Reducing Gun Violence

[heckofajobbrownie]

For some of you guys on the other side of the spectrum, guys like Leg and Steve and Kosar and Cysko, some of you who own guns, I'd be interested to know what steps you think the country should take to limit the amount of gun violence in America. You're going to hear lots of proposals over the next few weeks. I'm interested to hear what your ideas are.

 

Sandy Hook got so much attention because it was, well, indescribably horrible. But since Sandy Hook 734 Americans have also been shot and killed. What steps do you think the government should take to lower the amount of gun violence in this country?

 

And before the usuals start talking/frothing about the liberal plot to take your guns, let me just let you in on something: Obama can't take your guns, even if he wanted to, which he doesn't. I'll say it again: he can't take your guns. You have a constitutional right to armed self-defense. You don't have a Constitutional right to own every armament under the sun. The Second Amendment is not unlimited. It's also not suddenly irrelevant.

 

Obama can't take your guns. His proposals are likely to involve background checks, magazine sizes, and the like.

 

But I'm not so interested in what the usual nuts will say. We already know what that is. I'd rather hear from the other guys. What steps would you take? What do you want to see done?

[ballpeen]

There is no quick fix to the problem.

 

The problem is the type of young man we are raising. That is the problem.

 

We have a generation of young men who feel left out and their only real emotion is anger.

 

How we change that?? We could go on for weeks as to what is causing it and how to solve it, but that is the problem.

[calfoxwc]

The tragic senseless murders at Sandy Hook - background checks and "registration" wouldn't have stopped them. Columbine? Same thing.

 

Criminals break the laws.

 

It's illegal access by murderers that is the problem.

 

Gun safes, with restricted access to gun owner is the key.

 

Any mentally disturbed would be murderer can defy all the laws, and simply steal the guns.

 

Columbine - Sandy Hook. A closer watch on those anti-social kids who have problems that need medication.

 

A national attention to bullying in schools. And really, putting the fraudulent alienation of God in our schools in it's place.

 

Sure, the state cannot implement a standard religion. But declaring war on the rights of individuals to be religious in schools is a different matter.

 

A teacher should have every right to be a Christian, for example, as well as to be agnostic. The state has come full circle - it has declared anti religion as

 

the marxist left new religion of sorts.

 

My best guess, is a simple analogy. If we put in a fishing pond, and some child wanders over, and falls in and drowns, it would be horrific, and

 

it would be a matter of negligence on our part. But, if we also put up a fence, with mega thorns berry bushes all around, and a locked gate, well,

 

hopefully, no child will be allowed to find a ladder and climb the fence. But that is a legal, practical, and moral basis of due diligence and responsibility

 

on our part. That's how I see the responsibility of gun ownership. With rights come responsibilites.

 

Gun ownership requires restricted access. The same as a car. You don't lend your keys to your car to someone who has a mental disability. Why let your guns

 

be accessable by anyone but you and your family? If you have a child that is sbh, ld, etc.... that child must not have access to getting the guns. Or, the guns

 

must be secured in case of a home invasion while nobody's home. As I look at it, that would have stopped Columbine and Sandy Hook.

 

And a loaded gun, easily accessible by children, in a drawer at a bedside? That to me is criminal, and devastatingly irresponsible. Negligent to the max.

 

That loaded gun is legal for home invasion purposes, but not the easy access. Get a freakin biometric safe. Problem solved. I don't believe any kid

 

would ever figure out how to defeat that safe..... Meanwhile, the heck leftists are wailing about the issue, and nothing they offer is a valid, intelligent SOLUTION. As usual.

 

But, the leftist heck kind of people publish gun owners' home addresses, and criminally insane nutjobs will murder someone for their keys and wallet, and go to their house

 

straight away, and all they have to do is find the key to a gun safe, and there they go.

 

You can not try to take away guns to stop criminal violence- criminals don't obey legalities. The black market on simple semi auto shotguns, rifles and pistols will place those

 

guns right into the hands of criminals. And where would we be then?

 

Eh.... the same similar kind of place that Australia is in. And GB. And Wales and the Philipines.

 

Stalin took guns to be able to do what he did. So did Hitler. So did Mao. ObaMao WANTS to, but can not.

 

The heck style stupid ass restrictions on types of guns, classifications of guns, arbitrary bans, wandering

 

definitions of "assualt weapons", a "national gun restritration database".... yeah.. that is right there with

 

the stupidass heck style "solution" - intimidate and make gun owners fearful by publishing their names and addresses

 

in a major newspaper. That was any kind of gun, you know. That CREATED a major security breach. It didn't solve anything at all.

 

But the heck left doesn't care. They are about control. Meanwhile, their stupidass rhetoric is about using illegal law and marxist

 

economic persecution as a weapon to outlaw guns, the same as fines for not join Obamaocare, and fines/taxes on sugar and salt...

 

and suv's. And talking about taxing mileage.

 

They will control everything they can, to tax it to fund a marxist gov direction until they can get enough power.

 

That's historically it happens. And pretending Obamao isn't like that - well, that denial is at the bottom of a river in Egypt.

[calfoxwc]

Sure, they can't take our guns. They just want to intimidate Americans into giving all of them up.

 

Or, tax them out of range of people to afford them.

 

And that is ALL GUNS, every gun.

 

Holder wasn't talking about "only assault weapons".

 

Some gun control, to them, is just a foot in the door.

 

They couldn't care less that it doesn't solve any violence problem.

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2013/01/10/eric-holder-gun-owners-should-cower-shame-smokers

[The Cysko Kid]

Unfortunately heck, there is no real solution. The genie is out of the bottle as Steve says, and there is no way to put it back in.

 

There's lots of little steps that could be taken. Better background checks. Closing loopholes, making gun owners be insured, even databases of the mentally ill, like that French douchebag lapierre suggested.

 

Personally I'd like to see states tax and legislate the gun lobby out of power much like what they did to finally bring big tobacco to its knees. Did it stop everyone from smoking? It did not, but it worked very well I don't think anyone can deny that. Being a smoker has never been more difficult or unfashionable, or expensive.

 

Also if insurance came into play as a mandatory factor I think that could only be a good thing. Look how much mandatory car insurance changed automobiles. Gone are the days of big block engines and suicide doors. Now you have five star crash test safety ratings. The point is, once insurance got involved it can be conclusively proven steps were taken to make driving and owning a car far more safe.

 

I think if the pro gun nuts got it through their thick fucking heads that its actually impossible for anyone to take their replacement penises away from their grubby little hands and that legislation to make everyone a little safer does not equal imaginary Hitler putting you in a concentration camp we would be a lot closer to finding any solution.

[The Cysko Kid]

Sure, they can't take our guns. They just want to intimidate Americans into giving all of them up.

 

Or, tax them out of range of people to afford them.

 

And that is ALL GUNS, every gun.

 

Holder wasn't talking about "only assault weapons".

 

Some gun control, to them, is just a foot in the door.

 

They couldn't care less that it doesn't solve any violence problem.

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2013/01/10/eric-holder-gun-owners-should-cower-shame-smokers

 

 

And what's the problem with that?

 

Oh yeah. Imaginary Hitler.

[MLD Woody]

There is no quick fix to the problem.

 

The problem is the type of young man we are raising. That is the problem.

 

We have a generation of young men who feel left out and their only real emotion is anger.

 

How we change that?? We could go on for weeks as to what is causing it and how to solve it, but that is the problem.

 

I don't feel left out and have more than one emotion... do... do I win?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Unfortunately heck, there is no real solution. The genie is out of the bottle as Steve says, and there is no way to put it back in.

 

There's lots of little steps that could be taken. Better background checks. Closing loopholes, making gun owners be insured, even databases of the mentally ill, like that French douchebag lapierre suggested.

 

Personally I'd like to see states tax and legislate the gun lobby out of power much like what they did to finally bring big tobacco to its knees. Did it stop everyone from smoking? It did not, but it worked very well I don't think anyone can deny that. Being a smoker has never been more difficult or unfashionable, or expensive.

 

Also if insurance came into play as a mandatory factor I think that could only be a good thing. Look how much mandatory car insurance changed automobiles. Gone are the days of big block engines and suicide doors. Now you have five star crash test safety ratings. The point is, once insurance got involved it can be conclusively proven steps were taken to make driving and owning a car far more safe.

 

I think if the pro gun nuts got it through their thick fucking heads that its actually impossible for anyone to take their replacement penises away from their grubby little hands and that legislation to make everyone a little safer does not equal imaginary Hitler putting you in a concentration camp we would be a lot closer to finding any solution.

 

Don't worry. I skipped over the other responses and went straight to this one.

 

I think this is all we're really left with: little steps that can be taken to try and minimize the violence. I agree it's like with cars: you're not going to eliminate cars or car accidents, but we've done a number of things to minimize the number of deaths - required air bags, seat belts, extra brake lights, etc. Question is, which one of those are going to work best, and which ones can pass?

 

After Sandy Hook, I'm not sure it's acceptable to say "Oh, well, what are you going to do?"

[calfoxwc]

And yet, politically, the left will ignore a reasonable response - required security of owned guns.

 

That's the main idea I could come up with. But not one appraisal of that by the left.

 

The why is obvious. Because it doesn't fit their cowardly leftist narrative, heckbunkerwise.

 

Too bad. The attitudes of the left are so similar in affect in a way - to the "anti-war" crowd back in the Vietnam days.

 

For all their fake anguish, all they really did was to raise hell with any status quo for fun, regardless of the fact that

 

they actually caused more and more deaths with their irresponsibility.

 

Sick.

[Legacy Fan]

MAke prisons a living hell.

 

Take the locks off of all the doors. Take limits off of how crowded they can get. Remove the guards form inside the prison and put sharp shooters on the outside. Leave the exits to the prisons open and mow down anyone who tries to leave.

 

DOn't police inner jail rape and killings. Bring in food trucks each day and let the savages fend for themselves. Make prison a living hell and quit crying about prisoner rights. Crime will evaporate before you know it.

 

 

Right. Because in El Salvador, prisons are now totally empty because of these conditions. No more crime!

[ballpeen]

I don't feel left out and have more than one emotion... do... do I win?

 

Of course you don't. You're perfect.

 

The point Woody, is it is young men killing the people. It's our sons.....right, I know, you don't have a son.

 

We can be as reactionary as we want, but that doesn't solve the problem. It simply puts a coat of paint on it.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

You are suggesting making liability insurance for gun owners. This is crazy. For one, criminals won't get it. Crazy people won't get it. They will still be able to get guns, easily. It will make the insurance companies happy I'm sure, because now they will be screwing over people with another product no one needs. I'm for stricter background checks, which would mean medical information for mental health issues such as manic depressive, etc. Also, opening up youthful offender backgrounds which are currently sealed after you hit age 18 I believe. Also, a 3 day waiting period wouldn't bother me. But I have to tell you, nothing is going to stop some crazy fool from walking into a school/mall/theater/airport, whatever and start mowing people down. Not unless you have the future police come and arrest people before the crime happens.

[Legacy Fan]

But back to the topic:

 

It's hard to say - hard to think like a criminal/loop-holer when you aren't one. I'm not really sure what would be a solution. What I do know is that nothing found in Feinstein's proposal would have prevented Sandy Hook. (or Aurora, or Columbine, etc)

 

Bans on mag size, weapon type, amount, etc. wouldn't really have an effect on volume of gun violence, imo. It would just shift the demographics of victim/criminal. The cat is already out of the bag, and we know (from endless data on prohibition of various vices) that criminalizing any vice just puts said vice in the wrong hands.

 

 

The "repeating" firearm has been around for well over 100 years and these mass killings have just been a phenomenon over the last 30-40 years. For me, the weapon type/size/caliber isn't the problem. So here is where I would focus my efforts. I think background checks don't necessarily need to be more extensive, but maybe a little more focused. I think many understand the trade of freedom for safety and it would apply here too. Your medical records don't remain as private anymore. Adderall, Ritalin, these scripts are a red flag. Psychiatrists should have some responsibility/culpability moving forward. They don't get to remain silent. Not to get all Alex Jonesy, but we are waaaaaay to big for our britches when it comes to what we think we know about neural pathways. Drugs for depression, anxiety, etc., only treat symptoms, and do not focus on cause. Which, to me, is dangerous when dealing with the mind. Despite being the same mechanism of action, there's a big difference in stopping a runny nose and targeting neural receptors.

 

This is a mental health issue, not a guns issue.

 

 

 

I watched a 30 min vid on Sandy Hook last night that is kind of intense. I need to dig around more to determine the validity of some of the things addressed in the film, but they are pretty scary if accurate.

 

Also, if you want to get in the mind of a clueless, deceitful member of congress, read this:

http://www.fieldandstream.com/forums/backlash-and-blowback/anti-gun-senator-shoots-intruder

[Westside Steve]

 

As I mentioned before, old buddy. I agree with George Will who asks how much money are we willing to spend on programs that will have almost 0 effect? That's the bottom line. As you've said the vast majority of gun crime and murder is unrelated to the rare public massacres. I've heard nothing substantial from either side save for some political posturing. If it's at all possible let's keep in mind that the second Amendment is not now nor ever has been about deer hunting.

So we need to move off that point and admit to ourselves that the second Amendment really is out dated.

The handgun ban a couple decades ago was found to be unconstitutional. The vote? 5 to 4. Doesn't sound like it's written in stone.

Englands ban isless than 30 years old.

Then we might move on to how to curb the gun death epidemic. I do have some thoughts about some of the disingenuous rhetorical being bandied about but I'll get to that in another post. I believe first and foremost that if we are to make a dent in the tens if not hundreds of thousands of gun crimes there needs to be serious and mandatory sentences for crimes involving guns. And we need to enforce the laws we already have.

Just yesterday I read a story about some dirt ball in a neighboring community who had murdered 1 young woman and left another a vegetable. He had a criminal record involving illegal firearms. Had there been a mandatory 10 year sentence these women would be alive and healthy as we speak. On the other hand the attorney who got him back out on the street would have missed a paycheck.

 

So there's one step that will curb gun violence.

Strict mandatory sentences for committing a crime with a gun.

 

Tell me why you (as I assume you will) disagree.

WSS

WSS

[calfoxwc]

Meanwhile, here in Ohio, background checks have increased 34 percent since...

 

AR-15's are flying off the shelves.

 

And the 2nd Amendment isn't outdated, just like the 1st Amendment isn't outdated.

 

And yes, it is about deer hunting, my friend. Partly. It's about protection of your home, your family.

 

It's about putting food on the table during any hard times, country wide, or personal economic.

 

It's about that ability, across this country, to not be disarmed by any kind of tyrant who gets into power,

 

because there are too many of us with guns. It''s about freedom, and being safe in our homes.

 

Say, Obamao and co. can do a "bailout" and send money to every gun owner to buy a high quality

 

Liberty safe for their guns. Just use the money being sent to Egypt and ObaMao's muslim brotherhood buddies.

[calfoxwc]

The left loves to use problems as currency. They can make stupid promises, for votes, and split.

 

Wail about the poor.

 

Well, the poor stayed poor during the Carter wailing about the poor, the Clinton wailing about the poor, all eight years,

 

and during Obamao's wailing about the poor. It was never about the poor. They simply lied.

 

It was about gaining personal wealth, fame, and political power. And the poor are still poor.

 

Yeah, let's require criminals buy gun crime liability insurance. dang, that's stupid.

 

And heck is worse than that. geez.

[Legacy Fan]

If we can agree on the premise that in general, laws penalize the law-abiding, not the law-breaking, we could have an honest discourse over this issue (which I believe we are in this thread). 'Penalize' can be in the form of a mere annoyance, to monetary or safety problems for those who abide by the law. I'm not so sure requiring insurance for firearm owners will have a worthwhile effect (if we are looking to lower gun violence).

 

I posted a video in another thread by a guy going by "Amidst the noise" or something like that on youtube/twitter and he makes some really good points. Violent crime (all forms) in the US is on the decline and has been for some time. Yet we are at the top of the list when it comes to per capita handgun ownership. There is a strong correlation there. LaPierre and others like to imply causation, just as Feinstein and the other fools manipulate data to serve the counter to that argument and also imply causation.

 

Here it is again ICYMI:

 

[calfoxwc]

Pretty smart guy to sum it up like that, after presenting information so clearly.

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

 

As I mentioned before, old buddy. I agree with George Will who asks how much money are we willing to spend on programs that will have almost 0 effect? That's the bottom line. As you've said the vast majority of gun crime and murder is unrelated to the rare public massacres. I've heard nothing substantial from either side save for some political posturing. If it's at all possible let's keep in mind that the second Amendment is not now nor ever has been about deer hunting.

So we need to move off that point and admit to ourselves that the second Amendment really is out dated.

The handgun ban a couple decades ago was found to be unconstitutional. The vote? 5 to 4. Doesn't sound like it's written in stone.

Englands ban isless than 30 years old.

Then we might move on to how to curb the gun death epidemic. I do have some thoughts about some of the disingenuous rhetorical being bandied about but I'll get to that in another post. I believe first and foremost that if we are to make a dent in the tens if not hundreds of thousands of gun crimes there needs to be serious and mandatory sentences for crimes involving guns. And we need to enforce the laws we already have.

Just yesterday I read a story about some dirt ball in a neighboring community who had murdered 1 young woman and left another a vegetable. He had a criminal record involving illegal firearms. Had there been a mandatory 10 year sentence these women would be alive and healthy as we speak. On the other hand the attorney who got him back out on the street would have missed a paycheck.

 

So there's one step that will curb gun violence.

Strict mandatory sentences for committing a crime with a gun.

 

Tell me why you (as I assume you will) disagree.

WSS

 

I don't necessarily, but this is not a new idea. I'd look into what Richmond did in the 90s in an effort to reduce gun crime, which involved mandatory sentences and became a template for lots of other cities. I think it was called Project Exile, or something like that.

[The Cysko Kid]

One thing that peeves me here is that the debate is about gun control. A lot of people, particularly on the right, call that banning guns in their mind. There is no banning guns. Instead let's look for a way to make everyone safer. It happened with cars, and tobacco. No reason it couldn't happen for guns. And if it makes you guys have to pay more taxes and have to prove insurance before a gun sale so be it. Too bad.

 

If you Had to prove insurance, if somebody were financially liable you'd better believe there would be a mental health exam you had to pass. And whether or not you guys like to admit it or not, all these massacres of late have been committed by legal owners of registered firearms. Not ex cons with illegal guns. Adam Lanza was the son of the legal owner whose gross negligence cost 20 children and 6 women their lives.

 

This is my focus and its better than the gun control debate which is a dead end. How to force responsibility on legal gun owners, and keep them from being legally obtained by mentally ill people with no criminal histories.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I agree with your last sentence completely.

 

I don't expect magazine size restrictions or assault weapons bans to do much of anything. They might be worth doing, and might make some small difference, but they're hardly game changers. But I think all we're talking about is stuff that affects things on the margins.

 

Stiffer penalties for gun owners whose weapons fall into the hands of other people who use them for crimes. If you're in a home with someone who is mentally ill, you should be forced to have a real conversation with yourself about how to lock up your guns or not have them at all.

 

A more extensive system of background checks to try and do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill. This is going to be pretty complicated work, but likely worth more effort than an assault weapons ban with holes.

 

As for mass killings, I think in America you can do less about that than every day gun crime. If someone is nuts and is intent on killing lots of people it's extremely hard to deter them, or stop them. Which isn't to say you shouldn't try to figure out ways to try, but it's probably hard to do.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Also, if a local school board decides that keeping an armed guard in the school somewhere is something they want to do, I think that's fine for them to choose to do that. Does it take on an additional risk, and increase the likelihood of an accident or incident? Sure. But if they're willing to accept that risk for the increased security it provides I think that's perfectly fine for them to decide that. I don't get this notion that having armed response is somehow useless.

 

What I wouldn't think is worthwhile would be to make this national policy for every school in the country like the NRA wants to do (so that we talk about something other than guns). We don't need a nationwide version of the TSA for every school in the country.

 

If local school boards want to do that, fine with me. And good luck, because it's going to be sad when that policy leads to problems and incidents too, probably after some school board somewhere unknowingly hires the wrong person for the job.

[The Cysko Kid]

Also, if a local school board decides that keeping an armed guard in the school somewhere is something they want to do, I think that's fine for them to choose to do that. Does it take on an additional risk, and increase the likelihood of an accident or incident? Sure. But if they're willing to accept that risk for the increased security it provides I think that's perfectly fine for them to decide that. I don't get this notion that having armed response is somehow useless.

 

What I wouldn't think is worthwhile would be to make this national policy for every school in the country like the NRA wants to do (so that we talk about something other than guns). We don't need a nationwide version of the TSA for every school in the country.

 

If local school boards want to do that, fine with. me. And good luck, because it's going to be sad when that policy leads to problems and incidents too, probably after some school board somewhere unknowingly hires the wrong person for the job.

 

 

The weird dystopian future that we actually live in makes it so that an appalling notion of posting armed guards at elementary schools seems like a rational solution. But what the N.R.A. fails to mention is that these shootings also happen at shopping malls, movie theatres, train stations, cafeterias, fast food resteraunts. Are we going to post an armed guard EVERYWHERE? I mean if schools want to have a well equipped and trained liscensed and bonded guard I'm all for that, but to scratch the surface of this problem you're going to have to go down the rabbit hole a little deeper. It's going to have to be a comprehensive mental health overhaul combined with new standards for gun ownership. Banning guns is a meaningless, divisive concept. It won't happen it can't happen.

[Westside Steve]

Heck you do realize that stiffer penalties for honest gun owners who allow their weapons to fall into the wrong hands isn't that much of a big deal right?

It's not useless, mind you. It may well serve to make people who have pistols lying around the house lock them up.

And you do realize you are back to talking about only the tiny percentage of public massacres correct, dot gun violence in general?

Remember the gun the kid used at Sandy Hook was stolen from his mother.

I don't suppose filing charges posthumously would be of great help.

 

I'm talking mandatory 10 years for anyone convicted of a crime with a gun.

I think that would be a deterrent in a lot of street crime which is the biggest number.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

And a question for the Liberals as well as the privacy Obsessed conservatives.

I have absolutely no problem with an in depth psychological background check for someone who wants to buy a weapon. Fine with me.

Just curious however, where do you draw the line? Is anyone who has ever been prescribed an anti depressant already disqualified?

 

But don't forget you guys freak out when I mention having DNA on file for every US citizen.

Hell we can't even get a nationwide database for medical procedures prescription drugs and psychological testing.

Will you sit still for a psychological profile For each and every citizen on file somewhere?

WSS

[Legacy Fan]

One thing that peeves me here is that the debate is about gun control. A lot of people, particularly on the right, call that banning guns in their mind. There is no banning guns. Instead let's look for a way to make everyone safer. It happened with cars, and tobacco. No reason it couldn't happen for guns. And if it makes you guys have to pay more taxes and have to prove insurance before a gun sale so be it. Too bad.

 

If you Had to prove insurance, if somebody were financially liable you'd better believe there would be a mental health exam you had to pass. And whether or not you guys like to admit it or not, all these massacres of late have been committed by legal owners of registered firearms. Not ex cons with illegal guns. Adam Lanza was the son of the legal owner whose gross negligence cost 20 children and 6 women their lives.

 

This is my focus and its better than the gun control debate which is a dead end. How to force responsibility on legal gun owners, and keep them from being legally obtained by mentally ill people with no criminal histories.

This is an absolute lie. Please stop doing this if you want to be taken seriously. Lanza stole the weapons. He was not of legal age to own them, they were not registered to him, and he took them without permission. 3 Felonies. Hard to call that "legal" unless you're an emotional shipwreck.

[The Cysko Kid]

This is an absolute lie. Please stop doing this if you want to be taken seriously. Lanza stole the weapons. He was not of legal age to own them, they were not registered to him, and he took them without permission. 3 Felonies. Hard to call that "legal" unless you're an emotional shipwreck.

 

 

You should learn to read, doctor. Specifically two lines later. If you can't read how can I take you seriously?

[Legacy Fan]

I agree with your last sentence completely.

 

I don't expect magazine size restrictions or assault weapons bans to do much of anything. They might be worth doing, and might make some small difference, but they're hardly game changers. But I think all we're talking about is stuff that affects things on the margins.

Yes.

 

Stiffer penalties for gun owners whose weapons fall into the hands of other people who use them for crimes. If you're in a home with someone who is mentally ill, you should be forced to have a real conversation with yourself about how to lock up your guns or not have them at all.

Fine with this as well. All of my weapons are locked up.

 

A more extensive system of background checks to try and do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill. This is going to be pretty complicated work, but likely worth more effort than an assault weapons ban with holes.

Completely fine with this as well, as I suggested. Not only should the person receiving the ritalin Rx have a red flag in their "file" but the parent(s) and prescribing Doctor ought to have a red flag as well. As to what the red flag means or demonstrates, that's another conversation.

 

As for mass killings, I think in America you can do less about that than every day gun crime. If someone is nuts and is intent on killing lots of people it's extremely hard to deter them, or stop them. Which isn't to say you shouldn't try to figure out ways to try, but it's probably hard to do.

Agreed.

[Legacy Fan]

You should learn to read, doctor. Specifically two lines later. If you can't read how can I take you seriously?

I think that's on you, buck. What you're writing, and what I think you want to write are two separate things. Work on that.

 

massacres of late have been committed by legal owners of registered firearms.

Lanza's mother didn't kill anyone.

 

Edit:

Holmes bought his weapons via loopholes. Online sales are supposed to be sold by FFL dealers to FFL dealers only. The onus is on both the seller and purchaser to make sure that happens. It's illegal to not follow through with it. But not always caught. Just like speeding. Or drunk driving. Both of which kill children.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Heck you do realize that stiffer penalties for honest gun owners who allow their weapons to fall into the wrong hands isn't that much of a big deal right?

It's not useless, mind you. It may well serve to make people who have pistols lying around the house lock them up.

And you do realize you are back to talking about only the tiny percentage of public massacres correct, dot gun violence in general?

Remember the gun the kid used at Sandy Hook was stolen from his mother.

I don't suppose filing charges posthumously would be of great help.

 

I'm talking mandatory 10 years for anyone convicted of a crime with a gun.

I think that would be a deterrent in a lot of street crime which is the biggest number.

WSS

 

I've already said a couple times that these are efforts to change things at the margins. As for the dead mother, the point of the legislation would be to force people like that to consider what might happen to them if their guns fall into the wrong hands, and to make sure they don't. This doesn't necessarily prevent Sandy Hook, but if that woman kept her guns in a safe that only she knew the combination to Lanza would have had to get his guns somewhere else. Problem is, he probably wouldn't have had a hard time doing that either.

 

These aren't ideas geared to stop another Sandy Hook. They're ideas geared toward stopping gun violence in general. Your idea for mandatory sentencing for gun crimes is fine. I'm just telling you that it's not new.