US Connecticut Shooting

[das_nut]

I guess those of you who say that guns aren't the problem would try to argue that these two firefighters would have been killed regardless, and the other two men would also be fighting for their lives in the absence of guns

I could turn that around and say that I guess those of you who would say gun control is the solution ignored the fact that the shooter could not legally own a firearm.

It's also worth mentioning that the people pushing for these changes aren't the ones who will end up fighting the cartels who will jump at chance to enter a new black market. I might. But that's okay, I can always use some extra income.

Yep. Unless you destroy drug trafficking first, and the cartels with it, the end result is going to be the cartels will use their existing networks to enter the gun trade.

Only way of killing the cartels, as far as I can see it, is fight them economically - full legalization of drugs.

Which has its own problems...

 

[beancounter]

I could turn that around and say that I guess those of you who would say gun control is the solution ignored the fact that the shooter could not legally own a firearm.

Let's not forget the biggest loophole of all that allows anyone to get a gun...gun shows.

 

[Moll Flanders]

Piers Unrepentant In Face Of 59,000 Petition - Yahoo! News UK

It seems quite a few people want Piers Morgan deported for speaking out about gun control. Please don't send him back here.

 

[das_nut]

Let's not forget the biggest loophole of all that allows anyone to get a gun...gun shows.

Technically not legal in Connecticut. Gun shows are required to run background checks on all buyers in Connecticut.

About a third of the states have various restrictions on who can buy what at gunshows, and the requirements, including some of the largest states (in terms of population): California and New York.

This may be part of the reason why less than one percent of criminals report acquiring their firearm at a gun show. Or it may be that there's a more widely available way of obtaining a firearm without a background check.

 

[beancounter]

Technically not legal in Connecticut. Gun shows are required to run background checks on all buyers in Connecticut.

About a third of the states have various restrictions on who can buy what at gunshows, and the requirements, including some of the largest states (in terms of population): California and New York.

This may be part of the reason why less than one percent of criminals report acquiring their firearm at a gun show. Or it may be that there's a more widely available way of obtaining a firearm without a background check.

As with many laws/requirements regarding gun sales, those that you mentioned in CT and elsewhere probably have no teeth or are impractical/difficult to enforce. Without specifics, I have to assume that's the case. Has there ever been an audit of the records of gun show dealers indicating the background checks they perform? How do you know many of them just take the cash and conveniently forget the background check.

From person experience, I know this kind of activity happens. I went to a gun show with a friend when I was in NJ. He asked the guy for one of those metal throwing stars. The dealer denied having any. My friend pulled out a wallet full of cash. Magically, all of the sudden, the dealer had an inventory of the stuff in a box behind the counter.

You trust criminals to report information accurately? If gun shows are the ideal place to obtain guns without a hassle, why would you expect most of them to "reveal" such information, potentially killing the golden goose? After they get out of jail, just go to the local gun show to re-arm...

 

[mlp]

I could turn that around and say that I guess those of you who would say gun control is the solution ignored the fact that the shooter could not legally own a firearm.

Gun shows, internet sales (fewer than half of internet sales would be legal if done by a licensed gun dealer obeying the laws), controls over which have been vigorously opposed by the NRA.

But I guess you've at least temporarily dropped the argument that those who want to kill will kill just as successfully if guns aren't available. After all, this guy was able to kill only one ninety year old woman when what he had was a hammer, even though he was twenty five years younger at the time. I guess that it's kind of a stretch even for you to argue that he could have killed those two firefighters and wounded two more if he hadn't had his Bushmaster.

Yep. Unless you destroy drug trafficking first, and the cartels with it, the end result is going to be the cartels will use their existing networks to enter the gun trade.

Only way of killing the cartels, as far as I can see it, is fight them economically - full legalization of drugs.

Which has its own problems...

Which is why the way to approach this is to regulate manufacture and export. Which is why the NRA is so well funded - gun manufacturers, and everyone else for whom this is such big business.

Really, it's brilliant - no other big business has been quite as successful in getting millions of unpaid volunteers to promote its profit making enterprise. You should ask for at least a nominal stipend for all of the good work you're doing for them.

 

[mlp]

I'm not arguing that there wouldn't be less violence with an absence of guns, I'm arguing that getting rid of them is a lot more complicated than pushing for legal change.

I agree with you. And frankly, I think that the chances of any meaningful change for the better are minimal.

My comments aren't directed at you - you're not one who is arguing that guns are equivalent to knives, pillows, cars - all of the nonsensical equivalencies that are so dear to the hearts of some - nor are you upholding guns as some sacred object which ensures safety and security, or gun ownership as some sacred right.

IOW, you're not acting in the capacity of unpaid publicist for the gun industry.

 

[Envy]

I don't know if this has been said, but I think that the main reason for guns being chosen as a tool of weapon in these situations may not just be ease-of-use or power, but also detachment. Most other weapons require you to be close to do any damage, and is rather violent to boot. With guns you can just point and shoot from a safe distance where you don't have to be very close to the victim or anything like that.

 

[Eleven]

This may be part of the reason why less than one percent of criminals report acquiring their firearm at a gun show.

There's a poll? On this topic, you're a veritable gold mine of useless misinformation.

And for whoever brought up the cartel thing: I'm surprised you didn't mention the Russian Mafia. Or thugs in jack boots. Or the Iranian nuclear program.

 

[das_nut]

There's a poll? On this topic, you're a veritable gold mine of useless misinformation.

I see that you haven't done your research.

United States Department of Justice did a report called "Firearm Use by Offenders".

Purchasing firearms was least likely form of acquiring a firearm for criminals. Almost 40% of firearms were acquired from friends/family. Another 40% were from an illegal source. Of the guns that were purchased (14%), most came from a retail store, the remainder mostly came from pawn shops. Gun shows were only responsible for less than one percent of guns being acquired. (First page of the report.)

There's also some other statistics worth noting: Only about half the criminals that were carrying firearms received a more severe sentence for using a firearm. Oh, and the majority of weapons used by criminals aren't "military-style" weapons.

See, this is why you should do your research. Another AWB will take a vast amount of political capital, and yet be ineffective. Closing the so-called "gun show loophole" will take more political capital, yet not effect crime rates.

If you actually want to reduce gun violence, why not spend your political capital where it will be most effective? NRA isn't opposed to going after criminals - this is low hanging fruit here. Almost 40% of guns used by criminals were acquired illegally - go after those sources. Increase penalties for carrying a firearm during the commission of a crime. Create or increase penalties for family members and friends who provide a gun carried during the commission of a crime (for example, create an automatic assumption of liability for irresponsible gun owners whose guns have been carried during a crime).

We're in the real world here, and prohibition isn't possible in fact or in law. The gun bans proposed are ineffective for stopping crime. However, the NRA isn't going to defend criminals, and with its rhetoric about "responsible gun owners", isn't likely to push too hardly against the idea of holding irresponsible gun owners to criminal and/or civil liability.

Or we could revive the AWB, ban guns based on how they look, and ban larger capacity magazines. That won't do much.

After all, when someone decides to break into your home with a gun, are you going to be relieved they only have 10 rounds? That the weapon they are carrying doesn't have a folding stock, or a pistol grip? Thought so.

 

[das_nut]

As with many laws/requirements regarding gun sales, those that you mentioned in CT and elsewhere probably have no teeth or are impractical/difficult to enforce.

If we see a revived AWB, we'll probably just add one more law that practically has no teeth and/or are impractical or difficult to enforce.

Progress?

 

[Eleven]

I see that you haven't done your research.

Point missed by you. It never matters to the victims of gun violence the source of the weapons. It only matters that they were shot to death.

We can begin to slow the rate at which people are being killed by guns by more closely regulating the sale and possession of gunss and ammunition. Get on board or get out of the way. It's coming.

 

[beancounter]

If we see a revived AWB, we'll probably just add one more law that practically has no teeth and/or are impractical or difficult to enforce.

Progress?

So IYO, the only course of action is to do nothing? To not even try?

 

[ledboots]

Point missed by you. It never matters to the victims of gun violence the source of the weapons. It only matters that they were shot to death.

We can begin to slow the rate at which people are being killed by guns by more closely regulating the sale and possession of gunss and ammunition. Get on board or get out of the way. It's coming.

Luckily, homicide rates are in decline and have been for years.

From wiki: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
The year 2010 was overall the most free of serious crime in almost forty years. The recent overall decrease spans all types of such crime, with violent and property crimes having reached an all-time low. The homicide rate in particular decreased 51% between its record high point in 1991 and 2010.From 2000-2008, the year-by-year homicide rate continuously decreased.[11]While the homicide rate decreased continuously between 1991 and 2000 from 9.8 homicides per 100,000 persons to 5.5 per 100,000, it remained at 5.4-5.7 until 2009, when it dipped down to 5.0, and continued to drop in 2010 to 4.8.

 

[beancounter]

Luckily, homicide rates are in decline and have been for years.

So, you're implying that there is a correlation (and causation) between an increase in gun ownership and a decrease in crime? Source?

 

[ledboots]

So, you're implying that there is a correlation (and causation) between an increase in gun ownership and a decrease in crime? Source?

Of course not. Jeez, you don't have to jump down my throat. The media publicizes and glamorizes murder, especially particularly heartbreaking ones like the Newtown shootings. They make everyone think the country is unsafe, while in reality, the crime rate is dropping sharply.

I grew up in the next town over from Newtown, and like everyone, I have had my heart broken over this shooting. My brother and his family decided to spend Christmas out of state because it is just too sad up there. I don't care about gun control particularly, although I am consistently against giving up freedoms for safety reasons. I care that people want to politicize a tragedy and use it for their own agendas. A sick killer attacked defenseless children in a formerly peaceful little town. Using this to get legislation passed is nauseating. Imo.

 

[Eleven]

Luckily, homicide rates are in decline and have been for years.

Yea, they are for a number of reasons. By passing and enforcing stricter gun and ammunition regulations, the rates will drop at an accelerated rate.

On the other hand, mass shootings by people carrying multiple weapons and wearing body armor are increasing.

It might be a while until we see adequate gun regulations that make a measureable difference but the time is coming. Those opposing it are fighting the inevitable. U.S. history is ripe with similar efforts to stop positive change. They always fail, as will this ridiculous effort to arm the citizenry.

 

[das_nut]

We can begin to slow the rate at which people are being killed by guns by more closely regulating the sale and possession of gunss and ammunition. Get on board or get out of the way. It's coming.

Some states regulate weapons more strictly than others. Yet that doesn't appear to have an effect on murder rates.

There's better ideas.

One of the more interesting ones I've heard is to give a financial incentive for people to inform on illegal guns. (Remember, illegally acquired guns are used far more frequently than "gun show loophole"-acquired guns.)

Such an incentive should work in several ways - pay the informant, but also kick money to the police department (after all, just look at how drug money has incentivized police to fight the war on drugs).

Sure, we're going to get plenty of ******-off people ratting out other people just for some quick cash, but it removes illegal guns from the streets. Should be easy to push pass the NRA as well.

 

[Eleven]

Some states regulate weapons more strictly than others. Yet that doesn't appear to have an effect on murder rates.

There's better ideas.

One of the more interesting ones I've heard is to give a financial incentive for people to inform on illegal guns. (Remember, illegally acquired guns are used far more frequently than "gun show loophole"-acquired guns.)

Such an incentive should work in several ways - pay the informant, but also kick money to the police department (after all, just look at how drug money has incentivized police to fight the war on drugs).

Sure, we're going to get plenty of ******-off people ratting out other people just for some quick cash, but it removes illegal guns from the streets. Should be easy to push pass the NRA as well.

Your idea is an old one that wouldn't have affected the mass murders at Sandy Hook, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, NYC, Oak Creek, Aurora, Oakland, Tucson, Huntsville, or Fort Hood - the last ten mass shootings in the U.S. All shooters used guns purchased legally.

People are sometimes irrationally resistant to change. Those arguing against gun regulations seem especially so. Their resistance is reminiscent of those who favored separate but equal schools. It was, they claimed, their culture and they offered it as a better idea than integrated schools. But it wasn't a better idea. It was an only an attempt to slow inevitable change.

 

[ledboots]

Your idea is an old one that wouldn't have affected the mass murders at Sandy Hook, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, NYC, Oak Creek, Aurora, Oakland, Tucson, Huntsville, or Fort Hood - the last ten mass shootings in the U.S. All shooters used guns purchased legally.

People are sometimes irrationally resistant to change. Those arguing against gun regulations seem especially so. Their resistance is reminiscent of those who favored separate but equal schools. It was, they claimed, their culture and they offered it as a better idea than integrated schools. But it wasn't a better idea. It was an only an attempt to slow inevitable change.

The weapons used in Newtown were purchased legally by a citizen who was murdered and then had her guns stolen and used in a horrific crime.

As far as the gun control resistance, there is always going to be that in the US. Many people interpret the Bill of Rights as saying that the right to bear arms is a constitutional right . Many others disagree and think the government's militia will take good care of an unarmed citizenry and not abridge the freedoms we enjoy. Either way, whack job child killers will find a gun or a bomb and keep slaughtering children while the lawmakers debate laws.