Newtown School Shootings

[Crazed Rabbit]

US citizens are three times more likely to die in a homicide compared with the UK. That is a materially significant difference. If guns provided significant protection you would expect it to be the other way round with less homicides in the US. Self defense isn't included in these stats, homicide is where someone with criminal intent kills someone else.

The reason our murder rate is so high is because of gangs involved in the drugs. (Yay for the big government paternalism/nanny state behind the war on drugs)

Take away those killings - or live were they aren't likely to occur - and I believe our murder rate is not much higher than Europe.

If I'm understanding the position of the 2A absolutists on this board:

1. Mass shootings are rare, inevitable, and (while sad) a price of freedom
2. Any attempt at registration, mandated safety measures, or anything, really, will just be a nanny-state infantilization of the citizenry (part of the larger degredation of rights which we will only tolerate when originating with acts committed by people with Muslim names)
3. Therefore US citizens should suck it up, arm themselves, and never speak of this again

In Response -
1) They are not inevitable, but they are extremely rare. Not having extreme media coverage would help more than any gun ban. But what all the assault ban proponents want is to ban millions of firearms owned by millions of people because a couple people per year - at most - in a country of over 300 million people abuse them. That is not rational.
2) Registration? That would have no effect at all on shootings - and make it easier for the government to confiscate guns (and yes, some US states have confiscated certain guns after early mandating registration). Mandated safety measures are not appropriate for what is a constitutional right - and again have been abused by governments for the express purpose of denying as many people as possible from owning guns.
If you want to bring up rights lost in the War on Terror - like the Patriot Act - you should certainly realize that these rights are lost when there are knee jerk reactions to very emotional events.
3) This is a bit of a strawman. Yes, I think we Americans need to learn not to demand government "Do Something" or that "There oughta be a law" every time something bad happens, as though every bad thing can be fixed with more government. Attempted mass shootings (At least one off the top of my head - the church in Colorado) have been stopped by armed citizens. I think how society approaches mental health and how the media glamorizes these events are much more important things to discuss.

1. -Our government has access to such high forms of technology that a discussion of "protecting our liberties from tyranny" is laughable. A cheaply made AR-15 or AK-47 clone isn't going to do a damn thing against a predator drone. The only thing that can defeat a tyrranical government is human spirit.
2. -An assault weapons ban will not end these tragedies. It will however make the likelihood of the severity significantly reduced. I own several guns for hunting and personal protection. I am 100% in favor background checks, restrictions placed on the capacity of guns, etc. I do not need an assault weapon, nor can I put forward a good reason why any private citizen would need one.
3. -Yes, illegal trade in restricted armaments will occur. What people fail to understand is that it is far easier to traffic narcotics than arms. I will no longer let the perfect be the enemy of the good on this issue. I would like to eliminate gun violence. If I cannot, I will settle for reducing it, at the very least, reducing it's severity.
4. -I also know, courtesy of Timothy McVeigh, that large scale mass murder will still happen. But when you compare the number of fertilizer bombs to the number of mass shootings over the past 30 years or so, I think the data points to restricting firearms before one restricts lawn fertilizer.

Again, in response:
1) This is inaccurate, based on Iraq, Afghanistan, the Arab Uprisings, etc.

2) Again I disagree. The Columbine shootings happened after the first ban. The VT shootings (were more people - and college students at that, thus more difficult to kill - were killed) were committed by a madman with pistols. There is no reason to think an assault weapons ban would limit shootings. It's like the moronic TSA banning certain items and thinking potential terrorists won't shift to other weapons. Magazine limits will not work - changing magazines is a matter of seconds, and will limit good people who are not carry around a dozen magazines more than shooters who can prepare as much as they like.

Part two - the fact that you do not need or want a semi-auto rifle, and are therefore okay with banning them for everyone, saddens me. We live in a free country where no one should have to put forth a 'reason' they want to exercise a right. Back to response (1), I do believe access to modern firearms is an essential part of a free country and preventing tyranny. They are not everything, of course, but the human spirit needs teeth.

3) Maybe it easier to traffic drugs. But it's much easier to manufacture guns, of varying quality, anywhere. And handguns are explicitly constitutionally protected. Gun control doesn't work at reducing "handgun violence". We should not sacrifice liberty for safety. The past has shown us we will end up with neither.

4) The data points to the fact that mass murder via firearms is exceedingly rare and it's only an issue because of media sensationalism and human's irrational response to fear and risk. And if all firearms magically disappeared, what would stop some deranged lunatic from attacking a school with huge amounts of gasoline?

I prayed for the shooter in my morning prayers and meditation on Saturday. First, somebody had to. But secondly, HIS story is a tragedy. That a human soul can be so anguished and despondent to resort to this...

Your compassion is inspiring.

Likewise, the extremely limited registration of firearms needs to be expanded.

No, it doesn't. What point would that serve besides suppressing legal gun ownership? You mock the suggestion that 'Obama's coming for your guns' but he wants to reinstate the assault weapons ban, and you want to

As I said earlier in the thread, owning a gun should involve about as much safety training and mandatory recordkeeping as owning an automobile.

Gun ownership is a right and should not be subject to government demands before you are allowed to exercise it. Safety training and record keeping would do nothing to prevent these sprees.

I have yet to see any gun control proposal that would actually prevent mass murder and is based on a rational view of the country and not a knee jerk reaction hysteria.

CR