Connecticut School Shooting Dec 14th 2012

[Famine]

US citizens have spoken: Gun control is needed

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...gh-introduction-legislation-congress/2tgcXzQC

Connecticut already has fairly extensive gun control laws and the 7th lowest gun ownership rate per household (1.8%) in the USA.

Remember, the Second Amendment only says that the Federal US government can't limit the right to bear arms - the states all make their own rules on the matter. Though federal law does say you're prohibited from owning one if you've been convicted of assault, stalking, rioting, homicide, drug possession or any crime involving a firearm. Or you're under 21. Or you've committed ANY crime and got off on grounds of insanity in the last twenty years. And you can't buy one in any state other than the one in which you reside.

[/ill-informed Brit]

 

[arora]

Connecticut already has fairly extensive gun control laws and the 7th lowest gun ownership rate per household (1.8%) in the USA.

It only takes one diabetic man to drink an over sized soda in nyc...

Remember, the Second Amendment only says that the Federal US government can't limit the right to bear arms - the states all make their own rules on the matter. Though federal law does say you're prohibited from owning one if you've been convicted of assault, stalking, rioting, homicide, drug possession or any crime involving a firearm. Or you're under 21. Or you've committed ANY crime and got off on grounds of insanity in the last twenty years. And you can't buy one in any state other than the one in which you reside.

[/ill-informed Brit]

Any felony will ban you from legal ownership. The states may very a bit from here to there but in essence we all request a background check from the fed to get one, no acception there. Not that it's hard to buy one without consent, just sayin.

 

[Famine]

Non-Americans won't know what a felony is - nor how it compares to a misdemeanour. So it's worth laying it out.

One oddity of CT gun control laws is that you can sell a shotgun/rifle privately without a background check or notifying anyone. Of course it's a felony to sell one to someone you know is prohibited, but if you don't know and didn't check, it isn't. But still, their laws are sufficiently wide-ranging that they have the 7th lowest per household gun ownership in the USA.

 

[arora]

One oddity of CT gun control laws is that you can sell a shotgun/rifle privately without a background check or notifying anyone. Of course it's a felony to sell one to someone you know is prohibited, but if you don't know and didn't check, it isn't. But still, their laws are sufficiently wide-ranging that they have the 7th lowest per household gun ownership in the USA.[/color][/b]

It's the same where I live, I gave a rifle to a gf once and when we broke up I called the most reputable dealer I know and asked them for the proper paper work so I was no longer responsible for the weapon. They said there was no such thing.

I wrote a bill of sale sort of thing and we both signed it, had it notarized but that was not hard, she is a notary public

My point is, it's very easy to legally buy a gun I guess, without any sort of check, the possession might be a different story.

 

[Tesla]

Should've called the police on her for illegally possessing a firearm without a license.

 

[Danoff]

This is a bit of an overreaction. He means that you know that there will be another one coming if nothing changes in the USA.

There will be another one coming even if everything changes in the USA. My point is that the specifics are surprising, and he's ignoring that.

 

[Keef]

One oddity of CT gun control laws is that you can sell a shotgun/rifle privately without a background check or notifying anyone. Of course it's a felony to sell one to someone you know is prohibited, but if you don't know and didn't check, it isn't.

Bullhonky, that's not the way it works. It's legal to sell them without a background check or notification until you sell it to somebody who is prohibited. Then it becomes extremely illegal. Ignorance of laws in the US is no excuse for not following them. If it's found out you sold to a prohibited person then you're eligible for the felony because you didn't do the checks you could have done that would have prevented the sale. Numerous aspects of law from speed limits to gun sales appear to be designed to trap people who don't fully research, though most go unprosecuted.

In other news:

22 kids and an old lady were stabbed near a primary school in China on the 14th.

Ban ALL the plastic spoons!

That's all I have to share because I'm basically fed up with society today and have absolutely nothing good to say about it.

 

[Northstar]

No. I read it, but didn't deem it relevant - you've still not satisfactorily answered why my opinion is any less relevant than your own. Me being "3000 miles away" doesn't cut it, I'm afraid, and it doesn't make your response any less ignorant.

So you can tell how things are perceived by people 3000 miles away?

Please, show off these skills by telling me how Susan Rice is perceived by the media and general public by people in the U.S.

I'm quite happy discussing guns, as my replies to everyone else in the thread are demonstrating.

That's nice, but not what the article I posted was dealing with(directly at least). It was dealing with the perceived number of mass shootings vs. actual number of mass shootings.

[/ill-informed Brit]

 

[homeforsummer]

So you can tell how things are perceived by people 3000 miles away?

Look, this is very simple: You got angry for no reason about something I said, and proceeded to say I didn't know anything because of my nationality. What part of my responses to either of those things don't you understand?

Please, show off these skills by telling me how Susan Rice is perceived by the media and general public by people in the U.S.

I don't care who she is. Again, she isn't my topic of discussion.

That's nice, but not what the article I posted was dealing with(directly at least). It was dealing with the perceived number of mass shootings vs. actual number of mass shootings.

I know. We've been over this too. I explained my position. This doesn't need continuing discussion.

 

[Famine]

Bullhonky, that's not the way it works. It's legal to sell them without a background check or notification until you sell it to somebody who is prohibited. Then it becomes extremely illegal. Ignorance of laws in the US is no excuse for not following them. If it's found out you sold to a prohibited person then you're eligible for the felony because you didn't do the checks you could have done that would have prevented the sale. Numerous aspects of law from speed limits to gun sales appear to be designed to trap people who don't fully research, though most go unprosecuted.

It seems from how it's written that if you don't check - because you're not required to - and a prohibited person buys it, they're in the cack. But if you know they're prohibited, you're both in the cack.

 

[Joey D]

So you can tell how things are perceived by people 3000 miles away?

Throwing this out there: there are Americans that live more than 3,000 miles away from CT. Distance away from something doesn't mean you don't know what's going on. I bet there are some people that live in the town it happened in that have no idea what they're talking about.

 

[Keef]

It seems from how it's written that if you don't check - because you're not required to - and a prohibited person buys it, they're in the cack. But if you know they're prohibited, you're both in the cack.

Are you absolutely confident that's the way it'll be interpreted? No, you're not, and that's where they get you.

 

[Famine]

Are you absolutely confident that's the way it'll be interpreted? No, you're not, and that's where they get you.

Not from 3,000 miles away, no...

It does seem a little odd that you can only sell handguns privately to people with eligibility certificates, but you don't have to check who you sell a rifle to...

 

[Minty]

I've always thought that odd, as well.


I walked into Bass Pro shop, in the mall, walked up to the huge wall of guns and the guy told me I could swipe my credit card and walk out of there with a shotgun or a rifle within 30 minutes.

But I'd have to be 21 and wait 2 weeks to get a tiny little 9mm.

 

[Danoff]

Handguns are perceived as more of a threat because they can be more easily concealed.

 

[Dmarc_Atl]

These videos have been going around the web.
http://www.infowars.com/dark-knight-rises-shows-sandy-hook-written-on-map/
showing sandy hook in dark knight rises (and aurora and supposedly superstorm sandy projected track).
Im looking forward to what the directors and creators will say about this...

I dont think making gun laws stricter will do anything.At this point if you make gun laws stricter,sick people will find other ways to get guns.Even in places like australia and canada where guns are "banned" there are still shootings almost daily.The fastest solution I could think of is to increase security throughout schools and other public places like school.

At this point im thinking MK Ultra is real in effect or people are just sick.. Either way its sad.

 

[Nicksfix]

It seems from how it's written that if you don't check - because you're not required to - and a prohibited person buys it, they're in the cack. But if you know they're prohibited, you're both in the cack.

Ohio Law 2923.20.

 

[Joel]

I dont think making gun laws stricter will do anything.At this point if you make gun laws stricter,sick people will find other ways to get guns.Even in places like australia and canada where guns are "banned" there are still shootings almost daily.The fastest solution I could think of is to increase security throughout schools and other public places like school.

While I agree with most of that post, saying there's shootings every day in Canada simply isn't true.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/legal01-eng.htm

Check those statistics, from 2007-2011 there were somewhere in the ballpark of 160-200 across the entire country in a year. They're also heavily based in Ontario (Toronto). There's a fair bit of gang violence and some rough neighbourhoods in Toronto where shootings are relatively common, but to suggest shootings are common in Canada is a stretch.

 

[Zenith]

We talk a lot about how crazy people will find ways to get obtain banned items under government enforced magazine limits, AWB's, and other bans.

The person I was talking to was in favor of an Assault Weapons Ban with 10 round magazine limits and more concealed carry.

The guy who shot up the school did so by taking his mother's guns and going to a school. The person I talked to said that he wouldn't have gone and sought out a 30 magazine if the law limited magazines to 10. He also wouldn't have bought anything to get around the Bullet Button on most AWB guns. He would've just taken the guns and went to the school.

In the case of the Arizona Senator Shooting, the attacker was only tackled to the ground after he went to reload.

The idea here is that teachers with guns will be able to better engage a shooter who only has 10 rounds and a bullet button.

I thought this idea is ineffective. Only some shooters will be affected. Of those shooters, only some will have their shootings ended in a way that being limited by magazine capacity will make a difference.

Thoughts?

 

[Northstar]

showing sandy hook in dark knight rises

Well, it's an island that is actually rather close to NYC, which is one of the main influences of Gotham City and they usually have real locations outside of Gotham City.

(and aurora

Granted i haven't seen the movie yet, but from what I have read the only thing is that the word was used in the film, which isn't saying much as it's a common word.

and supposedly superstorm sandy projected track).

Once again, I haven't seen the film, but for any hurricane there are hundreds of projected tracks and again, NYC is a major influence of Gotham so naturally it will seem odd.

Im looking forward to what the directors and creators will say about this...
.

Good luck with that.

On a side note, why are all the people who make those videos so obsessed with hearing their voice? They always make you listen for awhile before getting to the point, I feel like yelling "get on with it" like in The Holy Grail.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Im looking forward to what the directors and creators will say about this...

Why would they dignify it with a response? InfoWars is hardly the most credible source in the world.

Even in places like australia and canada where guns are "banned" there are still shootings almost daily.

Australia's homicide rate is comparable to the rest of the developed world. Most serious gun crime at the moment - particularly in Sydney - is related to bikie gangs and organised crime. What we don't have, though, is the killing sprees carried out by a lone gunman. We haven't had once since the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. In that same eighteen-year period, there have been forty-eight mass shootings in America, thirty-eight of which were at schools. And that's just counting the ones that have articles on Wikipedia.

 

[Dmarc_Atl]

While I agree with most of that post, saying there's shootings every day in Canada simply isn't true.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/legal01-eng.htm

Check those statistics, from 2007-2011 there were somewhere in the ballpark of 160-200 across the entire country in a year. They're also heavily based in Ontario (Toronto). There's a fair bit of gang violence and some rough neighbourhoods in Toronto where shootings are relatively common, but to suggest shootings are common in Canada is a stretch.

Yea I didnt mean literally everyday.But my point was that making guns stricter in a country thats full of guns already will have even less of an impact than countries that had strict guns laws for decades that still have incidents with guns...

Well, it's an island that is actually rather close to NYC, which is one of the main influences of Gotham City and they usually have real locations outside of Gotham City.
Granted i haven't seen the movie yet, but from what I have read the only thing is that the word was used in the film, which isn't saying much as it's a common word.
Once again, I haven't seen the film, but for any hurricane there are hundreds of projected tracks and again, NYC is a major influence of Gotham so naturally it will seem odd.
Good luck with that.
On a side note, why are all the people who make those videos so obsessed with hearing their voice? They always make you listen for awhile before getting to the point, I feel like yelling "get on with it" like in The Holy Grail.

I posted that to be debated on.Im on the fence about it, I dont deny conspiracy theories and I know people here do alot so I figured i'd like to hear you guys thoughts on it.I know it can always be explained but you cant deny the coincidences are insane.

Why would they dignify it with a response? InfoWars is hardly the most credible source in the world.

That video wasnt made by infowars.I just posted infowars link because it was the first to show up on google with all the info gathered around the web so far.So really they wouldnt be replying to infowars they would be replying to what will be a lot of people (angry people) in the next couple of days or months the more that info spread...

Australia's homicide rate is comparable to the rest of the developed world. Most serious gun crime at the moment - particularly in Sydney - is related to bikie gangs and organised crime. What we don't have, though, is the killing sprees carried out by a lone gunman. We haven't had once since the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. In that same eighteen-year period, there have been forty-eight mass shootings in America, thirty-eight of which were at schools. And that's just counting the ones that have articles on Wikipedia.

I explained my point up there.

 

[photonrider]

Killing sprees in gun-free public locations by lone young gunmen armed with semi-automatic weapons holding high-capacity magazines are becoming common now in the US. Is that debatable?

Because of the recent fuss about Liza Long's blog:
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...er-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html)
I happened to check out some of the statistics concerning mental health in the US - and I can tell you; the situation isn't good. Or are these reflective of world-wide statistics?
It's no wonder we constantly live in a climate of fear.
And - it seems like talking about the mental health problems of our children doesn't really get a warm reception either.
Are we trying to sweep this under the carpet?
The whole 'ban guns!/2nd amendment' warcry drowns out what seems to be the real problem.
After all - there are millions of people out there with guns who don't go wild with them - they just target shoot, or go hunting, or feel safe feeding their paranoia about home invasion.
It's just a select few who go mad with a gun in their hands.
But this brings another factor to light.
In the old wild west - if you shot someone who hadn't a gun on them - you'd be lynched.
There was another freedom that was allowed; the freedom NOT to bear arms.
And if you chose that freedom - the freedom NOT to bear arms - then you didn't have to draw. And if anybody drew a gun on an unarmed person - well then the law stepped in right away and took your guns away from you and most times hung you for killing an 'unarmed' man - a person who chose the freedom NOT to bear arms.

What happened to that freedom?

I would say - if you live by the gun - then you have chosen to die by the gun.
If not - no gun should be turned on you.

However . . . in this case . . . we don't seem to be dealing with reason. We're dealing with various forms of insanity. In the world of the insane - nothing makes sense - not the freedom to bear arms nor the freedom to leave them alone.

 

[Famine]

One oddity of CT gun control laws

Ohio Law 2923.20.

Rifles and Shotguns
Sales of long arms between non-licensed dealers, commonly referred to as second hand sales, require no paperwork or notification, however, it is strongly recommended that all firearms be voluntarily registered. In the event of loss or theft of firearm this will provide easy retrieval of information for insurance or police information and assure return of recovered property. (exception: sales conducted at gun shows require NICS authorization check and transfer paperwork) The only restrictions are the seller may not sell to anyone under 18 years of age, or to anyone the seller knows is prohibited from possessing firearms.

So... err... that.

Killing sprees in gun-free public locations by lone young gunmen armed with semi-automatic weapons holding high-capacity magazines are becoming common now in the US. Is that debatable?

I can't cite it because... I can't remember, but I was informed recently that 1929 was the worst year for spree (three or more killed) killings - including the St. Valentine's Day massacre - and the number of incidents fell by around a third in the decade of 2000-2009 compared to 1990-1999.

But then Prohibition era mobsters probably skewed the stats. And Prohibition is its own argument against banning things.

 

[Keef]

It seems to me that since 2001 violence in this country has gone up steadily with government regulation of various things. Maybe that's just me speaking theory instead of looking at statistics. Bitching has certainly gone up.

 

[homeforsummer]

There was another freedom that was allowed; the freedom NOT to bear arms.
And if you chose that freedom - the freedom NOT to bear arms - then you didn't have to draw. And if anybody drew a gun on an unarmed person - well then the law stepped in right away and took your guns away from you and most times hung you for killing an 'unarmed' man - a person who chose the freedom NOT to bear arms.

What happened to that freedom?

I would say - if you live by the gun - then you have chosen to die by the gun.
If not - no gun should be turned on you.

That's quite a fascinating concept actually, thanks for posting. There's a bit of an "in an ideal world" aspect to it (there's always going to be someone out there happy to gun down an unarmed individual) but it's a nice thought. I.e. it's a pity there are nutters out there who will turn a gun on innocent children who obviously aren't armed... but then, that's a case for dealing with the nutters first and foremost.

Incidentally, the above scenario seems to be exactly the case in Japan right now, regarding the link I posted recently in this thread or one of the other gun/shooting-related threads.

Apparently, even the Yakuza aren't particuarly inclined to turn a gun on someone - they simply go about their shady business in other ways. And the police rarely shoot either - possibly helped by the knowledge that pretty much the only other people in the country who are carrying guns are other police. And they aren't using them either.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Why would they dignify it with a response? InfoWars is hardly the most credible source in the world.

Australia's homicide rate is comparable to the rest of the developed world. Most serious gun crime at the moment - particularly in Sydney - is related to bikie gangs and organised crime. What we don't have, though, is the killing sprees carried out by a lone gunman. We haven't had once since the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. In that same eighteen-year period, there have been forty-eight mass shootings in America, thirty-eight of which were at schools. And that's just counting the ones that have articles on Wikipedia.

When comparing statistics, you can't compare directly you have to compare on a per capita basis. The U.S. has 15 times the population of Australia for example so on a per capita basis, Australia would need only 3 incidents in the same time period as the U.S. you quoted to be close to them in terms of how widespread this type of killing spree is. If you include these incidents as killing sprees:

Childers Palace Fire - In June 2000, drifter and con-artist Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people.

Monash University shooting - In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five.

That makes 3 in the last 18 years, putting you on a par with the U.S. in terms of incidents per capita. Not strictly by gun as you mentioned, but I don't think people care if they are killed by gun or fire, they're still dead.

Norway, the home to Anders Brevik mass murderer of 69 people has only 5 million people, 1/63rd the U.S. population, so one incident of mass murder there in the same 18 year period you quoted above, means they have 3.5 times the mass killings on a per capita basis than the U.S., with just one incident.

 

[Danoff]

There was another freedom that was allowed; the freedom NOT to bear arms.
And if you chose that freedom - the freedom NOT to bear arms - then you didn't have to draw. And if anybody drew a gun on an unarmed person - well then the law stepped in right away and took your guns away from you and most times hung you for killing an 'unarmed' man - a person who chose the freedom NOT to bear arms.

What happened to that freedom?

I would say - if you live by the gun - then you have chosen to die by the gun.
If not - no gun should be turned on you.

No gun should be turned on you regardless of whether you are carrying a gun or not. If you are an innocent person, you are not suddenly guilty merely by possessing a gun. If by "live by the gun" you mean that the person has chosen to murder innocent people, then fine, they have no right to life. If by "live by the gun" you mean a person owns a gun, then no, this is not a crime, and it is not punishable by death.

 

[Famine]

It's been related to me that only one lone shooter spree killing (3+ victims) in the last 62 years in the USA has been at a location where civilian weapons were not banned - and that was when Gabrielle Giffords was shot and six others killed in 2011. Every single other one has been at a location where civilians are not permitted firearms.

It was also mentioned that the Aurora cinema shooting took place in one of seven theatres local to the gunman's home showing The Dark Knight Rises that evening. It wasn't the nearest to his home - but it was the only one where civilian firearms were banned.

 

[homeforsummer]

No gun should be turned on you regardless of whether you are carrying a gun or not. If you are an innocent person, you are not suddenly guilty merely by possessing a gun. If by "live by the gun" you mean that the person has chosen to murder innocent people, then fine, they have no right to life. If by "live by the gun" you mean a person owns a gun, then no, this is not a crime, and it is not punishable by death.

I interpreted that differently (though not necessarily correctly), more as a "moral code of conduct" thing in that criminal or not, it isn't really on to actually shoot someone who is unarmed. A bit like that wild west example. Or like Michael Caine in the Italian Job saying "come on lads, you wouldn't hit a man with no trousers on, would you?".

I know morals don't exactly apply to criminals, which is where the insanity thing comes in again - anyone opening fire on a load of kids is pretty low even by armed bank robber or carjacker-type standards. I doubt the ones who don't blow their own head off afterwards get much sympathy when they're chucked in prison.