Massacre in Connecticut - Page 4

And whose fault is that?

 

The moronic relative, that's who.

 

Guns are just fine, as long as responsible people own them, and not mentally unstable people. There are quite a few mentally unstable people in the US (and elsewhere), and these people should be denied any gun ownership. As long as people are normal, and are not lunatics, like the shooter and his mother in Connecticut, then guns are just fine.

I bet you could too, and I'd bet you'd be on secret FBI surveillance cameras too. Then you'd be thoroughly checked out and watched.

 

OK - before this goes any further would you mind reconciling your statements that legislation can be part of the solution, but that additional legislation cannot be part of the solution? That can only, presumably, imply that you think the existing laws (that vary considerably by State) are just right?

 

I disagree that we can simply rule out modifying gun laws to assist in mitigating these problems. You are making assumptions about storage solutions. If it's a combination lock then killing the owner does not gain access. Yes - you could torture the owner etc., etc., but it is still much harder than just taking unsecured weapons, and since this subject shot his mother with one of her own guns, I suspect they were unsecured.

 

You went ahead and made the same argument again that I was disagreeing with, so clearly I did not have to construct it as a straw man to disagree with it.

 

 

Anecdotes and reasoning are independent, so I have no idea what point you think you are trying to make. And he did not ask me to share anything, he opened with the declaration that he doubted that I have any experience. That was it. Not even a stated disagreement with my observation.

 

I'm pleased to hear that you are a self-proclaimed great shot, and that you have the curious notion that inaccuracy on target is mostly due to recoil or flinching from the noise; that certainly calibrates for me your knowledge of firearms.

 

Huh. Says who? Jo Scarborough?

 

Indeed. God love the surveillance state.

 

Because bullets don't simply evaporate into thin air when you miss.  When surveying my house I quickly realized that my house was mostly indefensible given that to cover the stairwell from most of the viable shooting positions I would be shooting into my daughter's bedroom because of the geometry.  The remaining two positions pretty much left me fully exposed to the floors below.

 

So we have an alarm system.

 

Under stress I couldn't hit an elephant because I don't shoot much and more importantly I don't train under stress.  So the final analysis is that from a family safety perspective I would be safer with more strict gun control laws that are actually enforced vs the current state of affairs.  The bad guys almost always have the initiative in these scenarios so I'd rather face a bad guy wielding a knife than a gun at 3AM.  Also at 3AM I'm more likely to short stroke my shotgun than actually manage to fire a second time...that's assuming I got my act sufficiently together to shoot the first time.  I probably should get a semi (and train) if "home defense" was high on my list of things to do.

 

In a crowded mall situation I'd probably not shoot even if I had a CCW unless my own family was in imminent danger.  That's assuming I wasn't simply standing around shocked like many normal people.

 

I have no clue why otherwise reasonably sane people believe that a gun is some kind of magic wand to make bad guys go away.

 

Indeed. Wise analysis. Always know what the path of the bullet will be.

 

 

 

A loud dog is also a decent addition.

 

Part of the strategy is create deterrents and speed bumps to a perpetrator.

 

 

 

You seem to assume that the laws would actually keep the guns out of the hands of the criminals.

 

 

 

I don't think people believe that. But I wonder why otherwise reasonably sane and intelligent people believe that criminals will obey these (gun) laws when they don't obey others.

 

It is accurate for the technical reasons that I explained previously in this thread. I notice that you chose not to address those though, preferring to stick to your tried and tested "you are wrong" approach.

 

And remind me why you think that?

 

 

1. I'm guessing you want it quantified, rather than defined. Then, let me guess, you won't believe that and you will want names and SS numbers, maybe signed affidavits, photographic evidence? I'm not playing that game with you.

 

2. Does not spend any significant time practicing any form of shooting.

 

3. Because I know they don't spend time at the range.

 

4. I didn't mention additional casualties, other than themselves.

 

 

Statistical extrapolation.

 

 

But you said that you had no experience. Perhaps I misunderstood. You have never fired a gun, barely ever held one, but you feel competent to assess all the gun owners that you know as safe and responsible (neither of which necessarily require shooting ability), and trained? Perhaps we should play your game after all:

 

How many gun owners do you know?

How have you assessed their competency and training?

Please provide evidence of your competency to assess their competency.

Define safe.

Define responsible.

Define trained.

Define "to some degree".

Etc., etc..

 

You see what I did there? You see how pointless this rapidly becomes? You're not really here for a discussion though, are you?

 

 

A false dichotomy and non sequitur in two short sentences. Nice. Somewhat amusing that you picked a subject on which you yourself declared yourself as ignorant. How about you go and look something up for yourself for once? Your constant technique of argument by incessant whining for evidence is juvenile. One defining feature of irretrievable ignorance is the complete inability to realize when one knows nothing about a subject, and when one is unable to discern when someone else does.

I wonder if they'll be going after the mainstream media also.

 

Did I miss something, or did he fail even to mention which laws he thinks are being broken?

 

Unpalatable and far from ideal it may be, but surely the primary purpose of gun legislation is not to constrain criminal behavior, but to require law-abiding citizens and companies to make it harder for criminals to obtain guns.

 

Yeah, I didn't hear anything on that either. Sounds like so much bluster to be honest.

 

I understand the purpose and the goal. I simply seriously doubt the effectiveness in achieving the goal and fulfilling the purpose.

 

Yes - I don't disagree that it is hard to achieve - I was just addressing your question regarding why anyone would expect the criminals to obey the laws, which is kind of an oxymoron. It is a significant distinction to note that the these laws are not targeting the illegal users of the weapons but rather those who either deliberately or unwittingly supply them.

Oh, look what just happened-

 

"A 21-year-old Joliet man accidentally shot and killed himself while trying to demonstrate how the safety mechanism worked on his new handgun, authorities said today.

 

Deon D. Perry was pronounced dead at 5:40 a.m. Saturday at Provena St. Joseph Medical Center.

Joliet Police Cmdr. Al Roechner said today that the mishap occurred around 5 p.m. Friday as Perry was sitting in a vehicle in front of his home with two other people.

The two witnesses said Perry was displaying his recently purchased .25-caliber handgun when "he set the safety, pointed the gun at his face, pulled the trigger and the safety didn't work," Roechner said. Perry was shot in the right side of his face near his nose.

Perry's friends called 911 and were joined by police on their way to the hospital's emergency room."

 

I understand. That's the point.

 

 

 

It may well be a significant distinction, but it may not be an apt one. Ultimately laws that attempt to reduce or eliminate guns will more likely than not simply disarm innocent law-abiding people who seek only self-defense while not affecting criminal use and possession in any significant way. This make likely actually embolden criminals, particularly violent ones, even more knowing their potential victims are much less likely to armed for defense. In short the desired effect of these laws is likely to end up being more wishful thinking than actual criminal disarmament.

 

That is the pessimistic view, but could easily end up being correct. I still think that there is no alternative but to attempt to reach an effective compromise.

 

What do you mean?

I didn't read the murdered mother was a "lunatic". Do you think all "Preppers" are lunatics, is that it? Or do you think anyone who has a son who's off the rails is a lunatic?

 

Do you believe guns should be locked up in households so only the appropriate people can access them? 

 

Do you believe that half of the American people should never be allowed to own guns?

 

"About half of Americans will experience some form of mental health problem at some point in their life, a new government report warns, and more must be done to help them.

 

 

Mental health issues run the gamut from depression to post-traumatic stress disorder to suicide, and many of those suffering presently do not get help, experts say.

The new report, from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, tallied the national burden of mental illness based on country-wide surveys.

There are "unacceptably high levels of mental illness in the United States," said Ileana Arias, principal deputy director of the CDC. "Essentially, about 25 percent of adult Americans reported having a mental illness in the previous year. In addition to the high level, we were surprised by the cost associated with that -- we estimated about $300 billion in 2002."

~ http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/medical/health/medical/mentalhealth/story/2011-09-05/CDC-Half-of-Americans-will-suffer-from-mental-health-woes/50250702/1

 

Let me see if I understand the line of reasoning here.

 

1. The state (which, incidentally, is made up of people) should take away guns from or prevent those with mental illness from having or getting or using guns.

2. We'll let the state (which, incidentally, is made up of people) define who and how many people have "mental illness."

 

Is that about it?

 

Tell me, should we harbor any thoughts that perhaps 50% of the people that comprise the state suffer from mental illness also?

 

i assume that laws, if enforced, to make guns more rare will increase the cost of ownership even for criminals.  

 

I do know that if AR15s, high capacity magazines, etc become outlawed they will instantly jump up in price given that's what happened last time.  

 

Folks might claim that criminals will have them anyway but it moves these items higher up the criminal food chain and it makes it harder for the average nutjob to acquire.  Do you really believe that Adam Lanza would have been able to acquire a Bushmaster and 30 rnd magazines if they were Class III weapons?  Do you think that if handguns were limited to ranges and target shooters as in Australia that Seung-Hui Cho could have amassed 400 ends and 2 semi auto hand guns quite so easily?

 

Or do you believe that the criminals in possession of these guns would have either hung onto them for their own use or sold it at a price far above what Cho or Lanza (or his mom) could have afforded?

 

 

The "if enforced" part is the hard part.  Local laws do nothing useful in as much as you can drive to another state, go to a gun show and get around a local/state law.

 

Why do you assume that?

 

 

 

I don't know what "Class III weapons" are.

 

 

 

I don't know. The real question is not so much the ease but whether they would still be able to a) get them at all regardless of ease, or b) find or fabricate a substitute tool for their destruction.

 

 

 

Or that they would steal them?

I've been to rock bottom and back. You've hit the nail on the head. This isn't so much a violence or gun control issue, though that is pertinent.

It is a mental health issue and the epidemic of human suffering in the West (and in fast-paced developing cities in Asia ~ a new rising epidemic along with obesity, diabetes etc.).

How many people are on medication?

How many people are temporarily or permanently disabled due to mental illness?

What now if they cannot get healthcare for this because they cannot afford it?

Not to mention the stress of endless wars, terrorism, fear, violence, poverty (now that the US middle class is destroyed).

After 2012, every individual must question what is our place in life and the path we have before us. Because the ol' rat race has no more future. Endless "economic growth" has no future. Endless debt and money-printing has no future.

Sporadic violence and catastrophes, as horrifying as they are, are but symptoms of a deeper disease.

 

No, I was referring to post # 69, where I wrote:

 

 

And it's not that you could not make a device from fertilizer alone, it's that unless you managed to acquire commercial or military detonators and a supply of secondary explosive suitable for use as a booster, you could not make such a device at all. Further, even if you acquired those items, your chances of building a functioning device are small unless you understand how to modify the fertilizer mix.

 

 

Yes it matters - it's basically an accusation that I was lying about it. So what was not credible - my conclusion or that I made the observation? If you disagreed with my conclusion then it would be perfectly reasonable to state that. Instead, you asserted that I had never even made the observation, which position you obviously have nothing to support.

 

 

It's a consequence of observing how you respond to answers to your requests for such information. However, as you asked so nicely and seem to be suggesting that you will accept my answer - I have a pretty large pool to draw from in the casual category. I'll be conservative and restrict it to current knowledge, and put it at greater than 30 and less than 50. For perspective, almost everyone I know owns at least one firearm. In the casual category it's mostly semi-automatic pistols, and they either never practice or make very occasional visits to the range (< 1/yr). I have actually observed maybe a quarter of them at the range; for the rest it is their description. But since you have already indicated that you don't believe what I say, why don't you have a word with a local civilian firearms instructor and get a verifiable first-hand perspective on the subject. I will be very surprised if you get a different story.

 

 

Or unless they tell me that they don't practice. So yes - I'm sure about it. The rest is covered above.

 

 

You've lost me. Why is that unreasonable?

 

 

I see - those kind of questions are fine for you to ask, but it's a game when I ask them. And it would not have been unreasonable to ask about my sample size, but you didn't do that. Your one-sentence dismissal in post #45 was: "I somehow doubt you have any experience whatsoever". No question appended.

 

 

No, you would not have been forced to conclude anything of the sort. Is the problem here that because I don't resemble the typical unquestioning NRA supporter and that you have probably already labeled me as some kind of liberal moocher type, you are assuming that I must be a gun control apologist who cannot possibly have any actual experience or knowledge of the subject, even though yours is zero? Even now you are making the assumption that my experience is limited to my "local range".

 

 

No - you are the one ridiculing my opinion, on the basis, apparently, of zero personal experience and a half dozen friends with guns. If that isn't a position of ignorance then I can't imagine what you think might be.

 

 

Is that a laughing clown face? It's very apt.

 

If you actually want a discussion, then try to imagine that you are talking to a person rather than an anonymous virtual opponent. You might have noticed that when I disagree with a position, I either ask for clarification, present an alternative hypothesis, or I attempt to refute it with accepted fact, empirical observation and reasoning. I don't accuse the poster of lying, or argue that they are not qualified to make an argument, I don't derail the discussion by constantly demanding proof of opinion and I don't use stupid emoticons to pretend that I find the argument hilarious. You appear to have only two argument techniques: unsupported assertion that your opponent is wrong/ignorant and demanding evidence/proof. You, on the other hand, never seem to provide any actual evidence for anything.

 

In this case, since you doubt my opinion that the majority of the gun-owning population is basically untrained, you could reasonably have said that you don't think that is consistent with your experience, however limited, you could ask what I based my conclusion on, you could find some dissenting opinion or evidence to refute, etc.. Or you could take the approach you did: "I somehow doubt you have any experience whatsoever", and then continue to wonder why the discussion goes south.

 

Try to craft the regulatory requirements on ownership and storage to maximize their effectiveness at keeping the weapons out of the hands of those who would misuse them while minimizing the impact on law-abiding citizens.

 

Well...that's a mouthful, and a bit abstract. I was hoping for some more specific prescriptions that you think constitute a compromise.

 

Yes - I really have no idea how to achieve that, which is not surprising since if it were easy then someone would have already made it happen. I would guess it might have to be a piecemeal approach. For example, in my state, firearms are not registered, may be bought privately with no background check, may be carried hidden, accessible and loaded in vehicles and are not required to be stored locked at home. I have, at times, taken advantage of all those laws, but they really seem unnecessarily lax to me. I would support some changes there.

 

Not necessarily.

 

 

 

"Unnecessarily lax?" That's interesting. Why do you think that?

 

Because tightening those rules would not significantly inconvenience me. Just my opinion, as I stated above.

 

 

Because it is a reasonable assumption.  Why do you assume otherwise?  An average criminal can find a fence.  Can you?  A criminal higher up the food chain can find a hit man.  Can you?  If I tried something stupid like that the odds are I'd be one of those folks caught trying to hire a fed posing as a hit man.

 

In the three cases at hand these guys had no previous criminal background, were not mentally balanced and probably had no more skill in acquiring lethal weapons than searching on the internet and walking into a gun shop.  They aren't Tim McVeighs.

 

 

 

Then you are poorly informed regarding the subject and can't even be bothered to google the term.

 

 

It is ALL about the ease.  Again, there's no indication whatsoever that these three guys were competent at anything other than shooting defenseless people and buying or acquiring easily available guns.  Again, they weren't McVeighs or even Harris and Diebold who shot at cops and made pipe bombs (some of which worked).

 

Also many of the gun related deaths are all about the ease of having a gun and the ease of not having had proper training and the ease of not properly safeguarding it from accidental use.

 

 

 

Steal them from whom?  Gun ranges, criminals and cops?  Good luck with that.  Trying to steal a gun from a criminal probably would turn them into a statistic. 

 

I disagree.

 

 

 

Because someone sufficiently motivated to kill and destroy will find a way. The guns are not the issue here.

 

 

 

Nice. It won't work. Nice try though. 

 

 

 

So we disagree.

So do you really believe that the ease of acquisition and use of the firearms used in these incidents plays no part in their occurrence? That all these disturbed people are that motivated and have the determination, knowledge and planning to find an alternative way to commit mass murder? Because if making it harder to get firearms prevents even some of these incidents then it will have been worthwhile, IMO.

But freedom to own metal machines that greatly accelerate smaller bits of metal, whose intended purpose is to rend and destroy flesh, causing great harm at a distance, is sacred!  These will surely protect us from tyranny, as they will most certainly match up against tanks, planes, and nuclear weapons.  Having to wait slightly longer or to undergo serious psychological evaluations is unacceptable.  We must be able to obtain these instruments of death at a moment's notice, regardless of state of mind!  Every hour that someone is delayed from purchasing a long-distance-human-hole-puncher, baby Jesus cries in the arms of the founding fathers.

 

Just anticipating and preemptively editorializing MJ's response.

 

Go to your local range.  Talk to folks that have a clue and they will tell you that what normal folks do at the range (shoot at stationary targets in more or less the proper stance and more or less the proper grip) is about as different from combat shooting as your daily commute to work and driving NASCAR.  Stress training isn't all that difficult to acquire but it's a perishable skill and you have to stay proficient.  The guys that take their CCW permits and home defense seriously will go through the hassle and expense of staying proficient.  Training costs vacation time and money.  Ammo costs money.

 

The percentage of gun owners that do this is tiny.

 

As far as casual gun owners not causing more casualties, exactly whom do you believe are responsible for the majority of gun accidents that happen every year?  Heck, we had a VPOTUS pepper a friend in the face.  If they were hunting deer instead of quail the headline would have been "Cheney accidentally kills Whittington in tragic hunting accident".

 

 

 

Hell no it's not clear because the "trained, of course" is a higher bar than you seem to think.  Your usual gun safety course and plinking at the range qualifies you to safely operate your firearm at a range.  Not shoot at people.  

 

In your hypothetical scenario she would need to rapidly recognize the shooter (in this case not too hard, he's the guy with the rifle shooting at you; other times harder), successfully draw her weapon (which is probably in her purse or desk), shoot and hit a target that is shooting at her (maximum stress).  Possible if you have trained properly.  However, there are LEOs that do not pass their quals on the first try or eck by with barely passing scores...and you think the average principal is going to stay proficient on a weapon that is probably personally distasteful?

 

How many teachers and school administrators do you know have a concealed carry permit?  Do you think that mandatory annual weapon qualification should be part of an educator's job description?  Or perhaps just the cooks?

 

 

 

It is clear that criminals prefer soft targets over hard ones.  However, that mostly just moves the problem around.  On one hand, that's kinda good enough as long as the victims aren't me or my family.  On the other, that's really short sighted and selfish thinking of which I am equally guilty of.

 

Have you bothered to look it up yet?  

 

Lemme ask you, if making certain kinds of guns illegal doesn't work then why were these shooters using semi-autos instead of full-autos?  They intend to be criminals yes?  They can simply steal fully automatic weapons or buy them from criminals no?

 

Or wait?  Maybe stealing guns from a class III permit holder is harder than it looks and criminals aren't going to sell you a machine gun?

 

Add to that the fact that there could be kids very near the attacker, or there is a possibility that the attacker isn't going to shoot but when a gun is drawn on him he does or does more than he intended.

 

God forbid that the school official hit and kill a child.  A ricochet could also be fatal.  Saw a report years  ago about a kid killed at a gun range by a bullet that bounced into the ceiling and ricocheted off a pipe or something wild like that. Sorry, Tommy, your teacher's shot killed your sister.

 

Teachers have plenty to worry about with their teaching and safety procedures at the school and teaching kids basic daily safety.

 

We do not need any Rambo-wanna-be's trying to save the day.  Personally, I would want one teaching my kids on a daily basis.  And I am a former teacher.

People who own guns should be sportsmen and the police department and security guards.You do need a gun to protect yourself the police department is capable of doing this with 911 when you call them.More essential is start to look into what is happening with the mental health clinics who are shutting down due to budget cuts and shortages qualified people to work there to help these mentally ill people.To many mentally ill people are out in the streets today and not getting the proper help they need.This is one aspect where to start.