Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Connecticut: Every day is the day to talk about Gun Control

Connecticut: Every day is the day to talk about Gun Control (Page 10)
Thread Tools
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2013, 04:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Funny though how you think its ok for people to have guns even though some of them will kill, but its not ok to have pot because seem people will drive or operate heavy machinery. Double standard much?
I'm not for controlling marijuana, just for controlling the criminal activity associated with it. But that's irrelevant - the example stands.
Utter nonsense, and yet again the primary purpose of pot is not to kill other human beings. Pot gangs are orders of magnitude less likely to be involved in gun crime because the margins on it are so much lower than the drugs that do attract guns.
The primary purpose of guns is to protect people and provide food for the table. This they do with regularity. The purpose of pot is... recreation? Maybe some medicinal value? Not comparable on that axis either.

Guns are tools. Tools can always be used by morons or psychos.
He can be fixed -- you can't.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2013, 04:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Most people there have no rights to defend themselves and so are the fodder for criminal gangs that pretty much run the country.
The military is ****ing scared of the gangs. Yes, I think arming the citizens would slowly improve the situation, but the real problem is the cartels. Not exactly a common problem in the civilized world (Actually, I wouldn't call Mexico the civilized world, either).


Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
I and everyone else is several orders of magnitude more likely to die in places where people have tried to ban guns. Those places just become more dangerous, not less.
Yeah, that doesn't jibe with the graph and stats posted.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Riiight. Because one is a human being setting a plan in motion to kill a bunch of people, and the other was space aliens out to battle robots.
This is as dumb as saying someone killed for a watch and another killed in self-defense are both "murder".
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2013, 04:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The military is ****ing scared of the gangs. Yes, I think arming the citizens would slowly improve the situation, but the real problem is the cartels. Not exactly a common problem in the civilized world (Actually, I wouldn't call Mexico the civilized world, either).
I think you live in a sheltered bubble. Criminal gangs are a problem all over the world. Just places that value rule of law over mob rule, and rights of the individual to defend themselves over the whims of corrupt governments and gangs, people are safer from them.

Yeah, that doesn't jibe with the graph and stats posted.
Nothing you're saying jibes with reality outside of your bubble.

This is as dumb as saying someone killed for a watch and another killed in self-defense are both "murder".
Again, life as seen from inside your little bubble. Neither example is self-defense, so you invoking that is what's dumb.

The Oslo bombing was the work of a lone nut, not connected to any middle east group. (As if that really mattered as to the larger point of if any nutcase can mass-kill other people or not). A simple glance at the facts of mass-shootings reveals that it's a global problem, not just the US. As far as rampage-killers, Europe has 100 to the America's (both continents) 118.

List of rampage killers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2013, 04:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
The theatre shooter in Colorado recently didn't go to a much bigger and more crowded theatre that was much closer to him. He also skipped several other theatres in favor of the one he went to. Why? Because the one he picked was the only one that was a 'gun free zone' IE: increase your kill total here' zone.
Gun-nuts have been repeating this like self-evident Gospel since the day it happened. There's no proof that was his motivation, or that he was even aware of it. It's grasping at straws.

I don't own a car, but when I go to a movie, I go to my favourite downtown theatre, which requires one bus, two subways, and a streetcar, because: they have an AVX theatre, they have a bar, they are above a bookstore, it has an older clientele, and it's the easiest place for my friends to meet me.

There's an equally good chance that the shooter chose that theatre for other reasons: that was the theatre he always went to and had an emotional attachment to it, or perhaps that was a theatre he didn't have an attachment to and wanted to make sure he didn't kill some people he actually liked. The Sandy Hook shooter shot up a school he had no connection to at all, and had to pass at least one school closer to him to get to it.

The point is: pretending to know the motivations of the Colorado shooter is a complete joke. The NRA and others are telling deliberate lies about a national tragedy for political purposes. It's fncking disgusting.

You are telling us you know the motivations of the Colorado shooter. You don't. Stop pretending you do, it just makes you a liar.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2013, 05:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Does it matter really? Whatever the motive, some nutjob wants to kill a bunch of people, they can find a way to do it. Guns, bombs, chemicals, poison, cars, aircraft, whatever all can be used as weapons to kill a bunch of people. There's just no regulating our way out of the possibility.
There's no one who says we can. Perhaps you should engage with the people and arguments being directed at you, instead of the phantom boogey-man in your head?

But, we can minimize the magnitude of the tragedy by 1) restricting easy access to unsecured weapons (the Sandy Hook shooter's mom should have been legally required to lock up her weapons so he couldn't have stolen them), 2) restricting the size of magazines to make it easier to stop a gunman (the Tuscon shooter was tackled while changing magazines, and he could have been stopped sooner if the mags were only 10 instead of 33 rounds, and the Colorado shooter had a fncking 100 rd drum magazine).

These are common sense restrictions. Stop being so hysterical about blanket bans almost no one is advocating.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2013, 05:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Most interesting to me is the fact that Mexico has the strictest gun control laws, yet the highest homicide rate.
Yeah, it's not like they could just cross the border to the year-round gun sale blow out their neighbours are having.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2013, 05:16 PM
 
The only offering up make-believe motivations to suit an agenda is you. "Maybe he didn't like the popcorn at the other place..blah blah blah."

FACT: that's unchanged whether it suits your anti-gun nuttiness or not. He didn't choose to shoot up any number of theatres where conceal-carry is allowed, and many that were equal distance from his house. He DID shoot up one where no guns are allowed and clearly his objective was to kill as many as possible.

The CT shooter did have ties to that school and killed himself exactly on arrival of another armed person despite having had enough ammunition to kill almost everyone in the school. Guns prevented a higher death toll not any of your wimpy anti-gun pants wetting. Deal with it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2013, 05:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
The only offering up make-believe motivations to suit an agenda is you. "Maybe he didn't like the popcorn at the other place..blah blah blah."
I'm not offering his motivations. I'm saying there are many possible motivations, and we don't know what his actual motivation was. You're pretending to know, and you don't.

He didn't choose to shoot up any number of theatres where conceal-carry is allowed, and many that were equal distance from his house. He DID shoot up one where no guns are allowed and clearly his objective was to kill as many as possible.
We don't know why he chose that theatre at all. It's bullsh!t to say you do know.

The CT shooter did have ties to that school
What ties are those?

Guns prevented a higher death toll not any of your wimpy anti-gun pants wetting. Deal with it.
Yeah, that's exactly what the crime stats say when comparing Canada vs the US.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2013, 05:24 PM
 
Frankly, I don't even know for a fact that these statements about which theatres had gun-restrictions are even true. How do you know it's true? How does the NRA know it's true? I'd like to see some proof, because the NRA is prone to talking out of their @ss and making stuff up to suit themselves.

Got a link? (Waits.....)
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2013, 05:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
The CT shooter did have ties to that school
Wikipedia offers a single news source that the shooter went to that school, but reading the source, it seems unconfirmed:

Classmate says Adam Lanza attended Sandy Hook school

Relatives have denied that Lanza attended the school. But at least one former classmate said that he apparently attended the school in fifth grade in fall 2002.
"At least one" is news-reporter talk that means "exactly one." I'd say the relatives know what they're talking about.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2013, 05:48 PM
 
I've read some reports which confirmed that Adam Lanza nor his mother had any connection to that school. There were some early reports that claimed she volunteered there but they turned out to be unfounded. That being said, I've seen other stories that purported to show Adam Lanza in a school picture with former classmates. Those stories said he attended briefly before his mother took him out to home school him.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jan 8, 2013 at 06:10 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2013, 05:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I'm not offering his motivations. I'm saying there are many possible motivations, and we don't know what his actual motivation was. You're pretending to know, and you don't.
Motivation and facts about the target he choose are different things. You're the one pretending to know motivations, I'm the one citing facts about the target he chose as opposed to ones he didn't. You just can't grasp the difference.


What ties are those?
I've seen reports that says he attended the school until his mother pulled him out of it. I've also heard interviews with people that knew his family that claim he definitely had been in the school and knew the layout.

Yeah, that's exactly what the crime stats say when comparing Canada vs the US.
Wait, didn't you just stupidly try and pawn off Mexico's high gun crime rate as geographic proximity to the US? Either your grasp of geography is just as bad as the rest of what passes for knowledge with you, or you're once again unable to keep track of your own 'sling-shit-and-see-what-sticks' arguments.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2013, 06:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Motivation and facts about the target he choose are different things. You're the one pretending to know motivations, I'm the one citing facts about the target he chose as opposed to ones he didn't. You just can't grasp the difference.
You said he chose that target because of the gun restrictions. Stop pretending you didn't. You're just lying even more now, and everyone can see it.

I've seen reports that says he attended the school until his mother pulled him out of it. I've also heard interviews with people that knew his family that claim he definitely had been in the school and knew the layout.
Link. Until then, I'm not convinced.

Wait, didn't you just stupidly try and pawn off Mexico's high gun crime rate as geographic proximity to the US? Either your grasp of geography is just as bad as the rest of what passes for knowledge with you, or you're once again unable to keep track of your own 'sling-shit-and-see-what-sticks' arguments.
We do have to deal with America's weapons in this country. But we don't have the other problems of Mexico, like rampant corruption, rank poverty, and a military vs drug gangs street-level warfare that would motivate Canadians to smuggle vastly more American weapons across the border.

Motive and opportunity. Unlike Mexico, we have comparatively limited motivation to smuggle guns, but the opportunity is sure there, and it does happen but on a more limited scale. Your gun culture is hurting our country.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2013, 06:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
You said he chose that target because of the gun restrictions. Stop pretending you didn't. You're just lying even more now, and everyone can see it.
I stated a fact: he chose to shoot up a theatre where guns aren't allowed. That's a FACT. You just can't deal with that fact- much like the rest of reality.


Link. Until then, I'm not convinced.
Of course, you're one that can never bother to look anything up before you spout.

"Marsha Lanza says Adam attended the school where the attacks happened, but was removed and home schooled by his mother."

Connecticut Shooting: Alleged Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown gunman Adam Lanza has suburban Chicago relatives: Marsha Lanza of Crystal Lake, Illinois | abc7chicago.com

Now, maybe you could dismiss a classmate that says he remembers him attending the school as just having a faulty memory, or trying to make the news, but this is his Aunt that would know such a fact. I've also heard similar in interviews with others that knew either the shooter or the family. So I'll take the word of those who would be in a position to know, over that of some mouth-breathing basement dweller on the internet that dismisses everything with "How do we know? Maybe it was just blah de blah because I say so."

Also, it's not that hard to get a weapon in Canada. The presence of guns in Canada is a deterrent to would-be nuts the same as it is here.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2013, 07:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
First, people on here are making the argument that restricting firearm access means only criminals will have them. This graph shows that is not the case (Or if it is the case, it isn't resulting in more murders).
If this debate was happening before the landscape was already flush with guns, I might agree. At this point, countries that never had this many guns to start with aren't good enough examples of that.


Second, guns are supposed to make us safer, so the correlation between more guns and more homicides shouldn't be linear, right? (Math is not my strong suit so I could get burned on this one)
It doesn't look linear to me, it looks like a big blob. Maybe I don't know what you're referring to.


It reeks of dodging the issue. (You're facts suck and I can't prove mine, guess we'll have to roll with the status quo!)
I argue it's the opposite. How is it not dodging the issue when you change the issue to fit the data you have just because you can't find anything more appropriate to the real issue?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2013, 07:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
I stated a fact: he chose to shoot up a theatre where guns aren't allowed. That's a FACT. You just can't deal with that fact- much like the rest of reality.
Good luck with that. That's the problem with trying to discuss US policy with foreigners who are only here to argue. We take these issues to heart because it's our country and we love it, they're only in this for the entertainment value.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2013, 07:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post

Originally Posted by The Above Article
Reid's final chart is also interesting. In order to find nations similar to the United States and Mexico on guns, you have to allow every country in the world into the data set, even ones with ongoing wars
I missed this at first... we're in the middle of ongoing wars too. Afghanistan and the War on Drugs and the War on Terror. Is it that far off to suggest they're the root of much of our violence?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2013, 10:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Good luck with that. That's the problem with trying to discuss US policy with foreigners who are only here to argue. We take these issues to heart because it's our country and we love it, they're only in this for the entertainment value.
Foreigners! Foreigners! Foreigners! Run for the the fncking hills!!

Maybe you should consider the policies of nations that aren't inundated with gun violence? 'Cause it seems to me the conservative interpretation of "the American Way" isn't working out too well.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2013, 11:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
I stated a fact: he chose to shoot up a theatre where guns aren't allowed. That's a FACT. You just can't deal with that fact- much like the rest of reality.
Keep lying and pretending you didn't claim to know the shooter's motivations. We all read what you wrote.

Of course, you're one that can never bother to look anything up before you spout.
I did look it up. It seemed unconfirmed. There was an enormous amount of false information peddled by the media in the wake of the shooting, so I'm just being naturally cautious. I still haven't seen anything that looks like a confirmed report about Lanza's connection with the school.

"Marsha Lanza says Adam attended the school where the attacks happened, but was removed and home schooled by his mother."

Connecticut Shooting: Alleged Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown gunman Adam Lanza has suburban Chicago relatives: Marsha Lanza of Crystal Lake, Illinois | abc7chicago.com
See, this is all I wanted. I asked for a link and I got one. It's still pretty iffy since it's just what some local ABC affiliate said the day after the shooting occurred, when lots of news agencies were still passing around faulty information.

It's also not all that important really. You said there was a connection, I knew there were false reports about Lanza's mom being a school teacher there, so I was curious what you thought the connection actually was. It's really completely irrelevant to the gun control issue.

I'm spending some time with Google to figure out what major new agencies are saying. The news report you linked says Marsha Lanza made this statement at a news conference, but this report also mixes in stuff she said on Facebook, so it's hard to know what she said, when, and to whom. I've also read in one report that she claimed to be close to Adam and his mom, while another report says they haven't seen each other in eight years.

And I've read that Adam Lanza attended Sandy Hook but his mom took him out to home school him, but I've also read that she took him out of high school to home school him. Did this "pulled-from-school" thing happen twice, or have these reports been mixed up?

Thanks for the link, but I'm still cautious about what is being said by the news about this case.

EDIT: for instance, read this news report. Very different spin on what Marsha Lanza allegedly said: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-...er-adam-lanza/

Marsha Lanza said Adam's mother, Nancy Lanza, had disputes with the local school district and eventually ended up home schooling Adam. She could not confirm reports that Adam Lanza had Asperger syndrome or any other learning disability. Sources tell CBS News that Adam Lanza did attend Sandy Hook Elementary School at one time, although it's currently unclear when and for how long.

"[Nancy] had issues with school ... She battled with the school district,'' said Marsha Lanza. "I'm not 100 percent certain if it was behavior, learning disabilities, I really don't know. But he was very, very bright. He was smart."
Notice here that Adam Lanza attending Sandy Hook is attributed to "sources," not to Marsha Lanza, even though these paragraphs are about Marsha Lanza and her reaction to the event.

I haven't read a single report yet that quotes Marsha Lanza saying that Adam Lanza attended Sandy Hook, even though she is quoted saying a lot of other things. Very suspicious, if you ask me.

EDIT: And here's yet another unusual spin on whether Adam Lanza went to Sandy Hook: http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/12/...s-family-life/

Marsha is still troubled. She lives in Crystal Lake, a far cry from the horrific scene at Sandy Hook Elementary.

It’s also the school Marsha Lanza believes her nephew Adam started his academic career. He would later be pulled out by his mother.

“I know she had issue with school. She eventually wound up homeschooling him. She battled the school district. If it was behavior, if it was learning disabilities, I really don’t know, but he was a very, very bright boy. He was smart,” said Marsha.
So now we have at least three different perspectives: it came from Marsha herself, it came from "sources," or Marsha "believes" Adam Lanza went there. Keep in mind, this is a woman who apparently hasn't see Adam Lanza since he was three years old (same news link):
The last time she saw her nephew, he was three years-old.
Clearly, this issue isn't settled, and I was right to be skeptical about it.

Also, it's not that hard to get a weapon in Canada. The presence of guns in Canada is a deterrent to would-be nuts the same as it is here.
You don't know much about Canada then. We have a licensing system, and required methods of storage, and mandatory inspections, and lots of other things. Don't pretend it's the same here as there. It ain't. The level of gun violence isn't comparable either.
( Last edited by lpkmckenna; Jan 8, 2013 at 11:50 PM. )
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2013, 10:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
If this debate was happening before the landscape was already flush with guns, I might agree. At this point, countries that never had this many guns to start with aren't good enough examples of that.
I don't follow.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
It doesn't look linear to me, it looks like a big blob. Maybe I don't know what you're referring to.
Regression analysis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I argue it's the opposite. How is it not dodging the issue when you change the issue to fit the data you have just because you can't find anything more appropriate to the real issue?
I haven't changed the issue. The base argument is more guns = more death.



Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I missed this at first... we're in the middle of ongoing wars too. Afghanistan and the War on Drugs and the War on Terror. Is it that far off to suggest they're the root of much of our violence?
Dude, c'mon. This kind of intellectual dishonesty undermines any real point you may have.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2013, 10:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Foreigners! Foreigners! Foreigners! Run for the the fncking hills!!
mckenna! mckenna! You're validating my point.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2013, 10:23 AM
 
Okay Dakar, you're in the Left area of the American citizenry on this issue, not saying that as a slam, I'm far Left on a lot of things. What are your views in this, seriously? No snark or BS, what would you like to see going forward? What laws, codes, actions would bring benefit?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2013, 10:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I don't follow.
As the chart you posted shows, the number of guns in the US is off the scales of anything that other countries were dealing with. The argument (you referenced) about the problem of transitioning from free (as in speech) guns to banned guns putting criminals at an advantage, is not answered by examples of countries where criminals don't have so many guns already as our criminals do.

Or maybe I'm ignorant of the fact that those "civilized" countries used to have as many pre-ban guns as we have now, and they disappeared after the ban? I didn't think that was true, but I don't know how to find out. Did any of the other countries ever have .88 guns per head, and come down from that number?


I don't follow

Are you saying that regression analysis demonstrates that it is linear even though it doesn't look it (the r squared value of that data is higher than it looks)? Or are you saying that linear regression analysis tells us something you're trying to imply, like for example the US is 2 standard deviations away from.... something, or that the linear analysis reveals an un-obvious correlation or inverse correlation? Give me a hint


I haven't changed the issue. The base argument is more guns = more death.
That's fine, but I was pointing out how the data you posted and called "good" doesn't ever mention "more death," it only mentions "more gun-related death." If you object to that criticism, it means you would rather change the issue to "more gun-related death" than to back off the characterization of that data as "good."


Dude, c'mon. This kind of intellectual dishonesty undermines any real point you may have.
What? You can try to argue that overseas wars don't count (they count some), or that militarizing the police to fight a criminalized class of people at home doesn't count (it counts more than "real" wars overseas), but in combination it adds up. It doesn't add up to the *same* numbers as Sierra Leone or the rest, nor do our homicide rates reach theirs. But don't turn a blind eye to this factor, it's significant.

Did you ever wonder why drug dealers have to carry out their own justice? It's because they can't call the police when someone steals from them. You don't think that has a major impact on our number of homicides, regardless of weapon? We created this problem, and we have the power to mitigate it.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2013, 10:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Okay Dakar, you're in the Left area of the American citizenry on this issue, not saying that as a slam, I'm far Left on a lot of things. What are your views in this, seriously? No snark or BS, what would you like to see going forward? What laws, codes, actions would bring benefit?
I don't take being called left-leaning as a slam, but I appreciate the concern.

My biggest problem is I'm not familiar enough with the gun laws to provide and good in depth reform. So the ideas I've had to contribute probably won't have a major effect on the stats but gnaw away at them. Off the top of my head:

First, keeping your gun secure needs to become law. No, Federal inspectors aren't going to come into your home yearly to check-up on you. Look at it like seatbelt laws – you can't be pulled over for it but you will get fined if they catch you while being assessed for something else.

Further, the NRA should be funding a round of PSAs on that gun safety (Just like we've been doing with seatbelts since the 80s). Stuff like keeping young kids safe, and more topically, how someone like Lanza can have her own guns used on her. We talk about gun culture – well let's work on making it overly concerned with gun security.

Second, close the gun show loop-hole. I mean seriously, wtf.

Third, let's look at countries like Switzerland which have rather liberal gun rights and see what regulatory differences there are and if there might be something to be gained from them.

Fourth, let's research and expand non-lethal weaponry. If a segment of people are seeking guns for effective security, let's give them the option of buying weaponry that can't (or is unlikely) to kill if it falls in the wrong hands.

A few things I'm still considering:
Reducing magazine capacities. I'm not convinced this would have that noticeable an impact, but I do believe this would make mass shooters slower/more vulnerable. And I don't see any practical downside. I'm not sorry if this impacts your recreational use.

Teacher gun training. I'm not on board with turning schools into quasi police states but I'd the least I'd like teachers to be familiar enough with firearms where they could effectively use them in an emergency. I'd consider having a gun safe in somewhere like the school office and teacher's lounge, but the idea has the obvious drawback of just escalating it's target value, much like the Colombine kids supposedly knew security's schedule and planned for it.

Open and continuous gun buybacks. Less guns is less guns.

All I got at the moment.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2013, 11:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post

First, keeping your gun secure needs to become law. No, Federal inspectors aren't going to come into your home yearly to check-up on you. Look at it like seatbelt laws – you can't be pulled over for it but you will get fined if they catch you while being assessed for something else.
This is a very good point, and something we're looking at on a county level. One proposal is to require combination lock boxes for handguns and secure lockable cabinets for rifles. If they aren't in use, or lawfully being transported, then that's where they need to be, no exceptions.

Further, the NRA should be funding a round of PSAs on that gun safety (Just like we've been doing with seatbelts since the 80s). Stuff like keeping young kids safe, and more topically, how someone like Lanza can have her own guns used on her. We talk about gun culture – well let's work on making it overly concerned with gun security.
I like that, they have deep pockets and I see it as their place to do things like this.

Second, close the gun show loop-hole. I mean seriously, wtf.
Requiring background checks at gun shows should be law. I see it done at the shows I attend, more often than not, but it needs to be codified. Good point.

Third, let's look at countries like Switzerland which have rather liberal gun rights and see what regulatory differences there are and if there might be something to be gained from them.
I believe our situation, with our Constitution and sheer number of available weapons, makes European measures almost impossible to legislate without being thrown out by the judiciary.

Fourth, let's research and expand non-lethal weaponry. If a segment of people are seeking guns for effective security, let's give them the option of buying weaponry that can't (or is unlikely) to kill if it falls in the wrong hands.
My wife carries a potent stun gun and keeps a taser in her car, because she doesn't want to carry a gun. I think those are effective, with the right training, but aren't perfect in all situations and won't stop everyone.

A few things I'm still considering:
Reducing magazine capacities. I'm not convinced this would have that noticeable an impact, but I do believe this would make mass shooters slower/more vulnerable. And I don't see any practical downside. I'm not sorry if this impacts your recreational use.
Swapping a mag literally takes 2 seconds, most know about taping them together for efficiency. It's not about impacting recreational use, I just don't see that it would make a difference.

Teacher gun training. I'm not on board with turning schools into quasi police states but I'd the least I'd like teachers to be familiar enough with firearms where they could effectively use them in an emergency. I'd consider having a gun safe in somewhere like the school office and teacher's lounge, but the idea has the obvious drawback of just escalating it's target value, much like the Colombine kids supposedly knew security's schedule and planned for it.
I think deputizing/training principals and asst. principals could be a valid option. Not having them "packing heat" all over the school, but them having access to secure firearms in strategic locations, in the event of an emergency.

Open and continuous gun buybacks. Less guns is less guns.
I think that would work with very cheap weapons, bargain basement .38s and the like, but having personally sifted through the bins after a buy-back, I can tell you that very few were desirable in any way, and most were inoperable.

Good thoughts.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2013, 06:49 PM
 
If you don't want to buy back guns, have an amnesty so people can hand them in.

What about legislating that new weapons sold must have their 'ballistic signatures' (not sure thats the right term) filed with the government/law enforcement?

Private sale of a weapon to an unlicensed/unchecked individual? Is there rules on that?

How about classrooms get bulletproof doors or safe room style areas? In the long run its cheaper than arming teachers or guards and you only need to delay these shooters until the cops arrive right? Plus no guns floating around in schools that kids can steal.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2013, 01:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
If you don't want to buy back guns, have an amnesty so people can hand them in.

What about legislating that new weapons sold must have their 'ballistic signatures' (not sure thats the right term) filed with the government/law enforcement?

Private sale of a weapon to an unlicensed/unchecked individual? Is there rules on that?

How about classrooms get bulletproof doors or safe room style areas? In the long run its cheaper than arming teachers or guards and you only need to delay these shooters until the cops arrive right? Plus no guns floating around in schools that kids can steal.
Generally these laws are handled state by state, as they should be. There's no reason an urban area like Washington DC should have the same gun laws as montana.

I do not believe this issue needs federal intervention. Why not let the people govern themselves, via their local legislatures?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2013, 02:50 PM
 
No doubt the same reason the CDC and EPA are at the federal level: disease and vice know no borders
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2013, 02:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Good thoughts.
Oh, one more I forgot about. I'm okay with gun education like we have drivers and sex ed in school.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2013, 03:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
No doubt the same reason the CDC and EPA are at the federal level: disease and vice know no borders
It's also the same reason the EPA comes under such scrutiny. Disease and pollution affect different populations differently. You would not regulate Alaskan environmental concerns the same way you would New York's.

In my view the CDC is a prime example of a government organization run correctly and with great value to the population - they do not meddle in local affairs, and act as an advisory body to the nation to promote health and wellness.

The EPA, IMO, is the opposite example. The EPA is wrought with activism from within its ranks that puts it at odds with local populations and government. It is simply an extension of the politics from which ever party is in power, and acts without congressional oversight. An example of this would be their recent court battle with Virginia, where they tried to regulate storm water runoff as pollution costing both VA and American Taxpayers millions. For what?

Could you apply Maryland gun laws to Alaska and expect them to have the same effect? Enforcement compliance? No. You couldn't.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2013, 04:17 PM
 
Putting regulation under the same roof is not the same as forcing regulations to be the same across the whole country. How do you think the CDC manages it? Do you think the same diseases affect Georgia and Maine?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2013, 06:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Generally these laws are handled state by state, as they should be. There's no reason an urban area like Washington DC should have the same gun laws as montana.

I do not believe this issue needs federal intervention. Why not let the people govern themselves, via their local legislatures?
Some of these laws or ideas wouldn't work properly unless every state implemented them. The ballistics database for one, and any type of weapon ban would mean that people would just buy from the next state.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2013, 12:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Any type of weapon ban would mean that people would just buy from the next state.
Not so, the ban applies in the state regardless of were you bought it. So again only affects legal activities and by extension does not affect illegal.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2013, 04:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
Not so, the ban applies in the state regardless of were you bought it. So again only affects legal activities and by extension does not affect illegal.
Well OK, but if the purpose of the ban is to try to reduce the numbers of those weapons in circulation in the long term it still isn't going to work because as most pro-gun people claim, getting their weapons away from them is going to be difficult. If they will hide them away when the cops come to call so why wouldn't they nip to the next state to buy them? Smuggling them home won't be difficult will it? I have always assumed that US states don't have any border controls, is that wrong?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2013, 10:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Well OK, but if the purpose of the ban is to try to reduce the numbers of those weapons in circulation in the long term it still isn't going to work because as most pro-gun people claim, getting their weapons away from them is going to be difficult. If they will hide them away when the cops come to call so why wouldn't they nip to the next state to buy them? Smuggling them home won't be difficult will it? I have always assumed that US states don't have any border controls, is that wrong?
We barely have border control with Mexico (where a good bit of already illegal weapons come through.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2013, 10:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Some of these laws or ideas wouldn't work properly unless every state implemented them. The ballistics database for one, and any type of weapon ban would mean that people would just buy from the next state.
If someone really wants to illegally obtain a weapon, you think a new law is going to stop them?

Hint: No.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2013, 11:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
If someone really wants to illegally obtain a weapon, you think a new law is going to stop them?

Hint: No.
No I don't, but I think its worth trying to stop the people who don't want to obtain one that badly, but will if they see the chance. And then go on to do something stupid with it.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2013, 12:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
...I think its worth trying to stop the people who...do something stupid...
Epic
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2013, 12:10 PM
 
I think the gun control mindset comes from the idea that guns are made in the 'states, and if we can just turn off that spigot then the "flow" of guns will ultimately be irrelevant, because the source will have dried up, even internationally. Guns are not drugs, where you can grow more of them, you need a factory (for now at least). Factories can be policed a lot more easily than people can. If it works that way, then it's not altogether a bad idea. Except for the existing stock of guns, which I guess could be gradually eroded as they're "used up" in committing crimes. If 10,000 guns are used in crimes each year and thereby recaptured and disposed of, it would only take about 30,000 years for all the "in the wild" guns to finally dry up, and we'll be in a peaceful utopia. If we really amp up our efforts, we could get it done in half that time. The sooner we start, the sooner that day will arrive.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2013, 04:26 PM
 
We have a machine shop locally now, it's pretty sophisticated and we can theoretically build just about anything. Several of us are also licensed in firearms modification and manufacture...
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2013, 04:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
If someone really wants to illegally obtain a weapon, you think a new law is going to stop them?

Hint: No.
Rape is against the law. People still do it, though. I guess those laws are pointless?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2013, 04:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
We have a machine shop locally now, it's pretty sophisticated and we can theoretically build just about anything. Several of us are also licensed in firearms modification and manufacture...
How big is it? Does it need a permit/inspections? If making guns was illegal, would you be able to get away with it anyway without being caught, and if so at what production rate? Very interesting, thanks for the info.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2013, 04:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Rape is against the law. People still do it, though. I guess those laws are pointless?
For that to be analogous, it would have to be possible for law-abiding citizens to defend against rape by using a rape of their own.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2013, 04:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
If making guns was illegal, would you be able to get away with it anyway without being caught?
"Around here the cops would just look the other way"
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2013, 04:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
For that to be analogous, it would have to be possible for law-abiding citizens to defend against rape by using a rape of their own.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2013, 04:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
"Around here the cops would just look the other way"
Presumably even if local police were active participants in a scheme to produce federal contraband (like say, meth), the feds would eventually narrow it down and take over enforcement somehow. My question then is more about the long term steady-state. If someone was using this technology to evade federal law, how much product would they be able to produce without their activity being noticed (by either police or by feds after having replaced the police)?

me gusta
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2013, 05:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
How big is it? Does it need a permit/inspections? If making guns was illegal, would you be able to get away with it anyway without being caught, and if so at what production rate? Very interesting, thanks for the info.
It depends on the scale, really. I'll need to ask the guy who owns the place (it's a full machine shop and foundry). He's federally licensed, like I said before, but I'm not sure about volume, as the info I have isn't specific.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2013, 05:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
"Around here the cops would just look the other way"
The "cops" are also his customers. You had enough bran today?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2013, 06:09 PM
 
This would be under the hypothetical situation where manufacturing guns was outlawed. Whether or not the cops remained his customers after that, the question is could he produce (more) guns under their nose without them enforcing the law against it. Are there any gun manufacturers now that have a "protected" channel of guns to be delivered to the police or military?
( Last edited by Uncle Skeleton; Jan 12, 2013 at 02:59 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2013, 06:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
It depends on the scale, really. I'll need to ask the guy who owns the place (it's a full machine shop and foundry). He's federally licensed, like I said before
I think I misread when you said "we" I thought you were referring to something your friends/family got as a hobby or something.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:31 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2