Dear Connecticut...

[the mojo hobo]

It's insane to try to regulate human behavior by regulating inanimate objects.

China was hit by a spate of knife and cleaver attacks that targeted school children in 2010.

A number of measures were introduced at the time, including increased security at schools across the country and a regulation requiring people to register with their national ID cards when buying large knives (quoted from CNN)

And yet it happens again http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html

[the mojo hobo]

Mandatory psychological tests for gunowners every 12 months.

In this case the guns owner was one of the victims. The shooter didn't own a gun.

[uwe]

If a guy walking in to an elementary school or a movie theater with an assualt rifle and a couple hundred rounds and drops 30 people because he believes he is doing something right and I whip out my pistol and shoot him because I think I'm doing something right, that would give us 31 dead people in the name of what was right. I'm thinking at least one of us was in the wrong. You decide .
Rick

Fine, if you are a (even Federal!) policman doing your duty there, Rick. But tell me, how often do you patrol the neighborhood schools with your pistol to fend off potential assault rifle shootists? Once or twice a year? In alternation with your buddies from the "Let's protect our schools from assault gun insurgents"-vigilante? I believe your argument stands on an abstract level only. Give me one example of a schoolyard massacre preventend by a good guy (as you undoubtely are, noo sarcasm from me on that) handgun owner? Oh, you mean if we arm all school children and train them in rifle ranges then this would not have happened?  

[uwe]

In this case the guns owner was one of the victims. The shooter didn't own a gun.

Uhum. Which means if no gun had been around to be purloined they would both be still alive and thirty other people too unless, of course, the non-gun-owning shootist would have painstakingly built a gun by himself in the privacy of his home?

[Dave W]

What really repulses me is seeing politicians who support gun control using this tragedy as an excuse to start agitating for more laws. Jesus, give it a rest. They're entitled to their views, of course, but to exploit a tragedy before the victims names are even released... not that I worry about it. Gun control is dead politically and gun bans have been ruled unconstitutional.

[the mojo hobo]

From nbcnews.com:

Under Connecticut law, people under 21 are prohibited from purchasing or carrying handguns. Adam Lanza was 20.

The nonprofit Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence ranks gun control laws in Connecticut and neighboring states New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts as the most stringent in the nation, after California.

[uwe]

What really repulses me is seeing politicians who support gun control using this tragedy as an excuse to start agitating for more laws. Jesus, give it a rest. They're entitled to their views, of course, but to exploit a tragedy before the victims names are even released... not that I worry about it. Gun control is dead politically and gun bans have been ruled unconstitutional.

Let's not fall into hasty actionism, good grief! I forgot how a cross-party alliance has been diligently working on a non-intrusive solution for this for decades. There will be more schoolyard shootings to come, let's not rush things. Personally, I believe the gun control lobby staged the whole thing in Connecticut, it wouldn't be beyond them in their Big Government drive to render Americans help- and defenseless against collectivist oppression in the future.

If a child gets run over before a school because someone abided with the speed limit, but was still too fast and then the mayor advocates the further reduction of that speed limit he is "using this tragedy as an excuse to start agitating for more laws".

[Dave W]

It's not going to change, Uwe. Insult all you want.

[uwe]

I dearly love everyone here and have high tolerance for most everything, but your views on this drive me mad.

[rahock]

As I mentioned earlier, there is no example of an armed citizen (good guy) shooting a bad guy in a school zone or movie theater because these are no carry zones and the law abiding good guy citizen abides by the law, and is unarmed. I do not patrol the streets looking for bad guys and I do not wear a super hero costume and fight crime and evil doers in the metropolis. I am a regular American guy with the right to bear arms and I'm usually armed with a 38 or a Glock 19 along with my CPL and I have no issues about using either one to defend myself or loved ones.
Bad guys are always going to have guns and they are targeting places where the good guys aren't allowed to carry. This is not coincidence. Bad guys have guns. I'm a regular guy (good guy , I like to think) , I have a gun too. I think that's fair.
Rick

[Basvarken]

if the time comes to take the government back

What is that all about?

[Pilgrim]

I don't have great recommendations, because relative to this specific incident, I have no solutions and given US law and history, I don't think there is one. The firearms were legally purchased and registered - by the mother, who the shooter killed, and then essentially stole the firearms.

According to today's reports he actually broke into the school to carry out his evil thoughts...so security short of police on full time guard at every school door plus locked, barred gates and classrooms in schools (an impossibility based on political, budget and logistical reasons) there was no way to prevent his entering.  

Where is the remedy?  Confiscation of firearms is not only politically impossible (and something I would not support), it's also logistically impossible.  There are millions of firearms in this country, probably more of them old enough to be unregistered than those which are registered.  In fact, about 10 of them are in my basement...I think there might be federal paperwork on 2 firearms I own.  

It is logistically impossible to disarm the US citizenry because of the number held in private hands, and they would not agree to an attempt. You will never - and I repeat, never - disarm the US population.  Can't be done.  And as long as there are firearms held by the public, there will be a source of firearms for those who wish to steal them or acquire them illegally.

It is also true (IMO) that many crimes and injuries are committed by people using firearms either stolen or acquired privately with no registration.  One could require registration of private sales (although I think that even that might be political suicide for elected representatives making the attempt), but those with evil intent can ignore the law and keep stealing or buying them off the records.  As I noted, there is an immense pool of available weapons that only require theft or illegal purchase.

And note: the fact that the firearms in Connecticut were registered made no difference, nor did it make a difference in the Columbine school killings.  Registration is NOT the answer, because the act of registering a firearms only makes it traceable after the event takes place. And it is not clear yet, but it sounds like all the shooting was done with two good quality semi-auto handguns, and that the Bushmaster .223 rifle the shooter had was unused because it was left in his car.  Banning "assault rifles" (a vague term with no possible accurate definition) isn't the answer either, at least in this case.  Banning large magazines isn't either, because as this example showed, they aren't even used in many cases.

Perhaps the way to MITIGATE (not prevent) such events is an effort to prevent anyone who has any record of criminal behavior, mental illness, or perhaps even some types of mental challenges (the shooter evidently had autism) from legally purchasing a firearm.  It won't entirely prevent crimes or shootings, but it might reduce the number of mentally ill and antisocial people who own firearms - slightly.  That might in turn somewhat reduce the number of shootings by people with mental illness - but not by those motivated by more common criminal motives such as drugs or gang activity.

I am attempting not to make a political argument, but a logistical one.  

[uwe]

What is that all about?

Z.O.G.!!! It exists.  

[uwe]

I don't have great recommendations, because relative to this specific incident, I have no solutions and given US law and history, I don't think there is one. The firearms were legally purchased and registered - by the mother, who the shooter killed, and then essentially stole the firearms.

According to today's reports he actually broke into the school to carry out his evil thoughts...so security short of police on full time guard at every school door plus locked, barred gates and classrooms in schools (an impossibility based on political, budget and logistical reasons) there was no way to prevent his entering.  

Where is the remedy?  Confiscation of firearms is not only politically impossible (and something I would not support), it's also logistically impossible.  There are millions of firearms in this country, probably more of them old enough to be unregistered than those which are registered.  In fact, about 10 of them are in my basement...I think there might be federal paperwork on 2 firearms I own.  

It is logistically impossible to disarm the US citizenry because of the number held in private hands, and they would not agree to an attempt. You will never - and I repeat, never - disarm the US population.  Can't be done.  And as long as there are firearms held by the public, there will be a source of firearms for those who wish to steal them or acquire them illegally.

It is also true (IMO) that many crimes and injuries are committed by people using firearms either stolen or acquired privately with no registration.  One could require registration of private sales (although I think that even that might be political suicide for elected representatives making the attempt), but those with evil intent can ignore the law and keep stealing or buying them off the records.  As I noted, there is an immense pool of available weapons that only require theft or illegal purchase.

And note: the fact that the firearms in Connecticut were registered made no difference, nor did it make a difference in the Columbine school killings.  Registration is NOT the answer, because the act of registering a firearms only makes it traceable after the event takes place. And it is not clear yet, but it sounds like all the shooting was done with two good quality semi-auto handguns, and that the Bushmaster .223 rifle the shooter had was unused because it was left in his car.  Banning "assault rifles" (a vague term with no possible accurate definition) isn't the answer either, at least in this case.  Banning large magazines isn't either, because as this example showed, they aren't even used in many cases.

Perhaps the way to MITIGATE (not prevent) such events is an effort to prevent anyone who has any record of criminal behavior, mental illness, or perhaps even some types of mental challenges (the shooter evidently had autism) from legally purchasing a firearm.  It won't entirely prevent crimes or shootings, but it might reduce the number of mentally ill and antisocial people who own firearms - slightly.  That might in turn somewhat reduce the number of shootings by people with mental illness - but not by those motivated by more common criminal motives such as drugs or gang activity.

I am attempting not to make a political argument, but a logistical one.  

No, you are advocating that politics surrender before the facts. Southern slaveholders would have never agreed to the liberation of their slaves either, you should have just let them be.

[Pilgrim]

No, you are advocating that politics surrender before the facts. Southern slaveholders would have never agreed to the liberation of their slaves either, you should have just let them be.

Consider what it took to make that change happen.  IMO it would not be worth killing a million or more people in a civil war to save some thousands from firearms crimes.  And if you know Americans, you can understand that there would indeed be armed resistance - and possibly states seceding - over such an attempt.  No kidding.

Politics often surrender for the facts...but the US is in an unusual position because of its history of firearms ownership and the laws which overlay that ownership.  I am trying to state the situation and examine the logistics around it.