Connecticut massacre fallout

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i find it odd that a poll is posted, but the poster doesn't vote...


there should be an immediate ban on all private sales. all sales MUST involve a thorough background check. all physicians who have a patient that they feel is a danger to society MUST immediately report them. all felons, all that have restraining orders and the like against them, should be kept in databases. those databases must be accessible by registered dealers. also, if someone bought a gun, and then subsequently is arrested and convicted, or has a restraining order placed on them, they should be flagged for confiscation of firearms. married to a felon, no guns. parent of a felon that lives with you, lose your guns. child of a felon that lives with you, no guns.
if you own guns and wish to sell them, they must be consigned thru a licensed broker. wish to hand them down thru a will, the inheritor must be cleared for ownership.
anyone who attempts to illegally purchase a firearm that is flagged should be arrested for attempting to illegally purchase a firearm. they know if they have a felony on their record that they can't own them.
gun shows-no background checks, no sales.
auctions that have guns-no check, no sale.

none of the above changes the ability of a law-abiding citizen from owning a gun, or several guns.

Background checks are vastly overrated as a deterrent IMO. I agree that they should be a requirement but unless there is a obvious smoking gun they are pretty much not dq'ing many other than the obvious.

I'm not a lawyer and didnt stay in a Holiday Inn express last night but I think a few of your suggestions like the Doctors and databases open to gun dealers may be illegal. Who would Doctors report the dangerous patients to? How would you be able to determine what is crazy and what is dengerous crazy?

The felon restrictions are nice for the media and for politicians looking to make points but felons are probably the group most able to acquire firearms by non-legal means.

The number of people who attempt to illegally acquire guns through legal means has to be a small number right?

I get where you are going with this but there are millions of guns out there already and like illicit drugs it just isnt that hard to get your hands on them if you have the desire and cash.

[cal828]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Background checks are vastly overrated as a deterrent IMO. I agree that they should be a requirement but unless there is a obvious smoking gun they are pretty much not dq'ing many other than the obvious.

I'm not a lawyer and didnt stay in a Holiday Inn express last night but I think a few of your suggestions like the Doctors and databases open to gun dealers may be illegal. Who would Doctors report the dangerous patients to? How would you be able to determine what is crazy and what is dengerous crazy?

The felon restrictions are nice for the media and for politicians looking to make points but felons are probably the group most able to acquire firearms by non-legal means.

The number of people who attempt to illegally acquire guns through legal means has to be a small number right?

I get where you are going with this but there are millions of guns out there already and like illicit drugs it just isnt that hard to get your hands on them if you have the desire and cash.

I think she should have said mental health professionals instead of doctors. Actually, the Brady Law already provides for "Court ordered dangerously mentally ill persons" to be added to the background check database. Not sure how that works, but I think that most states, if not all require that a person have a court hearing before commitment to a State Hospital and I think that they must be found to be a danger to themselves or others for the commitment to occur. I am guessing that the court then has them added to the database. Having said this though, this does not seem to cover the persons that a therapist might just think are dangerous like the Aurora, Colorado shooter. I think these persons should be in my opinion added to the database.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Background checks are vastly overrated as a deterrent IMO. I agree that they should be a requirement but unless there is a obvious smoking gun they are pretty much not dq'ing many other than the obvious.

I'm not a lawyer and didnt stay in a Holiday Inn express last night but I think a few of your suggestions like the Doctors and databases open to gun dealers may be illegal. Who would Doctors report the dangerous patients to? How would you be able to determine what is crazy and what is dengerous crazy?

The felon restrictions are nice for the media and for politicians looking to make points but felons are probably the group most able to acquire firearms by non-legal means.

The number of people who attempt to illegally acquire guns through legal means has to be a small number right?

I get where you are going with this but there are millions of guns out there already and like illicit drugs it just isnt that hard to get your hands on them if you have the desire and cash.

Background checks probably need to be more in depth. As for doctors reporting, perhaps to the atf? Just like a medical doctor reports you to the dmv if you have unexplained blackouts...you get your drivers license suspended for a year in that situation.
As for illegal purchase, thats why i said ban all private sales.

[SOREHOOF]

So banning private sales will stop criminals from acquiring guns? Punks in Chicago have killed more people than the Taliban this year. I don't think they are going to gun shows. More gun control equals more crime. It hasn't been mentioned much in the media because it doesn't fit the anti-gun narrative being belched out, but the guy that shot up the mall in Oregon didn't stop until he was confronted by an armed citizen.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

So banning private sales will stop criminals from acquiring guns? Punks in Chicago have killed more people than the Taliban this year. I don't think they are going to gun shows. More gun control equals more crime. It hasn't been mentioned much in the media because it doesn't fit the anti-gun narrative being belched out, but the guy that shot up the mall in Oregon didn't stop until he was confronted by an armed citizen.

If a crook buys a gun on the street, isnt that a private sale? Yew, it is. Can you prevent all illegal sales? No. But right now, anyone can sell a gun to anyone. No check done, no records, nothing.
I have no problem with guns personally, i own many. I may get a concealed carry permit. But these laws arent for people like me. Theyre for people who find a gun for sale in the paper, so they buy it. Maybe they have a record, so they know they wont be able to buy one in a store. So they buy where they know they dont have to fill out paperwork. Not all felons in possession stole a gun, or bought one 'on the street'.they can just answer an ad. Banning private sales imo is common sense. Its an amazingly easy way for anyone to buy and circumvent regulations.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

So banning private sales will stop criminals from acquiring guns? Punks in Chicago have killed more people than the Taliban this year. I don't think they are going to gun shows. More gun control equals more crime. It hasn't been mentioned much in the media because it doesn't fit the anti-gun narrative being belched out, but the guy that shot up the mall in Oregon didn't stop until he was confronted by an armed citizen.

So more guns are the answer? Just arm everyone?

Something tells me when the second amendment was passed, they didn't think society would erode to the point of people shooting up malls and schools. Time for us as a society to understand we suck and make the necessary changes and I don't see how the rational answer could be to arm more people.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

So more guns are the answer? Just arm everyone?

Something tells me when the second amendment was passed, they didn't think society would erode to the point of people shooting up malls and schools. Time for us as a society to understand we suck and make the necessary changes and I don't see how the rational answer could be to arm more people.

Less guns are not the answer. More guns? Everything has a practical maximum, after which you get diminishing returns for a good effect, or a negative effect emerges. Medicine for a condition is great until you overdose and it becomes a toxin.

Think of many people you know. Do you think the good guys, if armed, would hurt anybody? Even the guys you might know who get into barfights, would they suddenly start whacking people, knowing full well that they will be locked up or executed? More guns would not inspire non-criminals to undertake criminal acts. But, in the hands of would-be victims, it would inhibit the plans of those who have already decided to undertake a criminal act. Predator and would-be prey would then be on more equal terms.

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/201...provide_a.html


joey, i suggest you read the above. maybe it will give you some perspective on where some of us are coming from, and will show that certain laws have done what they were intended to do.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Less guns are not the answer. More guns? Everything has a practical maximum, after which you get diminishing returns for a good effect, or a negative effect emerges. Medicine for a condition is great until you overdose and it becomes a toxin.

Think of many people you know. Do you think the good guys, if armed, would hurt anybody? Even the guys you might know who get into barfights, would they suddenly start whacking people, knowing full well that they will be locked up or executed? More guns would not inspire non-criminals to undertake criminal acts. But, in the hands of would-be victims, it would inhibit the plans of those who have already decided to undertake a criminal act. Predator and would-be prey would then be on more equal terms.

More guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have guns would absolutely increase death and injuries by guns. Of that I have no doubt.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

More guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have guns would absolutely increase death and injuries by guns. Of that I have no doubt.

A lot of statistics tend to say otherwise about gun control laws.

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less...uns+less+crime

Ironically, we all pretty much agree with you about "those who shouldn't have guns." It's just that punishing everyone else for fear of a few, who, if criminals, will get them anyway, is not something gun owners are interested in contending with.

Track the nutty people better and make sure THEY never get a gun.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Background checks probably need to be more in depth. As for doctors reporting, perhaps to the atf? Just like a medical doctor reports you to the dmv if you have unexplained blackouts...you get your drivers license suspended for a year in that situation.
As for illegal purchase, thats why i said ban all private sales.

Another of the challenges is, what gets defined as a mental illness severe enough to warrant a handgun restriction? More people die from suicide via gunshot each year than homicide. So does anyone who's ever been diagnosed with depression get a no-gun rule due to fear they'll kill themselves with it? Or just men, because they're more likely to use guns. I'm exaggerating for effect, of course, but that's the challenge- trying to find a mental health rule of thumb for what is a very individualized condition.

I do think greater resources for treating mental ill health. Which would be good, not just for dealing with gun violence, but all kinds of situations.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Another of the challenges is, what gets defined as a mental illness severe enough to warrant a handgun restriction? More people die from suicide via gunshot each year than homicide. So does anyone who's ever been diagnosed with depression get a no-gun rule due to fear they'll kill themselves with it? Or just men, because they're more likely to use guns. I'm exaggerating for effect, of course, but that's the challenge- trying to find a mental health rule of thumb for what is a very individualized condition.

I do think greater resources for treating mental ill health. Which would be good, not just for dealing with gun violence, but all kinds of situations.

I dont know. Maybe its like porn, you know it when you see it?

i don't know. i'm just trying to suggest some things that may or may not bear thinking about. of course whatever happens-we have to understand that life, no matter how much we try to make otherwise, is still random. sometimes sickeningly so. i just know i don't want to read or hear about another mass shooting like this one..any of them for that matter.

[cal828]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Another of the challenges is, what gets defined as a mental illness severe enough to warrant a handgun restriction? More people die from suicide via gunshot each year than homicide. So does anyone who's ever been diagnosed with depression get a no-gun rule due to fear they'll kill themselves with it? Or just men, because they're more likely to use guns. I'm exaggerating for effect, of course, but that's the challenge- trying to find a mental health rule of thumb for what is a very individualized condition.

I do think greater resources for treating mental ill health. Which would be good, not just for dealing with gun violence, but all kinds of situations.

Present law seems to indicate a person has to have already demonstrated that they are dangerous to themselves and others. What if a person indicates in therapy sessions that they fantasize about harming others? Do they actually have to harm someone to be put on the database? Therapist for the Movie theater shooter in Colorado indicated that she was afraid he might do what he eventually did. Must have been something that gave her this impression. Maybe the definition should be expanded to include even threats to other persons from persons that have mental illness, but illness that has not yet presented itself as psychosis.

[Danzig]

why am i surprised??

it seems westboro baptist 'church' has plans to protest at sandy hook elementary.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...GlvbnM-;_ylv=3


After the Westboro Baptist Church posted on Twitter its intention to picket the Newtown, Conn., site where 26 shooting victims died, including 20 children, hackers retaliated.

The reason for the protest? Reportedly because Connecticut has legalized same-sex marriage.

Shirley Phelps-Roper, a spokesperson for the Topeka, Kan., Westboro church and daughter of church founder Fred Phelps, put on Twitter, "Westboro will picket Sandy Hook Elementary School to sing praise to God for the glory of his work in executing his judgment."

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

why am i surprised??

it seems westboro baptist 'church' has plans to protest at sandy hook elementary.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...GlvbnM-;_ylv=3


After the Westboro Baptist Church posted on Twitter its intention to picket the Newtown, Conn., site where 26 shooting victims died, including 20 children, hackers retaliated.

The reason for the protest? Reportedly because Connecticut has legalized same-sex marriage.

Shirley Phelps-Roper, a spokesperson for the Topeka, Kan., Westboro church and daughter of church founder Fred Phelps, put on Twitter, "Westboro will picket Sandy Hook Elementary School to sing praise to God for the glory of his work in executing his judgment."

The Constitution garantees freedom of speech..Maybe we should re-visit that and the 2nd amendment...said a million times, too many fkn nuts in the country...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

The Constitution garantees freedom of speech..Maybe we should re-visit that and the 2nd amendment...said a million times, too many fkn nuts in the country...

i just wish they'd lose their exempt status. maybe that would put a bite in their finances, and they wouldn't be able to make these trips. it's just a shame that these morons think they have something meaningful to say. they should be classified as a hate group. how in the world are they able to stay a 'church'??

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Danzig

why am i surprised??

it seems westboro baptist 'church' has plans to protest at sandy hook elementary.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...GlvbnM-;_ylv=3


After the Westboro Baptist Church posted on Twitter its intention to picket the Newtown, Conn., site where 26 shooting victims died, including 20 children, hackers retaliated.

The reason for the protest? Reportedly because Connecticut has legalized same-sex marriage.

Shirley Phelps-Roper, a spokesperson for the Topeka, Kan., Westboro church and daughter of church founder Fred Phelps, put on Twitter, "Westboro will picket Sandy Hook Elementary School to sing praise to God for the glory of his work in executing his judgment."

I don't know if theses online petitions every actually go anywhere, but if you believe so, here is one that aims to classify WBC as a "Hate Group" and revoke their 501(c)3 tax-exempt status.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...group/tNVz4V7Q

They needed 25,000 signatures by 1/15/2013, and so far they received 38K in two days.