The Terrible Tragedy in CT, and what do we do about it?

[narfire]

I was at a seminar last week regarding water conservation. One of the points the keynote speaker brought up was when there is a crisis or a percieved crisis, the new regulations or laws are usually stupid when made in a quick knee-jerk fasion.
My opinion here.... In the US , there has always been a right to bear arms or what ever it is, where in most other countries it is seen as a privilage.
There is 200 years of entitlement to purchase and bear arms... try making a knee-jerk law to change that...nope just is not going to happen, or if tried there will be push-back. Don't want to witness that.
There are 330 million people in the US and I believe we all think most are law abiding sensible people. There are nut bars in the US no different as anywhere in the world. No shortage of them where I live. I see a solution where the chances of a nut-bar obtaining a fire arm easily, being curtailed.
How this is to be done...not sure. Sounds like the States themselves have set the regulations in obtaining a fire arm, some have checks and waiting periods and I read some require a valid drivers licence. perhaps the feds will standardize the application process similar to what other countries might have. Not really onerious in my opinion for law abiding peoples.
When I mention "nut-bars", it is a knee-jerk description to describe the people that perpetrate these mass slaughters or any shootings for what we consider completely unjustified. Self defence another story.
The magazine capacity in a side arm is kind of a moot point, difference between 10 and 14 rounds? more clips.
The description of "assault" weapons, lots of discussion as full auto capable should be prohibited in most cases. Semi auto ex military.. M14, FNC1 or FNA1 for example, restricted, but still obtainable with a number of hoops to go through. I really don't know what the complete answer is, but it is going to have to be a combination of some gun access regulation changes and more in somehow identifying peoples that are not quite stable enough to own or be around fire arms. Long term employee's that have lost their job and "go postal" Who is going to have the answers to prevent anything from happening ever again? What will work??? What will work to really reduce the chance of anything like the recent slaughters around the world from happening again. I'll tell you knee-jerk solutions will be unworkable. This is going to have to be thought out, what is the objective and then what are realistic solutions... More people packing??? That kind of scares me... but if evidence shows the "bad guys" think twice about pulling a fire arm knowing the victim could be carrying a side arm... time will tell. What happens when a victim perhaps panics and inocents get hit??? Again, all kinds of media frenzy will entail. How much training in defensive shooting do people have when given a carrying permit??

Now back to the regular program of winter Fiat projects
Chris

[FulviaHF]

Second Amendment jurisprudence is not particularly settled regarding exactly what limitations on arms the government can impose. It’s well-accepted law that the US government can limit the nature of arms that private citizens can bear; we don’t allow citizens to possess many types of military hardware, from M1A1 battle tanks to nuclear warheads. It’s equally clear that the government cannot under any circumstances ban citizen possession of the single-shot muskets and rifles that the framers of the Constitution would have recognized as arms necessary to a well-regulated militia. What we don’t know is where along that spectrum between those two poles the current Court believes a Constitutional line can be drawn. But there are only nine opinions that really matter.

Again, to understand the real Constitutional issues, instead of just rehashing our personal opinions, the majority opinion in Heller (link posted earlier) contains a thorough discussion of the common law and State law background to the Second Amendment, as well as an extended discussion about the majority understanding of the application of the Amendment to the question of personal handgun ownership (which was the question presented in the case). Required reading, IMHO, for anyone who actually cares about the issue and wants to understand the current legal context.

[RRoller123]

For those interested, the free Constitutional courses offered online by Hillsdale College are really good. I have been working my way (slowly) through them with great delight!

For our international friends, I want to say that I hope we Americans don't come off as pejorative towards you regarding our second amendment views. It really is in our DNA, this individuality thing, and it is at the core of "The American Experiment" that we have been working on (only) for a couple of centuries. I do want to stress that we have a healthy (in my opinion) historical skepticism for governments and that this is a good thing! It may seem odd, I know, and I understand, but it really is ingrained in us, for the most part. Our success has been for the most part a result of individuality and rejection of conformity, of risk taking and acceptance of both positive results and negative consequences.

And this gets to the core of the cultural clash that is going on here for at least a decade now... The country is slowly slipping into a welfare state mentality. Massive Federal authority is overpowering all of our media, religious, education, cultural systems, etc. etc. etc. Our media right now is hopelessly corrupt. We have a government-media complex in place that ensures the majority of the population are poorl;y informed, and only informed of what the government wants them to be informed of. And all this is a problem because it means the end of the grand experiment. Many of us don't want this experiment to end. we want it to continue to evolve and grow.

And as one might expect, the second amendment is at the forefront of this belief. The belief that our rights are granted NOT by other men, NOT granted by government, but are granted by God, by the blessing of our individual births, and are inalienable. It is clearly spelled out in our 2 most dominant founding documents, and has guided us well for 2+ centuries.

I am truly worried about the future of this. I can tell you with absolute certainty that the US population will not be disarmed. There will be violent armed resistance to this in many parts of the country. Even here, in Massachusetts, possibly the most liberal state in the nation, it would not happen without terrible bloodshed. I pray this doesn't happen.

We find the right to defend oneself as an individual, without dependence upon a public entity for defense of self and family, as absolutely basic. And I think President Obama probably realizes this. There will be posturing and blowharding and political points to score, and in the end, I hope they really get something accomplished to help the situation and reduce the levels of violence.

So what do we do about this? I would consider support for all of the following:

Increased funding for identification and treatment of the mentally ill.

Create a new Movie rating "Y" and have it 21 or older, and have it enforced, on any film that contains some level of gratuitous viloence, tbd.

Same for video games, and for that matter other cultural vehicles that promote the rancid cesspool that the media has made of our culture.

Continue to have absolutely zero tolerance for bullying in our schools and in our culture at large.

Harden the schools and malls. Maybe hire retired police as armed guards. Security needs, as in Israel, are a new reality.

Put in place dramatically higher penalties (10 year min) for illegal possession of a firearm. I will gladly pay higher taxes to pay for the prisons.

Some reasonable slight modification of the interpretation of the 4th amendment, so when a minor crime is committed on the street and the person is found to be in possession of an illegal firearm, they can be prosecuted. In other words, sweep the GD streets and get the illegal guns off them. The firearm prison would be a separate prison, so the perp doesn't go away and learn how to be a better criminal from the fellow perp prison population.

I would support harsh prison penalties for anyone improperly storing a firearm, such that it falls into the hands of a perp. Lanza's mother was first in this tragedy to pay the ultimate price for this failure.

I would consider a national licensing and background check policy, although I have reservations about this. But I would listen to a plan open mindedly.

And I am sure there are quite a few more that we could come up with. But disarming the good guys not only won't work, but the effort to do so would cause great civil unrest here. I really hope POTUS doesn't try it.

[FulviaHF]

Yes, by all means let's compromise both the First and Fourth Amendments, and probably Eighth, too, while we're at it. Because only the Second is sacred.

[RRoller123]

Not my point by any means. If we posit that a significant source of the stimulii that cause the mentally ill to trigger is culturally based, then it is just as logical to look at regulating the cultural triggers as anything else. Illustrates the problem when trying to control the abherent behavior of large populations. I prefer just using punitive regulation regarding access and illegal possession as my first choices, I think that these would go a long way to curbing the problem.

[FulviaHF]

Not my point by any means. If we posit that a significant source of the stimulii that cause the mentally ill to trigger is culturally based, then it is just as logical to look at regulating the cultural triggers as anything else. Illustrates the problem when trying to control the abherent behavior of large populations. I prefer just using punitive regulation regarding access and illegal possession as my first choices, I think that these would go a long way to curbing the problem.

We need more--and more effective--mental health funding. And we certainly need to crack down on illegal possession, which will involve dealing with gun show exemptions, among a number of other issues. And there's no question that cultural triggers must be addressed--not least the degree to which we venerate firearms in this country. But the First and Fourth Amendments are every bit as inviolate as the Second. Those who are concerned about government intrusion into their Second Amendment rights shouldn't be willing to prevent that intrusion at the expense of their free speech rights and protections against unwarranted search and seizure.

Besides, to the extent that you're referring to movies and video games as "cultural triggers", that's not a significant aspect of the problem. There's near-complete global access to these; we export our movies--the more violent the more popular they seem to be--and our video games. They're so ubiquitous that they're virtually a neutral factor in the difference between gun violence in the US and elsewhere around the world. Yet we have a far greater problem thna anywhere else in the world. And that comes down to access to firearms. Given the constraints of the Second Amendment, there is a more limited range of answers to that problem than elsewhere, But until we're ready to acknowledge that easy availability of semi-automatic firearms with large-capacity magazines and clips is some part of the problem--not the entire problem, by any means, but a significant part of it--we'll be having this same discussion over and over again.

[FulviaHF]

(sorry --duplicate message)

[Gunsmith]

I don't believe the majority of gun owners want limitations on free speech which is what many manufacturers of filth say they are exercising or standing behind. On the contrary many gun owners have fought for and risked and lost their lives for all Americans right of free speech no matter what they put forth. I personally don't know anyone that has watched a violent film or played a video game and then went out and committed a violent crime. As much as I don't like many of the films out there I am not ready to start the ban Hollywood campaign, everyone has free will. What I do find appalling is the amount of actors and directors that put these films out, make millions upon millions of dollars off of them, hire private armed security personnel for themselves and then publicly call for gun control. Could this be a definition of hypocrisy?

When people use the example that free speech is still restricted because you can’t yell fire in a crowded movie theater that is not on fire I am so surprised they do not get it. You are not banned from free speech you are responsible for causing mass panic and injury. So if we use the same analogy as gun control we should ban the term” Fire” or movie theaters themselves because that is what caused the panic and injury.

On the mental health front I am saying this also is a very slippery slope. Who will decide who is crazy and to what degree? What if it is temporary? Many people go through tough times in their lives and temporarily seem to lose their minds to the rest of us what do we do with them? It seems every other person getting a divorce claims the other one has committed domestic violence and seeks a restraining order, some only to try and tip the courts in their favor. Should your neighbor be able to call 911 and have you committed for a three day evaluation? We are all pretty sure we know crazy when we see it but who will make the ultimate decision on it? We have seen both sides of this gun control issue and cannot understand why the other side cannot understand our version of the facts, are they crazy, am I crazy? Can we read a post by someone across the country and decide they are mentally ill and send the authorities their way? Where will we get all of the mental health care workers and professionals we need to determine who is off balance? Once people are determined to be not normal or mentally ill then what?

Beware of politicians and groups that want your help or acceptance of knee jerk solutions that you cannot see the full effect of.

Those of you that are ready to cut up the 2nd amendment don't think for a minute that the ones holding on to their guns don't believe in your right to call for it and will continue to fight for your public right to do so. But without it don't believe you will be able to keep the rest of the Bill of Rights either.

I am saddened that so many still believe that we do not have these restrictions already and that so many are demanding we need even more restrictions this only shows the lack of effort people are willing to put into serious issues before making a decision that affects so many and carries such weight.

A little more gun education here, there is a big difference between clips and magazines but most people do not know this since they get their facts in 30 second news bits and made up Hollywood guns that do not exist in real life. I keep hearing the news use terms like "High capacity magazine clips" and "high capacity magazine bullets". Why are terms so important you ask? Would you want to go to jail because of misinterpretation of the facts?

"Clips" are metal bands the hold cartridges together so they can be inserted into a firearm at one time. There are no moving parts in a "Clip" and the spring that is needed for the ammunition to pushed up into battery is contained within the firearm. Additionally I am not aware of any "Clip" that holds more than 8 rounds. Why do I bring this up? Because many of you are still asking for restrictions on items you know little to nothing about or worse think you know and are mistaken.

A magazine is a complete unit on its own. It has an outer case that holds a spring and follower to push stacked cartridges up to the action for reloading. Magazines come in all sizes and are made for specific firearms and rarely can be interchanged with others. Magazines with high capacity can be easily made with a trip to the local hardware store so if you do not have access to them it will only delay you a short time while you plan your evil deed.

Once again the firearms in question that you may want the restriction of or the abolition of do not shoot faster or have more power than firearms produced more than a century ago why is this so hard to believe? What we are asking for is to judge the book by it's cover. If it's black, has an adjustable stock to fit the various sizes of people, has a detachable magazine, has a muzzle break to reduce recoil then it must have no other purpose than to kill the innocent. However if it has pretty wood and a shinny finish and looked good when John Wayne carried it then that one would be OK, at least for now...

Remember when the 2nd amendment was written muskets were state of the art and werethe standard firearm of all modern army's of the time.

Also as I keep saying banning anything does not make them disappear.

To continue to argue this as a starting point is as ridiculous as banning or restricting films based on the number of people harmed in a movie. There is no data that supports the numbers are at all the problem.

The real problem is what was brought up in the beginning of this thread and repeated by several others. How we raise our children and how we treat our fellow man is the root of all problems and blaming everything else is just covering a gangrene wound with a new bandage and hoping it will go away.

The problem with accepting this is that it asks us to take responsibility for something and it can’t be solved with a law or in a short period of time allowing us to get back to our favorite vices which may include our Spiders if you ask our spouses.

[FulviaHF]

...Once again the firearms in question that you may want the restriction of or the abolition of do not shoot faster or have more power than firearms produced more than a century ago why is this so hard to believe? ...

I don't know what you mean by "shoot faster". Are you seriously claiming that a semi-automatic rifle doesn't allow for a higher rate of fire than a bolt-action rifle?

[grittracing]

I do not own a gun. I have c hildren under the age of 16. I strongly believe in the 2nd amendment ! I own paintball guns ( I know not the same at all) however I teach both of my boys gun safety with them. And believe alot of it these days is how the kids are raised. My boys respect guns. I think we as a nation need to get back to old school family values.

[131]

Besides, to the extent that you're referring to movies and video games as "cultural triggers", that's not a significant aspect of the problem. There's near-complete global access to these; we export our movies--the more violent the more popular they seem to be--and our video games. They're so ubiquitous that they're virtually a neutral factor in the difference between gun violence in the US and elsewhere around the world. Yet we have a far greater problem than anywhere else in the world. And that comes down to access to firearms. Given the constraints of the Second Amendment, there is a more limited range of answers to that problem than elsewhere, But until we're ready to acknowledge that easy availability of semi-automatic firearms with large-capacity magazines and clips is some part of the problem--not the entire problem, by any means, but a significant part of it--we'll be having this same discussion over and over again.

My sons play networked shoot-em up games, it annoys me but it's what they do. When they couldn't play them here, they played it at their mates place. When I told my 18 YO about the latest mass shooting in the US he was shocked. A lot of emphasis is being put on movies and games being the cause, but no data or science I've seen shows a definitive link. We had 2 double murders here last week, a firearm was used in one, a hammer was used in the other, so yes, people with mental health issues will still find ways to perpetrate their violence. But easy access to rapid fire weapons has to be a contributing factor to mass shootings. And yes, if I trained and practiced I could probably learn how to rapidly reload a single shot weapon, but with high capacity magazines and rapid fire weapons I don't have to be skilled, I just have to point in the general direction and pull the trigger enough to get lucky. After the Port Arthur tragedy and the debate over gun laws, the NRA was supporting the gun lobby in Australia and making reference to "our right to bear arms", but in Australia we don't have that right, and for that I'm grateful.

[Gunsmith]

No obviously you can not shoot a bolt action firearm as fast as a semi automatic but you can shoot a 100 year old revolver or lever action rifle fast enough most could not tell the difference. So then the question asked is what is fast enough or slow enough to appease those of you that do not know or understand the difference is my point. When you are slaughtering unarmed victims a bolt action works just as well doesn't it? It takes most shooters about a second and a half to easily reload a bolt action rifle if you practice just a little cut that time in half. So in the two and a half minutes it took the police to arrive on scene at this tragedy and then the next minute to find out what was going on that was 210 seconds which would have given the average shooter with little to no training the opportunity to fire the weapon 140 times. Debating how fast a firearm can be discharged is just a way of avoiding the real problem and give everyone like us something else to focus on. Don't fall for it!

My Father taught Chemical and Biological warfare in the military and would argue with anyone that firearms are the least efficient way to cause mass death and injury. He could also tell you how easy it is to acquire the products and information to accomplish this but he wouldn't but the internet we use for this great forum would.

Have we already forgot that a handful of extremist using box cutters with a 1/4" blade killed thousand of people in such a short time? No gun was used by them and now our pilots can carry one.

So when you get your way and more useless laws are passed that the evil people, criminally insaine and the courts ignore and we still fall victim to them I wonder what the argument will be then?

[131]

I'm glad I live in a country where a fear of dying by gunfire is not even on my radar. Maybe instead of blaming Hollywood or the internet for societies ills, maybe we should consider economics.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... tion=false

[RRoller123]

I am truly encouraged by the high level of discussion on this thread. We have a diverse set of opinions but the quality of the discussion is fantastic. I wish our Reps and Senators in Washington DC were this good!

[Gunsmith]

That is because we would all like to solve the problem with out trying to figure out how we could make money off of it or further our careers.