27 dead at Connecticut school, including 14 kids

[Blind groper]

I'm not defending the status quo. If I was I'd be opposed to stricter gun control when I'm not only in favour of it but also the reformation of your 2nd amendment.

Why not simply remove the second amendment?

It is clearly past its "use-by" date. The wording of this amendment makes it clear that it was a means at the time for maintaining a militia for national defense - not a human right. That need is long gone.

No other nation has such an addition to its constitution, and other western nations permit firearm ownership where it is appropriate. Not having a second amendment does not mean taking people's guns away, where it is reasonable for them to own guns. It just makes it harder to justify allowing nutters to obtain guns.

[Jason]

Remove it if you think that's possible. I don't see that ever happening. TBH I don't see a reform ever happening either, but the odds are better.

[Jason]

As I have said, the number of gun problems - primarily homicides and suicide - in the USA is related to ease of access and gun culture. Access alone does not cause the problem to the degree found in the USA.

The ease of access is very close to being the same on either side of the border.

[Kristie]

As I have said, the number of gun problems - primarily homicides and suicide - in the USA is related to ease of access and gun culture. Access alone does not cause the problem to the degree found in the USA.

The ease of access is very close to being the same on either side of the border.

But the gun culture is drastically different. I think that's what he was getting at.

[Ian]

I don't want to say "I told you so" when the day comes that another 30 or more people are killed even after stricter gun control laws have been put in place. but it's obvious we're not going to agree.

It's a step on one front, I hope it's not the only front that will be addressed.

That's the thing about griping about us folks who want stricter gun controls: all the "I-told-you-so" scenarios are theoretical. We're the ones who are taking issue with the status quo. And it's your status quo that you're defending.

I'm not defending the status quo. If I was I'd be opposed to stricter gun control when I'm not only in favour of it but also the reformation of your 2nd amendment.

Despite repeating this umpteen times, it's apparently still being missed. I suggest reform of the 2nd amendment to allow for mandatory possession licenses in every state and mandatory psych profiling as part of the licensing process. However, cut the number of guns in circulation by half (a miraculous feat) and these psychos will still be able to get them with ease. Theoretical? This psycho used his mother's guns who, presumably, would be judged fit to own them even under the much stricter gun control I suggest.

This guy did, yes. But that cannot be said for a many incidents where the shooter uses guns he bought himself. I'm talking about controls which affect a lot of needless shootings, not just a precise repeat of what happened on Friday or 100% of everything that could possibly happen. But your paragraph reads like "well, we can't really do much about it". Should that mean we shouldn't try? I am not in favor of resignation.

Sorry if I lumped you into the rest of the pro-gun crowd; many of them have been either hysterical and lashing out at the rest of us, or else eerily silent ever since Friday (the NRA even shut down its Facebook page for two days). Sometimes it's hard to forget that not all of them are stubbornly resistant to any change.

[Blind groper]

But the gun culture is drastically different. I think that's what he was getting at.

Exactly and precisely.

[FBM]

I'm with Făkünamę wrt amending the Constitution and tightening licensing, but there are still millions of unregistered, unregisterable firearms already out there. Not many owners of those are going to voluntarily hand them over. It'd take a gestapo-style, house-by-house search to find them, and that would start more shootouts. In addition to the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism, we'd have a War on Guns to pay for.

[Ian]

I'm with Făkünamę wrt amending the Constitution and tightening licensing, but there are still millions of unregistered, unregisterable firearms already out there. Not many owners of those are going to voluntarily hand them over. It'd take a gestapo-style, house-by-house search to find them, and that would start more shootouts. In addition to the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism, we'd have a War on Guns to pay for.

Which is why tightening regulations cannot possibly go from what we have now direct to a massive overhaul of the whole 2nd amendment. Fortunately, there already are laws against owning and using an illegal firearm. A step in the right direction would make it a crime (or at least a heavy fine) to possess any firearm bought without a background check, or to sell to anyone who fails one. I'd be in some trouble if the cops found out I was driving a car without a license, right? And the seller would risk the law by selling me one after I couldn't produce a license. Sellers of guns, whether licensed or not, should be worried about seeling to anyone not meeting a thorough background check. Annual registration fees and required liability insurance would also be fine with me.

[FBM]

If we could pass a law requiring registration of all firearms, without confiscating them, that wouldn't do much to curb the violence, I think. The guns used at that elementary school were registered. And certain people would see mandatory registration as the first step towards eventual confiscation, and would resist it. I don't know the stats, but I think the majority of guns used in these types of assaults were obtained legally. At some point, we'd have to talk confiscation, and then the gun battles would ensue.

[JimC]

I believe that treating the problem the United States has (an inordinate amount of violent psychopaths) is more important than attempting to restrict one means by which they can kill if your goal is to stop these kinds of tragedies.

Stricter gun control is something I approve of, however it has little to no bearing on whether a demented lunatic will be able to arm himself and commit mass murder.

In a statistical sense, it certainly will. You are really saying that stricter gun control cannot guarantee that Lunatic Shooter A will not be able to get his gun(s) and commit a massacre, which is undoubtedly true. But, each lunatic shooter it does deter is one less grieving school or work community...

And the strictness does not necessarily mean abandoning the American dream of gun ownership, simply making some well-thought out hurdles to reduce the chances of more mass killings. I am perfectly aware that some blanket form of restriction has a snowball's chance in hell of being implemented...

[JimC]

macdoc, you just don't get it. Why should I bother talking to you? 300 million guns? Make it 100 million or 50 million. If you want one you can get one. Legalities will not stop determined psychopaths.

A really determined, extremely clever psychopath, certainly - and that will be true in countries where guns are thin on the ground. But how common are they?

But this is (or should be) a statistical argument. Many of the gun sprees are by disturbed people who happened to have ridiculously easy access to guns. Curtail that, and you will at least significantly reduce the number of mass shootings.

[JimC]

If we could pass a law requiring registration of all firearms, without confiscating them, that wouldn't do much to curb the violence, I think. The guns used at that elementary school were registered. And certain people would see mandatory registration as the first step towards eventual confiscation, and would resist it. I don't know the stats, but I think the majority of guns used in these types of assaults were obtained legally. At some point, we'd have to talk confiscation, and then the gun battles would ensue.

So, the US is locked in a path, and any serious move to break new ground will be blocked by the gun nutters...

Some posters in this thread have made it crystal clear that if school children being shot en masse is the price of gun ownership, then they count that a bargain...

[Blind groper]

As others have said, a total overhaul of the system in one hit will not happen. However, if government can set out to push the message that too many guns, or guns in the wrong hands is what leads to tragedy, then some sensible reforms should be possible.

Obviously tighter conditions relating to getting a gun license. Requirements for secure storage of firearms. I suggested on the other thread that a police approved gun safe should be a pre-requisite to owning firearms, and it should be checked by police before the license is issued. Such a safe, with combination withheld from the current mass murderer, would have stopped him getting the guns that belonged to his mother, and prevented the school massacre.

I would like to see the ban on military style weapons reinstated, but more importantly, hand guns removed from sale to civilians. Without military weapons or hand guns, a massacre like the Connecticut one would be much less likely.

[FBM]

If we could pass a law requiring registration of all firearms, without confiscating them, that wouldn't do much to curb the violence, I think. The guns used at that elementary school were registered. And certain people would see mandatory registration as the first step towards eventual confiscation, and would resist it. I don't know the stats, but I think the majority of guns used in these types of assaults were obtained legally. At some point, we'd have to talk confiscation, and then the gun battles would ensue.

So, the US is locked in a path, and any serious move to break new ground will be blocked by the gun nutters...

Some posters in this thread have made it crystal clear that if school children being shot en masse is the price of gun ownership, then they count that a bargain...

I haven't see that comment, but I think that attitude is pretty sad. On the other hand, in a(n alleged) democracy, the price of freedom is having to live with some of the decisions the majority makes. Sad for the victims in this case. Until the political will is mustered...

Mind you, I'm not advocating firearm prohibition, just tighter regulations and oversight.

[JimC]

aspire1670 has been suspended for 24 hours following a series of posts in this thread that have generated reminders and warnings from staff.