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

[hockeysc23]

Here's a solution, how about we not sell guns to known crazy people so we don't have to act all shocked that a crazy person killed a bunch of children with a gun that was sold to him.. See how that works?

The crazy person wasn't sold guns. He killed the person that had them in this incident.

[Koolblue13]

Here's a solution, how about we not sell guns to known crazy people so we don't have to act all shocked that a crazy person killed a bunch of children with a gun that was sold to him.. See how that works?

Nobody sold this crazy person a gun.

[MattFancy]

I think that quote should be tattooed on Ron Pauls forehead.

But to answer your question, yes it does and yes it already has.

But there are people saying that we shouldn't change the law. But laws need to change to keep up the times.

[Mad Mike]

Please go back and re-read my original post that you quoted. CAREFULLY. It is number 1059. Pay particular attention to the 2nd sentence, I think you read it wrong. If you go back and read it and believe that what you posted in response STILL makes sense, please turn in all of your guns, because you are a crazy person.

---------- Post added December-18th-2012 at 09:05 PM ----------



That's only because we haven't armed EVERYONE yet, preferably with multiple firearms and the understanding that they must be locked and loaded AT ALL TIMES. Jeez.

A) My original reply was really just to the first part of your post. I saw the first line and started typing. I had intended to keep replying to the rest but I got lost in a stream of consciousness. My mistake. But there is no need to get personal. And it's a bit tasteless as well as insulting to suggest mental health issues over it. Chill dude.

B) The second part of the post was not intended for me but I have to say that I'm getting sick and tired of the ridiculous arguments some people are making here. Sarcasm noted... But the reality is that only a small percentage of the population have concealed carry permits and no one is suggesting every one pack a gun. I could suggest your poor interpretation of other peoples arguments might be a sign of a "crazy person" but that would be wrong, so I'll just put it down to internet debate skills.

[Duckus]

The crazy person wasn't sold guns. He killed the person that had them in this incident.

Nobody sold this crazy person a gun.

Wasn't his mother a "prepper" who was preparing for the fall of society? I saw that a few days ago, not sure if it was debunked or not though.

[Koolblue13]

Wasn't his mother a "prepper" who was preparing for the fall of society? I saw that a few days ago, not sure if it was debunked or not though.

Who cares? She was legally in possession of legal firearms. There was no legal reason that she shouldn't of had them.

[hockeysc23]

Wasn't his mother a "prepper" who was preparing for the fall of society? I saw that a few days ago, not sure if it was debunked or not though.

No idea. Doesn't change that this individual procured the guns he used by killing his mother.

[Mad Mike]

But there are people saying that we shouldn't change the law. But laws need to change to keep up the times.

I think most gun rights supporters are willing to make sensible changes even if the NRA isn't on board. The problem is in defining sensible. And for me that means it has the effect of at least cutting down on mass murders in some real way, and does not infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.

[CTskins]

We keep hearing this. None of these other things are Constitutionally protected. You want to start comparing restrictions on Constitutional rights, please show me a right that has more laws on the books to regulate than the 2nd. It isn't close.

We don't mandate that bloggers get mental health screenings before they are permitted to start a blog. No one is required to get mental health screening before they are permitted to vote. And I know that neither of those rights have the ability to "kill 20 kids", but the point stands. The SC has upheld that the 2nd guarantees private ownership of firearms for self defense. You can only restrict a right so much before you are infringing on that right.

The point really doesn’t stand though. It is another Apples and Oranges comparison.

The purpose of any of the other things mentioned is not primary to inflict harm on its target. The primary purpose of a car is to get from point A to point B, not to hit granny on the side walk. Neither blogging nor voting carry an inherent fatal danger to others.

The Second Amendment is one sentence long and no other amendment, in my opinion, has more interpretations considering its length. I understand the strategy of falling back to the Constitutional Protection argument, but in the words of Simon Wilder (Joe Pesci’s character in With Honors, 1994), the beauty of the Constitution is that the framers knew that they didn't know everything. The beauty of the Constitution is that it can always be changed. To wit: 24 amendments, including 1 that flat out repeals another. Call it from the minds of Hollywood liberal elite writers, whatever. It’s still a good point.

I believe the framers of the Bill of Rights (however naively) also assumed some level of common sense in future generations. To the responsible gun owner, I say keep your firearms. This is not about you and it never has been. However, make no mistake that gun ownership is not so much a right as it is a privilege (As I and many others have stated earlier, see also Goonie55) and as with many other privileges, it carries with it a great personal responsibility to your fellow man.

[Mad Mike]

Who cares? She was legally in possession of legal firearms. There was no legal reason that she shouldn't of had them.

Not sure about the laws there but In many states there is the issue of how she stored them. And if not, there should be.

---------- Post added December-19th-2012 at 05:17 PM ----------

As part of the cultural issue that the USA seems to have is with glorification of weaponry and violence. Do you think having weapons that look like military assault rifles is a great idea?

Do you think banning a weapon because it "looks" military is going to solve anything?

---------- Post added December-19th-2012 at 05:19 PM ----------

If no one had any guns, then there wouldnt be mass shootings.

Meanwhile back in the *real* world....

[DjTj]

Do you think banning a weapon because it "looks" military is going to solve anything?

It will make us feel better. And actually, why is it that in these mass shootings, the killers tend to dress up in bulletproof vests and use guns that "look" military-style? If there are boring-looking hunting guns that have the same capabilities, why don't they use those? Could there be a psychological aspect to it? When a gun looks like it is meant to kill people in a military environment, are crazy people more likely to use them to kill people? When a gun looks like the guns in a video game, are crazy people more likely to use the guns like they are in a video game?

And my second question is: If you will still be able to buy a gun with the same capabilities, but just looks less cool, why do you care? Okay, it might not end all murder, but what is the downside to banning these types of guns? What is the downside to limiting magazine capacities?

I get that you doubt the effectiveness of these kinds of laws, but what is the downside? What could it hurt?

[Corcaigh]

Do you think banning a weapon because it "looks" military is going to solve anything?

To the morons with a gun fetish who engage in public displays of their mental inadequacies, yes.

Do you think law enforcement should have to speculate what exactly they are dealing with when they see a criminal with something that looks like an AK-47?

EDIT: and what DjTj said. What's the upside to encouraging people to role play as warriors?

[Koolblue13]

My mom wouldn't allow any kind of gun in the house when I was a kid. Squirt gun, zebra II, bb gun, anything. Now I'm a pacifist and won't punch people. I think my mom was right.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Who cares? She was legally in possession of legal firearms. There was no legal reason that she shouldn't of had them.

Except for the fact that she was living with a dangerously mentally ill person. (Granted, that is not currently a "legal" reason to deny ownership, but it should be).

[sacase]

My mom wouldn't allow any kind of gun in the house when I was a kid. Squirt gun, zebra II, bb gun, anything. Now I'm a pacifist and won't punch people. I think my mom was right.

I grew up with guns, have no fear of them, understand them and am adamant about gun safety. I think my mom got it right.