Quote :

"Banning guns isn't the option but harsher gun laws and restrictions won't hurt. "

So what additional restrictions and laws do you think that they should have implemented in CT to prevent this massacre? Please be sure to check the link I provided up thread so that you know what laws they already have.

Quote :

"As a resident of new york I don't really have the option to buy a gun. There is no gun culture outside of gang bangers and mob guys."

Are you in the city? If so, how is that gun control and "no gun culture" helping your homicide rate?

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 6:54 PM. Reason : Nyc]

12/15/2012 6:51:06 PM

Quote :

"As a resident of new york I don't really have the option to buy a gun. There is no gun culture outside of gang bangers and mob guys."

do you feel safer knowing that only the criminals have firearms?

just asking questions

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 6:52 PM. Reason : adsf]

12/15/2012 6:51:15 PM

Yes. People are shot in NYC but fairly infrequently when accounting for the population. Around 400 homicides year for a city of 8 million is low.

Also I live in Brooklyn and I'm currently in prospect lefferts.



[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 7:13 PM. Reason : Yes]

12/15/2012 7:01:03 PM

Quote :

"Shall Issue gun permits, provided by the states, for the purchase of any firearm (long, pistol, full auto) which every state in the union recognizes and would allow purchases in any other state or country. Requirements of the permit would be class room legal education, class room firearm safety and use, demonstration test, background check, mental health check, and renewed every 5 years (when checks are redone), for a minimal fee. Violent crimes, mental health changes, etc. are causes for revocation or denial for renewal or issuance. In turn, almost all restrictions on open and concealed carry are abolished, except those related to carrying or using a firearm while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Possession of a permit or firearm by a non-eligible person, murder with any object, and use of a dangerous item in any crime is punishable by 50 years in prison (per victim). The drug war ends, drug users aren't sent to prisons/jail. In addition, a repeat offender law (for any serious crime - e.g. violence, major theft, etc.), or stricter laws should be on the books and enforced. Accomplices to non-eligible persons in obtaining firearms, either by negligence or purpose is punishable by 50 years."

I agree with most of this. The exceptions being that I am fine with tighter restrictions on fully automatic guns (or any other weapon that has no practical purpose outside of maximizing body count) and I wouldn't put any kind of mandatory sentence on a crime.

Regarding the permit requirements...how do they get reported/validated and enforced, specifically, the mental health aspect that dtownral and I were discussing earlier?

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 7:39 PM. Reason : ]

12/15/2012 7:22:58 PM

Quote :

"The exceptions being that I am fine with tighter restrictions on fully automatic guns"

are you familiar with current restrictions on full-auto guns? it's extremely difficult to obtain one legally.

not to mention they cost tens of thousands of dollars

12/15/2012 7:28:10 PM

Yes, I know. But that quote was a response to a proposal that I interpreted as removing legal distinctions between semi- and full-auto and making the process to obtain them equal. I don't think that's a good idea.

12/15/2012 7:34:25 PM

oh, i understand now

12/15/2012 7:36:49 PM

Eh no worth baiting

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 7:58 PM. Reason : ,,,,,???!!!]

12/15/2012 7:54:08 PM

My point about semiautomatics was that it was so easy for the guy to kill so many people in a short amount of time. Anyways, it is also too easy to get a gun and the requirements for purchasing and safekeeping a gun need to get much stricter.

12/15/2012 11:22:47 PM

Quote :

"do you feel safer knowing that only the criminals have firearms? just asking questions "

I don't feel safer knowing that "good" people have firearms. Your survival is nothing more than dumb luck. If someone wants your dead, you don't have a chance. The idea that banning guns in a slow, methodical method that simultaneously removes guns from the streets and owners makes us less safe is ludicrous. Obviously an outright ban wouldn't work.

But I don't see anyone arguing for more gun ownership.

But in all honesty, I think a system like Japan's would be a good model. You can still have guns, but not every hick in the country can get them willy-nilly.

12/15/2012 11:38:49 PM

^^are you familiar with the alternatives to semi-automatic actions?

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 11:41 PM. Reason : adsf]

12/15/2012 11:40:28 PM

The way they keep writing out semiautomatic makes me think they still don't understand what it is. Mnfares, a semiautomatic is a "regular" gun.

12/15/2012 11:52:10 PM

Quote :

"Your survival is nothing more than dumb luck. If someone wants your dead, you don't have a chance"

Sarah McKinley (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/mom-kills-intruder_n_1183336.html) and the many many yearly successful gun self defense users would prove you wrong. Also, I don't have them handy but I have posted them in another thread, the FBI crime reports also prove you wrong, finding that resistance with a gun result in less injuries to victims of violent crime than even passive behavior.

12/15/2012 11:58:29 PM

I think one of the biggest problems pro-gun advocates face is trying to convince people who aren't familiar with guns (except to hear about them in crimes on the news) that an AR-15 or a semi-automatic pistol is not a "death machine".

Yes, an AR-15 is similar in many ways to a military rifle...but that does not mean it is used as one. I use my AR-15 for hunting, target shooting and allot of the time I have a tool that allows me to shoot .22 long rifle ammunition out of the gun for some great low noise fun. The fact that the magazine holds 30 rounds does not mean I get to kill 30 people in a row, its simply easier to not have to stop as often to reload a magazine while I'm target shooting. The fact that it looks like a military rifle means nothing to me...

AR's and semi-auto pistols are not death machines. They are not just for killing.

12/15/2012 11:59:23 PM

those olympic shooters and their death-dealing semi-auto pistols

12/16/2012 12:10:32 AM

i have enjoyed watching this thread flow from one NRA talking point to the next

12/16/2012 12:11:02 AM

otherwise it'd just be Brady talking points

12/16/2012 12:13:02 AM

.

[Edited on December 16, 2012 at 12:40 AM. Reason : .]

12/16/2012 12:30:41 AM

Quote :

" Sarah McKinley (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/mom-kills-intruder_n_1183336.html) and the many many yearly successful gun self defense users would prove you wrong. Also, I don't have them handy but I have posted them in another thread, the FBI crime reports also prove you wrong, finding that resistance with a gun result in less injuries to victims of violent crime than even passive behavior."

That doesn't prove me wrong. It is dumb luck that she lived. It's dumb luck that she had a gun easily accessible to here at the moment she was attacked. It's dumb luck that the intruder only had a knife. The situation she was in could have gone totally different.

Each circumstance is different, and when you're in the fucking circumstance you're in, your useless statistics don't mean a God damned thing. Guns aren't making you safer. You must be a control freak if you think they do. Like I said, if someone WANTS you dead, and I mean truly wants you dead, they will kill you.

As far as your statistics goes, you're forgetting that in a country where guns are easily accessible for crimes, there are far more opportunities to "defend/get lucky" than in Europe or areas where gun ownership is more of a rarity than the norm. If guns aren't as accessible, then the amount of "bad guys" with guns decreases, meaning that you wouldn't need to have a gun to defend yourself.

Obviously you can't have it both ways though. You can't have high gun ownership and a low incidence rate of violent crimes involving guns. You can either have high gun ownership and high incidence rates for violent crimes, or low gun ownership and a low incident rate of violent crimes. Obviously with the former of the two options your ability to "defend" yourself increases, however the likelihood of needing to defend yourself also increases, whereas with the later option you lose the ability to "defend" yourself, but you're less likely to need to defend yourself.

To me, the later option is better. It would be nice to be able to eat your cake and have it too, but that's a rarity in any scenario.

12/16/2012 12:35:50 AM

And since its an individual right you're welcome to defend yourself in a different way from how someone else might choose to

12/16/2012 12:40:52 AM

^6 yup! shooting a gun is not a real damn sport.

We need a lot more requirements regarding gun ownership. It is a killing device after all.

12/16/2012 12:44:55 AM

Quote :

"So what additional restrictions and laws do you think that they should have implemented in CT to prevent this massacre? Please be sure to check the link I provided up thread so that you know what laws they already have."

Like most tragedies, there's not any one thing that could have been different to stop this, it's a tragedy.

But part of the problem is that gun rights discussions are almost always framed as a left/right issue to the point where people look to guns as a symbol of their cultural survival, to the point where they aren't treated as dangerous tools, but almost a casual entertainment.

There are reports coming out now that are showing this kid as from a family of gun nuts.

Gun laws, as described in the constitution, should be written from the perspective that guns are tools, not toys.

12/16/2012 1:49:14 AM

^Why does it matter if he was from a family of a gun nut?

12/16/2012 2:49:18 AM

Quote :

"And since its an individual right you're welcome to defend yourself in a different way from how someone else might choose to"

Quote :

"You can't have high gun ownership and a low incidence rate of violent crimes involving guns. You can either have high gun ownership and high incidence rates for violent crimes, or low gun ownership and a low incident rate of violent crimes. Obviously with the former of the two options your ability to "defend" yourself increases, however the likelihood of needing to defend yourself also increases, whereas with the later option you lose the ability to "defend" yourself, but you're less likely to need to defend yourself."

I may have the "right" to defend myself from someone however I choose too, but this right also leads to a higher chance of having to defend myself, which means a greater risk of death for what amounts to very little benefit.

12/16/2012 6:55:18 AM

Quote :

"otherwise it'd just be Brady talking points"

I'm shocked that yet another anti-gun control poster sees everything as black and white

12/16/2012 7:27:13 AM

^^ that little benefit however is saving your own life. Does not seem like a "little benefit" to me.

12/16/2012 9:48:15 AM

^^Most of the "pro-gun" people in here have been very clear that they support reasonable gun control

It's just that Brady's AWB is not reasonable, it's arbitrary. If you want to restrict something you need a reason, it can't be arbitrary.

12/16/2012 10:15:07 AM

I am as pro-gun as you will find, and I support some form of gun control.

I believe that every person that chooses to own a gun must take a state-approved safety course first. We do that for hunting license, hunters safety course. Take it once, then you get a card that you show every year when you go get a new license (or gun in this case).

I dont think every backass redneck, goth moron, or thug should be able to go down to Wal-Mart and buy a gun with only a background check...without ever really knowing the safety aspect of a firearm.

12/16/2012 10:30:59 AM

http://thebluereview.org/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother/

12/16/2012 10:31:37 AM

Quote :

"Most of the "pro-gun" people in here have been very clear that they support reasonable gun control"

no, most of them have spent their time blaming mental health, the misuse of "semi-automatic," the selection of pictures shown by the media, and strawmen like drunk driving and homemade bombs

I appreciate those who would honestly support restrictions to gun ownership, but this thread is a perfect microcosm of the current state of discourse on gun control.

and yeah, it might be some pot/kettle here, but I have no patience for people who want to completely remove guns from the discussion as was tried earlier in the thread

[Edited on December 16, 2012 at 10:55 AM. Reason : .]

12/16/2012 10:51:13 AM

^What you are saying that we are blaming...are valid points. The media does misuse the images of rifles, the distinction between automatic and fully automatic and gun ownership in general.

If these items are being portrayed in an incorrect manor, whats the harm in defending them?

[Edited on December 16, 2012 at 10:53 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on December 16, 2012 at 10:54 AM. Reason : .]

12/16/2012 10:52:58 AM

valid points that have no bearing on the actual issue at hand. things like "OMG WRONG PICTURE" are shiny objects that anti-control people use to try and discredit the entire control movement and absolve themselves from any real discussion

and the "semi" conversation? please. the sentiment that a rifle that can carry 100 rounds in a barrel magazine but requires 100 trigger pulls to shoot them is somehow better than a fully automatic rifle and should not be restricted because of that is beyond absurd.

[Edited on December 16, 2012 at 11:00 AM. Reason : .]

12/16/2012 10:56:40 AM

^Its not a sentiment, its just wrong. If you really think a semi-automatic and a fully automatic have no distinction in the speed at which they unload rounds...you are misinformed.

12/16/2012 11:01:40 AM

Quote :

"valid points that have no bearing on the actual issue at hand."

they certainly are valid. if the media puts up a picture of an AR-15 and tells them all about how it's so terrible, there's nothing wrong with wanting to inform folks of its practical uses and the fact that it functions just like a hunting rifle and actually fires a cartridge much less "powerful" than most popular deer hunting cartridges.

i'm all about having a discussion on reasonable gun control, but i believe folks should have a good understanding of what they're trying to restrict. the media does not provide a good understanding.

12/16/2012 11:04:45 AM

Quote :

"http://thebluereview.org/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother/"

Unstable people like that scare the hell out of me. This is the sort of thing we need to address.

12/16/2012 12:53:33 PM

Quote :

"that little benefit however is saving your own life. Does not seem like a "little benefit" to me."

Having that little benefit is the very reason why you're at a greater risk to ever need to use that little benefit. You're in a catch 22. Have the right to defend yourself with a gun and increase the risk of having to even defend yourself, take away that right and decrease the risk of needing to defend yourself.

12/16/2012 1:27:20 PM

Quote :

"It is dumb luck that she lived. It's dumb luck that she had a gun easily accessible to here at the moment she was attacked."

To be clear here, your claim is the fact that she purchased, learned to use and kept a gun at hand at home is all dumb luck? That no conscious effort went into her providing for her safety? This is really your claim?

Quote :

"The situation she was in could have gone totally different."

Of course it could have, but it played out the way it did in part because she had, knew how to use and was willing to use a gun in her defense. Under your ideal world she would have been at best assaulted by her knife wielding attacker and at worst dead, since the attacker didn't use a gun so that clearly didn't contribute to her need for the gun.

Quote :

"Guns aren't making you safer. You must be a control freak if you think they do."

No, guns in and of themselves don't do anything. They are mere pieces of metal and plastic, inanimate and neither good nor evil. However, owning, having access to and being able to use a gun does improve your safety in certain situations. No, guns are not a cure all, and there are times when even having all of the above will not give you a better outcome, but then there are also times when your seat belt will trap you in your car and cause you to die rather than save your life.

Quote :

"You can either have high gun ownership and high incidence rates for violent crimes, or low gun ownership and a low incident rate of violent crimes."

This is demonstrably false. Switzerland ranks #4 on the list of countries sorted by guns per capita, yet from the same statistics I provided earlier in the thread, has a homicide rate of just 0.7 per 100,000. Even Serbia, which comes in at #2 has a homicide rate of just 1.2 per 100,000. By comparison, Mexico comes in at #42 with a homicide rate of 23.7 per 100,000. All the way down near the bottom of the list, Fiji, with a guns per capita rate below that of Japan has a murder rate of 2.8, and South Korea coming in at position #149 has a murder rate of 2.6.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Of course, this is even demonstrably wrong in the US where Washington DC and Chicago, both cities with outright bans on firearms ownership continually being near the top for violent crime and murders.

But let's go even one step further. Surely you would agree that if there were any place in this country where the residents could not get their hands on guns, or even a vast majority of the weapons available to the common man, it would be a prison correct? And yet, in local and state prisons throughout the country, the homicide rate is 3 and 4 per 100,000 respectively. Just to refresh your memory, the whole US has a rate between 4.8 and 4.2, meaning we can't even keep people from killing each other when we can take away all their guns, all their knives and lock them in cages. And it's even worse in the federal prisons with a homicide rate of 7 per 100,000, even more than the national average.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/shsplj.pdf
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=194

In other words, as I said before (and you said, though you didn't intend to), if people want to kill others they will. The tools available to them to commit crimes has very little impact on the rate at which they commit crimes. It's a cultural problem, not weapons availability problem.

12/16/2012 2:16:02 PM

Switzerland is not a good example. Every male is subjected to military service and has a gun in their home afterwards. This is state enforced gun safety.

12/16/2012 2:57:19 PM

LOL at you taking my bombmaking jest as a strawman against gun control


words

I'm a gun enthusiast, own a couple semi-auto rifles to include an AR-15 and GP WASR AK-47, and will be the first to admit that gun control needs to be revised. I'm not even going to argue the utility of semi-auto vs. the many other mechanisms, suffice it to say that your efforts are misdirected if that's what you're focusing on.

People get so bent out of shape when they see a civilian rifle modeling the iconic M-16 on the news, but the M16/M4/AR15 variants are FAR less powerful (excluding the select-fire capabilities of the former two) than common game-hunting rifles, many being available in semi-auto, which most people wouldn't bat an eye at. It's simply unfortunate that their popularity in both gun and media/game/movie culture have made them the go-to for these psychos.

I don't think any presently-allowed civilian firearm needs to be "banned." But I would support much more extensive background checks, waiting periods, closing the gun show and private sales loopholes, even licensing to purchase, own or possess any double-action or semi-auto weapon. Furthermore, I would support accountability laws--if someone gets ahold of your weapons due to negligence on your part and commits a crime with them, you should be held liable in some way.

But like has been said (especially ^^), attacking gun ownership is only addressing a symptom of a larger problem in our society. That was what my bomb comment was implying.

/words

[Edited on December 16, 2012 at 3:12 PM. Reason : baka]

12/16/2012 3:09:52 PM

^ that is the exact argument that I wish gun advocates would use

more gun control does not equal banning guns

12/16/2012 3:20:30 PM

^It does equal punishing others that were not responsible for the violence. So just because some nutjobs shot up a school...that means I now should have to go through more unreasonable regulations and modifications of my gun rights?

I acknowledge that gun control does not mean banning guns...however it can mean making it extremely difficult for millions of people to enjoy their hobbies and sports...people that did not do anything wrong in the first place.

12/16/2012 3:32:25 PM

(that's kind of the point)

and it's also a pretty selfish argument to make

12/16/2012 3:34:49 PM

^How is it selfish? I did not do anything wrong. Why must I be subject to extreme regulation like ^^^^ suggests?

12/16/2012 3:37:08 PM

I've never tried to ignite a shoe bomb in my life, nor do I know anyone who has, but I still have to take my shoes off while going through airport security

12/16/2012 3:40:18 PM

Maybe I'm not relating well enough. Imagine if you enjoyed being an artist...using colored pencils. That was all you did, all you researched, all you knew about. Then, one day a nutcase uses a colored pencil to stab and kill some folks (lets say) in a mall.

All of a sudden, because of new regulation, you have to wait 30 days to buy any colored pencils. You must be subjected to metal and physical evaluation and pay fees and costs to purchase your beloved colored pencils, or some of the pencil types are banned altogether.

Can you kind of see where I (and most other gun owners) are coming from? Its a bad analogy (it really is), but it should shed some light on what we..as responsible gun owners are going through.

[Edited on December 16, 2012 at 3:50 PM. Reason : .]

12/16/2012 3:49:10 PM

Quote :

"that means I now should have to go through more unreasonable regulations and modifications of my gun rights?"

if you really think it's acceptable that virtually ANY citizen with cash can walk into a gun show, hell even a proper shop, and walk out a few minutes later with a battery of high-power semi-auto rifles and ammo, then I'm not sure we're ever going to reach common ground.

I'm all for gun ownership, I support it and I even would suggest it for anyone who can handle the responsibility. But it is entirely too easy for the insane folks to get their hands on them. Requiring proof that you are capable of such responsibility is not "unreasonable regulation and modification of [your] gun rights." It's social responsibility. Do you think our forefathers, who wrote the second amendment, were intending to protect the gun ownership rights of their criminals, mentally ill and habitually drunk?

12/16/2012 3:52:13 PM

^^ I'm sorry, but that is an absolutely awful analogy

12/16/2012 3:59:20 PM

^^No I'm not saying I think that should happen. Actually read my post about halfway back up this page, I am fully against the fact that just anyone can walk in a show or a walmart and walk out with an AR or a AK.

However imagine how annoying it would be if you saw a gun you wanted at the local shop...and then had to jump through hoops and wait 30 days to be able to go to the range.

That being said, as I mentioned above, I fully support more safety training before you can purchase the gun. I also support that you must have a purchase permit or CCW to be able to purchase an AR/AK or any handgun. I feel that now requires purchasers of AR's or similar to be subject to the same background check/fingerprinting and training as the purchasers of pistols.





^Care to explain why?

[Edited on December 16, 2012 at 4:02 PM. Reason : .]

12/16/2012 4:01:22 PM

get back to me when there are tens of thousands of deaths caused by colored pencils

at this point you're starting to sound extremely whiney

12/16/2012 4:10:13 PM

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. And no I'm not advocating a 30-day waiting period, I'm thinking more like 3-7 is reasonable, but something should be necessary. The purpose of gun ownership is for maintaining preparation and protection, for hunting, and for hobby. Anyone that NEEDS a gun TODAY is going to be immediately suspect for a crime of passion.

I would like to see, across ALL states, a permit process similar to a tightened-up version of the concealed carry class/testing/background checking required for any handgun and any semi-auto long gun.

[Edited on December 16, 2012 at 4:16 PM. Reason : sadf]

12/16/2012 4:13:41 PM