If gun control isn't the answer, what is?

[P@triot]

and we can ban some guns and require health care for all.

You're desperation is comical. Guns aren't going anywhere. The American people have spoken and they granted the NRA more power than they have Obama (hence the reason even the White House is running from this issue)

It's indicative of how these progressives think though. In their irrational thinking it's perfectly ok for us to be forced to purchase a product from a private company, and to give up our 2nd amendment too.

The constitution means nothing to these treasonous bastards.

I've said that for years! You ever see video's of the idiot liberal dumbocrats (usually high school or college) saying that "healthcare is a RIGHT"? I mean, seriously, where the **** did they get THAT?!?!

Things that are actually rights (like the 2nd Amendment) - dumbocrats reject.

Things that are NOT rights (like healthcare), dumbocrats falsely claim are rights.

 

[depotoo]

I heard this guy had tried to purchase a gun himself recently but was denied the purchase for some reason. Does anyone know if it was due to his history? If that is indeed the case, then why is it that law enforcement are not notified so they can then follow up on the attempted purchase? Seems to me, if his residence was contacted, his mother being his guardian would have been aware something was going terribly wrong and possibly sought the help he needed at that time. Would this help with every case? No, but we live in an imperfect world in which we cannot divert all tragedy. No amount of laws can ever stop all tragedies from occurring. But possibly it could help.

I personally think that there needs to be much more research into mental health issues - not through pharmaceutical companies, but from medical researchers. Only when it can be more fully understood why it happens could we possibly stem some of societies ills.

I understood that there was a waiting period in CN --the reason he couldn't purchase a gun.

He had no criminal history.

I agree much more research needs to be done. I honestly don't think there will ever come a time when we will be able to identify 'these problems' well enough to prevent them. How does the brain develop?

The miracle would seem to be that most people develop without these problems.

I don't know what I would do as the parent of a child with such problems. I am not a gun enthusiast so I wouldn't have shared that interest with my child. Residential psychiatric care for a lifetime---if such facilities exist the cost must be staggering and would any insurance company agree?

The state owned asylum approach was tried with devastatingly poor results, jmo.

If there are those among us who have more informed alternatives I hope they speak up.

To be brutally honest, no amount of searching is going to cure the problem. This will happen again someday amongst another group of people. It is a fact of life that no one wants to admit. There is not an answer as to why some snap as they do and no amount of laws can prevent that fact.

What we can do is to cherish each day we have with each other and to teach our children how to respect and cherish each and everyday we have with someone as well as all those around us and of life itself. Don't take time for granted. And if any of us or our loved ones is unfortunate enough to end up in the path of such a tragic event, we can live in a little bit of peace.

 

[Some Guy]

As I understand it, right now that s conjecture - but could well be true. However, you make an excellent point in that if he did, in fact attempt to purchase a weapon and the background check showed his mental history, why weren't the local police notified.

Look, as in the case of many of these murders, we often ask ourselves, "what could we have done to prevent this from happening". I'm not sure there is ever an easy answer. Because of this horror, we sit back and scratch our heads and ask "why"?

One of my favorite songwriters, Harry Chapin, wrote a song entitled "The Sniper" many, many years ago about the man who climbed to the top of the clock tower at the University of Texas (Austin) and killed dozens of people. I invite you all to look up the lyrics (I won't bore you with posting them here - google is our friend) but you will notice STARK similarities between that man and this kid.

So, there really is nothing new here, between the 60s and now. Mental illness is still mental illness and, sorry to say, we are no better treating it now, than we were back then.

Really? You think responsible gun ownership is to much to ask of the people out there buying multiples of high power weapons. That's to much to ask you think?

Why would that be?

This woman was a gun "lover" evidentally and as figure she knew her son had issues and problems. You don't think these guns should have been in the best gun safe out there? That only she knew the combanation to. She had 300k a year income.

But you think that would have been out of line. Locking up her guns. Keeping ammo elsewhere. Trigger locks?

Hell, maybe taken the guns to a friends to keep till the son got a little better handle on life.

Nah to much to ask.

Responsible ownership is being able to buy them, keep ammo in house and mix in a disturbed young man and see what happens.

Didn't work out to well did it? But there is sure something could be done to keep shit like this from happening. Not 100%. But you can cut some tragadies out. And some is better than giving up.

Nowhere did he say that responsible gun ownership was too much to ask.

 

[Jarhead]

I heard this guy had tried to purchase a gun himself recently but was denied the purchase for some reason. Does anyone know if it was due to his history? If that is indeed the case, then why is it that law enforcement are not notified so they can then follow up on the attempted purchase? Seems to me, if his residence was contacted, his mother being his guardian would have been aware something was going terribly wrong and possibly sought the help he needed at that time. Would this help with every case? No, but we live in an imperfect world in which we cannot divert all tragedy. No amount of laws can ever stop all tragedies from occurring. But possibly it could help.

I personally think that there needs to be much more research into mental health issues - not through pharmaceutical companies, but from medical researchers. Only when it can be more fully understood why it happens could we possibly stem some of societies ills.

As I understand it, right now that s conjecture - but could well be true. However, you make an excellent point in that if he did, in fact attempt to purchase a weapon and the background check showed his mental history, why weren't the local police notified.

Look, as in the case of many of these murders, we often ask ourselves, "what could we have done to prevent this from happening". I'm not sure there is ever an easy answer. Because of this horror, we sit back and scratch our heads and ask "why"?

One of my favorite songwriters, Harry Chapin, wrote a song entitled "The Sniper" many, many years ago about the man who climbed to the top of the clock tower at the University of Texas (Austin) and killed dozens of people. I invite you all to look up the lyrics (I won't bore you with posting them here - google is our friend) but you will notice STARK similarities between that man and this kid.

So, there really is nothing new here, between the 60s and now. Mental illness is still mental illness and, sorry to say, we are no better treating it now, than we were back then.

Really? You think responsible gun ownership is to much to ask of the people out there buying multiples of high power weapons. That's to much to ask you think?

Why would that be?

This woman was a gun "lover" evidentally and as figure she knew her son had issues and problems. You don't think these guns should have been in the best gun safe out there? That only she knew the combanation to. She had 300k a year income.

But you think that would have been out of line. Locking up her guns. Keeping ammo elsewhere. Trigger locks?

Hell, maybe taken the guns to a friends to keep till the son got a little better handle on life.

Nah to much to ask.

Responsible ownership is being able to buy them, keep ammo in house and mix in a disturbed young man and see what happens.

Didn't work out to well did it? But there is sure something could be done to keep shit like this from happening. Not 100%. But you can cut some tragadies out. And some is better than giving up.

First of all...according to her friends, she was not a gun "lover". She found riflery as a means to bond with her son who was having trouble bondiung with others. She was quite obviouisly desparate to find something to help him adapt/adjust.

Secondly, you have no idea what safeguards she took. Sure, they werent enough...but it is easy to be a monday morning quarterback

and finally...it is irresponsible to cast bloame on the mother AT ALL for not only is she dead and unable to defend herslf....but the investigation is far from over.

You want to debate the issues of gun control? Sure.

But to point fingers at a woman who is dead with no proof of anything you say is down right wrong.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I heard this guy had tried to purchase a gun himself recently but was denied the purchase for some reason. Does anyone know if it was due to his history? If that is indeed the case, then why is it that law enforcement are not notified so they can then follow up on the attempted purchase? Seems to me, if his residence was contacted, his mother being his guardian would have been aware something was going terribly wrong and possibly sought the help he needed at that time. Would this help with every case? No, but we live in an imperfect world in which we cannot divert all tragedy. No amount of laws can ever stop all tragedies from occurring. But possibly it could help.

I personally think that there needs to be much more research into mental health issues - not through pharmaceutical companies, but from medical researchers. Only when it can be more fully understood why it happens could we possibly stem some of societies ills.

As I understand it, right now that s conjecture - but could well be true. However, you make an excellent point in that if he did, in fact attempt to purchase a weapon and the background check showed his mental history, why weren't the local police notified.

Look, as in the case of many of these murders, we often ask ourselves, "what could we have done to prevent this from happening". I'm not sure there is ever an easy answer. Because of this horror, we sit back and scratch our heads and ask "why"?

One of my favorite songwriters, Harry Chapin, wrote a song entitled "The Sniper" many, many years ago about the man who climbed to the top of the clock tower at the University of Texas (Austin) and killed dozens of people. I invite you all to look up the lyrics (I won't bore you with posting them here - google is our friend) but you will notice STARK similarities between that man and this kid.

So, there really is nothing new here, between the 60s and now. Mental illness is still mental illness and, sorry to say, we are no better treating it now, than we were back then.

Really? You think responsible gun ownership is to much to ask of the people out there buying multiples of high power weapons. That's to much to ask you think?

Why would that be?

This woman was a gun "lover" evidentally and as figure she knew her son had issues and problems. You don't think these guns should have been in the best gun safe out there? That only she knew the combanation to. She had 300k a year income.

But you think that would have been out of line. Locking up her guns. Keeping ammo elsewhere. Trigger locks?

Hell, maybe taken the guns to a friends to keep till the son got a little better handle on life.

Nah to much to ask.

Responsible ownership is being able to buy them, keep ammo in house and mix in a disturbed young man and see what happens.

Didn't work out to well did it? But there is sure something could be done to keep shit like this from happening. Not 100%. But you can cut some tragadies out. And some is better than giving up.

One question for you there Skippy.....What in the world are you talking about!?!

When has ANYONE here advocated ANYTHING other than responsible gun ownership?? WHEN??

 

[P@triot]

One thing I don't get - why is it so hard for the left to think logically?

Q: Where do these shooting rampages happen?
A: Where guns are completely banned (schools most often, Colorado theater, etc.)

This is NOT rocket science people. There are almost NEVER shooting rampages where guns are prevalent. And the rare times it does happen, nobody but the gunman dies.

Do you remember the shootout at the Empire State Building? Several accidental hits of bystanders by trained police. What kind of collateral damage would occur in a shootout in a crowed theater, with some untrained, armed yahoo trying to "save" people?

Everyone thinks they're John ******* Wayne. They're not. They have neither the extensive training that police go through continually through their career, nor the disposition to shoot at something that's shooting back.

Vintage liberal here folks! Worship the government employee and piss on the private citizen.

The real irony? After giving the exmaple of AWFUL police shooting, Dick Head here goes on to say that people do not have the "extensive training that police go through continually"

Dick Head, as always with liberals, has NO idea what he is talking about - but it doesn't stop him from talking. As someone who has been completely and totally submersed in law enforcement from the time he came out of the womb, let me assure you that Dick Head here is talking about of his ass. I do more private training on my own in a week than ANY law enforcement agency I am aware of does in a month. And that is a 100% fact. My weekly, PRIVATE training I do on my own includes a moving target, reloads under pressure, timed, and scored for accuracy (yes, each and every round includes those 4 items).

As someone who has spent YEARS of his life on the firing line with law enforcement, I've never seen a single law enforcement agency have a moving target or reloads under pressure. Few even time or score. Hence the results in NY.

But hey, Dick Head, keep worshiping those people you know NOTHING about simply because they have a shiny little badge and receive checks from the government. ****'n fool....

 

[DiamondDave]

Uh, the DC sniper shot from inside a vehicle. A flash suppressor would have made no difference.

Have you every actually seen what a flash suppressor does? Have you ever fired a rifle with and without one?

It has a lot less to do with covering a flash and more to do with the efficient expulsion of gases, which keeps the muzzle from flipping during the shot. They're about accuracy, not some evil intent.

He shot out of a hole carved in the trunk.

Correct, which means your statement that a flash suppressor "hid the DC snipers pretty well" is bogus.

Bingo

 

[DiamondDave]

It was listed as an assault weapon while the ban was in place. It's you that needs to work on your definitions.

The definition for the ban was more based on looks than anything else.. as stated, I can go do more damage with my Saiga-12 shotgun than you can with an AR...

And if your Saiga-12 were configured without use of a tool to change the magazine, it would also be classified as an assault weapon.

Actually.. it would not have.. but thanks for playing

 

[eflatminor]

I do more private training on my own in a week than ANY law enforcement agency I am aware of does in a month. And that is a 100% fact.

That is my experience as well, and that of every shooting sports enthusiast I know. I put at least 15,000 rounds downrange per year. My LEO friends that don't compete, less than 100.

 

[P@triot]

I do more private training on my own in a week than ANY law enforcement agency I am aware of does in a month. And that is a 100% fact.

That is my experience as well, and that of every shooting sports enthusiast I know. I put at least 15,000 rounds downrange per year. My LEO friends that don't compete, less than 100.

Most law enforcement agency's I have been around required officers to "qualify" ONCE time per year. Yeah, you heard that right - ONE time per year. A few required it every 6 months.

Obviously, I have not worked in every city, in every county, of every state. But that has been my experience.

 

[eflatminor]

I do more private training on my own in a week than ANY law enforcement agency I am aware of does in a month. And that is a 100% fact.

That is my experience as well, and that of every shooting sports enthusiast I know. I put at least 15,000 rounds downrange per year. My LEO friends that don't compete, less than 100.

Most law enforcement agency's I have been around required officers to "qualify" ONCE time per year. Yeah, you heard that right - ONE time per year. A few required it every 6 months.

Obviously, I have not worked in every city, in every county, of every state. But that has been my experience.

Mine as well.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Uh, the DC sniper shot from inside a vehicle. A flash suppressor would have made no difference.

Have you every actually seen what a flash suppressor does? Have you ever fired a rifle with and without one?

It has a lot less to do with covering a flash and more to do with the efficient expulsion of gases, which keeps the muzzle from flipping during the shot. They're about accuracy, not some evil intent.

He shot out of a hole carved in the trunk.

Correct, which means your statement that a flash suppressor "hid the DC snipers pretty well" is bogus.

That would depend on whether the muzzle was inside or outside the trunk. Several of the snipers shots were also outside the car. Do you have something definitive you want to say?

 

[eflatminor]

He shot out of a hole carved in the trunk.

Correct, which means your statement that a flash suppressor "hid the DC snipers pretty well" is bogus.

That would depend on whether the muzzle was inside or outside the trunk. Several of the snipers shots were also outside the car. Do you have something definitive you want to say?

Yes. Flash suppressors don't do what you think they do. They are intended to reduce recoil by letting gases escape efficiently. There remains plenty of "flash" coming out of the muzzle. You imply they render a shot invisible. That is not true, not even close.

 

[eflatminor]

Much better idea to cower in the corner of a gun free zone and wait to be rescued. Good luck with that.

your problem is that you think those are the only two answers....

Then by all means, tell us exactly what measures would prevent insane motherfuckers and dumb criminal thugs from breaking laws with a firearm.

Crickets.

Shocking, I know...

 

[NoNukes]

Human nature isn't going to change anytime soon.

Why are there so many massacres in America and not in other civilized western countries?

 

[Koios]

What is the answer?

Something, or nothing? If something, what?

Bullet control. Nothing in the 2nd Amendment says we get to keep and bear amo. Just the arms.

Then we can be horrified by mentally ill waltzing into classrooms and pistol-whipping teachers and students. At least they heal, eventually, and asprin can help with the headaches.

 

[Some Guy]

Human nature isn't going to change anytime soon.

Why are there so many massacres in America and not in other civilized western countries?

Mass shootings in Europe < Belgian news | Expatica Belgium

 

[DiamondDave]

Human nature isn't going to change anytime soon.

Why are there so many massacres in America and not in other civilized western countries?

How come there are more neck stretchings in Burma? How come there are more stonings in Iran? How come there are more rapes in the Congo??

CULTURE... they way the people are...

There is no doubt we have a culture born in violence... but taking away the ability to have law abiding citizens protect themselves with a firearm is not going to protect them to a greater degree

 

[Koios]

Much better idea to cower in the corner of a gun free zone and wait to be rescued. Good luck with that.

your problem is that you think those are the only two answers....

Then by all means, tell us exactly what measures would prevent insane motherfuckers and dumb criminal thugs from breaking laws with a firearm.

"Would" is hard to say. Would have? Sure. Making guns illegal limits access to them. Criminals will get their hands on them, but typical folks who are either frootloops, or in some kind of jealous rage, won't have the same level of access.

Look at the UK. Maybe 50 or so gun deaths a year? And where are we? 25,000? More?

So while putting toothpaste back in the tube is no easy task, still squeezing the tube is no rational pursuit. We must work to limit the dangers while still within the confines of the BoR. Assault weapons should be banned. Concealable weapons should be limited to 2 or 3 shots, maximum, except for police, etc. The sale of guns should be HEAVILY regulated and controlled by federal and state governments.

Nothing in the BoR limits Congress' ability to limit or regulate what "arms" are. They cannot shoot anthrax, nor have nuke warheads. If those limits are not barred by the BoR, then NO LIMITS ARE, short of limiting all arms out of existence, which would create a defacto limiting of our right to bear them, with "them" being what's allowed by law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So at what point do we regulate human thought? I'll be the first to tell you that I have often thought (privately, never openly - for fear of people, who would probably lock me away in a "re-education" camp) that those abortion providers who have been murdered probably got a "just" reward. Do I condone it? Absolutely NOT!

Having stated that, I am a gun owner and have been since I was 10 years old. I served in the military (Vietnam) and killed people. Many, in fact. Other than service in the military, I have never used a weapon in anger. Never once.

Don't you find it rather odd, that the majority of these mass killings are perpetrated by those who have never served in the military, never fought in wars, yet been under observation (in many cases for years) for mental illness or have held "grudges" against society for some perceived "wrong" done to them, or, quite frankly, just snap one day? Or, worse yet, are teenagers, brought up on violence (constant video games, television, movies, books, magazines) etc etc that believe that "life has no meaning"? Here's a clue for the latter...Life has no meaning to those individuals because they were (most likely) never taught to respect life.

One passage in the Bible as ALWAYS stood out to me: "You reap what you sow"

Ok, so now you want to eliminate mental state of mind as a disqualifier for acquiring guns.

What's left?

Do we resign ourselves to only banning gun ownership to people with after the fact evidence? As in, ban felons? Ban the kid the who sold pot out of his dorm room in college, but full speed ahead for the guy with the mentality to become the next anti - abortionist terrorist?

Apparently, some of the respondents here are unable to comprehend what they read, or I am (regrettably) not making myself clear. OF COURSE NOT!! Nowhere have I written that mental state of mind should be elimanted as a "DISQUALIFIER" for acquiring guns. NOWHERE. Please! I invite you to point out where I have EVER written this.

So, then, what is YOUR determination of "mental illness"? If someone, in a sudden fit of angst, claims that Doctor X "got what was coming to him" that he is mentally unbalanced?? For a split second, you may be right. So, then, when the left was calling for the "murder" of George Bush, were they not the same? When the arm-chair QB, watching his team on Sunday yells out, "kill the bum - rip his head off" is HE not insane also? Wake up, sonny.

I would add, however, after this post, that (tongue-in-cheek), those unable to read and write should probably NOT be allowed to purchase firearms......

Ah, you're a war veteran, well according to other posters in this thread you shouldn't be trusted with a firearm around children.