WTH is wrong with some people??? Shooting at CT Elementary School - Page 57 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

JamesDean · #**841** 12-19-2012, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

As has been asked by several people on this tread,
How would ANY law or change being discussed here, or anywhere, have prevented the tragedy?
We would be as successful by passing a LAW to make cancer illegal.

These proposed changes do NOTHING to attack the root of the problem. Define the root cause and you might be on your way to a solution.

A guess... Mental health issues? Overall mental health wellness?

TimFreeh · #**842** 12-19-2012, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

.....There I no doubt in my mind that if it had been law that everything she had be locked in a safe, she would have had one and they would have been secured. She was killed in her bed, the lack of immediate access to her fiearms would have changed the outcome of the day.

The kid could have killed her as she slept with a knife and then opened the safe with power tools and removed the firearms for use. Alternatively he could have opened the safe using force when she wasn't around.

There should be at least some doubt in your mind that passing 'secure all guns in a gun safe all the time laws' would have prevented this tragedy.

elchivito · #**843** 12-19-2012, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Time to dust off the old RCBS.

Rock Chucker to the rescue!

JamesDean · #**844** 12-19-2012, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimFreeh

The kid could have killed her as she slept with a knife and then opened the safe with power tools and removed the firearms for use. Alternatively he could have opened the safe using force when she wasn't around.

There should be at least some doubt in your mind that passing 'secure all guns in a gun safe all the time laws' would have prevented this tragedy.

Perhaps it wont prevent a tragedy every time but it could deter/lower the chances.

I don't think locking up not-in-use guns is a bad idea. I dont think its an unreasonable thing to ask.

TwitchKitty · #**845** 12-19-2012, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

What history do you specifically refer to? Government has traditionally been ham handed and inefficient, but government action after disasters has a pretty good track record if you actually look at it.

Building code requirements after disasters like the triangle shirtwaist factory, safety and construction standards in consumer products, automobiles, and food. All for our benefit, and all make good sense.

I think minimal weapon regulations and safety requirements is not much to ask. Again, no discussion, no compromise is a silly way to act

That standard was passed by large margin years ago. Feel lucky, getting what you ask for won't often be so easy.

MS Fowler · #**846** 12-19-2012, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesDean

A guess... Mental health issues? Overall mental health wellness?

Not sure what you intend.
Should the government be allowed to incarcerate anyone for whom they can find a doctor who will certify that they need to be incarcerated?
What could possibly go wrong with that? Suddenly free speech gets interpreted as "aberrant behavior, and the speaker needs to be held 'for their own safety'". Yep--that would be good.

JamesDean · #**847** 12-19-2012, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Not sure what you intend.
Should the government be allowed to incarcerate anyone for whom they can find a doctor who will certify that they need to be incarcerated?
What could possibly go wrong with that? Suddenly free speech gets interpreted as "aberrant behavior, and the speaker needs to be held 'for their own safety'". Yep--that would be good.

No, that was not my intention. I actually had no ideas at the time but its clear that mental health and well being are things that need to be addressed within this context. Not just gun control. If Lamza really wanted to kill all those people and didn't have relatively easy access to a gun...he would have still done so using whatever he could. I read he was a fairly smart/intelligent kid. I would not have put it past him to make something to do equal if not more harm.

So that brings us back to the core problem Lamza's mental health and well being.

You can legislate guns into the ground but if he was set on killling...

t walgamuth · #**848** 12-19-2012, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Enact a law for no particular reason. Great.

You don't understand the reason?

elchivito · #**849** 12-19-2012, 09:41 AM

I don't necessarily agree 100 percent, but this is an excellent read. A bit old -97- but still timely.

Washington University Law Quarterly: OF HOLOCAUSTS AND GUN CONTROL

JB3 · #**850** 12-19-2012, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimFreeh

The kid could have killed her as she slept with a knife and then opened the safe with power tools and removed the firearms for use. Alternatively he could have opened the safe using force when she wasn't around.

There should be at least some doubt in your mind that passing 'secure all guns in a gun safe all the time laws' would have prevented this tragedy.

true true, but when was the last time you opened a gun safe with power tools? How about any safe? Since when is that an exercise in running to the garage, grabbing the drill and bits (if available), and 2 minutes later you have weapons?

I said there was no doubt in my mind that she would have locked them up, and that the outcome would have been different, not that people wouldn't have been killed. Id like to believe that far less would be killed, if any at all, since he wouldn't have had immediate access to such dangerous firearms.

Clearly, he was a mental case who snapped. I totally agree that we should be looking at mental health and helping those in need better than we are, BUT, any kid like this until he commits a mass shooting is innocent until proven guilty. Up until then, hes just a withdrawn, or messed up kid, and this kid came from wealthy white suburbia, so im sure were I to meet him 3 weeks ago, I might have written him off as a poor little rich kid. Tell me you would have done different? In 90% im sure I and if you agree, we, would have been right.

There is no prediction or easy safe guard, and locking up the weapons could have made a major difference.

That may have changed his weapons choice, changed his target choice, limited his victim to his mother and himself ect. Of course yes, he could have built an explosive and set it off in the school, but all these ideas are about making it harder to take the easiest route.

JamesDean · #**851** 12-19-2012, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

true true, but when was the last time you opened a gun safe with power tools? How about any safe? Since when is that an exercise in running to the garage, grabbing the drill and bits (if available), and 2 minutes later you have weapons?

You mean the average garage is not equipped with high power drills and high grade drill bits, angle grinders, plasma cutters and such? Pffft. I think it would take at least 2 minutes with a cutting wheel!

JB3 · #**852** 12-19-2012, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwitchKitty

That standard was passed by large margin years ago. Feel lucky, getting what you ask for won't often be so easy.

we define minimal differently. We could definitely take some lessons from our northern neighbors here, and still preserve our traditions

MS Fowler · #**853** 12-19-2012, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

You don't understand the reason?

Don't know about Bot, But I do not understand the reason. Did you not post that no law could have prevented this, or was that someone else ( 48 pages +/-, I am not re-reading the whole thing).
So if you recognize that no law could have prevented this, then asking What is the reason to pass another law is a valid question.

raymr · #**854** 12-19-2012, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

Clearly, he was a mental case who snapped.

He was a mental case but he didn't just snap. There was advanced planning involved, the most significant of which is the ammunition stockpile.

JB3 · #**855** 12-19-2012, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Don't know about Bot, But I do not understand the reason. Did you not post that no law could have prevented this, or was that someone else ( 48 pages +/-, I am not re-reading the whole thing).
So if you recognize that no law could have prevented this, then asking What is the reason to pass another law is a valid question.

I think they were specifically arguing about the 1000 yard no gun near schools rule.

On one hand, I agree this law is completely useless when an armed lunatic goes about entering the school to kill children and themselves.

However, on the other hand, there is something to be said for limiting accidental gun use and or discharge near schools, and such a law might act as a deterrent for the average idiot, if not the madman.

Seems to me that a lot of people on this forum have a lot more interest in training and intelligent use of firearms than the average gun owner I know personally. I used to work for a man who kept a 357 magnum loaded in his center console with 4 kids between 3 and 12 scampering around in his truck.
To my knowledge, he used it to shoot a dog once in his trash cans. He doesn't do anything else with it, apart from leave it there in his unlocked truck.

Another former boss was a big collector and hoarder of automatic rifles, of which he had dozens. His storage method was to place them up in the rafters of his basement as a primitive gun rack.

Yet a third, this time a coworker at the same job as mr ceiling gun rack, was just a sloppy mess and confirmed drunk, and had a small 2nd bedroom in his bungalow that guns were just laying on the floor or leaning on the wall, loaded or unloaded, he didn't know, he just placed them often drunk after shooting at targets in his back property.

These three men I think represent the average idiot, the one who just happens to drop a gun for their kids to grab or accidentally fire it in some other fashion.