Can we imagine no more Newtowns?
By Rachelle Kuehl
My daughter turned 6 on Sunday. She believes wholeheartedly in Santa, and she loves having her birthday at Christmas. She’s in first grade. She adores her teacher.
She is missing her two front teeth.
Kuehl is a mother, teacher and artist living in Roanoke.
December 22, 2012 - 8:14 AM
Other than two quick questions, there is no point discussing this piece, it is futile to debate sentimentality & anecdotal emotionalism.
What “clean background” check beyond an FBI background check & an interview with the local sherriff?
What is the criteria for “good reason”? Who decides? Yours? You?
Jim…
When I was growing up, my Dad had a couple of 12 gauge shotguns, a .22 rifle and I had my 410 shotgun. He managed to enjoy quail hunting into his late 70′s. The notion of using them for personal protection was never discussed.
The point I’m getting to is that have we now regressed back to the point where guns, regardless of caliber, are now required just to make through an ordinary day? If that’s the need today, then there is something very wrong. What is the real purpose for an ordinary person needing an automatic or semi automatic weapon that has the capability of firing at least 30 rounds before reloading? Deer, quail, groundhogs…people?
Just because its made doesn’t necessarily mean you need. Are we going to start arming schools with semi automatic weapons? The NRA has said that we need armed guards at the schools. Would the be willing to foot the bill and at the same time fund research as to why we need the guards there in the first place?
It is indeed emotional and personal and anecdotal when one is speaking about a child and potential death. Why shouldn’t it be? Due to the insensitivity that death and destruction is treated theses days, maybe it’s time for a little emotion.
Will: All I can do when I read comments like yours is shake my head in total sadness that so many seem to be out of touch. As a gun owner, sport shooter and collector of the highest order I can tell you the only people who need guns to make it through the ordinary day are the law enforcement, military and the criminals. (UNDERSCORE CRIMINALS.) While the “need” for high capacity mags seems unnecessary on the surface the view that a ban on them will do anything positive is TOTALLY incorrect. I can fire, drop, reinsert and continue firing this type of weapon in such a short time using even 8 round mags that the ordinary person would not even know the limited capacity mag was being used. If you want to address weapons with rapid rates of fire, please do it with intelligence and an understanding of the characteristics of the weapon and not from the superficial “capacity” angle. I also formerly thought they had no application in hunting but the facts are that every firearms development made for military application has eventually found its way into production recreational and hunting firearms. It goes back to day 1 weapon 1. Semi auto action DOES indeed have an application in hunting but agreed that it’s not using 30 + round capacity. The NRA is totally correct in their assement and in the general thrust of their suggestions. Violence in society is flamed by the movies, TV and the vid game industry. While I don’t recall all of the specific names of the games they noted one was something like “Kindergarten Slaughter”. Great thing for your grand kids Christmas, huh? I’ll also say the first reaction I have to armed teachers and administrators is that it’s not a good idea. But to say there is a need for armed security in schools is perfectly sane. You cannot get into almost any court house in the nation without going through a metal detector and seeing several armed law enforcement officials. Ditto, airports and airlines. Ditto sporting events. Ditto many state and federal office buildings. If you attended any of the political rallies in or around Roanoke before the election you saw plenty of Secret Service people in white shirts and side arms. And there were plenty more you never saw. If I recall correctly Regan was shot with a 22 cal. So if we were to ban 22 cal would we stop providing security for the president? A reasonable rational society understands that we have a responsibility to protect those who are most vulnerable. History should have taught us that classrooms are the #1 priority for the criminally insane. The NRA clearly pointed out that we spend BILLIONS and BILLIONS in foreign aid. We actually PROVIDE weapons so other nations might secure themselves. Could we not find funds to secure our schools there? Tell me why security for a congressman or judge is more important than for a school full of hundreds of helpless defenseless children? Tell me also what the counter point to Wayne’s comment, “the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
Now, I’m going to the Salem gun show.
Yes Rachelle, it is indeed “worth a try”. We cannot legislate and control everything, but we also cannot merely stand by and allow slaughter after slaughter and not look for ways to stop, mitigate or at least make it harder to achieve. We owe it to those who paid for our complacency with their lives.
Bubba Greene, when I read comments like yours, I roll my eyes in frustration. I do not believe you get it. The slaughter of these innocent little children in a place they should have been safe, happy and learning has put this nation into a real crisis of conscience. Instead of helping us come to grips with what we can and should do, you are dismissing others as “out of touch”.
Do not pretend there are not people, and lots of them, who do not seem capable of being anywhere unarmed. They complain about it with every opportunity. They sure do seem to “need guns to make it through the ordinary day”.
Regardless of the supposed need “for high capacity mags” or military style guns, the fact remains that the average person cannot prove need and they cannot claim any Constitutional right to them.
I cannot claim banning these guns outside of the military and law enforcement will end all mass shootings, but I can and I do claim that there is no Constitutional right to them. I can and I do claim that banning them and thereby making them just that much harder to get will make a difference in the gun culture that so cherishes their machismo and I can and I do claim that demanding more responsibility from gun owners is our right as a society to demand.
Your own point that you can do all you need to do without them only confirms my point, thank you!
We do “want to address weapons with rapid rates of fire”, and for any law to be helpful, clear and effective, we need people with your knowledge of guns, ammo and magazines to help us not fight us. The deaths of these children has to matter and we show that things matter by taking action. Why not use your knowledge to help us craft laws that will be effective and solutions that will work instead of whining about what we do not know or say correctly?
The NRA has blown their chance. Gun owners do not have to suffer because of that, but without knowledgeable people stepping up and creating the ban that is coming, they might.
Violence in society is “flamed” by many factors. We need to look at all of them. Movies, video games and music have ratings and warnings for age appropriate use and we need to hold parents and the retail industry responsible for enforcing them. By the same token, we need to hold gun owners responsible for their guns and ammunition. That may well include banning 15-30 round magazines, military styled weapons, and the use of them in movies, videos, and games.
This is a multi-faceted problem and will require much more than just one effort and solution.
I agree, a “reasonable rational society understands that we have a responsibility to protect those who are most vulnerable”. Even if that impinges on the wants of the rest of us.
We literally cannot afford armed security for every classroom or even every school. We have to find solutions that are viable and also doable.
The “counter point to Wayne’s comment, “the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” is easily found, the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is not to let him have one.
Enjoy your gun show.
@Sandi Saunders: “They sure do seem to “need guns to make it through the ordinary day”.”
I’m sure that I’m one of the people that you are referring to. I’ll be honest with you that I have never needed a gun a single time in my life.
Then again, I’ve never needed a fire extinguisher or homeowner’s insurance, either.
Thank you for the essay, Rachel. As a mother of a six year-old and a teacher as well, you have voiced many of the same feelings I have had over the past week trying to comprehend the horror of innocent children being murdered at school. If asking for reasonable restrictions on weapons of mass destruction could prevent just one of these horrific shootings, it is definitely worth a try.
#5 “By the same token, we need to hold gun owners responsible for their guns and ammunition.”
Mrs. Saunders…does what they do matter? Or just the ownership? Yes, Mrs. Saunders….very telling.
IMO you want to make ownership per se a crime. As to (lack of) registration, you have said so many times.
IMO, you do not know what I am saying Jim Lucas.
By saying that we need to hold gun owners responsible for their guns and ammunition I am saying that they need to be sure that some madman in their family, acquaintance or neighborhood cannot access weapons and ammo they are legally responsible for. Why do you object to that?
I do not “want to make ownership per se a crime”. As long as registration is not the law, it is only a crime to have a gun if you have been adjudicated not to have one. If the registration I support, so we can track guns, was to be made law, then yes, it would be a crime to have an unregistered gun. Please portray my POV honestly or not at all.
9 – Sandi, how would you pay for and enforce your proposal? Would you force doctors to breach the confidentiality of their patients by reporting everyone they recommended counseling to someone? Require a sheriff’s deputy to show up and confiscate? How would you handle the inevitable ensuing black markets? Do you see that as less expensive than allowing licensed hand gun owners to take their weapons to school?
“they need to be sure that some madman in their family, acquaintance or neighborhood cannot access weapons and ammo they are legally responsible for”
Why do gun owners have to be responsible for what the madman might do? There’s our real problem. Every instance of this kind of violence has been dealt out by individuals who had serious issues well before their acts were committed.
Well Bubba…
We’ll just have to agree to disagree as to is or isn’t “in touch”. If you think I’m impressed with your gun wielding capabilities, I’m not.
You’ve so totally and completely missed the point, it only proves to me that those on your side don’t have the capability of looking at the problem from more than one point of view.
But let me say this, if you need one of those types of weapons to make your life complete…than have at. I hope it makes you feel 10 feet tall. But remember this, it garners no more respect.
@Jerry Widener: “Why do gun owners have to be responsible for what the madman might do?”
Because they are never satisfied blaming the person that actually killed someone else. Someone who is otherwise law-abiding always has to be to blame, that way it paves the road for more authoritarian laws.
If a criminal breaks into my home with “one of those types of weapons” with the intent of doing bodily harm to my wife, children or myself…as a law-abiding citizen, I want and deserve sufficient capability to defend myself from said criminal if I so choose. A pop gun is not going to do it.
It has nothing to do with “making my life complete”, impressing anyone, or garnering respect.
TOR…
I have a sad feeling that if someone breaks into your home with one of those weapons to do you bodily harm, you’ll never know it. While you might have incredible reaction timing, unless you hold on to yous 24/7, I doubt that you will be able to react quickly enough given the element of surprise.
I could be wrong…but just saying. And truthfully, I hope that none of the posters on here are ever faced with tht situation.
For those of you who are so quick to place restrictions on gun owners, what part of “shall not infringe” do you not understand?
If you do not like what the Constitution says, then by all means, make an effort to change it.
“And truthfully, I hope that none of the posters on here are ever faced with tht situation.”
Totally agree.
Michael…
No one has said that guns are to be eliminated completely. That’s the kind of hysteria that prevents rational thought and discussion to find real solutions to the problem.
I do agree that there are certain types that should be restricted. As I’ve stated before, if it gets to the point that high powered military style automatic weapons are necessary to make it through the day, then the type of gun you carry is of little consequence to the greater problem that you’ll be facing.
I would be willing to bet the farm that it was a good law abiding citizen that acquired the first weapon of that type and then by some force of magic allowed it to fall into the hands of those intent on doing you bodily harm.
Again, Will, what part of “shall not infringe” are you missing?
Not wanting restrictions on guns is not hysteria at all. On the contrary, it’s those who immediately blame guns and not consider other causes that are hysterical.
Do I need a “high-powered military assault style” weapon to get through through the day? Of course not. But it sure would come in handy when it’s not a normal day.
And again, it’s not up to you or anybody else to dictate what someone needs to defend themself.
Every gun owner I have ever spoken to assures me that there is more than sufficient “fire power” in guns without having a military styled assault rifle or 30 shot magazine in your arsenal.
89Hoo, Since doctors are already obligated to report several things about their patients I am not sure what there is to pay for. At any rate, it will be cheaper than bonded, licensed private security or police officers in every classroom or school building. The safety of society takes priority over privacy at certain levels already. And it should.
IDK, if it will ever be as simplistic as “reporting everyone they recommended counseling to”
But again, once a restraining order is entered, or a commitment is requested, hell yes “Require a sheriff’s deputy to show up and confiscate” every gun in the residence until adjudicated to return them. Start charging those who knew a gun was in their possession and did not report it as an accessory.
There already is a “black market” and the laws need to crack down seriously on that too.
I do not see in any fashion this litigious society accepting “licensed hand gun owners to take their weapons to school” in any kind of official capacity as a solution or even part of one. YOU trust them, I do not.
Jerry Widener, absolutely “gun owners have to be responsible” for their guns and ammo, not “the madman“. If your guns and ammo are in a secure, combination safe, they are not accessible to “the madman”.
We will never be able to cover or prevent every instance of this kind of violence. All we can do, and must do, is make it harder to do. And yes, those people with “serious issues well before their acts were committed” absolutely must be dealt with before a tragedy.
Michael, you say, “it’s not up to you or anybody else to dictate what someone needs to defend themself“. However guns, like drugs, have been “controlled” by laws for a very long time. Are you able to go our and buy grenades, dynamite, canons, army tanks and other explosives as you like? The word “arms” does not guarantee you anything you like and the words “well regulated” do not guarantee no restrictions. “Shall not be infringed”, does not preclude the century of decided law, and it is just as easily “ignored” as the first clause when you push it.
Again, the Constitution guarantees us all the right to keep and bear arms, it does not and never will guarantee us the right to have any arms we want. It simply does not.
#18 Will, the fact that after all this time & discussion, that you can still post within the context of what type of weapons we should be “allowed”…..
“high powered military style automatic (emphasis added) weapons” is disappointing.
Please sir, one more time. We are not talking about “automatic” weapons, “style” notwithstanding (we can if you like, but another question/issue). The guns you reference are not particuarly “high powered”.
My choice of weapon is none of your business.
You didn’t answer the question, Sandi. Would your plan cost more or less than simply allowing those school officials who are licensed gun owners to bring their weapons to school? Please don’t try to change the question I asked.
89Hoo, I will not dignify the question by answering it and that is all there is to it. Cost is not my motivation.
21 – where is that limitation stated?
The same place it isn’t stated.
“But again, once a restraining order is entered, or a commitment is requested, hell yes “Require a sheriff’s deputy to show up and confiscate” every gun in the residence until adjudicated to return them. Start charging those who knew a gun was in their possession and did not report it as an accessory.”
Comment by Sandi Saunders — December 23, 2012 @ 5:58 pm
You really don’t see a problem with this? Violating the Constitutional Rights of people who did nothing wrong? Nevermind, of course you don’t see anything wrong with this.
“However guns, like drugs, have been “controlled” by laws for a very long time.”
Comment by Sandi Saunders — December 23, 2012 @ 6:10 pm
Which Constitutional Right is the one about drugs? I can’t seem to recall.
“Are you able to go our and buy grenades, dynamite, canons, army tanks and other explosives as you like?”
Comment by Sandi Saunders — December 23, 2012 @ 6:10 pm
Yes, it is legal to purchase grenades. Not sure about the other things. In fact, not only can I purchase grenades, I can attach a grenade launcher to my AR-15 and purchase grenades for that. It is legal. It requires some additional hoops, as they are highly regulated, but it is legal. So to answer your question, yes, with enough money and time, you can purchase grenades as a civilian.
You’re not alone Sandi. A lot of people try to sidestep questions they either cannot answer or those where the answer makes them uncomfortable. But if cost is not your motivation, why the questions about how much it would cost to place armed officers in school?
I’m guessing this answer too will not be forthcoming.
“If your guns and ammo are in a secure, combination safe, they are not accessible to “the madman”.”
Unfortunately, they are not readily accessible to me either. That completely defeats the basic human right to self defense.
The comments that keep coming from those who continually call for additional gun control are exactly why we, as responsible gun owners, are so frustrated with the discussions. What you folks like to refer to as “assault weapons” are no different than hundreds of other weapons that don’t meet that sinister look requirement, and are certainly less “powerful” that a lot of them.
The 1994 assault weapons ban was the most useless, ill-advised piece of legislation ever devised. In no sense did it have any chance at doing anything to reduce crime. Yet the cries to reinstate it echo across this nation. A five round magazine, or a 50 round magazine makes no difference when these individuals select known unarmed groups as their targets.
Nobody wants these heinous acts to stop more than America’s gun owners because we are the ones who are continually attacked by those who are apparently unwilling to admit that evil does exist in this world.
Adding a SRO to Roanoke County Schools that don’t already have one would be $2 million just for startup costs.
Source: phone conversation with school board member last week.
89Hoo, the cost of an actual viable solution is well worth discussing. I do not think that we can afford armed police or trained security in every school. It might be the armed camp solution some seek, but it is not something we can afford to do in schools with so many other needs.
I am not “sidestepping” your suggestion, I reject it out of hand. Why is that so hard to accept? You think it will work? Fine. I think it is an incredibly bad idea. That remains my right.
Help me out here Jack, how exactly can you say a person who has been served a restraining order by a judge, or a person who has been singled out for a commitment has “done nothing wrong”? Is it your position that we must wait until they use whatever gun is in their possession or reach? Really? Once you have violated the law or become a perceived danger, your “Constitutional Right” to guns is moot. Certainly until the situation is resolved. And I maintain in either case that someone has done something “wrong” and safety should be a serious component.
My point was not that drugs are a constitutional right, my point was that things with potential danger involved have been “controlled” by laws for a very long time for a good reason. Again, the right is to arms, it is NOT to any arms you want. It simply isn’t.
I admit I had no idea you could just buy grenades. Why, I wonder can you do that? Do you get the fact that you admitting that “a grenade launcher to my AR-15 …requires some additional hoops, as they are highly regulated” proves my point? Like I said, arms, yes, any arms you want, no.
Jerry, I am not at all convinced that “Nobody wants these heinous acts to stop more than America’s gun owners“. That statement, measured against this one: “assault weapons” are no different than hundreds of other weapons“, seriously has me questioning why gun owners would be so “up in arms” over the banning of the ones that “meet that sinister look requirement” then. It does not compute. Maybe the insane folks choosing this weapon do so FOR that military style, “sinister look”, why, if you can get the same or even better “fire power” from other guns, would you fight banning the gun of choice for madmen, drug lords and gang bangers? I cannot get past that point.
I also think we have to argue over whether a “five round magazine, or a 50 round magazine” makes a difference. I think it clearly does.
I freely admit that evil exists, and I am trying to stop feeding it.
Sandi, you suggested removing all guns from the property. Suppose they belong to a spouse or roommate?
If that spouse or roommate wants to keep their weapons they can prove that they can secure them from whomever is in the Restraining Order or the Commitment Order, or surrender them until the matter is adjudicated. They might have to live gun free like the rest of us for a time. It can be done.
Sandi, I’m going to have to ask you to define some of the terms you are using. Restraining orderis one thing; but “singled out for a commitment”? Is that the twenty-five year old housewife with no criminal history who is feeling anxious and has a prescription for Zoloft? What has she done wrong? The none year old whose teacher recommended he be medicated for ADHD because he acted like, well, a nine year old with the attentionspan of a nine year old? What’s he done wrong? The person who has just lost a loved one and needs something to help her sleep? What did she do wrong?
Are you going to add insult to injury here by suddenly assigning them the status of criminal?
@Sandi @10:52pm:
In other words, you want to take away their Constitutional Rights without due process. That’s what I figured. Thanks for the clarification.
So now it’s not just the mentally troubled, but their roommates who are being elevated to criminal status. I guess if you make everything a crime, you make everyone a criminal, then you can put everyone in jail. Then we’ll truly be free!
Parse till your fingers bleed, the facts remain. Did this shooter have a “criminal record”? Do most of the mass shooters we have had to live through? That is NOT the only criteria we can use for intervention. It never has been and it never will be.
Generally speaking someone “singled out for a commitment” is someone who is not willingly going into treatment. If they are fighting that happening, there can be a matter of days before it is adjudicated to pick them up and take them into a facility. Too often that may be jail. Either way, it is well within our interest and theirs to remove any guns they may have for their protection and that of others. As far as “due process”, that is compiled into the adjudication process. It is not the Mickey Mouse Brigade that picks these people up and takes them to their commitment and it is not just a whim of someone wanting to have it done. It involves, at minimum, a magistrate and a court order.
Most cases like “twenty-five year old housewife with no criminal history” who is feeling anxious and has a prescription for Zoloft” would not be in the high risk category. First because most mass shooters are men, and second, she is voluntarily seeking help. It would be worth ascertaining if she had guns at her disposal and how deep her depression is. Depression and guns do not mix, IMO. Again, it is not “What has she done wrong?” but what her condition might lead her to do. Do you believe doctors do not query and try to ascertain that? You are wrong.
This is not a situation of every person who is medicated or in treatment being a criminal, but we do need to know who has guns available and who has hostility, isolation, anger, delusions, persecution worries or other anti-social behaviors going on.
Parents have to be responsible and accountable for whatever a nine year old does or is allowed access too. Especially if they are medicated for ADHD or any other conditions.
There is no need to “add insult to injury” without cause and having the guns removed will prevent any crime. Intervention alone does not and has never assigned these folks the status of criminal. That is not the thrust here either.
I believe I used the words adjudicated and police so no, I have not advocated any taking of “Constitutional Rights without due process”. A magistrate or judge who issues such an order IS due process in action. Why do you claim it is not?
I am terribly sorry for the collateral damage of a roommate of the mentally ill or Restraining Order subjects, but I think they will survive, which is all the rest of us are trying to do. Intervention does not ever have to be “elevated to criminal status”. And if you cannot secure your guns, you should not have them IMO.
Go ahead, make fun of intervention. It saves lives and I am fine with that. I can only wonder why you are not.
None of us are truly free and as the population grows that will remain the truth. If people do not want to observe and live within the laws, they can always leave for the paradise of other gun loving nations.
What about the collateral damage that occurs when that homeowner is suddenly deprived of his right to defend himself, and becomes a target for criminals? Is that merely an acceptable risk, collateral damage? Are you sure they will survive?
Sandi, depriving someone who is innocent of his rights – merely by virtue of having a roommate who is on meds – IS denial of due process, whether the police are involved or not, whether a court is involved or not.
Government’s role is to protect liberty, not to pursue unobtainable safety.
““Nobody wants these heinous acts to stop more than America’s gun owners“. That statement, measured against this one: “assault weapons” are no different than hundreds of other weapons“, seriously has me questioning why gun owners would be so “up in arms” over the banning of the ones that “meet that sinister look requirement” then. It does not compute.”
And this “would you fight banning the gun of choice for madmen, drug lords and gang bangers”
OK, let’s look at these beliefs. Not mine, but the beliefs of others.
Gun owners would be “up in arms” over banning specific models of weapons, because guns are tools. Every carpenter has his favorite hammer, or favorite chisel. Take the AR15, for instance. It’s an extremely well thought out weapon. Easy to maintain with no special tools, ergonomically designed, light weight, and reliable. It’s versatile and can be used for multiple hunting applications as well as a personal defense weapon. All essentially the same reasons some folks prefer a Mercedes over a Ford truck. It’s a very popular tool for all those reasons. Personally, I don’t care if we want to limit magazine sizes to 10 rounds, fine, whatever. But the other four “attributes” that make any weapon fall into the “assault weapon” category are completely cosmetic and have no bearing on the basic fundamental functioning of those weapons. A couple of those attributes are pistol grip and adjustable stock – seriously, those just make it a comfortable weapon to shoot. Then there’s bayonet lug and grenade launcher – the bayonet lug is something nobody is seriously going to be concerned with. If my AR15 runs dry, I’m not going to resort to using a knife on the front of my weapon, I’ll draw my pistol. I’m pretty sure those would be regulated separately and if even available to the civilian population, haven’t been used in any crime that I know of.
I know that’s a little long and drawn out, but my real point is that it’s a personal preference for which hammer you might want to use for a particular job.
The second point about being the preferred weapon of mad men, drug lords, and gangbangers isn’t even right. For the reasons I provided earlier, a madman would likely choose something like the AR15 because it is probably one of the best tools for the “job” he has planned. Aside from a couple of highly publicized mass killings (and I’m not trying to minimize those), “assault weapons” are used in very, very few crimes.
The real question before us is – how do we stop these people from wanting to commit these mass killings? Because even if you take away their favorite hammer, they’ll just go grab their second favorite hammer to do their “job”. The result will still be the same for that unprotected or unwilling to defend themselves group.
I’m all for keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them. Taking the tool away from the rest of us is not going to solve the problem.
Michael…
Let me assure you that I will take every opportunity to determine what kinds of guns you and others can own so long as I have breath to do so. I’m not taking all guns away, but there are those that shouldn’t have been allowed out for general use and to say otherwise is just plain stupid.
Jim Licas….
Potato … PotAtoe…you can call them whatever you want. I’m not dealing in senseless symantics.
You know damn well what I’m talking about and I will not be swayed.
#42 – Like I said, Will, if you don’t like what the Constitution says, by all means, make an effort to change it.
And feel free to take every opportunity to determine what type of guns people have access to. It’s your right to do so and I respect that.
But be forewarned…I, and others, will fight you every step of the way.
Merry Christmas!
#31 Well, ‘Hoo….there’s your answer.
#32 What “point” proved Mrs. Saunders? How many killed by grenades?
#33 “Jerry, I am not at all convinced that “Nobody wants these heinous acts to stop more than America’s gun owners“. That statement, measured against this one: “assault weapons” are no different than hundreds of other weapons“, seriously has me questioning why gun owners would be so “up in arms” over the banning of the ones that “meet that sinister look requirement” then.”
Mrs. Saunders, maybe it’s because we don’t want our Constitutional rights denied by cosmetics. Imagine that.
#36 Not to mention that in many “real” instances the person giving up their weapon might need it from the very person you fear might take it.
#39 “This is not a situation of every person who is medicated or in treatment being a criminal, but we do need to know who has guns available….”
Of course we do. How else can we collect them once deemed illegal?
#39 “Parents have to be responsible and accountable for whatever a nine year old does or is allowed access too. Especially if they are medicated for ADHD or any other conditions.”
Nice analogy. The federal government is our parents….and we are the children.
So the ONLY suggestion any of you have is to just arm teachers or school vigilantes and leave people alone until they actually commit a crime, regardless of the situation. We should just learn to accept mass shootings, even of children, as the collateral damage for your rights. Your rights take precedence over all others, even for military styled assault weapons and 30 bullet magazines, because hey, you might need them to fight your own government, or the just as rare, gang of home invaders.
Gee, thanks for all that effort on behalf of society.
Why, yes…
Last time I checked most folks were considered innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Certainly not perfect, I guess, but has worked for me for quite some time.
If we are going to take away anything that can potentially be considered a weapon, we may as well outlaw automobiles.
I’ve heard all the arguments about “it’s not the same thing!”,”you’re comparing apples to oranges!”, etc. Am I? I don’t think so. The automobile, on average, weighs about 3000 lbs. Some considerably more. And according to the law, EVERYONE that drives an automobile is REQUIRED to have a license to drive.
Two thousand five hundred ninety-seven.
(number of traffic FATALITIES in the us December 2010)
That’s about 90 per DAY. FATALITIES. This continues today. TODAY.
The Centers for Disease Control says 11,493 people died from gun homicides in 2011 (USA).
NBC News reported that 32,367 people died from traffic fatalities in 2011 (USA).
Since we are certainly not constitutionally guaranteed the right to an automobile (or multiple automobiles, for that matter), and that it would sure seem that statistically one is more likely to die in a ‘death by automobile’ incident than at the hands of a gun-toting madman, I propose the following:
I’ll give ‘the Authorities’ ALL of my firearms. You, the gun-control advocate, MUST match that by giving the Authorities ALL of your automobiles. (to include light trucks, motorcycles, etc. essentially anything that can legally be driven on the Eisenhower interstate system.)
Neither one of us are then allowed to purchase another firearm or automobile in the interim period until we compare the statistics five years down the road and observe the change (if any) in statistics.
If you think that the majority of Americans, or even a majority of non-gun-owning Americans think this is a great deal, then fair enough! I’m game.
Just remember the conditions of the deal: No purchase of guns or automobiles for everyone involved no matter how terribly inconvenient that may be for all involved.
I must conclude that while these shootings are, indeed, tradgedies, I don’t lie awake at night worried about my children getting gunned down at school or at the mall. I worry a WHOLE lot more that my children (or me and my wife) will be killed at the hands of some inattentive driver.
50 – no, you missed the suggestion about a police presence at schools.
#50 Not the only suggestion.
There’s nothing that can be done to anyone who might commit a crime. That’s the way our laws and our society work. It’s not possible for the authorities to do anything to anyone who might do something.
I’m OK with background checks for all purchases. And I’m certainly for making sure that the data required to accurately perform those background checks is up to date, complete, and consistent across the country.
The proposal to allow properly trained teachers to carry is certainly the only thing that could happen in a relatively short period of time.
George Krutz,
I am happy to hear that the system of “innocent until PROVEN guilty” has worked so well for you for so long. I assure you it does not work so well for millions of Americans.
No one here has even suggested we “take away anything that can potentially be considered a weapon”, and IMO it is ludicrous to consider a car as a weapon. Moreso if comparing it to guns. But no one has suggested “outlawing” either.
They are not “the same thing!” Even if you insist on the comparison, you know very well that cars are required to be registered, drivers are required to be licensed and “self-defense” is never used in the description of their “use”.
The number of people who deliberately aim a car and kill with it are very very few. And since you claim to want to compare apples to apples, then do so.
The CDC reports the number of vehicle deaths as 34,485 and the number of firearms deaths as 31,347. In fact:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html
We study car crashes and we require more and more safety innovations. Seat belts, air bags, anti-lock brakes, little black boxes, and other innovations for safety have come out of those fatalities.
You are absolutely not constitutionally guaranteed the right to a military style assault rifle with a 30 round magazine. Show me where it says you are.
When they start making automobiles for the purpose of self defense and to kill, I will surrender mine happily. Until then, you are just making a far out comparison that makes no sense.
Pardon me if I cannot muster sympathy for how terribly inconvenient it would be for anyone not to be able to buy an assault rifle styled like a military weapon capable of shooting 30 bullets from one magazine.
I doubt those parents in Newtown, laid awake worrying about their babies being killed in first grade while at school either.
“Pardon me if I cannot muster sympathy for how terribly inconvenient it would be for anyone not to be able to buy an assault rifle styled like a military weapon capable of shooting 30 bullets from one magazine.”
Again, an AR-15 is not an “assualt weapon”…it is a semi-automatic rifle, no different than any other caliber rifle that holds multiple rounds of ammunition and fires ONE round with each tigger pull.
Why do Libs insist on overlooking the truth?
“Even if you insist on the comparison, you know very well that cars are required to be registered, drivers are required to be licensed and “self-defense” is never used in the description of their “use”. ”
Exactly. And even with these “strict” regulations, automobiles kill more people per day that firearms.
“… and “self-defense” is never used in the description of their “use”. ”
NO? Ever heard of defensive driving. You are defending yourself from other inattentive drivers.
@55 Michael, you say the AR-15 isn’t an “assault weapon”. Do me a favor and google or youtube the term “bump fire” and/or “bump trigger”.
Wow, it’s pretty amazing. I don’t post here that often, maybe get involved in discussions for a few weeks every year. I have obviously been a strong proponent of gun ownership, but I have also tried to start some honest discussions in the last week or so because I’m just as upset as everyone else about someone killing a bunch of kids. I’ve come to realize that nobody really wants to work together to actually determine what might be done to keep this from happening as frequently as it does. They’re too caught up in demanding that they are right.
I’ve also come to realize there are some very intelligent, articulate folks out there who will apparently never listen to anything outside of folks who believe exactly as they do. Hey, I’m guilty of the same thing sometimes, but I do try to see each argument from both sides. Heck, I’ll even read coverage of the same topics on CNN and FOX to make sure that the truth is somewhere in that vast middle ground between them.
The only thing I am absolutely sure of is this national debate has spawned the sale of millions, maybe even billions of rounds of ammunition, along with every 30 round magazine available (except for those few being sold on Ebay for 4 to 5 times what they cost a week ago). There’s no exaggeration there, try to find .223 ammunition or magazines – they are gone. And it’s not just AR15 stuff either – good old 22 ammunition has been scooped up too.
The devisiveness is only growing…
#57 – Bump firing is a technique, Scott, and can be done with many weapons. While bump-firing, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.
The ability to bump fire a weapon does not mean a weapon is an ‘assault weapon’.