The horror of this massacre is indescribable. After something like this happens, we should all be mad, and we should all question what could have been done to prevent this.
Questioning flaws in gun laws and lack of help for people with mental illness is what we should be doing. There is no reason that this should ever happen again, and it physically hurts to imagine losing anyone's child at the hands of a murderer holding a gun.
Why is your right to own a gun more important than my right to life?
Bingo.
Because I'm not going to kill you with my gun.
This argument doesn't make sense to me. Especially when a patented go to answer for abortion is "if you don't like it don't get one". If you don't like guns then don't own one.
There are plenty of responsible gun owners who obtain their guns legally, use them legally and responsibly and keep them under lock and key when not in use.
Why is your right to own a gun more important than my right to life?
Bingo.
Because I'm not going to kill you with my gun.
This argument doesn't make sense to me. Especially when a patented go to answer for abortion is "if you don't like it don't get one". If you don't like guns then don't own one.
There are plenty of responsible gun owners who obtain their guns legally, use them legally and responsibly and keep them under lock and key when not in use.
Because you having an abortion won't kill me.
A gun can.
Unable to even.
********************
You don't understand the appeal of Benedict Cumberbatch / think he's fug / don't know who he is? WATCH SHERLOCK. Until you do, your negative opinion of him will not be taken seriously.
Yes, there are responsible gun owners out there who do everything right and are not going to shoot someone without a damn good reason.
Unfortunately, the people who are not responsible gun owners are ruining it for everyone.
You know how to fix that? Don't let them own a gun until they can prove they are a responsible gun owner.
You can't drive a car until you take a test to prove you can drive.
You can't vote until you register. (and voting is a right listed in the Constitution)
Very few of us are saying that we need to ban guns outright, but there needs to be more safeguards to prevent the innocents from becoming victims.
Yes, the mother of this jerk was the legal gun owner and it's not known how he obtained the guns. But that's not the case in all mass shootings.
When are people going to realize that the 2nd Amendment should not be the end-all be-all of gun ownership? A good number of people were more than willing to give up their rights after 9/11 for the sake of safety and security, but 20 little kids are killed and people are saying "Well, it's not the gun's fault, so keep your hands of my Glock, a'ssholes."
Seriously?
Unable to even.
********************
You don't understand the appeal of Benedict Cumberbatch / think he's fug / don't know who he is? WATCH SHERLOCK. Until you do, your negative opinion of him will not be taken seriously.
I only commented because the phrase "why is your right to a gun more important than my right to life" came across to me as people shouldn't have guns. That I don't agree with.
I bet the majority of people whose guns were stolen or taken to commit violent acts would have said the exact same thing.
Maybe, maybe not. I don't know other people's situations but I do know how we take care of our guns.
I just think it's a pipe dream to say take away all the guns or ban guns etc. Guns do exist and guns are always going to exist it's not something that can be gotten rid of now.
I have to say, if I ever hear someone say teachers are overpaid again, I think I will go berserk. I can't think of many other people in this world that would willingly take a bullet for kids that are not their own.
In order to have a reasonable debate about gun control, you sortof need to understand weapons.
As of this afternoon, law enforcement reported the CT shooter had a sig Saur and glock in the building when we was shooting. An assault rifle was found in the vehicle but was not used in this case. We are talking about small handguns he was usingand Glocks and Sig Saurs are two of the most common types of handguns issues to police officers. When I was a police officer, I carried a 40 caliber Glock, and my husband was issued a Sig Saur with his department. Semiautomatic does NOT equal a Rambostyle gun that can fire off 200 rounds in seconds.
Semiautomatic means that a round bullet does not need to be cambered prior to each shot. The first round must be chambered, which is that action you see when someone pulls the top part of the gun back on a handgun. Also, with semiautomatics, with a glock, for instance, a certain amount of pressure is needed to pull the trigger back with the first shot, but subsequent shots will require less pressure if you don't let the trigger go the whole way back out. if you Subsequent rounds are chambered via a magazine, which some people call a ammunition clip. There are limits to how many bullets can be held in a magazine for civilians, but people still find ways to illegally alter magazines. Even in a legalcapacity magazine, it is fairly easy to drop an empty magazine, put in a new one, chamber a round and keep shooting. Most handguns are semiautomatic and have been for a long time. If you are banning semiautomatic handguns, you are banning just about everything but a revolver. You would still get shotguns thoughwhich, although they require a shooter to chamber the rounds, are able to be used from further away and are generally more accurate for novice shooters. The only benefit is that they are big and hard to conceal like a handgun.
Criminals always have and always will have access to guns, and theirs are more powerful and dangerous than what police officers have. That is not to say that much much more can't be donebut a kneejerk ban on any and all guns will not solve senseless acts like the CT shooting. We need stricter laws on stolen weapons and crimes committed with a weaponthe penalty should not be the same for stealing a legally registered gun from its owner as it is for a stolen flatscreen tv. There needs to be a massive overhaul in our mental health systemthere was a time when people with severe mental illness were routinely instutitionalized in a sanatorium for their whole lives and not walking among the population. I would never want to go back to those days, there is NOT enough being done to care for those with identified conditions on an ongoing and consistent basis and not enough to identify those that are at risk and exhibiting signs of mental illness. Is there room for additional gun control or bans on certain weapon types? Perhaps. But that step, In the absence of others, will not solve the problem.
Murder has been around since the beginning of time, and unfortunately will never go away. What has changed is a percieved increase in massacares that show a depraved indifference for human life. Why? We need to understand that to solve the problem. Is it our media's ability to broadcast events in real time and create a sensation that can make damage people think that they are, for a period of time, someone. even if that someone is a monster. Is it that in this age of cybereverything there is less overall human attachment and interaction that would provide people with more empathy and compassion towards innocent victims and prevent these massacares? What makes one murderer shoot only the target of his rage or Percieved problem, like the elementary school teacher in Coudersport, Pennsylvania that walked into a church during the service and shot his exwife, the organist, in front of the congregation, and another shooter go and shoot a room full of children that couldn't have possibly done anything to him personally? What is creating these people who are so broken that they likely would lash out and kill their loved ones before committing suicide themselves, but are now adding the step of taking scores of innocent people with them. Why? and how do we stop THAT?
I really think that question needs to be addressed and a simple gun ban does not do this. Again, I'm not saying that there isn't a place for gun reform, but to cry out for that, and that alone, and fail to see that is only a tiny part of the problem doesn't solve this problem, and doesn't offer any real potential for preventing this type of act in the future. it is a complex problem with complex factors and deserves way more than a simple solution.
USA Today while the author is progun, the newspaper is not your typical conservative outlet, which would lead me to believe they fact checked his article before they published it, though after yesterday's continual gaffs...https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2002/05/09/ncoppf.htmAdvocates of "reasonable" gun laws need only look at Europe
to see what the future holds. Europe has everything American guncontrol
proponents favor, but the three worst public shootings in the past year all
occurred in Europe. All took place in socalled gunfree "safe zones." With
violent crime rising, European police complain that strict gun laws have not
impeded criminals' access to guns.Around the world, from Australia to England, countries that
have recently strengthened guncontrol laws with the promise of lowering crime
have instead seen violent crime soar. In the four years after the U.K. banned
handguns in 1996, gun crime rose by an astounding 40. Since Australia's 1996
laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed
robberies rose by 51, unarmed robberies by 37, assaults by 24 and kidnappings
by 43. While murders fell by 3, manslaughter rose by 16.Guncontrol advocates conveniently ignore that the
countries with the highest homicide rates have gun bans.Another paper posted from Harvard Lawhttps://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdfThe information did not cutamp;paste well, but after the name of the country, the number listed is the murder rate per 100,000 people in 2002 all after the enactment of the strict gun laws and then the second number is the rate of gun ownership.Its interesting that Luxembourg has such a high murder rate when there is 0 gun ownershipNation Murder Rate Rate of Gun Ownershiussia 20.54 [2002] 4,000Luxembourg 9.01 [2002] c. 0Hungary 2.22 [2003] 2,000Finland 1.98 [2004] 39,000Sweden 1.87 [2001] 24,000Poland 1.79 [2003] 1,500France 1.65 [2003] 30,000Denmark 1.21 [2003] 19,000Greece 1.12 [2003] 11,000Switzerland 0.99 [2003] 16,000Germany 0.93 [2003] 30,000Norway 0.81 [2001] 36,000Austria 0.80 [2002] 17,000And another, where the US, Canada and Great Britian the two countires most used to compare the US with. https://www.saf.org/journal/16/thefailedexperiment.pdf Unfortunately, these Draconian firearm regulations have totally failed. The public is not any safer and may be less safe. Police statistics show that England and Wales are enduring a serious crime wave. In contrast to handgundense United States, where the homicide rate has been falling for over 20 years, the homicide rate in handgunbanning England and Wales has been growing. In the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000.
Police statistics show that violent crime in general has increased since the late 1980s and, in fact, since 1996 has been more serious than in the United States. The firearm laws may even have increased criminal violence by disarming the general public. Despite Britains banning and confiscating all handguns, violent crime, and firearm crime, continue to grow. ....Obviously, crossnational averages are irrelevant to this endeavour. This paper does not address, for example, whether the Canadian average for a particular crime rate is higher or lower than the United States or England. Such patterns speak to historical and cultural differences, not the effectiveness of recent firearm legislation. Only changes are pertinent to the question of interest. If the homicide rate was low before the firearm law was passed and it continues to stay low, how can we credit the firearm law with causing the low homicide rate?
TABLE 1: An International Comparison of the Use of Guns in Violent Crime Violent Crime
Homicide
Robbery
Suicide
Accident
United States 2001
26
63
42
56
1
Canada 2001
35
31
14
20
lt;1
Australia 2001
1 est
14
6
12
NA
England/Wales 00/01
1 est
9
4
2
NA
https://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gunhomicidesownershipworldlistThe key facts are: The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer 54.8 per 100 people But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people Puerto Rico tops the world's table for firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides 94.8. It's followed by Sierra Leone in Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis in the CaribbeanNow, I know that statistics can be manipulated depending on the political slant of the writer,nbsp;which is why I tried to use statistics provided by people outside of the US. I actually do believe in stronger gun controls. But I do not believe thatnbsp;banning gunsnbsp;willnbsp;fix this problem. It wont stopnbsp;a mentally or emotionally ill person from finding a way to hurt or kill people. While the analogy of the cars vs guns isnbsp;a loose one, since guns were created to kill and cars were not, the fact thatnbsp;vehicular deathsnbsp;pretty much equal each other, I DO think that the fact that the INTENT to harmnbsp;vs not to harm DOES actually matter. While many people, especially here, want to dismiss the guns vs car analogy, I think it does matter, especially when deaths due to guns is pretty much based in intent, but deaths due to DUIs is supposedly not. In 2009, there werenbsp;10,839 DUIvehicular deathsnbsp;https://www.alcoholalert.com/drunkdrivingstatistics.htmlnbsp;33,000 overall vehicular deaths actually vs gun deaths11,493 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm.nbsp; So because the intent isnt there, because the purpose of the weapon isnt to cause death, it makes it less worthy of discussion?nbsp;
Great information that went ignored in here it seems.
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
In order to have a reasonable debate about gun control, you sortof need to understand weapons.
As of this afternoon, law enforcement reported the CT shooter had a sig Saur and glock in the building when we was shooting. An assault rifle was found in the vehicle but was not used in this case. We are talking about small handguns he was usingand Glocks and Sig Saurs are two of the most common types of handguns issues to police officers. When I was a police officer, I carried a 40 caliber Glock, and my husband was issued a Sig Saur with his department. Semiautomatic does NOT equal a Rambostyle gun that can fire off 200 rounds in seconds.
Semiautomatic means that a round bullet does not need to be cambered prior to each shot. The first round must be chambered, which is that action you see when someone pulls the top part of the gun back on a handgun. Also, with semiautomatics, with a glock, for instance, a certain amount of pressure is needed to pull the trigger back with the first shot, but subsequent shots will require less pressure if you don't let the trigger go the whole way back out. if you Subsequent rounds are chambered via a magazine, which some people call a ammunition clip. There are limits to how many bullets can be held in a magazine for civilians, but people still find ways to illegally alter magazines. Even in a legalcapacity magazine, it is fairly easy to drop an empty magazine, put in a new one, chamber a round and keep shooting. Most handguns are semiautomatic and have been for a long time. If you are banning semiautomatic handguns, you are banning just about everything but a revolver. You would still get shotguns thoughwhich, although they require a shooter to chamber the rounds, are able to be used from further away and are generally more accurate for novice shooters. The only benefit is that they are big and hard to conceal like a handgun.
Criminals always have and always will have access to guns, and theirs are more powerful and dangerous than what police officers have. That is not to say that much much more can't be donebut a kneejerk ban on any and all guns will not solve senseless acts like the CT shooting. We need stricter laws on stolen weapons and crimes committed with a weaponthe penalty should not be the same for stealing a legally registered gun from its owner as it is for a stolen flatscreen tv. There needs to be a massive overhaul in our mental health systemthere was a time when people with severe mental illness were routinely instutitionalized in a sanatorium for their whole lives and not walking among the population. I would never want to go back to those days, there is NOT enough being done to care for those with identified conditions on an ongoing and consistent basis and not enough to identify those that are at risk and exhibiting signs of mental illness. Is there room for additional gun control or bans on certain weapon types? Perhaps. But that step, In the absence of others, will not solve the problem.
Murder has been around since the beginning of time, and unfortunately will never go away. What has changed is a percieved increase in massacares that show a depraved indifference for human life. Why? We need to understand that to solve the problem. Is it our media's ability to broadcast events in real time and create a sensation that can make damage people think that they are, for a period of time, someone. even if that someone is a monster. Is it that in this age of cybereverything there is less overall human attachment and interaction that would provide people with more empathy and compassion towards innocent victims and prevent these massacares? What makes one murderer shoot only the target of his rage or Percieved problem, like the elementary school teacher in Coudersport, Pennsylvania that walked into a church during the service and shot his exwife, the organist, in front of the congregation, and another shooter go and shoot a room full of children that couldn't have possibly done anything to him personally? What is creating these people who are so broken that they likely would lash out and kill their loved ones before committing suicide themselves, but are now adding the step of taking scores of innocent people with them. Why? and how do we stop THAT?
I really think that question needs to be addressed and a simple gun ban does not do this. Again, I'm not saying that there isn't a place for gun reform, but to cry out for that, and that alone, and fail to see that is only a tiny part of the problem doesn't solve this problem, and doesn't offer any real potential for preventing this type of act in the future. it is a complex problem with complex factors and deserves way more than a simple solution.
Great post. And thank you for explaining semi automatic. I don't think some people quite know what that means.
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
In order to have a reasonable debate about gun control, you sortof need to understand weapons.
As of this afternoon, law enforcement reported the CT shooter had a sig Saur and glock in the building when we was shooting. An assault rifle was found in the vehicle but was not used in this case.
I thought the medical examiner said all of the gunshot wounds he was aware of were due to the semi automatic rifle and none were due to the hand guns? Was I misinterpreting something?
IMO, there has been an unacceptable amount of misinformation over the past day and a half. The media needs to be more careful in their reporting, both in rushing the facts before they're confirmed and in sensationalizing violence.
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
To greeneyedbride:
Not trying to start sit but what exactly do you think your are going to achieve by purchasing another gun? Are you going to give it to your child? That just seems ridiculous to me.
Um, yes. I am going to give the gun to my ten-month-old son. Good guess.
My husband works (very) part time as a police officer, so he is able to conceal and carry a gun without a conceal and carry permit. However, his only firearm is his Glock, and he does not have a gun that is easy to conceal and carry, so he doesn't. However, after this shooting and the one in Aurora, we both decided that we would feel safer if he concealed and carried a gun on a regular basis. Obviously, that would not help in the case of a shooting at a school, but that's also not the only place that violent crimes are committed. My best friend's husband is a state trooper, and another good friend's husband is a US Marshall. Any time we are with them, I know 100% that they are both armed, and personally, that makes me feel safer. If criminals are carrying guns, I would feel safer knowing that my husband was, too.
RTV, even though I didn't comment on it, I didn't ignore that post. When one simply copy/pastes an extensive amount of dense info, they run the risk of being ignored. I mean, I can't speak for everyone, but with DS running around I don't have all the time in the world to adequately read and respond to such a detailed post. I wish I did, but alas.
In general I have a real issue with culturally dependent phenomena (I.e., violence) being cross culturally compared. There are way too many confounders to draw legitimate conclusions, too much risk of the ecological fallacy, and too little evidence of causation vs. correlation. I'm not throwing up my hands and saying its not worth considering, but debating every fact in a post like that could fill a dissertation. And quite honestly, I could easily find a similarly written contradicting piece.
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
Rocky top, I don't want to create a whole quote tree just to say thanks. I am on my mobile, so the text got a little wonky, but the message was still there and hopefully didn't offend people.
I definitely think that in order to call for gun control and reform, it is SO important to know exactly what we are dealing with in terms of what types of guns are sold, to who, how, and what types of restrictions there are already. Gun laws vary widely by state, it is hard to talk about what to reform, since there isnt a national consensus other than the constitutional right to bear arms. Changing any part of the constitution should not be done quickly or without a great deal of thought and consideration, because the constitution is the very heart of how our country functions.
I really wanted people to know what types of weapons were actually used on this crime, because there were media reports running the story with photos of huge fully automatic assault weapons, as if that was what he had. Whether ignorance on the part of the media or a deliberate attempt to sensationalize an already tragic story, I don't know. It is not unreasonable for a responsible and law abiding citizen to own two handguns, those weapons are similar but have a different style and feel, and for the many people that shoot for sport, two different guns allows a slightly different skill set. Let us not forget that shooting is still an Olympic sport, and there are a lot of people who shoot a variety of gun types for reasons other than killing someone. That doesn't mean that we should just ignore what happened in CT, but I think the incident could be used as a significant catalyst for real
change, but only as long as people are educated about what the changes they are crying for will and won't accomplish.
Despite having been a cop myself and being married to a cop, I have historically not liked guns. My husband will frequently carry off duty, and to places that I thought were silly because they were safe...to church, to olive garden, and even when we go on a walk through the neighborhood. I really thought there was no reason for a police officer to carry off duty, and less of a reason for a civillian to carry at all. However, my grandparents were at that church in Cousersport and saw someone they knew killed in front of them by another person they thought they knew. The man actually shot his ex and left when she was still alive. He was able to get back in and kill her because the church had no way to lock the doors from the inside, only from the outside when the last person leaves. So despite people bravely trying to hold the doors closed, he got back in and finished the job. Nobody ever thought they would have a reason to lock someone OUT of a church when people are inside. Now every local church is scrambling to have locks and emergency procedures in place. How sad and scary that the world has come to this where even a church service, a movie theatre, and kindergarten class are not safe.
That incident, and the recent tragedy in CT, has made me think twice about giving my husband a hard time about his desire to carry offduty. I don't want to think that something could happen to us while going about our daily lives, but I'm not so sure anymore. I'm not sure who should have a gun and who should not, and what types of guns people should and should not be allowed to obtain. But I don't want our leaders to come to those conclusions with haste and no thought to all of the aspects of guns, gun ownership, and gun violence. I don't want them to push for bans alone and leave the other aspects of these horrific crimes untouched and unexamined.
This isn't the only countey that has experienced such senseless violence, even China was affected with a similar attack using a different weapon on the same day as us, so it is not as simple as saying the US has too much of a gun culture. I'm sure the parents of the 8 children killed don't feel any better with people saying oh well, at least he only used a knife or more people could be dead. To me the knife is just as horrific, it takes a lot more violence to kill with a knife, it produces a lot more blood, pain, and takes longer to die. How terrible for those children to die in such a way and for those poor babies that have to live with those images for the rest of their lives. All of those children lost yesterday, both here and abroad, hurts my heart. I want a solution to this problem. I hope people can understand the depth of this problem goes way beyond the weapons used and that should not be the sole focus of the solution.
This argument doesn't make sense to me. Especially when a patented go to answer for abortion is "if you don't like it don't get one". If you don't like guns then don't own one.
There are plenty of responsible gun owners who obtain their guns legally, use them legally and responsibly and keep them under lock and key when not in use.
There is so much wrong with the argument you are making:
1. there is 0 similarity between abortion and gun violence.
2. Gun violence is a public safety risk.
3. Abortion is not.
4. The shooter's mother was a "responsible gun owners who obtain[ed] guns legally, use them legally
and responsibly and keep them under lock and key when not in use." None of those responsible ownership traits did the kids at Sandy Hook much good.
To greeneyedbride:
Not trying to start sit but what exactly do you think your are going to achieve by purchasing another gun?
She will be better able to protect her kid when a shooter busts into a movie theater where her kid is while she herself is at work or home?
Yep. Because we all know that schools are the only place where shootings happen. Never places like movie theaters or hospitals.
I already responded to MsLs, but your answer is much better. Thanks.
There, I fixed it to your liking.
Thanks. I do like knowing that my ten month old will be safe when he's alone in a movie theater.
If you read my response to MsLs, you'll see that I was talking about a concealed weapon for my husband, who is a trained police officer, to carry. Of course that won't help when we're not with him, but since we like each other, we do tend to be together in public a lot.
Thanks. I do like knowing that my ten month old will be safe when he's alone in a movie theater.
You don't get it. This isn't about your 10-month old. It's about when he/she is 10 years old. 20 years old. 44 years old. And this isn't about you. This is about what is good for the common interest.
An armed cop was gunned down in an Alabama hospital today. Fuckings Fort Hood got shot up. What makes you think anyone in your family will fare any better for the presence of another firearm?
I just did a search, and according to the medical examiner, many of the shots were from the rifle. It was previously reported that the rifle was in the vehicle, so I'm not sure what is accurate. Still, a rifle is NOT a machine gun that shoots a whole string of bullets in seconds. Rifles are used for hunting and sport. They are, in many ways, similar to handgunsjust bigger.
The reports were also saying that the shooter attempted to purchase a rifle a few days prior at a ***'s Sporting Goods store. It is clear that all of the weapons were not his, but were his mom's and were legally obtained and registered to her. A rifle may have a larger capacity magazine, but it would take only a few seconds out of the shooter's time to reload even with a handgun. He can even do it while shootingI know because that is part of police training. Regardless of it being a handgun or riflethe weapon used is still a small part of the equation. Not a part that should be ignoredbut not the end all solution either.
Getting hung up on semi automatic or fully automatic weapons isn't really helpful because the truth is that most guns are semi automatic. The guns I can think of that are not, as I said, are shotguns and revolvers. Revolvers still hold a number of bullets and they can be fired in rapid succession. Shotguns can take out a target very accurately from long distances, even with a shooter that has limited skill. So, even getting all mad at semi automatic weapons, either of handgun or rifle variety, doesn't mean that other types of guns are any less deadly.
The fact that this dialogue has remained relatively calm and hasn't resorted to insults and namecalling gives me hope. I hope that regardless of personal opinions on guns themselves, we as a nation can agree that guns are a small part of this problem and there needs to be real action on many fronts if we are to find a solution that will help stop this in the future.
I just did a search, and according to the medical examiner, many of the shots were from the rifle. It was previously reported that the rifle was in the vehicle, so I'm not sure what is accurate. Still, a rifle is NOT a machine gun that shoots a whole string of bullets in seconds. Rifles are used for hunting and sport. They are, in many ways, similar to handgunsjust bigger.
The reports were also saying that the shooter attempted to purchase a rifle a few days prior at a ***'s Sporting Goods store. It is clear that all of the weapons were not his, but were his mom's and were legally obtained and registered to her. A rifle may have a larger capacity magazine, but it would take only a few seconds out of the shooter's time to reload even with a handgun. He can even do it while shootingI know because that is part of police training. Regardless of it being a handgun or riflethe weapon used is still a small part of the equation. Not a part that should be ignoredbut not the end all solution either.
Getting hung up on semi automatic or fully automatic weapons isn't really helpful because the truth is that most guns are semi automatic. The guns I can think of that are not, as I said, are shotguns and revolvers. Revolvers still hold a number of bullets and they can be fired in rapid succession. Shotguns can take out a target very accurately from long distances, even with a shooter that has limited skill. So, even getting all mad at semi automatic weapons, either of handgun or rifle variety, doesn't mean that other types of guns are any less deadly.
The fact that this dialogue has remained relatively calm and hasn't resorted to insults and namecalling gives me hope. I hope that regardless of personal opinions on guns themselves, we as a nation can agree that guns are a small part of this problem and there needs to be real action on many fronts if we are to find a solution that will help stop this in the future.
How are guns a small part of this? If the shooter had been armed with anything less than a gun there would have been far fewer fatalities if any.
Changing the causes of violence will take a generation to fix, if it's even possible. We know that we have a violence problem, I don't see why making guns readily available is the solution. Anyone committed to responsible gun ownership should understand why things like a psych evaluation is not too much to ask for. A gun should not be an impulse buy, it should be a well considered, thoughtful decision made after a series of checks.
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
My bad, I didn't see the beginning of the insults, but I see that they are starting now. Oh well.
This was a way more interesting and civil discussion on my Facebook feed despite a wide variety of opinions on the topic. Maybe because it is not so anonymous, and because you know the people you are talking to and can recognize they are not lunatics just because they have a different view. I think both sides here bring up interesting points and the exchange of knowledge and opinions is necessary for actual change. Snark, while amusing at times, does nothing to inform or change people's minds, it just makes them defensive and more committed to their views. Meh. But that is what some people come on the bump for so...carry on parenting ladies.
My bad, I didn't see the beginning of the insults, but I see that they are starting now. Oh well.
This was a way more interesting and civil discussion on my Facebook feed despite a wide variety of opinions on the topic. Maybe because it is not so anonymous, and because you know the people you are talking to and can recognize they are not lunatics just because they have a different view. I think both sides here bring up interesting points and the exchange of knowledge and opinions is necessary for actual change. Snark, while amusing at times, does nothing to inform or change people's minds, it just makes them defensive and more committed to their views. Meh. But that is what some people come on the bump for so...carry on parenting ladies.
I hope you don't think I was insulting you in anyway. Please let me know if I offended you, because I was just trying to discuss.
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
You don't get it. This isn't about your 10-month old. It's about when he/she is 10 years old. 20 years old. 44 years old. And this isn't about you. This is about what is good for the common interest.
An armed cop was gunned down in an Alabama hospital today. Fuckings Fort Hood got shot up. What makes you think anyone in your family will fare any better for the presence of another firearm?
I understand that this isn't about me. And I agree that we as a country need to try harder to prevent tragedies like this from happening. But I don't think that the answer is to make it impossible for law-abiding citizens to legally obtain guns. I honestly don't know what the answer is. More access to mental health services might help. But unfortunately, criminals and people whose mental illnesses may make them dangerous already often already have guns. You're right - an off-duty cop carrying a gun might not be able to prevent a crime from happening. Heck, an on-duty cop carrying a gun might not be able to, either. But he might be able to, and I'd feel safer knowing that there was that chance.
A horrible tragedy occurred yesterday, and I so wish that there was an easy fix to prevent something like that from happening again, but I don't think it's going to be as easy as just not letting people buy guns.
ETA - However, I DO think that there needs to be more of a screening process before people are allowed to buy guns, and I agree with PP above that you shouldn't be able to buy a gun as an "impulse buy."
Coffeebeanif the reports are true, he was DENIED the ability to purchase a gun. Yes, psychological screening is a noble step, but that wouldn't have prevented him from getting those particular guns. If we presume his mother was sane and would have passed stringent checks to obtain her gun...there is no reason to think that more stringent laws would help. CT already has very tight gun control, that didn't stop this person. He tried to get a gun legally, could not, and them illegally obtained the guns he used, maybe by killing his mom to get them? The shooter in Coudersport, although not mass shooting, was an elementary school teacher. Wouldn't you think he would have passed even a very intense background check? And in that case he DID pass the checksand yet, that wasn't enough. A psychological exam may be something to strive for, but a lot of research would need to be done to determine what traits to screen for and what makes a person more or less likely to misuse weapons.
Sadly, this is how most criminals get guns. By theft or black market. That is the truthin the 15 months my husband has been with his department, he has yet to see an arrest on his squad of someone that had a weapon that was legally obtained and registered to that person. Not one.
Yes, i still say the weapon itself is a small part of the equation. There are a lot of good people with access to guns that don't do this kind of thing...and a lot of criminals with access to guns that don't go on killing sprees of innocent children...and in China it was a knife, not a gun...so clearly the mere presence or availability of a gun does not cause this behavior. It is not that simple. If It were, all children of police officers would be serial killers, with growing up and seeing a gun every single day. The gun itself Doesnt cause the behavior.
What about the ease of access? Certainly we don't want to make Guns easy to get, but that isn't the whole solution either. You can even argue that the gun in CT was not necessarily easily obtained by the shooter, as there is no evidence that his mom willingly handed over weapons to him, we have no idea how they were stored or protected. What if they were in a safe with a fingerprint pad and he had to kill her to use her fingerprint? We simply don't know.
The weapon used does not answer the biggest question, and that is the WHY is this happening? What is making people snap and want to hurt innocents? How do we prevent that? Where are we failing to recognize and treat troubled individuals? How are these disturbed people walking among us in society and we don't know until it is too late? How many more people like this are there? Can they be fixed? How can we identify them? Who are they? What common traits do they share? The weapon itself does NOT answer those questions. Those are questions I want answered and not pushed to the side with a simple blanket ban that does nothing to address those issues and the ease the bad guys will still have obtaining weapons illegally. All of that needs worknot just one part.
This argument doesn't make sense to me. Especially when a patented go to answer for abortion is "if you don't like it don't get one". If you don't like guns then don't own one.
There are plenty of responsible gun owners who obtain their guns legally, use them legally and responsibly and keep them under lock and key when not in use.
There is so much wrong with the argument you are making:
1. there is 0 similarity between abortion and gun violence.
2. Gun violence is a public safety risk.
3. Abortion is not.
4. The shooter's mother was a "responsible gun owners who obtain[ed] guns legally, use them legally
and responsibly and keep them under lock and key when not in use." None of those responsible ownership traits did the kids at Sandy Hook much good.
Exactly. There are people out there that are responsible gun owners. But that doesn't stop those guns from being stolen or misused by others. Also, the guy responsible for the shooting in Portland also stole guns from someone he knew. I have no problem with responsible gun ownership we could keep the people that shouldn't have guns from ever gaining access to them. Unfortunately, that's easier said than done.
ITA. And when people biitch the gun buying process being too long or too difficult, I always think, "if you can't be inconvenienced in buying a gun, how will you ever have the patience and self-discipline to inconvenience yourself in safely managing a gun?"
People need to be all or none about gun safety. Either lock up your gun or don't get one.
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
Coffee, I think we are having a reasonable exchange of ideas and I appreciate your opinions and thoughts! I have mixed feelings about guns in general, as I was raised by a mom that is VERY anti gun and we were quite nearly the victims of gun violence when I was younger. Now I have been a cop and am married to a cop so I see a different side of guns and my personal feelings continue to evolve and change based on my life experiences. I like hearing other opinions and perspectives because my opinion is rooted in my own life, and hearing others exposes me to their lives and gives me a deeper pool of information to consider.
I just thought Heather was being a little harsh, because I think telling someone 'you don't get it' generally doesn't open them up to hear you. However you can't tell tone over the Internet so it may not have been as harsh as I read it to be. Stupid pregnancy hormones.
Yes, there are responsible gun owners out there who do everything right and are not going to shoot someone without a damn good reason.
Unfortunately, the people who are not responsible gun owners are ruining it for everyone.
You know how to fix that? Don't let them own a gun until they can prove they are a responsible gun owner.
You can't drive a car until you take a test to prove you can drive.
You can't vote until you register. (and voting is a right listed in the Constitution)
Very few of us are saying that we need to ban guns outright, but there needs to be more safeguards to prevent the innocents from becoming victims.
Yes, the mother of this jerk was the legal gun owner and it's not known how he obtained the guns. But that's not the case in all mass shootings.
When are people going to realize that the 2nd Amendment should not be the end-all be-all of gun ownership? A good number of people were more than willing to give up their rights after 9/11 for the sake of safety and security, but 20 little kids are killed and people are saying "Well, it's not the gun's fault, so keep your hands of my Glock, a'ssholes."
Seriously?
I do not own a gun. My DH will never ever be allowed to have a gun in the house until the kids are long out of the house. I hate guns. I just don't think the legacy of this tragedy should be stricter gun control. It's like putting a bandaid on a bullet hole. Keeping guns away from innocent people isn't going to protect innocent people.
The 9/11 terrorist killed thousands with no gun. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people in one day with no gun. Ted Kaczynski killed with no gun. Trying to further regulate guns isn't going to change a damn thing except they'll find another way to kill their victims. I do think that there should be safeguards over who buys guns--sure. I think that's great. I just don't think additional safeguards is going to help a massacre like this from occuring again. I think the best thing we could do as a society is giving these killers less media attention and strengthen the mental health system in this country so these children don't die in vain.
This argument doesn't make sense to me. Especially when a patented go to answer for abortion is "if you don't like it don't get one". If you don't like guns then don't own one.
There are plenty of responsible gun owners who obtain their guns legally, use them legally and responsibly and keep them under lock and key when not in use.
There is so much wrong with the argument you are making:
1. there is 0 similarity between abortion and gun violence.
2. Gun violence is a public safety risk.
3. Abortion is not.
4. The shooter's mother was a "responsible gun owners who obtain[ed] guns legally, use them legally
and responsibly and keep them under lock and key when not in use." None of those responsible ownership traits did the kids at Sandy Hook much good.
This is so late I probably shouldn't even bother but here it goes.
I"ll start by saying I am not anti-gun control. I just don't believe in the mentality that no one should have guns, which is what I was responding to earlier. In the Sandy Hook case she had an assault rifle, which did all(?) the killing by last reports yes? I don't think there is any reason whatsoever for any private citizen to have that type of gun. No point at all.
I realize that the argument is a stretch but I don't think it's completely invalid. They are both polarizing debates for each side. The point I was trying to make is that to many (all?) people anti-abortion they see it as taking a life in every instance. To them every time someone has an abortion they are taking a life. The pro-choice side says well if you don't like it don't get an abortion. You say it isn't a "public health" concern and to you as a pro-choice person that is a true statement but to someone who sees every abortion as taking a life it isn't. To them that is a "preventable" death as well, just like the shootings are to you.
For someone to say your gun could take someone's life so no one should have them doesn't make any sense to me when they would turn around and argue the above point. It's actually far more likely that that gun will never in it's existence kill anyone (seeing as how there are a bajillion guns in the US and not a bajillion gun deaths in the US a year). Yes there is a possibility (albeit in my case definitely slim) a gun could get stolen and then used against someone later, or I could use it in self defense to protect myself and my family and kill someone but that is my second amendment right. If you don't like it, don't buy a gun. I think either both arguments work (if you don't like it don't do it) or they both don't because in both instances you are killing someone to the person being told just not to do it if they don't like it.
Regardless as I always say you can't legislate morality(and no not everyone needs the same morality or a godly morality). So you can't make abortions illegal and then they own't occur just like you can't make guns illegal and they won't exist.
I doubt this kids mom thought her gun would kill her and 25 other people either.
Maybe, maybe not.
Although I would argue that I have hunting rifles made for hunting and she had an assault rifle which has no purpose other than war to me.
I don't equate my situation to hers at all for the different types of guns and the fact that our children would never know a combo to our safe, ever. Even as adults.
I doubt this kids mom thought her gun would kill her and 25 other people either.
Maybe, maybe not.
Although I would argue that I have hunting rifles made for hunting and she had an assault rifle which has no purpose other than war to me.
I don't equate my situation to hers at all for the different types of guns and the fact that our children would never know a combo to our safe, ever. Even as adults.
WTF?
If there is the hint of a shadow of a thought in your head that a gun that you own might be involved in a crime, let alone the cold blooded murder of school children; then it is your OBLIGATION to not own a firearm.
JFC.
All of you pro-assault weapon people can go ahead and let the NRA think for you. The rest of the civilized world knows better.
promised myself I'd retire when I turned gold, and yet here I am
I doubt this kids mom thought her gun would kill her and 25 other people either.
Maybe, maybe not.
Although I would argue that I have hunting rifles made for hunting and she had an assault rifle which has no purpose other than war to me.
I don't equate my situation to hers at all for the different types of guns and the fact that our children would never know a combo to our safe, ever. Even as adults.
WTF?
If there is the hint of a shadow of a thought in your head that a gun that you own might be involved in a crime, let alone the cold blooded murder of school children; then it is your OBLIGATION to not own a firearm.
JFC.
All of you pro-assault weapon people can go ahead and let the NRA think for you. The rest of the civilized world knows better.
I just meant I'm not her. I haven't read any articles about how she had her stuff stored etc. If you don't have your *** locked up then of course you have to own the fact that someone could use your stuff for bad purposes. Like I said I have no idea how responsible age was.
And JFC yourself. I am not pro assault rifle at all which I've said several times but go ahead and just say *** you know nothing about.
I doubt this kids mom thought her gun would kill her and 25 other people either.
Maybe, maybe not.
Although I would argue that I have hunting rifles made for hunting and she had an assault rifle which has no purpose other than war to me.
I don't equate my situation to hers at all for the different types of guns and the fact that our children would never know a combo to our safe, ever. Even as adults.
WTF?
If there is the hint of a shadow of a thought in your head that a gun that you own might be involved in a crime, let alone the cold blooded murder of school children; then it is your OBLIGATION to not own a firearm.
JFC.
All of you pro-assault weapon people can go ahead and let the NRA think for you. The rest of the civilized world knows better.
I just meant I'm not her. I haven't read any articles about how she had her stuff stored etc. If you don't have your *** locked up then of course you have to own the fact that someone could use your stuff for bad purposes. Like I said I have no idea how responsible age was.
And JFC yourself. I am not pro assault rifle at all which I've said several times but go ahead and just say *** you know nothing about.
You just said that the shooters mom "maybe" thought her gun would kill her and 25 other people. You were clearly being obstinate and you got called out for it. Deal with it.
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
You don't get it. This isn't about your 10-month old. It's about when he/she is 10 years old. 20 years old. 44 years old. And this isn't about you. This is about what is good for the common interest.
An armed cop was gunned down in an Alabama hospital today. Fuckings Fort Hood got shot up. What makes you think anyone in your family will fare any better for the presence of another firearm?
I understand that this isn't about me. And I agree that we as a country need to try harder to prevent tragedies like this from happening. But I don't think that the answer is to make it impossible for law-abiding citizens to legally obtain guns. I honestly don't know what the answer is. More access to mental health services might help. But unfortunately, criminals and people whose mental illnesses may make them dangerous already often already have guns. You're right - an off-duty cop carrying a gun might not be able to prevent a crime from happening. Heck, an on-duty cop carrying a gun might not be able to, either. But he might be able to, and I'd feel safer knowing that there was that chance.
A horrible tragedy occurred yesterday, and I so wish that there was an easy fix to prevent something like that from happening again, but I don't think it's going to be as easy as just not letting people buy guns.
ETA - However, I DO think that there needs to be more of a screening process before people are allowed to buy guns, and I agree with PP above that you shouldn't be able to buy a gun as an "impulse buy."
I don't think you get that this isn't about you because you are still saying it personally makes you feel better to think an armed friendly could save the day. Are there stats to support this assertion, or is this just a romanticized vision of your DH being a superhero?
Is there any single right you wouldn't give up, any single thing of yours besides your own kids, that you wouldn't lay down, to bring those kids back or to keep them safe?
Re: I am MAD.
The horror of this massacre is indescribable. After something like this happens, we should all be mad, and we should all question what could have been done to prevent this.
Questioning flaws in gun laws and lack of help for people with mental illness is what we should be doing. There is no reason that this should ever happen again, and it physically hurts to imagine losing anyone's child at the hands of a murderer holding a gun.
Because I'm not going to kill you with my gun.
This argument doesn't make sense to me. Especially when a patented go to answer for abortion is "if you don't like it don't get one". If you don't like guns then don't own one.
There are plenty of responsible gun owners who obtain their guns legally, use them legally and responsibly and keep them under lock and key when not in use.
Because you having an abortion won't kill me.
A gun can.
Unable to even.
********************
You don't understand the appeal of Benedict Cumberbatch / think he's fug / don't know who he is? WATCH SHERLOCK. Until you do, your negative opinion of him will not be taken seriously.
But MY gun won't.
A car could also kill you, or a knife, or lightning.
And to some people you getting an abortion is you killing someone.
Yes, there are responsible gun owners out there who do everything right and are not going to shoot someone without a damn good reason.
Unfortunately, the people who are not responsible gun owners are ruining it for everyone.
You know how to fix that? Don't let them own a gun until they can prove they are a responsible gun owner.
You can't drive a car until you take a test to prove you can drive.
You can't vote until you register. (and voting is a right listed in the Constitution)
Very few of us are saying that we need to ban guns outright, but there needs to be more safeguards to prevent the innocents from becoming victims.
Yes, the mother of this jerk was the legal gun owner and it's not known how he obtained the guns. But that's not the case in all mass shootings.
When are people going to realize that the 2nd Amendment should not be the end-all be-all of gun ownership? A good number of people were more than willing to give up their rights after 9/11 for the sake of safety and security, but 20 little kids are killed and people are saying "Well, it's not the gun's fault, so keep your hands of my Glock, a'ssholes."
Seriously?
Unable to even.
********************
You don't understand the appeal of Benedict Cumberbatch / think he's fug / don't know who he is? WATCH SHERLOCK. Until you do, your negative opinion of him will not be taken seriously.
I only commented because the phrase "why is your right to a gun more important than my right to life" came across to me as people shouldn't have guns. That I don't agree with.
I bet the majority of people whose guns were stolen or taken to commit violent acts would have said the exact same thing.
Maybe, maybe not. I don't know other people's situations but I do know how we take care of our guns.
I just think it's a pipe dream to say take away all the guns or ban guns etc. Guns do exist and guns are always going to exist it's not something that can be gotten rid of now.
As of this afternoon, law enforcement reported the CT shooter had a sig Saur and glock in the building when we was shooting. An assault rifle was found in the vehicle but was not used in this case. We are talking about small handguns he was usingand Glocks and Sig Saurs are two of the most common types of handguns issues to police officers. When I was a police officer, I carried a 40 caliber Glock, and my husband was issued a Sig Saur with his department. Semiautomatic does NOT equal a Rambostyle gun that can fire off 200 rounds in seconds.
Semiautomatic means that a round bullet does not need to be cambered prior to each shot. The first round must be chambered, which is that action you see when someone pulls the top part of the gun back on a handgun. Also, with semiautomatics, with a glock, for instance, a certain amount of pressure is needed to pull the trigger back with the first shot, but subsequent shots will require less pressure if you don't let the trigger go the whole way back out. if you Subsequent rounds are chambered via a magazine, which some people call a ammunition clip. There are limits to how many bullets can be held in a magazine for civilians, but people still find ways to illegally alter magazines. Even in a legalcapacity magazine, it is fairly easy to drop an empty magazine, put in a new one, chamber a round and keep shooting. Most handguns are semiautomatic and have been for a long time. If you are banning semiautomatic handguns, you are banning just about everything but a revolver. You would still get shotguns thoughwhich, although they require a shooter to chamber the rounds, are able to be used from further away and are generally more accurate for novice shooters. The only benefit is that they are big and hard to conceal like a handgun.
Criminals always have and always will have access to guns, and theirs are more powerful and dangerous than what police officers have. That is not to say that much much more can't be donebut a kneejerk ban on any and all guns will not solve senseless acts like the CT shooting. We need stricter laws on stolen weapons and crimes committed with a weaponthe penalty should not be the same for stealing a legally registered gun from its owner as it is for a stolen flatscreen tv. There needs to be a massive overhaul in our mental health systemthere was a time when people with severe mental illness were routinely instutitionalized in a sanatorium for their whole lives and not walking among the population. I would never want to go back to those days, there is NOT enough being done to care for those with identified conditions on an ongoing and consistent basis and not enough to identify those that are at risk and exhibiting signs of mental illness. Is there room for additional gun control or bans on certain weapon types? Perhaps. But that step, In the absence of others, will not solve the problem.
Murder has been around since the beginning of time, and unfortunately will never go away. What has changed is a percieved increase in massacares that show a depraved indifference for human life. Why? We need to understand that to solve the problem. Is it our media's ability to broadcast events in real time and create a sensation that can make damage people think that they are, for a period of time, someone. even if that someone is a monster. Is it that in this age of cybereverything there is less overall human attachment and interaction that would provide people with more empathy and compassion towards innocent victims and prevent these massacares? What makes one murderer shoot only the target of his rage or Percieved problem, like the elementary school teacher in Coudersport, Pennsylvania that walked into a church during the service and shot his exwife, the organist, in front of the congregation, and another shooter go and shoot a room full of children that couldn't have possibly done anything to him personally? What is creating these people who are so broken that they likely would lash out and kill their loved ones before committing suicide themselves, but are now adding the step of taking scores of innocent people with them. Why? and how do we stop THAT?
I really think that question needs to be addressed and a simple gun ban does not do this. Again, I'm not saying that there isn't a place for gun reform, but to cry out for that, and that alone, and fail to see that is only a tiny part of the problem doesn't solve this problem, and doesn't offer any real potential for preventing this type of act in the future. it is a complex problem with complex factors and deserves way more than a simple solution.
Great information that went ignored in here it seems.
Great post. And thank you for explaining semi automatic. I don't think some people quite know what that means.
ditto
I thought the medical examiner said all of the gunshot wounds he was aware of were due to the semi automatic rifle and none were due to the hand guns? Was I misinterpreting something?
IMO, there has been an unacceptable amount of misinformation over the past day and a half. The media needs to be more careful in their reporting, both in rushing the facts before they're confirmed and in sensationalizing violence.
Um, yes. I am going to give the gun to my ten-month-old son. Good guess.
My husband works (very) part time as a police officer, so he is able to conceal and carry a gun without a conceal and carry permit. However, his only firearm is his Glock, and he does not have a gun that is easy to conceal and carry, so he doesn't. However, after this shooting and the one in Aurora, we both decided that we would feel safer if he concealed and carried a gun on a regular basis. Obviously, that would not help in the case of a shooting at a school, but that's also not the only place that violent crimes are committed. My best friend's husband is a state trooper, and another good friend's husband is a US Marshall. Any time we are with them, I know 100% that they are both armed, and personally, that makes me feel safer. If criminals are carrying guns, I would feel safer knowing that my husband was, too.
RTV, even though I didn't comment on it, I didn't ignore that post. When one simply copy/pastes an extensive amount of dense info, they run the risk of being ignored. I mean, I can't speak for everyone, but with DS running around I don't have all the time in the world to adequately read and respond to such a detailed post. I wish I did, but alas.
In general I have a real issue with culturally dependent phenomena (I.e., violence) being cross culturally compared. There are way too many confounders to draw legitimate conclusions, too much risk of the ecological fallacy, and too little evidence of causation vs. correlation. I'm not throwing up my hands and saying its not worth considering, but debating every fact in a post like that could fill a dissertation. And quite honestly, I could easily find a similarly written contradicting piece.
She will be better able to protect her kid when a shooter busts into her kids' school while she herself is at work or home?
I definitely think that in order to call for gun control and reform, it is SO important to know exactly what we are dealing with in terms of what types of guns are sold, to who, how, and what types of restrictions there are already. Gun laws vary widely by state, it is hard to talk about what to reform, since there isnt a national consensus other than the constitutional right to bear arms. Changing any part of the constitution should not be done quickly or without a great deal of thought and consideration, because the constitution is the very heart of how our country functions.
I really wanted people to know what types of weapons were actually used on this crime, because there were media reports running the story with photos of huge fully automatic assault weapons, as if that was what he had. Whether ignorance on the part of the media or a deliberate attempt to sensationalize an already tragic story, I don't know. It is not unreasonable for a responsible and law abiding citizen to own two handguns, those weapons are similar but have a different style and feel, and for the many people that shoot for sport, two different guns allows a slightly different skill set. Let us not forget that shooting is still an Olympic sport, and there are a lot of people who shoot a variety of gun types for reasons other than killing someone. That doesn't mean that we should just ignore what happened in CT, but I think the incident could be used as a significant catalyst for real
change, but only as long as people are educated about what the changes they are crying for will and won't accomplish.
Despite having been a cop myself and being married to a cop, I have historically not liked guns. My husband will frequently carry off duty, and to places that I thought were silly because they were safe...to church, to olive garden, and even when we go on a walk through the neighborhood. I really thought there was no reason for a police officer to carry off duty, and less of a reason for a civillian to carry at all. However, my grandparents were at that church in Cousersport and saw someone they knew killed in front of them by another person they thought they knew. The man actually shot his ex and left when she was still alive. He was able to get back in and kill her because the church had no way to lock the doors from the inside, only from the outside when the last person leaves. So despite people bravely trying to hold the doors closed, he got back in and finished the job. Nobody ever thought they would have a reason to lock someone OUT of a church when people are inside. Now every local church is scrambling to have locks and emergency procedures in place. How sad and scary that the world has come to this where even a church service, a movie theatre, and kindergarten class are not safe.
That incident, and the recent tragedy in CT, has made me think twice about giving my husband a hard time about his desire to carry offduty. I don't want to think that something could happen to us while going about our daily lives, but I'm not so sure anymore. I'm not sure who should have a gun and who should not, and what types of guns people should and should not be allowed to obtain. But I don't want our leaders to come to those conclusions with haste and no thought to all of the aspects of guns, gun ownership, and gun violence. I don't want them to push for bans alone and leave the other aspects of these horrific crimes untouched and unexamined.
This isn't the only countey that has experienced such senseless violence, even China was affected with a similar attack using a different weapon on the same day as us, so it is not as simple as saying the US has too much of a gun culture. I'm sure the parents of the 8 children killed don't feel any better with people saying oh well, at least he only used a knife or more people could be dead. To me the knife is just as horrific, it takes a lot more violence to kill with a knife, it produces a lot more blood, pain, and takes longer to die. How terrible for those children to die in such a way and for those poor babies that have to live with those images for the rest of their lives. All of those children lost yesterday, both here and abroad, hurts my heart. I want a solution to this problem. I hope people can understand the depth of this problem goes way beyond the weapons used and that should not be the sole focus of the solution.
There is so much wrong with the argument you are making:
1. there is 0 similarity between abortion and gun violence.
2. Gun violence is a public safety risk.
3. Abortion is not.
4. The shooter's mother was a "responsible gun owners who obtain[ed] guns legally, use them legally and responsibly and keep them under lock and key when not in use." None of those responsible ownership traits did the kids at Sandy Hook much good.
Yep. Because we all know that schools are the only place where shootings happen. Never places like movie theaters or hospitals.
I already responded to MsLs, but your answer is much better. Thanks.
Um, Fort Hood?
There, I fixed it to your liking.
Thanks. I do like knowing that my ten month old will be safe when he's alone in a movie theater.
If you read my response to MsLs, you'll see that I was talking about a concealed weapon for my husband, who is a trained police officer, to carry. Of course that won't help when we're not with him, but since we like each other, we do tend to be together in public a lot.
You don't get it. This isn't about your 10-month old. It's about when he/she is 10 years old. 20 years old. 44 years old. And this isn't about you. This is about what is good for the common interest.
An armed cop was gunned down in an Alabama hospital today. Fuckings Fort Hood got shot up. What makes you think anyone in your family will fare any better for the presence of another firearm?
The reports were also saying that the shooter attempted to purchase a rifle a few days prior at a ***'s Sporting Goods store. It is clear that all of the weapons were not his, but were his mom's and were legally obtained and registered to her. A rifle may have a larger capacity magazine, but it would take only a few seconds out of the shooter's time to reload even with a handgun. He can even do it while shootingI know because that is part of police training. Regardless of it being a handgun or riflethe weapon used is still a small part of the equation. Not a part that should be ignoredbut not the end all solution either.
Getting hung up on semi automatic or fully automatic weapons isn't really helpful because the truth is that most guns are semi automatic. The guns I can think of that are not, as I said, are shotguns and revolvers. Revolvers still hold a number of bullets and they can be fired in rapid succession. Shotguns can take out a target very accurately from long distances, even with a shooter that has limited skill. So, even getting all mad at semi automatic weapons, either of handgun or rifle variety, doesn't mean that other types of guns are any less deadly.
The fact that this dialogue has remained relatively calm and hasn't resorted to insults and namecalling gives me hope. I hope that regardless of personal opinions on guns themselves, we as a nation can agree that guns are a small part of this problem and there needs to be real action on many fronts if we are to find a solution that will help stop this in the future.
How are guns a small part of this? If the shooter had been armed with anything less than a gun there would have been far fewer fatalities if any.
Changing the causes of violence will take a generation to fix, if it's even possible. We know that we have a violence problem, I don't see why making guns readily available is the solution. Anyone committed to responsible gun ownership should understand why things like a psych evaluation is not too much to ask for. A gun should not be an impulse buy, it should be a well considered, thoughtful decision made after a series of checks.
This was a way more interesting and civil discussion on my Facebook feed despite a wide variety of opinions on the topic. Maybe because it is not so anonymous, and because you know the people you are talking to and can recognize they are not lunatics just because they have a different view. I think both sides here bring up interesting points and the exchange of knowledge and opinions is necessary for actual change. Snark, while amusing at times, does nothing to inform or change people's minds, it just makes them defensive and more committed to their views. Meh. But that is what some people come on the bump for so...carry on parenting ladies.
I hope you don't think I was insulting you in anyway. Please let me know if I offended you, because I was just trying to discuss.
I understand that this isn't about me. And I agree that we as a country need to try harder to prevent tragedies like this from happening. But I don't think that the answer is to make it impossible for law-abiding citizens to legally obtain guns. I honestly don't know what the answer is. More access to mental health services might help. But unfortunately, criminals and people whose mental illnesses may make them dangerous already often already have guns. You're right - an off-duty cop carrying a gun might not be able to prevent a crime from happening. Heck, an on-duty cop carrying a gun might not be able to, either. But he might be able to, and I'd feel safer knowing that there was that chance.
A horrible tragedy occurred yesterday, and I so wish that there was an easy fix to prevent something like that from happening again, but I don't think it's going to be as easy as just not letting people buy guns.
ETA - However, I DO think that there needs to be more of a screening process before people are allowed to buy guns, and I agree with PP above that you shouldn't be able to buy a gun as an "impulse buy."
Sadly, this is how most criminals get guns. By theft or black market. That is the truthin the 15 months my husband has been with his department, he has yet to see an arrest on his squad of someone that had a weapon that was legally obtained and registered to that person. Not one.
Yes, i still say the weapon itself is a small part of the equation. There are a lot of good people with access to guns that don't do this kind of thing...and a lot of criminals with access to guns that don't go on killing sprees of innocent children...and in China it was a knife, not a gun...so clearly the mere presence or availability of a gun does not cause this behavior. It is not that simple. If It were, all children of police officers would be serial killers, with growing up and seeing a gun every single day. The gun itself Doesnt cause the behavior.
What about the ease of access? Certainly we don't want to make Guns easy to get, but that isn't the whole solution either. You can even argue that the gun in CT was not necessarily easily obtained by the shooter, as there is no evidence that his mom willingly handed over weapons to him, we have no idea how they were stored or protected. What if they were in a safe with a fingerprint pad and he had to kill her to use her fingerprint? We simply don't know.
The weapon used does not answer the biggest question, and that is the WHY is this happening? What is making people snap and want to hurt innocents? How do we prevent that? Where are we failing to recognize and treat troubled individuals? How are these disturbed people walking among us in society and we don't know until it is too late? How many more people like this are there? Can they be fixed? How can we identify them? Who are they? What common traits do they share? The weapon itself does NOT answer those questions. Those are questions I want answered and not pushed to the side with a simple blanket ban that does nothing to address those issues and the ease the bad guys will still have obtaining weapons illegally. All of that needs worknot just one part.
ITA. And when people biitch the gun buying process being too long or too difficult, I always think, "if you can't be inconvenienced in buying a gun, how will you ever have the patience and self-discipline to inconvenience yourself in safely managing a gun?"
People need to be all or none about gun safety. Either lock up your gun or don't get one.
I just thought Heather was being a little harsh, because I think telling someone 'you don't get it' generally doesn't open them up to hear you. However you can't tell tone over the Internet so it may not have been as harsh as I read it to be. Stupid pregnancy hormones.
Hold the door, please.
My Blog
I do not own a gun. My DH will never ever be allowed to have a gun in the house until the kids are long out of the house. I hate guns. I just don't think the legacy of this tragedy should be stricter gun control. It's like putting a bandaid on a bullet hole. Keeping guns away from innocent people isn't going to protect innocent people.
The 9/11 terrorist killed thousands with no gun. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people in one day with no gun. Ted Kaczynski killed with no gun. Trying to further regulate guns isn't going to change a damn thing except they'll find another way to kill their victims. I do think that there should be safeguards over who buys guns--sure. I think that's great. I just don't think additional safeguards is going to help a massacre like this from occuring again. I think the best thing we could do as a society is giving these killers less media attention and strengthen the mental health system in this country so these children don't die in vain.
This is so late I probably shouldn't even bother but here it goes.
I"ll start by saying I am not anti-gun control. I just don't believe in the mentality that no one should have guns, which is what I was responding to earlier. In the Sandy Hook case she had an assault rifle, which did all(?) the killing by last reports yes? I don't think there is any reason whatsoever for any private citizen to have that type of gun. No point at all.
I realize that the argument is a stretch but I don't think it's completely invalid. They are both polarizing debates for each side. The point I was trying to make is that to many (all?) people anti-abortion they see it as taking a life in every instance. To them every time someone has an abortion they are taking a life. The pro-choice side says well if you don't like it don't get an abortion. You say it isn't a "public health" concern and to you as a pro-choice person that is a true statement but to someone who sees every abortion as taking a life it isn't. To them that is a "preventable" death as well, just like the shootings are to you.
For someone to say your gun could take someone's life so no one should have them doesn't make any sense to me when they would turn around and argue the above point. It's actually far more likely that that gun will never in it's existence kill anyone (seeing as how there are a bajillion guns in the US and not a bajillion gun deaths in the US a year). Yes there is a possibility (albeit in my case definitely slim) a gun could get stolen and then used against someone later, or I could use it in self defense to protect myself and my family and kill someone but that is my second amendment right. If you don't like it, don't buy a gun. I think either both arguments work (if you don't like it don't do it) or they both don't because in both instances you are killing someone to the person being told just not to do it if they don't like it.
Regardless as I always say you can't legislate morality(and no not everyone needs the same morality or a godly morality). So you can't make abortions illegal and then they own't occur just like you can't make guns illegal and they won't exist.
Maybe, maybe not.
Although I would argue that I have hunting rifles made for hunting and she had an assault rifle which has no purpose other than war to me.
I don't equate my situation to hers at all for the different types of guns and the fact that our children would never know a combo to our safe, ever. Even as adults.
WTF? If there is the hint of a shadow of a thought in your head that a gun that you own might be involved in a crime, let alone the cold blooded murder of school children; then it is your OBLIGATION to not own a firearm.
JFC.
All of you pro-assault weapon people can go ahead and let the NRA think for you. The rest of the civilized world knows better.
And JFC yourself. I am not pro assault rifle at all which I've said several times but go ahead and just say *** you know nothing about.
You just said that the shooters mom "maybe" thought her gun would kill her and 25 other people. You were clearly being obstinate and you got called out for it. Deal with it.
Is there any single right you wouldn't give up, any single thing of yours besides your own kids, that you wouldn't lay down, to bring those kids back or to keep them safe?