WTH is wrong with some people??? Shooting at CT Elementary School - Page 58 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

t walgamuth · #**856** 12-19-2012, 10:35 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 did not say no law could have prevented it.

JB3 · #**857** 12-19-2012, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

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.

The ammunition stockpile is a question mark, most likely it was his mother who had collected the ammo. Im sure that data will come out though, so we will see.

I have read of him preloading large numbers of gun clips for this excercise, sure, as well as preplanning with computer destruction ect. You are right, "snapping" is too simple of a term, but at some point, he decided that this was his destiny, thats what I mean, that moment of decision to start planning.

TimFreeh · #**858** 12-19-2012, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

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.

All true, this law might have prevented it from happening, it might have altered the plan a bit or it might have made no difference at all. It's pure speculation to say how a specific law definitively would have effected this particular case.

What is not speculative is how such a law would effect current law abiding citizens.

Many would have to purchase guns safes and make arrangements for buying, transporting and installing them. A measurable percentage of people forced to comply would live alone or in households that didn't contain mentally unstable people and for those people this law would be a total waste of resources and it could create anger and resentment. Current gun owners would also face the difficult question of what to do about the conflict between the primary reason they own guns and compliance with the new law. If someone breaks into your house and intends to do harm you can't really tell them to wait while you go to the safe, open it and retrieve the firearm of your choice. Many people would have to choose between complying with a new law and becoming a criminal by having one loaded firearm out of locked storage.

There are also many gun collectors that have beautiful display cabinetry that showcases rare and unique firearms and people that have guns over their fireplaces - all these would be gone.

I'd sure love to be able to solve this problem with a law but keep in mind that many, many times the side effects of new laws restrict freedoms of people well outside the bounds of the intended target of the law.

HuskyMan · #**859** 12-19-2012, 10:39 AM

In the near future, schools may be built like a literal fortress.

Secure doors, no windows, surrounded by electrified fences, bullet proof construction, etc etc. What a world we live in.........

Brian Carlton · #**860** 12-19-2012, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimFreeh

I'd sure love to be able to solve this problem with a law but keep in mind that many, many times the side effects of new laws restrict freedoms of people well outside the bounds of the intended target of the law.

Well said.

I believe you could simply eliminate the words in bold.

TwitchKitty · #**861** 12-19-2012, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimFreeh

All true, this law might have prevented it from happening, it might have altered the plan a bit or it might have made no difference at all. It's pure speculation to say how a specific law definitively would have effected this particular case.

What is not speculative is how such a law would effect current law abiding citizens.

Many would have to purchase guns safes and make arrangements for buying, transporting and installing them. A measurable percentage of people forced to comply would live alone or in households that didn't contain mentally unstable people and for those people this law would be a total waste of resources and it could create anger and resentment. Current gun owners would also face the difficult question of what to do about the conflict between the primary reason they own guns and compliance with the new law. If someone breaks into your house and intends to do harm you can't really tell them to wait while you go to the safe, open it and retrieve the firearm of your choice. Many people would have to choose between complying with a new law and becoming a criminal by having one loaded firearm out of locked storage.

There are also many gun collectors that have beautiful display cabinetry that showcases rare and unique firearms and people that have guns over their fireplaces - all these would be gone.

I'd sure love to be able to solve this problem with a law but keep in mind that many, many times the side effects of new laws restrict freedoms of people well outside the bounds of the intended target of the law.

He was her son. The guns were to keep her and hers safe. He would have had access. Sounds like she maybe was mentally ill also. Probably not to the same degree, just guessing.

One thing the media will not do is present the killer's point of view. Did someone push the kid? We'll never know.

cmbdiesel · #**862** 12-19-2012, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

Aren't you placing a lot of trust in the fact that you don't think that would happen? 300 miles is no big deal, 5 hour drive.

I'm sure mrs Lanza had absolutely no conception that such a thing would happen either, but it did.

I'm suggesting that proof of ownership be presented to buy ammunition. A gun regitration in your name with the correct firearm listed. Also, I would ban internet sales of ammunition shipped to individuals. Everything must happen in person, and an original document displayed, I'm thinking along the lines of using a drivers license to buy alchohol, that level of bother, which is not much.
Everything would have to match up though, no discrepencies, addresses accurate, weapon accurate, ect. Special ammunition could be ordered, but only shipped to a gun store, followed by the same process of verifying you actually legally own the weapon that the rounds will work with.

Why is it the same people who want voter ID laws as so against gun ID laws?

JamesDean · #**863** 12-19-2012, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

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.

A friend of mine went to college in West Virginia and he was visiting his one friend's house and he told me there were guns..EVERYWHERE. A bedroom dedicated to them, in the kitchen...

JB3 · #**864** 12-19-2012, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimFreeh

All true, this law might have prevented it from happening, it might have altered the plan a bit or it might have made no difference at all. It's pure speculation to say how a specific law definitively would have effected this particular case.

What is not speculative is how such a law would effect current law abiding citizens.

Many would have to purchase guns safes and make arrangements for buying, transporting and installing them. A measurable percentage of people forced to comply would live alone or in households that didn't contain mentally unstable people and for those people this law would be a total waste of resources and it could create anger and resentment. Current gun owners would also face the difficult question of what to do about the conflict between the primary reason they own guns and compliance with the new law. If someone breaks into your house and intends to do harm you can't really tell them to wait while you go to the safe, open it and retrieve the firearm of your choice. Many people would have to choose between complying with a new law and becoming a criminal by having one loaded firearm out of locked storage.

There are also many gun collectors that have beautiful display cabinetry that showcases rare and unique firearms and people that have guns over their fireplaces - all these would be gone.

I'd sure love to be able to solve this problem with a law but keep in mind that many, many times the side effects of new laws restrict freedoms of people well outside the bounds of the intended target of the law.

Well, my opinion might change if we could get reliable numbers on just how many people successfully defend their home with a gun, vs the various studies and data that suggests just the opposite, that having the gun in the house makes it more likely you or a family member will shoot one other than actually use it in home defense.

In this thread, ive already been told that there is this large percentage of people who have defended their home and not reported it, but again, it would be nice to quantify that. I find that unlikely, as why wouldn't you use the gun and tell the wife to call the cops? ect. It just strikes me as wishful thinking that joe public got up, pulled a gun on an intruder, caused him to leave, then locked up and went back to bed without reporting the incident to the authorities, waiting up for the cops, describing the situation and what the intruder looked like, and filing a report.

Why wouldn't you? you lose nothing, and you further ensure the safety of your home by both defending it, then getting the police to back you up, demonstrating the house is not a good target. I just don't think that unknown statistic is a realistic common occurrence.

In the meantime we have all this other evidence pointing to likelyhood of the gun being used in an accidental or purposeful homicide between family members. So using the data that does exist, I wouldn't have a problem with the hardships such restrictions would create.

I discussed some japanese officer pistols earlier in the thread, those currently are in a glass coffee table with a pair of swords from the civil war and some other artifact stuff. In my family we would have to take this table apart, house the guns properly, and damage a nice display piece, but id be fine with it I think for the greater good.

raymr · #**865** 12-19-2012, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

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.

I can attest to the idiots. One time when I was around 10 years old, our neighbor and his oldest son came back from hunting in the woods. I wandered over to their house and saw that they had left their rifles on the front porch, presumably (looking back now) planning to clean them. I picked up one of the guns and played with it. I raised it up and aimed it at the old man, who was now pushing his lawn mower around the front yard. It fired and I fell back.

Lucky I was a bad shot, and the loud mower masked the noise. But I caught my thumb on a sharp part of the gun and started bleeding everywhere, which I blamed on falling on a rock. Nobody ever knew what happened until I confessed to his family much later after the old man died. The scar on my thumb is a constant reminder.

This is why I don't own guns.

JB3 · #**866** 12-19-2012, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

Well said.

I believe you could simply eliminate the words in bold.

true, but do the side effects of limiting gun ownership, or ease of ownership, outweigh the future of gun violence in this country what with these types of mass shootings with legally owned weapons? Why don't we discuss what rights and liberties might be affected by more stringent gun control?

davidmash · #**867** 12-19-2012, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

I have no issue with any regulation that you want to pass.

Do you believe that the requirement would be adhered to by most of the population? In fact, the type of individual who would deliberately flaunt the law is exactly the type of individual who might have a relative or a child who would take that weapon............you know, the DB's of society?

Not sure. I would think jail time would be a good incentive. How about we pass it and find out? We could always come up with other ideas should this one fail. Not like the plane was invented on the first try.

JamesDean · #**868** 12-19-2012, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

I can attest to the idiots. One time when I was around 10 years old, our neighbor and his oldest son came back from hunting in the woods. I wandered over to their house and saw that they had left their rifles on the front porch, presumably (looking back now) planning to clean them. I picked up one of the guns and played with it. I raised it up and aimed it at the old man, who was now pushing his lawn mower around the front yard. It fired and I fell back.

Lucky I was a bad shot, and the loud mower masked the noise. But I caught my thumb on a sharp part of the gun and started bleeding everywhere, which I blamed on falling on a rock. Nobody ever knew what happened until I confessed to his family much later after the old man died. The scar on my thumb is a constant reminder.

This is why I don't own guns.

Imagine if you were a better shot. Three families lives would have been changed forever.

Brian Carlton · #**869** 12-19-2012, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

Not sure. I would think jail time would be a good incentive. How about we pass it and find out? We could always come up with other ideas should this one fail. Not like the plane was invented on the first try.

Personally, I'm positive that jail time is not a disincentive. The reason is very simple. There is no enforcement. You decide to require a locked gun safe in every single house, thereby taking away the very need to own a gun. Nobody follows the law. Nobody enforces the law.

The liberals champion their success at gun regulation.

More shootings occur without any abatement.

I think you're wasting your time to attempt to control the weapon, but, as I stated, I have no dog in this fight. I have a loaded shotgun with a pistol grip under the bed...........that's it.

You're not going to require me to have a safe for my shotgun...........are you?

davidmash · #**870** 12-19-2012, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplinville

Exactly HOW is this going to prevent a situation like what happened in CT? HOW is this going to get weapons out of the hands of criminals??

It won't...all it does is create another unenforceable law causing a certain group of citizens to spend MORE money on something that won't work.

Most criminals have a background. If you go through a check before buying you would be rejected. No gun. Can't go to Craigs list or anything else because of the back ground check ... no gun. Can't break into a house and find a gun because they are all locked up.... no gun.

It will take quite some time (several generations) due to the volume of guns in the US but eventually, the bad guys will find it harder and harder to find guns.