Which of these proposals could have prevented Sandy Hook?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

Last edited Fri Mar 20, 2015, 10:53 AM - Edit history (2)

Requires background checks for all gun sales and strengthens the background check system. This would include removing barriers under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act so that states may more freely share information about mental health issues involving potential gun purchasers.

Lanza did not purchase his guns. he killed the owner, his mother, and stole the weapons.

Other notable, recent shootings such as Loughner, Holmes, Cho, Hasan, Rogers, Alexis did not purchase their weapons absent a BC.

Provides states with monetary incentives—$20 million in fiscal year FY 2013 and a proposed $50 million in FY 2014—to share information so that records on criminal history and people prohibited from gun ownership due to mental health reasons are more available.

A laudable action but -- again -- Lanza did not purchase his weapons and in cases where the police should have intervened they chose to not do so.

Bans military-style assault weapons and limits magazines to a capacity of 10 rounds.

In the 4.5 minutes it took the police to arrive a 10-round capacity would not have made a difference. In fact, Lanza was changing magazines before exhausting them.

The AWB is likely what sank the proposal in the first place. It's been tried.

Provides additional tools to law enforcement. The plan proposes a crackdown on gun trafficking by asking Congress to pass legislation that closes “loopholes” in gun trafficking laws and establishes strict penalties for “straw purchasers” who pass a background check and then pass guns on to prohibited people.

The term "loophole" is ambiguous, at best. This needs to be defined.

Urges Congress to pass the administration’s $4 billion proposal to keep 15,000 state and local police officers on the street to help deter gun crime.

Police do not prevent, they react (except in the case of Columbine) and even then they are not obligated to act.

Maximizes efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime. The president calls upon the attorney general to work with U.S. attorneys across the country to determine gaps occurring in this area and where supplemental resources are appropriate.

A tad undefined.

Provides training for “active shooter” situations to 14,000 law enforcement, first responders and school officials.

4.5 minutes is still 4.5 minutes.

Directs the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to issue a statement to health care providers that they are not prohibited by federal law from reporting threats of violence to the proper authorities.

Okay but, Holmes WAS reported by his mental health care provider under provisions of Colorado law but the authorities did nothing. The day Eliot Rogers went on his killing spree his own parents reported him to the police saying they thought he was going to hurt people. Loughner, Lanza, Hasan, Alexis and Cho also had histories with authorities and providers and yet nothing was acted upon.

Launches a national gun safety campaign to encourage responsible gun ownership and authorizes the Consumer Product Safety Commission to examine issues relating to gun safety locks.

Helps schools invest in safety. The president’s plan calls for more school resource officers and counselors in all schools through the Community Oriented Policing Services hiring program. The plan also calls for the federal government to assist schools in developing emergency management plans.

Last I heard "school resource officer" means "cop with a gun." I've been told guns in school is not the answer.

Improves mental health awareness through enhanced teacher training and referrals for treatment. The plan calls for the training of 5,000 additional mental health professionals nationwide. The plan also calls for coverage of mental health treatment under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008.

He should really talk to his former chief-of-staff.

*****

CORRECTION -- I originally wrote the post stating the police response time was 12 minutes. I was informed the response time from the placement of the call to 911 to police arriving on-scene -- at which time Lanza shot himself -- was approximately 4.5 minutes. The OP has been corrected, I apologize for the error and I appreciate Lurks Often for bringing it to my attention.

[Electric Monk]

1. I don't think smaller mag sizes would have prevented Sandy Hook, but they could have lowered

the number of casualties, forcing the shooter to pause and reload more often, giving the teachers a slightly better chance to tackle the shooter or help children escape.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. As I noted, Lanza was changing magazines before they were exhausted.

Lanza changed magazines frequently as he fired his way through the first-grade classrooms of Lauren Rousseau and Victoria Soto, sometimes shooting as few as 15 shots from a 30-round magazine, sources said.

http://articles.courant.com/2013-01-06/news/hc-sandyhook-lanza-earplugs-20130106_1_adam-lanza-nancy-lanza-yogananda-street

Thank-you for the civil reply.

[Electric Monk]

3. "sometimes shooting as few as 15 shots..." Thats five 'free' shots he got compared to reloading

earlier. Forcing him to reload when he'd rather be shooting more people probably would have saved some lives.

I also think his mom should have kept her guns locked in a safe without Adam knowing the combo. That could have prevented the whole thing.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. "I also think his mom should have kept her guns locked in a safe without Adam knowing the combo."

I agree. She knew her son had problems and was potentially dangerous.

[virginia mountainman]

5. Cho at Virginia Tech used 10 Rnd magazines...

He shot and killed 32 people and wounded 17 others using 10 rnd magazines...

So, No...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

90. "giving the teachers a slightly better chance to tackle the shooter or help children escape."

We've had a fair conversation so far and I intend to keep it going. Please consider my comments to follow in that vein.

I couldn't help but notice the quote above relies on the shooter having to take a pause allowing the intended victims to take action. Up until the point of having to take a pause the shooter holds the advantage -- obviously. The victims more than likely are taking defensive actions to defend themselves, i.e. running and hiding. Those who can leave the area will, those who cannot will be hiding with as much distance between them and the shooter as is possible.

To rely on a pause -- whether after 10 shots or 30 shots -- requires the victims to abandon their cover, expose themselves and attempt to close the distance. It can and does happen but is it really the realistic expectation?

I have no formal training and do not practice regularly but I can change magazines in mere seconds.

[Jenoch]

7. About Columbine...

At the time, the SOP was for the street cops to wait for the SWAT teams in the case of a hostage situation. That policy has been pretty much universally changed so the cops arriving on the scene are expected to engage the shooters.

[Thinkingabout]

8. Perhaps emphasis on safety from NRA instead of more guns.

[gejohnston]

10. that is reaction to the prohibition lobby

100 percent billionaire funded astro turf. People joined the NRA and others to fight back against over privileged culture warriors. It is impossible to prevent black swan events. Mass murder is mass murder regardless of means. Guns are not the only means, only the most publicized even when other means have higher body counts. Also, should a liberal and open society restrict individual liberties of millions for the actions of one when there is no evidence another will happen again or be prevented?

[hack89]

17. The NRA is the gold standard for gun safety training

who do you think trains and certifies the vast majority of firearms instructors. They have also had the Eddie the Eagle program teaching gun safety to young kids in place for decades.

[Thinkingabout]

19. There are lots of gun owners who do not practice basic gun safety.

[hack89]

20. That's where laws requiring training come into play.

the NRA is certainly not opposed to more gun safety training. It means more money and more influence for them.

[Thinkingabout]

21. As I stated more emphasis should be placed on safety, NRA spends lots of money

on lobbyists, spend it on safety and it would be better placed.

[hack89]

22. Could you please provide the actual dollar amounts they spend on each? Thanks. nt

[Thinkingabout]

24. When it comes to gun safety it doesn't matter, safety should be first and foremost,

if they only have $10 to spend it should first be placed towards safety. At one time NRA pushed safety, now it is far on the back burner. It does not give NRA a good name when they spend any money towards lobbyists without putting priority on safety.

[hack89]

25. Political donations can't be used for safety training

political donations are tightly regulated - you know that. That is why the political arm of the NRA is a completely separate entity from the non-political entity.

There are many people that donate money specifically for political purposes. It is illegal for the NRA to use it for any other purpose.

[Thinkingabout]

27. For every child who is killed it cuts off a future purchaser, this should be considered.

[hack89]

74. That is a pretty stupid thing to say

a 5 year old could come up with something better than that.

[Thinkingabout]

86. explain how it is stupid

[hack89]

89. Because the implication behind it is unwarranted and stupid. nt

[Duckhunter935]

26. How much do the "gun safety"

Spend on gun safety compared to the NRA gun safety programs?

[Thinkingabout]

28. I don't have any idea, apparently the NRA safety programs are not reaching enough gum owners.

[Duckhunter935]

29. I Am glad at least they make an attempt

Unlike those "gun safety" astroturf groups.

[Eleanors38]

33. Consider the Shooting Sports Foundation's "Child Safe" campaign to secure firearms...

This is a widespread, long-running effort, and may explain why the the childhood (under 15 yoa) accidental gun deaths have fallen so precipitously to well less than a hundred-a-year. IIRC, sixty-two children killed by gun accident in 2013. Something is working.

[Duckhunter935]

48. That is a great group

I hope they can keep it up.

[sarisataka]

30. A year ago or so

I was asked by some schools if I could give an optional, after school gun safety course. I reached out to every major and several smaller gun control/safety/regulation groups about any child appropriate materials or other resources they could provide.

Of the 10-12 requests sent only one, MAIG, gave any reply. I quote: "Ask your local PD if they talk to kids in school about gun safety."

Note that I sent these requests under my business name as a security consulting S corporation, not as a private citizen.

So IME the ratio of politics to safety of said organizations is 100:0.

I currently have Eddie Eagle materials on hand (free through a grant) amd two schools are looking to see if there is enough interest to do a class next month. I do these for free and invite parents to attend as well.

[Duckhunter935]

49. Great for you

Thank you for teaching about firearms safety.

[Politicalboi]

9. How about no guns in homes of families with children

Who have serious mental issues.

Bans military-style assault weapons and limits magazines to a capacity of 10 rounds.

In the 12 minutes it took the police to arrive a 10-round capacity would not have made a difference. In fact, Lanza was changing magazines before exhausting them.

How do we know it wouldn't have made a difference. He could have dropped his clip, pinched his finger, misfired. He may have had second thoughts about doing it if he had to reload often. Guns like the one he used emboldens nuts to think they're invincible.

[gejohnston]

11. that is a propaganda buzz term

often used by Piers Morgan, and is really a meaningless term. Almost all rifles are "military style". My wife has a bolt action "sporting rifle" that was once military issue. BTW so was one of her handguns (one Nazi, the other communist.)
"Assault weapon" is whatever some politician wants to call it. New York and Maryland ban the type of pistols used by target shooters in the Olympics and World Cup as "assault weapons".

[Straw Man]

12. Let's see ...

How about no guns in homes of families with children

Who have serious mental issues.

So you want to remove rights from people who have a handicapped child? I can see requiring safe storage in such instances, but your proposal is somewhat regressive.

Bans military-style assault weapons and limits magazines to a capacity of 10 rounds.

Do you mean banning all semi-auto rifles, or only the ones with pistol grips? Bayonet lugs? No mass shooter in history has ever used a bayonet, so it's hard to understand why that is in the legal definitions. Flash hiders? Has any mass shooter attacked under cover of darkness?

In the 12 minutes it took the police to arrive a 10-round capacity would not have made a difference. In fact, Lanza was changing magazines before exhausting them.

How do we know it wouldn't have made a difference. He could have dropped his clip, pinched his finger, misfired. He may have had second thoughts about doing it if he had to reload often. Guns like the one he used emboldens nuts to think they're invincible.

You're ignoring the stated fact that he did reload often -- more often, in fact, than he needed to. It's called a "tactical reload" -- you reload during a break in the action, whether your magazine is empty or not, so as to have a full magazine for such time as you may not be able to reload. Changing box magazines in a rifle is remarkably easy, something the mag-ban proponents don't seem to be able to comprehend. Drop his clip? He had plenty more.

Ironically, Lanza didn't need to do tactical reloads because he faced no opposition. He had plenty of targets, and he wasn't going to be taken down by a group of elementary school children.

Lanza obviously knew he wasn't invincible. That's why he took his own life when police arrived on the scene.

[Duckhunter935]

14. whats "military style"?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. Whatever it's needed to be to add one more thing to the ban list.

[ileus]

31. Features like triggers and firing pins

You know stuff...

[Electric Monk]

32. ...detachable magazines, collapsable stocks, bayonet lugs...

nt

[ileus]

34. flash hiders, pistol grips, and things the point up.

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. Aside from appearance, what, exactly, is the issue with bayonet lugs?

Cosmetics aside, I've yet to hear *any* argument for banning them

[Electric Monk]

38. I've yet to hear any argument for having them, other than for close quarters combat

or "well, I want it, because I want it".

[beevul]

39. They're legal.

The onus, that being the case, is on those wishing to restrict, to justify that restriction.


That would be you.

[Electric Monk]

40. Like I said, the argument for having them is "well, I want it, because I want it". nt

[NutmegYankee]

45. That would be the Same argument for most stuff.

Like iPods, log splitters, TVs, etc.

[beevul]

46. After looking...

I see no argument made by you as to why they should be banned, in the post I'm responding to.

Unless "people wanting them" is sufficient reason in your mind.

Is it?

[Duckhunter935]

50. When has a bayonet lug

killed a person. Maybe it is the idiotic banning of these features that never hurt a soul that makes the controller movement look stupid and out of touch with reality.

[Electric Monk]

51. I honestly do not understand why you would want one on your gun, unless for close quarters combat

fantasies? Help me understand, if you can.

[Duckhunter935]

52. It is standard on many weapons and

to save money you do not have to manufacture different parts. 99% of the people will never use it so why insist on banning them. It simplifies the part and manufacturing process. You should require a reasonable reason to ban that feature. What is your reasonable reason for a ban of the bayonet lug? please let us know.

I know you will not answer that simple question.

[Electric Monk]

53. Ok then, so why is it standard on many weapons? (and I think I know this answer) nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

54. Just so I understand, why does it matter?

The whole bayonet lug thing is a mystery. I'd say bayonets don't kill many people. Bayonet lugs probably never kill anyone.

Why ban something based on a generally non-functional feature?

[Duckhunter935]

56. He is afraid to answer that question

[Electric Monk]

57. This sub-thread started with you asking what is "military style", and bayonet lugs are part of

what makes a gun "military style" since they serve no purpose for a civilian weapon. I answered your question, you just didn't like the answer.

[Duckhunter935]

58. And I will keep asking my simple question also in this subthread

You seem unwilling to answer.

ONCE AGAIN

What is your reasonable reason for a ban of the bayonet lug?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172163424#post52

[Electric Monk]

60. Please point to where I said they should be banned?

I replied to Ileus's stupid sarcastic post about firing pins with some real answers to your question.

[Duckhunter935]

62. You say they make a rifle military style

and you have said civilians should not be allowed to have military style weapons.

That would be a ban

[Electric Monk]

64. Politicalboi did

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=163434

I'm in favor of limiting magazine size, and I think wanting a bayonet lug is dumb, but I haven't called for a ban on bayonet lugs, or guns with firing pins

[Duckhunter935]

67. Thanks, glad you show some sense

and disagree with that. I am glad you are for civilian ownership of these so called "military style" rifles.

[Straw Man]

79. All of which points to the conclusion that ...

This sub-thread started with you asking what is "military style", and bayonet lugs are part of

what makes a gun "military style" since they serve no purpose for a civilian weapon. I answered your question, you just didn't like the answer.

... "military-style" is a pointless designation in deciding what weapons to ban or restrict. It boils down to "I don't like the way it looks." There is no justification for a ban on anything that cannot be shown to be a significant threat to public safety.

[Duckhunter935]

83. well by the logic of the great EM

I should not be able to own my bolt action Mosin rifles or my Swiss K31 rifle. But of course they are not "military style" but full military specification and the horror is I have the bayonets for them.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

63. I don't know if "afraid" is precisely the right characterization of his motivation

I know that being ignored doesn't make me feel respected or motivated to engage in other dialog on issues aside from bayonets, lugs and such.

[Duckhunter935]

65. Very possible

I think it is only the polite thing to do to answer a question put to you and I try and show respect to the other person by answering their questions.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

66. I'm sure it some kind of miscommunication

[Duckhunter935]

55. It is much easier to make one common part for

civilian versions of weapons. The weapons are different than weapons used by the military but still use the same front sight assembly. Saves cost to manufacture one standard part.

Just like I told you before.

Now care to answer my simple question? I WILL KEEP ASKING IT and it makes you look bad to not answer it.

What is your reasonable reason for a ban of the bayonet lug?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172163424#post52

[GGJohn]

85. That's all the justification I need.

If I want to go buy an AR-15 because I want one, then that's all the argument I need.

[sarisataka]

44. Found one...

http://www.ktvb.com/news/topstories/stories/121904ccjrktvbpoliceshooting.229dca0c.html
(As this is from 2004, the link is expired)

"A Boise Police officer shot and killed 16-year-old Matthew Jones, who allegedly brandished a World War II-era rifle with a bayonet mounted on it.

The officer, Andrew S. Johnson was called to a North Boise neighborhood by the teen's father at around 5 p.m. Saturday.

The father had told police that his son was out of control and was poking holes in the walls of the family's home with the bayonet and that he may have been on drugs or alcohol

When the Johnson arrived, Jones jumped out of some bushes and allegedly made threatening gestures with the rifle toward the officer.

So they need to be banned because there has been 1 +/- bayonet crime in the last seventy years. They next bayonet crime I could locate was Nanking.

I found this interesting statement:

The 1994 Act did suffer from notable limitations, however. The two-feature test and the inclusion of some features that were purely cosmetic in nature created a loophole...

(emphasis added) http://smartgunlaws.org/assault-weapons-policy-summary/

[Straw Man]

47. WWII-era rifle?

That usually means M1 Garand, which means no detachable magazine, which means not an AW, so therefore that bayonet was attached to a lug that would be legal even under an AWB.

It's just common sense. Isn't it obvious that bayonets are only dangerous when they're attached to rifles with detachable magazines?

[blueridge3210]

41. What extraordinary threat

do these features pose to the general public that would justify their prohibition?

Here's the thing; living in a free society it is the burden of the government to justify prohibition of an item or activity. It is not the burden of the citizen to justify the item or activity being allowed.

[Electric Monk]

42. Well, without detachable magazines, Adam Lanza would have killed far fewer people

for example.

[blueridge3210]

43. Pure speculation on your part.

Lanza could have caused just as much carnage with the pump shotgun and hand gun that was found in his vehicle.

[Electric Monk]

59. Pure speculation on your part that he'd have killed just as many as easily with only his other guns.

See how that works both ways?

[blueridge3210]

61. Nope. (nt)

[beevul]

68. Have you forgotten VT?

Cho killed more with handguns and standard capacity magazines.

So much for "speculation"...

[Electric Monk]

69. Ok, so if your argument is it makes no difference, then you'd have no problem with mag size limits

right?

[beevul]

70. WTF kind of logic is that?

If it makes no difference, theres no sense in legislating it.

I'll entertain your proposal though, if you can just answer 1 simple question:


How are you going to get the people who decide they want to murder others, to obey this proposed law?

[Electric Monk]

71. You're the one saying mag size makes no diff. I think it would.

As to your Q, that's basically a variation on the NRA talking point: When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

To which I reply: If people make the choice to act like outlaws, then when they get caught, give them a fine or lock em up. If some gunthusiast can't not keep (intentional double negative here) large cap mags in their possession (if/when they are restricted) then they take their chances with the long arm of the law. Catch them for their large cap mags pre-spree, or at a minimum make it harder for them to acquire some.

[gejohnston]

72. the talking point is actually much older than the the NRA

http://canfirearms.ca/Skeeter/Research/Panic/5-1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Macdonald

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."---Cesare Beccaria Essay on Crimes and Punishments.

[Electric Monk]

73. Ok, thanks for the quote, but back to the topic of mag size limits...

If you think you need a 30 rd mag to defend yourself, where 10 rd mags just wouldn't do...

What are you, some kind of meth cook, expecting to be raided by a competitor biker gang, or something? If 10 rds aren't enough, you're probably doing it wrong....

[Duckhunter935]

80. I think this subthread is about VT

Cho did not have 30 round high capacity magazines. He had standard capacity magazines for the handguns he purchased.

The shooter waited one month after buying a Walther P22 pistol before he bought a second pistol, a Glock 19.[3]:24 Cho used a 15-round magazine in the Glock and a 10-round magazine in the Walther.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting#Perpetrator

[Electric Monk]

99. It's about mag size and reloading. Loughner was tackled while reloading during the Giffords shooting

so it does matter.

[Duckhunter935]

101. He also had a magizine that jammed

Due to the large size. Smaller magazines due not tend to jam and are much more reliable than those stupid large ones. And FYI this subthread was about VT and how he used standard size magazines.

[gejohnston]

91. limit the cops?

If you think you need a 30 rd mag to defend yourself, where 10 rd mags just wouldn't do...

I never said I needed one, or anything else. Rifles are usually used for rifle competition. Few pistols come with 30 round mags. The one Glock has sucks. AR "pistols" are toys and I would not use one for defense or anything else, unless that is all I had available. I don't own one because I think the concept is stupid. If you want one, fine. What about magazines in between? Like 13-17 range? If my daughter decides to carry IOW the laws of her state, and decides on a pistol that holds 15 rounds, it isn't any of yours or my business anymore of our fucking business than her family planning issues. That is up to her for her own reasons.

What are you, some kind of meth cook, expecting to be raided by a competitor biker gang, or something? If 10 rds aren't enough, you're probably doing it wrong....

Since your knowledge of firearms is close to nonexistent, and your knowledge of self defense issues are the same as some moron pundit on Fox or MSNBC, your opinion is worth zero. When compared to recognized experts in the field who base their opinion and recommendations on facts and reason, not ideology and dogma, the former is worth listening to. IOW, if Massab Ayoob said it, I would listen. You, not so much. Like I said, rifles are not often used as defense. If I did use an AR type rifle, I would most likely use 20 round magazines. I base that on my personal experience (of course, that could be the shitty ones DoD bought 20 years ago) and the rifle's design, not anything Dick Cheney (who agrees with you), Piers Morgan or anyone else.

You don't need a car that goes faster than the speed limit, but it isn't any of my business if you buy one. Same concept. I don't care what you or anyone else thinks I need, because it isn't any of your business.

[Duckhunter935]

95. I use the 20 round USGI magazines

I have replaced the plastic followers with an original spec aluminum type. I purchased mine as parts and put them together. Never had any issues with them. They all have worked perfectly. Of course the two that came with my rifle, I just replaced the follower.

[Electric Monk]

100. I'll ignore the insults, and further your speeding analogy. When you speed, it becomes everyones

business, because at that point you are acting dangerously and are a threat, both to yourself and others.

[Duckhunter935]

102. What insults?

Like the ones you allow in your group about us? The ones you condone.

[Electric Monk]

104. At this point, I'm sorry I said anything to billh, asking him to be less rude. That was a mistake.

Since I can't win with you anyways, even when being civil and discussing the issue at hand (this sub-thread, for example), I shouldn't have bothered worrying about your delicate sensibilities.

[Duckhunter935]

106. That was the right thing and I commend you for it

I wish you would do that to some of your other regulars that attack and insult us constantly. Since you or your predecessors blocked us we are not able to respond and you know that and allow them to do it.. Bill took that minor suggestion to hard and he should not have done what he did but just what you asked him to do. Tone the insults down. Those self deletes were his choice.

I just asked what insults were made to you. Seems like you might be the sensitive one here. As you know, there have been some real insults to firearms owners here on DU to include an insult to me in an alert that so far you have not acknowledged was from you or not. I have asked in the open and via PM but you have refused to provide a simple answer.

So would this be an insult?

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Calling out the host (EM) of a safe haven group (GCRA) that this person (duckhunter) has long been blocked from (gun nuts not allowed), for something not even written by that host. Hosts aren't responsible for everything posted by other members. This arrogant gun nut needs to be reminded what website they are on, and they are not on ar15.com.

Like I have said before I hope this was not you but it sure seems like it might have been.

[gejohnston]

107. no insults,

although I could have said it better, you are not an expert on the subjects. You don't know anything on the subjects. That makes your opinion about is meaningful as mine on ME issues.

I didn't say anything about speeding. I said a car being capable of going over the speed limit. Two different things.

[beevul]

92. "If people make the choice to act like outlaws"

Except that you are the one, that wants to put those who would murder, and those who wish to possess the mags you don't like, in the same category.

And clearly, those who murder, and those who simply wish to lawfully possess a thing, do not belong in the same category.

Hence the resistance you run into on this matter, and always will. You can claim its not "personal" when you propose these laws, but when you force people who are not and never will be murderers, into the same category with those that are, it is quite personal to each and every one of us on the receiving end.

And being forced to give up property, under threat of government violence, for what is a completely arbitrary reason, is taken by each and every one of us, equally personally.

"As to your Q, that's basically a variation on the NRA talking point: When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

Uh huh. Asking you to explain how and why your law will work, when it comes to the people it is intended to work on, is an nra talking point now?


Please.


Lastly, banning "detachable magazines" is not "reasonable", not "common sense", and certainly would not be received well by the American taxpayer.

I suspect you already know that.

[Electric Monk]

98. Not lumped in the same category as murderers. More like speeders on the highway. If caught

they get a ticket and their large cap mags taken away. To continue the analogy, if caught repeatedly violating, then they lose their right to drive / own guns.

After 14 women were killed at Montreal’s École Polytechnique in 1989, Canada limited mag sizes to 5 rounds for rifles and 10 for pistols in 1991. It can be done.

[hack89]

108. Governments can do anything if there is no Bill of Rights

Last edited Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:26 PM - Edit history (1)

that is exactly why we have one.

[Electric Monk]

110. Amendments can be amended. See the 18th and 21st.

The 2nd probably won't be touched any time soon, but in theory it could be amended too.

[hack89]

111. True. It won't be amended in our lifetimes though.

the trend is towards expanding civil rights, not restricting them.

[hack89]

75. You can't buy guns with collapsible stocks

the laws regulating barrel length and overal length pretty much preclude them. You can buy adjustable stocks but they only adjust 4 or 5 inches and are used merely to fit the rifle ergonomically to the shooter. They don't make the rifle more concealable.

Bayonet lug bans are stupid - there is no public safety issue involved.

[Duckhunter935]

82. "fit the rifle ergonomically to the shooter"

and that would be a safety feature that some would like to ban.

[hack89]

18. Lanza could have killed all those kids with the shotgun and handgun he had

lets not forget what the Va Tech shooter did with just a handgun.

[YarnAddict]

13. To me the most obvious solution

is to do a whole lot more about mentally ill individuals than about guns. Each of the people cited in this thread--Lanza, Cho, Loughner, etc.--was clearly mentally ill, clearly a danger to others, but the laws being what they are there was literally nothing that could be done until they committed a crime.

In so many of these cases, parents and other loved ones have tried everything available to them, allowing one person's mental health issues to control their own lives, to break up their families, and to cause unimaginable anguish to everyone who loves them. Maybe we need to bring back involuntary commitment, as a preventive measure?

[Eleanors38]

37. I sympathize with your view, but due process in court is a fundamental right...

If I recall correctly, the strengthening of due process for those mentally I'll was largely a liberal issue some 50 years ago.

[ileus]

16. Only pro gun folks are interested in preventing SH type events, control groups need more

spree shootings to keep their fund raising and agenda alive. So naturally they will offer up zero "answers" to the debate.

This is why they're so against CC, they want more easy victims on the street. Every victim is a bank account number from which they can draw a pay cheque from.

[Lurks Often]

23. I will remind everyone that autism is a neurological disorder, not a mental illness

While AL's autism was diagnosed, I don't believe he was ever diagnosed as mentally ill.

It is very easy in retrospect to recognize that AL was mentally ill, what we don't know is how much the autistic behavior may have masked the signs of mental illness.

It is also easy for us to say that Nancy Lanza should have known something was wrong with her son, aside from the autism, but it's a rare parent who can overcome denial and recognize their child as a potentially violent person.

Given no criminal history and not being found mentally incompetent by a judge, there was nothing that would have prevented AL from buying a rifle or shotgun, waiting for the 2 week background check and then committing the horrible crime anyway.

[Eleanors38]

35. Suggested in the OP, grants-in-aid to schools to improve school security...

in terms of restricted access, hardened facilities, more armed personnel (currently only 20+k for 100k schools) and other measures might prevent or mitigate school attacks. This was suggested by myself and others in the wake of Sandy Hook, but was rather nastily greeted by those dug in to orthodox prohibitionist efforts.

[My Good Babushka]

76. There may not be one thing

just like there may not be one reason this psychologically disturbed individual did the terrible thing he did. Congress has already passed a law for upgrading the NICS (background check and mental health database) but it has not funded it, so it is not working in the way it's supposed to. It has many data gaps and missing pieces. It's hard to say, if this man's mother, and his doctors, would have made the same choices to give him access to weapons, if psychological issues were treated as seriously as other health issues, if doctors knew or were allowed to ask about weapons in the home. I think funding the law that is already in place would be a good place to start. I don't believe that because we couldn't stop this tragedy, or identify the one thing that could have stopped it, that we should do nothing.

[daleanime]

77. Right we get it....

you don't want to do anything about it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

78. Maybe we could start a federal program of free wi-fi for potentially violent mental health patients.

[daleanime]

81. We get it...

not worth a single serious thought.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

84. We get it. You didn't actually read the OP.

There were actually points that I identified as worth pursuing. There were others -- most actually -- where I noted law enforcement COULD have done something under current law but was derelict in their duty.

But a worthless proposal is still a worthless proposal. A demand to enact worthless proposals seems to suggest those making the demands are only cynically parading around corpses to push an agenda.

[daleanime]

87. You lay out your frame work in one sentence.....

you would like me to dispute individual details, but I reject the idea that there's nothing to be done.

If you cared you would have included your suggested actions, which were?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

88. "I reject the idea that there's nothing to be done."

As I stated in the OP, I noted the shoring-up of the BC database is laudable.

Expanding mental healthcare, also mentioned in the proposals I critiqued, is an excellent start.

Adding school resource officers is a good idea; but I took a swipe at those who claim adding people with guns never helps.

And, as I previously stated, there are plenty of laws that could have been used if only law enforcement would, you know, enforce laws. Loughner, Lanza, Rogers, Holmes, Alexis, Hasan et al ALL had a history with law enforcement and/or healthcare professionals and had suspected of being dangerous.

Outside of the OP I have applauded the President for dedicating funding to improving the NICS. I would also like NICS made available to private sellers.

Your characterization of my posts is wildly inaccurate. At no point have I claimed nothing could or should be done. I will admit that useless things that serve no purpose except satisfying the appetites of control freaks should be avoided but I count that as a virtue. YMMV

[beevul]

93. Nobody here claims "there is nothing to be done".

Most of us simply feel that there are certain avenues which we will not support.

If you equate that to "there is nothing to be done", then it is only those avenues which you were interested in, to begin with.

Which surprises anyone who is paying attention, not one bit.

[blueridge3210]

94. Seems to be a recurring theme amongst the pro-control side.

"Failure to agree with my proposals means you don't want to do anything/are okay with children dying etc" Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

[Duckhunter935]

96. very true nt

[daleanime]

114. Yes, thinking is a recurring problem....

[daleanime]

113. No, failure to give counter proposal means you don't want to do anything...

that and setting insane standards for results. But please continue your hair care.

[blueridge3210]

117. Ummm, no.

Failure to give a counter proposal simply means that I don't agree with the proposal. But, thanks for playing.

Just what are these "insane standards"?

[daleanime]

112. The OP deal with nothing but those 'avenues we will not support'....

and give no alternatives. And I love the mind-reading, so please tell me what I'm interested in.

[beevul]

115. I'll make it plainer for you.

Outside of additional "gun control", there are many things that can be done.

Universal firearms safety training is one such example, but there are many. Everyone involved in the gun debate knows it too.


Yet strangely, none of the folks that get indignant when told "no" on gun control, seem interested in discussing let alone accepting any of them.


To the average person, that's a dog whistle that says "we aren't interested in anything except gun control.

The OP deal with nothing but those 'avenues we will not support'

Actually, the OP deals with asking which proposals would have stopped a tragedy.

On edit:

and give no alternatives

If you want alternatives from us, you first need to get the pushy loudmouths on your side of the issue to stop attacking our rights, and start treating people who support gun rights like human beings.

[daleanime]

116. Yes, I know what the OP deals with, I've read it multiple times now....

and the standard it asks for any action is ridiculous. That alone show no desire to negotiate/discuss anything else. Followed that with a long list of rejected suggestions with no alternatives offered. And I'm to believe that is a reasonable position?


"Pushy loudmouths" on my side? You do know that the only person you can control is yourself, right?

[beevul]

119. " the standard it asks for any action is ridiculous"

Last edited Sun Mar 22, 2015, 04:13 PM - Edit history (1)

Which "standard" would that be?

The one in which we expect that laws be targeted at criminals and people who would do harm, rather than targeted at making criminals out of people other than criminals or those who would do harm.

I don't think that's ridiculous at all.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

120. Sorry...

... that gets a sad as it conflicts with the culture war mindset.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

118. You're being blatantly dishonest. Post #88 recaps those proposals in the OP I believe would work and

I went on to add 2 more proposals not discussed in the OP. At this point you can't be doing anything except deliberately misrepresenting my posts to protect your narrative.

And you have yet to demonstrate how I am wrong when it comes to the proposals I critique as ineffective. How, for example, would magazine limits have made things better if those going on a rampage are changing magazines before they're emptied, using magazines within the prescribed limit or able to use other weapons such as a shotgun?

If you're so convinced I'm wrong demonstrate how.

[sarisataka]

97. Let's look at this logically

We have seen a tragedy and put forth ideas to prevent a recurrence-

Side A looks them over, points out many of the proposals will do nothing to prevent or mitigate a future occurrence.
Side A points out a small number that will have a possible positive effect and proposes several other options which may have a mitigating effect.

Please note that saying this won't work is not the same as saying nothing will work.

Side B looks at the same proposals and says we like this because we don't like gunzz. They then review the critiques and evidence of Side A but ignore everything because they feel they need to do something. Rather than make changes they will stick to their original proposal even if it will not prevent a future occurrence.

So given the positions, who is ok with more dead children. The side that will consider whether there is a chance a proposal will prevent or mitigate a future tragedy or the side that will blindly support ideas without concern of any future effect?

[upaloopa]

103. Since no gun control actions work as you

point out, the only thing to do to protect the citizenry is to outlaw all guns and rifles.
I don't think that is what you are leading us to is it?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

105. Where did I say none of the proposed actions work?

On the contrary I noted several of the proposals would be worth pursuing while also noting laws currently on the books are not being enforced. Did you even read the OP?

Since no gun control actions work as you point out, the only thing to do to protect the citizenry is to outlaw all guns and rifles.

If gun control doesn't work why propose a ban?

[hack89]

109. No. It says that some work and others don't

it is the controller fixation on those that don't work or those that are blatantly unconstitutional that causes all the friction here.