[headdie]

You can argue about the effectiveness of gun control but as far as I'm concerned you cannot deny that it can't possibly raise the number of violent crime deaths.  In fact, it is almost guaranteed to lower the rates significantly over the long term.

In regards to that, if someone wants a gun, but they can't go to their local store to get one... they'll find other not so legitimate ways to get one

Which in turn make obtaining a gun more difficult, means that if police stop and search then they will be instantly detained.  the persons distributing the guns will be under investigation by the police, your average citizen wont posses a gun so cant use it in the heat of the moment (certainly where a lot of UK gun incidents are logged), also it means that most of those who do posses guns tend to be those who have past offences and so monitored by the police.

Sure it is not perfect and in a country like the US I would suggest it is only applied to heavily urbanised areas where there is little need for guns outside of professions such as pest control and prety much anything else falls under the jurisdiction of the police. my understanding is there there are many large areas in the US which are not farmed (unlike in Europe) and have potentially dangerous wild animals roaming them so there is a real justification to poses a gun in these cases.

Also not to be ignored is public and political attitudes to mental health and the attitude towards guns in certain regions and aspects of American society

[deathfun]

You'll note these shootings aren't being done by 'criminals' in the classical sense, these aren't people who would normally have access to illegitimate weapons, or often even people in groups that would be considered 'prone' to criminal elements as such, and often those that attempt to obtain those weapons for themselves are clumsy and non-successful. It's something far deeper than 'Good Guy/Bad Guy' going on here I think.

An excellent point you do make here
Although, the idea occurred to me. What about mental screening for gun purchases? Criminal records are checked as mentioned before, but what about mental stability? I don't recall anything being mentioned about people being screened psychologically for gun purchases. That there would be a step in the right direction

Afterall, if someone is thinking of suicide/murder, they're going to be less inclined to see a shrink if it's between them and a way out and not bother with the whole process

However, there is the part where they take say, their parent's guns.

[headdie]

You'll note these shootings aren't being done by 'criminals' in the classical sense, these aren't people who would normally have access to illegitimate weapons, or often even people in groups that would be considered 'prone' to criminal elements as such, and often those that attempt to obtain those weapons for themselves are clumsy and non-successful. It's something far deeper than 'Good Guy/Bad Guy' going on here I think.

An excellent point you do make here
Although, the idea occurred to me. What about mental screening for gun purchases? Criminal records are checked as mentioned before, but what about mental stability? I don't recall anything being mentioned about people being screened psychologically for gun purchases. That there would be a step in the right direction

Afterall, if someone is thinking of suicide/murder, they're going to be less inclined to see a shrink if it's between them and a way out and not bother with the whole process

However, there is the part where they take say, their parent's guns.

thing is what happens when junior figures out the combination too or lifts the key for dad's gun safe?

[deathfun]

You'll note these shootings aren't being done by 'criminals' in the classical sense, these aren't people who would normally have access to illegitimate weapons, or often even people in groups that would be considered 'prone' to criminal elements as such, and often those that attempt to obtain those weapons for themselves are clumsy and non-successful. It's something far deeper than 'Good Guy/Bad Guy' going on here I think.

An excellent point you do make here
Although, the idea occurred to me. What about mental screening for gun purchases? Criminal records are checked as mentioned before, but what about mental stability? I don't recall anything being mentioned about people being screened psychologically for gun purchases. That there would be a step in the right direction

Afterall, if someone is thinking of suicide/murder, they're going to be less inclined to see a shrink if it's between them and a way out and not bother with the whole process

However, there is the part where they take say, their parent's guns.

thing is what happens when junior figures out the combination too or lifts the key for dad's gun safe?

Read last line. I'll requote it for convenience

"However, there is the part where they take say, their parent's guns. "

[headdie]

/facepalm

sorry about that

[deathfun]

/facepalm

sorry about that

S'all good
I'll leave this one here for you then

Is part of the blame then shifted to the parent for not keeping their mentally unstable child from their guns?

[Apollo]

Trained in bladed weapons. Thankfully never needed to use one in combat.

As I said before, I am unwilling to go into gruesome details of the kind of damage swords can do because of the subject matter, it is not really the time or the place, but I did however want to challenge the seeming opinion being stated that the chances were the outcome would be the same to that of a gun, for reasons that have already been covered.

Whilst it is true that the pro gun-control advocates need to be careful not to allow themselves to run too far on emotion and assumption, the same is also true of the opposite, those who advocate a more permissive approach need to do so based on cold, hard truth where at all possible. It's the only chance, even in emotional situations like this, that any kind of balance will be struck.

If you have training than you have a better idea of a sword's capabilities than I do.

Anyway, I think that we basically agree on this. We need to somehow stop these people from getting guns.

[Nuke]

This is ****ing grotesque.

To which I'd like to add a request for a show of hands, now. How many of you have ever actually handled a weapon? How many of you have ever made an attempt to use it on something alive? (Hunting or whatever.)

\o to both

ive gone hunting a few times. bullets going through meat makes a mess.

[Luis Dias]

If we ran this on cold hard truth we'd debate controlling swimming pools, because they kill more kids a year per capita and per individual item than guns in the US.

Possibly true, but guns kill *way* more people in general than swimming pools. An order of magnitude of difference.

[MP-Ryan]

Since we're showing hands, I have training with firearms, in edged-weapon defence, and in the carrying/use of defensive weapons (not guns) which I carry at work.  The conversation around knives/swords/silliness is, in my view, asinine.

For the record, I'm not in favour of blanket bans on guns, gun types, etc.  I am in favour of the rigorous regulation of ownership, carrying, and storage of all firearms to ensure they are possessed, stored, and used safely for the purpose for which they are intended - hunting, target shooting, and limited self-defense circumstances as permitted by law (which is true in the US and Canada, generally).  I have a firearms license for both restricted/non-restricted weapons in Canada (although I do not personally own any right now).

While this entire Newtown tragedy was preventable through better mental health systems, it is also preventable if there were proper controls in place for the firearms owner and the storage of the weapons themselves.  For one, her mentally-ill son should never have had any sort of access to these guns.  Trigger locks are cheap, and keys are easily hidden.  Gun safes are relatively cheap (given this woman's finances, she had no excuse), and a combination can be kept from the son.  Furthermore, she should not have been able to even purchase the guns in a household with a mentally-ill family member without a legal requirement to safely store those guns away from his access.

The sad fact of this case is that 20+ people would not be dead if this woman had put trigger locks on her guns and hidden the key, or kept them in a gun safe for which her son did not have the combination.  She didn't, and she along with 20+ other people including kids paid the price of that folly with their lives.

The real tragedy is that these legislated requirements are common sense and not only prevent these sorts of issues, but also the massive numbers of deaths attributed to accidental firearms discharges that occur in the US annually, many/most of them in children.

[karajorma]

Yes but enforcing the rules would mean people have to take responsibility when they buy a gun. And the only way to check they have taken responsibility is to legislate and enforce those legislations. Most countries do that for cars but would America be willing to accept the same amount of responsibility for guns that they currently accept for cars?

So who is willing to allow ATF agents into their home to check that their guns are stored properly on a semi-regular basis? Would people accept mandatory training with firearms before ownership is allowed? Would people who own a gun be willing to pay a gun tax so that the government could pay for it?

I doubt anyone would be willing to pass that law. The other tax is cheaper.

[Aardwolf]

Answer to all of Karajorma's rhetorical questions: if they want to purchase/keep their guns, yes.

I would make an awesome dictator.

[Nuke]

Since we're showing hands, I have training with firearms, in edged-weapon defence, and in the carrying/use of defensive weapons (not guns) which I carry at work.  The conversation around knives/swords/silliness is, in my view, asinine.

For the record, I'm not in favour of blanket bans on guns, gun types, etc.  I am in favour of the rigorous regulation of ownership, carrying, and storage of all firearms to ensure they are possessed, stored, and used safely for the purpose for which they are intended - hunting, target shooting, and limited self-defense circumstances as permitted by law (which is true in the US and Canada, generally).  I have a firearms license for both restricted/non-restricted weapons in Canada (although I do not personally own any right now).

While this entire Newtown tragedy was preventable through better mental health systems, it is also preventable if there were proper controls in place for the firearms owner and the storage of the weapons themselves.  For one, her mentally-ill son should never have had any sort of access to these guns.  Trigger locks are cheap, and keys are easily hidden.  Gun safes are relatively cheap (given this woman's finances, she had no excuse), and a combination can be kept from the son.  Furthermore, she should not have been able to even purchase the guns in a household with a mentally-ill family member without a legal requirement to safely store those guns away from his access.

The sad fact of this case is that 20+ people would not be dead if this woman had put trigger locks on her guns and hidden the key, or kept them in a gun safe for which her son did not have the combination.  She didn't, and she along with 20+ other people including kids paid the price of that folly with their lives.

The real tragedy is that these legislated requirements are common sense and not only prevent these sorts of issues, but also the massive numbers of deaths attributed to accidental firearms discharges that occur in the US annually, many/most of them in children.

i kinda agree with everything you just said. id also like to point out that guns aint cheap. its not unusual for somone to drop hundreds of buck on a gun (or a small arsenal), and then dont want to spend a few more bucks on a gun safe or trig locks. weapons meant for hunting (or sport shooting) especially there is no excuse for having them out all the time (unless you live in the woods and hunt from your back porch, as certain inlaws of mine do). these weapons have no reason to be out all the time.

of course when it comes to guns for personal and home defense things get iffy. if someone breaks into your house they are probibly aren't going to like you when they see you frantically trying to open the gun safe or get the trigger lock off your pistol so you can put a bullet or two through them. and if you live in such a dangerous part of town (or grizzly territory) that you need a gun you are probibly better off training everyone in the household in their use than not. people who buy guns for defense usually do so as a reaction to already well armed criminals. and had the criminals not had guns, they would not have needed them either. this is merely a survival strategy in a second amendment world.

[IronBeer]

So who is willing to allow ATF agents into their home to check that their guns are stored properly on a semi-regular basis? Would people accept mandatory training with firearms before ownership is allowed? Would people who own a gun be willing to pay a gun tax so that the government could pay for it?

I would accept those stipulations. In combination with current weapon class limitations (no machine guns, no grenades, etc.), such stipulations are perfectly reasonable. It only makes sense that devices designed to kill things should be subject to limitations similar to other devices that can easily cause incidental deaths (cars).

[Aardwolf]

@IronBeer: so would a lot of people. The problem is the next part of what he said: nobody in the position to control whether such a law passes is going to pass such a law.

[Nuke]

Yes but enforcing the rules would mean people have to take responsibility when they buy a gun. And the only way to check they have taken responsibility is to legislate and enforce those legislations. Most countries do that for cars but would America be willing to accept the same amount of responsibility for guns that they currently accept for cars?

the difference is in the us owning and driving a vehicle is considered a privilege, where as owning a gun is a right. i dont think america has the political will right now to change an amendment as old as america itself.

[deathfun]

Yes but enforcing the rules would mean people have to take responsibility when they buy a gun. And the only way to check they have taken responsibility is to legislate and enforce those legislations. Most countries do that for cars but would America be willing to accept the same amount of responsibility for guns that they currently accept for cars?

the difference is in the us owning and driving a vehicle is considered a privilege, where as owning a gun is a right. i dont think america has the political will right now to change an amendment as old as america itself.

"Amendment II

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."

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “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.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html#ixzz2FTWH8OPO

[jr2]

EXCLUSIVE: Fear of being committed may have caused Connecticut gunman to snap
By Jana Winter
Published December 18, 2012


NEWTOWN, Conn. –  The gunman who slaughtered 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school may have snapped because his mother was planning to commit him to a psychiatric facility, according to a lifelong resident of the area who was familiar with the killer’s family and several of the victims’ families.

Adam Lanza, 20, targeted Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown after killing his mother early Friday because he believed she loved the school “more than she loved him,” said Joshua Flashman, 25, who grew up not far from where the shooting took place. Flashman, a U.S. Marine, is the son of a pastor at an area church where many of the victims' families worship.

“From what I've been told, Adam was aware of her petitioning the court for conservatorship and (her) plans to have him committed," Flashman said. "Adam was apparently very upset about this. He thought she just wanted to send him away. From what I understand, he was really, really angry. I think this could have been it, what set him off.”

A senior law enforcement official involved in the investigation confirmed that Lanza's anger at his mother over plans for “his future mental health treatment” is being looked at as a possible motive for the deadly shooting.

"He thought she just wanted to send him away. From what I understand, he was really, really angry."
- Joshua Flashman, Newtown resident familiar with Lanza family

Flashman was told Nancy Lanza had begun filing paperwork to get conservatorship over her troubled son, but that could not be confirmed because a court official told us that such records are sealed. The move would have been necessary for her to gain the legal right to commit an adult to a hospital or psychiatric facility against his will. A competency hearing had not yet been held.

Adam Lanza attended the Sandy Hook School as a boy, according to Flashman, who said Nancy Lanza had volunteered there for several years. Two law enforcement sources said they believed Nancy Lanza had been volunteering with kindergartners at the school. Most of Lanza's victims were first graders sources believe Nancy Lanza may have worked with last year.
Flashman said Nancy Lanza was also good friends with the school’s principal and psychologist—both of whom were killed in the shooting rampage.

"Adam Lanza believed she cared more for the children than she did for him, and the reason he probably thought this [was the fact that] she was petitioning for conservatorship and wanted to have him committed," Flashman said. "I could understand how he might perceive that—that his mom loved him less than she loved the kids, loved the school. But she did love him. But he was a troubled kid and she probably just couldn’t take care of him by herself anymore."

The Washington Post reported that the distraught mother had considered moving with her son to Washington state, where she had found a school she thought could help him. Either way, according to Flashman, Nancy Lanza was at her wit's end.

A separate neighborhood source also told us that Nancy Lanza had come to the realization she could no longer handle her son alone. She was caring for him full-time, but told friends she needed help. She was planning to have him involuntarily hospitalized, according to the source, who did not know if she had taken formal steps.

Multiple sources report that Adam Lanza suffered from Asperger’s syndrome, a form of autism, and unspecified mental and emotional problems.

Adam Lanza has also been described by those who knew him as highly intelligent, and a spokesman for Western Connecticut State University told The Associated Press he took college classes there when he was 16, earning a 3.26 grade point average and excelling at a computer course.

Alan Diaz, 20, who was friends with Adam Lanza at Newtown High School, said the Lanza he knew was ill-at-ease socially, but not a monster.

"He was a wicked smart kid," Diaz told us by email. "When I first met him, he wouldn't even look at you when you tried to talk to him. Over the year I knew him, he became used to me and my other friends, he eventually could have full conversations with us.

"I've heard him laugh, he has even comforted me once in a hard time I had," Diaz said. “A big part of me wishes I never dropped contact with him after he left high school, felt like I could have done something."

Flashman said nobody will completely understand why Adam did what he did.

“No one can explain Adam Lanza besides God and Adam Lanza, and I don’t even think Adam Lanza could explain Adam Lanza, to be honest with you.”


Source/Read more: here

[BlueFlames]

the difference is in the us owning and driving a vehicle is considered a privilege, where as owning a gun is a right. i dont think america has the political will right now to change an amendment as old as america itself.

This is significant, because it renders much of the gun control debate moot.

When other countries have decided to make sweeping changes to their gun laws, it's just been a matter of passing a bill.  Because the Supreme Court has favored a very broad interpretation of the second amendment (and done so very recently), if such reforms are simply put through the normal legislative process, they stand to be struck down quickly.

Constitutional amendments, in the United States, can only be modified or repealed by another amendment.  A Constitutional amendment is one of the rare cases that only passes Congress with a two-thirds majority in both houses.  Even if it passes Congress, though, an amendment does not carry legal weight, until ratified by three quarters of the state legislatures.  Currently, any coalition of twelve states can block an amendment from taking effect, even if it passes the high hurdle of two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress.

I can think of eleven states that would block such any amendment designed to strike or weaken the second amendment, without even having to look west of the Mississippi River, and there's no shortage of allies to that effort on the other side of that geographic boundary.

I think Congress can easily craft a gun control bill that will pass the Senate.  Even prominent members of the Blue Dog caucus are open to proposals to ressurrect the 1994 assault weapons ban, and I don't think that Senate Republicans are up to filibustering such a bill, in the wake of Sandy Hook.  I think that a compromise bill could find enough Republican support in the House (perhaps with some political arm-twisting) to get the simple majority needed there to pass.  Unless Antonin Scalia drops dead before such a law passes and is challenged, then such a bill would be struck down, with the five-justice majority's opinion summarized as "D.C. v. Heller, lolz."

Right or wrong, it will take more--possibly much more--time and blood before the United States warms enough to the idea of gun control to achieve any progress toward gun-control legislation that is viable in the long-term.

"The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative."  - Winston Churchill

[addendum]

Deathfun, the part of The New Yorker article that you have quoted is grossly misinformed [edit] or out-of-date [/edit].  Again (and less jovially), I cite District of Columbia v. Heller.  The Supreme Court, in 2008, held exactly the opposite of what that quote says, stating that the second amendment guarantees the individual right to bear arms, regardless of service in a militia, law enforcement, or military organization.

[Aardwolf]

Tangentially relevant, re: "well regulated militia"

I read something somewhere that said "regulated" is more like "regular" in the sense of a "regular army", and that the meaning we think of when we see it nowadays like "regulations", i.e. having laws pertaining to it, is new.

Can't find original source, but the Wikipedia article on the second amendment says:

The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained"