OT: 27 Killed, 18 elementary school students shot dead CON

[BOOMbip]

And secondly, there is no such thing as regulating responsible ownership, that is done strictly on an individual basis.

Do you feel the mom was RESPONSIBLE? She died at the hands of here own legal rights and responsibilities.

This particular incident was caused primarily because AVAILABILITY.

In short, there is no doubt in my mind availability caused this.

You can regulate responsible ownership. There are plenty of laws regarding guns that help regulate the use and storage of them to protect against them falling into the hands of people who aren't responsible to use them. You asked if his mother, if not also killed, would be criminally responsible by allowing him access to guns. There are laws out there and some have been held responsible for this very thing.

If he tried to buy them and couldn't that shows that one level of regulation was working. Now if there had been responsible ownership happening other places his access would have been further restricted. But you saying that all guns being restricted would have stopped an attack like this is false.

Availability didn't cause this... again you blame the gun as the cause. If he couldn't get a gun so he decided to take his car and mow down teachers and children walking into the school killing just as many before it started with it would we be talking about car bans or his access to a cars?

[johnnywishbone]

Just a random question.....

using this incident, had the mother not been killed does anyone thinks she should NOT be charged with the same level as the killer would have if he still lived?

I'm not a lawyer but I would think two things:

1. Civil suit is pretty obvious.
2. X# of counts of negligent manslaughter.

[Thugger HBC]

And secondly, there is no such thing as regulating responsible ownership, that is done strictly on an individual basis.

Do you feel the mom was RESPONSIBLE? She died at the hands of here own legal rights and responsibilities.

This particular incident was caused primarily because AVAILABILITY.

In short, there is no doubt in my mind availability caused this.

You can regulate responsible ownership. There are plenty of laws regarding guns that help regulate the use and storage of them to protect against them falling into the hands of people who aren't responsible to use them. You asked if his mother, if not also killed, would be criminally responsible by allowing him access to guns. There are laws out there and some have been held responsible for this very thing.

If he tried to buy them and couldn't that shows that one level of regulation was working. Now if there had been responsible ownership happening other places his access would have been further restricted. But you saying that all guns being restricted would have stopped an attack like this is false.

Availability didn't cause this... again you blame the gun as the cause. If he couldn't get a gun so he decided to take his car and mow down teachers and children walking into the school killing just as many before it started with it would we be talking about car bans or his access to a cars?

So he moves down a classroom and his mom with a car?

Come on guy, the car rationale is terrible.

Availability absolutely played the major role as was the instrument of choice.

Going to get it on his own was a deterrent because he, at the least, had to wait.

Sent from my Asus TR700T-B1-GR using Xparent Sky Blue Tapatalk 2

[Knicks_Fan2]

And secondly, there is no such thing as regulating responsible ownership, that is done strictly on an individual basis.

Do you feel the mom was RESPONSIBLE? She died at the hands of here own legal rights and responsibilities.

This particular incident was caused primarily because AVAILABILITY.

In short, there is no doubt in my mind availability caused this.

You can regulate responsible ownership. There are plenty of laws regarding guns that help regulate the use and storage of them to protect against them falling into the hands of people who aren't responsible to use them. You asked if his mother, if not also killed, would be criminally responsible by allowing him access to guns. There are laws out there and some have been held responsible for this very thing.

If he tried to buy them and couldn't that shows that one level of regulation was working. Now if there had been responsible ownership happening other places his access would have been further restricted. But you saying that all guns being restricted would have stopped an attack like this is false.

Availability didn't cause this... again you blame the gun as the cause. If he couldn't get a gun so he decided to take his car and mow down teachers and children walking into the school killing just as many before it started with it would we be talking about car bans or his access to a cars?

So he moves down a classroom and his mom with a car?

Come on guy, the car rationale is terrible.

Availability absolutely played the major role as was the instrument of choice.

Going to get it on his own was a deterrent because he, at the least, had to wait.

Sent from my Asus TR700T-B1-GR using Xparent Sky Blue Tapatalk 2

http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1220893

Appears as though his mom had a huge collection of guns and they would often go shooting as a family.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2

[Thugger HBC]

Just to show how downright hilarious the car example is........

This same person sneaks on school grounds, hijacks a bus full of kids and drives it into a river.....does this produce the same outrage and fear?

Sent from my Asus TR700T-B1-GR using Xparent Sky Blue Tapatalk 2

[johnnywishbone]

http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1220893

Appears as though his mom had a huge collection of guns and they would often go shooting as a family.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2

Perfect example of why no one should be allowed to have these guns. You don't know who gets access to them by extension.

[BOOMbip]

That's not how government works. There are laws created both by legislators and the public that wind up not becoming actually enforceable laws because they get reviewed by judges to see if they are constitutional. Judges don't make laws. I'm sorry man... I'm not here to give you lessons on how our government works.

Laws only get reviewed for constitutionality if their constitutionality is challenged. For most laws, there is no constitutional challenge. And there are plenty of laws where the majority infringes on the rights of the minority that nonetheless survive constitutional challenges.

Obviously government or it's practice isn't perfect. Just because some laws slip through that might infringe on someone's rights doesn't mean we get to throw out the whole idea of protecting rights completely in response. We are to fight for the rights of all... especially the minority... not just say oh well, let's end all of them if we can't stop one of them.

Also driving isn't a 'right'... it's a privilege. On roads constructed and maintained by public funds it's a privilege to drive so if you want to drive on them there's regulation. You can drive a vehicle all day long on your own property without ever having to register the it or get a license.... as soon as you try to drive on a public road, that's where regulation begins.

Ok, so if a law prevents people from carrying guns while traveling on roads and other public ways such as sidewalks, which are also constructed by the government, there is no infringement on rights?

That's finally a compelling point. It's the impact on others rights and public property that is the crux of the matter. Driving a car wears on roads, it also put people's lives and property in the way so it's not just an 'idea of', it's actual impact.

There are justification to people's rights to feeling secure and not being threatened, 'pursuit of happiness', that brought open carrying laws into reality. Although that shouldn't override the constitutional right to bear arms. So if someone is concealed carrying or in their vehicles that would not impact the other rights. As long as it's regulated properly.

It's never an easy thing to balance everyone's rights both of the majority and the minority but that's what we have to try and do.

[Knicks_Fan2]

http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1220893

Appears as though his mom had a huge collection of guns and they would often go shooting as a family.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2

Perfect example of why no one should be allowed to have these guns. You don't know who gets access to them by extension.

And how in the world do you regulate against this from happening.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2

[ezmoney707]

So he moves down a classroom and his mom with a car?

Come on guy, the car rationale is terrible.

Availability absolutely played the major role as was the instrument of choice.

Going to get it on his own was a deterrent because he, at the least, had to wait.

Sent from my Asus TR700T-B1-GR using Xparent Sky Blue Tapatalk 2

Exactly. The availability of these guns are one of the reasons for these type of incidence. If you could take all guns out of everyone's hands somehow would be cool, but we know we don't live in a fantasy land and you open up another box with that. I think there needs to be a common ground.

Phyc test or strict process that police go through maybe may help. Making it harder to get guns may deter people from wanting to get guns and will help keep folks with guns on file with a profile so you know if they have full training, reasoning, etc. Crack down on the illegal sale of weapons on the street also.

Both sides either want guns banned or want guns to stay. Those that want them gone is are living in a Fantasy and the ones that want to keep them need to realize change is needed because the way things are now aren't working.

[BOOMbip]

Just to show how downright hilarious the car example is........

This same person sneaks on school grounds, hijacks a bus full of kids and drives it into a river.....does this produce the same outrage and fear?

Sent from my Asus TR700T-B1-GR using Xparent Sky Blue Tapatalk 2

It sure does... but nobody blames the bus for it.

[BOOMbip]

The idea that taking the guns out of everyone's hands is making this country safer is fantasy and statistics back it up. The idea that anyone is going to be able to take guns out of American citizen's hands is fantasy, it's a constitutional guaranteed right.

I just might shop for a gun today as an exercising of my right.... I think I will ride the horse there....actually I better not. It's too dangerous with all those cars.

[Thugger HBC]

Just to show how downright hilarious the car example is........

This same person sneaks on school grounds, hijacks a bus full of kids and drives it into a river.....does this produce the same outrage and fear?

Sent from my Asus TR700T-B1-GR using Xparent Sky Blue Tapatalk 2

It sure does... but nobody blames the bus for it.

It produces the same outrage and fear? So i guess every classroom in america would be fearful of their school bus being hijacked, while it's going on and afterwards.....ok.

And of course once again it isn't the gun on it's own....but the availability.

Who is saying guns cause these crimes...no one.

The ready availability of such creates the crime.

Limiting the availability limits the acts in this fashion.

If this act was done with a bat no way it reaches the magnitude it was worldwide.

[johnnywishbone]

http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1220893

Appears as though his mom had a huge collection of guns and they would often go shooting as a family.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2

Perfect example of why no one should be allowed to have these guns. You don't know who gets access to them by extension.

And how in the world do you regulate against this from happening.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2

You don't allow people to purchase assault weapons.

[BOOMbip]

Just to show how downright hilarious the car example is........

This same person sneaks on school grounds, hijacks a bus full of kids and drives it into a river.....does this produce the same outrage and fear?

Sent from my Asus TR700T-B1-GR using Xparent Sky Blue Tapatalk 2

It sure does... but nobody blames the bus for it.

It produces the same outrage and fear? So i guess every classroom in america would be fearful of their school bus being hijacked, while it's going on and afterwards.....ok.

And of course once again it isn't the gun on it's own....but the availability.

Who is saying guns cause these crimes...no one.

The ready availability of such creates the crime.

Limiting the availability limits the acts in this fashion.

If this act was done with a bat no way it reaches the magnitude it was worldwide.

So how do you propose that the availability get regulated? Let hear your ideas and how you think it will change anything.

[johnnywishbone]

Q. Has the Brady law been successful?

A. Yes, the Brady law has been a huge success. Brady background checks have contributed to an historic decline in lethal assaults by blocking an estimated 2 million attempts by high-risk people to buy a gun from a licensed gun dealer, based on denials recorded through the end of 2009 (Department of Justice, Table 1).

The Brady law was signed in 1993 and became effective in February 1994. After the passage of the law, murders declined 30 percent through 2006 (from 24,526 to 17,034). Most of the drop in murders - 73 percent - was accounted for by the sharp decline in gun murders. This historic drop in murders has been sustained, with murders in the most recent year available (2009), at their lowest level (15,241) since 1970. For details, see the Brady Center report, Brady Background Checks, Fifteen Years of Saving Lives.

Remarkably, felony convictions account for over 800,000 blocked gun purchase applications (Regional Justice Information Service, 2008). That works out to be, on average, 169 thwarted attempts to purchase a gun by a felon every day through the end of 2007.

Academic research indicates that the Brady law is associated with reductions in homicide. A study released in 2010 tested three interventions to reduce homicide and gun homicide: the Brady law, lax laws on carrying guns concealed in public, and sentence enhancements for gun crimes (La Valle, 2010). The researcher developed his methodology to address methodological concerns with past gun policy research identified in a review by the National Academy of Sciences in 2005.

Using data from 20 major cities over a 36-year period (1970 to 2005), the study found that the Brady law was associated with reductions in homicide and gun homicide. Lax laws on carrying guns in public were not associated with declines in homicide or gun homicide.

Anymore questions about how regulations or laws can make a difference?

[Thugger HBC]

You don't allow people to purchase assault weapons.

It might help to readjust your focus.....it isn't all about assault weapons.....

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnN0s1G2ZzA[/youtube]

[Knicks_Fan2]

[quote="Knicks_Fan2"]

http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1220893

Appears as though his mom had a huge collection of guns and they would often go shooting as a family.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2

Perfect example of why no one should be allowed to have these guns. You don't know who gets access to them by extension.

And how in the world do you regulate against this from happening.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2

You don't allow people to purchase assault weapons.[/quote]

Right. Sorry if it was unclear i mean anything short of an outright ban on assault weapons at the very least will be insufficient.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2

[Thugger HBC]

So how do you propose that the availability get regulated? Let hear your ideas and how you think it will change anything.

Ironically, i put it a couple of pages ago.....

As a matter of fact I had already responded to you with it.

Re: OT: 27 Killed, 18 elementary school students shot dead C

Unread postby Thugger HBC on Sat Dec 15, 2012 1:32 pm

BOOMbip wrote:Some are.... some aren't, you can't take away all people's rights just based on what can happen based on the irresponsible actions of few... right? We've established that with cars and fast food, did we not? Although restricting the ability to carry or access to guns of responsible owners doesn't stop it from happening. All it does is allow the one who will do it more ability to do it without anyone to stop them.


Still not sure why you are equating things that have zero relation.

A car is not designed for killing, guns are.

Now here is a real time idea.

How about consumer weapons be made ready for order....like a high end exotic vehicle....combined with periodic checking in such guns and ammo for inspection with law enforcement to track their use?

No more walking into guns shops and shows to make such purchase on spot.

Now while it won't necessarily prevent the act, it will lower the AVAILABILITY.

[BOOMbip]

So how do you propose that the availability get regulated? Let hear your ideas and how you think it will change anything.

Ironically, i put it a couple of pages ago.....

How about consumer weapons be made ready for order....like a high end exotic vehicle....combined with periodic checking in such guns and ammo for inspection with law enforcement to track their use?

What do you mean by 'made ready for order'? Explain.

Also explain how that would have stopped what just happened?

How does this limit availability?

[johnnywishbone]

You don't allow people to purchase assault weapons.

It might help to readjust your focus.....it isn't all about assault weapons.....

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnN0s1G2ZzA[/youtube]

Thank you, that videos fill every stereotype I have about people who are interested in this kind of stuff. And you are right but we got to start somewhere.

Shoot baskets not guns.