Idea regarding "Gun-Control".

Justin said:

Clearly the quislings are out in force today.

Click to expand...

Real "High Road" for a member of THR, much less a moderator. So much for standards.

Quoted From hso
******************
Please Read The Forum Rules

TheHighRoad exists to provide a higher grade of discussion than is found on some other gun forums so antis and undecideds can see that gun owners and RKBA advocates are not the reckless misanthropes they tell everyone we are. Personal attacks, group stereotyping, macho chest-thumping, and partisan hackery are low road and hurt all of us.

Click to expand...

I despair that my firearms rights are linked to the popular THR public stances and Adam Landza's actions and Michael Bloomberg's political machine. My children will not know firearms as I know them.

I despair that my firearms rights are linked to the popular THR public stances and Adam Landza's actions and Michael Bloomberg's political machine. My children will not know firearms as I know them.

Click to expand...

im not honestly sure what you expected....

you came here( a gun forum) to suggest some pretty radical(and lets be honest, pretty useless) gun regulations, and are shocked when the majority of people dont agree with them?

dont honestly tell me you expected us to great your ideas with open arms.

I despair that my firearms rights are linked to the popular THR public stances and Adam Landza's actions and Michael Bloomberg's political machine. My children will not know firearms as I know them.

Click to expand...

Your attitude is complicit in that tragedy. The reason your children won't know firearms as you know them is people like you not standing up for your rights.

And as for your suggestion earlier in this thread regarding the ID cards and jailing people for violations and "unauthorized" magazines, who are you suggesting enforce this? If they were successful, the jails would burst at the seems from the violators. More likely, it would end up with a lot of enforcers needing medical care and a civil war.

As I see it the problem is the anti-gun crowd, they will not comprimise, if you say manditory training is required before buying a gun, they will make sure it cost $1,000 and is only offered once per year at a remote location, with limited spaces available.

The same goes when you bring mental health into it, they will make wanting a gun a sign of a mental illness, either that or every little disorder will be a mental illness, just the other day I read a message here about one of the states in the NE considered ever going to a marriage counselor being considered a mental illness. This works out so great when you also have state laws that say you must go to marriage counselors before you can get a divorce.

I personally would have no problem with background checks and other restriction for all guns sold including private sales if they were done with no traceability, and if the only disquallifiers were a history of VIOLENT crime, or SERIOUS Mental illness of the person doing the purchase. I would also be willing to accept waiting periods between gun purchases for 1st gun only, if that time was less than a year, if this means NO waiting periods all later gun purchases. Of course the problem is in the real world it would not stop there.

I despair that my firearms rights are linked to the popular THR public stances and Adam Landza's actions and Michael Bloomberg's political machine. My children will not know firearms as I know them.

Click to expand...

Interesting...the idea that we can give up enough rights to preserve our rights.

Or is it "...my children will know firearms as I know them...but I don't care if your kids get to know firearms the way YOU know them...?" Sounds like the sort of (for lack of a better term) "duck hunter" gun owner speech that we used to hear back in the 80's. "Got no use for them killin' machines..." type of talk. I'll agree to a ban on YOUR guns, if I get to keep MINE.

Very sad. Fortunately, a dying breed.

Hammerhead6814 said:

Also, lets completely prohibit sales to individuals who have been found mentally ill in the course of their life, or who live in a home with a mentally ill person.

Click to expand...

Great way to ensure that many people avoid treatment or counseling for their problems.

Besides the RKBA issues that your proposal has, I see one huge issue: it would require Government tracking of all gun owners: who they are, what they own, etc. I, for one, do not think that the Government has any right to know what I own, especially not something that is related to an inalienable human right like this.

Scott, If it came across that I was classifying Aspergers as a mental disorder, I didn't intend that.

I was speaking in a broader, more general, sense. That these people that do these sorts of things have some sort of issue. And in lieu of banning firearms, etc... , the focus of discussion should rather be on identifying the characteristics of the person that led to the violent act. That is, we should be focused on the causation of the event rather than the method of the event.

Rocketmedic said:

Justin said:

Clearly the quislings are out in force today.

Click to expand...

Real "High Road" for a member of THR, much less a moderator. So much for standards.

Click to expand...

There's nothing not high road about calling collaborators collaborators. You and a few others have suggested measures that make the UK's restrictions look moderate.

Rocketmedic said:

I despair that my firearms rights are linked to the popular THR public stances and Adam Landza's actions and Michael Bloomberg's political machine. My children will not know firearms as I know them.

Click to expand...

So you wouldn't despair if your rights were lost under your own proposals? Because the suggestions you made on page 1 are tantamount to a near-total gun ban. Even the fudds don't go as far as you did.

"WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING!!!"

We all feel powerless about this recent tragedy. We all hate feeling powerless. Doing something, anything, helps us avoid that awful despair. Terrible, violent occurences often require action, which is why we have all been given this impulse. That emotion is what drove the heroic actions of teachers and police officers last week.

But in forming laws and policy, it is of paramount importance that we be impartial. That means setting aside our emotions and instincts, painful and vivid though they may be. We need to apply logic and reason to this problem if we are to get intelligent laws and policy implemented. Both sides of the "debate" (moreso the pro-regulation folks, at present) will attempt to use this emotion to cloud the calm senses needed for good decisions. Instead of focusing on how we feel, let's focus on fact-based, logical answers to at least these questions:

-Would a magazine limit have really accomplished anything, given shooters are usually unopposed? Does it really matter what gun, or type of gun, is available?
-Would any declaration of a person's sanity have any bearing on their future disposition?
-Would several armed police officers/guards/teachers in the immediate vicinity have had even the potential to end the attack sooner? Would this be a deterrent to a "sane" shooter in the future?
-Would a waiting period of days to months matter if shooters spend months to years planning their rampages?
-Are we ultimately, despite whatever laws are passed, dependant upon citizens following the laws for them to have any effect?
-Does a person's state of mind change, regardless of stimuli, due to genetic and congenital predisposition? Is this always detectable? Is it predictable?
-Is it right to revoke a law-abiding citizen's inalienable rights via prediciton?
-Is it worse to suffer occaisional tragedy than to suffer constant tyranny? How occaisional? And how onerous of tyranny?

I work in aviation. Every regulation in the FAAs FAR-25 book is "written in blood" as the result of some (usually tragic) design failure. Planes are now very safe; this trial-and-error process has been repeated many times to create very good designs. But I am under no illusion that an airplane will crash again one day due to an unforeseen design error. That does not mean planes cannot be trusted to carry people. The same goes for laws of any stripe; people or circumstances will always find a way around them. Laws are based on what happened in the past, so expecting them to protect us in the future is folly. If a mere law really and truly could prevent a crime, by all means pass it. But you'd be hard pressed to find one that doesn't simply deter crime.

Personally, the only firearms regulation I could get behind, from a "fact-based" perspective, is a relatively high legal age of possession; many neurological disorders rear their heads towards the end of puberty, making 18 a poor age to define as "maturity". I would be all for assisted training and use prior to this time, but again, we would be relying on parents to follow the possesion/access laws in any case (as was the case with this latest tragedy).

Firearms are "great equalizers" that can eliminate a predator's advantage over his prey; but only if the prey rises to accept that equal power. Too many people don't trust themselves enough to wield a gun, and therefore feel the only way to obtain an "equal footing" from their self-imposed low position is to disarm everyone else.

I was speaking in a broader, more general, sense. That these people that do these sorts of things have some sort of issue.

Click to expand...

If there is one thing laws should never be based around, it is vague, empty phrases like this. Stripping people who have broken no laws of their basic human rights is extremely sensitive business; we must be incredibly thorough and precise in doing so.

That is, we should be focused on the causation of the event rather than the method of the event.

Click to expand...

I emphatically agree. And even more important than causation, is what exactly our legal and regulatory structures are capable of doing to curb these attacks. After all, the "cause" of this attack may be as mundane and unsatisfactory as "he was crazy."

TCB

The President should worry about the gun related crimes in his own 'backyard' before trying to indict lawful citizens.

Every time there is a mass shooting, it is forgotten a few months later. Do any of you really think the mommies of this country are going to forget this time?

This- gun regulations- is going to happen. The mommies of this country are going to get mobilized and ensure that 'something' happens.

Their babies are getting shot up in their school rooms by very mad people and the mommies aren't going to just let it go this time.

Mock some peoples' ideas all you want, but things are going to change. Be part of the solution or mock it. Your choice.

Be part of the solution or mock it. Your choice.

Click to expand...

I intend to. As I said elsewhere:

What shall we propose to ACTUALLY ADDRESS this problem?

1) Promote carrying of weapons. Defense is the responsibility of the individual.
2) Eliminate "Gun-Free Zones"! Especially schools. They are a travesty and a lie. Remove them utterly.
3) Better and effective training of teachers to react to crises like this. We should make it abundantly clear that part of a teacher's sworn (Sworn? Sure, why not?) duty is to ensure the safety of their charges. As a teacher you will instruct -- AND YOU WILL PROTECT.
4) Allow teachers and school staff to be armed.
5) Armed guards at schools
6) Better/tighter security at schools

Click to expand...

Rocketmedic said:

My solution is simple: We keep current gun laws as-is, with some major additions.
1. Mandatory shall-issue firearms licenses, Constitutionally protected, but mandating initial training, testing and psychological screening. Loss of the license means loss of your right to own weapons. Licenses removable for essentially the same reasons that we have in place, plus mental incapacity. All gun owners, current and future, would be forced to take the license exam or lose their weapons.
2. Revolvers and pistols with less than 10 rounds will be available essentially as they are now, with presentation of a valid firearms license as the only acceptable ID for the background check. Long rifles with 10 or less rounds would be similarly unaffected. Weapon styling would not matter. Why? Because it's a lot harder to kill 26 people with a revolver or a neutered AR-15 than it is to do it with a 30-round magazine.

11+ rounds: Ownership essentially the same as before, but with a $100/round extra tax for the magazine. So, basically, let's say a 16-round XD. That's going to be a $650 magazine, the $600 due to the extra 6 rounds. A 30-round AR magazine is going to be more than $2000- prohibitively expensive. These magazines would have a tax mark authorizing them. Prior magazines would be subject to taxation and would be exchanged by the government.
3. Ammunition sales will be taxed at a further 2% of cost. This will fund mental-health treatment.

Click to expand...

I wish you were joking about this, but clearly you're not. To answer your question about why many of us feel that these kinds of restrictions are absurd, I think we first have to look into the fundamental root of violence. Naturally, people are the cause of violence, not guns. Whether or not a gun has a 5-round or 30-round magazine is pretty largely irrelevant to that debate. At the end of the day a gun has no conscience, and its user determines how it will be used. Similarly, a can of gasoline and an oily rag can't decide to burn down a school, and a pile of fertilizer mixed with fuel oil can't decide whether or not to detonate in a cafeteria. A car can't stop its driver from drinking before going 100 mph through a neighborhood, and a knife can't decide what object it is thrust into.

We've tried the AWB/high-capacity magazine ban in the past, it failed miserably. It in no way impacted crime, or the actions of criminals. A new ban would have no greater impact on crime, even if the ban was merely disguised as a ludicrous "tax" on magazines. First, millions of these magazines exist (maybe billions). Those magazines will be out there, whether laws are passed or not. Second, the whole "high-capacity" idea was invented either by a journalist or a politician. The Glock 17, for example, was designed to take a 17-round magazine (hence the name). Such a magazine is a "normal capacity" magazine. There's nothing wrong with such a design. Regardless, magazine capacity is still largely irrelevant when you're talking about an armed coward shooting at unarmed elementary school children. A guy with a revolver and no moon clips could have killed just as many of those innocent and defenseless children. As such, your proposal seeks to place SERIOUS restrictions on MY rights, with no tangible benefit whatsoever. Frankly, a guy with a sword could have wreaked as much havoc on such a vulnerable population. Once again, the problem is with the evil person, not with the object he uses to commit his crime. We need to treat the disease, not eliminate a symptom.

As for your proposed ammo tax, that also demonstrates misplaced blame. Ammo didn't cause this psychopath to kill people, nor did guns. I'm not responsible for this one idiot's actions simply because I want to go to the range and shoot. Nor do the 100,000,000 other gun owners in this country (who did no wrong) carry the burden of this crime. I'm not responsible for funding mental health treatment through my hobby, when my hobby harms no one. That's not even to mention the fact that the ownership of the items I use for my hobby is constitutionally guaranteed to not be infringed. If the government wants to allocate more funding to the treatment of severe mental illness, I'm perfectly fine with such a decision. But, I'm not willing to foot the bill for these services through my hobby, especially when the problem is endemic within our society. If I need to pay for these services, so should everyone else. Gun owners don't bear the burden for solving a societal problem of severe mental illness.

If a gun wasn't used at that school on that day, something else probably would have been. Stop feeling guilty for being a gun owner, and don't buy into the misplaced blame that the media has attempted to thrust onto your shoulders. You are not responsible for that a-hole's actions, nor are any of the rest of us!


Since you are seeking solutions, here are a couple:

1) Do a better job of making sure that the severely mentally ill (the dangerously mentally ill) are not able to purchase guns. One news story I already read suggested that this killer was denied when he attempted to purchase a firearm. The system worked on that level.

2) Protect our schools with full recognition of the valuable assets we have at these locations. Arm teachers, place armed officers at the school, and turn a soft target into a much harder target. A person shouldn't walk into a school to commit a shooting without facing an armed confrontation from someone who will kill him if he tries to kill our children.

3) Forget about giving up your rights due to panicked cries from those who know nothing of violence, and even less about guns. Realize that good people outnumber evil people, and recognize that stopping these people in the act is within our power. I do believe that if everyone was armed, a coward like this week's killer (who's name should be forever forgotten) would never have been able to complete such a heinous crime. Arming everyone is probably not the best bet, but arming the law-abiding and decent citizens of this country is a great (and free) means of obtaining better "homeland security".

4) Stop encouraging future killers. Do not give these cowards the media attention they seek. You may notice that I've not mentioned this pathetic loser's name once in any of my posts on this subject, and will only speak of him in ridicule and scorn. Too many troubled young people see that they can gain fame as they end their lives by horrifically ending the lives of others. Don't give them that attention, don't give them that satisfaction. I'd be thrilled if the media changed their approach and only ever referred to this individual as the coward he is. How many of you remember the names of the Columbine shooters? How many of you remember the names of a victim of that shooting? The losers who commit these crimes deserve no lasting fame. They deserve our scorn, and deserve to be forever forgotten.

America is missing the point.
We have all been blessed with these awesome liberties and freedoms.
If the faculty at the school was allowed to carry, this monster would not have killed 20 kids.

The problem is, some of us are.afraid of.this great responsibility and when bad things happen, we look to our elected officials to legislate and .regulate. To control.
YOU CANNOT CONTROL A PSYCOPATH GHROUGH LEGISLATION

Throughout history this trend can be seen and it's disgusting.
We're losing our resolve and we need to change it.

If I or any one of us were there, I know darn well we would have put the threat down because we are good men and good men do what is necessary.

1) Do a better job of making sure that the severely mentally ill (the dangerously mentally ill) are not able to purchase guns. One news story I already read suggested that this killer was denied when he attempted to purchase a firearm. The system worked on that level.

Click to expand...

Accepted as a decent idea, but it would not have stopped this from happening. Let's give no "sorta-feel-good" fodder to the other side.

2) Protect our schools with full recognition of the valuable assets we have at these locations. Arm teachers, place armed officers at the school, and turn a soft target into a much harder target. A person shouldn't walk into a school to commit a shooting without facing an armed confrontation from someone who will kill him if he tries to kill our children.

3) Forget about giving up your rights due to panicked cries from those who know nothing of violence, and even less about guns. Realize that good people outnumber evil people, and recognize that stopping these people in the act is within our power. I do believe that if everyone was armed, a coward like this week's killer (who's name should be forever forgotten) would never have been able to complete such a heinous crime. Arming everyone is probably not the best bet, but arming the law-abiding and decent citizens of this country is a great (and free) means of obtaining better "homeland security".

Click to expand...

Can I get an AMEN! Very, very well said.

Rocketmedic: there is danger in freedom. There is danger in life. No politician or salesman can fix that, though all will promise it.
You talk about gun rights but you don't really mean rights, because what you are describing is PRIVILEGE. Your arguments are not based on logic but based on fear and emotion. The *need* to do "something" in the wake of this tragedy rather than doing the right thing which may be doing nothing at all.
You can't legislate safety. Our founding fathers warned the future generations that a time would come when people would want to trade their rights for safety and being taken care. This is a delusion. No one can guarantee your safety. The mechanic could sabotage your car. The baker could poison your sweet-rolls. Your spouse could smother you in your sleep. The fact they haven't yet is because they haven't chosen to. You can't predict or have a guarantee on that.
A tragedy has occurred and you come to us with your solution, perhaps well intentioned even, but this solution doesn't solve the problem.
There are people who want to be able to fix things that will never be fixed. Murder is a bad thing, we have many laws regarding it and many solutions have been proposed yet it continues because of evil men.
Don't punish the law abiding because you can't fix the criminals.

"Scott, If it came across that I was classifying Aspergers as a mental disorder, I didn't intend that."

But it is. Look in the DSM-IV, it's 299.80.

The DSM-V is due out in May.

www.disabilityscoop.com/2012/12/03/psychiatrists-approve-dsm/16878/

To all the "gun ban compromise" people out there, please think about things some more. Gun laws are not the answer. This kid broke many of them anyway.

Anybody who kills children is by definition mentally ill. By the way, it is already illegal to sell a gun to a mentally ill person.

As for future prevention, every school needs internal and perimeter security. That means armed guards at school all the time, when the kids are there. And even that will not stop this kind of stuff in the future, but hopefully lower the death tolls and discourage people from trying it.

Who, when you’re that young and trying to pay for school or rent, buys an arsenal?

Click to expand...

Um, I do. I am 23 and have just finished college. I have worked 3 jobs at once to afford my "arsenal" among them are "assault rifles", BUT I have been shooting since I was eight with my father.

The problem with your proposal is that the analogy does not work. Driving is a privilege not a right. I DO NOT want my gun ownership to be a privilege to be revoked at any ornery LEs leisure.

Oh since we are on this analogy, cars kill more people per year then guns. --Cars are evil, lets ban all cars--

And Rockmedic, I am sorry but I hate your idea and you may have just given some gun grabber bad ideas.

By the way, it is already illegal to sell a gun to a mentally ill person.

Click to expand...

Ehh, not exactly. Someone who has been committed involuntarily. Plenty of people with various mental illnesses may own firearms lawfully.

... cars kill more people per year then guns. --Cars are evil, lets ban all cars--

Click to expand...

Just for a talking points ... cars kill more KIDS just in the US, EVERY SINGLE DAY, every single year than this guy killed one day. Where's the outrage?

RX-178 said:

You know, according to I think Ynet news, the shooter was described as having the following traits.

Asperger's Syndrome, a fascination with Japanese culture, and regular playing of the game Dynasty Warriors.

Well you know what? I've got Asperger's syndrome, I grew up partially in Taiwan where there's a lot of crossover with modern Japanese culture (I'm even a lifelong anime fan), and I own every single Dynasty Warriors game, from 2-6, which is where I think the series jumped the shark.

The news outlets say that his mom took him target shooting regularly. Well, my dad took me target shooting regularly.

Want to add another one? I was bullied severely in school, and I still have nightmares about a classmate from back then climbing on my back and forcing my face into the sandbox until I lost consciousness.

It seems like the only difference between me and Adam Lanza is that I /DIDN'T/ go out and murder over 20 innocent people.

NOTHING about his mental condition took away free will. He CHOSE to commit a heinous, cruel, unforgivable, and unmistakably evil act.

Nothing about my mental condition has taken away my free will. I have NEVER chosen to murder people.

Click to expand...

+1. I also have Asperger's, but I am NOTHING like Lanza. I would have gladly put myself between him and those kids, and done everything in my power to stop him. As a kid, I was bullied, and my father took me shooting a lot in my teen years. Oh, and i collect guns. But I am nothing like him, and would have given my life to stop him.

Rocketmedic "@ MG Mikael: You are very, very wrong. You are also the reason that we will see a ban on civilian ownership of at least some firearms in the not-so-distant future."

Click to expand...

I respect your right to the 1st Amendment, so you can say what you want. But why can't you and others like you (who promote compromise with the gun control crowd) respect my right protected by the 2nd Amendment?

Unfortunately I already live in an area where there is a ban on civilian ownership of certain firearms. I live in C[r]ook County, near Chicago and guess what I had nothing to do with the assault weapon ban in place here. But people like you who say "eh, if we can't beat them let's join them" so you compromise on one thing and then another and before you know it you're gun rights are so controlled that your freedoms are fewer then the restrictions.

The streets in Chicago run red with blood every single day as countless people shoot each other, and guess what?......those gun restrictions don't work because apparently you're forgetting that the very definition of criminal is someone who breaks the law, hence why would they care that there is no concealed carry or that they need a FOID card to possess a gun here. What is more laws and more restrictions going to achieve; when only those like myself and others, the law-abiding, going to follow in the first place?

An assault weapons ban already exists in Connecticut...

..am I the only person who realizes this in the country? It did NOTHING and a reintroduction of the federal law would do NOTHING. I just read it and it is almost IDENTICAL to the Federal AWB. http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/glossary/assaultweapon.htm