Elementary school shooting

Say the aim was to restrict US weapon ownership to small magazine bolt action guns with a more rigorous permit system.
You'd pass that law and have an amnesty period for handing guns and ammunition in. Compensation would be needed preferably focusing on buy backing ammunition. People might keep guns hidden away but with ammunition running out within a decade long time frame they'd be useless.

The political difficulties would be far more complex than actually implementing it.

 

Basically. Other simple rules are:

- ban the sale of cheap firearms;
- ban the sale of automatic firearms. Nobody needs a "spray and pray" for home defence;
- permits are conditional on proficiency exams and mental health assessment. Doesn't have to be the State that does it; can be a privately practising mental health professional trained in such assessment. Applicant pays.

Of course they could just levy tax on ammo. The proceeds fund better mental health care.

 

You cant. You can't solve the issues of school shootings this way either. The only thing that would be achieved would be that of making it more difficult (and expensive) for law abiding citizens with no criminal record to arm themselves, and I believe that would be the purpose of the execrise.

 

Frankly, I don't want the average "law abiding citizen" to have a gun either. They can barely manage cars responsibly.

 

We could do that, we could suggest restrictions on cars also, but that wouldn't solve the issues with drivers under the influence. They would find a car either way. And run some citizen down. Perhaps even a crowd.

If enough people started doing that, and media would cover it, we would have the same discussion we are having now, but this time not around guns but about around cars. "Oh my god someone drove right into that daycare center, second time this year" we MUST restrict car ownership this is madness. But that wouldn't solve anything, other than making it more difficult (and expensive) for law abiding citizens to obtain their drivers licenses and their cars.

Obtaining a drivers license (including lessons) are both expensive and difficult enough as it is already. In fact, it has become so expensive today that many people simply can't afford it.

Transporting yourself is not a privilege either, as I see it. But a right. Just as it is within your right to defend yourself, as well as have the means to do so.

 

The difference is you can kill far more far more easily with a gun than any other currently legal tool.

 

Where & when did this notion of 'rights' come from exactly?

I see so often people saying they have the right to do X, Y & Z, and even that certain things are a 'God given right' ( don't get me started... ). Rights are an illusion, a human construct, a word to describe the idea that you somehow are allowed to do certain things because of some invisible, intangible thought process resulting in a sense of entitlement that is only enforceable because it is laid down in law ( another human construct ).

No, you don't have the right to do anything- you have the ability & privilege, in reality- if the law changes then you lose that privilege.

/ Nexxo mode.

I'm a gun-loving socio-path myself but running amok and killing innocent people will never be on my agenda as I have no delusions of grandeur or want to be infamous; it pains me that las are introduced that hurt the law abiding and sensible ( gun owners etc ), but in the case of America I think something has to be done. There is no central, all encompassing policy on firearm ownership, nor education for that matter, thus leading to some states having very lax laws, and others being unduly restrictive.

You do have to wonder why some countries with high gun owner ship levels have such low crime figures though- Canada could certainly teach the yanks something, if they'd listen...

Don't be so naive; at the same time as the shooter was killign 20+ people in America, a nutter was hacking up kids with a sword in China. Banning things is wholly ineffective; if not a gun or sword, then kitchen knives, baseball bats, bricks, rocks, screws drivers make very effective killing instrucments too. It's attitude towards life & social apathy / moral decline which is the issue- not the tools....

 

Transporting yourself is a right (freedom of movement). Doing so by driving a one-tonne chunk of metal capable of travelling at 100+ MPH is a privilege.

Self defence is a right (self-preservation). Doing so with a weapon that fires high-velocity rounds with great range at possibly a high rate is a privilege.

These things are privileges because they come with responsibilities attached; because innocents can get hurt if you do it wrong. And we do in fact restrict who can drive a car: those over 17, who are physically and mentally capable, and after a proficiency test, and only when insured for liabilities. The car meanwhile has to be assessed to be road worthy.

How many US gun owners had to pass a proficiency test? An eyesight test, even? A test of metal ability? It takes more to get a drivers licence than it takes to own a gun.

 

I never suggested that with rights no responsibilities would follow. It's a right to eat, with it also comes responsibilities.

 

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about here, when people are under the influence and drive, it is almost always their own car, and their attitude that they are ok to drive/don't care. They don't get drunk and car jack someone on a rampage

 

So the answer is to do nothing and potentially allow the situation to get worse? This guy used an assualt rifle to gun down his victims. He might be able to source an illegal handgun quickly, but it HAS to be harder to get your hands on an illegal assualt rifle, surely?

Yes, he could have turned up with a handgun and wrought havoc, but isn't there a chance for some more to escape, than if he turns up with a rifle and 30 or 40 round magazine?

Yes, I have reduced it to a numbers game, but that's the point isn't it? Reduce the numbers of guns and, through attrition, the numbers on the street will eventually decline.

What I'm having a hard time with is the "responsible" pro gun people don't want stricter controls. Why? If they are indeed responsible, then screening ought not be an issue for them. I get the feeling this opposition is driven more by the weapons manufacturers' lobbying groups, whose only interest is sales; and barely pause for thought about this tragedy, except perhaps to wonder if it was one of their weapons used and if and when it will be mentioned on network news coverage. All publicity is good publicity, if your target demographic is a potientally unstable gun nut.

 

I'm all for being able to own guns as I do target shooting and hunting. I don't need a gun for self defense though. Shouldn't have to. I like how Canada has their gun laws. We can get access to Ar-15 type guns and .50 cals and such. But you have to go through the training and you are only allowed to get one if you are going to shoot them at the proper range.

For regular hunting rifles and such you can shoot them off-range, but still have to go through training.

I think it's very close minded to say no one needs a gun, but to allow anyone to get a gun so easily is plain stupid.

 

You couldn't of picked a worse example given no one died in that incident.

Name me a legal item which can be used to kill quite as many people as a gun.

People might still go on a murderous rampage but with a lot less people dying due to the most lethal tool no longer being available.

 

You tell people "give us your guns and we will give you some cash monies" (expensive maybe) and those who do not know they are going to commit a heinous gun crime in the future do so. Also so do the parents of the kid who manages to get hold of the gun etc.

Its not easy, but since when have worthwhile endeavors been easy?

edit: also guns for shooting ranges - just keep them locked up in the charge of a sensible person with thorough psychiatric profiles

 

Kitchen knife, bare hands- works for many serial killers, and with a little skill can be very effective and swift. Far cheaper and more readily available too.

Contrary to popular belief, guns are far from 'one shot-one kill' like in the movies, especially so with smaller calibre models. It takes a knowledgeable individual with motivation and training ( of a sort ) to kill people with a gun in rapid fashion, as opposed to just maiming them due to poor accuracy or weak projectiles ( .38s can be deflected by heavy clothing or a car windscreen for example ).

 

+1. Alas I fear the only way sensible measures will ever get put in place is if both sides decide to approach the issue without spouting their particular dogma and that, as the drug debate has already shown, is highly unlikely.

 

I have actually shot guns and I'm aware there not that easy to use and indeed it is would be preferable to receive a gunshot wound to a kitchen knife stab wound.

I'm certain though that if I had a (hypothetical) room of people who I wanted dead I'd much rather have an automatic gun rather than a knife or any other implement. (Well explosives but we're talking legally available.)

 

It's all about training and education. You have to qualify for a CC license in the states. Take a look at the recent NYC shooting.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/index.html


Being an average citizen has little to do with firearm competency. If anything your safer around someone whos hobby is firearms. They're likely to very well educated and sane. I'd like to suggest going to a gun sale show, or a shooting range and just talking with some of the people there but I don't think you have either of those where you live. Perhaps they have knife shows since that seems to be such a problem over there.

Already done in the states. Though I don't think it should matter what type of gun I have for home defense.

I'd like to see this.

Not really. He could have showed up with a glock with a 33 round magazine. If he was proficient with his firearm he would do just as much damage maybe even more.

Car.

 

You do realize that none of these ideas would have prevented what happened in Connecticut. All the guns used were not his and were not cheap guns purchased by a person that (for all we know) would've passed a mental test. I know, I have a gun with very similar specs as the Bushmaster .223 which is what I wanted to get but was too expensive so I ended up getting a Ruger mini-14 which is basically the same spec-wise but not as nicely built or as reliable.

Also what you are proposing regarding taxing ammo for a specific purpose has a long history of eventual failure in the US from water usage rates to tobacco taxes to pay for children's health care. Eventually, the rise in costs drive down usage and in a vast majority of these schemes, the programs that benefit get grossly unfunded. It could also be argued that it disproportionately penalizes people who have less money, therefore live in less safe areas and could most benefit from a means to defend their lives and property from criminals and the rates of violent crime are much higher.

 

Actually, automatic weapons are still very much legal in the US, however, you have to submit to a more intense background check and get special permission from the ATF.

For those that want to do away with gun entirely, what is the intended net result? You'd still have a society without widespread access to mental healthcare. I believe we need to think a little more about why these occurrences happen in the first place instead of being so reactionary.