Newtown School Shootings

[Lemur]

Can we please dispense with this 'absolutist' moniker? [...] this is nonsense.

Mandated safety measures are not appropriate for what is a constitutional right [...] 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.

Note CR's self-conflicting mish-mash of reasoning, beginning with how any regulation is impractical, but always coming back to how any regulation is a violation of fundamental rights and an imposition of the Nanny State. (So why bother to argue the practicality in the first place, if we're proceeding from a priori truths?)

From CR's stated perspective, there is no regulation of firearms in the U.S.A. that can ever be legitimate. Or of there is, he's avoiding mentioning it. How is that not "absolutist"? Or at least a very good imitation of absolutism?

The NRA, for that matter, appears to have no "end game" beyond unlimited access to firearms for pretty much everyone. Yes, they make occasional noises about the insane and criminals, but none of their proposed legislation would mitigate against either, and things such as the gun show loophole (which they fight strenuously to maintain) put a hole below the waterline in their credibility.

Anyway, we'll see. The NRA says it's going to hold a presser tomorrow. Let's see if they have anything more interesting to say than "more guns" or "OBUMMER DIKKKTATOR GONNA DERK UHR GEHNS."

[Ronin]

Anyway, we'll see. The NRA says it's going to hold a presser tomorrow. Let's see if they have anything more interesting to say than "more guns" or "OBUMMER DIKKKTATOR GONNA DERK UHR GEHNS."

the first indications show they are gonna try to throw videogames and movies under the train.

[Idaho]

the first indications show they are gonna try to throw videogames and movies under the train.

Reminds me of a case a few years back. Some kid was playing with a toy gun in the street, and some passer by decided he was in danger, so took out his real gun and shot the kid. The end result was:

Toy guns were banned

As I say. I just won't ever understand Americans.

[Major Robert Dump]

I find it amusing that the ACLU, who are 1st emendment absolutists and often despised by the religious right and some others on the right for being "liberals", essnetially function in the same manner as the NRA.

I also find it funny that the ACLU helped kill a bill in conncecticut a few weeks prior to the shooting that would have been a fairly comprehensive overhaul of mental health in the state, but was killed by the state democratic state legislature, the ACLU arguing that it would bring back involuntary commitments and it would violate privacy by making mental health records available for more prying eyes.

And I find it endlessly funny that in peoples fantasy discussions of a civil war or tyrant us government, they seem to forget that the us military is made up of a diverse demographic of american citizens, and that any sort of wholesale oppression or slaughter of the population would entail many instances of high end military equipment and vehicles disappearing and showing up on the side of the "insurgents." In other words, the talk of whether our guns would or would not work is largely moot.

[Lemur]

I find it amusing that the ACLU, who are 1st emendment absolutists [...] essnetially function in the same manner as the NRA.

There's truth in that. I find the ACLU less worrysome, however, given that their myopia is focused on free speech, rather than armaments. It's relatively difficult to kill people with speech. Unless your name is a killing word.

Ironically, I suspect the mental health angle will be easier to address than any attempt to impose safety standards on gun owners. So, if we believe current reporting, and the mother of the killer (a) wanted to commit him against his will, and (b) had unsecured guns in her home, (a) will be easier by far to address than (b).

Personally, I think if you have a violent or unstable person in your home, and you do not take steps to secure your firearms, you are an unbelievable idiot—a danger to yourself and your community. But the mother already paid for her stupidity, with her life.

[Major Robert Dump]

There's truth in that. I find the ACLU less worrysome, however, given that their myopia is focused on free speech, rather than armaments. It's relatively difficult to kill people with speech. Unless your name is a killing word.

Ironically, I suspect the mental health angle will be easier to address than any attempt to impose safety standards on gun owners. So, if we believe current reporting, and the mother of the killer (a) wanted to commit him against his will, and (b) had unsecured guns in her home, (a) will be easier by far to address than (b).

Personally, I think if you have a violent or unstable person in your home, and you do not take steps to secure your firearms, you are an unbelievable idiot. But the mother already paid for her stupidity, with her life.

The problem with the "its a mental health issue" is that some of those who I hear parroting this (not referring to anyone here, but rather the pundits and pols) are also people who are opposed to things like not allowing veterans with severe PTSD to own guns, and not allowing felons to live in homes with otherwise legally owned guns. If in fact we take the mental health approach from both a treatment perspective but also from a reporting perspective (i.e. database *shiver*) then this may be a workable solution. However, I suspect organizations like the NRA will oppose any sort of information collecting and any measures to to keep guns out of homes with crazies or crazies out of homes with guns.

And a workable solution is also going to have to involve the involuntary commitment of people deemed mentally unstable. does something like this run the risk of being abused? absolutely, it was in the past (politics, agendas, grudges) and it will be again. but to parrot the supporters of the patriot act, "well, my party won't abuse it!" amirite??

So lets start bartering one set of freedoms for another. Thats what this comes down to. Can't have our cake and eat it, too.

[Lemur]

I suspect organizations like the NRA will oppose any sort of information collecting and any measures to to keep guns out of homes with crazies or crazies out of homes with guns.

Oh, the NRA has done better than that. It's illegal for ATF to release any statistical information about makes, models, or types of guns used in crimes. No specifics, mind you, just statistics, and it's been illegal since 2003. Thanks, guys.

Also illegal for CDC to fund any health studies that include fierarms as a metric. Not discouraged, not directed, illegal.

It's bullhockey like this that makes me think the NRA has absolutely no interest in rights, reason, or law. Just moar guns, please. I'd be interested to see how much of their money comes from industry, but wait, that sort of reporting is also illegal. For the NRA, and nobody else. Gotta love laws written with specific "carve outs" for single organizations.

The NRA's financial resources also outstrip any other voice in the gun discussion by a factor of approximately 100-1. Illustration: