And it begins: Obama Renews Push to Reduce Gun Violence

[strayrider]

Here's a Joe Average with the guns you'd let him have then - How's that working for you at the moment? That is not "a" Joe Average. That is a young man with a mental disorder. Joe Unaverage, so to speak. I would not let that kid have a kitten, much less a firearm. Why would you suggest that I, a Joe Average, would even allow such a thing? Shall we restrict Average to accommodate Unaverage? Shall we lower the bar? Shall we allow the inmates to run the shithouse? Sir, I think not! Offer up a solution to the Unaverage problem that does not include holding Average responsible for Unaverage's behavior. Please. -stray- - - - Updated - - - And to clarify, I'm not suggesting the 2nd amendment should be revoked. I'm suggesting its interpretation has got carried away, and that americans have gone far beyond what it was meant when it was written hundreds of years ago. Do you think they envisaged dozens of guns and assault rifles etc? Of course not. Hundreds of years ago Americans were too dumb to think that technology could actually advance (even though technology was expanding at an astounding rate) and that firearms beyond muzzle-loaders were even possible. It is therefore insane for us to even consider that Jefferson et al believed that any advancement in the realm of arms improvement would include weapons in civilian hands that might almost match those possessed by the military. In order to maintain the "security of a free state" they meant that muskets would always be the weapon of the day, because they were too stupid to realize what was happening in the world in terms of armament. In their ignorance, they never suspected that newer, improved weapons systems would emerge. Therefore, in terms of the 2nd Amendment, we should read it as implying that: "although technology has advanced, the right of the people to own anything more than black powder muskets shall not be infringed; however, no man of sound mind shall ever be allowed to own more than one musket and a limited supply of powder and shot for said musket for such might be considered "greedy"." -stray-

[Neil]

That is not "a" Joe Average. That is a young man with a mental disorder. Joe Unaverage, so to speak. I would not let that kid have a kitten, much less a firearm. Why would you suggest that I, a Joe Average, would even allow such a thing? Yet he had access to a nice little arsenel, including an assault rifle... Why was there even the need for an assault rifle in the house? To me, it seems the presence of that assault rifle posed more of a threat to others, than security to the owner!?

[Tricky]

Shall we restrict Average to accommodate Unaverage? Shall we lower the bar? Shall we allow the inmates to run the shithouse? Sir, I think not! Offer up a solution to the Unaverage problem that does not include holding Average responsible for Unaverage's behavior. Please. There used to be a solution before it became a cardinal sin to lock these people away, so now they walk among us like ticking timebombs while the vast places built to house them safely away from society have become nothing more than photo opportunities for urban explorers denbigh01.jpg

[DjfunkmasterG]

I was born in Bridgeport CT, it is about 25 or so miles from the area of the shooting. When I heard about the shooting I was "shocked" for two reasons... #1 It being an elementary School. #2 the location. I am sure the media has shown the town, trust when I sai this is not a place you would expect this type of stuff to happen or anyone to own an the type of guns he had access too. That area is money, nothing but money. Mostly NY yuppies who reside in CT to be away from the everyday hustle and bustle of the city. However, to a point Neil made... Neil, keep in mind, stores that sell guns can't diagnose or know if the person they are selling a gun too is unstable, or has mental issues. Those with mental health issues can appear as normal as anyone else you or I may run into on the street in our day to day lives. While to someone living with said individual will notice these quirks faster than the clerk at a gun store who processes paperwork, does the BG check and then sends the individual out the door within 30-60 minutes. Gun shop owners/distributors are not Mental health professionals. With this individual, he had access to the guns because his mother purchased the guns for her collection/self. Again, nothing anyone can predict whether it be the government or the store owner selling the guns. Something about this story bothered me and until last night I couldn't put my finger on it. The media is spinning the hell out of this to scare the shit out of you, which is what they do well, but what they aren't reporting is what features those guns have built into them and how they work. The Bushmaster is a semi-auto rifle, for the civilian market it can only fire one shot every time the trigger is depressed. Whereas the government issued version come with three round burst or fully auto capabilities. Even the pistols he was carrying are the same set up, Semi-Auto. The media isn't reporting this, they keep focusing ont he terminology of it being an assault rifle, when technically it is far from that because of the safe guards put into place to make it legal for civilian ownership. Now, does anyone really need a Bushmaster .223 in their home for protection? In my opinion... NO. a 12 gauge or 9mm pistol is suffice. 12 gauge is better in my opinion, but whatever. Based on the vibe of the country right now and public opinion I see another assault weapons ban going into effect in the next 3-6 months. No 2 ways about it. The NRA is blowing it up to the point it is turning more and more americans against the concept of personal gun ownership, and their own rhetoric is undoing what the NRA was supposed to do, protect gun ownership because they do not have a level headed individual leading them and making solid arguments as to why guns should not be banned, they keep screaming 2nd ammendment right and when applying it to their argument they fail with every word uttered by their own spokesman. When you get into the politics of the discussion it is a disaster top to bottom. All one side has to do is step away from the politics and craft a solid statement with specific non-argument leading points as they why this tragedy shouldn't affect gun ownership, but the NRA doesn't have that person. They seem to find the biggest loud mouth to lead a rallying cry, the riles up both sides of the issue, and when the words start flying it just adds fuel to the fire.

[Danny]

I think more can be read into this situation about the media than the kid or guns to be honest. It's like chris rock said "what ever happened to just being crazy?". You dont suddenly do this. There is causality to it. But people arent looking for cause. they are looking for blame. because blames comfy. blames a sign to point at and differentiate yourself from. theres plenty of folks with guns in the states, few do something so abhorrent. so what caused it? that should be the forefront of discussion. not what made him do it, but what in him was that unique organisation of random elements coalescing to create this mindset that wants to commit a mass murder in a kingergarden. I mean the gun things a moot point. Its hard for most of us outside the states to truly get but it seems like taking away the right to bear arms in any degree is like the uk government one day making watching 18 rated movies illegal. its an infringement on a basic freedom we take as given and having it revoked would be nothing short of a facist control of your freedoms. I think i get it more than i used to even though i think guns are still at best a dick compensator for most civilian folks who arent hunters if im honest. but thats a few pages of back and forth on a different topic Rambling, but point is, argueing about guns in america changes NOTHING. If this kid could only buy two pistols, you think he would be dissuaded? if he couldn't get any and drove a car into a mall instead he would not do it? or make a compost bomb? It doesnt matter what makes someone do this. in the right hands nearly everything is a weapon. We should see better mental health care so this kind of shit doesnt come to pass, so the warning signs -if any are recognised beforehand. Its a little sad that people go "omigod, whats wrong with him!" when they do stuff like this and we never go "hmm, what WAS wrong with him? and how could we have stopped this?" instead of "LETS FIND SOME MEDIA THAT PUSHED HIS MUDER SWITCH TO ON!"

[Neil]

With this individual, he had access to the guns because his mother purchased the guns for her collection/self. Again, nothing anyone can predict whether it be the government or the store owner selling the guns . . . Now, does anyone really need a Bushmaster .223 in their home for protection? In my opinion... NO. a 12 gauge or 9mm pistol is suffice. 12 gauge is better in my opinion, but whatever. And this is the point I'm trying to make. Maybe the right to own guns, shouldn't mean so many and so powerful? I think individuals have got too used to having anything and everything they want, rather than what they really just need... And given a 'tool' who's primary function is to kill, maybe the latter is the more sensible approach?

[babomb]

And this is the point I'm trying to make. Maybe the right to own guns, shouldn't mean so many and so powerful? I think individuals have got too used to having anything and everything they want, rather than what they really just need... And given a 'tool' who's primary function is to kill, maybe the latter is the more sensible approach? So who decides what constitutes "need"? Are those needs the same for everyone? How can there be a blanket approach to "need"? Once you start doing that, it's gonna start being used everywhere. Next thing you know it's gonna be, well, Joe Average here only has 2 kids, so his transportation needs can be met with a single car. He doesn't "need" that convertible AND an SUV for his wife to drive only 2 kids to school with. And he doesn't "need" a home with 5 bedrooms and a 2 car garage, he doesn't "need" a flatscreen TV in the basement, the kitchen AND the bedroom. He doesn't "need" that Harley, his son doesn't "need" that quad racer. Hell, he doesn't "need" that $100,000 salary he makes to support his family. That's a dangerous precedent there Neil! To give a government like the American government the power to decide what peoples needs are, and restrict things according to those needs. If you think for a second that such power would be restricted to the amount or power of the firearms an individual is allowed to have, well, you're either not paying attention or just grasping at straws for a solution. Seriously, no offense intended to you Neil, but that's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. And not only because it applies to firearms, and because I support liberty and the constitution. Because it completely ignores the abuse of power that government is so well known and famous for. I'd rather see all firearm ownership abolished than to allow this government to decide what peoples needs are!! And to clarify, I'm not suggesting the 2nd amendment should be revoked. I'm suggesting its interpretation has got carried away, and that americans have gone far beyond what it was meant when it was written hundreds of years ago. Do you think they envisaged dozens of guns and assault rifles etc? Has gun ownership got carried away for personal pleasure (greed?) instead of personal protection? There is no interpretation of the 2nd amendment! It means what it says, as it sounds, in very precise and clear language. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". What in that sentence leads you to believe that it's subject to interpretation? The mere act of trying to interpret it is wrong, and has been repeatedly struck down by the US supreme court.

[Neil]

So who decides what constitutes "need"? Are those needs the same for everyone? You seem to be under the impression there's no rules or restrictions at the moment at so what constitutes fair or required? I bet there's a whole load of weapons your average gun nut would love, but isn't allowed to own... And there's plenty of other example of what the government dictates you don't need. You don't need to drive at 100mph, even though you'd like to, for example. You do not have that right! They've taken it from you for the benefit of the rest of society. To much of a risk to the rest of society! So just maybe, owning too many guns, or too powerful guns, could be construed as to much of an infringement (risk) to the rest of society, than a benefit to you. As for your analogies about cars, TVs etc etc, it comes across as dreafully desperate - These things primary goal are not to kill efficiently, unless I've miss some mass school-TV'ings recently? I'd rather see all firearm ownership abolished than to allow this government to decide what peoples needs are! This just sounds paranoid! The government already does dictate what you need and what you or are not allowed to do for the better good of society.

[babomb]

You seem to be under the impression there's no rules or restrictions at the moment at so what constitutes fair or required? I bet there's a whole load of weapons your average gun nut would love, but isn't allowed to own... Ok. But I don't care what the average gun nut wants and/or isn't allowed to do or own. I only care what the average law abiding citizen has the right to do and own under the US constitution. And there's plenty of other example of what the government dictates you don't need. You don't need to drive at 100mph, even though you'd like to, for example. You do not have that right! They've taken it from you for the benefit of the rest of society. To much of a risk to the rest of society! So just maybe, owning too many guns, or too powerful guns, could be construed as to much of an infringement (risk) to the rest of society, than a benefit to you. Well, to be accurate, I have the ability to do those things, but if I do them and get caught I pay the consequences. They haven't yet come to the point where cars are only capable of the legal speed limit. And there is nothing under the US constitution that guarantees citizens any rights to do anything involving motor vehicles. As for your analogies about cars, TVs etc etc, it comes across as dreafully desperate - These things primary goal are not to kill efficiently, unless I've miss some mass school-TV'ings recently? They aren't analogies. I'm not equating these things to firearms. I'm saying that allowing your government to decide what your needs are is a dangerous thing. Having speed limits set is a completely different thing than allowing the government to decide what someones needs are arbitrarily. As has been seen throughout history in the US, when you give power to the government you never get it back. And when you give them an inch, they always take a mile. Let's look at the speed limit analogy for a moment. We have speed limits, yes. However, we are still able to buy cars that are capable of exceeding those speed limits. Pretty much any car is capable of exceeding the legal speed limit. Citizens are not allowed to walk into schools or theaters and kill people. I'm not advocating for the right of citizens to go around killing people as they wish. I'm saying that it isn't the norm for gun owners to do such things. Just like it isn't the norm for people to do 100mph on a highway that has a speed limit of 65mph. The difference is that if someone does drive 100mph in a 65mph zone, that person is ticketed and they pay the consequences. They don't take away everyones ability to buy cars that can go faster than 65mph because a few people choose to disobey the law and drive 100mph! Do you understand the difference here?

[Publius]

Here's another idea, if we grant that the state should determine what our needs are based on the greater good of society: alcohol and tobacco use kill far more people in the US than "assault weapons," or even than all kinds of firearms put together. And who "needs" to drink or smoke? There's certainly no explicit constitutional right to own alcohol or tobacco. So what reason is there not to ban these substances, for the greater good? Aside from the fact that we tried banning alcohol already (Prohibition), and it failed miserably.

[strayrider]

And this is the point I'm trying to make. Maybe the right to own guns, shouldn't mean so many and so powerful? I think individuals have got too used to having anything and everything they want, rather than what they really just need... And given a 'tool' who's primary function is to kill, maybe the latter is the more sensible approach? Let's simplify the argument and take home defense, hunting, and sport shooting off the table (they're just fringe benefits anyway). Honestly, to fulfill my obligations to the United States in terms of the 2nd Amendmant I only need one (1) weapon. This weapon must be of the type and function that is nearly equal to those currently used by the military. I believe that a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine would fit this need. In addition to the weapon, I'll also need one thousand (1000) rounds of .223 ammo and a scant few magazines (let's say three (3) thirty (30) rounders). There, I've limited myself to a relatively low-powered weapon, a handful of magazines, and a limited number of bullets. If the Colt AR knock-offs look to "scary" for me to own, I'd glady settle for a Mini-14. Happy? -stray-

[AcesandEights]

Stray and Publius! Hope your holidays and all else are going well, guys. /resume debate - - - Updated - - - I think more can be read into this situation about the media than the kid or guns to be honest. It's like chris rock said "what ever happened to just being crazy?". You dont suddenly do this. There is causality to it. But people arent looking for cause. they are looking for blame. because blames comfy. blames a sign to point at and differentiate yourself from. theres plenty of folks with guns in the states, few do something so abhorrent. so what caused it? that should be the forefront of discussion. not what made him do it, but what in him was that unique organisation of random elements coalescing to create this mindset that wants to commit a mass murder in a kingergarden. I mean the gun things a moot point. Its hard for most of us outside the states to truly get but it seems like taking away the right to bear arms in any degree is like the uk government one day making watching 18 rated movies illegal. its an infringement on a basic freedom we take as given and having it revoked would be nothing short of a facist control of your freedoms. I think i get it more than i used to even though i think guns are still at best a dick compensator for most civilian folks who arent hunters if im honest. but thats a few pages of back and forth on a different topic Rambling, but point is, argueing about guns in america changes NOTHING. If this kid could only buy two pistols, you think he would be dissuaded? if he couldn't get any and drove a car into a mall instead he would not do it? or make a compost bomb? It doesnt matter what makes someone do this. in the right hands nearly everything is a weapon. We should see better mental health care so this kind of shit doesnt come to pass, so the warning signs -if any are recognised beforehand. Its a little sad that people go "omigod, whats wrong with him!" when they do stuff like this and we never go "hmm, what WAS wrong with him? and how could we have stopped this?" instead of "LETS FIND SOME MEDIA THAT PUSHED HIS MUDER SWITCH TO ON!" My brain is fried from real life stuff going on, so I can't really pull the energy together for an in-depth reply, but this is such an excellent set of points. Mental health has been back-burnered in this country for a long, loooong time, and, because the state of our economy, funds are all too likely to continue to slide.

[Exatreides]

Why not do some of the following things? Tier gun ownership into several different categories. Hunting Rifles and Shotguns require a certain license. To get this you have to pass a practical test, and a written test. Same for Pistols Same for Assault Rifles. Each one of these licenses require mandatory safety refresher courses. Each Gun Owner must provide proof of a lockable safe with each new gun purchase. This prevents kids or criminals from simply taking their parents guns and shooting up a school. Eliminate production of Armor piercing/incendiary/dragon breath rounds for civilian use. Add additional criminal penalties for crimes committed with these rounds. Each gun purchaser must provide proof from a state licensed and certified Psychiatrist/ Psychologist stating that the owner is in sound state and mind to own a weapon. Tax on each weapon that goes towards law enforcement, anti violence campaigns, and mental health programs. Three to six day mandatory waiting period for all fire arms. You want to hunt that bad? Plan ahead guy. Drop the "We need these weapons in case the government comes." line. I'm in the Army, and If Texas wanted to quit the union. I would have no problem honoring my oath to defend the constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic and destroying rebel secessionist chodes. Not that I would have to do much, an AR-15 isn't going to stop a predator drone strike, or a Abrams Tank. General Sherman crushed Confederate forces as he burned through Georgia and the Carolinas, those jerks were armed with nearly identical weapons to Sherman. Now Imagine Sherman having Air strikes, white phosphorus rounds, Tanks, 155mm rounds against an enemy that only can muster what his lightest infantry carry. We could turn any city and any state in America into a parking lot if we wanted to Launch Total war, I'm not talking the limited use of force and precession strikes like in Iraq, but total war. and no amount of poorly trained, AK47 wielding NRA trained asshole has any possible hope of stopping the tide of death would come his way.

[Danny]

My brain is fried from real life stuff going on, so I can't really pull the energy together for an in-depth reply, but this is such an excellent set of points. Mental health has been back-burnered in this country for a long, loooong time, and, because the state of our economy, funds are all too likely to continue to slide. I think the trouble is mental health for many is a black and white issue. you are sane or "crazy". Which is, well, crazy when so many people you talk to every day probably have some form of mild anxiety disorder, or depression or phobia that fucks with them. It doesnt mean these people are ticking timebombs of murder, they are normal for them. Folks are scared of being seen as damaged or irreparably broken for things like having a recurring stress cough or something silly so if folks wont talk to people about those far smaller issues or course they wont when its a big deal because of our "what would the neighbours think" mentality that ,lets be honest, shared by every goddamn human regardless of race or creed yknow?

[DjfunkmasterG]

And this is the point I'm trying to make. Maybe the right to own guns, shouldn't mean so many and so powerful? I think individuals have got too used to having anything and everything they want, rather than what they really just need... And given a 'tool' who's primary function is to kill, maybe the latter is the more sensible approach? I disagree with its primary function being "to kill" It can deter crime from occuring, you can use it to injure or disable a criminal/attacker. You have to think outside of what it is ultimately capable of and consider all of its true functions and purposes.