Firearms in your home?

[Gonzo]

Control debates are just as common as free speech, abortion, religion, politics etc.... Extreme points of view on both sides of the fence, but to sit there and say a law abiding citizen that owns a gun and is exercising he or she's right to lawfully conceal carry it is bad or had never actually stopped a crime or prevented loss of life is just ignorant. Below is a link of a law abiding citizen using his gun to save lives so the above poster and his thoughts are simply wrong.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Events like these literally happen hundreds of times around the country they get a hit in the local news, maybe 15 seconds on a national outlet and then go away because the public doesn't care if the bad guy died. The media doesn't sensationalize it to all is forgotten.

This man was not wired right and like the men at Blacksburg, Va and Denver, Co a gun was their instrument of choice. Do you really think limiting access to a gun would have stopped any of those incidents? Doubtful they wanted to take life in a public venue at a high rate, all three men were mentally defunct but did have above average intelligence to say build a bomb, drive a car through a intersection bus stop etc. look at Timothy Mcvae he proves a sociopath has no limits to execute their plan. Gun control is eye wash and won't prevent these incidents it might postpone them till the bad guy finds other means but it won't stop someone hell bent in mass loss of life.

The real problem is our society has decided the villain has more rights then the victim! When a child is deemed at risk by a educator the system is designed to hide the issue rather then address it at a early stage. Talk to someone in education not a new teacher but one with over a decade of experience hell my mom was a elementary principal for 37 years she used to point at kids and say they would end up in prison and most did. Why because it is so obvious they had problem, but the parents fought the system and nothing could be done. For what it is worth she is not a gun person, but her first response to this was arm the teachers or administrators.

Yes, I truly believe that if Adam Lanza's mother didn't give her mentally ill son access to guns, especially a bushmaster, there wouldn't be 20 dead children with multiple shots each. Regarding V. Tech I truly believe that a more thorough NATIONAL (because he ordered one online from Green Bay) background check would have found that Cho had court-ordered mental health treatment only 2 years before rather than simply relying on him to tell the truth and that if he didn't have access to high capacity clips, the body count wouldn't have been so high.

Will realistic gun control measures (not banning all weapons, let's not be ridiculous) stop EVERY mass shooting? No, of course not, but it will certainly lessen the body counts and prevent many. How is the fact that it won't stop EVERY attack an excuse for inaction? If that's reason enough for not having a law, why do we have any laws at all? Laws against pedophilia certainly didn't stop Sandusky. Let's just drop laws against it then, because it clearly doesn't work.

Ban assault rifles, high capacity clips, and hollowpoints; limit ammo that can be purchased in a given period, ban ownership of guns if you or somebody in your household is a felon or mentally ill, and create a thorough national background check that doesn't rely solely on what information is volunteered. Do any of those stop you from owning a gun? No (unless you have a disqualifier such as felony or mental illness). Will it prevent ALL mass shootings? No. Will it prevent some without infringing on your rights outside of not being able to go to a range with an assault rifle? Yes.

Of course, that's only PART of the problem. We also have to deal with mental health in this country, but good luck with that considering that's that godawful thing that Americans absolutely despise: the health of all citizens. Mental health treatment is extremely costly and most greedy psychiatrists don't take insurance (or are "out of network"). Are we ready, as a nation, to invest in the treatment of those with mental health issues? Hell no, that's er muny!! I really wish that wasn't the case.

Sadly, neither of these things will be addressed. Nothing will change. Our kids will continue to die and it is the fault of all of us, because we as a nation completely fail at protecting them. The blood of 20 kids and 6 adults is on all of our hands' due to our collective inertia, and it most certainly won't be the last. But enjoy your weekend at the range with that really cool assault rifle. Totally worth it!

[Spesh]

Control debates are just as common as free speech, abortion, religion, politics etc.... Extreme points of view on both sides of the fence, but to sit there and say a law abiding citizen that owns a gun and is exercising he or she's right to lawfully conceal carry it is bad or had never actually stopped a crime or prevented loss of life is just ignorant. Below is a link of a law abiding citizen using his gun to save lives so the above poster and his thoughts are simply wrong.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Events like these literally happen hundreds of times around the country they get a hit in the local news, maybe 15 seconds on a national outlet and then go away because the public doesn't care if the bad guy died. The media doesn't sensationalize it to all is forgotten.

This man was not wired right and like the men at Blacksburg, Va and Denver, Co a gun was their instrument of choice. Do you really think limiting access to a gun would have stopped any of those incidents? Doubtful they wanted to take life in a public venue at a high rate, all three men were mentally defunct but did have above average intelligence to say build a bomb, drive a car through a intersection bus stop etc. look at Timothy Mcvae he proves a sociopath has no limits to execute their plan. Gun control is eye wash and won't prevent these incidents it might postpone them till the bad guy finds other means but it won't stop someone hell bent in mass loss of life.

The real problem is our society has decided the villain has more rights then the victim! When a child is deemed at risk by a educator the system is designed to hide the issue rather then address it at a early stage. Talk to someone in education not a new teacher but one with over a decade of experience hell my mom was a elementary principal for 37 years she used to point at kids and say they would end up in prison and most did. Why because it is so obvious they had problem, but the parents fought the system and nothing could be done. For what it is worth she is not a gun person, but her first response to this was arm the teachers or administrators.

We have a ban on explosive devices. We have decided people do not have a constitutional right to build and arm explosives even when they are used for "self-defense".

Sure, criminals still use them, but the rate is so low i couldnt even find a crime rate number on them. Only once in a blue moon do we hear about bombing attempts(bridges in Ohio from anarchists awhile back....that the Feds were watching for and snatched them up...and people immediately cried out as entrapment
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
), but thats no where near the number of violent incidents with assault rifles. Keep in mind, its not exactly difficult to acquire the materials needed to build a bomb, you basically have to visit a store like walmart. If anything, that ban proves that adjusting the law works.

Not to mention how other nations have introduced bans that werent laughably inept and the crime rate fell(only in America can you ban assault rifles but let people continue to sell them).

Would it be possible to tighten the law? In theory, yes. Back in 1996, Australia imposed a much stricter version of the assault weapons ban after a mass shooting. The Australian version avoided many of the loopholes in the U.S. law: Not only did the country ban all types of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, but it also spent $500 million buying up nearly 600,000 existing guns from private owners.

As Wonkblog’s
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, Australia’s law appears to have curbed gun violence. Researchers in the British Medical Journal
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
the ban was “followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides.”

Still, an Australia-style ban would face much more difficult hurdles in this country. For starters, there are
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
in circulation in the United States, making a buyback much more costly. And a full ban would likely face heavier resistance here, both from the courts and the public. Even Feinstein
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
that her new version of the assault weapons ban would still “exempt over 900 specific weapons.” Gun-control advocates aren’t quite ready to propose overly sweeping measures.

What did the 1994 ban actually do? For the 10 years that the ban was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture the assault weapons described above for use by private citizens. The law also set a limit on high-capacity magazines — these could now carry no more than 10 bullets.

There was, however, an important exception. Any assault weapon or magazine that was manufactured before the law went into effect in 1994 was perfectly legal to own or resell. That was a huge exception: At the time, there were roughly 1.5 million assault weapons and more than 24 million high-capacity magazines in private hands.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


And yes yes yes, before anyone snaps: i understand Australia isnt 'Merica! Gotcha.

I just debated this issue through 30 pages in the other thread, so someone else can pick it up here(and Gonzo made alot of good points in his post) but even if the crime rate didnt fall, the casualty numbers would. Had these sinister bastards been forced to find other means, it would have given law enforcement more time to stop them(especially if they were going after banned items such as explosives or...assault rifles). If they resorted to less dangerous items such as knives, 20 families wouldnt be burying their children. Even if the crime rate stays exactly the same but the casualty figures drop: that will be good enough for me.

This conversation assumes that every single crime in America is premeditated and not committed in the "heat of the moment".

[Locke]

Yes, I truly believe that if Adam Lanza's mother didn't give her mentally ill son access to guns, especially a bushmaster, there wouldn't be 20 dead children with multiple shots each. Regarding V. Tech I truly believe that a more thorough NATIONAL (because he ordered one online from Green Bay) background check would have found that Cho had court-ordered mental health treatment only 2 years before rather than simply relying on him to tell the truth and that if he didn't have access to high capacity clips, the body count wouldn't have been so high.

Will realistic gun control measures (not banning all weapons, let's not be ridiculous) stop EVERY mass shooting? No, of course not, but it will certainly lessen the body counts and prevent many. How is the fact that it won't stop EVERY attack an excuse for inaction? If that's reason enough for not having a law, why do we have any laws at all? Laws against pedophilia certainly didn't stop Sandusky. Let's just drop laws against it then, because it clearly doesn't work.

Ban assault rifles, high capacity clips, and hollowpoints; limit ammo that can be purchased in a given period, ban ownership of guns if you or somebody in your household is a felon or mentally ill, and create a thorough national background check that doesn't rely solely on what information is volunteered. Do any of those stop you from owning a gun? No (unless you have a disqualifier such as felony or mental illness). Will it prevent ALL mass shootings? No. Will it prevent some without infringing on your rights outside of not being able to go to a range with an assault rifle? Yes.

Of course, that's only PART of the problem. We also have to deal with mental health in this country, but good luck with that considering that's that godawful thing that Americans absolutely despise: the health of all citizens. Mental health treatment is extremely costly and most greedy psychiatrists don't take insurance (or are "out of network"). Are we ready, as a nation, to invest in the treatment of those with mental health issues? Hell no, that's er muny!! I really wish that wasn't the case.

Sadly, neither of these things will be addressed. Nothing will change. Our kids will continue to die and it is the fault of all of us, because we as a nation completely fail at protecting them. The blood of 20 kids and 6 adults is on all of our hands' due to our collective inertia, and it most certainly won't be the last. But enjoy your weekend at the range with that really cool assault rifle. Totally worth it!

Damn. Gonzo with the body slam...

[flynryan15]

Yes, I truly believe that if Adam Lanza's mother didn't give her mentally ill son access to guns, especially a bushmaster, there wouldn't be 20 dead children with multiple shots each. Regarding V. Tech I truly believe that a more thorough NATIONAL (because he ordered one online from Green Bay) background check would have found that Cho had court-ordered mental health treatment only 2 years before rather than simply relying on him to tell the truth and that if he didn't have access to high capacity clips, the body count wouldn't have been so high.

Will realistic gun control measures (not banning all weapons, let's not be ridiculous) stop EVERY mass shooting? No, of course not, but it will certainly lessen the body counts and prevent many. How is the fact that it won't stop EVERY attack an excuse for inaction? If that's reason enough for not having a law, why do we have any laws at all? Laws against pedophilia certainly didn't stop Sandusky. Let's just drop laws against it then, because it clearly doesn't work.

Ban assault rifles, high capacity clips, and hollowpoints; limit ammo that can be purchased in a given period, ban ownership of guns if you or somebody in your household is a felon or mentally ill, and create a thorough national background check that doesn't rely solely on what information is volunteered. Do any of those stop you from owning a gun? No (unless you have a disqualifier such as felony or mental illness). Will it prevent ALL mass shootings? No. Will it prevent some without infringing on your rights outside of not being able to go to a range with an assault rifle? Yes.

Of course, that's only PART of the problem. We also have to deal with mental health in this country, but good luck with that considering that's that godawful thing that Americans absolutely despise: the health of all citizens. Mental health treatment is extremely costly and most greedy psychiatrists don't take insurance (or are "out of network"). Are we ready, as a nation, to invest in the treatment of those with mental health issues? Hell no, that's er muny!! I really wish that wasn't the case.

Sadly, neither of these things will be addressed. Nothing will change. Our kids will continue to die and it is the fault of all of us, because we as a nation completely fail at protecting them. The blood of 20 kids and 6 adults is on all of our hands' due to our collective inertia, and it most certainly won't be the last. But enjoy your weekend at the range with that really cool assault rifle. Totally worth it!

Like I said extreme views on both sides of the fence spare me your snide comments remember attack the post not the poster! We can go back and forth all day long you aren't going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours! You want to really fix the problem then it starts with legislation forcing mentally ill people to get help and if the refuse then tiring them to a institution for help. I stand by my stance that gun control won't stop a sociopath bent on mass murder.

My point is short of abolishing the Second Ammendment from the Constitution and then rounding up every gun in the country not issued to military or law enforcement and destroying them. You won't stop a crazy person or a criminal from these actions. The only hope is keeping any gun out of the hands of a lunatic and the effort should be focused in that direction. Law makers have already admitted any bill will not be retroactive so as Spesh pointed out those 200,000,000 guns aren't going anywhere.

As a responsible gun owner do I think it is ridiculous his mother left her guns so he could gain access? Absolutely! I think it is criminally insane she took her mentally ill son to a gun range opening his mind to such things for real basic research of a Asspergers Diseases tells you that is a real bad idea! But I'm not naive I know there is no way in hell that this country will ever pass laws taking constitutional rights from a law a bidding citizen because she is the mother of a loon or felon. Guess what Gonzo it won't be just the RNA fighting a bill like that you can guarantee the ACLU will lead the charge.

Keeping "ANY" gun out of a crazed individuals hands is the only real way to stop these acts and sadly there is no real solution!

[PhinzN703]

Control debates are just as common as free speech, abortion, religion, politics etc.... Extreme points of view on both sides of the fence, but to sit there and say a law abiding citizen that owns a gun and is exercising he or she's right to lawfully conceal carry it is bad or had never actually stopped a crime or prevented loss of life is just ignorant. Below is a link of a law abiding citizen using his gun to save lives so the above poster and his thoughts are simply wrong.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Events like these literally happen hundreds of times around the country they get a hit in the local news, maybe 15 seconds on a national outlet and then go away because the public doesn't care if the bad guy died. The media doesn't sensationalize it to all is forgotten.

This man was not wired right and like the men at Blacksburg, Va and Denver, Co a gun was their instrument of choice. Do you really think limiting access to a gun would have stopped any of those incidents? Doubtful they wanted to take life in a public venue at a high rate, all three men were mentally defunct but did have above average intelligence to say build a bomb, drive a car through a intersection bus stop etc. look at Timothy Mcvae he proves a sociopath has no limits to execute their plan. Gun control is eye wash and won't prevent these incidents it might postpone them till the bad guy finds other means but it won't stop someone hell bent in mass loss of life.

The real problem is our society has decided the villain has more rights then the victim! When a child is deemed at risk by a educator the system is designed to hide the issue rather then address it at a early stage. Talk to someone in education not a new teacher but one with over a decade of experience hell my mom was a elementary principal for 37 years she used to point at kids and say they would end up in prison and most did. Why because it is so obvious they had problem, but the parents fought the system and nothing could be done. For what it is worth she is not a gun person, but her first response to this was arm the teachers or administrators.

The thing about gun access is that even though these guys his mother had were legally owned by her, they could easily (and were) be used by anyone. Literally anyone else. What would a psych evaluation have done that would've prevented this? Kept him locked up somewhere and unable to enter his house and murder? Guns aren't going to be eliminated, ever. Hell I imagine if the President tried banning all guns it would create a Civil War with the people with guns.

[Locke]

As a responsible gun owner do I think it is ridiculous his mother left her guns so he could gain access? Absolutely! I think it is criminally insane she took her mentally ill son to a gun range opening his mind to such things for real basic research of a Asspergers Diseases tells you that is a real bad idea! But I'm not naive I know there is no way in hell that this country will ever pass laws taking constitutional rights from a law a bidding citizen because she is the mother of a loon or felon. Guess what Gonzo it won't be just the RNA fighting a bill like that you can guarantee the ACLU will lead the charge.

How so? I think your search is too basic if you think someone with Asperger's is dangerous. This is what I hate about the media and sensationalism when something like this happens and vague statements about mental health are made. Guaranteed this guy had mental health issues. That I can say unequivocally. I can also say with 85-90% certainty that he had much more going on than Asperger's. Asperger's is a form of autism that manifests in the inability to read social cues, facial expressions, and non-verbal communication. They also tend to be extremely rigid and by-the-book with the rules (which is something most people are ignoring because it doesn't fit their dialogue.) What part of that screams potential killer to you?

I'd put money on him having paranoid schizophrenia and/or bipolar disorder. Both of which, if left untreated or unmedicated, have the potential for something like this...

---------- Post added at 11:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 AM ----------

The thing about gun access is that even though these guys his mother had were legally owned by her, they could easily (and were) be used by anyone. Literally anyone else. What would a psych evaluation have done that would've prevented this? Kept him locked up somewhere and unable to enter his house and murder? Guns aren't going to be eliminated, ever. Hell I imagine if the President tried banning all guns it would create a Civil War with the people with guns.

I think the general idea is that if he failed a psych evaluation, no one in the home would be allowed to legally own a gun. How pragmatic that would be is yet to be seen...

[PhinzN703]

Like I said extreme views on both sides of the fence spare me your snide comments remember attack the post not the poster! We can go back and forth all day long you aren't going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours! You want to really fix the problem then it starts with legislation forcing mentally ill people to get help and if the refuse then tiring them to a institution for help. I stand by my stance that gun control won't stop a sociopath bent on mass murder.

My point is short of abolishing the Second Ammendment from the Constitution and then rounding up every gun in the country not issued to military or law enforcement and destroying them. You won't stop a crazy person or a criminal from these actions. The only hope is keeping any gun out of the hands of a lunatic and the effort should be focused in that direction. Law makers have already admitted any bill will not be retroactive so as Spesh pointed out those 200,000,000 guns aren't going anywhere.

As a responsible gun owner do I think it is ridiculous his mother left her guns so he could gain access? Absolutely! I think it is criminally insane she took her mentally ill son to a gun range opening his mind to such things for real basic research of a Asspergers Diseases tells you that is a real bad idea! But I'm not naive I know there is no way in hell that this country will ever pass laws taking constitutional rights from a law a bidding citizen because she is the mother of a loon or felon. Guess what Gonzo it won't be just the RNA fighting a bill like that you can guarantee the ACLU will lead the charge.

Keeping "ANY" gun out of a crazed individuals hands is the only real way to stop these acts and sadly there is no real solution!

What do we do about the killers who aren't mentally ill? People snap don't they? One can be as sane as a butterfly and still commit crimes such as this.

---------- Post added at 01:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:47 PM ----------

I think the general idea is that if he failed a psych evaluation, no one in the home would be allowed to legally own a gun. How pragmatic that would be is yet to be seen...

Let's say he wasn't battling autism or whichever other issues he had. What then?

[Locke]

Let's say he wasn't battling autism or whichever other issues he had. What then?

Then this probably wouldn't have happened. I can say with relative certainty that people who commit crimes like this are not healthy. That have personality disorders, they have sociopathy, or they have a mental illness. Any psychologist/psychiatrist worth their degree can catch a personality disorder or mental illness within the initial evaluation. Sociopathy is much more difficult to spot, but a good one should get some sort of gut-feeling that something isn't sitting right with the person and request another evaluation. Even if it's missed, like it often is, sociopaths are more into manipulation than doing things themselves.

Four and a half years of graduate work in clinical psychology has shown me one thing, and that's that your run-of-the-mill stable person just isn't capable of doing something like this. There is a reason when stuff like this happens, it always comes back that there was something "not right" with the guy. The fact that mental health is so under-valued in this country just exasperates the issue...

[flynryan15]

How so? I think your search is too basic if you think someone with Asperger's is dangerous. This is what I hate about the media and sensationalism when something like this happens and vague statements about mental health are made. Guaranteed this guy had mental health issues. That I can say unequivocally. I can also say with 85-90% certainty that he had much more going on than Asperger's. Asperger's is a form of autism that manifests in the inability to read social cues, facial expressions, and non-verbal communication. They also tend to be extremely rigid and by-the-book with the rules (which is something most people are ignoring because it doesn't fit their dialogue.) What part of that screams potential killer to you?

I'd put money on him having paranoid schizophrenia and/or bipolar disorder. Both of which, if left untreated or unmedicated, have the potential for something like this...

---------- Post added at 11:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 AM ----------



I think the general idea is that if he failed a psych evaluation, no one in the home would be allowed to legally own a gun. How pragmatic that would be is yet to be seen...

The only thing I have read confirmed so far is Asspergers which means he at the very least lacked empathy, social skills, struggle with what is reality among other things. I agree there is a high probability he suffered from other personality disorders but I was sticking to what's been confirmed. Now as far as why his mom can't own a gun because of his illness the guilt by association would never fly.

The main issue is the privacy laws that protect people of mental defect. Until a judge declares them mentally ill it won't go on their record and the NCIS background check won't see it. I maybe wrong but I believe all states run you through the NCIS now when you buy a gun from a dealer.

for what it's worth I support regulation on private individuals selling guns. I don't buy from nor have ever sold to a private individual.

[Locke]

The only thing I have read confirmed so far is Asspergers which means he at the very least lacked empathy, social skills, struggle with what is reality among other things. I agree there is a high probability he suffered from other personality disorders but I was sticking to what's been confirmed. Now as far as why his mom can't own a gun because of his illness the guilt by association would never fly.

There is no struggle with reality. That implies delusions, and there is nothing delusional about any form of autism. They also don't lack empathy, they appear to because they don't understand non-verbals. They are described as robotic. And the social skills part is correct, but that plays into the inability to read social cues and non-verbals. I think you got a bad source, my friend.

I don't know much about the NCIS system, but I know that with the current system, most mentally ill individuals don't get the help they need until law enforcement is involved. That means an assault on someone or a suicide attempt. As ass backwards as that is, that means this kid could have been stating for weeks that he was literally going to shoot his parents and the school, and even if the police were notified, they could not have done anything to get him treatment until he attempted it. Could they have arrested him if they took his threats seriously? I'm sure. But that wouldn't get him the help he needs, that just puts him in jail. This is where the real focus should be.

You'll never ban guns. I think you need to restrict assault weapons to military and police, and we need to seriously revamp our mental health services...