Newtown revisited.

[AlaskaHippie]

Again, thanks for taking the time to reply, Hippie.



Well, I am certainly confused...

Maybe I have misinterpreted your position. But, isn't this exactly what you wrote at the beginning of this thread?

My "point" is... a call for stricter measures over the purchase and possesion of firearms.

Yet, even if I did misunderstand what you wrote, I have to ask... what need is there for universal firearm registration (which must necessarily be implemented for UBC's to be enforceable) other than to restrict firearm ownership?

To restrict firearm ownership of those who cannot legally own one. How is this a bad thing?

And I know you keep posting that you aren't calling for the ban of any firearms, but why exactly would you feel the need to point out that an AR was used at Sandy Hook, other than to promote its restriction?

I felt the "need" to Rod, because for weeks we have seen folks claim there was NO AR used, and that it was all some kind of governemental cover-up, that the AR was found in the trunk of the car (untrue, it was the shotgun that was in the trunk). Nothing more, nothing less.

So, yeah. I am a little confused about where you stand.

Well, I'm sorry I cannot help you there Rod, as I have posted repeatedly here on where I stand. Unfortunately, too many folks have opted to paint ANYone who doesn't fall in line with the NRA Doctrine as a "Gun Grabber" around here.

But the one thing that you are consistent about is the need for responsible gun owners to keep guns away from individuals that shouldn't have them. And, while that may feel good to say, I don't think it would be as simple or as effective as you seem to think.

A gun safe, with the guns locked IN the safe, and the combination only known by the OWNER of the guns would most certainly have been an effective strategy in the Lanza household.

Barring a court hearing, how would a person know if their child, or roommate, or spouse is actually unfit? Would everybody need to get annual mental health screenings? Would passing such a screening actually keep a kid from snapping because he got rejected when asking a girl to the prom, or because he got picked on by a bully?

Lanza's mom knew he was unfit, and yet she still allowed him access to firearms. Again Rod, I'm not claiming any suggested measures are the keys to Utopia. People will still "snap" and folks will still kill. However I'm not opposed to more stringent requirements that will help keep weapons away from those who would do harm

I would argue that it would not. So, even if you were able to enact UBC's, you wouldn't stop killing sprees. And don't try to insert the silly "if we only save one child it's worth it" argument here. If people were concerned with saving children, they would be advocating for the ban of swimming pools and baseball bats.

Odd that you ask me to refrain from inserting a "silly" argument, and then you offer one yourself. We're discussing the Second Amendment, and the last I checked it didn't cover swimming pools, baseball bats, or lawn darts (oops, those ARE banned)...

We should not restrict the rights of the sane and law-abiding because of the heinous actions of the violent and insane.

Agreed. And since a UBC would not restrict those rights, we agree there to.

Freedom is simply too precious to restrict its only means of defense.

Again, if you are sane, able to pass a background check, and of age, your freedom to own a firearm wouldn't be restricted.

If you want to have a real conversation about preventing gun violence, let's talk about re-opening mental institutions and expanding capital punishment.

I believe I've stated a number of times that those issues also need to be addressed. Funny, that always gets overlooked in the rush to paint myself and others as Gun Grabbers.

So, I'll say it again. It is a multi-faceted societal issue that needs to be approached from a Mental Health, Judicial, Law Enforcement, and Gun Safety perspective.

 

[Rod in Wasilla]

Thanks for clarifying your position, Hippie. I accept your assertion that you are not an overt "gun grabber". I see now that our biggest disagreement is whether or not universal gun registration is an infringement on the individual right to keep and bear arms. I understand your position that sane, law-abiding citizens should be OK with the fact that their government knows what firearms they have, and that firearms registration is not an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms for those eligible to do so.

I understand that position, but I disagree with it for these reasons:

• Having to pay for a background check for a private firearm transaction is an infringement akin to having to pay a tax to vote.
• Having to prove, to the government's satisfaction, that a person is eligible to exercise a right is, in and of itself, an infringement on that right.
• Even a casual look at the history of firearm registration provides clear evidence that such requirements are linked directly to firearm confiscation, which is a clear infringement of the individual right to bear arms.

Feel free to comment if you wish. But, for now, I think we have identified the root of our divergent positions. I have no expectation that further discussion will change your mind on the matter. And, likewise, I doubt that it would change mine. So, unless you wish to present a different perspective for your argument, or any final thoughts, I will tip my hat and bid you "good day".



On a separate note...

Lanza's mom knew he was unfit,

I've heard this a few times now on various forums, but I've seen nothing that definitively says that Lanza's mother knew that the boy was prone to violence. On the contrary, this article states that while he had certainly been diagnosed with various mental conditions, those particular conditions were not typically linked to violent behavior. Can you please provide a credible citation for your assertion.

This question isn't rhetorical or argumentative. I am trying to ascertain whether it would have been reasonable for Lanza's mother to assume that he was likely to commit violent acts. If such an assumption was reasonable, than I would concede that she should have either had him committed, or locked up her guns, knives, car, hammers, scissors, and every other tool that could be used for violence. However, if that was not a reasonable assumption, I have to ask... Why should she be expected to keep her guns behind lock and key? Wouldn't that inhibit her ability to defend her household from violent criminals?

 

[4merguide]

However I'm not opposed to more stringent requirements that will help keep weapons away from those who would do harm

Though "they" might think they do, personally I don't believe ANYBODY really knows how to do that. Criminals don't care in the least about "stringent requirements"......

 

[tvfinak]

"universal background checks"

"universal background checks"

The very name of the "stringent requirments" for "univeral background checks" is a cruel joke. We all know the "universal" checks ONLY apply and discourage law abiding citizens while the criminal trade in stolen guns won't be affected in the least. If John has a gun he stole he certainly isn't going to do a background check before he sell to his felon drug dealer Jim.

Has anyone ever added up all the existing laws these mass murders broke?

Though "they" might think they do, personally I don't believe ANYBODY really knows how to do that. Criminals don't care in the least about "stringent requirements"......

 

[iofthetaiga]

Criminals don't care in the least about "stringent requirements"......

Sure they do. Lacking laws imposing "stringent requirements" there would be no such thing as criminals.

 

[sayak]

There are already criminals without the "stringent requirements". Criminals are criminals because of their intent to defraud, hurt and kill others for their own benefit, not necessarily because they go against laws. The stringent requirements will probably make many law-abiding citizens into criminals, if we go by your usage of the word, just like there were many long gun "criminals" in Canada who would not comply with what they knew to be an unjust law.

 

[Frostbitten]

Though "they" might think they do, personally I don't believe ANYBODY really knows how to do that. Criminals don't care in the least about "stringent requirements"......

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "some", or even "most" criminals don't care? It seems awfully presumptive to imply that all criminals automatically disregard all requirements.

 

[Music Man]

Sure they do. Lacking laws imposing "stringent requirements" there would be no such thing as criminals.

Trying to start an argument again.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "some", or even "most" criminals don't care? It seems awfully presumptive to imply that all criminals automatically disregard all requirements.

If they cared at all they wouldn't be called criminals. Would 99.94% suit you?

 

[iofthetaiga]

Criminals are criminals because of their intent to defraud, hurt and kill others for their own benefit, not necessarily because they go against laws.

I beg to differ. A criminal, by definition, is someone who violates a law and is subsequently subject to punishment under said law. Abolish laws and you abolish criminal activity.

crime |krīm|
noun
an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law.

 

[sayak]

I beg to differ. A criminal, by definition, is someone who violates a law and is subsequently subject to punishment under said law. Abolish laws and you abolish criminal activity.

crime |krīm|
noun
an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law.

You don't have to beg, you could just differ.

 

[Frostbitten]

Trying to start an argument again.


If they cared at all they wouldn't be called criminals. Would 99.94% suit you?

Nope. Where did you get that from?

 

[Rod in Wasilla]

It seems awfully presumptive to imply that all criminals automatically disregard all requirements.

Actually, no. The fact that a person disregards the law is exactly what defines them as a criminal. And the fact that somebody puts their seat belt on as they drive the getaway car during a bank robbery doesn't mean that they now have some regard for the law. It just means they decided to do something lawful at the same time they are committing a crime.

Sooo..... there's that.

 

[Music Man]

Nope. Where did you get that from?

Typo, should have been 99.44% from Ivory soap

 

[Frostbitten]

Actually, no. The fact that a person disregards the law is exactly what defines them as a criminal. And the fact that somebody puts their seat belt on as they drive the getaway car during a bank robbery doesn't mean that they now have some regard for the law. It just means they decided to do something lawful at the same time they are committing a crime.

Sooo..... there's that.

Exactly! Just because someone commits a crime (regardless of the nature of the law broken), that doesn't mean they should be expected to disregard the full spectrum of all other laws, hence the notion that all criminals will disregard a particular gun law is ludicrous.

 

[Rock_skipper]

I think some of you need to take in more insight of what youkon posted earlier on medication that is being passed out.

 

[TOMCOD]

If someone is deemed "unfit" to be in posession of firearms due to the fact that they might use them to do harm to others, *** are they doing out in society? Oh that's right, they can be treated with psychotropic drugs. That's sure worked out well, hasn't it? We sure wouldn't want to violate their "rights" by institutionalizing them now would we?