WE: After school shooting in Connecticut, Piers Morgan blasts America’s ‘gun madness’

[Jumbo]

I remember when I was in my 20's, and even into my 30's, in many places the social (and law foremen) attitude to driving during various stages of alcohol intake were much more lax. Not only could most peers tell of anecdotal experiences of friends "getting a break" whereas now you couldn't imagine such in the same circumstances, many had their own personal experiences of that kind. Including me. Twice, in a different state each time, I actually had a cop make me leave my car and he drove me home. No ticket even. I'm not proud of this, and I won't minimize the matter (especially in current times) by going into details that might seem liker "excusing" the matter to any degree.

Then, under increasing social pressure, the law mega-seriously cracks down on the matter. Now even a couple beers can get you busted, and you don't have to be over the limit to get your ass in a heap of trouble. Yet for decades, automobile injuries and deaths involving alcohol rose anyway. Now, admittedly, there is finally some recent decline and many do credit the severe penalties.

But I am fine with what seems to many (more a couple decades ago) as very strict reins (like still being in jeopardy even for "just" having two beers in an hour and being able to pass any field sobriety test) being put on adult choices (and not "extreme" ones) that didn't seem to result in an improved situation. Just stuff to ponder to me.

I am on record many times as not being for "severe restrictions on guns" (and therein lies real debate), and being skeptical as to how much it might help. But given what I see all and me (not just school shootings) I have long been willing to suspend some of "my stuff" and experiment.

If society in the majority went for more gun restrictions (and hopefully rigid enforcement of the ones we have), I can find enough valid reason to go along and not fight it. While I really like guns, I am not so paranoid or obsessed that I would freak out or go "2nd amendment frantic."

I also have repeatedly stated that, to me, this ("all things guns") is only one of the components in what I regard as the very serious matter of an excessive and widespread level of violence in our society.

[PeterMP]

Angry parents + Money hungry lawyers = weak lawsuits.

This suit will fail.

I'd actually wouldn't be shocked if there wasn't a s case here. I'd not at all be surprised if this case was settled out of court.

---------- Post added December-29th-2012 at 03:18 PM ----------

California gun sales jump; gun injuries, deaths fall

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/27/5079151/california-gun-sales-increase.html#storylink=cpy

It really is a shame that we there aren't more than these poor correlative studies that look at very general trends that aren't well done and don't try and take into account other explantory factors like economic factors.

It is kind of odd isn't it.

(Actually, it isn't:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?_r=0

"The amount of money available today for studying the impact of firearms is a fraction of what it was in the mid-1990s, and the number of scientists toiling in the field has dwindled to just a handful as a result, researchers say.

The dearth of money can be traced in large measure to a clash between public health scientists and the N.R.A. in the mid-1990s. At the time, Dr. Rosenberg and others at the C.D.C. were becoming increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon, financing studies that found, for example, having a gun in the house, rather than conferring protection, significantly increased the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Alarmed, the N.R.A. and its allies on Capitol Hill fought back. The injury center was guilty of “putting out papers that were really political opinion masquerading as medical science,” said Mr. Cox, who also worked on this issue for the N.R.A. more than a decade ago.

Initially, pro-gun lawmakers sought to eliminate the injury center completely, arguing that its work was “redundant” and reflected a political agenda. When that failed, they turned to the appropriations process. In 1996, Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, succeeded in pushing through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the disease control centers’ budget, the very amount it had spent on firearms-related research the year before.

"The Senate later restored the money but designated it for research on traumatic brain injury. Language was also inserted into the centers’ appropriations bill that remains in place today: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

The NRA through Congress changed the CDC budget because they didn't want the American public to learn things like that having a gun actually increases the odds of having a family member or loved one killed in a homocide.

If your product was really a life saving product, you'd think you'd ENCOURAGE those kinds of studies to be done.)

[skinfaninny]

Here is something to keep in mind when if you think more gun laws are the answer. On Dec 27th 2012, Chicago suffered its 500th homicide of the year. For those of you who don't know, Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. It is nearly impossible to legally own a gun there. Yet here we are with the year not over and they have 500 murdered men, women, and children. None of which could legally defend themselves.

My point is this, the knee jerk reactions that you are seeing all over saying we need more gun control is not the answer. Especially when you are ignoring the real cause of these murders. Before more gun laws are put on the books to restrict law abiding citizens, we need to attack the socioeconomic and mental health factors that are the true root cause of 99% of these murders.

Also, in China and Japan where guns are outlawed completely, the mentally unstable carry out mass murder with knives. Where there's a will, there's a way. With regards to suicide being easier with a gun, the country with the highest suicide rate is the aforementioned Japan.

Remember this. When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

[elkabong82]

California gun sales jump; gun injuries, deaths fall

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/27/5079151/california-gun-sales-increase.html#storylink=cpy

From that same article: "Two caveats: State figures track gun sales, not ownership. They treat a family's first gun purchase the same as a collector's twelfth. Second, gun sales in California peaked in the early 1990s, as violent crime also peaked."

More guns doesn't automatically correlate with less violence. Twice in this thread now I have offered solutions on how to make schools safer, but have not received replies and instead see the same back and forth with arguments.

Frankly, arming teachers with guns is a terrible idea. Non-lethal weapons, such as rubber bullets or tasers, would be better. You arm teachers and all it takes is 1 kid getting a hold of one of their guns or a teacher going nuts and killing people for that idea to blow up in your face. 1 trained police officer at a school and a couple of teachers with non-lethal but incapacitating weapons is a much better solution. Personally, again, I think magnetized doorways would work as well, and the schools should have gated entrances.

As far as laws in general, I'm not for gun bans. But I am for tighter regulations. I don't like the anti-regulation crowd who seem to deny that guns are deadly and convenient because they don't want to risk losing guns. I'm all for improving requirements for gun purchasers too. Just as some states require car owners to get safety inspections annually, we should require an annual gun safety course for gun owners that covers safety and proper handling, and also covers safe storage. In fact, I think when one purchases a gun they should also have to show proof of owning a safe capable of storing the gun. You can't force people to house their guns in safes, but at least if they have a safe they may be more inclined to store the gun there.

The pro-gun community, of which I am a member, needs more people to step it up when it comes to gun safety and responsibility. The media needs to follow suit as well instead of only portraying the pro vs. anti-gun arguments. The media needs to help get the message out about proper gun safety and handling and place a significantly larger focus on how the guns are acquired in shooting tragedies like Newtown so that people are aware and can take proper steps to prevent reoccurrences.

[PeterMP]

Here is something to keep in mind when if you think more gun laws are the answer. On Dec 27th 2012, Chicago suffered its 500th homicide of the year. For those of you who don't know, Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. It is nearly impossible to legally own a gun there. Yet here we are with the year not over and they have 500 murdered men, women, and children. None of which could legally defend themselves.

My point is this, the knee jerk reactions that you are seeing all over saying we need more gun control is not the answer. Especially when you are ignoring the real cause of these murders. Before more gun laws are put on the books to restrict law abiding citizens, we need to attack the socioeconomic and mental health factors that are the true root cause of 99% of these murders.

Also, in China and Japan where guns are outlawed completely, the mentally unstable carry out mass murder with knives. Where there's a will, there's a way. With regards to suicide being easier with a gun, the country with the highest suicide rate is the aforementioned Japan.

Remember this. When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

There was a knife attack on an elementary school shortly after the Sandy Hooks incident in China. One kid died!.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/29/chicago-homicide-rate-new-york_n_2378073.html

And IL hasn't banned assualt weapon and high capacity magazines, which are illegal in NY and CA.

Which means, you can easily drive into a Chicago suburb and buy an assult rifle and the required bullets and then drive back into the city.

vs. you can't do the samething in NYC and LA.

The leinant gun laws in the areas directly surrounding the city likely make it less safe.

[KDawg]

There was a knife attack on an elementary school shortly after the Sandy Hooks incident in China. One kid died!.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/29/chicago-homicide-rate-new-york_n_2378073.html

And IL hasn't banned assualt weapon and high capacity magazines, which are illegal in NY and CA.

Which means, you can easily drive into a Chicago suburb and buy an assult rifle and the required bullets and then drive back into the city.

vs. you can't do the samething in NYC and LA.

The leinant gun laws in the areas directly surrounding the city likely make it less safe.

Remind me... what weapon was used to kill the firefighters, again?

[elkabong82]

My point is this, the knee jerk reactions that you are seeing all over saying we need more gun control is not the answer. Especially when you are ignoring the real cause of these murders. Before more gun laws are put on the books to restrict law abiding citizens, we need to attack the socioeconomic and mental health factors that are the true root cause of 99% of these murders.

We need better gun control laws and regulations, not necessarily more, but definitely better ones. It doesn't have to be near-impossible to get a gun, but there should be requirements for gun owners that ensure or at least aim to improve, safety, handling, and storage of guns. Like Bang pointed out, many criminals get their guns from home thefts. My solution of requiring gun owners to show proof of owning a safe would at least help because more people would have their guns stored in safes, which would cut down on guns being stolen from the home. There should be more attention on this aspect as well, and people should be told to hide their guns well to help curb down gun thefts.

You are completely correct about socioeconomic stuff, etc. needing a better focus.

[skinfaninny]

There was a knife attack on an elementary school shortly after the Sandy Hooks incident in China. One kid died!.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/29/chicago-homicide-rate-new-york_n_2378073.html

And IL hasn't banned assualt weapon and high capacity magazines, which are illegal in NY and CA.

Which means, you can easily drive into a Chicago suburb and buy an assult rifle and the required bullets and then drive back into the city.

vs. you can't do the samething in NYC and LA.

The leinant gun laws in the areas directly surrounding the city likely make it less safe.

In that attack 20 children were seriously injured, and it the knife wielder had tried just a tiny bit more, they could have all died. There have also been several knife attacks where multiple young children have been killed. Well, at least they didn't use a gun I guess.

[alexey]

I've heard on cspan that you can pretty much buy a gun at a gu show from a private party with no background check, no waiting period, etc. There are supposedly tables with signs "no questions asked". Didn't get a chance to look too far into it yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States

[PeterMP]

In that attack 20 children were seriously injured, and it the knife wielder had tried just a tiny bit more, they could have all died. There have also been several knife attacks where multiple young children have been killed. Well, at least they didn't use a gun I guess.

Nobody wants crazy people to try and kill people.

But if a crazy person is going to try and kill me or somebody in my family, I'd rather have them trying to do it using a knife then a gun.

**EDIT**

Do you actually know how many were serious injuries? How many of those kids went home that night with their parents?

**EDIT 2**

And what are you practically suggesting?

That this guy should have been taken from his mom and institutionalized, presumably against his and her will?

The same with the VT shooter?

The Columbine killers?

On what grounds?

[GoSkins0721]

I've heard on cspan that you can pretty much buy a gun at a gu show from a private party with no background check, no waiting period, etc. There are supposedly tables with signs "no questions asked". Didn't get a chance to look too far into it yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States

That's how it is in Virginia. It has been an on going battle between the NRA & gun control advocates for many years.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Here is something to keep in mind when if you think more gun laws are the answer. On Dec 27th 2012, Chicago suffered its 500th homicide of the year. For those of you who don't know, Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. It is nearly impossible to legally own a gun there. Yet here we are with the year not over and they have 500 murdered men, women, and children. None of which could legally defend themselves.

This is the most absurd point that I see the Right drag out all the time, because it pretends we live in a world were Chicago exists upon an island all by itself, as if someone can't drive an hour and be outside of Chicago's limits.

Let's get real shall we.

---------- Post added December-29th-2012 at 05:29 PM ----------

Nobody wants crazy people to try and kill people.

But if a crazy person is going to try and kill me or somebody in my family, I'd rather have them trying to do it using a knife then a gun.

No kidding! The Right would suggest that the best way to deal with airplane hijackers is to have everyone on a plane armed.

You limit the weapons they can use, and thus limit the damage the can cause.

[skinfaninny]

Nobody wants crazy people to try and kill people.

But if a crazy person is going to try and kill me or somebody in my family, I'd rather have them trying to do it using a knife then a gun.

**EDIT**

Do you actually know how many were serious injuries? How many of those kids went home that night with their parents?

**EDIT 2**

And what are you practically suggesting?

That this guy should have been taken from his mom and institutionalized, presumably against his and her will?

The same with the VT shooter?

The Columbine killers?

On what grounds?

On what grounds will you take away the guns from millions of law abiding gun owners? That is what a lot of people are suggesting. Personally, I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just pointing out that without addressing the mental health problems and socioeconomic issues that murders and attacks will still happen with the same frequency. You can hide you head in the sand and be afraid of guns all you want. You can take every gun and melt it down, but these murders will still happen. Not one mass killing was ever committed by a person that didn't have something wrong in the head. But not all of them use guns.

[twa]

Twice in this thread now I have offered solutions on how to make schools safer, but have not received replies and instead see the same back and forth with arguments.

Frankly, arming teachers with guns is a terrible idea. Non-lethal weapons, such as rubber bullets or tasers, would be better. You arm teachers and all it takes is 1 kid getting a hold of one of their guns or a teacher going nuts and killing people for that idea to blow up in your face. 1 trained police officer at a school and a couple of teachers with non-lethal but incapacitating weapons is a much better solution. Personally, again, I think magnetized doorways would work as well, and the schools should have gated entrances.

As far as laws in general, I'm not for gun bans. But I am for tighter regulations. I don't like the anti-regulation crowd who seem to deny that guns are deadly and convenient because they don't want to risk losing guns. I'm all for improving requirements for gun purchasers too. Just as some states require car owners to get safety inspections annually, we should require an annual gun safety course for gun owners that covers safety and proper handling, and also covers safe storage. In fact, I think when one purchases a gun they should also have to show proof of owning a safe capable of storing the gun. You can't force people to house their guns in safes, but at least if they have a safe they may be more inclined to store the gun there.

The pro-gun community, of which I am a member, needs more people to step it up when it comes to gun safety and responsibility. The media needs to follow suit as well instead of only portraying the pro vs. anti-gun arguments. The media needs to help get the message out about proper gun safety and handling and place a significantly larger focus on how the guns are acquired in shooting tragedies like Newtown so that people are aware and can take proper steps to prevent reoccurrences.

I thought I replied...Less than lethal options certainly are better than nothing,but are easily defeated(or harmful to the defender)

the teacher going nuts argument ignores nothing really prevents it now(many teachers own and can access guns),I really thing it a tiny risk added by trained and screened teachers being allowed them.

There is a long history of armed teachers w/o any incidents of note....I of course agree a cop is better

The magnetic locks are not bad,as are gated entrances..... but not hard to get by

Since you see value in safes,would teachers guns in them change your perspective any???

I wouldn't object to the safe requirement if the specs are reasonable, but the yearly safety course seems onerous....perhaps renewals like a drivers license might be palatable

[Elessar78]

From that same article: "Two caveats: State figures track gun sales, not ownership. They treat a family's first gun purchase the same as a collector's twelfth. Second, gun sales in California peaked in the early 1990s, as violent crime also peaked."

More guns doesn't automatically correlate with less violence. Twice in this thread now I have offered solutions on how to make schools safer, but have not received replies and instead see the same back and forth with arguments.

Frankly, arming teachers with guns is a terrible idea. Non-lethal weapons, such as rubber bullets or tasers, would be better. You arm teachers and all it takes is 1 kid getting a hold of one of their guns or a teacher going nuts and killing people for that idea to blow up in your face. 1 trained police officer at a school and a couple of teachers with non-lethal but incapacitating weapons is a much better solution. Personally, again, I think magnetized doorways would work as well, and the schools should have gated entrances.

As far as laws in general, I'm not for gun bans. But I am for tighter regulations. I don't like the anti-regulation crowd who seem to deny that guns are deadly and convenient because they don't want to risk losing guns. I'm all for improving requirements for gun purchasers too. Just as some states require car owners to get safety inspections annually, we should require an annual gun safety course for gun owners that covers safety and proper handling, and also covers safe storage. In fact, I think when one purchases a gun they should also have to show proof of owning a safe capable of storing the gun. You can't force people to house their guns in safes, but at least if they have a safe they may be more inclined to store the gun there.

The pro-gun community, of which I am a member, needs more people to step it up when it comes to gun safety and responsibility. The media needs to follow suit as well instead of only portraying the pro vs. anti-gun arguments. The media needs to help get the message out about proper gun safety and handling and place a significantly larger focus on how the guns are acquired in shooting tragedies like Newtown so that people are aware and can take proper steps to prevent reoccurrences.

I'm for more control on semis and handguns (insurance, training, screenings, education, etc). But like you said, the school zone needs to be re-thought. There needs to be a perimeter and teachers probably need to take some Krav Maga classes. The design of schools should be compartmentalized like hospitals and sections be able to be locked down from other areas.

Frankly, most of our schools were designed at a time when these things weren't an issue.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You can take every gun and melt it down, but these murders will still happen. Not one mass killing was ever committed by a person that didn't have something wrong in the head. But not all of them use guns.

That's a lie you have been told and you have believed, if what you say were true then countries that have banned guns wiuld have the same exact murder rates that they did before their ban.....but the fly in your ointment is that they do not.

I can't imagine looking in a parent's eyes and telling them that their child died because of my right to own a gun.

---------- Post added December-29th-2012 at 07:12 PM ----------

We need better gun control laws and regulations, not necessarily more, but definitely better ones.

And what gun control law would have prevented any of the school shootings, or the myriad of murders that take place using stolen guns?

---------- Post added December-29th-2012 at 07:15 PM ----------

Hilarious!!! Where are local school districts going to get the money to redesign schools? To arm and train teachers in Israeli martial arts...:rotflmao: Seriously!!! What color is the sky in ya'lls world?

[PeterMP]

On what grounds will you take away the guns from millions of law abiding gun owners? That is what a lot of people are suggesting. Personally, I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just pointing out that without addressing the mental health problems and socioeconomic issues that murders and attacks will still happen with the same frequency. You can hide you head in the sand and be afraid of guns all you want. You can take every gun and melt it down, but these murders will still happen. Not one mass killing was ever committed by a person that didn't have something wrong in the head. But not all of them use guns.

1. I haven't seen anybody in this thread suggest that we take guns from people that already have them. In addition I have seen people suggest they wouldn't support that and them not got a whole lot of argument. I certainly haven't seen we do something like a house-to-house search to take guns.

2. I'd hope everybody could agree that people's right to life w/o the fear of being institutionalized w/o committing a crime was greater than people's rights to have guns.

3. They might not happen with less frequency, but I'd be willing to bet a whole lot fewer people will die if we make some changes to our current gun laws.

[skinfaninny]

That's a lie you have been told and you have believed, if what you say were true then countries that have banned guns wiuld have the same exact murder rates that they did before their ban.....but the fly in your ointment is that they do not.

I can't imagine looking in a parent's eyes and telling them that their child died because of my right to own a gun.

You can believe what you want, and I can believe what I want. You can add your little tear jerker at the end, but you still haven't addressed the real issue. You wouldn't have to look into a parent's eyes and tell them their kid died because you owned a gun, unless you were the one that killed the kids or you were stupid enough to leave them laying around to be stolen. Only then is it your fault. The poor kids at Sandy Hook died because mentally ill people are rarely diagnosed or treated in this country. To say otherwise is dishonest and is only trying to achieve an agenda by playing off the emotions and not by real and honest discussion of facts.

I live in Vermont. We have the most liberal gun laws in the country. Anybody that can legally own a gun can carry it open or concealed. By your rule of thumb our streets would be running red with blood but we have one of the lowest murder rates. I live in a rural area with bear and coyote that venture into our yard. It takes the police 45-60 minutes to get to our house. There are occasionally break-ins too because it is a rural area without police protection. Personally I can't imagine allowing my children to be hurt in any way while waiting for the police to arrive. You can give up your guns if you want, but most of us won't. Not unless you're willing to pay for 24/7 police protection for everybody.

I mean if making guns illegal will prevent murder, why don't we just make murder illegal? Oh yeah...

[2v2nv]

I can't imagine looking in a parent's eyes and telling them that their child died because of my right to own a gun.

This is exactly what the media is pumping. The person that killed these kids obtained his firearm illegally. He stole it from his mother. It is not your right to be able to steal a gun.

It is your right to buy one legally and responsibly keep them in your control. Sandy Hook should have never happened and a gun ban would not have stopped it. It would have been avoided if the mother had been a responsible gun owner and put her guns in a locked safe especially knowing her son was dangerous. Gun control to this level is not going to work in the least. People who break the law do not follow it. How is that so hard to understand. In fact, all schools are gun free zones. Why didn't the shooter see this sign and go back home? Murder is also illegal. Did that stop him too? This junk makes me so uneasy when I see citizens agreeing with this nonsense.

I would be 10x more happen if they lowered the mag capacity, worked with the NRA to develop meaningful classes, and pushed the use of locking mechanisms on guns. Also stricter school rules would help majorly. Possibly giving each parent a code to use and not letting that parent in the building without the name of the child plus the code or putting a policeman at each school or training a veteran properly to police the school would help out MAJORLY. These things will cost the schools some money but I would think it would be FAR cheaper than putting a gun ban in place.

[Going Commando]

On what grounds will you take away the guns from millions of law abiding gun owners? That is what a lot of people are suggesting. Personally, I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just pointing out that without addressing the mental health problems and socioeconomic issues that murders and attacks will still happen with the same frequency. You can hide you head in the sand and be afraid of guns all you want. You can take every gun and melt it down, but these murders will still happen. Not one mass killing was ever committed by a person that didn't have something wrong in the head. But not all of them use guns.

On the grounds that our right to own guns for recreation isn't worth the thousands of gun deaths per year that a society super saturated with guns will have.

Murders do not happen at equivalent rates in societies with strict gun control laws and a few civilian guns. That's murders of all types. That's a statistically verified fact. Your argument that all of these murders will still keep happening sans guns is not born out by reality.

[twa]

2. I'd hope everybody could agree that people's right to life w/o the fear of being institutionalized w/o committing a crime was greater than people's rights to have guns.

.

Why would one right be greater?

With just cause either can(and should) be restricted

[Going Commando]

Sandy Hook should have never happened and a gun ban would not have stopped it. It would have been avoided if the mother had been a responsible gun owner and put her guns in a locked safe especially knowing her son was dangerous.

Sandy Hook would have been avoided by the mother never having those guns in the first place. The purpose of those guns was recreation--until they were used for the monstrous purpose of massacring over two dozen people.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You can believe what you want, and I can believe what I want.

This isn't a matter of reletavistic beleif, it is a matter of objective truth.

"Yes ma'am, I know that if we banned guns then your child wouldn't have been murdered in that shooting spree, but my right to own a gun was more important than your child's future."

I mean if making guns illegal will prevent murder, why don't we just make murder illegal? Oh yeah...

It prevents murder because it eliminates one of the easiest means by which the vast majority of murders are committed. You're simplistic reasoning fails to take into account the reality which exists outside of your blinders.

[twa]

objective truth?....paternalistic horse**** would be closer to truth

[AsburySkinsFan]

Sandy Hook should have never happened and a gun ban would not have stopped it.

You are seriously going to suggest that if guns were banned in America via the repeal of the 2nd Amendment that Sandy Hook would have still happened? So, I guess the guy would have still gone into his mother's house and would have still killed her with the guns she didn't have and then would have still taken those non-existent guns and drove to Sandy Hook Elementary School and shot those 28 people with the guns he didn't possess.

Insuggest you practice saying this in the mirror a few times so you can say it with a straight face.

---------- Post added December-29th-2012 at 10:35 PM ----------

objective truth?....paternalistic horse**** would be closer to truth

Now facts are paternalistic horse****? Sorry that the objective, and verifiable facts don't fit within your fantasy.