At least 27 People Dead, 18 of them children.

[Slash-LN]

It's actually interesting this came up because Illinois (where I live) just passed something on gun control that is getting us closer to conceal/carry. I don't remember exactly what it was but we're going the other way when it comes to gun control.
I'll be curious to see what happens now.

Also, the two high schools I went to we had armed security. One school had one guy and the other school had two guys. You could still easily get weapons in though. I was in in school suspension one day and someone smoked in the boys bathroom. They searched all us guy and two kids had knives in their pockets. To combat threats one of the schools is locked at a certain time and last I heard they either did or were going to put in metal detectors at the main entrance.

 

[Slyfox696]

It's actually interesting this came up because Illinois (where I live) just passed something on gun control that is getting us closer to conceal/carry. I don't remember exactly what it was but we're going the other way when it comes to gun control.
I'll be curious to see what happens now.

In 1835, Massachusetts passed a law that severely limited the right to travel armed: "no person may go armed with a dirk, dagger, sword, pistol, or other offensive and dangerous weapon, without reasonable cause to apprehend an assault or violence to his person, family, or property."

The key legal concept here is reasonable cause for fear, precisely the standard that gun rights advocates wish to overturn and a federal court in New York recently upheld.

Supporters of gun regulation won an important victory when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld New York State's requirement that one show "proper cause" to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun in public.

The court rejected the idea that one had a right to carry arms in the absence of a reasonable fear of imminent violence. The lead plaintiff in the case, Alan Kachalsky, said that the court's emphasis on reason is a "ridiculous interpretation of the Second Amendment." Sadly, the idea of reason has become ridiculous to some.

But champions of gun control were handed a defeat when on Tuesday, in Illinois, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the state's ban on carrying a weapon in public is unconstitutional. In contrast to New York, and against the advice of experts, Illinois did not rewrite the law to include an exception for arming oneself when there was a reasonable fear of imminent danger.

The Court of Appeals' ruling in the New York case has put us in the right direction; Illinois ought to follow New York's example.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/16/opinion/cornell-gun-control/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

 

[Mighty NorCal]

My dad carries a gun almost everywhere he goes. If an officer spotted him with his gun, or became aware he possessed it, then my father would be issued a citation for X amount of dollars and the gun would be impounded and destroyed. My dad doesn't have to go to prison, but he's been given a stiff penalty and no longer has his gun.

As for how you convince people, you do it through a buyback program. "If you turn your gun in during the first 365 days, you receive $300 dollars. If you do it in the second 365 days, you receive $200. If you turn it in during the third year, you receive $100. If you don't turn them in by the end of the third year, you will be violation of the law and subject to fines and destruction of the firearm."

I'm sure it could never be that simple (which is a problem itself), but I imagine it would go something like that. Or maybe just a one year buyback program, like Australia did.

The problem being, the majority of these folks are the drastically poor....Who will not be able to pay a stiff fine....and what happens to people who dont pay their fines?

Yoouuu guessed it.

and see, its just the way that sounds that is very unnerving for me..."if we continue to have problems, we move on to another solution(something like my idea, im guessing)"......."have problems" to me is "when more kindergarteners and first graders are shot and killed".....As I said before, how many is enough? Did we not have enough shown to us friday to take every measure?

 

[Con T.]

What does it mean to have mental illness? I have been diagnosed and properly DSM-IV coded as having some form of Attention-Defecit Hyperactivity-Disorder. Would I, then, not be able to purchase firearms?


I can only see this flying if everyone in the United States was required by law to have a mental health screening. It is common knowledge (or it very well should be) that most mental health issues are left untreated, whether it be because of the negative stigma associated with mental health or limited access to affordable mental health services. I am curious to know how many murders per year are committed in the United States by individuals without sufficient healthcare accessibility.

Just wanted to say this;

Please stop talking about mental illness as though it is the major cause of this tragedy here in Newtown.

Statistically speaking, those diagnosed with mental illnesses are no more likely to be violent than the general population. In fact, those diagnosed with mental illness are much more likely to be the victims than the perpetrators of violent crimes.

I know that you all mean well. And I, too, agree that there should be better gun control in this country, I really do. But when you place the importance on getting a gun all based on "mental illness", and you argue this would prevent all of these rampages, you are speaking of those with mental illnesses as though they are ticking time bombs.

When you speak about mentally ill people as though they are ticking time bombs that are ready to explode and take innocent people with them, you are contributing to the very stigmatization that you want to end. Well, at least that I want to end.

 

[Slyfox696]

The problem being, the majority of these folks are the drastically poor

If they are drastically poor, how are they affording expensive firearms? If they are drastically poor, why aren't they turning their gun in for cash?

....Who will not be able to pay a stiff fine....and what happens to people who dont pay their fines?

Many things can happen, actually. And it's not like the court has to require the fine all at once. It can be worked out over a period of time, even if they have to garnish wages to do it.

and see, its just the way that sounds that is very unnerving for me..."if we continue to have problems, we move on to another solution(something like my idea, im guessing)"......."have problems" to me is "when more kindergarteners and first graders are shot and killed".....As I said before, how many is enough? Did we not have enough shown to us friday to take every measure?

The problem with your solution is the negative effect it has on education, which is the reason they are there in the first place. Not only is it a distraction, not only does it draw away money which would be helpful towards education, it also will create a highly unsettling feeling amongst students, teachers and parents. Which I'm sure you're already familiar with, but it's a feeling which will be further compounded in America because we are not Iraq, and security personnel are not prominent in any other aspect of our lives.

Furthermore, what about private schools and charter schools? How would they be able to afford contracting security personnel? They wouldn't, which means they wouldn't have it. And parents who don't want their children have to go to school in a militarized zone will pull their kids out of public school and put them in private school, which costs the public school system even more money.

I understand what you're saying when you feel "if we continue to have problems" is unsettling. I wasn't comfortable saying it. But with good proof gun bans are effective, and with the incredibly negative effect it'd have on education, I just don't think it's a justified response at this time.

 

[hatehabsforever]

It seems pretty simple to me in theory although admittedly, as NorCal and a few others have pointed out, there are logistical difficulties associated with a gun control issue no matter how you attempt to proceed with it. There's no perfect solution and there's no easy way to solve the problem. And there's absolutely nothing that anyone can do to 100% eliminate gun related violence in the United States. However, the days of throwing your hands up in despair are over, or at least they should be. Something has to be done about it as the statistics are overwhelming and there's nothing to suggest that it is about to change anytime soon.

I agree with Sly in that there are lots of forms of firearms that serve no purpose in society other than to shoot other people. I cannot see why steps cannot and should not be taken immediately to get these weapons out of the hands of Joe Blow. There should be no reason why some dude can just walk into a firearms store and purchase weapons of this nature for his personal use, it simply doesn't make any sense to me. If he wants to use these weapons at facilities such as shooting ranges or whatever, there must be some mechanism whereby people allowed to go there undergo a regimented screening process, are followed up on a regular basis, and they can rent the equipment under strict regulations, go to the facility, use their equipment, return it and leave. Is this perfect, I'm sure it isn't but even though it may be able to be abused in some manner (as any legislate will be), it has to result in fewer weapons in the wrong hands in the wrong places.

A very restricted form of firearm should be available for hunters, but again, a restricted type of weapon under rigid restrictions. Sure, I guess some guy could still take his rifle which he uses for hunting and go to a school or a mall and cause chaos, but there would be fewer people with "safer" weapons, it has to be better than the status quo, isn't it?

A financial incentive to turn in your guns, that's an awesome idea. Gets a lot of weapons off the streets. Harsh financial penalties for those who break the law, excellent as well. Obviously this won't eliminate all the guns either but again, a big step in a forward direction. Sure, this wont work for everyone and ultimately incarceration may be necessary for some offenders. There has to be a way to work this out, though, which would be better than throwing your hands up in despair and suggesting there's nothing you can do.

Steps are being taken to combat illicit drugs. Are we winning the war on drugs, I guess that's debatable. But I'm willing to bet we are better off with our current efforts than we would be if the approach was: oh well, we'll never win the war on drugs anyway, the jails are too full and there's too big and daunting a problem, so let's not even try. Likewise with regards to DUI and the like. Certain people will always drink and drive, this will never be eradicated, but I'd suggest that fewer people are drinking and driving today than there were 10 years ago, due to efforts to at least reduce it. Not all DUI offenders pay their fines. Some go to already overcrowded jails. But at least attempts are being made and progress is occurring.

I don't know now families can deal with a tragedy of this magnitude, but it would be nice if these children didn't die in vain. Maybe this is the wake up call that for the love of Jesus, something has to be done. Because if not, we'll continue to have his conversation month after month after month until heaven forbid, it hits a little closer to home

 

[George Steele's Barber]

If they are drastically poor, how are they affording expensive firearms? If they are drastically poor, why aren't they turning their gun in for cash?

Many things can happen, actually. And it's not like the court has to require the fine all at once. It can be worked out over a period of time, even if they have to garnish wages to do it.

The problem with your solution is the negative effect it has on education, which is the reason they are there in the first place. Not only is it a distraction, not only does it draw away money which would be helpful towards education, it also will create a highly unsettling feeling amongst students, teachers and parents. Which I'm sure you're already familiar with, but it's a feeling which will be further compounded in America because we are not Iraq, and security personnel are not prominent in any other aspect of our lives.

Furthermore, what about private schools and charter schools? How would they be able to afford contracting security personnel? They wouldn't, which means they wouldn't have it. And parents who don't want their children have to go to school in a militarized zone will pull their kids out of public school and put them in private school, which costs the public school system even more money.

I understand what you're saying when you feel "if we continue to have problems" is unsettling. I wasn't comfortable saying it. But with good proof gun bans are effective, and with the incredibly negative effect it'd have on education, I just don't think it's a justified response at this time.

Just to add to Sly's point, you can protect a school as much as you want and it may deter a mass murderer from attacking that school. However, the mass murdered will just decide to go to a play ground, church, shopping mall, movie theater, carnival, football game, airport, etc.

I think people are taking this incident too much to heart and are forgetting that the goal should not just be improved safety for school children but improved safety on average for all people.

 

[Lee]

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/365190/Killer-Adam-Lanza-obsessed-with-violent-video-games/

They're blaming Dynasty Warriors. Fucking hell.

 

[klunderbunker]

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/365190/Killer-Adam-Lanza-obsessed-with-violent-video-games/

They're blaming Dynasty Warriors. Fucking hell.

Well of course. We can't blame him. That would imply personal responsibility for something and we can't have that.

 

[Bernkastel]

Well of course. We can't blame him. That would imply personal responsibility for something and we can't have that.

You can't blame someone for having mental illness, but you can blame that person - or a caregiver - for not taking responsibility for that illness... if that's what you mean.

 

[Slyfox696]

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/365190/Killer-Adam-Lanza-obsessed-with-violent-video-games/

They're blaming Dynasty Warriors. Fucking hell.

To be fair, the article also says, "his favourite video game was said to be a shockingly violent fantasy war game called Dynasty Warriors which is thought to have given him inspiration to act on his darkest thoughts."

...which clearly shows their ignorance and idiocy, as Dynasty Warriors is far from a "shockingly violent fantasy war game". In terms of violence in today's world, it's very far on the low end. Sure you kill a lot of people, but you do it with medieval weapons, there's no blood or dismemberment, there's no personalization to the enemy and you don't have to plot ways to kill your enemy so much as you just spam the attack buttons.

 

[klunderbunker]

You can't blame someone for having mental illness, but you can blame that person - or a caregiver - for not taking responsibility for that illness... if that's what you mean.

If he was mentally ill, which apparently he was, that's one thing. But to blame this on the video games he played? No.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I have a theory and I apologize if it is insensitive, too soon or goes against other information that I am unaware of but is it possible that his killing spree was out of sick sense of "valor"? That his mother's supposed obsession with survivalism and society falling apart caused him to take on the role of savior who would extract the people he cared about (his mother and himself) and other innocents (the children) from future doom?

Again I don't have much basis for my argument, I'm just throwing something out there I haven't heard yet. I welcome your comments and insults.

 

[Natural Selection]

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl


Petition to the White House to introduce legislation for gun control.

Seriously, guns are not the problem. People are the problem. Guns are not crazy, people are crazy.

 

[The Brain]

Seriously, guns are not the problem. People are the problem. Guns are not crazy, people are crazy.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people....with guns.

 

[Natural Selection]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people....with guns.

And forks make people fat, we need fork control.

 

[The Brain]

And forks make people fat, we need fork control.

Would you like the opportunity to edit this ridiculous statement before a lot of people read it? I guess it's too late now that I've quoted it. Seriously, this is a comparison?

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Seriously, guns are not the problem. People are the problem. Guns are not crazy, people are crazy.

Thanks for the outdated slogan. Do your Nike Pumps still fit nicely and help you jump two feel higher in the air? If this doesn't solve the problem, nothing will.

 

[Natural Selection]

Thanks for the outdated slogan. Do your Nike Pumps still fit nicely and help you jump two feel higher in the air? If this doesn't solve the problem, nothing will.

I'm white, you know I can't jump.

 

[Slyfox696]

Seriously, guns are not the problem. People are the problem. Guns are not crazy, people are crazy.

And when crazy people use guns, 26 people are murdered. When sane people use guns, people are murdered (Javon Belcher). When young people use guns, people are murdered (Columbine). When older people use guns, people are murdered. Seems as if there's one constant here.

Pull your head out of your ass. Guns are responsible for over 30,000 deaths a year in the United States. Don't tell me guns are not a problem.

 

[Natural Selection]

And when crazy people use guns, 26 people are murdered. When sane people use guns, people are murdered (Javon Belcher). When young people use guns, people are murdered (Columbine). When older people use guns, people are murdered. Seems as if there's one constant here.

Pull your head out of your ass. Guns are responsible for over 30,000 deaths a year in the United States. Don't tell me guns are not a problem.

I repeat guns are not the problem, people are. Obesity kills thousands of people a year as well and people use forks to eat so clearly going off your logic the forks are at fault.

 

[Slyfox696]

I repeat guns are not the problem, people are.

And I repeat...pull your head out of your ass.

Obesity kills thousands of people a year as well and people use forks to eat so clearly going off your logic the forks are at fault.

I'm sorry, is someone loading a fork up with carbs and shoving it down your throat? If not, your example is completely stupid.

If I pull a gun on you and shoot you dead, you had no choice in the matter. If you pick up a fork, you get to decide whether you put the food in your mouth. Completely different.


I'll say for the third time...pull your head out of your ass.

 

[Natural Selection]

And I repeat...pull your head out of your ass.


I'm sorry, is someone loading a fork up with carbs and shoving it down your throat? If not, your example is completely stupid.

If I pull a gun on you and shoot you dead, you had no choice in the matter. If you pick up a fork, you get to decide whether you put the food in your mouth. Completely different.


I'll say for the third time...pull your head out of your ass.

But that wouldn't happen, because I have guns and you don't.

How do you stop a bad guy with a gun?

A good guy with a gun.

 

[Slyfox696]

But that wouldn't happen, because I have guns and you don't.

How do you stop a bad guy with a gun?

A good guy with a gun.

Okay, Dirty Harry. Whatever makes you feel better at night.

How do you stop a bad guy with a gun? You make sure he doesn't get one in the first place. But hey, good job ignoring facts and logical arguments and instead casting about ridiculous fantasies. You represent the pro gun crowd perfectly.


You're deluding yourself if you think guns aren't a problem.

 

[klunderbunker]

But that wouldn't happen, because I have guns and you don't.

How do you stop a bad guy with a gun?

A good guy with a gun.

We have them already and they're called police. Private citizens should not be carrying weapons around and acting as a security force/people's army. To think otherwise isn't just crazy, but bordering on scary.