Newtown, Conn

Quote: midwestgb

There is an obesity crisis in this country. Would you propose that restaurants increase their portion sizes in response?

Already been done in New York.

The call for gun control and the call for "government to do something" are the problems here. Sorry to say but since the early 1960s our society gas been broken. Say a person is behaving badly and you are called "judgmental." Say kids are better with two parents and you are called "sexist." Mention anything having to do with morals and you are called a "Jesus freak." Suggest a persons plight is a result of their own choices and you are called "mean."

It goes forever. Nothing is anybody's fault. The mere call for gun control shows those calling for it think the gun and not the person was responsible. We have gotten to the point where too many people resist calls for better behavior on anyone because then *they* have to behave as well

Quote: AcesAndEights

It was a senseless tragedy for sure, and I am in no way trying to minimize the pain and suffering going on in Newton. But drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen have claimed eight times as much young life as the Connecticut shooting.

If you're not enraged on a weekly or daily basis, you're not paying attention.

IF, if, if those numbers are accurate, it's a shame and we need to address it to minimize civilian casualties.

But, I think it's ridiculous and offensive to compare a mass murdering nut bag who INTENTIONALLY targeted children to our servicemen who are defending our country and targeting terrorists in countries that harbor them and who hide among woman and children they use as shields.

Quote: Face

A hot topic issue with opposing viewpoints and nobody's calling each other names yet? I thought this was the internet? ;)

But seriously, it's nice. With that in mind, I'm going to pick at your solutions, not simply to argue, but to encourage further thinking on the matter.

No worries, I think the topic is important and worth the debate, don't intend to get into name calling. Keep in mind, that I think some form of gun control is only one part of the solution.

Quote: Face

1&2) The time it would take for this to have an effect would be >100 years. I was just saying in "Firearms With Face" that there are plenty of WWI and WWII era guns still for sale to this very day at rock bottom prices. Stop production now and the effect wouldn't be noticed until well after our children are dead and gone.

True, but we have to start somewhere, just saying that there are already too many guns already in circulation doesn't mean we just throw our hands in air and don't try does it? Combine this with legislation that makes owning or possessing certain types of guns illegal, would accelerate the decrease in cirulation.

Quote: Face

3) If the Gov had the money to do this, they'd have to 1) buy at a price equal or greater to what someone could get in a P2P sale, and 2) have a willing public. With so many pro-gun'ers out there who would know what would happen to said guns, I don't think it'd have much support.

Agreed, I think this is the most difficult and maybe impractical, but if laws were enacted to make the re-sale of high power weapons (like assault rifles) illegal, there would be fewer people with them in their hands.

Quote: Face

4) Very simple - Only the lawful obey laws. Additionally, banning certain types doesn't fix the problem. I'm not a criminal nor do I have criminal contacts. But I could, within two weeks, maybe a month at the most, turn my Del-Ton (a perfectly legal rifle) into a 30+ round, fully automatic, collapsable stocked, thread barreled, suppressed assault rifle shooting armor piercing rounds. All of the above features are currently illegal in NYS. Really crank down on the laws, and the only one I might have difficulty in getting is the AP rounds.

Isn't modifying a legal firearm to an illegal configuration already banned? So, you are right, the bad guys could still modify legal weapons, I get that point. But I wonder if someone Adam Lanza could or would have done that if he didn't already have such easy access to a semi-automatic weapon, one that can be purchased at Wal-Mart or Dick's Sporting Goods. By the way, acording to reports Nancy Lanza possessed them for 'self defense'. How did that work out?

Quote: Face

5) I own unregistered guns, all perfectly legal and in one of the least gun friendly states in the nation. My handguns must be registered, and if they weren't, I'd be in some seriously deep shit. No "turn a blind eye" on that. To enact such a law is something I would resist with all my will. Pros - ??? Cons - Increased blackmarket for "untracable" guns. Increased theft of legal guns. No prevention of atrocities would be gained. No increased apprehension, since damn near all of these incidents end with the shooter dying, either by his own gun or the police's. And the biggie, every single society whose government banned guns used these lists for confiscation.

I need to think about this a little more, I don't know if I'm ready to concede that "no prevention of atrocities would be gained."

In today's environment, where is the distinction between guns that need to be registered and those that don't? Just asking the question since I don't know.

Quote: Face

6) Here may be something. I think education is the best start for a great number of our ills, and the courses required, even here in the "People's Republic", are completely laughable. My only issue with this is that this is the government we're talking about. I'm not entirely copmfortable giving them any more power whatsoever and worry that this will eventually be used not to make a bunch of serious, knowledgeable gun owners, but as another tool of restriction. Even if I could get passed that, this is the Government we're talking about. You know they'd find a way to screw it up.

I'll concede that getting the government involved add layers and layers of bueracracy and inefficiency. Potentially, we could let lawmakers legislate the requirements (since it needs to have the power of law to get any traction) but let the private sector administer the tests and mental evaluations.

Quote: MidwestAP

Quote: AcesAndEights

It was a senseless tragedy for sure, and I am in no way trying to minimize the pain and suffering going on in Newton. But drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen have claimed eight times as much young life as the Connecticut shooting.

If you're not enraged on a weekly or daily basis, you're not paying attention.

IF, if, if those numbers are accurate, it's a shame and we need to address it to minimize civilian casualties.

But, I think it's ridiculous and offensive to compare a mass murdering nut bag who INTENTIONALLY targeted children to our servicemen who are defending our country and targeting terrorists in countries that harbor them and who hide among woman and children they use as shields.

I agree it is not a black-and-white comparison, but I don't consider it ridiculous or offensive. These are drone strikes, so servicemen are not directly putting their life at risk during the strikes. I understand targeting terrorists, but a 2% effectiveness rate? When these drones are supposed to be "surgical" and "precise?" The plan needs to be reevaluated.

With respect to the veracity of these specific numbers, I have not fact checked all of the references in that article, so I cannot be 100% certain that they are accurate. But it is widely known that drone strikes cause a lot of collateral damage.

My main point in posting this was not to be inflammatory, but to bring a global perspective into the conversation. It makes me sad when we only care about little white babes getting killed.

Quote: AcesAndEights

My main point in posting this was not to be inflammatory, but to bring a global perspective into the conversation. It makes me sad when we only care about little white babes getting killed.

Good lord. You're comparing an elementary school to a war zone??? That's the sad part! So let's outlaw drones at the same time we outlaw assault weapons, if that makes you happy.

Perspective:

The current gun laws worked as they were designed to do. The kid tried to buy a gun at Dick's, and was rightfully turned away.

The school security worked as it was designed to do. The door was locked so no one could walk in unnoticed and take a child.

The gun worked as it was designed to do. It fired off round after round quickly and efficiently, blasting a hole through the front door and killing 27 of the 29 people it hit.

What didn't work was the notion of the gun keeping its owner safe. Maybe that's the part that needs to be rethought.

Quote: AcesAndEights

Quote: MidwestAP

Quote: AcesAndEights

It was a senseless tragedy for sure, and I am in no way trying to minimize the pain and suffering going on in Newton. But drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen have claimed eight times as much young life as the Connecticut shooting.

If you're not enraged on a weekly or daily basis, you're not paying attention.

IF, if, if those numbers are accurate, it's a shame and we need to address it to minimize civilian casualties.

But, I think it's ridiculous and offensive to compare a mass murdering nut bag who INTENTIONALLY targeted children to our servicemen who are defending our country and targeting terrorists in countries that harbor them and who hide among woman and children they use as shields.

I agree it is not a black-and-white comparison, but I don't consider it ridiculous or offensive. These are drone strikes, so servicemen are not directly putting their life at risk during the strikes. I understand targeting terrorists, but a 2% effectiveness rate? When these drones are supposed to be "surgical" and "precise?" The plan needs to be reevaluated.

With respect to the veracity of these specific numbers, I have not fact checked all of the references in that article, so I cannot be 100% certain that they are accurate. But it is widely known that drone strikes cause a lot of collateral damage.

My main point in posting this was not to be inflammatory, but to bring a global perspective into the conversation. It makes me sad when we only care about little white babes getting killed.

No disagreement that we need to minimize the amount of collateral damage. If 2% accuracy rate is correct, then we have to find a way to get better, so more terrorists are killed and less civilians and children. But, I don't have any disallusion that there will be some innocent individuals killed in a war zone under the circumstances I previously mentioned.

As far as our servicemen, regardless if they are on the ground in a fire fight, or at a control panel directing the drones, they are still part of the defense chain, protecting us and our freedoms, therefore I do think it's offensive to compare them to the shooter in Newtown.

Quote: AZDuffman

Already been done in New York.

The call for gun control and the call for "government to do something" are the problems here. Sorry to say but since the early 1960s our society gas been broken. Say a person is behaving badly and you are called "judgmental." Say kids are better with two parents and you are called "sexist." Mention anything having to do with morals and you are called a "Jesus freak." Suggest a persons plight is a result of their own choices and you are called "mean."

It goes forever. Nothing is anybody's fault. The mere call for gun control shows those calling for it think the gun and not the person was responsible. We have gotten to the point where too many people resist calls for better behavior on anyone because then *they* have to behave as well

I firmly support any call for 'better behavior.'

Better behavior ought to be the campaign theme for every political campaign run in this country.

Quote: AZDuffman

It goes forever. Nothing is anybody's fault. The mere call for gun control shows those calling for it think the gun and not the person was responsible. We have gotten to the point where too many people resist calls for better behavior on anyone because then *they* have to behave as well

I agree that we have an epidemic of "not my fault" society. If we had more self accountability, we'd be much better off.

I want to address the notion that people kill, not guns. That is true in it's literal sense. Just like drunk people kill, not cars, true as well.

But, it's important to recognize that the mechanism that is used to kill is an important factor. I question what practical purpose a high power firearm has in common society.

Self defense? Do you really need an assault rifle for this purpose? The tag 'assault rifle' itself implies an offensive purpose. Hunting? I don't think semi-automatic weapons are what a hunter uses.

Conversely, I absolutely understand the practical purpose an automobile has in common society (albeit not in the hands of an intoxicated person).

Quote: midwestgb

I firmly support any call for 'better behavior.'

Better behavior ought to be the campaign theme for every political campaign run in this country.

Lots of luck. Remember when Quayle called for family values and was outright ridiculed? Obama ran on class war and handouts. That is sadly what gets you votes and favorable press. In any case we need to do it as individuals and not wait for politicians to call for it.

Quote: AZDuffman

Lots of luck. Remember when Quayle called for family values and was outright ridiculed? Obama ran on class war and handouts. That is sadly what gets you votes and favorable press. In any case we need to do it as individuals and not wait for politicians to call for it.

Yeah--we all should be stay-at-home moms who homeschool our kids so they don't turn out to be mass murderers! Oh, wait...