Time for gun control

[focadima]

I am totally behind having that type of compulsive service and training here. In high school, I lived in a very rural country heavy hunting area. We had hunter safety in K-8 and high school, it was compulsory. Household gun ownership was about 75 pct. The only gun accidents were from out-of-towners, and there was no homicidal gun violence of any type, at all, in the 6 years I lived there.

Taking away guns is not the answer. Ignorance of and hiding from danger is not the answer. Acceptance of danger and training in proper response to it is.

respectfully I disagree, while I dont know much about stats and stuff on guns etc..I am just thinking if it was harder/impossible to get the guns then people couldnt use them on innocent people--I am sick of hearing ..guns dont kill people..people kill people..

plenty of countries have STIFF laws on guns and the people survive fine

 

[Pammieann]

These shooters end up for the most part taking their own lives. I don't think they really care if there is the "possibility" that someone might take them out with their own gun.

 

[skincarekathy]

This guy did not get his guns legally. So, respectfully I disagree that laws would keep guns from those willing to commit crimes with them.

We teach our kids about all sorts of danger we don't want to. Stranger danger. Bullying. Etc etc. We have accepted those threats into the fabric of our society and as adults have trained ourselves and our kids about the dangers. No peaceful method has stopped sex abuse or bullying. So we made adjustments as parents and a society to protect our children by education. Gun violence is no different.

In the UK, most handguns are banned, and one must have a permit for any firearms, be it long guns or shotguns. Their rate of firearm homicide is the lowest in the world. However, they have a population ingrained in a lifestyle of cooperation and appeasement, their population is only around 63M, and the physical landmass is only the size of Oregon. Their intentional homicide rate by all methods is 1.2 per 100k population, unless you look only at Northern Ireland, where peace still has not for thousands of years been able to be reached.

People kill each other everywhere, by every method. I am for stricter control, better compulsory education, and a reality check. Criminals will always find ways to kill people. There is a reason school gun rampages started only after federal law declared schools gun-free zones. Nothing like taking out an ad.

 

[skincarekathy]

These shooters end up for the most part taking their own lives. I don't think they really care if there is the "possibility" that someone might take them out with their own gun.

Irrelevant. If someone had been carrying, shooters would/could be stopped before they racked up such body counts. Their thoughts or fears, or lack of them, withstanding.

 

[Pammieann]

Irrelevant. If someone had been carrying, shooters would/could be stopped before they racked up such body counts. Their thoughts or fears, or lack of them, withstanding.

Yes, but maybe we have to go back even further... maybe she should not have been able to purchase those weapons and have them in her home with an obviously ill son with mental issues. Or taking him to practice ranges as a "hobby". Why even get to that point where someone has to "take him out".

 

[Pammieann]

Most people don't want to take away all the guns, but maybe the regulations need a little tweaking. Just like the mental health care system needs some tweaking, just like our culture needs a little tweaking. There is obviously not one single answer.

 

[fords8]

I agree, MrsM.... during the campaign, I saw stories, read articles, people who live in, near those "refugee camps" and wanted to know why the administration hadn't done anything to address the issue of inner city violence... those children don't die all on one day, all in one room, but they die, many of them, without much coverage or any outrage or discussion of a solution.

 

[skincarekathy]

This also has me wondering why, if we as a society can accept the need and use of firearms to protect our banks and our retail goods, why is it so hard to accept the use of firearms to protect our children?

 

[Peacock76]

This also has me wondering why, if we as a society can accept the need and use of firearms to protect our banks and our retail goods, why is it so hard to accept the use of firearms to protect our children?

Because protecting banks & retail saves money & protecting our children would cost money. We don't care enough about things, or people, that don't result in making money.

I'm thinking a lot about our school that seems to have a very similar layout as Sandy Hook. It appears secure...you can get in the front door & then you are buzzed into the office. Once you're in the office, you're in. It would take no time to immobilize the 3-5 people who are in the office, and then do whatever you'd like in the school. It's false security. Prior to Friday, I can't imagine anyone not being buzzed in. A 20yo like Adam Lanza wouldn't be given a second look, alumni frequently visit the school. Maybe that has changed in the past 4 days, but given enough time, it'll go back to the secretary barely looking up to see who she is buzzing in.

 

[ennui]

Lanza wasn't buzzed in.

There was a flaw in the architecture of the building, he simply shot out the large window beside the locked doors and walked right in.

 

[Peacock76]

No, I'm just saying that our school "appears" safe, but the reality is that I think anyone could get in very easily. Like what more could our school do? Not much, they've seemingly taken every reasonable precaution. Bullet proof glass? A policy of not admitting ANYONE who is not a school employee or student during the day? It's impossible. It's like a car accident- you can be a flawless driver, driving the safest car on the market, with the best tires and no distractions in the vehicle, and there's nothing you can do about a terrible driver, driving on bald tires, texting and slamming into you.

 

[kewpon addict]

That's just it, HE WASN"T buzzed in...now we have to live in fear of who MAY be coming into our schools...with a simple handgun there MAY have been enough time to stop him since he would have had to stop and reload. But because his mom had bought the weapons that she did not only did he have MORE Than one but he got away with committing mass murder....go on all you want about how you like x.y, or z but the bottom line is if we had stricter laws PERHAPS less carnage would have occurred overall! Does anyone else find it ironic that the one thing his mother thought would protect her ended up being what her son used to kill her with? How sad is that...I will digress now as my opinion really doesn't make a **** bit of difference to all you who think these weapons define your lives!

 

[skincarekathy]

School security isn't impossible, it just requires work, methods, and costs that we are not yet willing to accept and value as a society

 

[ennui]

Guns are often used AGAINST their owners.


Nancy Lanza had no **** business owning & keeping that many weapons & that much ammo in her home that she shared with her troubled son. She was not in danger from outsiders. She lived in a very quiet, peaceful, safe small town. It was her own paranoia & fear that, in part, led to so many deaths.

 

[skincarekathy]

Well, what type of screening do you suppose would have shown her to be unfit to own firearms?

Honestly. Legislators are some of the most depraved, unstable, and irresponsible people around. We have daily examples of their bad judgment.

So, who sets the criteria and what will it be?

 

[Pammieann]

Well, what type of screening do you suppose would have shown her to be unfit to own firearms?

Honestly. Legislators are some of the most depraved, unstable, and irresponsible people around. We have daily examples of their bad judgment.

So, who sets the criteria and what will it be?

And even in our differences as Americans, there is always THIS that we can agree on. :lol:

 

[ennui]

We had compulsory service through the early 1970s, it was called the Draft.


If you were unlucky enough to have your number called up, you had a few options:

If you were smart enough, or had enough money, you could get an education deferment.

If you had connections, you could get into the National Guard, like GWB.

You could go on the run to Canada or Sweden.

You could become a conscientious objector & serve by changing bedpans in a mental hospital, or such.

You could go to jail.

Or you could go to Viet Nam, to get shot at, possibly taken prisoner, or killed.


Not a fair system, one of the reasons it was done away with.

 

[fords8]

I think it's time for a serious discussion, not bitter arguments and one-sidedness of any opinion and I mean this in general, not directed at anyone in particular. It's too important an issue to enact something, whatever it is, without clearly thinking things out.


I didn't realize, but last year, the Justice Dept ignored proposals that would have made the background check system for getting a gun more comprehensive...


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/u...d-ideas-to-bolster-gun-database.html?hp&_r=1&

Justice Dept. Shelved Ideas to Improve Gun Background Checks​

By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: December 15, 2012 536 Comments

WASHINGTON — After the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona and others at a supermarket in Tucson in early 2011, the Justice Department drew up a detailed list of steps the government could take to expand the background-check system in order to reduce the risk of guns falling into the hands of mentally ill people and criminals.​

Most of the proposals, though, were shelved at the department a year ago as the election campaign heated up and as Congress conducted a politically charged investigation into the Operation Fast and Furious gun trafficking case, according to people familiar with the internal deliberations. It is not clear which, if any, of the conclusions were relayed to the White House...."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...epartment-Aborted-Plans-For-Background-Checks​

"...Some of these proposals made in a Justice Department study were: allowing the FBI access to other federal agencies’ information, as that would have enabled the FBI to make sure those who are banned from buying guns such as felons, drug users, mentally “defective†persons, domestic violence criminals, and illegal immigrants, would be noticed. Private sellers would be required, just as licensed firearms dealers are already, to check purchaser’s backgrounds. There would be mandatory jail time for those who buy guns for others who cannot pass a background check...."​

 

[skincarekathy]

The draft has not been done away with, it is just not currently in effect. That is why young men have to register for selective service (and why not young women thses days, hu?)

And the draft was what pulled our country together and won WWII. The degradation on the draft after the korean war is what diluted the idea of compulsory service, and was a terrible disservice to everyone who served prior to that. Legislators did that, not guns.

And we have never since the revolutionary war times had compulsory training and service like sweden or israel or switzerland have. Comparing that universal training of the population to our draft is just false logic.

 

[Cecropia]

I've been keeping quiet about this subject, but there is one very important point that should be made when everyone seems to be in consensus that THE MENTALLY ILL MUST NOT HAVE ACCESS TO GUNS.

Federal law generally prohibits the possession or acquisition of a firearm by a person "who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution." Putting aside the offensive label and legal jargon, in simple terms this means that a person is prohibited for life from possessing firearms if the person has ever been: involuntarily committed to a mental institution, or found by a court to be a danger to himself or others, found not guilty of a crime by reason of insanity or incompetent to stand trial, or unable to manage his own affairs. It does not matter whether the person currently has a mental illness.

Federal law is both under- and over-inclusive. It is under-inclusive because plenty of people with severe mental illnesses escape the ban on possessing firearms—provided, for example, they have managed not to be formally committed to a mental institution, or found by a court to be incompetent or insane. The ban is over-inclusive because many people recover from mental illness and lead healthy and productive lives. A single involuntary commitment for a severe eating disorder at age 20 will preclude a person from possessing a hunting rifle for the rest of his life. [...]

Gun-rights advocates should support efforts to strengthen the prohibition on possessing firearms by those who have mental illness. Many people with severe mental illness are too dangerous to entrust with firearms—regardless of whether they have been formally labeled under the current law as ineligible. [...]

As for gun-control advocates, they should show more flexibility about restoring firearm rights for people who may have suffered from mental illness in the past but are no longer a danger. Instead of lobbying to expand the number of people permanently ineligible to possess any type of firearm, gun-control advocates should accept a risk-based approach. [...]
Wall Street Journal Editorial

Do you know that in Illinois, a voluntary commitment by an individual (i.e. "I committed myself for one week to treat an eating disorder") results in a 5 year ban on owning a FOID card/firearm (unless you are a policeman), and it is impossible to repeal an individual case even when the reason for commitment has nothing to do with violence or anger or conflict with other people? It's a broad brush that lawmakers paint with and that brush is about to get broader, taking away 2nd amendment rights from many people who pose no risk to society.

Has anyone considered that the shooter may have been on "black box" medication(s) to treat his mental illness, which may have predisposed him to suicide and abnormal behavior?
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/InformationbyDrugClass/UCM096273