News Why Would an Adult Target Kindergarten Students in a Shooting?

[Astronuc]

It just feels creepy, to me, to include the victims in the same thread. The victims should be given more respect. But maybe it's just me that doesn't want them thrown together with discussion of their killer like this, out of respect for them.

Perhaps we should split of those posts into a separate memorial thread. At the time, though, it seemed appropriate to call attention to the victims rather than the perpetrator.

 

[OmCheeto]

I just mean that I don't think the perp should get so much attention.

hmmm... kind of like the notaMorganFreeman internet hoax.

But I agree. To this day, I do not know who killed John Lennon. And I do not care to know the name of the current perp. When Astro posted the names of the children, I went to work finding out something that they and I had in common, as they would just be statistics otherwise. I don't like 6 year old statistics.

I found that one of them shared my birthday. I posted on his obituary this fact, and that I would never forget him, even though, at the time, no pictures of him had been posted. I didn't really need to see a picture of him, as that would just take me back to when I was 6.

hmmm... as always, my mind is filled with too many random thoughts.

ps. Do not let Vera Lynn be carried away by eagles.



pps. Happy Christmas everyone.

 

[Evo]

Perhaps we should split of those posts into a separate memorial thread. At the time, though, it seemed appropriate to call attention to the victims rather than the perpetrator.

It's not necessary, it's all over the media in memorial articles.

 

[encorp]

Many in the media seemed to exploit the story.

There are some hints and a lot of unanswered questions regarding Lanza. We'll probably never know. He apparently did a good job of destroying his computer hard drives. Hence, we can probably reasonably conclude a strong intent and motivation.

Mental health officials and criminologists struggle with the inability to develop a predictive capability on any particular individual.

I agree.

I just can't help but feel there is a connection between mentally ill people "snapping" and the depth to which the rest of society ignores, and pushes them aside.

I'm not sure we can figure out what that connection is, but greater, more organic societal integration of ill people can't hurt.

 

[Astronuc]

I just can't help but feel there is a connection between mentally ill people "snapping" and the depth to which the rest of society ignores, and pushes them aside.

I'm not sure we can figure out what that connection is, but greater, more organic societal integration of ill people can't hurt.

Well, it is often an isolated, really a local issue. Starting in the 1980s, the Federal government started cutting support to states, and states started cutting back programs, particularly mental health, in order to cut spending. Consequently, mentally ill folks were deinstitutionalized, and the only recourse is for them to live in society. For most that's fine, but for some it doesn't work. There have been recent incidences of mentally ill persons harming folks in New York City.

My wife had a front row seat to the developing crisis when she worked at a local mental health facility. She could do very little to help those who represented a potential threat to themselves or others, until they essentially went out and committed a crime, e.g., property crime, drug crime, or violent crime such as assault or homicide.

Generally, people cannot be committend involuntarily, or to be committed, they have to demonstrate, by their actions, that they are harmful to themselves or others. In the extreme case, that harm may be a homicide of some innocent person who just happens to be in the 'wrong place'.

If we learn any details about Lanza's life that might have hinted at his future action, it will be some time. Topics like mental illness and guns as a public health issue are topics for separate threads.

 

[OmCheeto]

It's not necessary, it's all over the media in memorial articles.

Please remember that for some of us, PF is the media.

I really hate the fact that I do not know this little peacenik's name.​

------------------------------
breathe Om, breathe!

 

[gravenewworld]

Can't believe there so many people out there that think arming teachers or having armed guards would stop a school shooting. Did they forget that Columbine had an armed deputy had an armed deputy that couldn't stop the shooting?

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/DEPUTIES_TEXT.htm

 

[nsaspook]

Can't believe there so many people out there that think arming teachers or having armed guards would stop a school shooting. Did they forget that Columbine had an armed deputy had an armed deputy that couldn't stop the shooting?

Ask the Secret Service if they stopped guarding the President after Kennedy was killed, Ford shot at and Reagan was shot. Granted it might not be 100% effective but to use Columbine as a reason not to do it seems strange. That said I think it's a simple-minded dumb idea.

 

[BobG]

Armed guards at schools would reduce the chance of any type of killing in schools, and about 1/3 of schools do have some type of armed security. It would cost about $2.5 billion to provide armed security for the rest.

Part of the funding could come from taxes on firearms and ammunition, but probably not the whole amount. The taxes on firearms and ammunition would rise so high that sales would decrease, lessening the amount of tax money gathered. While the overall weapons industry generates a lot of money, presumably, any taxes would only be applied to domestic sales of small arms, meaning the taxes would have to be very high to generate the entire $2.5 billion.

Plus, one has to wonder whether that's the right place to spend $2.5 billion.

The murder rate for elementary school kids is very low (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0311.pdf ). Murder rate for pre-school age children and younger is at least three times higher than the murder rate for elementary school children, with parents being responsible for over half of those murders.

Murder rates for teenagers skyrockets, more than three times higher than for pre-school kids (Table 311). The high teenage murder rates usually occur outside of school and easy access to firearms could be said to be one reason for the high murder rates (or at least one could say firearms are the most popular murder weapon among teenagers). In fact, most of the schools with armed security are schools with a teenage population (high schools, some middle and junior highs).

 

[enosis_]

Armed guards at schools would reduce the chance of any type of killing in schools, and about 1/3 of schools do have some type of armed security. It would cost about $2.5 billion to provide armed security for the rest.

Part of the funding could come from taxes on firearms and ammunition, but probably not the whole amount. The taxes on firearms and ammunition would rise so high that sales would decrease, lessening the amount of tax money gathered. While the overall weapons industry generates a lot of money, presumably, any taxes would only be applied to domestic sales of small arms, meaning the taxes would have to be very high to generate the entire $2.5 billion.

Plus, one has to wonder whether that's the right place to spend $2.5 billion.

The murder rate for elementary school kids is very low (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0311.pdf ). Murder rate for pre-school age children and younger is at least three times higher than the murder rate for elementary school children, with parents being responsible for over half of those murders.

Murder rates for teenagers skyrockets, more than three times higher than for pre-school kids (Table 311). The high teenage murder rates usually occur outside of school and easy access to firearms could be said to be one reason for the high murder rates (or at least one could say firearms are the most popular murder weapon among teenagers). In fact, most of the schools with armed security are schools with a teenage population (high schools, some middle and junior highs).

I don't think deploying armed guards to stop school shootings is a realistic plan.

The first question to ask is where are these events taking place? IMO - when the discussion turns to guns - we have two problem areas.

The first is crime related (often injuring innocent victims) and the second is the more publicized type (school, theatre, campus, hospital, etc.) On the crime side, weapons might be part of daily life on the street. On the other side, weapons are tools of choice to do whatever crazy plan they've concocted.

In the case of a school shooting, an armed guard is just one additional variable to be avoided - much like a police officer on the street. Again, it's just what I think.

 

[edward]

Ask the Secret Service if they stopped guarding the President after Kennedy was killed, Ford shot at and Reagan was shot. Granted it might not be 100% effective but to use Columbine as a reason not to do it seems strange. That said I think it's a simple-minded dumb idea.

The secret service had always guarded the presidents and always will. Asking if they quit after Kennedy was shot was a strawman.

Anyone ever wonder what the outcome may have been if John Hinckley had been carrying a 9MM Glock with a high capacity magazine instead of a .22 caliber revolver? And no that is not a strawman that just brings us up to date on what we are facing.

My grand son's grade school already has an armed Resource Officer. Depending on the size of the school one officer may not be enough.

The perpetrators of these crimes are going for the easiest target. If we put armed guards at the schools, the only deterrent will be the presence of the guard not the effectiveness. Next they will have to put armed guards on the school buses. Will Junior High basketball games be next?

Each incident presents a different tactical situation especially in a crowd. Will we need snipers at football games.?

The death toll at these types of incidents is related to the sheer firepower that the perpetrator comes with.

There was a citizen armed with a Glock at the Gabriele Gifford's shooting in Tucson. He couldn't get a clear shot.

Loughner allegedly proceeded to fire apparently randomly at other members of the crowd.[2][20] The weapon used was reported to be a 9mm Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol with a 33-round magazine.[21][22] A nearby store employee said he heard "15 to 20 gunshots".[23] Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it .[24] Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the 14th injury.[25] The gunman was then tackled to the ground by 74-year-old retired US Army Colonel Bill Badger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting

 

[skeptic2]

The perpetrators of these crimes are going for the easiest target.

Adam Lanza killed himself. He knew it was going to be a suicide mission. Why would he be concerned about going for the easiest target?

 

[skeptic2]

There is already an estimated 300 million guns in circulation. In a basic nutshell, the realistic answer is that making weapons less available is not an option.

We can however control the situation with bullets.

The same thought occurred to me. In fact restriction of ammunition could be much more flexible than restricting weapons. For instance the purchase of a hunting license could come with a permit for a reasonable number of rounds. Shooting ranges could sell all the ammunition a customer wants but he would not be allowed to take it with him. Home owners would also be allowed reasonable number of rounds for protection.

The idea would be to prevent a gun owner from stockpiling large amounts of ammunition. Different types of ammunition could have different limits. High powered assault rifle ammunition could have lower limits than say.22 rounds.

 

[OmCheeto]

The secret service had always guarded the presidents and always will. Asking if they quit after Kennedy was shot was a strawman.

Anyone ever wonder what the outcome may have been if John Hinckley had been carrying a 9MM Glock with a high capacity magazine instead of a .22 caliber revolver? And no that is not a strawman that just brings us up to date on what we are facing.

My grand son's grade school already has an armed Resource Officer. Depending on the size of the school one officer may not be enough.

The perpetrators of these crimes are going for the easiest target. If we put armed guards at the schools, the only deterrent will be the presence of the guard not the effectiveness. Next they will have to put armed guards on the school buses. Will Junior High basketball games be next?

Each incident presents a different tactical situation especially in a crowd. Will we need snipers at football games.?

The death toll at these types of incidents is related to the sheer firepower that the perpetrator comes with.

There was a citizen armed with a Glock at the Gabriele Gifford's shooting in Tucson. He couldn't get a clear shot.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting

Pennsylvania gunman kills woman in church, two other people before dying in shootout with police

As the gunman fled, his pickup truck crashed into a second vehicle, and he shot and killed the other driver, police said. The truck subsequently crashed into a car driven by one of the troopers on Juniata Valley Road near Geeseytown, and the gunman got out and began firing. The troopers returned fire, killing the suspect, police said.

like a noose...

 

[Skrew]

In regards to Lanzas motives, this is a possibility.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...c-home-targeted-children-loved-loved-him.html

Also I believe I read(can't find the source) that he got into a fight at the school the day before the shooting. It might have been with the school psychologist. If this is the case then it's possible she was going to work with Lanzas mother to commit him.

If this is true then what he did was not random or unguided but an act of what he considerd revenge.

 

[SixNein]

The same thought occurred to me. In fact restriction of ammunition could be much more flexible than restricting weapons. For instance the purchase of a hunting license could come with a permit for a reasonable number of rounds. Shooting ranges could sell all the ammunition a customer wants but he would not be allowed to take it with him. Home owners would also be allowed reasonable number of rounds for protection.

The idea would be to prevent a gun owner from stockpiling large amounts of ammunition. Different types of ammunition could have different limits. High powered assault rifle ammunition could have lower limits than say.22 rounds.

This was exactly my thought process. Bullets have a shelf life, and one can control that variable so much easier than guns. It's flexible and provides lots of options.

A friend of mine also suggested something like a drivers license for guns. People would be required to undergo training, background checks, and the would obtain a license to buy guns and bullets. In every say 4 years, the person would have to undergo the same treatment again to achieve a renewal.

 

[jedishrfu]

I like that idea but was thinking along the lines of a militia. So you want a gun per the second amendment then you have to attend militia training every x months.

 

[CAC1001]

The same thought occurred to me. In fact restriction of ammunition could be much more flexible than restricting weapons. For instance the purchase of a hunting license could come with a permit for a reasonable number of rounds. Shooting ranges could sell all the ammunition a customer wants but he would not be allowed to take it with him. Home owners would also be allowed reasonable number of rounds for protection.

The idea would be to prevent a gun owner from stockpiling large amounts of ammunition. Different types of ammunition could have different limits. High powered assault rifle ammunition could have lower limits than say.22 rounds.

Ammunition is part of the word "arms." The Founders didn't just mean firearms but not the ammunition to use them at the time. Also, there is no such thing as a "high-powered assault rifle" and actual assault rifles are already illegal. Also, what would be bad about stockpiling large amounts of ammunition? If one has 5,000 rounds in their home, they can't use that to go on a shooting spree.

 

[CAC1001]

This was exactly my thought process. Bullets have a shelf life, and one can control that variable so much easier than guns. It's flexible and provides lots of options.

A friend of mine also suggested something like a drivers license for guns. People would be required to undergo training, background checks, and the would obtain a license to buy guns and bullets. In every say 4 years, the person would have to undergo the same treatment again to achieve a renewal.

The problem with gun licensing is that unlike with driver's licenses, the gun control-oriented states do not want the licenses of other states to apply in their states. If you get a driver's license in Texas, and then drive into New York state, your license is perfectly legal there for a temporary period of time. But if you have a license to carry a gun from another state and then bring that gun into New York state, it is illegal for you to carry it at any time. Only if you have a NY state license would it be legal.

But also, what good would gun licensing do to solve the problem of people like Lanza?

 

[CAC1001]

I like that idea but was thinking along the lines of a militia. So you want a gun per the second amendment then you have to attend militia training every x months.

The militia in the Second Amendment refers to the general population, the unorganized militia, not an organized militia created by the government. But also, how would such training work to stop people like a Lanza?

 

[jedishrfu]

The militia in the Second Amendment refers to the general population, the unorganized militia, not an organized militia created by the government. But also, how would such training work to stop people like a Lanza?

I don't know how it would work but just thinking along the lines of compulsory training like you're in the National Guard and have to spend two weeks each year in training with monthly meetings...

This would preserve the second amendment while at the same time discourage some people from owning guns because of the civic responsibility of being a part of a local militia.

I know as it stands no one will want to do this just as no one wants to do jury duty when called upon to do it.

The goal is to reduce the overall amount of guns which would in turn reduce access and frequency of these incidents.

 

[MarneMath]

I don't know how it would work but just thinking along the lines of compulsory training like you're in the National Guard and have to spend two weeks each year in training with monthly meetings...

This would preserve the second amendment while at the same time discourage some people from owning guns because of the civic responsibility of being a part of a local militia.

I know as it stands no one will want to do this just as no one wants to do jury duty when called upon to do it.

The goal is to reduce the overall amount of guns which would in turn reduce access and frequency of these incidents.

You're probably right. The same effect would be gained by burning all guns in the world. What do both ideas have in common? They both will never happen and have no chance of happening.

 

[jedishrfu]

You're probably right. The same effect would be gained by burning all guns in the world. What do both ideas have in common? They both will never happen and have no chance of happening.

But it does have a greater chance of happening as we already must renew drivers licenses and concealed handgun carry licenses... to participate in a civil society and it raises awareness.

 

[Drakkith]

But it does have a greater chance of happening as we already must renew drivers licenses and concealed handgun carry licenses... to participate in a civil society and it raises awareness.

I don't think you idea has any chance of becoming true, not do I believe it would reduce the frequency and severity of these kinds of incidents enough to be worth it.

 

[MarneMath]

But it does have a greater chance of happening as we already must renew drivers licenses and concealed handgun carry licenses... to participate in a civil society and it raises awareness.

Yes, but that's completely difference. You don't HAVE to own a license to own a car. You don't HAVE to hace a carry and conceal to own a gun. You're asking people to have to be licensed to own something they believe is a fundamental right. Regardless if you agree with this or not, I can wager that the vast majority of Gun Owners believe that owning a gun is as fundamental to liberty as voting.

The simple solution to this is obvious, less guns. The obstacle to this solution, people in America tend to believe (wrongly) that by making it harder to buy guns legally, less guns are on the market and thus less violent crimes. They wrongly target Rifles because they look scary and unneccessary, but the simple fact of the matter is the more people will die and more crimes will be committed by handguns every year. Most deaths that occur from a gun shooting will be done by a gun not owned by the person. We have 300 MILLION guns in this country, (at a minimum) yet hire the bare minimum of ATF agents.

I'm willing to bet, even if tomorrow, we said, let's ban guns all together no one can buy them anymore, not even for hunting. Taurus will then by the number one gun of choice and gangs will still buy them illegal as always. Growing up in the inner city, I could've got a 9mm for 50 bucks. This isn't a linear problem where one great idea will solve them problem. Making it harder to buy guns legally is only half the problem. The other half, quite frankly, is much more difficult.

You want ideas that can help? Try:

1)Closing the Gun Show Loophole. If you want a gun, a background check should be manadatory, no matter who the seller is.
2)Closed the Revoke License Loophole, probably the most asinine law out there.*
3)Require reporting of a loss/stolen Gun.

*If you are unaware of this one. If a gun seller loses his/her license then the seller can consider their collection as private, and thus sell it without doing a background check.

 

[skeptic2]

If one has 5,000 rounds in their home, they can't use that to go on a shooting spree.

Why not?

 

[skeptic2]

If you get a driver's license in Texas, and then drive into New York state, your license is perfectly legal there for a temporary period of time.

If a doctor or lawyer gets a license to practice in Texas, is he or she legally able to practice in New York?

 

[skeptic2]

The militia in the Second Amendment refers to the general population, the unorganized militia, not an organized militia created by the government. But also, how would such training work to stop people like a Lanza?

This is a very strange interpretation of the word militia. If your interpretation is used then the phrase "well regulated" becomes meaningless.

 

[CAC1001]

I don't know how it would work but just thinking along the lines of compulsory training like you're in the National Guard and have to spend two weeks each year in training with monthly meetings...

This would preserve the second amendment while at the same time discourage some people from owning guns because of the civic responsibility of being a part of a local militia.

In Switzerland, people keep a gun in the home as part of the militia.

 

[CAC1001]

Why not?

Well they can't carry that many on them all at once for one, but also, one doesn't need anywhere near that to go on a shooting spree.

If a doctor or lawyer gets a license to practice in Texas, is he or she legally able to practice in New York?

There's a difference though. One doesn't need to use their doctor or lawyer skills if traveling to a different part of the country for a period.

This is a very strange interpretation of the word militia. If your interpretation is used then the phrase "well regulated" becomes meaningless.

The phrase "well-regulated" in the old English meant "well-trained" or "well-disciplined." Also, if you look at the use of the word militia in the Constitution, it's regarded as a pre-existing entity. If you read Article I, Section 8 (on the Powers of Congress):

The Congress shall have the power...

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Here is Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

 

[jtbell]

In Switzerland, people keep a gun in the home as part of the militia.

They're also subject (at least the men) to compulsory military service, which includes both basic training and periodic refresher training.

 

[russ_watters]

While I agree with some that there is room to make additional restrictions under the 2nd Amendment, I'd rather just see it rewritten.

 

[Astronuc]

While I agree with some that there is room to make additional restrictions under the 2nd Amendment, I'd rather just see it rewritten.

Russ for Congress in 2014!

Meanwhile - Journalists Thrust Into Heart Of Gun Story
http://www.npr.org/2012/12/27/168157237/journalists-thrust-into-heart-of-gun-story

and the impact - Shootings Leave Sandy Hook Survivors Rethinking The Odds
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/201...eave-sandy-hook-survivors-rethinking-the-odds

 

[Astronuc]

The phrase "well-regulated" in the old English meant "well-trained" or "well-disciplined." Also, if you look at the use of the word militia in the Constitution, it's regarded as a pre-existing entity. If you read Article I, Section 8 (on the Powers of Congress):

The Congress shall have the power...

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Here is Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Books/federlist/federa00.htm

It does help to know the Federalist papers when reflecting on the Constitution, but one should also reflect upon the context of the time. The US was a nascent state, more or less at the mercy of the stronger imperial states, like England, France, Spain and others. Not having a standing professional army, like England, the US had to rely on a citizen's malitia, and perhaps some felt more comfortable with citizens in that role than a professional army controlled by a government.

Also, there were lots of problems like communications, which was by horseback over long distances - or perhaps lanterns in some local areas. And the states were just getting used to a Confederation as of ~1781 - then as a stronger Union after the Constitution was ratified in 1789.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

Also, one must consider the technology of the time - single shot muskets and pistols. One must consider if the repeating rifle and 6 shot revolver had existed at the time, would the second amendment have been written as it was without restriction?

 

[nsaspook]

Also, one must consider the technology of the time - single shot muskets and pistols. One must consider if the repeating rifle and 6 shot revolver had existed at the time, would the second amendment have been written as it was without restriction?

A large number of states constitutions were written with explicit gun rights long after the 6 shooter and repeating rifles where invented so it's unlikely to have made a difference at the federal level.

I'm beginning to wonder if several states will even enforce more federal gun restrictions for state only transactions like is being seem with some federal drug laws being "nullified" in Washington and Colorado according to the 10th Amendment. The fugitive slave cases court rulings are earlier cases in which states voted not to enforce federal law by enacting Personal liberty laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_liberty_laws
http://www.ohioswallow.com/book/The+Rescue+of+Joshua+Glover
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

 

[russ_watters]

Eventually, that tactic is going to bite us on the rear on something important if we don't squash it for more minor things like pot. It is enabled/made worse by the Obama administration's refusal to do its primary duty, which is to carry out the law. I could definitely see firearms being the issue that explodes it: a federal assault weapons ban is passed and then Texas says "nah, we don't want to enforce that here".

 

[jtbell]

http://www.thestate.com/2012/12/28/2570413/bill-would-exempt-sc-made-guns.html (The State newspaper, Columbia)

A proposed piece of legislation intends to exempt pistols and rifles made in South Carolina from federal regulation as long as they stay in-state.

The Firearms Freedom Act, pre-filed earlier this month by state Sen. Lee Bright, would mean that firearms, ammunition and gun accessories made in South Carolina aren't subject to federal rules and oversight. Weapons made in South Carolina, the bill notes, must be stamped with the words "Made in South Carolina."

I suppose we'd have to have checkpoints on all South Carolina border crossings, to ensure that SC-made guns don't leave the state.

 

[jedishrfu]

http://www.thestate.com/2012/12/28/2570413/bill-would-exempt-sc-made-guns.html (The State newspaper, Columbia)



I suppose we'd have to have checkpoints on all South Carolina border crossings, to ensure that SC-made guns don't leave the state.

Better yet victims could sue the state for damages.

 

[BobG]

Eventually, that tactic is going to bite us on the rear on something important if we don't squash it for more minor things like pot. It is enabled/made worse by the Obama administration's refusal to do its primary duty, which is to carry out the law. I could definitely see firearms being the issue that explodes it: a federal assault weapons ban is passed and then Texas says "nah, we don't want to enforce that here".

Actually, the marijuana issue is a little more nuanced. Initial statements from the DoJ indicated that the federal government wouldn't change their enforcement just because the state law changed. Later statements by Obama indicated that enforcement wouldn't carry a very high priority.

The change? Colorado representatives introduced legislation in Congress to change the US Substance Act.

It just makes sense to take more of a wait and see attitude towards enforcement when there's at least some possibility (probably small, in my opinion) that those enforcement actions will soon be meaningless under federal law, as well as state law. (I still give Coffman some credit for opposing the state law, but backing an effort to change federal law. Representatives should represent the will of their people, even when they personally disagree.)

Federal laws and state laws conflicting with each other with no likelihood of either being changed would be a completely different situation.

 

[nsaspook]

Better yet victims could sue the state for damages.

Like this? http://news.yahoo.com/claim-seeks-100-million-child-survivor-connecticut-school-003646074.html

The unidentified client, referred to as Jill Doe, heard "cursing, screaming, and shooting" over the school intercom when the gunman, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, opened fire, according to the claim filed by New Haven-based attorney Irv Pinsky.

"As a consequence, the ... child has sustained emotional and psychological trauma and injury, the nature and extent of which are yet to be determined," the claim said.

I'm not shocked but saddened because we all knew a lawsuit was going to happen.

 

[russ_watters]

Actually, the marijuana issue is a little more nuanced. Initial statements from the DoJ indicated that the federal government wouldn't change their enforcement just because the state law changed. Later statements by Obama indicated that enforcement wouldn't carry a very high priority.

It just makes sense to take more of a wait and see attitude towards enforcement...

Even if that is true in practical terms, it isn't allowable from a legal/logical point of view: The President's job is to carry out the law that exists today. Period. Heck, if he can stop enforcing a law because he thinks it will be repealed, can't he also start enforcing a law that doesn't exist?

Probably not: if he tried that, someone (the courts) could stop him. In the case of not doing his duty, there is no one to stop him except the voters. That doesn't make it any more right than breaking a law that you know won't be enforced.

Also, and probably more to the point: He's taken the same position on medical marijuana, which is still illegal more than three years after he stopped upholding the law where that is concerned: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101903638.html

 

[jedishrfu]

I'm not shocked but saddened because we all knew a lawsuit was going to happen.

Not to mention someone trying to scam people out of money over Newtown:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/2...wn-funds-scam-also-sought-sandy-relief-money/

 

[thoughtgaze]

we live in a chaotic world, we should expect something like this to happen every once in a while.

one shouldn't be surprised. basically, if you can imagine a human being doing something, then eventually, someone will do it.

 

[OmCheeto]

Federal laws and state laws conflicting with each other with no likelihood of either being changed would be a completely different situation.

Makes me understand the Libertarians a bit more.

http://www.deathwithdignity.org/historyfacts/gonzalesvoregon
The Supreme Court today ruled 6 to 3 in favor of the people of Oregon. The case of Gonzales v. Oregon came about because of the actions of former Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2001 who ordered Federal Drug Enforcement Agents to prosecute physicians and pharmacists for practicing under Oregon's Death with Dignity law. The Supreme Court's ruling today affirms the right of Oregonians to govern their own end-of-life, pain management and palliative care choices.

Too bad my dad lived in state where they had no such law. He had to shoot himself in the head with a rifle to end his misery.

Medical cannabis
The Oregon Medical Marijuana Act was established by Ballot Measure 67, a citizens' initiative, in November 1998, the same election as the referendum Measure 57. It modified state law to allow the cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana by prescription by patients with certain medical conditions. The ballot measure passed by a margin of 54.6% to 45.4%. The Act does not affect federal law, which still prohibits the cultivation and possession of marijuana. Bernie Hobson, spokesman for the DEA's Seattle regional office, said "From a federal standpoint, there is no such thing as medical marijuana."

Conflict with federal drug law
Physician liability
Physicians who recommend or support marijuana cannot have their licenses revoked according to a September 7, 2000 decision by the U.S. District Court. The case, Dr. Marcus Conant, et al., v. McCaffrey et al...

bolding mine

I don't know if my dad liked pot or not. My guess is he didn't. I don't care for it myself. He liked beer though, as do I.

But to the Feds, I would say, let's take this to court. Goonies are used to this interventional nanny "we know what's good for you better than you do" Federal ********.

But back to the topic of guns.

My more republican than Russ brother dropped by last Saturday, and we talked about Obama, guns, sick freaks, and responsible gun ownership. He presented what I would consider a "straw man" argument, in that "Obama wants to take away everyone's guns". If someone could point me to a reference to that, I would greatly appreciate it. Stosselisms like; "Give me a break". just don't hold water with me. Guns are here to stay. We will always have sick freaks. And we will always have responsible and irresponsible gun owners.

My case to minimize these occurrences revolved around self regulation by gun organizations. There is a group called the International Air Transport Association(IATA), which is a self proclaimed "trade association of airlines" who regulate how dangerous goods are shipped. I can imagine that the NRA and other gun organizations can do the same. Guns are dangerous, should be monitored, and kept out of the hands of irresponsible owners(and nut jobs, duh.).

I of course forgot to send my brother the links to various youtube videos about guns and different types of gun owners. I will share them with you now.

How to set your AR-15 on fire.
My favorite.
This guy is factual, calm, scientific, and IMHO, hilarious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6cwh4IxXSc

My second favorite
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZY3UuPtcrs
(also, take a shower. )

I will leave it up to the PF jury to decide how I feel about these two gentlemen:
(They spend the first two minutes talking, which I find a bit boring, so skip to 1:55 if you can, and watch them shoot!)
Title: How to Deal With Trespassers, AND irritate the GULLIBLE masses
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdjk_W8nTno
They don't look like they were very far from the targets.
It's probably a good thing they had fully automatic weapons as they didn't appear to have a good hit to bullet ratio. (They never did hit the Pepsi can, and it took the other one at least 10 rounds to hit the coffee can.)
~3:10 "We really don't like to do things like this".

I would be suffering from an adrenalin overdose if I did something like that.
That looks like a lot of fun, actually.

[IMHO]
Assault weapons appear to have several functions.
As they said, these are tools.
Tools for:

1. Fun!
2. Adrenalin!
3. Bragging rights!
4. Terror!
5. Murder!
6. war​

[/IMHO]

ps. I'm still researching buying guns. Never owned one before, but it seems to be a popular fad lately. Can't miss out on a new fad.

 

[jim hardy]

if you can imagine a human being doing something, then eventually, someone will do it.

The unthinkable has become commonplace in today's "entertainment".
Normal folks dismiss it as just a cheap thrill but i have to believe some smoldering psyches take it as permission.

...self regulation by gun organizations.

The advertising in some magazines does seem, well, bizarre.
I think gun industry needs to rein in its ad-men. They don't need to be appealing to people's feelings of weakness, rage and desire for power.

Also, Entertainment industy needs to consider that among their audiences there are some troubled souls who'll go out and imitate "Pulp Fiction" . They deserve at least as much consideration as any other minority.
Not to pick on that movie in particular for i know there's far more graphic out there.
But I found it disturbing. Watched it because i assumed it would be thoughtful tale about a writer... silly me, I should stick to Carey Grant .

http://rt.com/usa/news/newtown-massacre-adam-otoole-426/

 

[OmCheeto]

Is this post your way of telling me I need to CHILL a bit? If so you are right. I do.

Actually, you are the last person I'd like to see chill. You seem to know what you are talking about, when it comes to guns.

 

[OmCheeto]

The unthinkable has become commonplace in today's "entertainment".
Normal folks dismiss it as just a cheap thrill but i have to believe some smoldering psyches take it as permission.



The advertising in some magazines does seem, well, bizarre.
I think gun industry needs to rein in its ad-men. They don't need to be appealing to people's feelings of weakness, rage and desire for power.

I've yet to pick up a gun magazine, so I don't know what you are talking about.

Also, Entertainment industy needs to consider that among their audiences there are some troubled souls who'll go out and imitate "Pulp Fiction" . They deserve at least as much consideration as any other minority.
Not to pick on that movie in particular for i know there's far more graphic out there.
But I found it disturbing. Watched it because i assumed it would be thoughtful tale about a writer... silly me, I should stick to Carey Grant .

http://rt.com/usa/news/newtown-massacre-adam-otoole-426/

I watched "Reservoir Dogs", and think I share your distaste for that type of cinema.
All I could think was; "This Tarantino fellow seems to have channeled his sociopathy onto the big screen."

hmmm... (google google google)

Sociopathworld
I think Coppola’s Godfather series created the modern heroic Sociopath. We rooted for Brando’s and Pacino’s characters, although Michael Corleone became unlikable by the end of Godfather II. Coppola was the first to romanticize the familiar character of the gangster in movies. But Quentin Tarantino perfected the generalized concept of the protagonist Sociopath. His breakout film was, of course, Pulp Fiction, a so-called dark comedy with such a wide variety of watchable sociopaths one could probably make a television series around virtually every major character in the film. In fact, the two strands of modern Sociopathic television and films can be plausibly traced to either Coppola or Tarantino.

hmmm... I usually like comedies. I think I'll skip Pulp Fiction though.

Perhaps we could use that as a litmus test for gun owners:

Om; "What's your favorite movie?"
Gun License Applicant; "Pulp Fiction!"
Om; "Request denied."
Gun License Applicant; "No wait. The Sound of Music!"
Om; "Full of Nazis. Request denied"
Gun License Applicant; "But, but, but..."
Om; "Stutterer. Denied!"

 

[jim hardy]

OM thanks for your humor, like Mark Twain you have a way with words.

I can imagine that the NRA and other gun organizations can do the same. Guns are dangerous, should be monitored, and kept out of the hands of irresponsible owners(and nut jobs, duh.).

Yes, the much maligned NRA came up with the "FBI Background Check" and it is a common sense approach that works.
They got stymied when trying to get psychological riskiness into the background check. That's private medical information so there's no mechanism to get it into FBI database.

Maybe this tragedy will stimulate thought and discussion on the matter.
Admittedly that's a difficult thing to quantify - but the surest way to achieve nothing is to attempt nothing.

 

[jim hardy]

"Natural Born Killers", a disturbingly violent romp, had in its sub-themes the inner rage of broken kids and the media's sick appetite for violence. No wonder the critics universally hated it - it rubs their industry's nose in their own dung.

Not recommending it, by the way. My socialist stepson, who loved it for the "cinematography"(whatever that is) tells me it sparked some copycat incidents.
It did have a good cast.

old jim

 

[OmCheeto]

OM thanks for your humor, like Mark Twain you have a way with words.

Thanks! If I didn't try and make myself laugh, I would spend the whole day crying over these kids being murdered.

Yes, the much maligned NRA came up with the "FBI Background Check" and it is a common sense approach that works.

bolding mine​

After a half hour of googling, I cannot find evidence that this is true. Do you have a source?

They got stymied when trying to get psychological riskiness into the background check. That's private medical information so there's no mechanism to get it into FBI database.

Maybe this tragedy will stimulate thought and discussion on the matter.
Admittedly that's a difficult thing to quantify - but the surest way to achieve nothing is to attempt nothing.

Not sure if this website is a bunch of left wing socialists or not:

NRA seeks to weaken background check system in Virginia
Gun Lobby Would Scrap State Database That is Best in Nation

Richmond, Virginia— The National Rifle Association (NRA) is calling on its membership to help repeal a 1989 law that created the Virginia Firearms Transaction Program (VFTP)
...
Most disturbingly, the elimination of the VFTP would effectively repeal Virginia’s One-Handgun-Per-Month law, which was enacted in 1993 to curb illegal firearms trafficking. According to the Virginia State Police, the state would be unable to enforce the law without the VFTP.

“Unable to repeal the One-Handgun-a-Month law through our legislature last session, the NRA has now devised an underhanded method to achieve its goal of increased gun sales,” said Andrew Goddard, President of the Richmond Million Mom March Chapter. “Apparently, straw purchasers and traffickers now fall under the heading of ‘law-abiding citizens.’”

This is not the first time the NRA has attempted to undermine the background check system for firearm purchasers. After the Brady Act was signed in 1994, the NRA funded lawsuits in nine different states that sought to have the law struck down as unconstitutional.

As I recall, we were discussing something along the same line in the "Eric Holder/Gunrunner/Fast & Furious(F&F)" thread. I don't recall in which states there is a limit to the number of guns someone can buy, but apparently in Texas, you can buy as many as you want, sell them to Mexicans, and get rich. As long as you don't get caught of course. But Texas has a big border.

Hmmm... Well, as long as it's just Mexican kids that are being murdered, who cares:

On January 30, 2010, according to the Univision report, hired hit men working for the Mexican cartel La Linea invaded a house and opened fire on nearly 60 teenagers who had gathered there for a birthday party. More shootings occurred outside against neighbors and fleeing students. Univision reported that three of the high-caliber weapons used by the hit men were linked to Operation Fast and Furious.
This massacre does not appear to be an isolated incident.

According to wiki, 1300 F&F guns are still unaccounted for.

and

According to [U.S.] Justice Department figures, in the past five years 94,000 weapons have been recovered from Mexican drug cartels, of which 64,000 -- 70 percent -- come from the United States." Once guns are obtained at gunshops in the United States, they are then smuggled into Mexico across the US-Mexico border.

This seems to confirm what I remember of the story. For every gun lost by F&F, 50 guns are being supplied by strawmen. (64k/1.3k~=50)

But as I said before, they're only Mexican children.*

-----------------------
*Sometimes my humour can become a bit, twisted, when trying to make a point.