Devolution
Member
Okay so you're under the impression that the person coming into my house will always have a gun, see me first and I'm better off never being armed? That's your position?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Would increased gun regulation have prevented Connecticut?
- Thread starter Deified Data
- Start date
- Status
Okay so you're under the impression that the person coming into my house will always have a gun, see me first and I'm better off never being armed? That's your position?
Exactly. Just pointing out that in these indents, the person is using a gun exactly how it was intended.
Mandatory liability insurance as a prerequisite for gun ownership is an excellent idea.
Unfortunately it would probably be really expensive.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
i think gun laws should move up to a federal level and make them uniform across the nation at the very least.
i personally don't think massacres like these will be prevented, though. the 2nd amendment would have to be repealed... i don't see that happening, so the best thing that can be done is making the rules on a federal level, since the right to bear arms comes from the federal level already.
that picture that compares Cars to Guns as far as what you need isn't exactly what "will" happen ever. Cars are not a "constitutional right" to be able to drive. Guns are (to have). If driving was a "constitutional right" then they wouldnt have all of those "restricting" and "discriminatory" regulations, that if you tried to apply towards guns, they would be called. It is essentially the same right as being able to vote. you cant make someone take a test to be able to vote either.
i personally don't think massacres like these will be prevented, though. the 2nd amendment would have to be repealed... i don't see that happening, so the best thing that can be done is making the rules on a federal level, since the right to bear arms comes from the federal level already.
that picture that compares Cars to Guns as far as what you need isn't exactly what "will" happen ever. Cars are not a "constitutional right" to be able to drive. Guns are (to have). If driving was a "constitutional right" then they wouldnt have all of those "restricting" and "discriminatory" regulations, that if you tried to apply towards guns, they would be called. It is essentially the same right as being able to vote. you cant make someone take a test to be able to vote either.
so what? if you want something that dangerous, pay up.
EatinOlives
Member
I don't see how that point was expressed in any way via that horrible car analogy.
Anyway, a true ban isn't even a realistic scenario in the nation, that wasn't my argument. The engagement of mass murder is facilitated by the use of one particular venue than the other. In this case, it's in the ridiculously freely available machines specifically designed for destruction. Guns obviously have their positives, such as in the defense of the person, but the main reasoning is that the least the nation can do is remove guns from as many mentally deranged people as possible.
Devolution
Member
You should be forced to take a couple tests like with any license. You should be forced to undergo psych evals. You should be forced to take mandatory classes on responsible use. You should be forced to prove that the gun is locked away in a cabinet in your home. You should be forced to provide proof of ownership every year (since many don't report it stolen). If you do not prove that the locked case/cabinet/safe itself was taken with the gun, you should be fined at the very least. This is how I feel about gun ownership.
ultrazilla
Gold Member
What I find amusing is that all these high profile "anti gun" people like Bloomberg have ARMED BODY GUARDS/SECURITY.
If guns are bad, you need to confiscate them from your body guards and security folks. You guys go first.
Well then I guess we better sit back, prepare to just see this type of news as a normal day in the US. Sad times man.
Dreams-Visions
Member
for pre:
I'd be cool with this.
When I got my first firearm, I left with:
-an ID
-a certificate saying I passed gun training
Everyone had to pass a shooting test which addresses health/ability. If I'm not mistaken, most people that have home owner's insurance have coverage that includes firearms, no? And car license renewals are what? once every 5 years? I'd be okay with a required psych evaluation and aim test every 5 years required to pass in order to keep your gun license.
That's just about every one of these bullet points. Why not?
I think that if the best intelligent minds can do is a universal ban on guns, then you're right. I'd like to think we're all smarter than black/white solutions, because we're intelligent enough to know they'll never work or be implemented here.
I honestly get scared at times whenever I go out in public to a very crowded place that something like this could happen. Plus I live in Texas where it seems every six-foot-tall maniac cowboy wannabe carries a weapon on their person.
Right, we need stricter gun licensing, like we do with cars. Oh, wait...
note: I'm not saying licensing is bad, I'm saying that requirements for a driver's license are so lax already that it's a meaningless comparison. Any idiot can get a license.
for pre:
Right, we need stricter gun licensing, like we do with cars. Oh, wait...
note: I'm not saying licensing is bad, I'm saying that requirements for a driver's license are so lax already that it's a meaningless comparison. Any idiot can get a license.
for pre:
Important difference being that gun ownership is a constitutional right where as operating a motor vehicle is a privilege.
Technically the supreme court has ruled several times that the right of transportation and thereby a car is a constitutional right
ultrazilla
Gold Member
News for you. Almost all the above is already done.
What should the criminal be forced to do?
Outright? No, no one can say for certain. But it might've reduced the chances of it and other similar tragedies happening.
Anyway, the conversations gone long past the original question so why bother going back.
Bullshit. It's not ignored, it's a given to anyone with a normally working brain.
Human input is not the only variable that actually matters. Deadliness of the weapon certainly matters. I can kill someone right now with a pen, c'mon now.
This is ridiculous.
You can still have restrictions on legal rights. That's where there are some gun restrictions right now.
I have no problem with a mental health requirement. I'm not sure how ultimately effective it would be, but I'm not necessarily opposed to requiring gun classes, health exams, etc.
Wow, I've never heard that quote before.
You're right but I was pointing out you can't make a direct comparison between firearms and cars.
If we responsibly restricted guns from being in the homes of the mentally ill then yes. Connecticut, Colorado, and Portland all wouldn't have happened. Just for recent ones.
And yep, I'm saying that if your kid as mental health issues, you should have more scrutiny on your gun ownershop.
Dreams-Visions
Member
that was good fortune, no more no less. keep that in perspective.
I agree with all of this. I'd also suggest that if we had policies like this we could get rid of some of the less productive, more political laws like the generally meaningless assault weapon ban. As somebody in this thread noted, most mass shootings are committed with run-of-the-mill firearms that are nothing like the ones brought up when proposing bans.
I'm also a little concerned about the sudden ease of acquiring body armor. Not sure what to think about it really. It probably isn't contributing to anybody's body count yet, but it's not a particularly reassuring development.
EatinOlives
Member
That's because people quite often need a car to operate in their daily lives. Suffice to say that the execution for these requirements wouldn't be nearly as lax, since you don't need to use a gun to pick up a pack of tube socks at Wal Mart.
And I agree, any dumbass can go out and get a license with the current car "restrictions", but think about this: the restrictions on getting a gun aren't even that lax, they're even less restrictive. Puts things into perspective.
It's uncertain of course, but no harm in trying. Especially when we've had so many shooting incidents.
Escape Goat
Member
Yeah, the guns were legally obtained by his mother right? And she by all accounts wasn't a crazy nutjob and the guns were taken by her son. So it wasn't so much a failure of the system but a failure of her as a guardian of the gun. I dont know how you legislate that without installing big brother in every gun owners home.
You must welcome home intruders like a good friend or a longtime family member. Bake up some cookies and snacks and lay them all around the house near all your expensive possessions, it's like an Easter egg hunt except with a bonus snack!
To ensure potential home intruders are never angry or aggressive, always keep your door unlocked and even cracked open a bit. Breaking into a house can be very stressful, never forget about the intruder's feelings.
Finally, if you have a gun and the intruder has a gun, calmly put down your gun or better yet give your gun to the intruder. You must have trust and honesty in this relationship to survive.
really? Where?
So if all these new regulations were put in place for existing gun owners, what happens if somebody doesn't comply? Are they fined? Does somebody come to their home and take their gun away or something?
Cuz it strikes me as much easier to conceal an illegally-owned gun than an illegally-owned car.
I like it as a beginning step, but I think its a lousy 'final solution' sort of thing. I think it needs to go well beyond that.
Cuz it strikes me as much easier to conceal an illegally-owned gun than an illegally-owned car.
I like it as a beginning step, but I think its a lousy 'final solution' sort of thing. I think it needs to go well beyond that.
did she have a gun cabinet? how safe and secure were they? etc
This.
The shooter was using guns that his mother had purchased. Unless you straight up ban guns in the US, which means somehow rounding up 100's of millions of guns, then it would not have made a difference. These were not his guns.
Gahiggidy
My aunt & uncle run a Mom & Pop store, "The Gamecube Hut", and sold 80k WiiU within minutes of opening.
You can only regulate the sale of arms at the federal level. They already tried to pass "Gun Free Zones" prohibiting guns from a certain radius around a school, but it was stuck down as unconstitutional as it did not involve interstate commerce.
"Gun show" loopholes say no. Nobody checks to see if you actually still own a gun you registered.
Shit, I took a Hunter Safety Class just so I could hunt. They don't actually check to make sure you know how to use a gun. They just want to make sure you know how to cross a fence with one safely.
DR2K
Banned
Well we're playing hypotheticals. Regardless you're always at disadvantage from an intrusion. Of course I'm not advocating that you be unarmed if crazies out there still have access to firearms. But with any scenerio without them, you're chances of being harmed are less.
ultrazilla
Gold Member
I did 99% of this obtaining my cpl.
Devolution
Member
Yeah I'd like to know this as well. They certainly don't in California I know that for sure.
I don't agree with this. In a scenario where he's basically looking to assault and or rob me and doesn't have a weapon, I without a weapon would be utterly defenseless. Given where I am usually in the house, I could not simply call 911 and flee either. I am upstairs and the door does not have a lock.
GillianSeed79
Member
At the very least, there should be mandatory psych evals, background checks and waiting periods. I live in the part of the country where “gun bashes” are popular fundraisers. It's like bingo except they raffle off guns every 20 minutes.
The problem is the talking point for anti-gun control people with this is going to be the guns used were legally registered to the mother. They'll ask even if there is stricter gun control what will stop a crazy person from stealing guns from a registered gun owner. I think the question should be why on earth does a kindergarten teacher feel the need to own a gun? It's insane that we've gotten to a point where normal people feel they need to own a gun because they are afraid that there's so many people with guns these days and guns.
It's not like restricting gun ownership is something new. If you beat your wife or commit a felony you can't legally own a gun. What's so bad about making sure people with severe mental health issues don't have easy access to guns? If that means you have to wait two weeks before you are cleared to own a gun so be it already.
The problem is the talking point for anti-gun control people with this is going to be the guns used were legally registered to the mother. They'll ask even if there is stricter gun control what will stop a crazy person from stealing guns from a registered gun owner. I think the question should be why on earth does a kindergarten teacher feel the need to own a gun? It's insane that we've gotten to a point where normal people feel they need to own a gun because they are afraid that there's so many people with guns these days and guns.
It's not like restricting gun ownership is something new. If you beat your wife or commit a felony you can't legally own a gun. What's so bad about making sure people with severe mental health issues don't have easy access to guns? If that means you have to wait two weeks before you are cleared to own a gun so be it already.
So all violent crimes involve guns then?
Good fortune that the Chinese had gun laws? Because its scary to think what would have happened if it was like the US.........
Dreams-Visions
Member
I'm also a little concerned about the sudden ease of acquiring body armor. Not sure what to think about it really. It probably isn't contributing to anybody's body count yet, but it's not a particularly reassuring development.[/QUOTE]
Yea, I'm not really sure where they're getting it or if it really is that easy. I think the early reports of him having body armor were exaggerated. Can you get body armor at local army surplus stores?
edit: it really is that easy.
http://www.safeguardclothing.com/cotton-body-armor/cotton-iiia-bullet-stab-spike-proof-vest-1/
gun violence is down as all violent crimes have decreased. what are you asking me?
fortunate that nobody died from their wounds. stabbings are some of the worst kinds of injuries. my father was the chief physician at a major hospital in Ohio and the stories he has about stabbings...
...I'll just say that the China situation could have ended up with a lot of fatalities. Fortunately it did not.
Yea, I'm not really sure where they're getting it or if it really is that easy. I think the early reports of him having body armor were exaggerated. Can you get body armor at local army surplus stores?
edit: it really is that easy.
http://www.safeguardclothing.com/cotton-body-armor/cotton-iiia-bullet-stab-spike-proof-vest-1/
gun violence is down as all violent crimes have decreased. what are you asking me?
fortunate that nobody died from their wounds. stabbings are some of the worst kinds of injuries. my father was the chief physician at a major hospital in Ohio and the stories he has about stabbings...
...I'll just say that the China situation could have ended up with a lot of fatalities. Fortunately it did not.
In the long term? Owning an unlicensed firearm is a felony with knock-on charges if you commit a crime with it. Change the rules for licenses, change the structure.
Exactly I agree, there will always be loop wholes, the registered approach is a good attempt, but what stops a mental case from taking a gun from a registered person? How do you prevent that?
You did a psych evaluation, provided proof of holding a gun cabinet ongoing proof of ownership and all that?
Escape Goat
Member
Thats a good question. I hope we learn more about that soon. Even if it wasn't locked then we can say she was negligent and 30 people still died. This law only works if we trust that everybody is going to be 100% committed to gun safety. Thats clearly not worked out very well.
UberTag
Member
This situation boils down to ease of access.
Even if you have checks and balances in place to prevent mentally deranged people from legally procuring deadly firearms you have no way to enforce restrictions that would prevent them from getting access to guns from someone who passes whatever tests you elect to roll out.
Which means the problem has nothing to do with regulating gun owners but diminishing the access to which mentally deranged people have to them.
Which means far fewer guns and bullets in America.
Which means repealing the 2nd amendment.
Which won't happen.
Which means you're fucked and this shooting will happen again.
Unless you move to Canada.
Best band-aid solution is to improve mental health care in the United States but good luck legislating that in such a way that it's both affordable and accessible to everyone that needs it. Even those who don't want it.
Hadn't realized this...
- Status