are not allowed on aeroplanes in the U.S.?  I mean, if they are not inherently dangerous, but the owners can be, then why when you have every bit of information about the passenger would they worry about them taking guns on board?  Christ and others have suggested that people will always find a way to do evil deeds, so why the fuss?

The same reason that you go through metal detectors: it feels to folk that "something is being done". The something that is being done is pointless and irritating, but it is non-negotiable.

My personal feeling on this topic is summed up by the simple fact (irony - heh!) that cars (automobiles) are used to kill an awful lot more kids (and other people) than guns. Why is it that every time that there is a car accident in which a baby is killed or orphaned no-one suggests banning cars? No-one. Cars don't kill people, people kill people - but it is very difficult to kill a person by walking in to them.

The answer, in my view, is that the general populace see the utility of the car, and therefore they don't try to ban them - on the gun side of things there is a sizeable, and vocal, group that don't see the utility of guns. Is perceived utility a good enough excuse? I don't know, but I do know that there would be a lot less deaths in the world if we banned cars.

Natural disasters kill too but their action is unintentional, which is similar to most road deaths.

[6pairsofshoes]

My personal feeling on this topic is summed up by the simple fact (irony - heh!) that cars (automobiles) are used to kill an awful lot more kids (and other people) than guns. Why is it that every time that there is a car accident in which a baby is killed or orphaned no-one suggests banning cars? No-one. Cars don't kill people, people kill people - but it is very difficult to kill a person by walking in to them.

With that line of reasoning, chris, I'm surprised you don't advocate eliminating metal cutlery since plastic is much less deadly.  This analogue is specious and I'm surprised to hear you draw it.

Guns have one primary function -- launching metal projectiles at great speed.  While this technology can be used to kill enemies, game animals, etc., its misuse has disastrous consequences.

Although, like guns, cars can be used for sport, their primary function is for transportation.  Occasionally, accidents happen where cars cause injury and death.  Their use is regulated.  Does this mean the occasional maniac won't use a car to commit homicide?  No.  But it insures that most people who are not equipped to operate a vehicle won't do so without first undergoing training and being licensed to do so.

[8ullfrog]

since plastic is much less deadly

You can buy plastic and ceramic knives that are just as deadly. I chop my onions with a hot pink plastic knife.

As to flying with guns, you just check them like luggage.

As I've said to you numerous times, gun ownership and usage is regulated in the US.

I'm starting to think you just don't want to hear the other side of this issue. Mac VS. PC indeed. 

Another note, The security theater of the airports is both invasive and offensive. You're put through the pornoscanner, and then a security agent cups your genitals at SAN. Meanwhile, at Kennedy, which is 12 miles from Manhattan, all I had to do was flash my ID and I was waved right through. Didn't even have to kick my shoes off.

If poo ever does go down on a plane, I keep a spare sock in my cargo pocket.  batteries go in sock, keys go in sock, change goes in sock, and I've got a garden variety blackjack. When I fly I keep a good supply of change anyway to feed the vending machines.

I don't like this substitute argument, it's too easy refute. A firearm is not equivalent to a vehicle. About the only way the argument works is if you say certain accessories should be banned because they are not required for day to day use. For instance, I do not shoot in day to day life, so one could argue that I do not REQUIRE a pistol. I don't drive everyday either, should my car be confiscated in the name of safety? I don't smoke, should I be prohibited access to butane or lighter fluid? Those could be used as weapons quite easily. I don't farm, should I be restricted from access to fertilizer? What if I want to grow tomatoes in my yard? Should there be a waiting list before I can purchase it? How about diesel? my car runs on unleaded.

How about uhauls? now we're talking land of sketchy. So if I'm transporting fertilizer in a uhaul that runs on diesal, my threat level has just jumped exponentially.  I'm in possession of weapons that can and have been used against federal buildings and the world trade center itself.

golly, this post is gonna get me on several watch lists.

[6pairsofshoes]

Thanks for the update on cutlery, 8ully.  If guns were regulated in a standard way across the states and as carefully as they clearly are in California (where you reside), then there may be less problem and as chris notes, we'd all feel safer even if there is no actual reason for us to do so, since some crazed woman could kill me with the heel of her shoe if she wanted. 

All kinds of stuff can be dangerous. 

You wrong me by saying I suffer from some kind of Mac/PC blindness.  I am the first to admit there are no easy answers, but I still am very uncomfortable with the idea of doing nothing.  Maybe it's just that I think children are sweet and should be protected from being shot in school.  If anything can be done to keep this from happening again, I say, let's do it.  Rejecting it as just another tragedy we have to live with goes against my grain, I guess.

p.s. If you want to grow tomatoes, rather than go out for some nasty chemical fertilizers, I recommend bunny poop.  It works a treat and it won't blow up any buildings.

[8ullfrog]

California has some overreach in the gun laws in my opinion. Standard magazines don't need to be neutered to appease people who demand Something Be Done. ™

You can add as many laws as you like, still wouldn't have stopped the shooter. He managed to step around the gun laws.

[smokester]

You can add as many laws as you like, still wouldn't have stopped the shooter. He managed to step around the gun laws.

In the short term that is unquestionably true, but as far as I know you have no experience of living in a nation without readily available guns as I do, and that guy probably wouldn't have been able to carry out that attack here.  There are those with access to that kind of weaponry for sure, but there is no mystery to what kind of people they are and the worst case scenario around them is that you'd be hit by the crossfire.  Lanza would have had to plan that attack for some time, gain trust from people that are notoriously hard to approach, and then sought the ammo which would have cost an arm and a leg on the black market.  He'd have more than likely flipped out and grabbed a machete which I would gladly take my chances with.

[SACPOP]

I am always wary of fear based legislation in the US. After the attacks of 9/11, people were justifiably scared, so they cried out and demanded changes to protect the innocent and to ensure something like that never happened again, the end result being the Patriot Act. This is just terrible legislation enacted by president Bush that over steps every privacy boundary imaginable and has been extended as recently as 2011 by president Obama. As a group, we Americans are infamous for lacking subtlety, nuance, or restraint and that goes ten fold for our elected officials in the legislature and the laws they create.
Personally, I  believe a law abiding citizen's right to self determination (including gun ownership and self defense) takes precedence over anyone else's fear or concerns so I don't believe in the infringement of Second Amendment rights in the name of safety, but I am especially opposed to it because I have absolutely no faith in our elected officials to draft these supposedly "reasonable restrictions".

[6pairsofshoes]

So, if I understand you correctly, you are advocating an extreme libertarian stance in which there should be no regulation based on the reasoning that any such efforts are ineffective.  No matter what we do, bad people will do bad things. 

So we should do nothing but accept that there is evil in the world?  Perhaps this seems an extreme interpretation, but I'm just puzzling to understand just when you might find intervention necessary, and if so, under what circumstances?

[8ullfrog]

I have a friend in England who got the same pistol I have, with a higher capacity magazine than I have. Cost him two liters of cider, which is a damn sight better than what I paid for it, $500.

As to the ammo, I wouldn't know, but when he got it, it was loaded.

Needless to say, I said he was full of poo, so he held the gun up on Skype, let me check the chamber.

I believe in reasonable restrictions on firearms. The problem is that many politicians are not educated about firearms. Or reasonable. Here is a legislator, who has no idea what she is banning:

Tip: a collapsable stock is not a barrel shroud. I bless'ed hate Tucker Carlson, and I despise gotcha journalism, but holy poo is that a frightening video.

I am neither an extremist or a libertarian.

In this specific shooting, the shooter was able to bypass the existing gun laws in CT. ANY additional laws will need to address this fact, or they will be no better than simple platitudes.

[dweez]

From what I recall, the VT shooter acquired ammo over a period of months, ordered from online stores in different states with looser laws.

[smokester]

Natural disasters kill too but their action is unintentional, which is similar to most road deaths.

True: which is why a car ban is the only worthwhile solution -- if the deaths were deliberately caused then that would muddy the thinking. For cars there is no falling back on the "ban the madmen that use the cars as weapons" argument. And again, the reason I note it is that no-one seems to care enough about automobile casualties to stir up the "mr. angry" set, but let some little angel get winged by a bullet and the whole world is in an uproar.

With that line of reasoning, chris, I'm surprised you don't advocate eliminating metal cutlery since plastic is much less deadly.  This analogue is specious and I'm surprised to hear you draw it.

I didn't advocate anything. A simple negation doesn't invalidate an analogy, even with emotive language. "Specious" indeed. Tsk.

Cars don't "occasionally" kill. Thousands upon thousands of people are killed by cars.

It doesn't matter what the primary purpose of the lethal weapon is, I was noting the effect. DDT had a useful primary purpose too, as did Thalidomide - that didn't make them any less deadly, nor invalidate the need to ban them.

I noted, and restate, that some people find it easy to jump on the "ban guns" bandwagon because they see no defence for them, but those same people will find discussions about other killing agents "specious" ("cars have a use" indeed)

Although, like guns, cars can be used for sport, their primary function is for transportation.  Occasionally, accidents happen where cars cause injury and death.  Their use is regulated.  Does this mean the occasional maniac won't use a car to commit homicide?  No.  But it insures that most people who are not equipped to operate a vehicle won't do so without first undergoing training and being licensed to do so.

... and still, as I noted above, the damned things kill thousands of innocents. If we can't prevent those deaths by regulation/ training/ licensing/ whatever, then surely a ban is the only way to save those poor darlings.

In the short term that is unquestionably true, but as far as I know you have no experience of living in a nation without readily available guns as I do, and that guy probably wouldn't have been able to carry out that attack here.

That is exactly what we thought in England up until July 1987. Hungerford showed that argument was incorrect then, and not a lot has changed since then, really.

That is exactly what we thought in England up until July 1987. Hungerford showed that argument was incorrect then, and not a lot has changed since then, really.

Just repeating your last comment there as the Hungerford incident in 1987 did reveal that some Brits had access to guns far to easily and again made our government toughen the laws even further:

Hungerford and Britain would never be the same. A year after the massacre, British gun laws were changed and semi-automatic weapons like Ryan's Kalashnikov were outlawed by the government.

Just over 10 years later you can get shot in the head for carrying a chair leg.

I have a friend in England who got the same pistol I have, with a higher capacity magazine than I have. Cost him two liters of cider, which is a damn sight better than what I paid for it, $500.

As to the ammo, I wouldn't know, but when he got it, it was loaded.

Needless to say, I said he was full of poo, so he held the gun up on Skype, let me check the chamber.

That is precisely my point 8ully.  There are those who can acquire firearms illegally and I am telling you that that 2 litres of Cider crap is cowpoo to the extreme, but Lanza would not be one of them.  If your pal over here wants to wave his gun around online again, you might want to remind him of Mr Stanley in the link above.

[8ullfrog]

He's a pretty poor dude, but he doesn't go waving it about. He dug a hole in his floor and dropped a safe in. I know he's taken it out a few times to fire it, no clue where the golly he went to do it.

Criminals can and will find a way to get around laws. I'm not saying that makes the laws irrelevant, just that criminals find a way.

Laws need to come from a place of studied thought, not knee jerk reaction-ism.