27 dead in Connecticut school shooting: reports

[Catch-up]

Know what you mean! I like to pretend I'm one of the sane ones, but my opinion is probably biased.

[raisindot]

The first one is to outlaw alcohol. No drinking means no drinking & driving. The number of alcohol related deaths should be cut by well over 50% at least. At 5,000 lives per year saved how can we not take that step? The problem here is that this was tried somewhat recently and it failed miserably. People still made, obtained and drank alcohol.

So better still is the other half of our problem - driving. If we simply outlawed driving, the number of drinking and driving deaths would approach zero. On top of that would be the other 30,000+ deaths that would be prevented from non-alcohol related accidents. And unlike drinking, it's readily apparent when someone is driving.

As we can see, the problem is really that those aren't needless deaths. Those deaths enable us to have a great amount of freedom. Those deaths provide for the massive pulse that drives a thriving economy and makes the nation prosper. What this demonstrates is that we are willing to tolerate a certain number of innocent human deaths for the comfort and functionality of the nation as a whole. This is a fact.

Sorry, but your arguments don't hold water. The purpose of an automobile is not to kill people. The purpose of alcohol is not to get you drunk. Guns have only purpose: To cause damage or death. They have no other useful purpose, unlike, say, a knife which is generally designed for other things, like food preparation or opening packages. So to equate something whose purpose is to kill or damage and brings no economic or societal benefits to anyone who owns them (except for bank robbers and muggers) with another object (such as a car) whose purpose is primarily to provide economic and social advantages is sophistry.

And, contrary what the gun nuts say, the Bill or Rights does not guarantee unlimited freedom of any kind in U.S.. If your religion promotes the slaughter of others, its members will be arrested. If your newspaper advocates terrorism or the violent overthrow of the country, it will likely be raided and closed down. If you go searching around online for recipes for building bombs and become a member of the I love Al Queda web group, you may find FBI agents at your door. If you yell "fire" in a crowded theater you're likely to get arrested for disturbing the peace.

So why shouldn't gun ownership have limits as well? There is no reason on Earth why anyone other than the police or the army need automatic or semi-automatic weapons. For 99% of the population who believe they need a gun for protection (and this is a legitimate reason) a handgun or a shotgun will serve as a very effective deterrent. No one's rights would be trampled upon if these kinds of weapons--whose only purpose is to kill and damage the largest number of living things in the shortest amount of time--were either outlawed or made extremely difficult to obtain.

But even put this issue, there are things that can do done right now to keep a higher percentage of guns out of the hands of the insane. If I were in charge, I would institute federal rules, applicable to every state in the union, that would require anyone who wanted to purchase a gun would have to:

1) have to apply for a permit at their local police station or a state office specifically devoted to gun-related oversight;
2) be subjected to a background check that includes disclosure of any mental illness--yes, this will have to disclosed;
3) require the applicant to pay a significant amount of money to take a standardized firearms training and safety course; 4) make it the legal responsibility of whoever administers the course to fail the applicant if they perceive that this person's behavior makes them a risk (and allow victims of gun violence to sue the trainer if the person who passes the test ends up killing people within a certain period after obtaining the permit);
5) require that every single gun purchased be registered (serial number) with a local police authority;
6) Require every licensed gun owner to renew their permit every 2 years, and a new background check would be part of this process. Those who failed would have to surrender their guns
5) Require all private gun sales to be registered with local police departments demonstrating that both seller and purchased have the required permits (and make it a crime if this doesn't occur)
6) Require every single gun seller, whether in a store or gun show, not sell a single weapon to anyone who doesn't already have a current gun permit and to register the purchaser's permit information and send it somewhere (a state gun registry?) , and make the sellers liable on a criminal and civil basis if they fail to follow these procedures.

For anyone who thinks these sound draconian, essentially these are the same procedures people need to follow to drive and buy an automobile in the U.S. Why should it be easier for someone to buy and use a weapon whose sole purpose is to kill than to buy and use a vehicle? In any case, they wouldn't infringe on anyone's right to own firearms; they would simply add steps to make sure buying something designed to kill isn't as easy as buying a pack of gum.

Now, unfortunately, this wouldn't have worked for the Newtownn killer, since he selected his weapons from his mother's formidable arsenal. However, he only did this when he failed to pass Connecticut's extremely tough gun control laws. Had his mother not had this arsenal, it's quite likely this would not have occurred, since he did not seem like the type of person would have the kinds of connections to purchase semi-automatic weapons on the black marker. It will never be possible to stop all of these kinds of events, but given that most gun deaths occur when the shooter kills someone he knows, anything that can be done to put some 'waiting time' into the process that requires the would-be owner to be subjected to multiple checkpoints can only be of benefit to society as a whole.

[RSoak]

For the record I don't now and have never owned a single gun. Well, that's not techincally true. I have two, non-functional family heirloom rifles (Civil War & WWII) over the mantle. In fact, I don't really have a specific gun viewpoint.

What I have are very strong and clear notions about how a gov't should operate. And our gov't is about as far away from that idea as possible. Handing rights over to a gov't that has in the past 40 years demonstrated time and time again its inability to govern responsibly is not really a road I'd like to go down any further.

But you can't make huge leaps or connections between defined points in a persons life, then say that you understand them. Everyone is individual and you cannot generalise what a person is like just from a description on a piece of paper or on the internet..........so how the hell can someone generalise what a whole nation is like from what's in the paper or on the internet. Go live with the culture for a decade or two. Then you may have the right to offer an opinion......but it will be still that just an opinion. Everyone sees a different truth.

Taking a tangent from chili (and chili, if that's a rant, we need to get you enrolled in Ranting School ), I would suggest that one tempers one's viewpoint with a bit of experience. Think about who you actually know that owns guns and determine how they treat them. However you must also think about those who don't own guns and their reasons for that choice. That will give you an educated opinion on gun responsibility where you live.

I understand the viewpoint that they have a singular purpose, while I do not agree with it. Anything in the world can be used in a function other than for which it was designed, and that goes both ways. A gun can be used for recreational purposes while a hammer can be used to kill. The world features weapons in its grandest international sporting event. So there is unquestionably a recreational and competitive aspect to weapons.

The comparison to cars was to point out that you can't restrict everyone based on a very small percentage. Current estimates count US gun owners at roughly 80 million. The proposed laws and bans are aimed at controlling those gun owners with severe criminal intent. For argument's sake, let's say there are currently 50,000 gun owners with either mental issues or simply evil intent. It is an absurdly high estimate, but it serves to make a point. Fifty thousand is 6/100 of 1% (.000625) of total gun owners. This is the striving for perfection that I am talking about. You have 79,950,000 controlled, responsible gun owners - 99.999375%. That's a pretty damned good score.

Striving...believe me, as somewhat of a perfectionist I get striving. However in almost every case you need to be aware of where that point is where you will say, "This is as close as we're going to get and trying to improve further will do more harm than good." I'm not at all saying we have reached that point. What I'm saying is that we, as a nation, have not even considered the defining that point.

[Jack Remillard]

Striving...believe me, as somewhat of a perfectionist I get striving. However in almost every case you need to be aware of where that point is where you will say, "This is as close as we're going to get and trying to improve further will do more harm than good." I'm not at all saying we have reached that point. What I'm saying is that we, as a nation, have not even considered the defining that point.

You brought in your Mum's saying that 'the enemy of good is perfect'. Well, it doesn't appear to me as though America "as a nation" has even been trying to be good, let alone perfect in this matter*. Perhaps as there now seems to be a real desire for change, things will get a bit closer to 'good'.

But maybe the time to worry about 'how much is too much?' is after making some progress.

* Re-reading this, I seem to be ignoring the many Americans who have wanted change for a long time in this matter but have not been able to accomplish that politically, which is not my intent. Many Americans have been trying, but not enough.

[Bickaxe]

And, Bickaxe, we get it. Americans are all crazy, every last one of us and any insight or feedback on the gun culture from someone who's lived here their entire lives is just some BS excuse in your opinion. You've made up your mind no matter what someone else has to add and that's solidly your problem.

Either you picked the wrong name Suzanne or I somehow hit a nerve with my comment. I'll go for wrong name as the gun owning Americans I know are very responsible people with some very high end security protecting their gun lockers and the opposite end of crazy. And they play video games and never had the urge to go on shooting sprees before video games get blamed....Daily Mail, I'm looking at you.

The only Americans that I think are crazy buy spray cheese but that speaks for itself.

[raisindot]

What I have are very strong and clear notions about how a gov't should operate. And our gov't is about as far away from that idea as possible. Handing rights over to a gov't that has in the past 40 years demonstrated time and time again its inability to govern responsibly is not really a road I'd like to go down any further.

Really? I have opposite viewpoint, and can look at the major U.S. government policies and programs of the past 50 years as examples of where the federal government's actions benefitted the people, mainly by overturning harmful, laissez-faire policies and laws of states and their corporate allies.

1. Eliminating state laws (including those in Texas) that prevented blacks from voting and from sharing buses, water fountains, restaurants and other public places with whites.

2. Eliminating lax state environment standards by passing tough clear air and water acts that have improved the quality of life for millions of Americans

3. Established fuel efficiency standards that helped to dramatically decrease our dependency on foreign oil

4. Establishing and funding highly successful early education initiatives (such as a Head Start) that have helped millions of at-risk children get on a path toward receiving an adequate education.

5. Overturning state laws that outlawed a woman's right to choose.

6. Establishing workplace safety standards that have made workplaces much safer for millions of Americans, particularly in states with laissez fair attitudes toward regulating businesses.

7. Established 401k plans have allowed millions of Americans to save on their own for retirement without having to worry that their company will run off with the pensions that state laws didn't protect.

8. Funded billions of dollars worth of highway construction projects that have improved commerce and travel for hundreds of millions of Americans, when many states lacked the resources to do this on their own.

9. Established Medicare, which, for many elderly Americans offers the only way they can afford health care of any kind, since states were clearly unwilling to pick up the tab for their elderly residents.

10. Allocated millions of acres of wilderness to national parks, preventing state from turning them into strip mines, strip malls, and ugly housing developments

11. Spend billions of dollars to clean up toxic waste dumps that became that way because states didn't regulate them.

12. Bailing out the failing auto industry, saving millions of jobs and restoring its health

13. 'Nationalizing' student loans by taking the banks out as middleman, which leads to lower interest rates and fees for the students who need them.

14. FINALLY passing legislation that, if ever enacted, will keep greedy investment bankers and their cronies from ruining the U.S. economy because of this lack of federal oversight.


I could go on and on and on about how U.S. government regulations that keep states from allowing corporations to pollute, overdevelop, and destroy natural resources that belong to the nation as a whole benefit everyone--except for those corporations. Yes, there is a lot of waste in government and any number of things it does wrong, but on matters of critical importance I would trust the U.S. government to protect my interests long before I would trust my state government or any corporation.

[RSoak]

The only Americans that I think are crazy buy spray cheese but that speaks for itself.

Amen, that stuff is horrific.

[RSoak]

I could go on and on and on about how U.S. government regulations that keep states from allowing corporations to pollute, overdevelop, and destroy natural resources that belong to the nation as a whole benefit everyone--except for those corporations. Yes, there is a lot of waste in government and any number of things it does wrong, but on matters of critical importance I would trust the U.S. government to protect my interests long before I would trust my state government or any corporation.

Raisin, I'm pretty sure I never made the contention that the US gov't has never achieved anything worthwhile, nor that only the federal gov't was at fault. If that's how my remarks were interpreted, I apologize. However, 1) a number of your points are only 'successes' when viewed from a specific vantage point; and 2) I could draw up an equally long list of miserable failures.

I'm not here to cause dissent or pick fights and I'm not making anything personal.

[raisindot]

I'm not here to cause dissent or pick fights and I'm not making anything personal.

Nothing personal intended. We only bash people's ideas and opinions--never their right to express them. And, believe me, this one doesn't even come close to some of the nastiest exchanges around here, usually involving debates over Pyramids, Dr. Who and fanfiction.

[Catch-up]

Um..... I guess I got a little personal a few pages back. Erm.. there were.... extenuating circumstances. Yes! Extenuating circumstances! And as soon as I think up some good ones, I'll share them. But in the meantime a general "sorry" to everyone. I have never done that before (that I can remember) and I promise to never do it again (if I can remember this promise).

Bickaxe, if I misunderstood or misread in some way, sorry! I'm going to assume it was my mistake because until I suck down this second cup of coffee, there's no point in trying to go back and see where I went wrong.

[Bickaxe]

I've read a lot of your posts over the years Suzanne (and bugger me that's a lot of reading!) and I can't think of a single occasion where you've done that. Obviously you got hacked by some crazy woman who hadn't had enough coffee so I hold you in no way responsible.

But still....spray cheese...

[Dotsie]

Well Susanne, now you just sound crazy

[Bouncy Castle]

Hollywood says "Enough".

[Jack Remillard]

That's pretty good. I hope it helps.

[Conforumist]

Kristen Bell of the bare arms has spoken!!



Oh, and I think there were a few others in there too...