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

[Koolblue13]

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).

I said legal three times for a reason. I don't know how you can accurately screen for that either. It was ultimately on her. It was her responsibility. She knew he was nuts, she knew he was dangerous, she was looking for a way out, didn't get it in time and payed the price. He could move out and move back in or just visit and take the guns. Having a 20 year old sun with no real mental health track record won't deny you the ability to buy an assault rifle or high powered pistols. You can't enforce it.

[GSF]

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

Clearly this case is a perfect example of why there should be more control of guns, especially assault rifles. It was perfectly legal for this woman to posess these weapons, and look what happened: they wound up in the hands of her mentally unstable son.

There's just no arguing the fact that with further control, disurbed young people like this kid and the kid in Colorado would have a tremendously more difficult time getting there hands on these weapons. Gun control will not prevent all crimes, but it will reduce these kinds of incidents. There is just no arguing that point.

[PleaseBlitz]

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.

Up until the 1980s, there was no “individual-rights” theory of the Second Amendment. Up until then it was interpreted to include the first part of the amendment, which is so often left off by gun-rights advocates "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...." The Supreme Court case was DC v. Heller, it was a 5-4 decision and highly criticized (mostly by conservative scholars who believe in originalism, since Scalia just basically clipped off the first part of the 2nd amendment to get the result he wanted). You should Google it and familiarize yourself with it if you really want to credibly discuss gun rights (this goes for everyone). Anyways, prior to that even extremely conservative legal scholars didn't believe the 2nd Amendment applied to individuals generally. Nixon-appointed conservative Chief Justice Warren Burger famously called the idea of an individual right to bear arms “one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

So the statement that an INDIVIDUALS right to keep himself armed, outside of any kind of state sponsored militia-type organization, is constitutionally protected is not well supported.

[Corcaigh]

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.

Can I play this game?

The only kind of gun my mom would allow in the house when I was a kid growing up was this one:



You remove Batman's butt plug, fill his ass with liquid, jerk him off and he spits with pleasure.

I think my mom got it right.

[DaGoonie55]

We all feel strongly for this on both sides (and from slight to extreme for both). The only way we can affect this is to contact our legislatives and push for change or stability. PB, while I agree with you, the SC keeps upholding individual ownership rights. See my post f(link below) or the latest (that I could find) securing right to carry in Illinois. Furthermore, due to what I have experienced in the military and throughout my, albeit short, adult life - I don't believe everything is puppy dogs and rainbows. My outlook is tarnished and my .40 S&W allows me to sleep at night. I'll keep my handgun and my concealed carry permit, thanks.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthre...=1#post9337913

[Mad Mike]

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?

By all means. Let's ban black clothes as well. Gunmen really like that stuff. And black spray paint, we don't want them painting guns to *look* tactical. And water guns... You know they are a gateway to killing sprees. And violent movies, and video games, and comic books....

Come on. Use the brain I know you have. Why waste energy passing a law that does nothing when you could be using that energy to pass laws that will have an effect. THAT is what it hurts.

[DjTj]

Come on. Use the brain I know you have. Why waste energy passing a law that does nothing when you could be using that energy to pass laws that will have an effect. THAT is what it hurts.

In my opinion, an assault weapons ban would have some positive effect, even if the effect is relatively small, and with no real downside. Your opinion is that it will have zero effect, but the only downside you identify is the energy that people are wasting talking about it. But if you (and other gun proponents) didn't waste energy opposing it, it could actually be passed with very little effort or time. The bill is basically already written.

What are the alternative laws that you think lawmakers should instead be spending their energy on?

[Koolblue13]

Can I play this game?

The only kind of gun my mom would allow in the house when I was a kid growing up was this one:

You remove Batman's butt plug, fill his ass with liquid, jerk him off and he spits with pleasure.

I think my mom got it right.

I can not imagine a better way to one up my useless anecdotal evidence

[PleaseBlitz]

We all feel strongly for this on both sides (and from slight to extreme for both). The only way we can affect this is to contact our legislatives and push for change or stability. PB, while I agree with you, the SC keeps upholding individual ownership rights. See my post f(link below) or the latest (that I could find) securing right to carry in Illinois. Furthermore, due to what I have experienced in the military and throughout my, albeit short, adult life - I don't believe everything is puppy dogs and rainbows. My outlook is tarnished and my .40 S&W allows me to sleep at night. I'll keep my handgun and my concealed carry permit, thanks.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthre...=1#post9337913

Well I agree with you that the individual right is not going away, my point is that gun-advocates saying that the right is written in stone and cannot be changed, modified, or infringed upon in any way is simply not true. Also, very few people are advocating that your pistol be outlawed, so I'll just ignore that part as a red herring.

Lets look at the post you linked to (I clipped off the end because I agree with it and the question posed is pretty much the topic of this thread):

Well, what I thought the consitution said doesn't matter. Just found this:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/politics/2...tml#trackbacks

"We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home," Judge Richard Posner wrote in the court's majority opinion.. . . ."The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside. The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense," he continued.

Judge Posner is one of the biggest critics of the Supreme Courts decision in Heller and, in fact, called Scalia "incoherent." http://www.tnr.com/article/magazine/...lism?page=0,2#

His point in making the quote that you stated was to express his frustration with the Supreme Courts ruling. When you read the above link, you will note that Posner believes "that the Second Amendment (which creates a right “to keep and bear arms”) is not about personal self-defense, but about forbidding the federal government to disarm state militias." He just knows that ruling how HE feels he should rule would be futile in the face of the Supreme Courts precedence until the makeup of the Court changes.

Posner is generally viewed as a moderate conservative, just BTW.

---------- Post added December-19th-2012 at 01:25 PM ----------

I can not imagine a better way to one up my useless anecdotal evidence

Just curious, but I see a bunch ofpeople talking about their legal responsible ownership of guns, but am I the only one who has owned guns illegally and been irresponsible with them?

I remember going down to New Orleans for New Years one year and the news channels had to REPEATEDLY BEG PEOPLE to not shoot their guns into the air at midnight because, eventually, the bullets come down and kill people.

[MattFancy]

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.

What in your opinion, would be a law that would infringe on your gun rights? Just curious.

[China]

Looks like someone else besides the gun shops is making money off of this tragedy:

Post-Newtown, Sales Boom for Kids' Body Armor

"Basically, there's three models," says Derek Williams. "A SwissGear that's made for teens, and we've got an Avengers and a Disney Princess backpack for little kids."

Williams is the president of Amendment II, a Salt Lake City-based company that manufactures lightweight body armor for law enforcement and military use. But lately they've moved into a different market: body armor for kids. Six months ago, Amendment II introduced a new line of backpacks, built with the company's signature carbon nanotube armor, designed to keep kids safe in the event of school shootings. Since Friday's massacre at a Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school, sales have gone through the roof. "I can't go into exact sales numbers, but basically we tripled our sales volume of backpacks that we typically do in a month—in one week," Williams says.

...

Amendment II isn't the only company that has realized that, with the epidemic of school violence, there's money to be made in marketing kid-friendly body armor. At least a half-dozen companies hawk variations of the armored backpack, many of which explicitly play to fears of another Columbine. "My Child's Pack," from the Massachusetts company Bullet Blocker, goes for $224.99 (it's currently on sale for the holidays). Here's the main image on the front page of the Bullet Blocker website, last updated on December 17:



Click on the link for the full article

[DaGoonie55]

I think my mom got it right.

When I would lie, or take something that didn't belong to me - I got my hind end beat. When I hit my brother or sister, I was severly punished. When I broke something, something of mine would go in the trash. When I used profanity, I ate soap. By the time I was in later high school my teachers always praised me for how well behaved I was. My parents would glow because THEY molded me into the young man I was becoming. I didn't do it on my own. My parents did it. I think my parents got it right.

We owe it to ourselves to mold our children to be great citizens. Pro-gun, anti-gun - it doesn't matter. Everyone's varying views is what gives us diversity - our greatest strength as a nation. What matters is that we, on the whole, are failing at promoting how precious life is. If it takes a few knots on your head for that to sink in, then so be it. Children, untainted by adult swaying projections, will play with other kids regardless of race, creed, religion, etc. What they become when they are older is OUR fault. Freak things happen to a psyche, I'm not blaming the guy's mother in CT for his actions, but she HAD to notice a difference in him. She should have reported him, at the least, gotten him in to seek help. It is our responsibility as parents, citizens, and humans to ensure our nation has a future.

[artmonkforHOF]

Disarming innocents does not protect innocents.

Actually it does. I live in a city roughly the same population as Baltimore, we might have 50-75,000 less people, granted it is spread over a much wider area. I read in my local paper this morning, the city just recorded it's 6th- that's right 6th, as in one more than 5- homicide on the year. Not a single one of those homicides was due to a gun shot. The closest thing my city has gotten to gun violence this year is otuside the city, on an Indian Reserve, a local man who was bow hunting from a tree stand was accidentily shot by a native indian from something like 125 yards away. By comparison, Baltimore has something like 200 homicides this year, the vast majority by shooting.

Disarming "innocents" is exactly what needs to happen. Just because someone is considered a safe gun owner at time of purchase does not mean they can never change, either as a person in general or just their mental state of mind. Really I think those goes back to the poor licenscing procedures. If someone is commited to a mental intstution, or is brought to a hospital and is considered a danger to themselves or others, then immedately, that person's gun license should be revoked, like how they pull driver's license's away from people admitted to hospital with seizures. Whoever issued the gun license should also be responsible for confiscating the weapons immediately.

As others have pointed out, most of the guns used in these shootings are obtained legally, and msot of these shooters have some sort of history with mental illness, yet no one thought about taking guns away from people who have been deemed either a danger to themselves or others. I might feel better if someone or some agency at least checked on these people after their mental health issues become known, but we all know none of that has happened.

I think a ban will be the only way any change can happen, the other alternative is to have gun licenser's do more thorough checks on existing gun owners. That way would be scary as a lot of people will not take kindly to a government agency looking into their gun use and probably won't happen since most states are in horrible financial shape and could not afford increased inspection costs.

[Popeman38]

Actually it does. I live in a city roughly the same population as Baltimore, we might have 50-75,000 less people, granted it is spread over a much wider area. I read in my local paper this morning, the city just recorded it's 6th- that's right 6th, as in one more than 5- homicide on the year. Not a single one of those homicides was due to a gun shot. The closest thing my city has gotten to gun violence this year is otuside the city, on an Indian Reserve, a local man who was bow hunting from a tree stand was accidentily shot by a native indian from something like 125 yards away. By comparison, Baltimore has something like 200 homicides this year, the vast majority by shooting.

Disarming "innocents" is exactly what needs to happen. Just because someone is considered a safe gun owner at time of purchase does not mean they can never change, either as a person in general or just their mental state of mind. Really I think those goes back to the poor licenscing procedures. If someone is commited to a mental intstution, or is brought to a hospital and is considered a danger to themselves or others, then immedately, that person's gun license should be revoked, like how they pull driver's license's away from people admitted to hospital with seizures. Whoever issued the gun license should also be responsible for confiscating the weapons immediately.

As others have pointed out, most of the guns used in these shootings are obtained legally, and msot of these shooters have some sort of history with mental illness, yet no one thought about taking guns away from people who have been deemed either a danger to themselves or others. I might feel better if someone or some agency at least checked on these people after their mental health issues become known, but we all know none of that has happened.

I think a ban will be the only way any change can happen, the other alternative is to have gun licenser's do more thorough checks on existing gun owners. That way would be scary as a lot of people will not take kindly to a government agency looking into their gun use and probably won't happen since most states are in horrible financial shape and could not afford increased inspection costs.

No offense, but non residents "preaching" about what needs to be done tends to piss off Americans. You don't get a license to own a gun. See, we have issues with licensing of a right (see the uproar over requiring a valid ID to vote).

[Koolblue13]

I remember going down to New Orleans for New Years one year and the news channels had to REPEATEDLY BEG PEOPLE to not shoot their guns into the air at midnight because, eventually, the bullets come down and kill people.

Damn, thought I got that edit in.

I won't even go into the dumb **** I've done with guns, especially when drunk and with a lot of other drunk armed people. It's incredible.

Guns are not safe. They fall into the hands of people like me sometimes, just from being around.