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

[Todash]

The argument that I was seeing in the pieces I'd found was exactly that criminals are becoming more heavily armed and that they are getting those weapons legally. It was making being in the field much more dangerous for law enforcement personnel.

Even if they don't get them legally, SOMEBODY did. The original source was a legal gun manufacturer producing legal weapons, selling them legally.

[Terry B]

I see we're up to 37 pages on this topic already. Have you all solved the problem yet or can we move on?

[Todash]

I see we're up to 37 pages on this topic already. Have you all solved the problem yet or can we move on?

Yes, we've figured it out. We're just picking out the colors for the padded walls. Some people like yellow, but I think it's a little too high energy for the circumstances. I was thinking more of a calming seafoam. What's your opinion?

[Moderator]

Waiting on his piece on gun control. Any word yet when and where it will be published?

Should have an announcement soon--perhaps as early as this week.

[shipwreked]

Pretty damn hard to kill 22 people with a crowbar unless they're all strapped down first.

Not if they're a class full of stunned and shocked little kids.

[shipwreked]

Also a common thread was the ease with which the shooters were able to gain access to guns and ammunition that rapidly killed and/or wounded a large number of victims. No one's right to own a gun is being taken away--just the type of gun and ammunition--and at the risk of my sounding a bit callous, I have very little sympathy with those who are arguing against having restrictions placed on those. Where do we draw the line at how much firepower the average citizen should have to defend themselves? Until fairly recently there had been stricter restrictions so it's not something new. Let's say that there's a demand in the future for even more lethal weapons--just because people want them does that give them the right to have them? At what point does the escalation continue or do we finally say no--you have what you need to defend yourself by still being allowed to own a less powerful weapon. And if something more isn't done about background checks, those who shouldn't have them at all may continue to fall between the cracks and legally have access to weapons. Yes, something needs to be done about mental health issues but that is not going to solve the issue of having access to guns and ammunition that can kill large numbers of people in a very short period of time.

I mostly agree. I have no problem with tighter restrictions on background checks about people and can agree with a debate on restricting access to high capacity magazines.

However, the problem we have here is a matter of trust. Not the issue at hand. Preventing people with "mental problems" sounds like an outstanding idea, until you start to dig into what the Feds like to tag that label onto. By recent definitions, the Feds could define someone who "uses the internet too much" as having a mental disability. Someone who is in the midst of a nasty divorce (like my in-laws) will have the police called on them for a variety of reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with potential violence, but will mark that person for life as not being able to buy a gun for any reason.

Do I agree that more sensible laws governing gun ownership would be a good thing? Absolutely. Do I trust the knuckleheads in charge of defining and enforcing these laws? These are the same idiots that brought you "Fast and Furious". God only knows WHAT they were trying to accomplish with that.

Their stated goals are *reasonable*. I just don't believe a damn thing they say.

[exzel]

Should have an announcement soon--perhaps as early as this week.

Thanks for the update. I’m sure he’ll give it his best shot, be on target, and won’t go off half-cocked on this issue currently in the crosshairs.
(Perhaps we should ban metaphors )

[exzel]

Yes, we've figured it out. We're just picking out the colors for the padded walls. Some people like yellow, but I think it's a little too high energy for the circumstances. I was thinking more of a calming seafoam. What's your opinion?

Yup, just hashing out if it should be 10 or 20 paces. (and someone secretly told my you picked out my padded cell in gunmetal gray. )

[Moderator]

Thanks for the update. I’m sure he’ll give it his best shot, be on target, and won’t go off half-cocked on this issue currently in the crosshairs.
(Perhaps we should ban metaphors )

Perhaps. We certainly wouldn't want someone with a hair trigger shooting their mouth off.

I read the piece this morning but I'm a bit biased because of past experience with how things are twisted by conservative sites and pundits to think this will be any different in how it's received.

[Moderator]

I mostly agree. I have no problem with tighter restrictions on background checks about people and can agree with a debate on restricting access to high capacity magazines.

However, the problem we have here is a matter of trust. Not the issue at hand. Preventing people with "mental problems" sounds like an outstanding idea, until you start to dig into what the Feds like to tag that label onto. By recent definitions, the Feds could define someone who "uses the internet too much" as having a mental disability. Someone who is in the midst of a nasty divorce (like my in-laws) will have the police called on them for a variety of reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with potential violence, but will mark that person for life as not being able to buy a gun for any reason.

Do I agree that more sensible laws governing gun ownership would be a good thing? Absolutely. Do I trust the knuckleheads in charge of defining and enforcing these laws? These are the same idiots that brought you "Fast and Furious". God only knows WHAT they were trying to accomplish with that.

Their stated goals are *reasonable*. I just don't believe a damn thing they say.

My guess is that it would be health professionals who would be doing the diagnosing/labeling regarding a person's mental health, not the federal government. I don't know how it works in other states but currently in order to apply for a concealed weapons permit in Maine, the applicant has to sign to a release to allow the State Police Weapons Division to request records for in-patient mental health stays. They do not have the authority to dig deeper but I suppose that could change even at the state level.