Newtown School Shootings

[Hooahguy]

And yet, in all the years that I've been reading Pap's and some of the others' posts, I've never read a word written about the social costs of alcohol.

Because banning alcohol has been tried and it failed miserably. Which is why banning guns will also fail but people are delusional so they think it will work because panic is always fun to practice.

[Beskar]

Because banning alcohol has been tried and it failed miserably. Which is why banning guns will also fail but people are delusional so they think it will work because panic is always fun to practice.

Not really the same. Brewing a beer can be done in a bath tub with stuff from the supermarket. You cannot make a gun anywhere as easy. Only issue with America is the prevalence of guns in mainstream culture which would make it difficult to remove whilst in other countries, it is a non-issue.

[Hooahguy]

Not really the same. Brewing a beer can be done in a bath tub with stuff from the supermarket. You cannot make a gun anywhere as easy.

Its not making the guns, its buying the guns illegally. People who want guns can get guns. Our southern neighbors have plenty and Im sure the cartels would love to open another form of business if the cash and situation is right. Just like with the drugs.

[ICantSpellDawg]

3D printing of firearms will be an incredible thing. I look forward to the arguments we'll have.

[Hooahguy]

3D printing of firearms will be an incredible thing.

Actually has been tested. The receiver fell apart after a few pulls of the trigger.

[Catiline]

What has always fascinated me about the gun grabbers is their complete silence on alcohol.

Yay for the strawman.

[Hooahguy]

Yay for the strawman.

Explain please.

[Major Robert Dump]

Drinking yourself to death is much more pleasurable than being shot in kindergarten class

[Catiline]

It's not difficult. Just because two things are, or can be, bad for us doesn't mean that's an instant equivalence that means because you wish to restrict or prohibit one should you wish to restrict or prohibit the other to the same extent.

More people are killed by cars, you don't see anti gun people trying to ban them.

THe illegal guns argument doesn't really stand up either. They're still all fed into the market at the top end legally - take that supply away and over time the number of illegal guns, certainly working and properly maintained ones, will go down.

How many of these shooters actually obtain their guns illegally anyway. At most they're 'stealing' them from friends and family. It's not like some LAN party attending goth misfit is going down to his local illegal gun cartel and say, 'hey I'm thinking of doing a massacre, give me a gun dude'.

[Catiline]

Drinking yourself is much more pleasurable than being shot in kindergarten class

blood or urine? I prefer my white really chilled

[Ironside]

And yet, in all the years that I've been reading Pap's and some of the others' posts, I've never read a word written about the social costs of alcohol. This leads me to believe that the immediate jump to ban guns, as opposed to say, trying to understand why society keeps letting mentally disturbed individuals fall through the cracks, is not out of a genuine concern for the teh childrenz. If it were, such posters would be calling for a return to Prohibition in the states and abroad. Instead, the urge to ban instead of understand reveals deep rooted fear or ignorance about guns and/or general disdain of the mindset that leads people to desire gun ownership.

"Why do you have a military compound in the middle of the city?"
"It's a school."

Simply comparing the number of school shootings in the US to Europe tells that something is off. And since you do have an unusually aggressive gun culture (guns for defense (and therefore aggression) is seen as normal) it's what the focus will be.

It is more factors involved, but that's more subtile and harder to see if they are influential or not.

[Husar]

What has always fascinated me about the gun grabbers is their complete silence on alcohol. Alcohol related deaths claim the lives of millions of people each year, hundreds of thousands of them being innocent children - far more than firearms. Even infallible Australia isn't immune to the misery caused by the substance. And the typical arguments about guns are uniquely interchangeable. Consumable alcohol serves absolutely no beneficial social good. It's sole purpose is to alter people's mental state, which leads to all manner of terrible outcomes. The fact that millions consume it responsibly each year does not negate the fact that millions also die each year because of it.

And yet, in all the years that I've been reading Pap's and some of the others' posts, I've never read a word written about the social costs of alcohol. This leads me to believe that the immediate jump to ban guns, as opposed to say, trying to understand why society keeps letting mentally disturbed individuals fall through the cracks, is not out of a genuine concern for the teh childrenz. If it were, such posters would be calling for a return to Prohibition in the states and abroad. Instead, the urge to ban instead of understand reveals deep rooted fear or ignorance about guns and/or general disdain of the mindset that leads people to desire gun ownership.

Says the guy who was in favor of invading two countries, killing hundreds of thousands of people and taking a whole lot of freedoms away over a statistically insignificant terror attack... Statistical significance can obviously not be a deciding factor.

[Papewaio]

A moderate amount of shots of alcohol can increase ones lifespan.

How many shots to the head with a gun can increase ones lifespan?

There is a risk vs reward/utility of an object or action. Not only equally risky actions have an equal payoff.

Cars kill people regularly. And I for one think a drunk or drugged driver should be prosecuted harsher then a non-addled driver. However I do not support a ban on vehicles for everyone as they have a utility that if driven correctly far outweighs their problems. I do support banning those with medical conditions such as epileptics passengers only, and those who need glasses should be wearing them.

A lot, not all alcohol related injuries and deaths are to the user. Unfortunately a lot also hurt those around them. I'm not pro-alcohol, I've had my share of bad mentors in that field. I chose not to get a car license until I felt I was more mature and could handle the responsibility, I also did not even touch alcohol until 22 and even then not very regularly at all (legal age is 18). I do drink now, but my rule is only when I am happy and in general have achieved something.

I'm also not against hunters and farmers having access to firearms.

[Brenus]

“What has always fascinated me about the gun grabbers is their complete silence on alcohol.” Never heard of a mass killing imposed by binge drinking against the victims’ will… None of victims in firearms mass killing were willing (we don’t speak of accidents here).

[rory_20_uk]

Deaths due to drink are legion. The most obvious example is drink driving. Violence would be another one.

But back to the topic...

Since the Supreme court in 2008 decided the right to bear arms in a state militia meant the right for individuals to bear arms it appears a lost cause, frankly. Even if some states were to tighten laws then people will just drive over the border. If you are about to slaughter a bunch of kids and then yourself I doubt a citation for having an illegal weapon is high on the list.

A system of ID tagged weapons or even better weapons linked to a ring for example would eventually help. After decades. And since the last small step was revoked a few years after it started I doubt it is realistic.

[Andres]

A tragedy of this proportion affects an entire nation, so I'd like to offer my condolences to all US citizens here. I sincerely hope none of you knew the victims or their families personally.

This thread has been an interesting read so far, but there's one thing that surprises me. Apparently, the killers' mother was a gun fanatic. Now, I know that that in itself isn't much of an issue to our US residents, but I find it hard to understand that this woman took her children, among which a son with serious mental issues, to the shooting range and, apparently, kept deadly weapons in her house in a place where her mentally ill son could acces them. She paid for it with her life and I know this is a harsh thing to say, but I think part of the responsibility lays with the killers' own mother. Also, what good would a very strict law on gun ownership be if parents of mentally ill children let their guns laying around in the house? No guns in a house where a mentally ill lives? That won't work, since that would mean you touch on an individuals' rights because of another individual. It's also very easily circumvented. How does the government know where person X lives de facto? Or are you going to invade the houses of gun owning parents of mentally ill on a random basis to check if their son/daughter doesn't live there?

I think Fragony is right that tragedies such as these can never be completely prevented. But perhaps there are ways to reduce the risk. I don't think you can stop somebody who planned everything ahead, like the Norway nutter Breivik. Somebody who is determined to do such a horrible act and is able to prepare himself during years; you can't stop him, it's impossible. But somebody who would do such a thing during a moment of frenzy, on impulse, perhaps it's possible to prevent slaugherts of this scale if guns aren't as accessible as they apparntly now are in the US. Sure, a knife kills too, but it's not as deadly as a firearm.

Perhaps there is something to say for changing your gun laws, but I don't think this event should be the basis to start from with legislative work. It's a terrible idea to drasticially change legislation because a nutter went nuts. It's as absurd as banning buses after a major bus incident. Banning guns after this event, would be legislation made by your underbelly. It's understandable and it's a human reaction, but it's not a good basis to go on for writing new laws.

For starters, you need to find out if the legislation on guns is a direct cause for a higher amount of killing involving guns. It's not because statistic A says US citizens more often than other countries' citizens own a gun and statistic B says there are more killings involving guns in the US than abroad, that A is a cause of B. There's a connection, sure, but that in itself is not evidence. How many of the killings with firearms in the US are committed with guns bought on the black market and how many with legally obtained guns, for instance? Are there any figures or statistics about that? And how many of the guns acquired on the black market started their career as a legal gun? Also, how many crimes have been prevented because a citizen had a gun? Does gun ownership really help to prevent crime/to safe your own life, or is that a fable? Are there numbers on people who survived a murder attempt, because they were carrying a gun at the time? Numbers of people who succesfully stopped a bank robbery because they had a gun? Stuff like that? What I'm trying to get at: does having a gun really help or is that just something you believe?

Related: How safe is the US? Do you have to carry a gun, because your state doesn't provide you a secure country (is it really necessary to have a gun in the US in order to sruvive the every day life, is your country that dangerous?) ? In case of the latter, how comes? Not enough resources or are your resources used inefficiently? What are the priorities for your policemen and women? Do they have to keep themselves busy with insane amounts of paperwork or are they allowed to do their jobs on the streets?

How serious is the argument that people need to have the right to carry a gun in case the government oppresses them? Do you live in constant fear that your government is going to oppress you? Where does that fear come from? Is it justified anno 2012?

The US is a country with no national healthcare worthy of the name. It's a country that is generally speaking very harsh for people who are not succesfull in life. Isn't somebody who gets left to rot when he's unhappy in life more keen on committing crime, or even murder, than somebody who gets supported and provided a house, food, heating and a wee bit of pocket money? Who commits these murders with guns? If you take all people who killed somebody with a gun in the last 10 years; would they be a blueprint of society or would there be a disproportiate amount of poor people/mentally ill people/drug addicts etc.? If there's a disproportionate amount of a certain group, say mentally ill, perhaps you can then go and compare how the mentally ill are treated in the US compared to countries with lower numbers on killings involving guns? And perhaps also look at the numbers of mentally ill in other countries' statistics.

Then there's also the fact that the US shouldn't put its' head in the sand. Perhaps guns are not a direct cause for the amount of murders, but maybe they are an indirect cause. Perhaps it's true that you have more killings, because you treat your poor bad, but that doesn't have to mean guns aren't a factor and that you should stop the debate right there. Would your murderers have committed murder if they didn't have a firearm? That's a question you need to ask and answer, not simply brush away, because it's not the main cause. Perhaps it's not the main cause for the amount of killings, but if it has something to do with it, you need to act on it.

Imo, if the US banned gun ownership for citizens, the numbers of succesfull people committing murder will drop drastically. Without having looked up stats, figures, studies, however, I think most murders in the US are probably committed by people living on the other scale of society and I don't think banning guns will make the figures there drop.

Anyway, you can't have this debate with taboos, nor can you have this debate without looking at all different angles. You cannot simply reduce this to a debate about gun laws or a debate about mental healthcare in the US.

It would be moronic to instantly change gun laws because of this event, but it would also be moronic not to take the event as an opportunity to have a very open debate about your society as a whole. Perhaps gun laws need a few changes, but you most likely need a lot more changes as well, both in legislation as in mentality.

My

[Lemur]

There are approx 310 million firearms in circulation among civilians in the USA. Good luck registering them. The third-most powerful lobbying group (after AARP and AIPAC) is a 2nd Amendment absolutist which has been hysterically screaming about how Obama will derk er guhns for four years. The courts have repeatedly demonstrated that they are uninterested in regulating gun rights in any way, and there is, so far, insufficient public outrage to change that equation.

I would like to see gun ownership about as regulated as motor vehicle operation, but a school full of dead children ain't gonna make it happen. The Founders kinda screwed us with the phrasing of the Second Amendment. Yes, the "well-regulated militia" part is pretty obvious, but so is "shall not be infringed."

[Andres]

There are approx 310 million firearms in circulation among civilians in the USA. Good luck registering them. The third-most powerful lobbying group is a 2nd Amendment absolutist which has been hysterically screaming about how Obama will derk er guhns for four years. The courts and public are approx 50% 2A absolutists.

As long as you have such powerful absolutists, backed by such a large part of the population, clinging on to this Amendmenet as if it were some holy rule written in stone by Supreme Beings, you can't have an open debate. And gun legislation is only one aspect.

I would like to see gun ownership about as regulated as motor vehicle operation, but a school full of dead children ain't gonna make it happen.

A teenager can take his/her fathers' car for a ride without the father knowing... Juste like a young lad can take his mothers' guns and shoot her before going on a rampage with her guns...

If your legislation on guns is the main reason for events such like these happening, then only outright banning private gun ownership will help, imo. Even if you add extra regulation, it'll still be too easy for a deranged individual to get his hands on a gun.

[Lemur]

A teenager can take his/her fathers' car for a ride without the father knowing... Juste like a young lad can take his mothers' guns and shoot her before going on a rampage with her guns...

The car is registered, and has a license plate. The ownership of the car is tracked at the State level. The parent had to pass a minimal driving and safety test before being allowed on the road, and is required to have insurance for the vehicle in most states.

Moreover, the car is required by law to have a host of safety features, such as locks, airbags, brakes, etc.

I don't see a meaningful comparison between motor vehicles and firearms, at least not in the USA. That's because vehicle operation is treated as a privilege, while gun ownership, due to the phrasing of the Second Amendment, is a right. Unless/until we modify the Second Amendment, I don't see much meaningful change happening. And the political will just isn't there.

Truthfully, I think any change is going to need to come from gun advocates themselves. Fun little fact: The NRA was originally founded to support the regulation of firearms. It's true, look it up. So when the NRA can move past Obama's gunna derk uhr gehns and get into some sort of workable regimen of gun regulation, ain't nothing gonna happen.

[Major Robert Dump]

Many years ago I was a member of the NRA but let my membership lapse because their stance on gun shows irked me. They are absolutists. Thats the problem. Not unlike the ACLU in a sense, but the ACLU does not deal wth instruments of killing.....

I've been away for a good while, so pardon me if the laws have changed, which I don't think they have....

For decades we have seen reasonable (and unreasonable) laws put under the axe by the NRA. The mere fact that at a gun show (or in a person-to-person sale in a newspaper classified) a weapon can be transferred from one person to the other with not paper trail is absolutely absurd. No background check, no requirement for either party to inform anyone of the purchase and transfer....

The most common argument I hear supporting this is how gun show vendors are doing this to make a living and cant afford to pay for background checks, invoking that golden goose the Small Business Man, ma and pa farms, just a regular guy trying to make some money.....

If you can't afford to meet the health department criteria, you dont open a restraurant. If you cant afford insruance, you dont practice medicine. If you cant afford a license, you dont drive a semi rig. I dont see why this thing with gun shows is any different. There are more administrative hoops to jump through for selling real estate, an automobile or a boat than they are for selling a gun to a random stranger at a gun show.

Gun absolutists..... lets see, IIRC (i was just a boy) the NRA was none to happy about the automatic weapons ban after the mcdonalds massacre in 1984, and they saw Reagan as a cop-out for signing the law. The NRA supported the original bill as it offered gun owner protections, but the automatic weapon clause was added at the 11th hour, and some of the fringers did not care for it....I still remember the old men in my family making a fuss about it.... Curious what the NRA says about it today.....I could only imagine what the states would be like today if people could legally own and purchase MAC 10s....

And this recent rule where veterans deemed unfit by the VA cannot buy guns.... republicans and the NRA are fighting this, trying to pass legislation to kill it. Some of them are saying because the right needs to be revoked by a judge, not a bearaucrat. Not sure I understand the reasoning. The doctor says the guy is crazy, I don't see what it matters who takes away the right to own a gun..... a lot of the right wing nutters are saying this is just a ploy to begin taking or guns, the beginning of the end, typical NRA, anyway, I see this issue maybe being shelved for the time being

On a related note, most people arguing about guns -- including Rupert Murdoch -- still think Assault Weapon means Automatic Weapon, and the liberal media is none to forthcoming about striaghtening this out. So we get all this round and round about assault rifles, which are really only more useful than a pistol at long longer range, and no massacres in recent memory involved a guy at range, it was all up close. I could definitely see it making a difference in a long building like a mall, though, if you are an exerienced shooter with the rifle, which in most cases the person is not. Nonetheless, the debate focuses on assault rifles....

[Fragony]

There are approx 310 million firearms in circulation among civilians in the USA. Good luck registering them. The third-most powerful lobbying group is a 2nd Amendment absolutist which has been hysterically screaming about how Obama will derk er guhns for four years. The courts have repeatedly demonstrated that they are uninterested in regulating gun rights in any way, and there is, so far, insufficient public outrage to change that equation.

I would like to see gun ownership about as regulated as motor vehicle operation, but a school full of dead children ain't gonna make it happen. The Founders kinda screwed us with the phrasing of the Second Amendment. Yes, the "well-regulated militia" part is pretty obvious, but so is "shall not be infringed."

At least you can register most of them, over here that's much harder because most come from former Yugoslavia. Better to accept things like this happening sometimes than to have no overview whatsoever. Carrying a gun on the street is utterly unacceptable imho but if you make it legal for those who don't have a criminal record to own a registered gun you at least are in control of the situation a whole lot more. It isn't hard to get a gun really, I can easily get you an AK-47 if you hand me 500 a 600 euro. What's the better situation really, some control or none at all?

[Lemur]

What's the better situation really, some control or none at all?

According to the 2A absolutists, none at all. That's pretty obvious.

Again, I think proposals for change would be best if they came from the bastions of 2A absolutism, such as the NRA. Anybody who suggests we need any regulation at all is going to be crucified if they aren't a "conservative" Republican.

Obama? Man, forget about it. After four years of hysterical squealing about how he's gonna be a gun-grabber? After all of the right-wing reality-free froth and paranoia about how the OBUMMER is going to become a dictator? Due to the unhinged nature of the wingnuts, he has zero room to maneuver.

So if 2A absolutists such as Panzer want to propose something, anything more realistic than turning our schools into armed camps, let's hear it. 'Cause the left and center are hamstrung on this issue. So let's hear what the right has to say. If anything.

[Fragony]

I have absolutely nothing meaningfull to say really, I have no idea how to fix things like this

[Lemur]

Just checked the NRA's blog. They got nothing. Their news feed? Nothing. Their Facebook page? They took it down. In fact, their only acknowledgement seems to be this one twitter statement: "Until the facts are thoroughly known, NRA will not have any comment." What an unbelievable bunch of tools.

On the bright side, seems there are a few "conservative" Republicans willing to at least have a conversation. We'll see if they get body-slammed by their own right-wing media complex or not.

-edit-

Sorry, my bad, the politician asking for a conversation about gun regulation is a Dem. My mistake. He will now be flogged in public as the SOCIALIST GUN GRABBER he clearly is.

[Fragony]

Just checked the NRA's blog. They got nothing. Their news feed? Nothing. Their Facebook page? They took it down. In fact, their only acknowledgement seems to be this one twitter statement: "Until the facts are thoroughly known, NRA will not have any comment." What an unbelievable bunch of tools.

On the bright side, seems there are a few "conservative" Republicans willing to at least have a conversation. We'll see if they get body-slammed by their own right-wing media complex or not.

Sorry but why should they have the obligation to response, why volunteer for the association.

[Lemur]

Sorry but why should they have the obligation to response, why volunteer for the association.

Oh, I don't know, it's just this thing I have, where I expect the most powerful group advocating unrestricted 2A for everyone might want to show leadership in a crisis.

Silly, I know.

[Fragony]

Oh, I don't know, it's just this thing I have, where I expect the most powerful group advocating unrestricted 2A for everyone might want to show leadership in a crisis.

Silly, I know.

I don't know what 2a means but if it means armed guards at schools it's stupid. Just an extra gun for who planned ahead.

[Lemur]

2A = shorthand for Second Amendment.

[Major Robert Dump]

@Fragony: armed guards at schools are already a fact of life in the inner city. It has to be done, too many illegal guns and shootings. There are also armed guards and metal detectors cropping up at various rural schools. The key to thwarting the "plan ahead and take his gun" scenario is that you have guards woking on teams, not solo.
@Andres: a persons right to own a gun can already be thwarted inderectly by having a felon in the house. In these cases, its not the gun owner that is typically punished, its the felon. I don't see why the same cannot be done with people with mental health issues. If there is a gun in the house, they have to go elsewhere, even if that means state custody

All these calls for increased mental healthcare are inevitably going to conflict with our national apprehension towards involuntary commitment for mental patients. While it still does happen when people pose a clear and violent threat, gone are the days where someone could be committed for far less, IIRC a few of the past shootings involved parents who tried to send their adults kids to mental healthcare but they could not be forced to go because there was no clear pattern of violence, etc.

2012 has been a very busy year, not just for homicide in general hotspots like chicago and detroit, but also mass shootings. I am sure many here have already forgotten about the middle aged Korean nutter in california who killed 6 people and then himself, mostly vibrant young women. We also had the racist revenge killings in Tulsa.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Andres made some good points. I'm also not sure why people brush the issue of the second amendment as a right allowing us preparation to overthrow or resist a tyrannical government. Notice that I didn't say "the government" as I don't believe that it is currently tyrannical. We arm ourselves for many reasons, but sport is the least legitimate one to defend the practice, by my reasoning.