WE: After school shooting in Connecticut, Piers Morgan blasts America’s ‘gun madness’

[Corcaigh]

Maybe we could form a well-regulated militia.

If only it was constitutional to do so.

[Painkiller]

Without a solution to get people to turn in the 'assault' weapons they already have...a new ban on 'assault' weapons is topical. It won't really accomplish anything but give some people warm and fuzzys that we are at least doing "something," Even if it will make no difference whatsoever. These things will still happen. Guns don't have an expiration date. A AR-15 purchased last year doesn't become useless after a certain amount of time.

Would some of you make it a criminal offense to own a gun that somebody just purchased legally last year? How do you plan on enforcing the law to make these people part with them?

---------- Post added December-17th-2012 at 04:30 PM ----------

we aren't going from 300 million guns to zero anytime soon.
and we arn't removing the villians names from being uttered or seen, so others will follow.

and this is the basis for my argument. We need realistic and attainable solutions. We need legitimate deterents. America has an obsession with guns, you can't just turn that off like a light switch. A new ban on this gun or that gun really doesn't do anything but make people "feel" better until the next massacre. As I stated some 10 pages ago, the problem goes SO much deeper than that. Banning new sales of high capacity magazines could be part of a solution, but it does nothing for all the high cap magazines that are already out here.

[Corcaigh]

Not adding to the problem would be a start.

[GoSkins561]

I have seen some ramblings of Lanzas mother teaching him how to shoot targets and fire the guns safely, I also read she had the guns locked up, has this been confirmed?

[DjTj]

Without a solution to get people to turn in the 'assault' weapons they already have...a new ban on 'assault' weapons is topical. It won't really accomplish anything but give some people warm and fuzzys that we are at least doing "something," Even if it will make no difference whatsoever. These things will still happen. Guns don't have an expiration date. A AR-15 purchased last year doesn't become useless after a certain amount of time.

Would some of you make it a criminal offense to own a gun that somebody just purchased legally last year? How do you plan on enforcing the law to make these people part with them?

A federal ban would likely only apply prospectively, not retroactively. Although we could regulate interstate transportation of firearms. And many local police do buyback programs to try get guns off the street.

As I said earlier, it's not going to be possible to eliminate all guns, or even all assault weapons. But we can reduce their number, and that's not just for a warm and fuzzy feeling. Even preventing one gun from getting into the wrong hands can make a difference. Forcing a shooter to spend one extra second reloading can save a life. We can take steps that aren't going to solve our problems completely, but might just save the life of one victim somewhere down the road.

[Jumbo]

It appears that someone with a concealed carry permit may have deterred the shooter in the recent Oregon mall shooting. Here is the link to the local Portland TV web story. There is also video of the news report with an interview.

The CCP holder drew his weapon while the shooter was trying to clear a jam. As he was preparing to shoot he caught a glimpse of someone running behind the shooter so he didn't fire. He was afraid a miss might hit the person behind the shooter. The shooter saw him and the CCP holder took cover in a nearby store. The shooter cleared the jam and shot himself.

I saw that yesterday (the event was in my region so the news has been plentiful)---tell everybody what--rather than go more into that story (like it's totally unsubstantiated to date) and it's relevance (or lack thereof) to my rather flip comment, let's consider my remark officially withdrawn. Let's keep that piece of dialog that I wrongly called "blather"---that CW carrying civilians have and do make a real dent in stopping crime and saving lives----alive and well as a meaningful concept to raise whenever the Hairy Monster of More Gun Restriction rears its frightful visage.

Maybe someday even all the LEOs I know and every LEO agency I've ever seen quoted on the matter will change their minds about it, too.

BTW, I posted I carry, but was saying that claiming that people like me were a serious force for deterrence was silly--Painkillers to articles from FLA and dude here using the web report have set me right and all the "stuff" I was using in development of my opinion (I wonder what all that could have been) is suspended.

Oh one more thing, hate to bring it up here, but does the phrase "dupe acct." mean anything to anyone here?

[GoSkins561]

Forcing a shooter to spend one extra second reloading can save a life. We can take steps that aren't going to solve our problems completely, but might just save the life of one victim somewhere down the road.

As a gun owner, the Newtown shootings have really changed the way I look at the second amendment, I agree, something along these lines seems like a very reasonable approach to preventing some of these mass shootings.

[MartinC]

nWould some of you make it a criminal offense to own a gun that somebody just purchased legally last year? How do you plan on enforcing the law to make these people part with them.

Thats exactly what happened in the UK back in about 1997 after a massacre here with a lone gunmen. Total ban on public ownership of hand guns with very very few exceptions. Ownership became a criminal offence and owners were required to surrender them with any ammunition at a police station. They were compensated for the value of the weapon - not sure exactly how that worked practically in terms of valuing the weapon but it did work. In terms of how it's policed there a serious sentences for illegal ownership of weapons and the Courts enforce them. As an example a recent high profile case over here was a decorated SAS soldier who brought back an illegal handgun from Afghanistan - he was caught with it and sentenced to 2 years in jail.

Of cours there is a big black market for weapons - but guess what they are bought almost exclusively by criminals who use them to shoot other criminals. Armed robberies are very rare, armed robberies of domestic houses almost unheard of. Our murder rate is one of the lowest in the world and murder by handgun very very rare and the cases where I happens are almost all criminal on criminal.

I don't think you could get such a law passed in the US in the first place and there are so many more weapons in circulation thats it's probably not practical if you could. But some move in this direction has to happen.

[sacase]

Sure - some people will turn to another weapon, but it will limit their effectiveness. I don't think anyone is claiming that restricting legal access to certain guns will result in school massacres being replaced with global peace and unicorns farting rainbows.

But as you quoted the example of New South Wales, a population of 7 million had 89 murders in the year reported. In the USA that year it was 17000. For ~ 300 million population, that's a murder rate five times higher than in NSW.

It's always hard to compare representative countries for crime statistics but NSW with large urban & suburban areas, as well as rural isn't a bad comparison to the USA.

A factor of five reduction in murder rate isn't so bad.

Australia has always had a low murder rate.

I'm not Jimbo, and when you master embracing "real life", tell someone who cares about your view on it. I work up to my neck in it. Make your point with your single article (which I am fine with and have seen others), but don't start with me on your evaluations of MY "psych assessments" because while I have enjoyed my gun talks with you, I will take your right-wing gunfreak ass to the cleaners.

Wasn't trying to be condecending, just using Australia as a good example of a country implimenting a gun bad. I do understand there is a psychological difference stabing someone vs shooting as it is more "personal".

Here are some more papers on it from the Austrailian govt.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/c...60/tbp045.html

A review of the recent Australian data indicates an increase in the use of knives for homicide offences, while their use decreased or remained steady in relation to robbery, sexual assault and kidnapping/ abduction.

One thing I do find interesting is that there is now thought about a knife ban/buy back program/increased penalties. It could be a slippery slope.

[DaGoonie55]

I apologize. I read a certain amount of condescension into your post, which probably was not intended…

My first feeling is yes, I believe the 2nd Amendment, as written, is outdated. In the age of muskets and muzzle loaded pistols, the framers of the Bill of Rights most likely did not foresee a repeating arm, let alone one which can empty a 30 round magazine in a matter of seconds. The bayonet probably did more damage in times of war and defense than a musket ball at 100 feet back then...

What is your feeling?

Thank you for seeing through my less than stellar attempt at communication. I won't openly bash someone on here - I'll take it to PM or otherwise ignore him/her altogether. I'm not an internet tough guy.

My feelings are this. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution

From my point of view this allows states to set up militias. AKA the National Guard, Air Guard, etc. I believe in this statement "the people" refers to the states. The founders, from my opinions formed from research, didn't want a big government overseeing or regulating everything they did. They just ousted a leader of that magnitude. "The people", thusly the "states", should govern themselves. This has been interpreted as "i can own what i want cuz the constytushun says i can." It doesn't. I'm a gun owner and belive I have the priviledge, as you stated, to own what I want within limits. There is nothing in the constitution that grants anyone any rights to own anything, save for land I think? I'll get hammered for this and will put up with it because the vividly pro-gun minded readers will not realize that I am a gun owner and believe in protecting those priviledges I protected in combat. Conversely, I am not pro-take-away-everything-that-scares-me-because-I-don't-understand either. Please don't feel free to tell me what an idiot I am. I am the way that I am. Perhaps we should rewrite it as such:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the state to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The state shall pass down priviledges to it's citizens, to keep and bear Arms, so long as it is mutually beneficial and just."

Or something like that where the state can dictate what guns are allowed, not allowed, how many hundreds of thousands of rounds I am permitted to keep in my cellar - or eliminate ownership all together if it is consensus among the populace.

This being said, there is no way America can come together to solve this. Just read this thread. We'll kick and scream for a few weeks that something needs done, yet nothing will. Both sided of the isle will point at each other and place blame "well if they would do such and such we'd happily do this and that" rinse repeat. If priviledges are taken away, the resentment from the pro-gun will burn for a long time. If nothing is done, the anti-gun people will freak out. I will be seriously impressed if anything other than continued rabid agenda-minded media outbursts (from both sides) continue to happen. Yes, I doubt our ability as an advanced, 'able minded' society to actually tackle and work to solve a societal problem.

Treat the problem, don't put a band-aid on it. If you want a motorcycle license in the state of WA, you must bring attend a hands on class to get said endorsement. Make everyone, me included, attend said state-endorsed safety class/endorsement. Put it on your drivers license. Oh you don't have a drivers license? The deputy will be by to collect your firearms which will be sold at auction and said proceeds will be put into the states general education fund. What can we do as private citizens? Lock up your guns, get treated for mental illness, for the love of God - TELL someone is your friend/lover/associate is acting in a psychotic or negative way. I don't buy this "he was perfectly normal until he slaughtered 30 people. We never saw this coming." The last minute attempt of a mother to protect her child's reputation. All that is. We choose to look the other way. We, the americans, love to blame the other guy - the fact we have this problem is on all of us. We need to force a change, and force it soon. Or be ok with the fact that we have indirectly assisted in the wreckless murdering of children.

Before you rip my face off, remember - Goonie loves all of you!

[autoidiodyssey]

BTW, I posted I carry, but was saying that claiming that people like me were a serious force for deterrence was silly--Painkillers to articles from FLA and dude here using the web report have set me right and all the "stuff" I was using in development of my opinion (I wonder what all that could have been) is suspended.

I agree it won't be a serious deterrence. The chances that someone legally carrying would be in the same place as one of these shooters is very slim. How many times have the Police even been in the right place at the right time? I can think of one and he was off duty.

[Painkiller]

I don't think you could get such a law passed in the US in the first place and there are so many more weapons in circulation thats it's probably not practical if you could. But some move in this direction has to happen.

I appreciated your whole post, and all that may be true in the UK, but at the end of the day your last few sentences summed up the situation here in the states very succinctly. America is not ready for that kind of bold move, and I cannot see the overwhelming majority getting behind something like this. While I've never been to the UK, I would imagine you had a large majority of people who were behind the idea, and were willing to be subjected to the new laws.

I don't see that happening here.

[Yellow_Canoe]

I dunno. CT already has really strict gun control. I think this is proof positive that gun control is garbage.

[Destino]

Apologies is this has already been posted:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...#ixzz2FLmdBJA5

Mass shootings are not growing in frequency, experts say

....

"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.

[skinsfan_1215]

"Anti-gun crowd." And that's your helpful contribution?

I think talking of sweeping bans is stupid. Targeted (no pun intended) and limited bans I'm more open-minded on, but prefer "improved restrictions" and figuring out the most effective form those might take.


I keep talking (for years here) about how much I love guns (especially the picture threads ), but **** the NRA--the vast majority of them are idiots (and worse) in my extensive experience with them. I think they're worse for the culture than Scientology or bestiality fans by far.

See? I can be helpful.

Jumbo- sorry my response was delayed. But yes, “anti-gun” meaning anti-all guns. Those that would prefer to live in a society where the government banned all guns. Perhaps not the best label but I think it fits.

My point was that you’re never going to get anything done by proposing bans. It’s too politically unpopular, and even if it happens to pass it will have negative political consequences down the road. And I agree with you about the NRA, but it’s the situation we have now with their power so anything gun-related needs to be worked out with them to be sustainable long term. And they aren’t going for any sort of bans, not even magazine capacity restrictions.

I make the point a little better in my previous post in this thread, which I’ll include below. Anything that happens will need to have both sides on board, and bans on anything aren’t going to get that happen.

When dealing with the gun control topic, I'd love if more people could think about real possible solutions rather than come out in sudden vocal support of all out bans as a reaction to tragedies like this one. There will never be a gun ban in America. Ever. Not even for assault rifles and handguns. We're a big country and there is way too large of a population of gun owners to make that feasible.

Rather, we should take a serious look at ways to ensure that gun ownership is done responsibly. It will take the cooperation of the NRA to make anything possible, which I don't really see happening since they typically see any gun-related legislation as the top of a slippery slope to a complete ban.

But sometime, somewhere, there has to be a place and time where both sides of the debate can meet and work on a legitimate solution. It would probably involve closing the gun show loophole, requiring a more intensive background check and minor waiting period for purchases of non-hunting weapons, required education on gun safety that is currently reserved for concealed carry permits. The trade off would be stronger legislative guarantees against future gun restrictions (another amendment that clarifies that the 2nd does in fact guarantee citizens that right to own guns, perhaps... Take away the grey area). Maybe also a nation-wide Castle Law implementation, which I would support wholeheartedly.

In order for this to happen we need both the NRA to acknowledge that there is a problem, and for the gun ban side of the debate to realize there is never going to be a total ban on any firearms in this country. Unfortunately I don't really see either side willing to step up, make concessions, and successfully get the other side to the table at the same time.


*opinion from a left/center-left gun owner