Elementary School Shooting: Newtown, Connecticut. 28 confirmed dead, 18 were children

[luckyp824]

This debate kind of reminds me of the debate on drug users/dealers. How to distribute the blame between the supplier and the user.

"Drug dealers aren't to blame. Drug users would get their drugs from someone else if they weren't there"

"Gun stores aren't to blame. Sociopath shooters would get guns from the black market if they couldn't legitimately get it from a gun store."

I disagree with both. Sure, both of them might, but making drugs/guns more available definitely has a huge effect. A lot of people don't have the know how to get access to guns/drugs unless it's sitting right there in front of them. Cutting off the obvious supply, even though there are other means to get it, will be a huge deterrent for most people. This might not be the case with drugs in certain lower class neighborhoods, but that's just because the suppliers are abundant there and cutting off one source still leaves an obvious way to get it around the corner. This, however, is not the case for most places.

The argument that there's too many guns in the black market already is true but the reason there is so many available has a lot to do with the fact that it's a profitable business so manufacturers are producing them and selling them in this country. I don't understand how continuing to let the supply grow is any solution to the problem that there is too many guns in the black market. Not saying it should be completely banned, but harsher restrictions should be put forth in the production, selling, purchasing, and possession of guns.

 

[BANLEU]

Taken from the article about how Japan has limited gun violence......
Quote:
To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you'll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don't forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.

One of the reason that this works in Japan is because they have a largely homogenous population, and their government isn't as divided as ours.

This wouldn't work in the U.S. because there are many different people from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Therefore, this would severely restrict the rights of minorities and other less fortunate citizens. Again, should we really be restricting the rights of the many for the rights of the few?

Furthermore, our Federal system makes it difficult to institute similar gun laws and uniform policies across the country. Should we end Federalism while we are trying to implement gun reform?

Originally Posted by shoelyesses View Post

you do realize a vast majority of the crimes involving guns with legal owners arent done by the owners... So desite a GUN OWNER doing all this what would stop someone who isnt a gun owner from taking said gun and using it....?
Which is why there should be some sort of liability insurance. I own a gun and nobody's grabbed mine. Know why? Cause i'm responsible. I don't carry it around, i don't leave it on the dresser, and it's never left in sight. I stash it in it's safe which is combination locked and key locked, and i also have a trigger lock which is also key locked. Ammo is also kept in a separate safe with a key lock.It's only used at the range. It's impossible for somebody that isn't me to get a hold on it. Why? because i'm a responsible gun owner. Your point is invalid.

I don't get how liability insurance is supposed to stop incidents like this? Liability insurance is going to make it harder for people to steal other peoples guns? I don't think that's realistic, but ok if it makes you and others sleep better at night. The reality is that liability insurance would only be effective at compensating the families of the victims.

Anyway I have a few questions for you about your gun safety measures. What is going to happen if someone breaks in? Are you going to have enough time to get to your guns, unlock them, and then get to the ammo? What if your home is burglarized and your guns are stolen? Would it then be impossible for someone to use your guns?

 

[ksteezy]

. . . The fact that without us, there is nobody to consume and support the economy.​

Lol @ hallucuast​

I just caught that...brb getting my AR ready for when the military breaks through my window trying to assassinate me.

 

[jordan novice]

Makes sense

"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.

It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed
people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."

 

[shoelyesses]

Which is why there should be some sort of liability insurance. I own a gun and nobody's grabbed mine. Know why? Cause i'm responsible. I don't carry it around, i don't leave it on the dresser, and it's never left in sight. I stash it in it's safe which is combination locked and key locked, and i also have a trigger lock which is also key locked. Ammo is also kept in a separate safe with a key lock.It's only used at the range. It's impossible for somebody that isn't me to get a hold on it. Why? because i'm a responsible gun owner. Your point is invalid.
It's funny how you speak of illegal guns as if they're so easy to obtain. You do know it's by far much easier to walk into a **** sporting goods and buy your gun there than it is to find a gun dealer in the hood right? You do know they're cheaper in ***** sporting goods than they are on the black market right?
....and making guns more accessible and providing guns to everyone who wants them will reduce crime and murders... brilliant

so every instance of gun murder was someone being irresponsibly....? right... and insurance still wouldnt change anything... we have insurance on cars and ppl still use others cars etc.... not to mention how would insurance differiantiate ppl like yourself and i from others... ?

Apparently how easy it is to go up in walmart etc... and buying a gun is irrelevant.considering that roughly 6-7,000 gun related deaths occur do to unregistered aka illegal firearms... compared to somewhere around 700...used with a registered legal firearms...

So ok lets say your plans ideas for making it harder for ppl to get legal guns... Lets say it reduce it by iuno 30% that would reduce what maybe 200 or so deaths with registered legal firearms... How does that affect change the 6-7,000 deaths resulting in illegal firearms.

So despite it being cheaper and so called easier to get guns legit... etc... the overwhelminghly majority of deaths caused by firearms involve ppl who have illegal weapons... So all this imaking it harder/eval etc talk is virtually irrelevant.

The folks on the streets etc... aint doing background checks... making you get insurance... doing psych evals on you... when selling you a gun.

So like i said all your ideas, while not knocking them would do is reduce the amount of firearm related deaths/injuries... in places that hardly ever have firearm related deaths/injuries to begin with... Thus we will reduce utah firearm death a year from 15 to 8, all while chicago/nyc/la will reduce somewhat from like 1,000 or so deaths/injuries a year to like maybe 800-900 or so.

And whose to say those ppl in heavily populated places will decide you know what getting a gun legally is to hard and decide to go underground... So like i said it would reduce gun violence in nebraska, south dakota etc... and do little to nothing in a atl, a la, a detroit, a d.c.

 

[water]

Hours after the bloodshed at a Connecticut school, police stopped what would have been a second mass school-shooting on Friday, arresting an Oklahoma teenager plotting to kill dozens of his classmates.

Sammie Eaglebear Chavez, 18, told friends at Bartlesville High School that he wanted to lure their schoolmates and teachers to the gym and then open fire, according to officials.

He also claimed to have explosives he planned to detonate once police arrived.

A classmate overhead Chavez scheming on Thursday and cops arrested him early Friday before he could carry out his plan. A judge in the small city of Bartlesville, which lies about an hour north of Tulsa, ordered that Chavez be held on $1 million bail.

Investigators believe Chavez owned a Colt .45 handgun and had been researching how to obtain explosives and higher-powered firearms. He also frequently discussed the 1999 shootings at Columbine High school.

The motive for the plot was not immediately known. Investigators do not suspect the scheme was linked to or inspired by the shooting in Newtown, Conn., that left 20 children dead.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ooting-police-article-1.1221032#ixzz2FA0cntrf

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

View media item 172427

Of course, why wouldn't there be copycats? After all, the media has continued to glorify the killer by plastering his name and face everywhere and call him "infamous" etc. For all the kids out there who never got attention, something like this would be their dream.

This. Disgusts me. 

 

[lyonbc1]

Taken from the article about how Japan has limited gun violence......
Quote:
To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you'll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don't forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.

One of the reason that this works in Japan is because they have a largely homogenous population, and their government isn't as divided as ours.

This wouldn't work in the U.S. because there are many different people from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Therefore, this would severely restrict the rights of minorities and other less fortunate citizens. Again, should we really be restricting the rights of the many for the rights of the few?

Furthermore, our Federal system makes it difficult to institute similar gun laws and uniform policies across the country. Should we end Federalism while we are trying to implement gun reform?

States can make their own laws that are very similar regarding something like that....making the process more arduous and lengthy isn't limiting or restricting anyones rights. And if it is, so be it....I don't own a gun, if my neighbor wants to own one, then indirectly my life is put in more danger by them having a weapon so if you have to go through a long process to obtain a weapon whose sole purpose is to KILL, then I don't care one bit because owning that weapon comes with tremendous responsibility and all gun owners need to understand that.

I'm in western PA right now for school, lots of my friends here have guns, several, I've been to their houses....I have no problem with people owning guns for hunting or protection, they are responsible, they are locked away and ammo is kept in a completely different location....how would minorities rights be impacted more? I am a black male, with no criminal record, if I wanted, I could go to the gun store in my city and walk out with a firearm in 45 minutes...you don't see how that could potentially cause a problem?? I bet if the process took a month even with stringent evaluations and registration with your local PD that some of these lunatics wouldn't even go through the trouble, and it is not that simple to go through means to obtain an illegal weapon as an alternative.

Nobody with the exception of military members in combat should have access to semi automatic weapons, what the hell is the point of that?

 

[ccastro02]

I don't get how liability insurance is supposed to stop incidents like this? Liability insurance is going to make it harder for people to steal other peoples guns? I don't think that's realistic, but ok if it makes you and others sleep better at night. The reality is that liability insurance would only be effective at compensating the families of the victims.
Anyway I have a few questions for you about your gun safety measures. What is going to happen if someone breaks in? Are you going to have enough time to get to your guns, unlock them, and then get to the ammo? What if your home is burglarized and your guns are stolen? Would it then be impossible for someone to use your guns?

I don't use my gun for self defense, and would more than likely never use it as such. My home is gated and can only be accessible through an intercom. I also have a home alarm so cops will be notified immediately. If someone wants to steal jewelry, sneakers, or t.v's.. so be it. None of things i own are worth my life, nor the burglars. I can always just re-buy everything. Better than having the image of some dead corpse in my living room stuck in my head for the rest of my life.

 

[thepointgod]

This wouldn't work in the U.S. because there are many different people from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Therefore, this would severely restrict the rights of minorities and other less fortunate citizens. Again, should we really be restricting the rights of the many for the rights of the few?
Furthermore, our Federal system makes it difficult to institute similar gun laws and uniform policies across the country. Should we end Federalism while we are trying to implement gun reform?

I don't understand what socioeconomic backgrounds have anything to do with gun ownership. Are you saying that people of particular backgrounds NEED to own a gun for whatever reason? There are people of all socioeconomic backgrounds who don't own guns. The right to gun ownership is a ridiculous and archaic Amendment that has been bastardized by the gun lobby to allow crazy gun nuts to own guns under the guise of self-protection, or protection against an oppressive government, or whatever the new reason is.

I, nor anyone I know, own a gun and my life is fine. And for those people who have lives that aren't "fine," their ownership of a gun isn't what's making a difference. No one needs to own a gun and this "right" that gun nuts are clinging onto makes no sense in today's world. There are millions of people in this country, billions of people in other developed countries who don't own guns, and they're not all somehow dead or living in anarchy.

 

[shoelyesses]

One of the reason that this works in Japan is because they have a largely homogenous population, and their government isn't as divided as ours.
This wouldn't work in the U.S. because there are many different people from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Therefore, this would severely restrict the rights of minorities and other less fortunate citizens. Again, should we really be restricting the rights of the many for the rights of the few?
Furthermore, our Federal system makes it difficult to institute similar gun laws and uniform policies across the country. Should we end Federalism while we are trying to implement gun reform?
I don't get how liability insurance is supposed to stop incidents like this? Liability insurance is going to make it harder for people to steal other peoples guns? I don't think that's realistic, but ok if it makes you and others sleep better at night. The reality is that liability insurance would only be effective at compensating the families of the victims.
Anyway I have a few questions for you about your gun safety measures. What is going to happen if someone breaks in? Are you going to have enough time to get to your guns, unlock them, and then get to the ammo? What if your home is burglarized and your guns are stolen? Would it then be impossible for someone to use your guns?

exactly.... especially ppl who hav plenty of weapons or are gun collectors... I mean realistically no one is going to take gun collections with them everywhere and everytime they leave their homes.. How about vacations... what you leave the guns over a friend house.. or maybe um pay for a public storage unit everytime you leave your house. Some may say they would do this... but i seriously doubt vast majority of americans are gonna be willing to pay 100's and 1,000's of dollars a year to keep guns in public storage facilities.

And as i have stated deaths/injuries etc... by legal firearms make up a small, very small % of the deaths/injuries due to firearms.

 

[michigan]

People can still carry guns my beef is with letting people with  a mental illness  carry and buy guns.  Everyone that gets a gun should have to go through a mental health evaluation similar to what people have to go through to be police officers and FBI agents.    I just saw on CNN that his mom taught him how to shoot guns and would take him to gun ranges yet  she didnt trust him to ever be alone.  smh   His mom had 6 guns lol WTF you need 6 guns for living in a high middle class neighborhood and she wasnt a hunter?   I agree in the right to bear arms but **** there needs to be a limit to how many guns you can own and how many bullets you are allowed to buy.  smh Theres also no reason for anybody other then the police or our military to be able to own assault rifles and be able to have extended clips.     This story was the final straw for me seeing some ******* killing little kids.  It breaks my heart and we all need to find ways to prevent this type of act from happening again before we start seeing copy cats because trust me sick f**ks  all over the country are already planning their attacks smh 

 

[BANLEU]

States can make their own laws that are very similar regarding something like that....making the process more arduous and lengthy isn't limiting or restricting anyones rights. And if it is, so be it....I don't own a gun, if my neighbor wants to own one, then indirectly my life is put in more danger by them having a weapon so if you have to go through a long process to obtain a weapon whose sole purpose is to KILL, then I don't care one bit because owning that weapon comes with tremendous responsibility and all gun owners need to understand that.
I'm in western PA right now for school, lots of my friends here have guns, several, I've been to their houses....I have no problem with people owning guns for hunting or protection, they are responsible, they are locked away and ammo is kept in a completely different location....how would minorities rights be impacted more? I am a black male, with no criminal record, if I wanted, I could go to the gun store in my city and walk out with a firearm in 45 minutes...you don't see how that could potentially cause a problem?? I bet if the process took a month even with stringent evaluations and registration with your local PD that some of these lunatics wouldn't even go through the trouble, and it is not that simple to go through means to obtain an illegal weapon as an alternative.
Nobody with the exception of military members in combat should have access to semi automatic weapons, what the hell is the point of that?

Extending the length of time and requiring that you register with the local PD isn't why I responded to your original comments. In fact, those aren't bad ideas at all. The problem is implementing written tests, all day classes, and psych evaluations. Who should pay for all this?

I hope you aren't suggesting that the prospective gun owner should have to go through all this to exercise a right that is guaranteed by the Constitution. We pride ourselves on being a nation that fights for equality even if the laws aren't always fair, and, yet, you are proposing that we implement a law that wouldn't affect everyone equally.

Let me give you an example. I live in MD where the Western shore and suburbs of DC are much more populated and wealthy than the Eastern Shore and the rural parts. So should someone from the Eastern shore, who has as much of a right to protect themselves and their property as I do, have to travel to the Western Shore to go through the process of buying a gun?

I don't use my gun for self defense, and would more than likely never use it as such. My home is gated and can only be accessible through an intercom. I also have a home alarm so cops will be notified immediately. If someone wants to steal jewelry, sneakers, or t.v's.. so be it. None of things i own are worth my life, nor the burglars. I can always just re-buy everything. Better than having the image of some dead corpse in my living room stuck in my head for the rest of my life.

I'm glad that you are fortunate enough to live in a gated home with a lot of security features. Unfortunately, not all of us are so fortunate, so how can you be advocating how we should spend our money? Plus you didn't answer my original questions. How is liability insurance going to keep incidents like this from happening?

 

[michigan]

These shooting stress aren't committed by criminals...
Stop acting like 4 time felons are doing this
Some corner boy in Chicago is not getting illegal guns to go shoot up young children in class.
I just don't understand where people come up with the logic that strict gun laws wouldn't do ANY good or have an affect

No but innocent people are still dying in Chicago every day from gun violence.  Its happening all over.  We need stricter charges for people illegally carrying guns.   Why can the government give people years in prison for selling weed yet people getting caught with guns get less time?  smh thats one problem that we can fix in our nation.   At least its some where to start.

 

[BANLEU]

No rise in mass killings, but their impact is huge



A gold plaque hangs next to a bullet hole in the Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wis., where a lone gunman killed six worshippers and injured three others last August. It is engraved with the words, "We Are One."

"It frames the wound," says Pardeep Kaleka, son of former temple president Satwant Singh Kaleka, who died in the massacre. "The wound of our community, the wound of our family, the wound of our society."

In the past week, that wound has been ripped open with shocking ferocity.

In what has become sickeningly familiar, gunmen opened fire on innocents in what should be the safest of places — first, at a shopping mall in Oregon, and then, unthinkably, at an elementary school in Connecticut.

Once again there were scenes of chaos as rescuers and media descended on the scene. Once again there were pictures of weeping survivors clutching one another, of candlelight vigils and teddy bears left as loving memorials. And once again a chorus of pundits debated gun control and violence as society attempted to make sense of the senseless.

"Are there any sanctuaries left?" Kaleka asked. "Is this a fact of life, one we have become content to live with? Can we no longer feel safe going Christmas shopping in a mall, or to temple, or to the movies? What kind of society have we become?"

As this year of the gun lurches to a close, leaving a bloody wake, we are left to wonder along with Kaleka: What is the meaning of all this?

Even before Portland and Newtown, we saw a former student kill seven people at Oikos University in Oakland, Calif. We saw gunmen in Seattle and Minneapolis each kill five people and then themselves. We saw the midnight premiere of "The Dark Knight Rises" at a theater in Aurora, Colo., devolve into a bloodbath, as 12 people died and 58 were wounded; 24-year-old James Holmes was arrested outside.

And yet those who study mass shootings say they are not becoming more common.

"There is no pattern, there is no increase," says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston's Northeastern University, who has been studying the subject since the 1980s, spurred by a rash of mass shootings in post offices.

The random mass shootings that get the most media attention are the rarest, Fox says. Most people who die of bullet wounds knew the identity of their killer.

Society moves on, he says, because of our ability to distance ourselves from the horror of the day, and because people believe that these tragedies are "one of the unfortunate prices we pay for our freedoms."

Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.

Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning.

Still, he understands the public perception — and extensive media coverage — when mass shootings occur in places like malls and schools. "There is this feeling that could have been me. It makes it so much more frightening."

On one spring day more than four years ago, it WAS Colin Goddard.

For two years after a gunman pumped four bullets into him in a classroom at Virginia Tech, Goddard said he couldn't bear to listen to television reports about other shootings, or read about them. It brought him back instantly to that day — April 16, 2007 — when he lay on the floor of classroom 211, blood dripping from his shoulder and leg as he wondered if he would survive.

And then, on April 3, 2009, he turned on the computer and heard the news. A 41-year-old man had opened fire at an immigrant community center in Binghamton, N.Y., killing 11 immigrants and two workers. The shooter, a Vietnamese immigrant and a former student at the center, killed himself as police rushed to the scene.

Goddard watched, riveted, realizing that this is what it was like for the rest of the world when a mass shooting occurs. Inside the school, or the mall, or the theater, the victims lie wounded and terrified and dying, while the rest of the world watches from afar. People glue themselves to the television for a day. They soak in the horror from the safety of their office or home. They feel awful for a while. Then they move on with their lives. They grow numb.

Duwe says the cycle has gone on for generations.

"Mass shootings provoke instant debates about violence and guns and mental health and that's been the case since Charles Whitman climbed the tower at the University of Texas in 1966," he said, referring to the engineering student and former Marine who killed 13 people and an unborn child and wounded 32 others in a shooting rampage on campus. "It becomes mind-numbingly repetitive."

"Rampage violence seems to lead to repeated cycles of anguish, investigation, recrimination, and heated debate, with little real progress in prevention," wrote John Harris, clinical assistant professor of medicine in the College of Medicine at the University of Arizona, in the June issue of American Journal of Public Health. "These types of events can lead to despair about their inevitability and unpredictability."

And there is despair and frustration, even among those who have set out to stop mass killings.

"We do just seem to slog along, from one tragedy to the next," Tom Mauser said last July, after the Aurora shootings.

Mauser knows all about the slog. He became an outspoken activist against such violence after his 15-year-old son, Daniel, was slain along with 12 other at Columbine High School in 1999. But he has grown frustrated and weary.

"There was a time when I felt a certain guilt," said Mauser. "I'd ask, 'Why can't I do more about this? Why haven't I dedicated myself more to it?' But I'll be damned if I'm going to put it all on my shoulders.

"This," he said, "is all of our problem."

Carolyn McCarthy enlisted in the cause in 1993, when a deranged gunman killed her husband and seriously injured her son in shooting rampage. She has served in Congress since 1997.

Known as the "gun lady" on Capitol Hill for her fierce championship of gun control laws, McCarthy says she nearly gave up her "lonely crusade" after hearing about the Virginia Tech shooting. And when she heard about the January 2011 shooting of former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords she says, "I just sat there frozen and watching the television and couldn't stop crying."

"It's like a cancer in our society," she says. "And if we keep doing nothing to stop it, it's only going to spread."

After the Binghamton shootings, Colin Goddard resolved that he had to get involved, to somehow try to stop the cycle. Reminders are lodged inside him: three bullets, a legacy of Virginia Tech.

He now works in Washington for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

"I refuse to believe this is something we have to accept as normal in this country," he said. "There has to be a way to change the culture of violence in our society."

http://news.yahoo.com/no-rise-mass-killings-impact-huge-185700637.html

Well what do you know, mass shootings aren't becoming more common.

 

[ccastro02]

so every instance of gun murder was someone being irresponsibly....? right... and insurance still wouldnt change anything... we have insurance on cars and ppl still use others cars etc.... not to mention how would insurance differiantiate ppl like yourself and i from others... ?

When is any instance of gun murder responsible? What is a responsible murder?

Apparently how easy it is to go up in walmart etc... and buying a gun is irrelevant.considering that roughly 6-7,000 gun related deaths occur do to unregistered aka illegal firearms... compared to somewhere around 700...used with a registered legal firearms...

it is relevant. You're saying it's so easy to buy again off the black market, when i'm telling you as a gun owner it is not. If guns were more difficult to obtain to begin with there would be less shooting from both illegal and legal guns.

So ok lets say your plans ideas for making it harder for ppl to get legal guns... Lets say it reduce it by iuno 30% that would reduce what maybe 200 or so deaths with registered legal firearms... How does that affect change the 6-7,000 deaths resulting in illegal firearms.

I'm sorry is 200 deaths not a big deal to you? And i'm also sorry for not having an answer for you regarding the issue of illegal guns. Care to add to it, as i'm sure you also don't want guns being illegal sold. or do you? What would you do about our illegal gun problem?

So like i said all your ideas, while not knocking them would do is reduce the amount of firearm related deaths/injuries... in places that hardly ever have firearm related deaths/injuries to begin with... Thus we will reduce utah firearm death a year from 15 to 8, all while chicago/nyc/la will reduce somewhat from like 1,000 or so deaths/injuries a year to like maybe 800-900 or so.

And that's what my idea is solely about. deaths related to legal gun ownership. It wasn't about illegal gun owners. I'm no law maker and don't pretend to be one. Rather than trying to debate me, chime in. What would you do about all these illegal firearms?

 

[nooera]

I don't use my gun for self defense, and would more than likely never use it as such. My home is gated and can only be accessible through an intercom. I also have a home alarm so cops will be notified immediately. If someone wants to steal jewelry, sneakers, or t.v's.. so be it. None of things i own are worth my life, nor the burglars. I can always just re-buy everything. Better than having the image of some dead corpse in my living room stuck in my head for the rest of my life.

Come on family not everyone lives in a gated community with an intercom system. I commend your success in life and your responsible use of your firearm but there are people out there who dont feel as secure as you do.

Everyone is in a different situation and thats why this will be a never ending debate. Dudes in the slums want to feel protected bc its rough in their neighborhood . Others live in secure communities with police on deck with the push of a button.

Just need to find a way to make everyone hAppy i suppose. Which will never happen.

 

[shoelyesses]

No but innocent people are still dying in Chicago every day from gun violence.  Its happening all over.  We need stricter charges for people illegally carrying guns.   Why can the government give people years in prison for selling weed yet people getting caught with guns get less time?  smh thats one problem that we can fix in our nation.   At least its some where to start.

exactly... its almost as if just by the impression ppl are giving, and their so called solutions to reduce gun violence is to really lets not reduced gun violence deaths persay... lets just reduce/curb gun violence in certain areas/demographics...

Its like ppl are saying if we can prevent a once in a blue moon rarity such as the recent events... we have made strides... meanwhile in other areas/demographics, ppl are matching the same number of deaths as yesterday on a weekly basis.

 

[ccastro02]

Extending the length of time and requiring that you register with the local PD isn't why I responded to your original comments. In fact, those aren't bad ideas at all. The problem is implementing written tests, all day classes, and psych evaluations. Who should pay for all this?
I hope you aren't suggesting that the prospective gun owner should have to go through all this to exercise a right that is guaranteed by the Constitution. We pride ourselves on being a nation that fights for equality even if the laws aren't always fair, and, yet, you are proposing that we implement a law that wouldn't affect everyone equally.
Let me give you an example. I live in MD where the Western shore and suburbs of DC are much more populated and wealthy than the Eastern Shore and the rural parts. So should someone from the Eastern shore, who has as much of a right to protect themselves and their property as I do, have to travel to the Western Shore to go through the process of buying a gun?
I'm glad that you are fortunate enough to live in a gated home with a lot of security features. Unfortunately, not all of us are so fortunate, so how can you be advocating how we should spend our money? Plus you didn't answer my original questions. How is liability insurance going to keep incidents like this from happening?

Than instead of investing in a gun, home a alarms would also be a good investment. assuming you don't have money like that, considering guns go for $700+ legally and over 1k illegally it may also be cheaper to invest in a home alarm.

regarding liability insurance, It wouldn't prevent killings per say obviously, but the idea is that it would allow the shooter to take caution when shooting. Before you shoot your firearm or leaving laying around just remember that if anything happens with your weapon you're liable for it. One would hope you'd be more responsible with your weapon if you were held liable every time it is used.

 

[stringer bell 32]

How are gun control laws (not banning guns at all which no one is advocating here) supposed to stop psychotic and suicidal individuals intent on committing mass murder? If it's not guns, they'll use bombs or poison or any other numbers of ways to kill people. 

They're psychotic and suicidal but they're not stupid. If they can't get easy access to guns then they'll think of other ways to murder en masse. Humans are creative creatures.

Then why don't they? Why aren't these types of crimes committed using creative ways? Because when given the choice between a purchasing gun or attempting to build a working pipe bomb, ten out of ten psychos will choose the semi automatic weapon.

This whole "psychos are going to be psychos" nonsense has to end. Are psychos going to be psychos ultimately? Yeah. but there is no reason to make them even more effective and deadlier at being psychos.

In January 2011 a potentially deadly pipe bomb was discovered along the route of a Martin Luther King Jr. memorial march in Spokane, Washington. The bomb, which was shaped, was defused and there were no casualties.

Why couldn't Lanza been that kind of creative

There's something specific to our culture that breeds this type of activity on a regular basis. The prudent thing would be to look into it and solve the underlying problems rather than come up with superficial solutions

Agreed.

 

[michigan]

When is any instance of gun murder responsible? What is a responsible murder?
it is relevant. You're saying it's so easy to buy again off the black market, when i'm telling you as a gun owner it is not. If guns were more difficult to obtain to begin with there would be less shooting from both illegal and legal guns.
I'm sorry is 200 deaths not a big deal to you? And i'm also sorry for not having an answer for you regarding the issue of illegal guns. Care to add to it, as i'm sure you also don't want guns being illegal sold. or do you? What would you do about our illegal gun problem?
And that's what my idea is solely about. deaths related to legal gun ownership. It wasn't about illegal gun owners. I'm no law maker and don't pretend to be one. Rather than trying to debate me, chime in. What would you do about all these illegal firearms?

What I would do with all the illegal firearms is this.  Let people turn them in with no questions asked and I would make strict laws for people getting caught with illegal guns.    A dope dealer with get 10 years to life in prison for a oz or more of drugs.  Illegal firearms are more dangerous then hard drugs.   Especially to innocent people.   Why not charge the person who has the illegal firearm with an automatic 15 year prison bid.  That will help clean up the streets.   You still will have them dumbasses who will still carry but then at least we will have them off the streets.   Lets get more strict on illegal gun laws.

 

[BANLEU]

I don't understand what socioeconomic backgrounds have anything to do with gun ownership. Are you saying that people of particular backgrounds NEED to own a gun for whatever reason? There are people of all socioeconomic backgrounds who don't own guns. The right to gun ownership is a ridiculous and archaic Amendment that has been bastardized by the gun lobby to allow crazy gun nuts to own guns under the guise of self-protection, or protection against an oppressive government, or whatever the new reason is.
I, nor anyone I know, own a gun and my life is fine. And for those people who have lives that aren't "fine," their ownership of a gun isn't what's making a difference. No one needs to own a gun and this "right" that gun nuts are clinging onto makes no sense in today's world. There are millions of people in this country, billions of people in other developed countries who don't own guns, and they're not all somehow dead or living in anarchy.

It's funny how you single out this post, but you ignore my post about Mexico's strict gun laws and the effects that they have on the murder rate. If you don't want to own a gun, than that is fine, but don't make that decision for me. Just because you feel safe in your community doesn't mean I feel the same way.

I live in one of the richest counties in the U.S., and, yet, people are still getting murdered in their homes by criminals. Just last week a 21 year old kid I went to high school was murdered in his apartment by two gunmen who forced themselves in. So tell me again why I don't deserve the right to protect myself and my family?

Furthermore, I like guns for defensive and recreational purposes. I enjoy going to the gun range, skeet shooting, and eventually I want to get into hunting.

Anyway let me explain to you why socioeconomic background matters. If we start imposing classes, tests, and psych evaluations, than it is going to be expensive to own a gun for many people including myself.

I'm 23, married, I have a son, I own a home, I'm not on any type of government assistance and I consider myself middle class. Yet, all these propositions would make it difficult for someone like me to own a gun and protect my family.

 

[lyonbc1]

States can make their own laws that are very similar regarding something like that....making the process more arduous and lengthy isn't limiting or restricting anyones rights. And if it is, so be it....I don't own a gun, if my neighbor wants to own one, then indirectly my life is put in more danger by them having a weapon so if you have to go through a long process to obtain a weapon whose sole purpose is to KILL, then I don't care one bit because owning that weapon comes with tremendous responsibility and all gun owners need to understand that.
I'm in western PA right now for school, lots of my friends here have guns, several, I've been to their houses....I have no problem with people owning guns for hunting or protection, they are responsible, they are locked away and ammo is kept in a completely different location....how would minorities rights be impacted more? I am a black male, with no criminal record, if I wanted, I could go to the gun store in my city and walk out with a firearm in 45 minutes...you don't see how that could potentially cause a problem?? I bet if the process took a month even with stringent evaluations and registration with your local PD that some of these lunatics wouldn't even go through the trouble, and it is not that simple to go through means to obtain an illegal weapon as an alternative.
Nobody with the exception of military members in combat should have access to semi automatic weapons, what the hell is the point of that?

Extending the length of time and requiring that you register with the local PD isn't why I responded to your original comments. In fact, those aren't bad ideas at all. The problem is implementing written tests, all day classes, and psych evaluations. Who should pay for all this?

I hope you aren't suggesting that the prospective gun owner should have to go through all this to exercise a right that is guaranteed by the Constitution. We pride ourselves on being a nation that fights for equality even if the laws aren't always fair, and, yet, you are proposing that we implement a law that wouldn't affect everyone equally.

Let me give you an example. I live in MD where the Western shore and suburbs of DC are much more populated and wealthy than the Eastern Shore and the rural parts. So should someone from the Eastern shore, who has as much of a right to protect themselves and their property as I do, have to travel to the Western Shore to go through the process of buying a gun?

I definitely get that cost would need to be figured out, but if there were some type of insurance then gun owners could pay an annual fee or a one time rate to have the insurance cover the tests or something, that would need to definitely be discussed, but honestly guns aren't that cheap...But think about it, if you are willing and able to pay $300-500 for a weapon and take on that additional responsibility to your community and neighbors, then you can pay an extra 50$ or so a year to cover the costs of any type of written exam or evaluation...and regarding your example, that just comes with the territory imo. Constitution still requires you to pay for the weapon, not making them free and easily obtainable.

I look at that scenario like this, everyone has the right to buy a luxury vehicle, and certain types of products for their homes too...if I live in the middle of Montana, I'm just simply not gonna have the same degree of access as someone in the heart of Manhattan to certain things, so if a person lives in the rural outskirts, then they may have to travel to the closest major metro area to get weapon if they really want one. Like I said though, I don't have a problem with responsible gun owners at all, just the proces needs to be much more heavily regulated...having civilian versions of m16s is just wild.

 

[dt43]

Big Ben,
People don't like hearing logical talk during emotional situations man. Let them be. I feel EVERYTHING you are saying though.

I understand that, trust me.

In order to have rational thought, be capable of critical thinking and use logic, you must overcome emotion.

I'm not trying to discount what has happened, but just like any event, if Justin Bieber tweets about, its the hot topic; Kony, Colorado and now Mass.

But the real issues remain in the dark, purposely.

So if you are going to show compassion, don't pick and choose where you show it. Show it to everyone.

Show it to all 160,000+ CIVILIAN CASUALTIES in IRAQ by to THE US MILITARY.

Show it to all 12,000+ CIVILIAN CASUALTIES in Afghanistan by the US MILITARY.

Show it to the 250,000 Indian farmers who have committed suicide the last 16 years to date because of our governments enforcement of GMO seeds.

Place whatever label you'd like to place, it doesn't bother me. It doesn't change the truth.

Quote at 2:03 is eerily relevant:

 

[shoelyesses]

When is any instance of gun murder responsible? What is a responsible murder?
it is relevant. You're saying it's so easy to buy again off the black market, when i'm telling you as a gun owner it is not. If guns were more difficult to obtain to begin with there would be less shooting from both illegal and legal guns.
I'm sorry is 200 deaths not a big deal to you? And i'm also sorry for not having an answer for you regarding the issue of illegal guns. Care to add to it, as i'm sure you also don't want guns being illegal sold. or do you? What would you do about our illegal gun problem?
And that's what my idea is solely about. deaths related to legal gun ownership. It wasn't about illegal gun owners. I'm no law maker and don't pretend to be one. Rather than trying to debate me, chime in. What would you do about all these illegal firearms?

no what i was saying is that like if someone robbed your house stole your guns and used them... how are you irresponsible?

How is it not easier when its almost 100 to 1 illegal gun owners to legal gun owners.. Your not factoring everyday/life situations... Ppl who are stressed etc.. plan to do harm are going to do any and everything to avoid the law and be inconspicous.... More often then not a erson playing a robbery a murder etc... is going to stay out of the public eye/sight... And whats more discreet, a meeting in a dark alley... or wally world?

And 200 deaths is a big deal... but considering a very very small percentage of that 200 is the result of the actually gun owner... we talking into the 10's of ppl. So in terms of gran scheme we are as a nation would be spending tons millions on a concept that is based on to many uncontrollable variables... such as ppl guns being stole, ppl who wont despite stricter laws etc.. still will be somewhat irresponsible.

As far as from the illegal gun aspect is concerned... unrealistically for many reasons which i dont want to derail the thread... nothing i could do alone. But i will say that they could curb/reduce the amount of illegal guns etc... in our country, if they put the same amount of effort,resources,money they did to get the illegal guns etc... in this country in the first place.

 

[michigan]

exactly... its almost as if just by the impression ppl are giving, and their so called solutions to reduce gun violence is to really lets not reduced gun violence deaths persay... lets just reduce/curb gun violence in certain areas/demographics...

Its like ppl are saying if we can prevent a once in a blue moon rarity such as the recent events... we have made strides... meanwhile in other areas/demographics, ppl are matching the same number of deaths as yesterday on a weekly basis.

I agree its all of our problem.    Gun violence is on the rise all over the country whether your from the hood or from a rich area.   We have around 25,000 murders every year in our country by guns.   Thats about 68 murders a day.  Syria is in a civil war right now and we have about the same number of deaths as them everyday just by guns alone.  smh As A country we need to change our violent culture.