The Terrible Tragedy in CT, and what do we do about it?

[Jimb]

You, like pretty all gun advocates, make two completely different arguments to keep your guns. And to be honest, I would likely do the same if something as important to me was being challenged.

On one hand you provide a list of questions that seem to imply that if answered to your satisfaction you could be convinced to change course. While on the other hand you state it is your right under the second amendment to bear "arms".

It would therefore seem that any attempt to answer any questions would be a total waste of time and would simply fuel an argument if the goal in so doing was to bring you onside...not to mention that there is no clear black and white answer to many of the questions you pose.

So, if I could be so bold as to suggest that the first order of business perhaps should be to clarify...and perhaps even amend...the intent of the second amendment.

In my ignorance I ask you, could the second amendment be interpreted that someone can arm themselves with pretty well anything? After all, do you not want to trump whatever your attacker has? What if he has chemical spray or a grenade; do you not want at least the same? Man, when I think of the stuff Tom Cruse or Arnold has in most of their films! Woah...

If there is agreement that some weapons are (logically) off limits, then why does the reverse not apply; there is a limit to what a civilian can arm themselves with, such as, say, brass nuckles for example?

Jim

[baltobernie]

I'm having trouble understanding the pro-gun position objecting to the licensing of every firearm, the prohibition of civilian ownership of certain kinds of guns and ammunition, and the requirement that all private weapons be stored in an armory when not in use.

I won't go to the trouble of citing statistics; the numbers are staggering and irrefutable, but dismissed by the pro-gun folks as irrelevant. I'd like to argue the practical, not the constitutional, side of home gun ownership.

Many years ago, I sold handguns and long guns in a PA sporting goods store. A friend who knows this asked if we could forgo our usual lunch spot one day, and I might accompany him to a gun dealer or two and help him pick out a gun. “What do you want a gun for?” I asked. “Protection.” “Protection from what?” He then went on to describe various perils that may befall him, and I questioned him in detail about each one.

I don't know any burglars (I think), but I would imagine the very last thing a burglar wants is to encounter a resident while he is plying his trade. It wouldn't matter if the resident is armed or not; the possibility of later identification, not to mention the immediate 911 call, would be reasons enough to avoid occupied dwellings. So his chance of being burglarized while home with his car parked out front, lawn mowed, and no junk mail flowing out his mailbox is probably rather slim. And if he's hit while away, the gun won't help him. In fact, there will probably be another illicit gun added to the criminal inventory.

But not all burglars are lucky or smart, so what are Mike's options otherwise? My first suggestion was a central station alarm, which would cost less than a gun, provide fire alarm benefits, and would be a helluva burglary deterrent. Since he doesn't have an art collection, or other extraneous trappings of wealth that can be easily discerned by a would-be thief (coin collector magazines, for example), the odds of him being targeted and struck go way, way down with a reputable alarm company placard and glowing LED on the front of his house.

OK, but what if someone wishes him harm? Well ... that's a whole 'nother bucket of fish; now we're talking Home Invasion. The only self-defense against this is to have a loaded weapon within reach at all times. Not just a quick opening lockbox on the bedstand, but a pistol on his hip while cooking dinner and a shotgun against his chair while watching TV. Because if someone wishes you harm, they're not going to ring the doorbell.

Let's be honest. A middle-aged guy living in a decent neighborhood in a low-crime area, with no hoard of drugs, cash, (or guns!) is more likely to be hit by an asteroid that have his front door kicked in at dinnertime by a bunch of neer-do-wells.

Alright, but what about Canadians, deliriously incensed over the collapse of the NHL season, rushing over the border? If the USA is invaded by foreign armies, there's going to be air bombardment, artillery, and all manner of warlike activities. This “peril” is so ludicrous that it hardly merits a rebuttal, but OK, what's a gun owner advantage here? I suppose an announcement would be made in all media that any household in occupied areas would surrender weapons or have all members of that household shot (or worse). Does anyone really think that civilians could be effective against a professional army? This isn't Patrick Swayze or a video game; I'm talking about leaving your family, sleeping in the mud, being shot at by trained, professional soldiers behind armor, air power, provisions and logistics. It's 36º and raining outside. How long do you think the cast of “Sons of Guns” would last out there? The Wyatt family ain't no Viet Cong, that's for darn sure.

That leaves the last peril, Civil Unrest. I suspect this the cause célèbre of the Preppers, and worthy of our immediate attention. What effects this attitude must have on their children! Can you imagine the psyche of a child whose parent(s) are constantly preaching fear and hate? Is it any surprise that now and again one of them goes on a rampage?

[Jimb]

Alright, but what about Canadians, deliriously incensed over the collapse of the NHL season, rushing over the border?

Lol! Hey, you've got your NFL.

[azruss]

Bottom line with most gun owners is they want to feel safe. In a country where riots and looting break out when opportunity presents itself, property owners have little rights of protecting their stuff, and governments have lost the ability or desire to protect them, they dont feel safe. I don't care what kind a statistics you have, it is unimportant. What is important is how these people feel, and they don't feel safe. Until they feel safe, they will own guns and guns with some firepower legally or illegally. They feel that those who push for gun control are part of the problem, not the solution.
I live in a predominantly white, middle class (there's a term that needs definition ) neighborhood with very little crime. Everybody owns guns, except me. Many are hunters but own guns other than hunting guns. I know if there was a disaster in my neighborhood I could count on my neighbors to protect themselves and me and I would do the same. We are all brothers of a like mind who have worked hard to build the lives we have and are happy to help each other protect it.
My brother-in-law is a guy who has lived off government welfare programs since his 20s. (he is now 55). If it wasnt for his sweet wife working a minimum wage job and his parents giving him a house, he would be living on the street. This guy has a gun collection the includes ARs and AKs and is always looking for more.
I remember a decade or so ago, Hawaii and Florida had hurricanes at the same time. After widespread looting in Florida, a news guys asked a young man in Hawaii about looting. He told the news guy that there wasnt any, "this is Hawaii, we are all helping everyone rebuild".
Until we can move our society into a "Hawaiian" mind set, you will never get the guns off the street.
The original question was how do you stop a mass murderer. You don't.

[mdrburchette]

Sorry I'm late to the discussion and I admit to not reading each post, but I have a few things to say about the tragedy that has taken place and will continue to do so. First off, the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I believe the 2nd Amendment was created to help citizens protect themselves from dictatorship as well as for personal protection. I don't know about you guys, but if the government succeeds in narrowing our choice of firearms, we are at the mercy of the government. That doesn't sound all that bad until you think back to the 1940's and Hitler or genocide in third world countries, or mass murder of citizens to gain control of the population that has happened throughout history.

As for guns getting into the wrong hands, there has to be reasonable responsibility on the part of the gun owner, but if someone is hell bent on killing, there is no amount of prevention that will keep that person away from what they want to do. So, the next thing that needs to be addressed is the social and moral issues of humanity. I don't know about you, but I was brought up that it was WRONG to hurt others and I should strive to help my neighbors. What happened to people's morals? We can't blame it on television or video games or guns. We ultimately have to blame ourselves for not instilling right and wrong in our children. Many may scoff at religion or not believe in God, but one thing an upbringing in religion does is instill a sense of moral obligation that is quickly dying in today's society. You don't need religion to have morals, just in case someone decides to blast me for my statement, but going to a community gathering once or twice a week to speak about what's right and how to help others less fortunate sure makes someone that's almost over the edge think twice about taking innocent lives to prove a point. Just food for thought.

[markpink]

The Anti-Gun crowd tries to come up with their own definition of the 2nd amendment. They say the founding fathers did not mean all citizens should own guns. Well Thomas Jefferson's views on guns seem to dispute that:

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
--Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785.

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution with (his note added), 1776. Papers, 1:353

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

As for Assault Rifles..The Term "Assault Rifles' is a political term used by the media and politicians. No one I know in the gun community uses that term. Real "Assault Rifles' are machine guns. The fact that the media doesn't understand is that All Semiautomatic guns shoot 1 bullet at a time when the trigger is pulled. There is no difference between "Assault Rifles' and regular rifles. And "Assault Rifles' are used for sporting purposes all over the country. I know people that hunt with them. And there are many people that participate in Markmanship contests sponsored by the US government at Military bases like Cape Perry in Ohio. You can ban all guns but criminals and the criminal insane will always find a way to hurt people. Gun only effect people to follow the laws, not people who do not.

I carry a gun everywhere I go. If I run into a Shooter somewhere at a mall or theater. I will personally take down that moron or die trying.

[Gunsmith]

Gosh where do I start? It is funny how after more than a dozen pages on this very active thread it’s almost like no points or facts have been made, agreed upon or taken into consideration? Part of this I believe is just because we are all human and have been raised and have lived a certain way all of our lives which limits our acceptance of other view points and situations. Also geographically we are all so different along with our cultures so we tend to apply what we feel works in our part of the world or back yard as a solution for the rest of this planet.

For those of you that like to use statistics from other countries with strict gun control laws or outright prohibition it is important for you to accept and understand a few notable factors. The respect and duty to family and honor in many of other countries is far different than what we are experiencing today. The penalties for crimes are far greater than what we have in this country and their judicial process is much different. They do not have the same civil rights we do. Your stay in their prison is far different than what you would experience in one of ours. Repeat offenders are treated very harshly. Career criminals are few and far between as their life is often cut short by their government or fellow inmates. There is still violent crime and mass killings in these countries but very little is reported depending on the Government of that country. So to try and just use the amount and type of private gun ownership as the main factor would be poor science if you were making a case study would it not? Most Americans would not stand for many of the other regulations that some of these Countries put on their people.

Some of you that have commented on this thread from another country do not seem to understand or accept the independent nature of the various generations of Americans even if you are just on the other side of an imaginary line and visit us on occasion. That is not saying you do not have a self-reliant or independent spirit of your own it is just culturally different. All of these things are factors that must be considered when demanding “something must be done”. It has been said from the beginning “There is a price to be paid for a free society”. The important thing is to understand the difference in a price paid for freedom and criminal behavior.

My reason for asking what laws you would make of all of you that thought more gun control was the answer or even the starting point is not really that I expect you to come up with one that we never thought of, one that does not already exist or one that I like in particular. It is an attempt to get real thinking to take place. Much of what I read and hear leads me to believe that most people are completely unaware of the laws that currently exist. So my intent was to actually learn what those of you that call for more laws really mean when you say it and how you expect it to work? Not pie in the sky wishful thinking for cultures or worlds that do not exist but real well thought out solutions for problems that are hard for most of us to understand how they could even happen. I understand that it is a complex subject and would take some time and significant thought to come up with one but if you are demanding this change happen then why not start with your own solution? Instead you just sit back and say that is what law makers are for. This baffles me after watching our law makers line their own pockets at the expensive of our country and what will be left for our children to fix( if it is at all possible for our children to fix) and then say leave it up to these same politicians? Why would we expect the same self indulging liars to come up with a legitimate solution for anything let alone limiting our constitutional rights? Are any of you aware of how many more millions of guns and rounds of ammunition is sold to our private citizens at the mere sound of more gun control? Clinton and Obama have probably doubled the amount of “Guns on the street” (as they say) that they intended to limit due to their attempts at more regulations. So if these leaders that claim to be for getting these guns off the streets as if they are just laying around on every corner and not in the hands and safes of law abiding citizens really thought this needed to be done they would avoid the constant demands for it. But how could they not know that gun sales skyrocket every time a politician demands more gun control? So they spout off to please the media and the uninformed with full knowledge that they just tripled gun sales. What should this tell us? If we are supposed to believe our politicians are intelligent enough to make laws to protect our civil rights and protect us from criminals and the insane then how are we supposed to believe they do not understand the unintended consequences of their public statements are not putting even more guns on the streets?

This whole “On the streets” and “Gun culture” thing really bothers me as you may have noticed. Are we saying that when a law abiding citizen of our country owns a gun it is “On the streets” or are they referring to guns that are already illegally possessed by those that should not have them? I rarely see a distinction in our media coverage on this. So what does this mean to you?

So if we cannot accept that there are already hundreds of millions of guns in the hands of our citizens doing no harm to anyone and that criminals do not obey laws then asking for more of the same seems quite foolish to me?

The reason I asked for solutions with the added factors is that I wanted to know if any of you that think our rights are currently too broad understand all of the factors involved in trying to limit our rights and how it will have the desired effect and what unintended consequences there may be. Of course no gun control advocates from our country seemed to offer any solutions on this which was no surprise really.

Most of the points that have been offered for the antigun argument is the “No one really needs” argument which holds water like a sieve. It doesn’t really matter if anyone “needs” any of these guns you don’t like because there are already hundreds of millions of them out there so justifying the need for something that exists seems rather pointless to me . So unless you can make them evaporate and destroy the knowledge on how to make them then bad people will still be able to get them no matter what law is put into place.


I understand that those of you from areas with little to no crime feel that people that wish to own or carry firearms for self protection are paranoid. But just because you have not had the unfortunate experience of dealing with an extreme situation does not mean everyone else should ignore the fact that it could indeed happen or prepare for it in some way. I have spent my life on the water here in South Florida and have crossed the Bermuda Triangle countless times going back and forth to the Bahamas. On our boat we carry life preservers (PFD’s), emergency flares, GPS emergency locating beacons, marine radios, extra water and food, spare parts and tools. We carry these items not because we expect to have problems with our boat or for it to sink or because we believe the myths of the Bermuda triangle legends, we carry them for the what if? I would hate to need them and not have them. We also carry semiautomatic high power rifles for defense for the what if? You may be surprised to know that in all my years of boating I have never put on my life jacket out of fear of the rough unforgiving seas or had a boat sink on me but we did have to defend ourselves from pirates one day. Had we not prevailed we would not have needed our safety equipment because we would have just been killed by lawless people

The fun notion of we have to limit access sounds great but I still don’t understand what that means or how that works which is why I asked for what that law would look like. Yesterday in New Jersey a criminal took a gun from a police officer and shot three police officers before he was killed by another armed police officer. My point in bringing this up is that criminals will use what ever tool is at hand to commit their crime even if they have to take it from a police officer to do it. So even if we had complete prohibition it would not have stopped this crime.

Blaming guns based on their cosmetic appearance only makes the uninformed feel good but will do nothing to prevent bad people from hurting good people. If you cannot understand that these so called “assault weapons” do not shoot a more powerful round or shoot faster than a gun made one hundred years ago it will be hard for you design a regulation with your desired effect. Just because it can hold more ammunition does not make it more deadly. What is the lethal difference between a gun holding 5 rounds, 10 rounds or 15 or 20? These points have already been made.


Many attempts were made on this thread by some very intelligent minds to address the factors that are really to blame for our society’s problems most of which were either ignored or dismissed quickly. Each time it has been circled back to “guns are the problem”. This tells me there is little chance of a meaningful efforts put forth to understand or accept what is becoming of our society and the head in the sand method is still the most popular choice when faced with a problem.

So up to this point in the thread I have had a few things confirmed to me. People do not understand firearms and how they work and believe what they see on TV is real, those from other countries no matter how close to us they are do not understand Americans desire for firearms as a right and a tool for self protection, people do not understand the lengths at which a criminal or the insane will go to in order to commit their heinous acts, people believe that if a law is passed that limits or bans something the item in question must some how disappear, people still believe our elected leaders actually understand the subject at hand or do anything that does not line their pocket in some way or hurt their opposing party in the public eye and finally people are not willing to put the time and effort into really solving any problem they do not think will directly affect them in the near future.

[FulviaHF]

Pop Quiz:

1. Who is the current Director of the ATF?
2. Who was the Diector of the ATF when George W. Bush left office?
3. What laws affecting possession of firearms has Barrack Obama proposed?
4. What laws affecting possession of firearms has Barrack Obama signed into law?

[Kevin1]

Ok, I'll bite...
We have only had interim acting directors for six years, ever since Congress required the position be approved by the Senate. This leaves the ATF essentially leaderless as a string of "directors" comes and goes. Bush's interim chief was Michael Sullivan (at least I think his first name was Michael), the position is currently filled part-time by Minnesota U.S. attorney B. Todd Jones.
I not aware of any federal regulations restricting possessing firearm signed into law by either the current or previous administrations. Under Bush the assault weapons ban expired.

[Gunsmith]

No one is saying new laws have been made unless I am missing something here? The questions still remains what 'New" laws are those of you that are saying we need laws to be made do you want? I thought that point has been made pretty clear throughout this thread? I am also not sure as to who the Director of the ATF is at any given time makes any kind of difference on the subject in question as their job is to enforce the law and not make it.

Am I not understanding what you are asking or the point you are trying to make here? Please use simple communication for me as I have a Southern Public School Education.

[FulviaHF]

Kevin1 got Q1 and Q2 right. All the "we just need to enforce the gun laws we have" arguments run up against the fact that the NRA, working through its Senate allies (it only takes 1 to filibuster) have stopped the process of adequately funding ATF or even allowing the agency to have some continuity of direction. Instead, the same clowns who stand in the way of appointing a Director or providing adequate funding hold hearings about the "Fast and Furious" fiasco that their own inactions contributed to. Enforcing laws takes resources and it takes more institutional continuity than "revolving door" acting directors that change every two years.

Everyone got Q3 right; Obama's proposed no new restrictions. Nobody gets Q4 right. In fact Obama did indeed sign new gun legislation, allowing private citizens to carry loaded guns in National Parks; it was a rider to a bill on credit card legislation.

In other words, the only legislation that Obama has signed actually relaxed some gun restrictions. But that goes against the "Obama wants to take away your guns" narrative, so it's conveniently forgotten. Instead, we get nonsense arguments like "Clinton and Obama have probably doubled the amount of “Guns on the street” (as they say) that they intended to limit due to their attempts at more regulations". What attempts? In fact the increase in gun sales is due entirely to the NRA's "he's going to take away your guns" fear-mongering. But then most of the NRA's funding comes not from member dues, but from industry; the more guns sales, the more money the NRA collects.

So I suppose one point I'm trying to make is that myths are more powerful than facts.

[Gunsmith]

It seems you get your information on the NRA and it's actions from inaccurate sources. The industry funds the NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation) not the NRA. The NRA is funded by it's members obviously due to the finances of individual members some obviously contribute more than others. Industry leaders would be pretty foolish not to assist the NRA and NSSf in any way they could. Even if the NRA was solely funded by the firearms industry it would not bother me in the least based on the organizations track record of fighting for our rights and supporting law enforcement. Would it surprise you to know that a large number of retired law enforcement professionals including ATF members work for peanuts at the NRA because they believe their work is a noble cause?

So let me get this straight, it's now the NRA's and the Republicans fault that the FBI gave millions of our tax dollars to criminals that they used to purchase thousands of guns illegally from dealers who were directed to allow it by the ATF in a feeble effort to see where they were going? Wow man I did not know that. Next you will tell me they are really behind the health care law so birth control will be free and they can have sex with under aged girls who won't get pregnant and get them in trouble. It all makes perfect sense now. I will apologize for my sarcasm now which clearly many of us on both sides have tried so hard to avoid but that is the craziest thing I have read on this thread so far. Let me ask you this, if they did not have the funding to conduct this operation correctly as if there were even such a way to have done so then why did they do it all knowing full well what the unintended consequences could easily be? Have you really thought that process through all the way? Man I am just at a loss on this one.

No one said Obama passed any legislation yet against gun owners but are you saying he is not going to push for that now, really? He also had a solid record of antigun support before he was our President so I don't think the NRA needed to foster fear about his position. Now that he is not spending the next four years running for office on our dime he will be able to concentrate more on supposed gun control laws.

I still don't see the point to what you are saying. The thread asked what should we do about the tragedy and the proposed solution that received the most attention seemed to be more gun laws and now you just say the NRA is the bad guy. Ok I'll bight, let's say we shut down the evil NRA and silence it's millions of members, how exactly will we all be better off? Also how do they accomplish all of these Evil deeds? It seems to me that each time the anti-gun politicians lost their battle for more gun control because the American people did not like their bill and voiced their opposition to it the losers just blamed the NRA. I am sure the NRA wishes it wheeled that kind of power but they don't but we as Americans do. It appears now this thread is finally going down hill. I am delighted it took this long to get weird.

[RRoller123]

Fulvia: Enforcement comes down to every local department and DA enforcing the laws that are on the books today, and local judges putting criminals in jail where they belong. A federal ATF funding solution would be just another bureaucratic messup like they all are, with more money uselessly poured down the rathole. The majority of the problem can be handled at the state and local levels, and you will find the NRA and other groups, like our G.O.A.L. here in Massachusetts, to be solidly behind enforcement of current law and punishment of perps.

[FulviaHF]

I'm not blaming the NRA for "Fast and Furious"--only pointing out that you can't say you want the laws enforced and then turn around and tie the hands of the agency charged with their enforcement.

BTW, the NRA has approximately 4M members, who pay annual dues of $25. Their current annual operating budget is approximately $200M, or roughly twice the annual dues income. There's more to their financing than member dues.

And let me get this straight--gun control is such a high priority for Obama that he decided to wait until his second term to push for it, because he wouldn't have to face the electorate again? That simply makes no sense at all. If it was such a priority, why would he risk waiting until his second term, given that there was no guarantee he'd even get a second term?

Finally, there's no point in attempting to answer the question this thread asked, because the question it really posed is "what do we do about the Terrible Tragedy in CT that doesn't involve discussing guns?" And that question is simply unanswerable, as this thread continues to prove.

RRoller123: you started this thread asking what "we" can do, but now you say the answer to enforcement is virtually only at the State and local level--that there's essentially no national dimension to the problem (other than the 2nd Amendment and the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment). Now I'm confused about what "we" you were talking about. Gunsmith's right--this is getting too weird.

So as I said earlier when I tried to leave this alone, we're just talking past each other, and that's always pointless. Coming back to engage in it again has merely confirmed that. So this time I'm gone for good.

[Gunsmith]

Believe it or not NRA members typically give far more than their $35 dollar annual membership dues to the NRA because they believe it is important. I have worked with the ATF for many years and have heard one complaint after another that local prosecutors plea out the cases before even giving the ATF a crack at the bad guy so it is not about the money. You explain this how?