Catholic Online Forum

Jim,

Medical Treatment is the leading cause of Death in US

http://voices.yahoo.com/medical-treatme ... 29598.html

_________________
Bob C

Bob, this may be true but given this statement in the linked article . . . how, then, can they know how many deaths are caused by medical treatment?

_________________
In Christ,

Jim B

I will consider your position if stated with firm, well-thought-out, quiet reasoning. Hateful diatribe, ad hominem attacks and shouted rhetoric don't impress.

It doesn't matter which cause of death numbers exceed those of death by shooting, it's the guns that the government must eliminate to achieve its ultimate goal. From the number of gun sales I've been reading about lately this administration seems to have, excuse the pun, shot itself in the foot in that regard. I would have probably bought a gun myself if I could safely handle one, I no longer can due to my Neuropathy and Arthritis; sold my hunting rifles off a few years ago for safety when I realized my condition was getting worse. Still have a couple of black powder rifles I can bench shoot, even the Brady Bunch would not call them assault weapons.

_________________
BobA

From what I've read on the legitimate news, not to be confused with the three major networks, the Mother and Sons were part of this fringe Prepper movement, she had taught the kids to shoot anything and everything from an early age; they had stockpiled all manner of supplies, guns and ammunition. Of course the networks have been calling them "collectors" of guns, wouldn't want any responsibility to go to the perpetrators and detract from the anti-gun message.

_________________
BobA

What keeps occurring to me is ideas that likely would not have made a difference in the Newtown murders, but might do something for a safer environment.

I'd need to read up on what exactly the laws currently are, of course. I'm not a gun owner and my parents were not, so it's not a subject I'm well-versed in. To some degree, I expect my "bright ideas" are already in law (or are the type of laws that are mildly useful applied to people who are already law-abiding but do little to solve issues of guns that are already illegal or smuggled).

One point would be that each individual gun sold would have to have a test firing (recorded by some suitable law-enforcement agency) in which the subject bullet with its distinctive markings from the barrel of the subject gun (if all those forensic-lab dramas are to be believed) is preserved in a database. This could be compared to evidence (bullets) recovered in some crime to identify the gun. It seems to me that currently, I only ever read stories of such evidence matching a gun known to be used in a previous crime.

This would have companion laws requiring a gun owner to follow-through on some sort of end-use certificate and mandatory reporting (in the event of their selling a gun, rendering it inoperable, or it being stolen from them) - and - any mechanical work sufficient to change that distinctive "fingerprint" (machining the barrel, perhaps) requiring a new certified bullet test.

A second point would be that any guns when not in the direct personal possession/supervision of the licensed owner (meaning on their person or in their line of sight, not "I know where it is - it's in the drawer of my bedside table") be kept in a locked case or have individual disabling locks.

_________________
Rob

You may find this of specific interest to you..... http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-la ... setts.aspx




Already done at the factories, test firings sent to FBI for database collection, I do not know when this started however.



Common Sense would have any legitimate gun owner reporting his gun as stolen.



Not all states require guns to be licensed. Florida requires a license only to carry concealed. This is one problem that is universal. In the 50 states there are 50 sets of laws regarding the ownership, and right to carry those firearms. FYI, according to the Brady Center for gun control Massachusetts is the 3rd strictest.

Most responsible owners secure any firearm (unloaded) in a safe or other suitable location, that is not in use. In my house the long guns are in locked cases with trigger locks installed, except my carbine which is "handy". The handguns are all in the safe unloaded (except 1), then there are the two pistols that my wife and I carry as a matter of course, they are loaded and with us. On the rare occasions I have young guests in the house those pistols are either locked up with the others or put on my belt tunder cover as if I was outside the house.

_________________
Bob C

For general information.

The Gun Laws within the us

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws.aspx


by drilling down you can find a specific state.

_________________
Bob C

I do not think so. I would be interested in a citation for this.


There are plenty enough irresponsible gun owners.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

I did not find a citation beyond the ATF experimenting with this. Apparently Ballistic Imagine in not yet ready for prime time. S&W does keep a database at the factory, I asked.




I think I am responsible, I suspect most of us are. Unfortunately not all of the owners are responsible.

_________________
Bob C

None of this prevents crime it merely assists in solving crime. There are already in place gun laws requiring waiting periods between purchase and actual delivery, criminal background checks before delivery is allowed, mandatory training and additional background checks before a permit to carry is issued, registration at the time of purchase (loophole is purchase through a gun show or private sale) and recording of ammunition purchases. No Law Will Prevent Crime. period. Like locks, laws are only intended to keep honest people honest, criminals by definition have no regard for laws.

_________________
BobA

Are gun control enthusiasts looking to prevent only mass murders or all murders? The latter will never happen, certainly not by gun control, unless the big pink elephant in the room is recognized, which many gun control enthusiasts, the majority being in the secular left, WILL not recognize. That is, there is an absence of grace. Without grace, we human beings are extremely prone to depraved acts. Without grace, and without guns, Cain killed Abel; empires and tyranny and fear were built by the sword; the lawlessness of the dark ages was rampant; the strong could rob, rape, and kill the weak without danger to themselves.

With history as a guide, what do gun control enthusiasts REALLY want to achieve? If they really want to reduce the number of murders, they are barking up the wrong tree. And climbing that tree will only lead to more tyranny of the strong and evil over the weak and the good. I find it significant that Jesus did not advocate for arms control, but rather for the renewal of hearts, which the presence or absence of certain killing tools will neither affect nor effect.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

I don't have an answer on this issue but here are some questions.

1. I don't think anyone believes that regulations on gun sales will bring and end to sin, or to murder. But I don't see this as a reason for doing nothing, supposing we had some helpful course of action open to us. Having policemen doesn't end sin, either, or judges and prisons. We are just doing what we can to prevent or punish rationally. So the question on gun regulation to me is, is there a rational improvement we can make?

2. Guns as the 2nd amendment, insurance against a tyrannical government- I accept what many have mentioned, the 2nd amendment when it was created had this purpose, not hunting. But as others have said, the issue has become irrelevant because of the equipment and training of the military. If the government ordered the military to act against American citizens, one of two things would happen; either the army would refuse to obey, or the army would win. It would not matter what weapons you have or I have. Therefore, it seems to me, we should not decide the availability of assault weapons based on fear of our government. Why not base it on making the most rational response we can to our present situation?

As to answers, I'm still thinking, but roughly: I start with this, clearly some individuals who should not have advanced weapons are getting them. We could work from the positive side, making a list of people who ARE allowed. Sellers would only sell to people on the list, and yes, the government would know who they were, unless the NRA wants to do this as a public service. We could work from the negative side, as we seem to be attempting, making a list of who CANNOT buy guns. We would have to do better at getting people on the list, and better at imposing the rule on all sellers, holding sellers responsible for any buyers who were on the list.

I'm not saying we should attempt perfection in this world. I'm asking, couldn't we do better than this?

_________________
Charles MacKenzie

"For nature is one with rapine, a harm no preacher can heal;
The Mayfly is torn by the swallow, the sparrow spear'd by the shrike,
And the whole little wood where I sit is a world of plunder and prey."
-Tennyson

Well, yes, that is a reasonable statement. However, when I have people posting on my Facebook page the need to take action to ensure this doesn't happen again, I wonder how far they are willing to go, and what other evils will arise in such a futile attempt. "Doing something" only makes sense if what you are doing is the right thing, without ulterior motives, and if you are attacking the source of the problem. It seems during the "wild west," when everyone had a gun on his hip (for personal protection, not for hunting), you didn't have mass murdering of children and other innocents as intended targets. It's not the guns then. It's something else, and THAT something else will simply manifest itself in another equally deadly way if we do not seek to combat it. Gun control enthusiasts, many of them anyway, seem to deny its existence or at best ignore its existence. The problem is, it will only get worse.

A local (liberal-leaning) editorialist in our paper put it best. Not only did he call for a pause in all the immediate seeking and advocating for this or that solution, he called for all to do the immediate thing that IS in our control. He called for us to really love our children, not just in the wake of this depravity, but for all time, because loving children (as opposed to "loving" guns or "loving" sports or any other kind of "loving" inanimate, non-human being, thing or idea) is much more likely to prevent the formation of monsters in the first place.

It particularly bothers me when men of the cloth fail miserably in advocating this approach, calling parents specifically and forcefully to task, and instead lend their waning credibility to the cause of removing an important means of self-defense, a legitimate right, from the majority of responsible, law-abiding people. Again, many look for solutions primaily in laws, rather than in the changing of hearts, from which come good and evil. It's why the law given on Mt. Sinai could not save and did not reform men.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

Charles,

After this recent tragedy, and the Presidents speech last night I believe there will be a knee jerk reaction and there will be changes to the ways that persons can purchase firearms and there will be mandated modifications to what can be purchased.

I felt that this would be part of the President's agenda anyway, but what happened in Sandy Hook has IMO accelerated that agenda.

What I would like to see happen is persons who actually know what they are talking about get involved. Let's get the Secret Service to head the panel, they are after all the foremost experts on security in the nation, The ATF who is charged with regulating Firearms anyway, and maybe the FBI (but I'm not sure about them). The problem with that is they all work for the president, and those people all tend to be very closed mouthed about their business. The political talking heads on both sides of this issue will want their day in front of the microphone.

I think that every politician involved in the discussion should be required to reveal their own personal ownership of guns....of course that won't happen. Keep in mind that many of these "Gun Haters" all travel with their own armed security.

I have seen here on this forum stated that the 2nd Amendment really isn't applicable anymore because the US Armed Forces couldn't be defeated by a Civilian Force. Well that may be true, but look at Syria, and US Civilians are far better armed.


How do you determine who should NOT be allowed to purchase a Firearm? There are already restrictions based on age, arrest records, and Mental Health. The leak seems to be a lack of proper reporting on Mentally Incompetent persons. Who determines that? Patient Confidentiality comes into play..frankly I don't have an answer.

Keep in mind that the shooter at that school broke the law in about 40+ different ways would another law have made a difference?

Lastly IMO the NRA will not be helpful in a quest for an answer, they are a single issue organization and I doubt they will be swayed from that. I am not a member or that organization.

_________________
Bob C

Little doubt the Second Amendment will be rendered inconsequential by this tragedy; even though they have nothing to do with this event, the right to carry laws may also be overturned. Once again the Law will swing in favor of the criminal; law-abiding citizens will be trampled by the courts, again.

I truly suspect we could very soon see the First, Second and Fourth Constitutional Amendments fall or be rendered impotent, possibly in 2013 but almost certainly in the next four years. All we need is one SCOTUS Justice replaced with a radical liberal, Obama has the potential to replace three.

_________________
BobA

Care to wager on that? I don't bet much, but this could bolster my son's college fund substantially.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

Watch gun sales go through the roof.

_________________
Pax et Bonum


Schultzz

They will, no doubt. The manufacturers will play up the threat to gun rights to boost sales. The gun media will help. It was hilarious when I went to a gun show to get some ammunition just after Obama was elected. On a Friday afternoon at 3pm, the line was a hundred yards long.

So was the other line.

How much did Obama do about guns during that administration?

I am mildly irritated that the NRA Range Facebook page was taken down (presumably voluntarily). I needed some info from them about the full-automatic shoot next week.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

Well Jeff, consider what Obamacare and the HHS Mandate are doing to the First, consider what the politicians, you know those guys who write the laws, and a huge manic mass of constituents are attempting to do to the Second and consider what the TSA, FBI, and Drone-flying local police are doing to the Fourth. Under a Constitution respecting administration and at least balanced if not conservative SCOTUSI would agree there is no danger however this administration, which has nothing to lose by the way, has demonstrated time and again it considers the Constitution a mere inconvenience. I hope your son get's to go to indoctrination, er college.

_________________
BobA

Probably a good idea. Their page would have gotten insane.

This sort of event brings out the weird in people, definitely. They had to evacuate the St. Rose of Lima Roman Catholic Church during Mass on Sunday because of a threat to kill people. (This is the church where they were having vigils, and several of the murdered people were parishioners). Hard to fathom somebody hoaxing those people.

_________________
Grace

As to the past, let us entrust it to God's mercy, the future to Divine Providence. Our task is to live holy the present moment. - Saint Gianna Molla

Jim,

Interesting statistics though the website I referenced above specifically went through accidental deaths and firearms were near the bottom....so the arguments against gun control because of accidental deaths don't have much weight.

However, the poisoning deaths refer to all of them, may include overdoses...depending on how they define poisoning and surely includes all the unfortunate children who die of poisoning. The majority are no doubt accidental and since there are relatively few accidental firearm deaths, the rate of death from them is virtually all homicides.

_________________
Valerie Garcia
vals1990@yahoo.com

"Listen, O my son, to the precepts of thy master, and incline the ear of thy heart, and cheerfully receive and faithfully execute the admonitions of thy loving Father, that by the toil of obedience thou mayest return to Him ....." St. Benedict

Bob C,



That issue was settled by the Supreme court in the ruling resulting from the lawsuit against the ban in D.C. The ruling stated that the founders did not intend to mean only militias. So, it would seem clear to me that while certain restrictions and regulations may be required, they can't be stopped altogether and any group cut out of the pool who can buy will bring lawsuits arguing that there are constitutional right to bear arms based upon that ruling by SCOTUS and that their rights are being abridged. So, the precedent is there.



Well, I have one. From the NIMH:



So if we eliminate all who have ever suffered a mental illness, which is impossible unless everyone self reports, then 9.5% of the population will never be allowed to own a gun, at any time in their life even if their mood disorder was treated for six months, resolved and never occurred again.



Ever hear of a person with bipolar committing mass murder? However, I would not want a gun to be in the hand of a person in an dsyphoric mania/hypomania who is raging and possibly psychotic, to simply have a gun in the home because of being temporarily insane. They won't be able to plan a mass murder of the type that occurred Fri, it would take too much calm and rational (in it's way) planning to execute. So, restricting those who have ever been impatient with bipolar 1 disorder may or may not be rational.

What about impatient for depression? According to a sociologist I read who studies the issue, most mass murderers suffer from depression but is it major depressive disorder? How many people in an episode of major depression even have the ability to concentrate enough to mass murder and yet there are depressives who sleep very poorly and have a restless energy. When depression begins to lift it is the most dangerous time for suicide, the person is still depressed but now more functional. For those who seem motivated to mow people down because for some reason they want to take people with them, that would be an issue or people who want to suicide by cop. I find that one a tough call especially since the majority of those with major depression don't go impatient. My relatively severe mental illness has never resulted in hospitalization.

Should mental illness facilities be required to send all patient information to a national registry? I have a problem with that and yet if a doctor was required to make a call as to whether a person should be reported, they're going to report to save themselves from a lawsuit down the line. Again, most seriously mentally don't mass murder.



Schizophrenics do sometimes commit violent acts...the shooter in Tucson was schizophrenic and had the mental capacity to execute his crime but I have not read if he was psychotic at the time, I don't think so but don't remember but how much was mental illness and how much a person not suffering in the moment from their illness but just being a person capable of committing evil because of a lack of regard for humans...the Tucson murderer was strongly in favor of abortion, though the NY Times reported him as a zealous pro-lifer.

I don't have a problem with a schizophrenic not having a gun even though there is far more crime against the mentally ill than perpetrated by them.

I have often been in conversations with people who have destroyed relationships with their behavior during manias/hypomanias and there is often violence...in the form of reckless driving, lack of concern for others, destroying things in the home and even attacking a loved one but in a long conversation with several people with bipolar 1, most all said that somewhere inside there is a place where they know they should not hurt others, even in psychosis but there is planning murder and murder in an episode, I can see not wanting a person in an episode be able to grab a gun.

The bottom line is most of this would require self reports, if they commit a crime later they can be charged with whatever the penalty is for misrepresenting themselves when applying for a permit. Otherwise it would require a massive intrusion into the mental history of every person ever suffering from mental illness and I don't want the government to know I have one when I have always had the inner resources to not even emotionally hurt those around me.

You've applied for permits...does it ask you if you have a mental illness or only if you've been impatient for mental illness? I have long been considering owning a gun. If I were asked if I had a mental illness and lied, then even if I shot and killed someone in self defense, I think I could be charged with a felony for obtaining the permit with a false report. It's very disturbing to me.

_________________
Valerie Garcia
vals1990@yahoo.com

"Listen, O my son, to the precepts of thy master, and incline the ear of thy heart, and cheerfully receive and faithfully execute the admonitions of thy loving Father, that by the toil of obedience thou mayest return to Him ....." St. Benedict

One more time: It's about getting the guns, no logical reason needed. The lamestream media has been flooded with everything from legislation demands to confiscation demands all weekend with very few, including politicians, talking about understanding and fixing the real cultural problems of which the weapon is only a part. Like most gun owners, I have been around and owned guns most of my life and never once had the thought to go out and shoot anyone. It isn't the guns, it's a mental and/or societal problem and unless we fix that no law will help. As those in other countries have shown, no gun-no problem just choose another weapon.

I'm afraid as this country drifts further away from religion and deeper into a culture of death and human disregard the worse this will get.

_________________
BobA

BobA,



I agree, and fear that the drift is irreversible. All of the talk is on the second amendment, rather than the contempt we as a society have for human life, and how that contempt is nurtured. We need to hasten the preaching of the gospel to all corners of the world in order to welcome the end of time sooner rather than later.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

Obama is a community organizing opportunist who plays supposed victims against supposed evildoers and or oppressors.

I see the victims being touted; however, have set to so the evil selfish gun owners being ridiculed --SO, I think we are not quite there yet...

As long as the argument is about inanimate guns I think Obama's efforts are non starter simply because he is not demonizing a group YET....

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

Washington is trying to keep the public focus on guns however all their activity is toward gun control which affects gun owners not guns, there is even some groundswell talk about constitutional changes. Gun owners are demonized by association: Guns = bad::Gun Owners = bad.

_________________
BobA

Obama stated pretty much the same platitude. We? What can 'we' do better -control ourselves OR control 'them'.

Do 'we' legislate such control?

This 'we' did not contribute to the tragedy -I do not believe in collective salvation NOR collective guilt THEREFORE 'we' has no need to do better.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

Well... I had already stipulated up front that my ideas might be the type that are "mildly useful applied to people who are already law-abiding but do little to solve issues of guns that are already illegal..." - so we are in some agreement there.

I disagree in some of the other points.

Yes, it'd be a better world if we could prevent crimes instead of having to solve them. That doesn't change the fact that solving those crimes which do get committed is a good thing (for a number of reasons).

I also disagree with the premise that this would not prevent crime. I think it has some potential to prevent crimes and tragedies. Yes, a criminal has no regard for law. An honest person, however, might not take sufficient care in their custody of their weapons if their personal standards aren't sufficiently rigorous. If law established a particular standard

_________________
Rob

Sorry, nodding off at the keyboard.

If law established a particular standard, a higher standard... paired with the prospect of stiff criminal and/or civil penalties for noncompliance... that might lead to some behavioral changes, heading off some crimes.

_________________
Rob

I tend to agree. In this matter specifically and generally we talk of a law that declares murder illegal, punishes murderers, removes murderers from society and all combined tends to prevent murders -this law being authentically premised upon the inalienable individual right to life and that which necessarily flows from such --the right to defend oneself.

The government is but an agent acting for individuals when [it] defends them from murder. Here the government failed WHILE at the same time limiting individuals from protecting themselves e.g. a gun free zone.

Is the answer to limit further individual right to self protection?

Yes the illegality of murder is universal -HOWEVER --the obvious must be stressed as to actual applications of any preventive remedy should one be found -that this is a local matter with local laws and individual peculiarities e.g. a matter where subsidiarity should apply. As such -a call for a national centrally based solution seems absurd to myself.

In my opinion, what we see in microcosm is similar to what was seen in Arizona on a macro scale as regards illegal immigration and the threats posed by such. Arizona had enough and decided that since the federal government was not protecting them that they would protect themselves. The federal government said no... -you are not allowed to protect yourselves -it is 'our' job...

The cry from the left seems to echo this same big government sentiment -what can we do better to protect those we will not allow to protect themselves?

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

We definitely need another assault weapons ban. The AR-15 which was used and is a civilian "M-16" has no place, and now, finally many strong gun supporters are agreeing.
Also, we need stricter regulations on multiple/high powered clips and to close loop holes in gun shows and other events.
Stricter background checks and waiting periods for all guns could help too.

It's common sense really, you don't need an assault weapon to hunt/protect yourself.

What do we think of the heightened security measures in some schools?

From my Facebook page:

[Mrs. Smith]
10 hours ago


Johnny's school went on lock down today. In the middle of a lock down drill, a teacher noticed a man dressed in full camo on the school playground. The school went into real lock down, and the police were called. The man said he was trying to bring in his falcon (I didn't know people still did that!). Too suspicious after Friday's events, so the man was arrested. I'm glad all the children were safe!
Like · · Unfollow Post

[Mrs. Jones] likes this.

[Mrs. Jones]
scarey
5 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1

Jeff Stevens
Paranoid
4 hours ago via mobile · Like

[Mrs. Radergast]
Knew some people who did falconry when we lived in Ohio. Police should be able to check out
his story pretty easily. Hope that is all it is and he wasn't some nut job. Scary Times!
3 hours ago · Like · 1

[Mrs. Smith]
Jeff I'd rather paranoia on the school's part than someone hurt. Come on, he should
know better than to be on a school playground, during school hours, dressed in full camo. The man may be honest and innocent, but he isn't too bright.
11 minutes ago via mobile · Like

Jeff Stevens
I'd rather live in a free society where I don't have to worry about being ushered off public land because people overreact to extremely rare tragedies. Why couldn't a teacher just walk up to the guy and say "Hey, what's up? Can I help you?" And say that if he doesn't have business on the schoolyard, it might be best if he came back not during school hours.

"BUT HE MIGHT HAVE A GUN!" You know, everyone might have a gun. Of the millions of kids who have grown up in the last twenty years, a hundred have died to school shootings. It's terrible. But it's probably a hundred MILLION kids who have grown up in that time. It should not result in us being paranoid about every adult who is at school. We are changing our lives around a nation of three hundred million because of a few isolated tragedies. It's irrational.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

Jeff,

I think many are rushing over a cliff in the name of safety.

There is a meeting at my kids' Catholic school on Wednesday. Judging from all of the Facebook postings on the parents' page, all kinds of outlandish things are going to be proposed in the name of safety...whether or not they have to do with preventing a gunman from killing children (e.g. no longer allowing children to play on paved areas of the school grounds during recess and instead opening up the muddy athletic field to them (so that the sod needs to be replaced every year and the shoes become unwearable, I suppose )). But I don't dare try to reason with these moms, because I would "be against children's safety!"

It's one reason why I suggested a period of silent mourning on my own Facebook page in order to let cooler heads prevail. Nothing decided on in the next 40 days, for instance, is going to prevent another such evil act already planned from occurring. Yet rushed solutions in the heat of the moment could have lasting negative effects for decades. People need to think.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

Laws do not deter criminals, especially those who are insane or obsessed to any degree. The more laws we enact the more innocent, law-abiding citizens rights we curtail. The enactment of laws typically excludes those who enact them, they will continue to be armed and employ armed guards who wiull also be exempted; enforcement of law is typically subjective so only those without influence will be subjected to the full impact of the law; finally, criminals don't give a hoot about laws, they will continue to get and use firearms only now they will be assured there will be no resistance. I don't need another unelected pencil-necked bureaucrat subjectively regulating yet another one of my freedoms.

It's time to get off this "government protect me" kick; government does not protect, it deprives and restricts the innocent, subjectively punishes the guilty and sometimes punishes the innocent as well.

_________________
BobA

So "laws do not deter criminals?" This is a very scary point of view that many of my NRA "gun loving" friends and even family share. It's a total preposterous and dangerous position and in my opinion totally wrong. We do need STRICTER Laws indeed about GUNS. NO ONE needs an assault rifle to hunt or protect yourself.

You keep that thought and keep ceding more of your rights and freedoms to the government, don't give it a second thought or any thought at all. Ask yourself; if laws deter criminals why are the jails and prisons so full that we can't build new ones quickly enough; why do all our police constantly complain they are undermanned and out-gunned and finally; why do we constantly need to add more laws to address issue already addressed by laws? Specifically to civilian weapons; with millions in homes already, including so-called "assault" weapons why is the danger of death by shooting near the bottom of the statistics?

_________________
BobA

By definition, a criminal is someone who breaks a law, one who does not respect the law. Therefore, the law is obviously not a criminal. Law is simply a means for judging behavior.

What deters crimes are people's own preventative actions that are done more often without the mandate of a law. And what is scary is that so many people believe more restriction on freedoms will make them safer.

I'm not a gun owner. But I want the freedom to purchase one if I determine I may need one to prevent a crime against me or my family.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

Why? When has any law-biding citizen gone nuts with an AR 15. Why limit my freedoms I have done nothing wrong.

Background checks already occur, and at least in Florida there is a three day waiting period unless you have a concealed carry license.

And lastly if we are going to have this conversation lets get the terminology right......it is a Magazine not a Clip.

_________________
Bob C

I wonder if those who would ban guns also support the war on drugs and going back to the days of prohibition. Because a war on guns will also be needed when all law-abiding people turn in their guns and the criminals who, remember, don't follow the law and are not deterred by the law in the first place, keep their guns of any stripe to wreak havoc on an unarmed citizenry. We'll even need to take the war outside of the U.S. borders to stop gun running from more lawless states, like Mexico.

Yah, right. And the war on drugs and the days of prohibition didn't really deter anyone from smuggling drugs into the country, or anyone from using drugs or getting drunk. Keep that in mind when we make war on guns. Where there is demand, there will be supply, no matter what freedoms are trampled to try to limit it.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

Sadly I get the impression that there are several people in Washington DC gleefully rubbing their hands together and saying Finally!

_________________
Bob C

Never let a good crisis go to waste. Isn't that what Rahm Emmanuel said?

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

Yes exactly

_________________
Bob C

As to that particular incident, Jeff, I'd be very much surprised if the law in that town is different than the law in most places that I'm aware of. During school hours, the school grounds* are essentially NOT public grounds about which one can wander at will. If one has business on the school grounds, one reports to the office first. "Isn't too bright" is a charitable description.

* assuming they are the school grounds, as implied in the excerpt, as opposed to a public park that abuts the school.


As to your general question... I had dinner last night with some friends - teachers and a principal (from 3 or 4 different schools, different age groups). There was definitely a heightened awareness of security Monday - review and drilling on protocols and emergency response, increased visibility.

Heightened security (well, some protocols and hardware that might improve security) has been a reality for years. Even the quiet, low-crime suburb in which I grew up - for years now my old grade school has had the outer doors secured when not arrival & dismissal time, and an camera intercom between the office and front door (and that's just the stuff I know about from casual observation). I used to think that was over-the-top, now I'm glad they have it.

What boggles the mind now is how we used to have 5th and 6th graders on "safety patrol" with our little white harnesses and badges. We'd be on duty during arrival and dismissal. Some postings still seem mundane, like hall monitors and watching the lines of students assemble in the gym for bus routes at dismissal. Some have seemed bizarre for years now, such as being posted as crossing guard (at an inner point where the school's driveway intersected with the pedestrian path (Oh - the liability!). What came to mind this past week was how we used to be door monitors and someone would get posted at the field in back, where a paved path came through a wooded lot.

_________________
Rob

I think you have been drinking the propaganda koolaid and attempt to dispense it here.

The "assault weapons" sold to the public you refer to are nothing more than long rifles that resemble automatic weapons the military uses. They do not fire in automatic and as such are functionally the same as any other long rifle "hunting weapon".

The call to rid the nation of assault rifles is nothing more than fear mongering.

Do some research for yourself if you do not believe me.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

Considering you just voted for Obama I would be surprised if you were still not drinking the koolaid.

I pray that you will hopefully see the light sooner than later for your sake, the sake of your posterity and the sake of us all.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

Do you know what an "assault" rifle is? Can you describe one? Have you ever gone hunting for big game; Elk, Moose, Bear?

_________________
BobA

I am not convinced this is the case.

First of all, laws clearly do deter some people from becoming criminals. The threat of punishment certainly dissuades many from doing things that are illegal.

Second, when something is illegal, it becomes more difficult to acquire. It also becomes more expensive to acquire. These barriers decrease the availability of the item in question, and less people acquire them, to a certain point. As you get closer and closer to eradicating access to something, it gets marginally more difficult to eliminate more of it.

The upshot is that in places like Canada, with more restrictive gun laws and a very well armed neighbor next door, I am told that it is MUCH more difficult to acquire an illegal handgun than to acquire illegal drugs.

A VERY dedicated, VERY resourceful criminal will still get a gun; no doubt of that. But I don't think most criminals are dedicated and resourceful. They are criminals of opportunity. I note that most (all?) of these school shooters acquired their guns legally, but they were young. The young tend to have less dedication and resourcefulness than people who are older. It is not clear to me that they would have gotten guns to do these horrible things even if they were illegal.

That said, banning guns is impractical right now. The most you could do, and it's a stretch, is ban manufacture and sale for high capacity firearms. That won't drop crime for a decade at least or more, because there are so many out there already. But it might be a good start toward a long-term solution.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

As I'm sure you're aware, and are trying to point out to our friend, almost no one actually owns an assault rifle, because sale of new automatic weapons to civilians has been illegal since 1986. And the ones that existed before 1986 are EXTREMELY expensive.

The targetting of assault weapons is political and silly. There is absolutely no difference in the lethality of this:


and this


In the public's mind, the top one is an "assault rifle" and the bottom one a hunting rifle. They are, in any regards to lethality, almost exactly the same.

However, if you put a 30-round magazine in either one, its lethality increases dramatically. And I'm not sure that's worth the risk, as a society.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

Not to nit-pick but if a criminal had been deterred by a law he/she would not be a criminal. Like I said; laws like locks are designed to keep honest people honest.

I don't know about your neck of the woods but it is not a problem buying a firearm around here, doesn't require VERY much dedication at all. Strict gun laws may make the purchase slightly more difficult but only in the case of a registered firearm; I'd estimate that at least 30% are not registered. The incidence of stolen weapons will certainly increase in a ban making plenty available on the black market.

I'm glad you realize banning guns is impractical, not just now but at any time. I'm amazed that you think any additional gun laws will have any positive impact on crime. The military style rifles have a certain appeal to some; possibly due to the rapid-fire action, media hype and PC gaming genre but let me assure you, given a real need I can inflict a tremendous amount of damage nearly as fast with a bolt or lever-action hunting rifle, a pump shotgun or a revolver. Banning a style of weapon will merely drive the criminals to another style of weapon.

We must find a solution to the psychological and cultural problems to solve this, banning the tool is not going to get us very far.

_________________
BobA

I remain convinced that some people do not become criminals in the first place because of laws. That means they won't buy illegal guns. That means they will not have illegal guns when a moment of passion strikes to do something truly foolish. Barriers we put in place to inflict harm on others are good things, on the whole, assuming they are not disproportionate.


You cannot do as much damage with a bolt action or lever action rifle as a semi automatic. If you could, the world's armies would never have upgraded to semi-automatic weapons because for many years bolt action weapons were much more accurate. A revolver is inherently limited to 8 rounds, usually less. That means more reloads, more time between reloads, which translates to less havoc and more opportunity for people to escape or overpower a shooter.

Usually people committing crimes with firearms are untrained and unpracticed. If they are trained or practiced, it is minimal. The weapon is frequently a limiting factor on damage.


True. We banned automatic weapons (practically) and they simply use semi-automatic weapons. This leads to a precedent that if we ban semi-automatic weapons, they will switch to bolts, levers, and pumps. We ban those, they switch to single-shot. And with each, they do less damage.


Of course. Restrictions on guns are not THE answer. We have to change the culture. But changing the law is likely to take far less time than changing the culture. And nothing says we can't do both.

_________________
Jeff Stevens