So more and more people publicly speak out for tougher gun laws. But how can that possibly be accomplished? Right now I am seeing so many obstacles and cannot even say how to overcome one of them. The greatest obstacle I see is guns being considered a symbol of conservatism. It's not even that guns are protected by the Second Amendment. Or that the right to have one is sponsored heavily by very influential lobbyist groups. It's also that owning guns is woven deeply into the fabric of conservatism. People genuinely seem to think that with tighter gun laws the American way of life ceases to exist.
How can an issue that is so ideology-driven be tackled? Even the slightest change seems to be impossible.
How about making it part of the never-ending "Fiscal Cliff" discussion since that's in the news? A $500 tax on gun sales, and a $20 tax on bullets for a start. Just because the Constitution says (even if it really doesn't) you can own them, that doesn't mean they can't be taxed.
After that, turn the lawyers loose, and put some liability onto the gun manufacturers. How many multi-million dollar lawsuits can Glock afford to lose before they throw in the towel?
Perhaps extend the responsibility to the gun owners and make them buy liability insurance just like you're required to do with an automobile. If you're gun is stolen and used in a crime, you're responsible.
It's going to take 1000 small steps. If you think it will happen in one grand piece of legislation you're dreaming.
Just having guns regulated to the extent that cars are regulated would be a start. Make gun shows and private gun sales have to follow the same laws as car sales.
Lots of guns in Israel. Difference? Training and education. Just about everyone of age must serve someway, somehow in the military. They are all trained and thus more mature in their view, possession, and use of weapons. We here in America, are dumb, fat, lazy, and fucking self-entitled and think our hick understandings are sufficient. We're Amerkins, we don't need no stinking edumakashun.
[quote]After that, turn the lawyers loose, and put some liability onto the gun manufacturers. How many multi-million dollar lawsuits can Glock afford to lose before they throw in the towel?
You can't just "assign" legal liability like this. If a gun manufacturer could be held liable for its owners' torts, they would have been sued countless times by now; they haven't, and there's nothing Congress can do to alter this reality.
[quote]We here in America, are dumb, fat, lazy, and fucking self-entitled and think our hick understandings are sufficient. We're Amerkins, we don't need no stinking edumakashun.
"Hick understanding?" Our largest cities are well-populated with uneducated thugs. The worst schools in the USA are in the poorest urban neighborhoods. Bloomberg is the mayor of a city whose education system produces a huge percentage of illiterate teenagers.
No real answer, but it will be interesting to see if this latest shooting actually pushes any real change through or if it just becomes another one that gets forgotten as people move on with their lives.
20 kids ages 5 to 10 .... just awful. This guy was really fucked up to have first killed his mother and then *planned* and drove to the school to do more damage.
I like the idea of taxing the hell out of guns. But you need the house (and senate) for that, so not sure how that could be accomplished. Liability insurance will probably not work since most killings are intentional and not negligent. Is there anything the president can do without the house?
It would be so much simpler to issue every student in America a handgun. That's what was wrong in CT, those children were unarmed.
It is too late to do anything - there are too many guns in this country to effectively control them - we passed that point many murders ago.
When will health care workers and family members report their crazy patients/ kids to the authorities...and when will said family members keep the freaking guns away from their crazy relatives.
Putting the family members in jail who own the guns, and those who sell the guns that these people use to commit horrific murders, may stop this....
Outlaw assault weapons altogether. No one needs one for any reason. There are limits already on free speech, so there is no reason why there should not limits on the right to bear arms (and there are anyway, since you're not allowed to own bombs or bazookas or grenades).
Just read some foreign thoughts about gun laws the US in the Economist. I liked especially this:
[quote]After a couple of horrible mass shootings in Britain, handguns and automatic weapons have been effectively banned. It is possible to own shotguns, and rifles if you can demonstrate to the police that you have a good reason to own one, such as target shooting at a gun club, or deer stalking, say. The firearms-ownership rules are onerous, involving hours of paperwork. You must provide a referee who has to answer nosy questions about the applicant's mental state, home life (including family or domestic tensions) and their attitude towards guns. In addition to criminal-record checks, the police talk to applicants’ family doctors and ask about any histories of alcohol or drug abuse or personality disorders.
It wouldn't ban guns per se. But I like the strict requirements to get weapons, especially that someone else in your social circle practically needs to vouch for you if you want to have a gun. And why not impose lots of paper work on the applicant. Weeds out the dumb ones already. Not a 100% sure thing to weed out lunatics, but a good start.
The Newton School Massacre is a difficult matter to debate as to existing gun laws.
The guns were purchased legally by the mother.
Also registered legally.
While it is true that guns are much harder to obtain in England, there is plenty of violence where bats & knives are used.
This discussion should include issues presented by adult males with Asperger's Syndrome, as this is not the first time one became so violent that he killed his mother. For the record, no gun: he beat her to death.
It is the dark side of what happens when the little kids are not little or cute anymore.
Details on my blog with list of the dead.
Along with the names of the lost children.
[quote]Outlaw assault weapons altogether. No one needs one for any reason.
I wish I could agree with you on this. However, how can we not forget what happened in Germany. The 1938 German Weapons Act forbid Jews from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition. They had nothing to protect themselves when they needed it most during the war. That may seem like eons ago to many of you but really it was only a little over 70 years ago.
I believe that stricter background checks for both weapons and ammunition are crucial. I don't believe that those weapons that fire "lots of rounds" should be allowed to be sold TO ANY PRIVATE CITIZEN. A small handgun should be allowed however.
It's such a tough subject, when the majority of murders are not mass murders - but just as important because it all adds up.
I still feel like we should be able to have the option to carry a small handgun if there is a throughout background check involved, permits that require yearly renewal, separate permits for the purchased of bullets and possibly also a background check for the purchase of bullets - and limited number of bullets that can be sold at any time under a single permit. Example - the permit only allows for the purchase of 12 bullets in a year.
Personally for myself, I don't believe in owning a gun. I was once asked to have access to a gun, where I would be authorized to use it, when I managed an upscale restaurant in college. I told the owner of the restaurant that I refused to take that responsibility, and that I didn't want the gun in the restaurant. He obliged, but still carried it in his briefcase.
It's such a tough subject, we clearly need to get rid of many guns, but when you look at the worlds history, we can not completely remove our right to own basic arms - VERY basic though, like a small handgun.
Not sure exactly how but a nationwide policy should be legislated. That 'let the States decide shit just doesn't fly.
Try to control the purchase of ammunition. I saw an expert on a tv show and he said that was likely the only possible route, as there are almost more guns than people and they'd throw a fit if you tried to round them up anyway.
So you could try to stop the sale and purchase of ammunition, and maybe in a few years, you'd cut down on it. It's an almost intractable problem.
Restore the assault-gun ban
Restore the ban on extended magazines
Close the gun-show loophole
License gun ownership the way we license cars... require a written test and a practical usage test (proof of ability to use, clean, and store the gun they're buying).
Background tests (instant, single-database) that also require a psychological fitness test.
[quote] Just because the Constitution says (even if it really doesn't) you can own them, that doesn't mean they can't be taxed.
the second amendment asks for a "well regulated militia"
That could be regulated by having taxes in place-or a requirement that if emotionally or mentally disturbed, no access.
This was a horrible thing that happened! Here something to think about...the person who did this was a piece of shit loser! However, over the last 30 years nobody knows how many kids have died due to gangs. I heard a story about a month ago about a 3 year old girl killed by a stray bullet from a drive by shooting next door. It was the girls b-day party. How much longer are we going to tolerent shit like this? Gun laws get tougher, yet these terrible things keep happening. Take the guns away from shitbags like gang-bangers, stop treating them like victims like the ACLU did in West Sacramento!
Unleash lawyers on gun owners. Create civil liability for guns used in crimes! Parents might not keep bushmasters unsecured.
[quote]Create civil liability
And hold gun owners criminally liable if someone else uses their guns to harm someone else. Part of gun ownership is making sure guns are secure at all times. Fail to fulfill that responsibility, and it's jail time and fines.
Copy the gun laws in Australia brought in after the Port Arthur massacre.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people." I fucking hate that saying. What do they normally kill people with -- GUNS!
It's a two part equation. And since we can't take humans out of the equation until they do something illegal (which could be too late), the only thing we can do is take guns out of the equation, or, more realistically, restrict them.
It's like saying "pseudoephedrine doesn't make meth, people make meth."
It's just so stupid.
With all the misinformation & changing stories coming out of Newton…which occurred in broad daylight…maybe the GOP owes Susan Rice an apology
It's too late for America.
There will be no tougher gun laws. We're too far gone.
In a month or so we'll be wringing our hands over the next routine massacre. We all know there will be more of the same.
We love our grief porn,our medieval shrines of teddy bears and flowers wired to fences
We simply don't have the discipline or philosophy as a nation in order to change.
We're bad asses - that's who we are on the world stage as well as here at home. Don't mess with us or we'll kill you. That's our mantra - that's who we've become.
Everyone here seems to be forgetting one thing: These days, all it would take is for someone to walk into a school and pelt the kids with handfuls of peanuts to produce the same result! And still, the government has taken no steps to ban peanuts. I say there ought to be a $20 tax on every peanut sold!
There really is a very simple way to implement very strict gun control laws...
Remove all security from all federal and state legislatures and courts. No more metal detectors. No more armed security guards. No more body guards. No personal security guards.
We'd have strict gun regulations, if not complete bans, within a week.
What R27 said, but with the fallowing addition: no more personal body guards for rap stars that gloried and make money off the idlization of violence.
I agree with what has already been said about assault weapons but how about having the permit to carry expire, and you have to re-apply for it, and have a background and credit check all over again. Yes, if you have bad credit no gun. And if you don't renew that guy needs to be track down and confiscated. This insures that a knock will come to your door and if that gun is no longer in your possession you have to answer to where it is and who has it.
R29 what you are saying is that it should not be a right, but a privilege. Try selling that to the NRA.
In Europe generally we have much stricter gun laws and find the ease with which people can purchase guns in the US appalling. It's no coincidence that these incidents are very specific to the US with its lax gun laws. The country with the loosest gun laws in Europe is Finland (something to do with them having lots of forests and wild lands). But, you can only be issued with a firearm for hunting and sports purposes, not on grounds of "self-defence". And, there is a generally low crime rate.
Finland is also the top country in the world for school education, is a pretty civilised place with a highly-developed sense of civic pride and duty and with a strong social welfare system. At the same time, it's the only country in Europe which in recent years has had school shootings with multiple killings, US-style. So, the problem is not simply about widespread ownership of firearms, both culture and social attitudes play a significant role, especially the concept in the US whereby people believe they have a right to own guns so they can shoot at other people, albeit in self-defence. Moreover, the stronger social provision in Finland (and the fact it is a smaller country with fewer social complexities) means that people with mental health problems who might go out and do this sort of thing are identified sooner and treated.
Yet, more importantly, the fact that it does have a more relaxed attitude to gun ownership, despite all its civilisation and great education system, has also resulted in kids with guns going on rampage in schools.
On another note, tennis star Andy Murray was actually a pupil at Dunblane Primary School in 1996, and was in the school on the day, when the gun massacre happened. That incident led to a tightening of UK gun laws (which were already much tighter than in the US) and the whole country supported this. The problem in the US is the idea that owning a gun is a "right", that you have the right to shoot in "self-defence" and that government wanting to take your guns away is part of some kind of conspiracy to control a free people.
Gun control started after the RFK assassination, but lost ground in the Reagan era (even after Brady switched sides on the issue due to the bullet he caught in the head) and then again in the Bush II era.
There are 285 million guns in the hands of civilians. They are part of our culture and are not going anywhere.
We could ban all extended use gun clips. Make them illegal, turn them in or destroy them. A severe penalty if caught with one should include a jail sentence.
Assault rifles need to be addressed. The shooter at the school did the killing with an assault rifle. GET THEM OUT OF THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS.
so are most people here in favor of gun registration? I am.
Ban assault weapons and the magazines with 30 bullets in a clip. That's for starters.
I wish Obama had some fire in his belly and demand that the new Congress make these the first laws passed.
As loathsome as Bloomberg and Christie are, you'd know if they were President they'd demand that these laws be passed. Obama will just do his lead by passivity thing.
Track body armor sales.
how did Lanza get a bullet proof vest? Ban that too.
[quote]Lots of guns in Israel. Difference? Training and education.
Switzerland is like that too.
1. Ban automatic weapons. 2. Make the screening process very tough where anyone with a hint of mental illness can not get any gun. This includes checking everyone who lives in the home. This includes closing the gun show loophole and Internet sales. 3. Overhaul the mental health system. From someone who grew up with a mentally ill person, I'm telling you the current system is ridiculous. These people need to be put in institutions.
For the record, The D.C. Sniper used the same .223 Bushmaster Assault Rifle as did Adam Lanza.
He stole his.
So there were no background checks, or fingerprinting involved.
Read about on my site below.
No one needs a .223 Bushmaster semi-automatic assault rifle unless they are under military attack &/or want to go on a deranged killing spree.
The murderer tried to buy a gun and failed the background checks under current laws.
So he took his mother's legally registered guns to kill her and carry out the massacre.
Why she did not have them safely locked away from access by her deranged son is the question here.
Whatever new gun control laws you fantasize about don't have much relevance to this case.
"so are most people here in favor of gun registration?"
R37, from an ignorant European, does this mean you don't even have gun registration in the US? Seriously, like, wow!
"Whatever new gun control laws you fantasize about don't have much relevance to this case."
How about require that all firearms held by private citizens be kept in a special, locked cabinet that only the registered (wherever you have registration) owner of licence holder can open.
You can also limit the licensing of firearms and gun ownership, but I know that's a strange idea for some in the US.
Let the free market do it: require gun insurance in the same way we require automobile insurance.
Rifles for hunting would have low requirements and premiums. Hand-guns would have dramatically higher premiums. Automatic weapons, even higher.
Pass laws requiring that the use of any gun in a crime has a financial penalty to the owner of the gun, regardless of who actually used the gun. LIABILITY.
Sabotage the ammunition to make firing the gun dangerous to the shooter.
Bill Clinton signed an Assault Weapons Ban in 1994, so Obama should do the same.
Mimic the British laws, including body armour. You want to Ned Kelly it up, go ahead, but nothing commercial should be in the hands of civilians.
I am reluctant to ban semi-automatic pistols outright because I think it's a fair use to have them for personal protection, with British style restrictions.
In this day and age, I honestly don't believe a revolver would reliably protect anyone during a home invasion.
[quote]Lots of guns in Israel. Difference?
They bomb troublemakers.
As no one at the Newton School was armed, wearing a body vest did not make a diference.
More resources need to be directed to intervention of issues presented by the mentally ill.
No one needs a .223 Bushmaster rifle.
A lot of families need help finding a way to get their violent kids into underfunded/non existent programs.
We have not reached a tipping point. We need to issue handguns to elementary students. The problem with the CT shootings was that those children were UNARMED.
[This is the mentality that has to change before real reform can happen.]
Whatever new law might pass -- we need to address how to tamp down on the legally purchased assault weapons and semi-automatics already out there. Simply banning future sales is not enough.
Maybe the "driver's license" model is a way to change it. You own guns, you have to (a) reapply for a license every few years, and (b) pay weapon-specific *insurance* on each one. Let the free-market insurance sector get involved. Plus, if there are children/minors living in the home, an inspection to ensure that the guns are locked. Couple that with a generous buy-back program, voluntary but pressurized with regular campaigns about it in the media.
If we do not do something about the dangerous weapons already out there (and there are a ton of them), then new laws will only chip away at a small part of the problem.
Illegal gun ownership = automatic ten years in prison.
Want to hunt, rent a gun.
[quote]Make the screening process very tough where anyone with a hint of mental illness can not get any gun
How on earth are you going to screen a person for mental illness? What, by looking at them? There's a privacy issue there. If someone has suffered from depression, what, they're barred now? Most of these killers never seek treatment.
[quote]The murderer tried to buy a gun and failed the background checks under current laws.
[quote]And hold gun owners criminally liable if someone else uses their guns to harm someone else.
We already do. Had his mother lived, she'd be behind bars.
My god, so much ignorance here.
What did Chris Christie say?
Judy, I would take away all their guns and replace them with carn cahb holders.
The NRA is holding a news conference on Friday as the slaughter of so many 6 year olds looks bad with Christmas coming, although gun sales always go up after mass shootings.
I cannot wait for their spin on this fubar.
“The National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms & dads, sons & daughters—& we were shocked, saddened & heartbroken by the news of the horrific & senseless murders in Newtown,” the organization said in a statement emailed to reporters.
I always feel bemused by the term "senseless murders" as they must mean that there are mass murders that do make "sense"-but this one has been way too unpopular. NRA vows in press release that they will "make sure this never happens again".
Anyone ever see "Heathers"? Football season is over. From Hunter S. Thompson's suicide note, a quote from "Heathers". He killed himself with a gun, too.
None of the proposals suddenly appearing from politicians across the country would have kept that rifle out of Adam's hands.
All the fees, checks, taxes levied would have been completed/paid by Mom. He still would have shot her, and he still would have killed the kids.
[quote]Just about everyone of age must serve someway, somehow in the military
I've stayed with israelis, they aren't armed at home, only when on active duty, silly.
He wouldn't have had an assault rifle r64
Gun control hasn't worked in the UK R49.
[quote]None of the proposals suddenly appearing from politicians across the country would have kept that rifle out of Adam's hands.
None of them? Are you sure? Because I'm pretty sure some of them would have.
Never mind that there's a bigger picture here. Just because ONE massacre might not have been stopped doesn't mean others wouldn't have been... or that it couldn't have been lessened.
After the School Shootings at Dunblane the UK banned assault weapons.
After the Port Arthur Spree Killings INSPIRED by the Fame of the Dunblane Shooter, Australia fought off The Christian Coalition as well as our own NRA to institute a total ban on most hand guns as well as ALL assault weapons.
That is the way to do it, hon.
Read & learn, then take action.
No one needs a semiautomatic assault rifle.
Education on the history of Gun Control as related to Mass Killings Brought to You by Your Own M2.
History of Gun Control After Dunblane School Shootings & Port Arthur Down Under Here.
Read & Learn from your own M2:
Mass shootings never took place AGAIN in Australia AFTER gun control laws were enforced.
The history of mass & spree killings & the aftermath outside the USA.
R68 Why doesn't DL BOYCOTT Walmarts: where that Bushmaster as well as ammo was purchased?
Yes, Walmart's discount pricing makes it cheaper to stock up on hundreds of rounds of ammo.
That model Bushmaster Semi is sold out in many stores, still available online.
Walmart has removed the photo but your own M2 has placed it on her blog about the School Shooting at Newton, the history of killing kids along with how cheap ammo & firepower is a HUGE profit center for Walmart.
Marcie Wogan explains to DL that Walmart kills Kids as cheap ammo & Bushmaster semis are cash cows.
Also how & why are gun laws are so screwed up.
Read & learn, never too late.
Did you not read "Runaway Jury" by John Grisham? Or see the movie?
I was so totally awesome in the film version.
Better than "Say Anything".
I tweet anti- gun violence stuff all the time.
Please rent my movie, Dustin Hoffman, Rachel Weisz, Gene Hackmen, Jermy Piven & me totally killed it.
[quote]How on earth are you going to screen a person for mental illness? What, by looking at them? There's a privacy issue there. If someone has suffered from depression, what, they're barred now? Most of these killers never seek treatment.
Of course! The subjective assessments of biased laypeople is the gold standard for mental health diagnostics. Look at how well it worked before!
It would have the beneficial (to the rich) side effect of adding the color of law to their attempts to silence dissent or whistleblowing. We on DL can help by screaming "MARY!" anytime someone complains about an injustice, and under the new legal scheme, they could be institutionalized.