Debate over the Sandy Hook shooting

[Ghogiel]

Why not ban Gun-Free zones? Most mass shootings of this nature occur where folks KNOW there shouldn't be anyone else around that could stop them.

Airplanes and airports, government buildings. At least for me, that seems a little iffy and unlikely that removing gun free zones would solve or reduce shootings. Not because I wouldn't prefer to have myself armed in those places or anything. I would also rather other people not be armed.

Kinda like the police. They are quite paranoid about their own safety, and part of making themselves have power is being the ones with guns. Preferably the only ones with them. I don't trust many people with guns either so I understand their perspective on that.

 

 

Football has killed more people than assault weapons used in crimes..... why aren't we banning football? It has a higher death toll??????

 

I know, lets ban school athletics programs, and use all the money saved to pay for the armed guards, or better yet, training and licensing for school staff to be armed. :D

 

Even if that would be better in the end, you know the reasoning is not sound.

 

If you grab school sports(doctors cars etc) from thin air and arbitrarily hold that up against guns and say 'sports kill more people than guns, we don't ban sports, therefore guns are safe' that is a fallacy. If you want to use that type of logic as the basis and reasoning for your argument then in ends with an inconsistency. Not to mention that sports are irrelevant.

 

Lets pretend you are cool with grenades being sold from candy stores or something and just use that same reasoning to create a similar logical fallacy>

 

Grenades should be legal because football has more associated deaths <Insert some statistics>, and we don't ban football. Further if everyone had grenades, and there were no grenade free zones then people would be less likely to use grenades <insert possibly reasonable assumption and perhaps statistics>.

Edited January 1, 2013 by Ghogiel

[Flintlockecole]

I'll put my two cents here...

 

Don't get me wrong when I say this but I put full blame upon mother in all this. All the senseless death could have been outright prevented if she had properly stored her weapons away. Reform on gun laws isn't going to do much in preventing people obtaining them. What needs to happen is people need to learn how to safely store their weapons, and for those who don't store said firearms properly be held accountable fully for what happens with said firearms. A little knowledge goes a far way.

 

I myself own well over twelve guns and they are stored behind three locks (four if you count the separate bin for ammunition). Also note I'm currently in Canada where its illegal to improperly store a firearm (In other words it must be stored within a solid gun locker).

[colourwheel]

I'll put my two cents here...

 

Don't get me wrong when I say this but I put full blame upon mother in all this. All the senseless death could have been outright prevented if she had properly stored her weapons away. Reform on gun laws isn't going to do much in preventing people obtaining them. What needs to happen is people need to learn how to safely store their weapons, and for those who don't store said firearms properly be held accountable fully for what happens with said firearms. A little knowledge goes a far way.

 

I myself own well over twelve guns and they are stored behind three locks (four if you count the separate bin for ammunition). Also note I'm currently in Canada where its illegal to improperly store a firearm (In other words it must be stored within a solid gun locker).

 

In the short run I would agree with you. But if you look at things in the long run if people were more educated (needing atleast 4 years of education on firearms safty, history, and accountability, etc... to atleast own a simple handgun) this would probably dramatically if not absolutely reduce violent crimes involving firearms without out needing to touching the 2nd amendment. This is not excluding cooperation between various government agencies to enforce already existing gun laws and extreme restriction on assault rifles. People who wish to own firearms like its a way of life should need to be so hardcore about ownership to the point its an accomplishment to them to have the privilege to say they have atleast a bachelor's degree in firearms to fully appreciate, respect, and understand their right.

 

Also this idea of education should be integrated with sukeban's idea for reform....

 

1. Make gun owners EXTREMELY accountable for their weapons: Any sentence stemming from a gun-related crime is automatically applied to the gun's OWNER, regardless of whether or not they committed the crime themselves. If somebody steals your gun and commits murder with it--YOU get charged with murder as well. Talk about a nice incentive to lock up your weapons!

 

2. Put gun sellers on the hook financially. ANY gun-related crime tracked back to a store/individual incurs a fine of 100,000 dollars.

Edited January 1, 2013 by colourwheel

[Flintlockecole]

I'll put my two cents here...

 

Don't get me wrong when I say this but I put full blame upon mother in all this. All the senseless death could have been outright prevented if she had properly stored her weapons away. Reform on gun laws isn't going to do much in preventing people obtaining them. What needs to happen is people need to learn how to safely store their weapons, and for those who don't store said firearms properly be held accountable fully for what happens with said firearms. A little knowledge goes a far way.

 

I myself own well over twelve guns and they are stored behind three locks (four if you count the separate bin for ammunition). Also note I'm currently in Canada where its illegal to improperly store a firearm (In other words it must be stored within a solid gun locker).

 

In the short run I would agree with you. But if you look at things in the long run if people were more educated (needing atleast 4 years of education on firearms safty, history, and accountability, etc... to atleast own a simple handgun) this would probably dramatically if not absolutely reduce violent crimes involving firearms without out needing to touching the 2nd amendment. This is not excluding cooperation between various government agencies to enforce already existing gun laws and extreme restriction on assault rifles. People who wish to own firearms like its a way of life should need to be so hardcore about ownership to the point its an accomplishment to them to have the privilege to say they have atleast a bachelor's degree in firearms to fully appreciate and understand their right.

 

 

 

 

A three day course suffices for the Federal Government in Canada for anything non-restricted, another eight hours for Pistols and Tactical looking weapons (restricted). To say the least it's common sense when it comes down to dealing with firearms. Safe and proper storage of firearms is more than half the battle. Out of my own curiosity how would a year or two of the history of firearms aid in reducing violent crime let alone how do you spread several simple rules over a course of four years?

[colourwheel]

I'll put my two cents here...

 

Don't get me wrong when I say this but I put full blame upon mother in all this. All the senseless death could have been outright prevented if she had properly stored her weapons away. Reform on gun laws isn't going to do much in preventing people obtaining them. What needs to happen is people need to learn how to safely store their weapons, and for those who don't store said firearms properly be held accountable fully for what happens with said firearms. A little knowledge goes a far way.

 

I myself own well over twelve guns and they are stored behind three locks (four if you count the separate bin for ammunition). Also note I'm currently in Canada where its illegal to improperly store a firearm (In other words it must be stored within a solid gun locker).

 

In the short run I would agree with you. But if you look at things in the long run if people were more educated (needing atleast 4 years of education on firearms safty, history, and accountability, etc... to atleast own a simple handgun) this would probably dramatically if not absolutely reduce violent crimes involving firearms without out needing to touching the 2nd amendment. This is not excluding cooperation between various government agencies to enforce already existing gun laws and extreme restriction on assault rifles. People who wish to own firearms like its a way of life should need to be so hardcore about ownership to the point its an accomplishment to them to have the privilege to say they have atleast a bachelor's degree in firearms to fully appreciate and understand their right.

 

 

 

 

A three day course suffices for the Federal Government in Canada for anything non-restricted, another eight hours for Pistols and Tactical looking weapons (restricted). To say the least it's common sense when it comes down to dealing with firearms. Safe and proper storage of firearms is more than half the battle. Out of my own curiosity how would a year or two of the history of firearms aid in reducing violent crime let alone how do you spread several simple rules over a course of four years?

 

History is a main focus as well as safty IMO. There should be extensive view on historical tragedies and shooting involving firearms. I am talking like the scene in "a clockwork orange" where Malcolm McDowell has his eyes stretched open to be forced to watch ultra violence films for hours on end. Maybe not to this extreme but have extensive studies and reviews of historical films related to shooting tragedies around the world. being forced to watch interviews of 1st hand observers and parrents to the ones killed. be tested like history exams and have textbook homework and lectures focused on every firearm they can beable to legally own. Understand their legal rights and accountability. Have lab work to show the student can clean and store a gun properly as well as be able to disassemble and put it back together. I am talking about extreme education here. People who wish to own firearms need to understand and respect their right to own one to the point it's a career to them. A gun owner needs to have more of a philosophical view point as well as a understanding to it's destructive power and understanding how dangerous it can be on the inoccent and how wrong it is to abuse a firearm. Four years of this kind of education would probably make a person understand and respect a firearm leading to reducing violent crimes involving guns in america.

 

who would you trust with a gun a firearms scholar or a licenced owner?

Edited January 1, 2013 by colourwheel

[naomis8329]

I'll put my two cents here...

 

Don't get me wrong when I say this but I put full blame upon mother in all this. All the senseless death could have been outright prevented if she had properly stored her weapons away. Reform on gun laws isn't going to do much in preventing people obtaining them. What needs to happen is people need to learn how to safely store their weapons, and for those who don't store said firearms properly be held accountable fully for what happens with said firearms. A little knowledge goes a far way.

 

I myself own well over twelve guns and they are stored behind three locks (four if you count the separate bin for ammunition). Also note I'm currently in Canada where its illegal to improperly store a firearm (In other words it must be stored within a solid gun locker).

 

In the short run I would agree with you. But if you look at things in the long run if people were more educated (needing atleast 4 years of education on firearms safty, history, and accountability, etc... to atleast own a simple handgun) this would probably dramatically if not absolutely reduce violent crimes involving firearms without out needing to touching the 2nd amendment. This is not excluding cooperation between various government agencies to enforce already existing gun laws and extreme restriction on assault rifles. People who wish to own firearms like its a way of life should need to be so hardcore about ownership to the point its an accomplishment to them to have the privilege to say they have atleast a bachelor's degree in firearms to fully appreciate and understand their right.

 

 

 

 

A three day course suffices for the Federal Government in Canada for anything non-restricted, another eight hours for Pistols and Tactical looking weapons (restricted). To say the least it's common sense when it comes down to dealing with firearms. Safe and proper storage of firearms is more than half the battle. Out of my own curiosity how would a year or two of the history of firearms aid in reducing violent crime let alone how do you spread several simple rules over a course of four years?

 

History is a main focus as well as safty IMO. There should be extensive view on historical tragedies and shooting involving firearms. I am talking like the scene in "a clockwork orange" where Malcolm McDowell has his eyes stretched open to be forced to watch ultra violence films for hours on end. Maybe not to this extreme but have extensive studies and reviews of historical films related to shooting tragedies around the world. being forced to watch interviews of 1st hand observers and parrents to the ones killed. be tested like history exams and have textbook homework and lectures focused on every firearm they can beable to legally own. Understand their legal rights and accountability. Have lab work to show the student can clean and store a gun properly as well as be able to disassemble and put it back together. I am talking about extreme education here. People who wish to own firearms need to understand and respect their right to own one to the point it's a career to them. A gun owner needs to have more of a philosophical view point as well as a understanding to it's destructive power and understanding how dangerous it can be on the inoccent and how wrong it is to abuse a firearm. Four years of this kind of education would probably make a person understand and respect a firearm leading to reducing violent crimes involving guns in america.

 

who would you trust with a gun a firearms scholar or a licenced owner?

 

 

To be honest I would go with the Scholar, mainly because licensed owners have been known to turn their weapons onto others without provocation or remorse.

 

I agree though that education is definitely the key here and not just a 3 day course. We're talking long term education, proving that the gun handler knows how to look after and store their weapons. They should also carry an indemnity insurance against the the eventuality of their weapon being used by a family member or 3rd party in the use of a crime.

 

Licensing should also carry a mandatory period whereby all these things can be checked, and double or triple checked. A gun should not be purchased without meeting the full burden of the law and if a weapon is sold without meeting the requirements, then the store/shop should be forced to close or fined heavily.

 

Only by penalising those that should know better, will deterrents mean something. If you kill without compunction or remorse then you should expect to face the full force of the law. Should you do so in fear of your life or the lives of your family then common sense and investigation should clear the shooter of blame.

 

I can imagine that policing any new laws would be very difficult especially in the US were each state can decide upon its own interpretation of the law. Any gun reform needs to be universal and across the country not a question of "one rule for one, and another rule for someone else." Police officers have to look after their weapons and explain in great detail the discharging of them. Everything has to be accounted for and the same should go for members of the public.

 

If you are responsible enough to own such a weapon then you are responsible enough to take the blame should anything go amiss due to negligence or mishap.

[colourwheel]

I've already e-mailed a letter to my congressman about this kind of reform and have spammed their office under a dozen different accounts wording the message differently. If anyone thinks this kind of reform is meaningful please do the same to your congressman. Edited January 1, 2013 by colourwheel

[Flintlockecole]

 

History is a main focus as well as safty IMO. There should be extensive view on historical tragedies and shooting involving firearms. I am talking like the scene in "a clockwork orange" where Malcolm McDowell has his eyes stretched open to be forced to watch ultra violence films for hours on end. Maybe not to this extreme but have extensive studies and reviews of historical films related to shooting tragedies around the world. being forced to watch interviews of 1st hand observers and parrents to the ones killed. be tested like history exams and have textbook homework and lectures focused on every firearm they can beable to legally own. Understand their legal rights and accountability. Have lab work to show the student can clean and store a gun properly as well as be able to disassemble and put it back together. I am talking about extreme education here. People who wish to own firearms need to understand and respect their right to own one to the point it's a career to them. A gun owner needs to have more of a philosophical view point as well as a understanding to it's destructive power and understanding how dangerous it can be on the inoccent and how wrong it is to abuse a firearm. Four years of this kind of education would probably make a person understand and respect a firearm leading to reducing violent crimes involving guns in america.

 

All history has shown when it comes to firearm deaths is the user either was too busy killing some chap for his country or being a complete fool with his firearm. A child can be taught how to be responsible with a firearm in under an hour. By the time I was six I could have (now) my Enfield stripped down and put right back together. Most people who legally own firearms generally keep them well locked up and very well know them like the back of their hand, in layman's terms they know the damage it can do both physically and mentally. Its those who don't abide by laws that do willy-nilly with whatever they obtained it in a dark ally way over yonder who are the ones who go off and do foolish things with their firearms. More laws as I said before aren't going to stop this sort of activity, anyone who owns guns should be storing them properly, away from their ammunition and unloaded and locked up tight.

 

 

Accidental death, of any kind, is rare claiming 27.9 people per 100,000 in 2000. Of these, firearms accidents account for 0.3% (0.1 per 100,000), ranking below the 37% for transportation (10.2 per 100,000), 28% for unspecified (7.7 per 100,000), 18% for falls (5.1 per 100,000), and 11% for poisoning (3.1 per 100,000).

 

 

That is the breakdown of accidental deaths in Canada from Stats Canada. Maybe there should be a four year course on not eating the things that lie beneath your sink or properly using a ladder?

Edited January 1, 2013 by Flintlockecole

[colourwheel]

@Flintlockecole

 

I could teach a child how to design an operational amplifier in under a day.

 

If you wish to purchase an op amp to your design would you trust the child i just taught to design one for you?

 

if you don't know what one is...

 

My point is education and dedication over years can make a huge difference in any practicality.

Edited January 1, 2013 by colourwheel

[Flintlockecole]

@Colour

 

Eh, Most are dedicated to their firearms where its a natural habit to keep themselves safe as well as those around them.

 

I.E not pointing it at people or having the thing loaded during transport/storage, finger off the trigger and such.