27 dead at Connecticut school, including 14 kids

[Gallstones]

It is very strange that a person may be denied their constitutional right to bear arms on the basis of past mental illness, but to conduct a psychological profile to determine if they pose a danger to themselves or others (the basis of disqualification for past mental illnesses I believe) before becoming a gun owner is said to be unconstitutional. Clearly there are provisos for denying this constitutional right in place, why must mental illness first be demonstrated for them to be exercised?

I don't think conducting a psychological test on prospective gun owners has been tested in court, likely because no one is proposing such a thing. So what I wrote is my speculation. But I do think courts have consistently found that having all Constitutional rights are the default status until a compelling reason is provided to deny them. Kind of an "innocent until proven guilty" thing, except it's "sane until proven insane" in this case.

Another question that would clearly arise from pre-testing owners is where to draw the line. Suppose you have a person who wants to buy a gun, but his test results put him just on the "deny" side of the line (where ever that is). He has no history of mental illness, no criminal record, and has been a productive member of society all his life. Can you deny him his Constitutional right to own a gun because of what you think he might do? I don't know, but IMO such a program wouldn't be too hard to argue against in court.

Yes.
One has a Right by default and only loses it or has it curtailed by some behavior of their own.
None of the Rights require that one prove they are deserving before they can exercise that Right. I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court is very firm in this.

[FBM]

There's nothing about "divine rights" in the US constitution. There are "inalienable rights" (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), but they're not so inalienable. A lot of states have the death penalty and all of them incarcerate, so we can deprive criminals of their "inalienable rights." After they become criminals, that is. Not before. The Supreme Court says the Constitution says we can have guns. Unless we are criminals.

As long as incidents like this can happen and do happen with the frequency that they do, I will continue to see it as a problem that needs to be fixed, and I don't see any other possible fix than tighter regulations and enforcement of those regulations. It's probably just a symptom of a culture that's bombarded with glorified violence, but you can't legislate culture. I would support an amendment to the Constitution to allow for tighter restrictions - but not prohibition - on gun ownership.

Now I'm going to disappear while people from both ends of the spectrum excoriate me and what I've written.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

A similar incident happened in China this week - where gun ownership is not a "right". The attacker, deprived of that right, used a knife.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20723910

22 people injured - 2 seriously. Compare that with 27 dead at Sandy Hook. Same scenario, a lone attacker.

So tell me again how guns don't kill people?

[Gallstones]

My first question to gun proponents was: If there's nothing special about guns, why don't we also see comparable numbers of murders and mass murders from other weapons.

Another question: if there's nothing special about guns - if the tool doesn't matter, then why have a gun for self-defense? Why not have a knife? 

They can't have it both ways. If guns are equivalent to other "tools", then they haven't a leg to stand on for a "self-defense" argument. If guns are special tools - better and more efficient at killing - then they can't argue that they're not part of the problem. 

Guns can be "special" tools and be efficient at killing and still not be THE problem, or even themselves a part of it.
The problem exists and guns are used. The problem exists and knives are used. The problem exists and axe handles/baseball bats/2x4's/door stops/paper weights are used. The problem exists and fists are used.

[Tero]

So it's the culture?

[Svartalf]

Definitely a culture of violent solutions and poor impulse control.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

My first question to gun proponents was: If there's nothing special about guns, why don't we also see comparable numbers of murders and mass murders from other weapons.

Another question: if there's nothing special about guns - if the tool doesn't matter, then why have a gun for self-defense? Why not have a knife? 

They can't have it both ways. If guns are equivalent to other "tools", then they haven't a leg to stand on for a "self-defense" argument. If guns are special tools - better and more efficient at killing - then they can't argue that they're not part of the problem. 

Guns can be "special" tools and be efficient at killing and still not be THE problem, or even themselves a part of it.
The problem exists and guns are used. The problem exists and knives are used. The problem exists and axe handles/baseball bats/2x4's/door stops/paper weights are used. The problem exists and fists are used.

Breaking news: A lone fistman bruised 12 pupils and gave a teacher a black-eye in a frenzied attack today, before turning his fists on himself and getting a bloody nose...

You are not comparing like with like, GS. The damage that can be done with a gun far outweighs that that can be done by any other readily available means. THat is why they need tighter controls than fists or knives.

[Gallstones]

Question, that relates to diagnosis and prediction, how many of these spree murders are male and how many female?
And why is that?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Question, that relates to diagnosis and prediction, how many of these spree murders are male and how many female?
And why is that?

How is this relevant? Are you advocating only allowing girls to carry guns?

[Gallstones]

My first question to gun proponents was: If there's nothing special about guns, why don't we also see comparable numbers of murders and mass murders from other weapons.

Another question: if there's nothing special about guns - if the tool doesn't matter, then why have a gun for self-defense? Why not have a knife? 

They can't have it both ways. If guns are equivalent to other "tools", then they haven't a leg to stand on for a "self-defense" argument. If guns are special tools - better and more efficient at killing - then they can't argue that they're not part of the problem. 

Guns can be "special" tools and be efficient at killing and still not be THE problem, or even themselves a part of it.
The problem exists and guns are used. The problem exists and knives are used. The problem exists and axe handles/baseball bats/2x4's/door stops/paper weights are used. The problem exists and fists are used.

Breaking news: A lone fistman bruised 12 pupils and gave a teacher a black-eye in a frenzied attack today, before turning his fists on himself and getting a bloody nose...

You are not comparing like with like, GS. The damage that can be done with a gun far outweighs that that can be done by any other readily available means. THat is why they need tighter controls than fists or knives.

I get that. My point is that there is a PROBLEM.
What is it, where does it come from, how do we recognize it and what do we do about it?

Until these questions are answered this will keep happening. Are we to be content, "Oh well he only cut and stabbed a bunch of people, at least he didn't shoot them."

[Gallstones]

Question, that relates to diagnosis and prediction, how many of these spree murders are male and how many female?
And why is that?

How is this relevant? Are you advocating only allowing girls to carry guns?

Because there is a reason. Knowing the reason might just be a clue to how to deal with it.

[orpheus]

My first question to gun proponents was: If there's nothing special about guns, why don't we also see comparable numbers of murders and mass murders from other weapons.

Another question: if there's nothing special about guns - if the tool doesn't matter, then why have a gun for self-defense? Why not have a knife? 

They can't have it both ways. If guns are equivalent to other "tools", then they haven't a leg to stand on for a "self-defense" argument. If guns are special tools - better and more efficient at killing - then they can't argue that they're not part of the problem. 

Guns can be "special" tools and be efficient at killing and still not be THE problem, or even themselves a part of it.
The problem exists and guns are used. The problem exists and knives are used. The problem exists and axe handles/baseball bats/2x4's/door stops/paper weights are used. The problem exists and fists are used.

But when guns are used the results are hugely worse.

I never said guns are "the" problem. There may not be a single "the" problem. Guns, however, are a major factor in the tragic results because they're so easy and efficient.

[Gallstones]

I just hope that a high proportion of the parents were gun enthusiasts.

At least they'll have the comfort of knowing that their children weren't killed by guns. The gun was just a tool.
I'm sure it will make them feel so much better. Perhaps pord can write to the misguided ones and explain it all.
Or maybe we can have a whip-round, and buy them rifles to soften the blow.

I would probably be buying guns the next day, and go hunting NRA bosses.

You'd make a good Catholic priest with all that guilt mongering.

[Blind groper]

I would support an amendment to the Constitution to allow for tighter restrictions - but not prohibition - on gun ownership.

That would bring the USA more in line with the situation in countries with saner gun regulations. Even here in NZ, people can own guns. However, they cannot own hand guns and they need to go through the general procedures required for a license before owning a sporting rifle. I believe that most other developed nations have similar rules.

Yes, tighten the rules. Change the constitution. Provide for things like sporting rifles, but only in the hands of those people who can demonstrate they are probably responsible.

[orpheus]

My first question to gun proponents was: If there's nothing special about guns, why don't we also see comparable numbers of murders and mass murders from other weapons.

Another question: if there's nothing special about guns - if the tool doesn't matter, then why have a gun for self-defense? Why not have a knife? 

They can't have it both ways. If guns are equivalent to other "tools", then they haven't a leg to stand on for a "self-defense" argument. If guns are special tools - better and more efficient at killing - then they can't argue that they're not part of the problem. 

Guns can be "special" tools and be efficient at killing and still not be THE problem, or even themselves a part of it.
The problem exists and guns are used. The problem exists and knives are used. The problem exists and axe handles/baseball bats/2x4's/door stops/paper weights are used. The problem exists and fists are used.

Breaking news: A lone fistman bruised 12 pupils and gave a teacher a black-eye in a frenzied attack today, before turning his fists on himself and getting a bloody nose...

You are not comparing like with like, GS. The damage that can be done with a gun far outweighs that that can be done by any other readily available means. THat is why they need tighter controls than fists or knives.

I get that. My point is that there is a PROBLEM.
What is it, where does it come from, how do we recognize it and what do we do about it?

Until these questions are answered this will keep happening. Are we to be content, "Oh well he only cut and stabbed a bunch of people, at least he didn't shoot them."

No, we are not to be content with that. But it's not an either/or situation. To make a comparison: treat someone with severe suicidal tendencies and poor impulse control - but while treating them, it's a good idea for them not to keep guns in the house.

Because guns aren't "the" problem, some people refuse to see that guns play any part at all. But the situation isn't black and white. Are guns THE problem? Arguably not. Are they a major factor in the degree of carnage in these situations? Absolutely.