NRA lobbied to put guns in the hands of the mentally ill..[W-73].

[Moot]

without the determination to kill those children, his gun was just a hunk of metal .

his mind was the most dangerous weapon in existence on that day.

Without the easy access to guns he couldn't have done what he did.

 

[Moot]

Nice armchair summary that is total garbage.
Try living in the real world - it is much different, toots.
I have been involved with DV, and it rarely turns out so peachy keen as you describe.
How dare you voice such a ridiculous observation of how well it turns out.
Delusional.

Your insults say more about you than they do me.

 

[SMTA]

Facts, junior, facts!

I have seen more DV than anyone should.

Your assessment is uneducated, childish, and devoid of reality.

Facts!

 

[marsden]

Without the easy access to guns he couldn't have done what he did.

Your solution does not work. Chicago has the highest per capita murder rate in America despite having the toughest gun control laws in America. Tough laws which were designed to do what you have in mind...make guns very difficult to acquire.

Easy access to some might seem like difficult access for a law abiding citizen like yourself.

No matter how difficult you make it, criminals will ALWAYS find guns or some other means of taking lives.

No, the answer is not to deny us responsible gun owners the access to guns guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Moot]

without the determination to kill those children, his gun was just a hunk of metal .

his mind was the most dangerous weapon in existence on that day.

There are a lot of dangerous minds out there, but the easy access to guns only helps them to act out their tendencies than if they didn't have the easy access to guns at all.

 

[marsden]

Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce
the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.

Their study controlled for age, sex, race, unemployment,
retirement, poverty rates, state population, murder arrest
rates, violent crime rates, and on and on.

The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass
public shootings was even greater than the impact of
such laws on the murder rate generally.

Someone planning to commit a single murder in a
concealed-carry state only has to weigh the odds of one
person being armed.

But a criminal planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone in the entire area might have a gun.

ANN COULTER: We know how to stop school shootings | The Daily Caller

 

[Thrilla]

Well then, maybe the problem isn't the police but the breakdown of the family unit which can be attributed to a mirad of reasons. It's not the job of the police to cure what ails society, only to protect and serve the best they can.

it's nice to see you backing away from your argument... it was a rather poor argument to begin with.
yes, they serve and protect the best they can....and yes,, the family unit is suffering.

It's the presence of a gun that makes every domestic abuse situtation more dangerous not only for the family involved but for the police as well. More police are killed responding to dometic violence than they are going after criminals.

guns are useless hunks of metal without the determination to use them.... but yes, DV situations are generally dangerous for cops..

Your arguments are weak and don't justify the need for more guns in our society.[/QUOTE] am I supposed to care about your opinion?

 

[LaMidRighter]

Without the easy access to guns he couldn't have done what he did.

Yes, he could have, easily.

 

[Thrilla]

There are a lot of dangerous minds out there, but the easy access to guns only helps them to act out their tendencies than if they didn't have the easy access to guns at all.

yes, there are a lot of dangerous minds out there.... which I why I choose to exercise my rights.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Regardless my stance on gun rights for normal people, lunatics should not have access to any firearms at all, end of story.

I think that the view of pro-gun people in response to the anti-gun reaction to the shooting is basically the same as my reaction to the blame being placed on Asperger's syndrome. Blaming weapons does a disservice to the vast majority of semi-automatic (or whatever) gun owners who don't dream of harming other humans in the same way it does a disservice to Asperger's patients (like myself) who are largely pacifistic.

I don't blame Asperger's sufferers any more than I blame the weapons used or video games. I think there are people who've come from homes run by bad parents that are capable of violence like this, there are people with real psychological problems. I don't think that people should be disbarred weapons just because they have a mental condition but the violently insane, totally agree with you, as well domestic abusers should be disbarred weapons ownership.

 

[Moot]

Your solution does not work. Chicago has the highest per capita murder rate in America despite having the toughest gun control laws in America. Tough laws which were designed to do what you have in mind...make guns very difficult to acquire.

Without the laws then everyone could commit crime and murder and get away with it. So if you think Chicago is bad, then try living there without law and justice. But if you want a perfect utopia, then wait til you go to heaven.

Easy access to some might seem like difficult access for a law abiding citizen like yourself.

Nonsensical.

No matter how difficult you make it, criminals will ALWAYS find guns or some other means of taking lives.

Thats why they're called criminals.

No, the answer is not to deny us responsible gun owners the access to guns guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

The second amendment doesn't guarentee anyone the right to kill someone with a gun. The argument of self defense is an old one and our system of self defense was based on John Locke who said that if you are threatened you have to find a peaceful way of protecting yourself before resorting to violence. Peaceful personal defense includes trying to reason, avoiding confrontation, running away, etc. For property, it's fences, burgler alarms, callling the police, dogs, anything that isn't lethal. Shooting or killing someone is only for last resort and has to meet strict criteria that you didn't try or were unable to use the non-lethal methods first.

 

[Moot]

it's nice to see you backing away from your argument... it was a rather poor argument to begin with. yes, they serve and protect the best they can....and yes,, the family unit is suffering. guns are useless hunks of metal without the determination to use them.... but yes, DV situations are generally dangerous for cops..

Diverting attention to police protection doesn't diminish the fact that a gun is more likely to be used in a home suffering domestic violence than not. That was the point and it undermines your arguement for using a gun for self defense in the home.

Your arguments are weak and don't justify the need for more guns in our society.

am I supposed to care about your opinion?

lol I dunno, are you? Be nice if you did.

 

[Moot]

Yes, he could have, easily.

Nope, he couldn't.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Nope, he couldn't.

Uh, yeah he could have. McVeigh took over 160 innocent lives with fertilizer and diesel, Kehoe killed over 40 with bombs, and a Cuban immigrant killed over 80 with 1$s worth of gasoline.

 

[Moot]

Your solution does not work. Chicago has the highest per capita murder rate in America despite having the toughest gun control laws in America. Tough laws which were designed to do what you have in mind...make guns very difficult to acquire.

The homicide rate in Chicago went noticably down after they installed cameras in 2004.
Crime in Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no noticable difference in the homicide rate after Chicago's gun laws were struck down in District of Columbia v. Heller. However, the year that Chicago's gun laws were struck down the homicide rate was the highest between 2004 and 2012. Now the homicide rate appears to be rising in 2012. That suggests that more guns does not lower the homicide rate.

Easy access to some might seem like difficult access for a law abiding citizen like yourself.

No matter how difficult you make it, criminals will ALWAYS find guns or some other means of taking lives.

No, the answer is not to deny us responsible gun owners the access to guns guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

Most guns used by criminals were purchased legally. Fixing the gunshow loophole would most definitely lower the homicide rate in Chicago and across the country.

 

[Moot]

Uh, yeah he could have. McVeigh took over 160 innocent lives with fertilizer and diesel, Kehoe killed over 40 with bombs, and a Cuban immigrant killed over 80 with 1$s worth of gasoline.

Unlike you, I don't need to speculate and second guess because the fact is, Lanza had easy access to guns and he wouldn't have had guns or access to guns if they weren't in the home. But if you want to continue your ridiculous argument then tell me where else Lanza could have gotten hold of guns?

Timothy McViegh is classified as domestic terrorist and he didn't act alone. I am unfamiliar with the Cuban immigrant case, but even if I were that is only one case and doesn't constitute a noticable trend in homicides and murder with gasoline.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Unlike you, I don't need to speculate and second guess because the fact is, Lanza had easy access to guns and he wouldn't have had guns or access to guns if they weren't in the home. But if you want to continue your ridiculous argument then tell me where else Lanza could have gotten hold of guns?

Timothy McViegh is classified as domestic terrorist and he didn't act alone. I am unfamiliar with the Cuban immigrant case, but even if I were that is only one case and doesn't constitute a noticable trend in homicides and murder with gasoline.

You call having to murder someone easy access? You really don't get it, if you have to plan to take a life to obtain weapons it 'aint easy. I could if I had ill will kill thousands with well placed bombs, so could Lanza, or Holmes, or Laughner. Anyone with basic knowledge of what blows up could, or, like the Tokyo subway killers they could use an internationally banned substance(sarin) which would only be known when people started to DROP DEAD. You don't get it, malicious people kill innocent people, you aren't trying to get it because for some reason you bought the bull**** that the weapon is the problem, you excuse the will of the asshole that killed innocent children because frankly, I think you have an unsupportable agenda without using emotional appeal, your logic doesn't hold up without dead bodies.

 

[Moot]

You call having to murder someone easy access? You really don't get it, if you have to plan to take a life to obtain weapons it 'aint easy. I could if I had ill will kill thousands with well placed bombs, so could Lanza, or Holmes, or Laughner. Anyone with basic knowledge of what blows up could, or, like the Tokyo subway killers they could use an internationally banned substance(sarin) which would only be known when people started to DROP DEAD. You don't get it, malicious people kill innocent people, you aren't trying to get it because for some reason you bought the bull**** that the weapon is the problem, you excuse the will of the asshole that killed innocent children because frankly, I think you have an unsupportable agenda without using emotional appeal, your logic doesn't hold up without dead bodies.

We were talking about Lanza and you are unable to show or prove that he could have gotten hold of guns somewhere else. Your argument fails. Again, there is no trend in bombings or terror attacks in the US like there is with homicides and mass murder using guns. Give it up.

 

[LaMidRighter]

We were talking about Lanza and you are unable to show or prove that he could have gotten hold of guns somewhere else. Your argument fails. Again, there is no trend in bombings or terror attacks in the US like there is with homicides and mass murder using guns. Give it up.

Lanza could have bought a gun from a "psst, C'mere guy" in no time flat. Considering he lived in an area with plenty of ports it was that much easier.

 

[Moot]

Lanza could have bought a gun from a "psst, C'mere guy" in no time flat. Considering he lived in an area with plenty of ports it was that much easier.

Lanza was an extreme introvert and barely left the house and could barely talk to people he knew let alone strangers. Based on those who knew him, they said he very nervous and didnt make eye contact so a gun shop owner or clerk would have noticed immediately that he wasn't right in the head and would have never sold him a gun. So do you have anymore ideas how he could have gotten hold of a gun, or is that it?

 

[LaMidRighter]

Lanza was an extreme introvert and barely left the house and could barely talk to people he knew let alone strangers. Based on those who knew him, they said he very nervous and didnt make eye contact so a gun shop owner or clerk would have noticed immediately that he wasn't right in the head and would have never sold him a gun. So do you have anymore ideas how he could have gotten hold of a gun, or is that it?

So here is the thing, what he was and what he did isn't typical of the legal gun owner. So how does taking rights away from legitimate owners fix what happened? I will concede one point here, his mother was foolish to leave guns around with an idea her son could be dangerous, what I don't know is what steps he had to take after her murder to free them. I am on the responsibility side of ownership, if she knew he was dangerous and left the guns open she was in the wrong.

 

[Moot]

So here is the thing, what he was and what he did isn't typical of the legal gun owner.

Okay, now you're finally being honest.

So how does taking rights away from legitimate owners fix what happened? I will concede one point here, his mother was foolish to leave guns around with an idea her son could be dangerous, what I don't know is what steps he had to take after her murder to free them. I am on the responsibility side of ownership, if she knew he was dangerous and left the guns open she was in the wrong.

But thats the problem, it's always after the fact that we find out the guns came from a legitimate gun owner who supposedly knew all the safety rules. And given the statistics that 30% of legitimate gun owners with children in the home have admitted to leaving a loaded weapon out in the open or with easy access to kids doesn't comfort me very much to the "legitimate gun owner" defense. Especially, when I consider all the legititmate gun owners who don't admit it.

Right after the Newhouse killings, a 6th grader took a gun to school and held it up to a classmates head. I hear and read about these kind of stories all the time and gun happy Utah seems to have more than it's share.

People want prevention before something bad happens, not after. I suspect the gun control crowd would be more than willing to listen to any legitimate gun owners about realistic and credible ways to stop the killing. But all they seem to get are the fallacious arguements and insults for daring to suggest any kind of gun control whatsoever, let alone they should face the facts or come to a compromise. But make no mistake neither they nor I are fooled by the kind of arguements I've seen on this forum. So unless legitimate gun owners get with the program those gun laws will be made with or without them. Imo, it would best for all if they met the gun control people half way so we can make this country a better and safer place for all of us who love this country to live. I want a country I can be proud of, but as it stands I find it to be an embarrassment across the board and I'm getting discouraged.

 

[Moot]

So here is the thing, what he was and what he did isn't typical of the legal gun owner.

Okay, now you're finally being honest.

So how does taking rights away from legitimate owners fix what happened? I will concede one point here, his mother was foolish to leave guns around with an idea her son could be dangerous, what I don't know is what steps he had to take after her murder to free them. I am on the responsibility side of ownership, if she knew he was dangerous and left the guns open she was in the wrong.

But thats the problem, it's always after the fact that we find out the guns came from a legitimate gun owner who supposedly knew all the safety rules. And given the statistics that 30% of legitimate gun owners with children in the home have admitted to leaving a loaded weapon out in the open or with easy access to kids doesn't comfort me very much to the "legitimate gun owner" defense. Especially, when I consider all the legititmate gun owners who don't admit it.

Right after the Newhouse killings, a 6th grader took a gun to school and held it up to a classmates head. I hear and read about these kind of stories all the time and gun happy Utah seems to have more than it's share.

People want prevention before something bad happens, not after. I suspect the gun control crowd would be more than willing to listen to any legitimate gun owners about realistic and credible ways to stop the killing. But all they seem to get are the fallacious arguements and insults for daring to suggest any kind of gun control whatsoever, let alone they should face the facts or come to a compromise. But make no mistake neither they nor I are fooled by the kind of arguements I've seen on this forum. So unless legitimate gun owners get with the program those gun laws will be made with or without them. Imo, it would best for all if they met the gun control people half way so we can make this country a better and safer place for all of us who love this country to live. I want a country I can be proud of, but as it stands I find it to be an embarrassment across the board and I'm getting discouraged.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Okay, now you're finally being honest.

I am always honest, whether you agree or not.

But thats the problem, it's always after the fact that we find out the guns came from a legitimate gun owner who supposedly knew all the safety rules. And given the statistics that 30% of legitimate gun owners with children in the home have admitted to leaving a loaded weapon out in the open or with easy access to kids doesn't comfort me very much to the "legitimate gun owner" defense. Especially, when I consider all the legititmate gun owners who don't admit it.

Right after the Newhouse killings, a 6th grader took a gun to school and held it up to a classmates head. I hear and read about these kind of stories all the time and gun happy Utah seems to have more than it's share.

People want prevention before something bad happens, not after. I suspect the gun control crowd would be more than willing to listen to any legitimate gun owners about realistic and credible ways to stop the killing. But all they seem to get are the fallacious arguements and insults for daring to suggest any kind of gun control whatsoever, let alone they should face the facts or come to a compromise. But make no mistake neither they nor I are fooled by the kind of arguements I've seen on this forum. So unless legitimate gun owners get with the program those gun laws will be made with or without them. Imo, it would best for all if they met the gun control people half way so we can make this country a better and safer place for all of us who love this country to live. I want a country I can be proud of, but as it stands I find it to be an embarrassment across the board and I'm getting discouraged.

Okay, so here we are...........there is no excuse to be irresponsilbe as a gun owner, I fully admit that the right carries responsibility, always have asserted that. The problem I have is when the responsibility is assigned by people not well versed in the subject. Guns not needed for defense should be secured, children not taught to respect firearms should not have access to them, and psychotics should not be allowed unfettered acces to firearms. As well irresponsible adults have no business around firearms. The difference is I don't think we as a society can take it to a point that we allow government officials to determine the line, there are risks with allowing individuals to determine the line, but it is preferable to having laws that don't help much.

I'll give you something here, this is an idea for a due process based law I just passed along to my congressman and senator.

Proposal for a red flag system available to citizens regarding potentially dangerous individuals;

The purpose of such a law would be to allow for any citizen who notices suspicious behaviors to report to local or federal authorities when they notice potentially dangerous behaviors by certain individuals in order to have that person flagged in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS.
Behaviors could be run against a checklist and if signed off on by a judge that individual could then be temporarily prohibited the purchase of firearms under no criminal penalty. The individual should have the right to know why they are denied the purchase and what conditions they must satisy for reinstatement of their right if possible through due process.
Reporting of the individual can be done through sworn affidavit, legally binding, with all penalties for filing in bad faith being applicable. With the affidavit and checklist it is possible to protect both the individuals involved and societal interests without undue infringement on the second amendment by use of prior restraint in general.
This idea came about after the Aurora Colorado movie theater incident after which it was learned that a shooting club owner was to prohibit facility access and membership to the alleged gunman because he exhibited dangerous tendencies. Had the range owner the authority to set into motion a flag against the shooter it is possible that he would not have had easy access to the weapons used in the massacre.

 

[Moot]

Okay, so here we are...........there is no excuse to be irresponsilbe as a gun owner, I fully admit that the right carries responsibility, always have asserted that. The problem I have is when the responsibility is assigned by people not well versed in the subject.

I agree, if you're going to own and use a gun you should be versed. But what about people who don't want to own a gun or they can't or don't feel comfortable or safe around them? Shouldn't they have a say in the gun arguement?

Man accidentally fires gun in restaurant | Deseret News

Man hurt when gun blasts toilet | Deseret News

Please don't tell me this it only happens in Utah. lol (I admit I lauged at the toilet killer.) But it's bad enough that we have to concern ourselves with maniacs but now we also have to concern ourselves with legitimate gun owners and crazy s--- like that.

Guns not needed for defense should be secured, children not taught to respect firearms should not have access to them, and psychotics should not be allowed unfettered acces to firearms. As well irresponsible adults have no business around firearms.

Thats all well and good that they "should" but the problem is they overwhelmingly "aren't" or "don't". So how do you make people comply with the "shoulds" without enforceable rules, laws and consequences? At least when driving a car and a person runs a stop sign, they get a ticket and have to go to traffic school and pay a hefty fine and if the offense is bad enough, they lose their driving priviledge. So how do you make gun owners as accountable for their guns before something bad happens, as they would driving a car?

The difference is I don't think we as a society can take it to a point that we allow government officials to determine the line, there are risks with allowing individuals to determine the line, but it is preferable to having laws that don't help much.

But the government is the only one that the vast majority of people will accept to enforce the laws. They don't want vigilanties or people taking the laws into their own hands. It's hard to imagine any successful society without enforcable laws. The reason we have even have a constitution is because the colonial people wanted a government that would make laws and enforce the laws of the land and provide justice. Anything short of that is primitive and tribalistic, imo.

I'll give you something here, this is an idea for a due process based law I just passed along to my congressman and senator....

The purpose of such a law would be to allow for any citizen who notices suspicious behaviors to report to local or federal authorities when they notice potentially dangerous behaviors by certain individuals in order to have that person flagged in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS. Behaviors could be run against a checklist and if signed off on by a judge that individual could then be temporarily prohibited the purchase of firearms under no criminal penalty. The individual should have the right to know why they are denied the purchase and what conditions they must satisy for reinstatement of their right if possible through due process. Reporting of the individual can be done through sworn affidavit, legally binding, with all penalties for filing in bad faith being applicable. With the affidavit and checklist it is possible to protect both the individuals involved and societal interests without undue infringement on the second amendment by use of prior restraint in general.

I don't know if a judge is really qualified to determine a persons mental state unless it's obvious in his court, but rather I think it should be determined by someone trained in the mental health field and then they can report to the judge their opinion and THEN the judge can decide. But that's pretty much how it is now.

This idea came about after the Aurora Colorado movie theater incident after which it was learned that a shooting club owner was to prohibit facility access and membership to the alleged gunman because he exhibited dangerous tendencies. Had the range owner the authority to set into motion a flag against the shooter it is possible that he would not have had easy access to the weapons used in the massacre.

Anyone can file a police report or call the police if they notice suspicious behaviour. In fact, I thought it was encouraged after 9/11. But it kinda looks what your trying to describe is similar to Good Samaritan laws that require people to report strange behaviour or help someone in peril rather than turning a blind eye...

Good Samaritan law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia