Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008
Is there any chance we could acknowledge that maybe, in fact, there are some gun control measures that are actually reasonable responses to a massacre such as this? Even if we agree that calling for another AWB would not be one of those measures?
|
Like what?
While the facts are still coming in. She knew her son had problems. I would hope she had her guns locked up. He may have forced her, who knows? She probably believed her son wouldn't harm her. He should have been in a hospital.
I don't tell people this, but one of my older brothers is diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic. (Lanza may not have been schizo, but you have got to be seriously
fucked up to shoot and kill kids like that.) He doesn't live with me, so I don't have to be watchful unless he's around. But I never turn my back on him, even if he is on his meds. While he's never been violent towards any family members, but when he's off his meds he believes people are going to kill him, particularly our father. It happened to him in his late teens, early twenties like most others. He was in a care center for about seven years, now he's out on his own with his girlfriend. He was never bad enough to be put into a hospital.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008
*As with Aurora, I really hope that nobody believes conceal-carry laws would have made a difference in Newtown. When the perp has an AR-15 and body armor, he'll outgun anybody carrying a concealed sub-compact Glock or .38 snub.
|
body armor? I thought they were just tactical vest. Even with body armor it's still going to hurt like a bitch, unless you're the North Hollywood guys. With Aurora I don't believe someone there with a CCL would have made a difference. It was a dark and packed theater. The chances of a clear shot would have been nill. Newtown, maybe.
The biggest problem I have with an AWB is that most homicides that used a firearm are with handguns.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...es/10tbl20.xls http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...ables/table-20 Illinois homicide rate is actually higher I think, they don't give out complete info I guess. It's probably up there with Cali.
Quote:
Originally Posted by commando552
First of I just want to say that I am not trying to stir up anything here, am genuinely curious. How would the American gun owners on here feel about being required to have a firearms licence before buying firearms or ammunition? By this I don't mean like a license in the UK which is quite involved to get, I mean something like an hour or two classroom instruction on basic gun safety along with a background check. If you were required to show a license then the sale could be tracked if required, and would flag up instanced of criminals or the mentally ill trying to buy firearms or ammunition. If you need a license to drive a car, then it is my feeling is that there should be something along the same lines for you to be able to buy a gun which is potentially mush more of a danger to other people. I'm assuming that there has already been much discussion about stuff like this, just curious what the opinions on it were.
|
I have a CCL, I went through a basic safety course that was about 3 to 4 hours long. Most everything taught I already knew. I was fingerprinted which was sent to the FBI and all that good stuff. Most of the form you fill out is about the same as a 4473. I wouldn't mind a firearm licence which "I" basically consider I already have, if it done away with the NICS. I think in GA if you have CCL it bypasses the NICS.
The thing about criminals (this is the way I think anyway). They don't want to pay retail for a gun, like a law abiding citizen would. Especially if they have to dump it later on. So they either steal them or buy one that they know to be stolen. Or have their girlfriend do a straw purchase for a Hi-Point.