Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

[Jojo87]

I am not a American native but hope it's OK to write here anyway because these school shooting and
other public shooting have became an a issue for Finland too. 5 years ago when Pekka Eric Auvinen walk into
the high school with a gun and killed 9 people including himself, was a shock for my country. Nobody could ever
image something like this would happen in a small country as Finland. It was a lot talk about how to keep
gun safe from wrong people and should we get stricter gun law. But I don't think much was done since years after
that Matti Saari walk into the university where he study and shot 11 people including himself to death. I still think
we haven't get any good gun law here and gun goes to wrong people. The last big shooting was 2009 when a
man killed several people in a Mall in Vantaa. The gun man killed himself too.

My dad have couple of guns and he keep them behind locked door. Nobody of us have any business to those
guns except my dad. He have a weapon permit and use to go to range with some of his friends every now and then.
I've never liked guns and hopefully someday this shooting calm down or we get better control over guns.

I am so sorry to hear about your older brother Fush. Yes unfortunately the guns mostly goes to people who
have a mental issues and that's very sad because then outsiders have to suffer too sometimes.
Sorry to hear about your wife's sister too Scott.

[Becks19]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/justic...html?hpt=hp_t2

This is a step in the right direction. I pray it is a permanent move and not just a temporary appeasement.

[Becks19]

To all of you who have lost a loved one or friend to suicide; I can understand and empathize. A guy that I dated in high school hung himself. He had gotten a DUI and was so distraught over how upset his parents were, that this was the route he took. A very permanent solution to a temporary problem.

[Todash]

I have to start off by saying, Ally, my response to this post is in no way, shape or form directed at you, my response is directed at this article only

I have to say I really dislike this article. IMO and experience not all mentally ill people are evil and not all evil people are mentally ill. I really, honestly believe that the term mental illness is the new scape goat so that people don't have to be accountable for their actions. I have heard reports that this shooter (I won't say or type his name) had Asperger's/personality disorder/oppositional defiant disorder but that doesn't mean that he was prone to violence. This article is written to make us feel for the shooter and that he is a victim too. I, for one, cannot do that. What disgusts me the most about this article is that the writer mentions Newtown, Columbine and Virginia Tech but not once is one of the victims acknowledged.

I see what you are saying, but actually, legally, it's very difficult to prove "not guilty by reason of insanity." I believe (and I am SOOOO not a lawyer, so this could be off) that you have to prove that you were unaware/not in control of your actions or that you literally didn't believe they were in any way wrong at the time. Meaning, any concealment or planning or hiding the results after the fact (and these sprees are generally planned way in advance) goes a long way toward making it pretty much impossible for your lawyer to get that verdict for you--not that it matters much in these cases, since typically these guys take the chicken exit at the end of their sprees. (I actually saw a comment somewhere saying the death penalty would be effective in preventing these types of crimes. Sometimes I read things on the internet that are just so beyond stupid that I have to hope that the person who said it never passes on their genetic material.)

Being mentally ill is not an excuse, but think about it. Can you imagine someone with a fully functioning brain doing this type of mass killing? I can't. I can imagine someone sane (but evil) doing it for profit. Or to attain a specific goal related to gaining power. But ... this "go out in a blaze of glory" crap? That's a sick brain doing that. Does it excuse their actions? Heck no. Mental illness is not necessarily a get out of jail free card; as long as you are aware, you ARE legally responsible. But that's cold comfort to the dead and their families, and as I mentioned, it's typically a moot point as the shooter rarely survives the episode.

I think the cause is probably a perfect storm. Mental illness + difficult circumstances + access to weapons + the idea.

As to the mother who wrote that, it wasn't intended to be a full analysis of these situations. It was a view into the types of people who may do those things, and it offers a valuable perspective. She wasn't excusing. She was explaining--and pointing out the need for help. Understanding the actions does not excuse them, but we will never stop them until we understand them.

[clownshooter]

"As a gun-owner I believe that we can find a solution. But part of that solution is, IMO, banning assault weapons for anyone NOT military or law enforcement. Look, the only thing those are made to do is kill people. That's all. And, brother, if you need one to hunt you are a crap hunter and shouldn't own any gun - go work on your archery. Also ban high-capacity magazines - except for at shooting ranges where they must remain under strict supervision. If you need 30 bullets to get a deer, again, re-think your hunting capabilities."

I always can find something to agree with you Tery, and much of your post is good common sense. I also appreciate the fact that you stand behind your convictions. What I put above in quotes is not a direct debate with you Unfortunately the "made only for killing people" statement however has become an axiom for those who do not like weapons that look like military weapons. Some of this is regional because use of these rifles is commonplace in some parts of the country (like where I live) and in other parts of the country they are rarely used and therefore myths about them abound.
I'm not debating here, I'm simply going to dispel some common myths about these rifles.

First the last time I researched an "assault weapon" as such, according to the Department of Defense (DOD), an assault weapon must be select fire capable (to switch between fully automatic fire and semi-automatic fire). Civilian versions are semi-automatic only. The military doesn't use the designation "assault weapon". It has been used more lately but the term was coined by the press along with other terms such as "Saturday night special."

Second, the myth that the only purpose these rifles are used for is killing people is incorrect.
a. These rifles are widely used in "3 gun matches or competitions" whereby the participant utilizes 3 firearms, a rifle, a shotgun, and a pistol to engage paper targets while moving from shooting station to shooting station. The whole course of fire (referred to as a stage) is timed and misses are a time penalty. Reloading a firearm (which is usually required during each stage) requires time so less reloading equates to less of a total time. Therefore contestants use higher capacity magazines to minimize reloading times. One stage of shooting can easily be 50 - 60 shots. There are other competitions where these rifles are used.
b. These rifles are also used in the long range shooting matches at Camp Perry, (Ohio) and in the service rifle matches where BTW some of the Olympic shooting team members have been chosen.
c. These rifles are indeed used for hunting (and again that's regional) and a couple of manufacturers offer them in a hunting version with typical camoflauge patterns like thse found on hunting clothes. These rifles are offered in at least 10 calibers I can recall off the top of my head, many of which are designed specifically for hunting. There are also several magazine manufacturers who offer low capacity magazines (i.e. 5 shot) for hunting purposes and to satisfy the requirement in some states that limit the magazine to 5 rounds.

I have also seen it written that these rifles are inaccurate, this description is usually used in conjunction with the "made only for killing people statement" (not referencing Tery) that some politicians have used. I have found that these rifles are inherently accurate which makes them even more suitable for hunting. If they weren't accurate they would not be so popular for shooting competitions.
I have used mine for hunting and I use a reduced capacity magazine (5 rounds) because I consider myself an ethical hunter and generally speaking one is only going to get one or two shots anyway regardless of magazine capacity.

I'm glad you mentioned the NRA because I have a comment or two about that. I don't know what many people envision an NRA member to be like, but the membership is made up of many diverse people including liberals and conservatives, blue collar and white collar, and men and women who's commonality is they enjoy the shooting sports. Most members are normal everyday people like you or I. Not all the members necessarily agree with everything the leadership does and there is an electoral process to change the leadership. Unfortunately, the vision I get when people describe NRA members recently is that they are mostly white, right wing tea party members, made up of the wealthier 10% of the population. That is not to say that there aren't members who may fit that description but what's the difference between stereotyping all NRA members based on a few and stereotyping all blacks, or hispanics, or homosexuals based upon a few?

I wrote that because I read a post on another forum that included a link to a blog where the blog had compiled some statements posted in comments sections of various news agency websites. Now I understand people are raw and hurting over this tragedy, but some of the statements were pretty extreme. Some called for the murder of the president of the NRA. Another poster wrote that the poster would like to take an NRA member and shoot him in the nuts so he will know what it feels like to be shot. There were many others, but my point is think about it.
Innocent people were slain, and the answer is to go out and kill or maim more people?
I think compromise is possible, but compromise only works when both sides participate.
Sorry for the long post. I kind of threw this together off the cuff so to speak so if I am in error regarding my facts, it was due to my haste.

[JellybeanJay]

I see what you are saying, but actually, legally, it's very difficult to prove "not guilty by reason of insanity." I believe (and I am SOOOO not a lawyer, so this could be off) that you have to prove that you were unaware/not in control of your actions or that you literally didn't believe they were in any way wrong at the time. Meaning, any concealment or planning or hiding the results after the fact (and these sprees are generally planned way in advance) goes a long way toward making it pretty much impossible for your lawyer to get that verdict for you--not that it matters much in these cases, since typically these guys take the chicken exit at the end of their sprees. (I actually saw a comment somewhere saying the death penalty would be effective in preventing these types of crimes. Sometimes I read things on the internet that are just so beyond stupid that I have to hope that the person who said it never passes on their genetic material.)

Being mentally ill is not an excuse, but think about it. Can you imagine someone with a fully functioning brain doing this type of mass killing? I can't. I can imagine someone sane (but evil) doing it for profit. Or to attain a specific goal related to gaining power. But ... this "go out in a blaze of glory" crap? That's a sick brain doing that. Does it excuse their actions? Heck no. Mental illness is not necessarily a get out of jail free card; as long as you are aware, you ARE legally responsible. But that's cold comfort to the dead and their families, and as I mentioned, it's typically a moot point as the shooter rarely survives the episode.

I think the cause is probably a perfect storm. Mental illness + difficult circumstances + access to weapons + the idea.

As to the mother who wrote that, it wasn't intended to be a full analysis of these situations. It was a view into the types of people who may do those things, and it offers a valuable perspective. She wasn't excusing. She was explaining--and pointing out the need for help. Understanding the actions does not excuse them, but we will never stop them until we understand them.

I get it Todash, I really do. My heart is breaking for the victims and I really think that is where everyone's focus should be right now. We are hearing a lot of tirades about gun control, safety in the schools and assistance with mental illness, yes, these are all things that should be discussed in time, right now the focus should be on providing support and empathy to the families of the fallen.

Mental illness has affected my extended family in ways that I just can't explain, even with that said I can't let my sympathy for the struggles in the shooter's life overshadow my sorrow for the families affected. I am not in any way saying that any of you are so please don't think that.

I am having a really hard time explaining what I mean. Please don't take any of my comments the wrong way

[PatInTheHat]

If my heavy Chevy, which hasn't moved a mile in I don't remember how long, has to be registered & insured for the tags that announce for all the world to know as being my financial responsibility (and moral if ya think about it, and for not too long neither), don't matter a whiff if it's me behind the wheel or not, not to mention taxed yearly just for owning it (your state may differ, mines mostly Republican, you know, the no tax *SNRT* party...why yes, yes I do believe they often call them "fees", butt we're honest about here in The Mighty BlueGrass), regardless of whether or not I ever drive it on the public streets, then.......?

[Todash]

I'm glad you mentioned the NRA because I have a comment or two about that. I don't know what many people envision an NRA member to be like, but the membership is made up of many diverse people including liberals and conservatives, blue collar and white collar, and men and women who's commonality is they enjoy the shooting sports. Most members are normal everyday people like you or I. Not all the members necessarily agree with everything the leadership does and there is an electoral process to change the leadership. Unfortunately, the vision I get when people describe NRA members recently is that they are mostly white, right wing tea party members, made up of the wealthier 10% of the population. That is not to say that there aren't members who may fit that description but what's the difference between stereotyping all NRA members based on a few and stereotyping all blacks, or hispanics, or homosexuals based upon a few?

I tend to think of NRA members as radical because of two things. One, their leadership, which you already mentioned. And two, the only members I know of personally are also radical. Like "OMG Obama/liberals are going to take all our guns" radical. They spread panic and ignorant misinformation and seem to resist every effort to reasonably control the regulation of guns. So ... what I'm saying is they are very, very visible. Maybe the reasonable NRA members just don't say much publicly?

I wrote that because I read a post on another forum that included a link to a blog where the blog had compiled some statements posted in comments sections of various news agency websites. Now I understand people are raw and hurting over this tragedy, but some of the statements were pretty extreme. Some called for the murder of the president of the NRA. Another poster wrote that the poster would like to take an NRA member and shoot him in the nuts so he will know what it feels like to be shot. There were many others, but my point is think about it.
Innocent people were slain, and the answer is to go out and kill or maim more people?

Well, that's pretty awful. There are plenty of idiots to spread over all belief systems, tragically. And it's just so danged easy to be stupid on the internet without repercussion.

[Todash]

I get it Todash, I really do. My heart is breaking for the victims and I really think that is where everyone's focus should be right now. We are hearing a lot of tirades about gun control, safety in the schools and assistance with mental illness, yes, these are all things that should be discussed in time, right now the focus should be on providing support and empathy to the families of the fallen.

Mental illness has affected my extended family in ways that I just can't explain, even with that said I can't let my sympathy for the struggles in the shooter's life overshadow my sorrow for the families affected. I am not in any way saying that any of you are so please don't think that.

I am having a really hard time explaining what I mean. Please don't take any of my comments the wrong way

Aw ... I don't think badly of you at all. I just worry that if we wait too long, this will just slip into the background until it happens again. Hopefully the actual families involved are not engaged in this discussion AT ALL, because they definitely do not need that right now. They should be shielded. I just think it's a good time for everyone else not directly affected to recognize and begin to truly address the problem. I surely do understand those who want respect for the victims; it's just that I think the greatest respect we can pay them is to do our best to make sure we don't have to nationally grieve this way again.

Similar motivations, just a slight differing of opinions in how to best approach it. It's okay. We good.

[Becks19]

I surely do understand those who want respect for the victims; it's just that I think the greatest respect we can pay them is to do our best to make sure we don't have to nationally grieve this way again.

Todash, It speaks volumes that the families took time from their grieving to do this. May their voices be heard.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/con...ntent=My+Yahoo