The Connecticut Shooting and the National Gun Control Debate

MajW suggested we open up a thread, forthright and decidedly non-hysterical, about yesterday’s criminal massacre in Connecticut and the national gun control debate.

MMM points to this Twitchy feed about the immediate calls from gun control advocates for more, more, more.

My local news this morning included a mention of “new calls for gun control” or something like that with every story: a steady drumbeat.

Yes, some people and some organizations certainly are calling for more gun control; they are well known and their reactions are not unexpected.

Don’t think for a minute that the so-called mainstream media, being solidly in the progressive camp, isn’t gleefully feeding and stoking this activity.

I say this:

Pray hard, if you’re a praying man or woman, for the souls of the dead and for the comfort of the bereft. Give what you can for any funds for their relief.

Be very wary of calls from politicians and “civic leaders” for sweeping gun control legislation in the wake of this massacre. History is rife with examples of Liberty lost when a crisis is leveraged by clever and deft politicians to increase the authority of the State. Liberty once lost is regained only with difficulty. Gun control is not about controlling guns to reduce crime– it’s about controlling people.

Do not accept the lie that because you own guns that you are part of the problem. You, exercising your rights, is not a criminal act. It is the act of a free citizen. The 2d Amendment protects and guarantees a right, it does NOT protect a right to commit a crime, for there is no such right. Does the 1st Amendment protect a right to commit slander and libel?? (A Girl has a separate but related post from yesterday, highly recommended.)

When you hear the steady drumbeat of calls for nationwide gun control, pay close attention to up or down movement in the sales of guns and ammunition. That’ll tell us more about what We the People think.

Connecticut has very stringent gun control laws, and I expect that school was a “gun-free zone” and that no teacher or staffer was armed. One good man or woman, armed and capable, might very well have been able to put a stop to this massacre and saved some lives. The police, as far as I can tell from reports, showed up only after the fact.

I refuse to turn in my property, legally bought and never misused, and to surrender my rights because of the actions of a murderous madman.


  1. Mike Burke says:

    Jeffrey Goldberg in today's Atlantic website offers some ideas:

    It seems to me that the spate of recent mass killings points up the need for better access to mental healthcare–especially since all the shooters seem to be young men in torment of one kind or another. Keeping them away from weapons ought to be a priority, and the only way to do that, I think, is to expand acces to mental healthcare screenings and treatment. Luckily, we seem to be slowly moving as a nation to universal healthcare coverage, so perhaps sometime this might become a reality.

    Though I disagree with most of what you argue, LtCol P, I think this issue is as much about mental health as it is about access to weapons.

    • Lt Col P says:


      You're right about the mental illness issue. See this, from NRO, mentioning the same subject–


    • seamus casey says:









  2. DaveO says:

    I agree with Mike Burke.

    I am irritated with the slavering Prognazis eager to use the horror of a tragedy to erase the rights of 300,000,000+ Americans. The cops hadn't even finished outlining the bodies in chalk before the nazis started another attempt to punish hundreds of millions of innocent citizens.

    What we've seen for the last few years is:

    1. Young men (not always young, though)

    2. Mentally ill – and free to move about society (see 5 below)

    3. Killed parents, or proxies (teachers)

    4. Locations are invariably gun-free zones, usually schools (elementary, high school, college) to kill people who could not defend themselves.

    5. Everyone who saw it coming could not, by law and lawsuit, do anything about it. Recall that the cops gave an escaped victim back to Jeffrey Dahmer – they didn't want to lose their jobs over what they were told was a lover's quarrel.

    We can't shoot all the lawyers, but I suspect if a massacre happened in a law school, folks would cheer. On the flip side: society's lock-aways for the mentally ill have been characterized as hell on Earth. Lack of oversight, investment and reinvestment, and such have made mental hospitals mythically evil.

    • seamus casey says:








      JUST………PUT UP……..OR………SHUT UP………FORECVER…….SEAMUS OUT….JAN 12, 2013…




  3. VMI Warrior says:

    I personally don't want to get into the "politics" of this issue, at least not yet. I'm still too nauseated. I was horrified by Columbine and VT too, but for Columbine I was younger and had no kids of my own. I couldn't fathom what a parent feels for an injured child. For VT, the victims were mostly adults, and I was in Iraq, surrounded by daily tragedy. This time it's different. 20 kindergarteners murdered is incomprehensible.
    As much as I wanted to avoid the politics, right away, from Bloomberg to Rupert Murdoch to Sen. Boxer started in on the "gun ban" rhetoric.
    So I had to do something. I went to my local perveyor of fine firearms and bought a Windham Weaponry M4A2 tonight. Not because I really really wanted one, certainly not because I need one, but because I can, at least for now, exercise my right. And I have real fears that as soon as Monday (worst case scrnario) the Pres. will introduce "administrative" rules that ban "assault weapons". He's shown he's willing to act extra-legally in the past, and I think he will again.
    Apparently I wasn't alone. The sales clerk said that after 1400 yesterday all they have done is sell M4/AR variants.

  4. James says:

    Here is a conundrum when dealing with the mentally ill and gun access. If I am mentally unstable and under a doctor's care, but have committed no crimes and have no police record, how would the gov't know that I have mental health issues and should not be issued a permit to own? It would seem that my doctor would have to alert the gov't of my condition, which would violate doctor/patient confidentiality. That is a can of worms I do not want to see opened.

    • DaveO says:

      It's already been opened. There's been moves afoot to restrict gun ownership from the mentally ill – but the definition of mental illness is not controlled by science, but by law. Both sides of the debate take extremes, and to a degree use dishonest argument (such as owning stock in weapon-making/supporting companies, for example, or who's ties to organized crime makes gun control a great payoff for the votes).

      What makes the conundrum worse is the evolving definition of sanity when one considers serial killers. They are perfectly, legally sane under the definition of sanity – and they can buy any number of weapons and the ingredients to make weapons. Yet serial killers act in ways that are, in the aggregate, crazy as hell.

      • Bill Cooper says:

        And that makes it OK? That it's black people in Chicago dying by guns? Check out the Bible and see what God says about those who worship Moloch, who demanded child sacrifices. Moloch is a gun, and how long will we tolerate the child sacrifices to Moloch? For you law and order folks, if these were drug-related deaths or sex crimes, admit it, there would be a bad law on the books, with the name of a victim, in record time.

  5. anon says:

    Whatever your view of gun control, and irrespective of the merits of the arguments, what the outcry in the wake of this tragedy proves beyond discussion is that the opponents of guns are driven and animated by emotion as opposed to reason. This many kids die in gun violence each weekend in Chicago, St. Louis and Philly.

  6. Bill Cooper says:

    Listen to you people. Arm the teachers and administerators!?! You're the same goddamn people who have been told by Faux News that teachers are too venal (look it up) and incompetent to have the right to have a union, that they're not qualified to evaluate student progress, and that they are not fit to teach, in short that they are useless parasites, but you want to arm them?

    DaveO, I am a lawyer and I resent your comments. what are you, a parasite gummint employee or, worse, a disabled (drank too much coffee, and blew a kidney)retired vet sucking off working people. Don't insult another person's profession

    Here is my spin, the problem is that we elevate these losers by calling them Evil. They're not Evil, they're losers; they are limp dick, never have had a satifying relationship, are failures at shcool, work life in general. They have been laughed at their whole lives, and they use guns to assert the power over innocent people they cannot do by their personality and accomplishments alone. Calling them Evil gives them a sense of power they have not right to claim.

    As a pasrting remark, fuck the 2d amendment. For you strict constructionists out there, if you have anything but a musket, the constitution didn't contemplate anything else.

    • Lt Col P says:


      I for one have never said that teachers are too stupid to form unions. I have my issues with unions in the public sector, but it's beyond doubt that membership in a union is the legitimate exercise of more than one fundamental American right.

      And I do favor offering the opportunity for a select number of teachers and staffers to train and arm themselves. I don't expect there are more than one or two or three in any given school who have the mind-set to undergo this sort of training themselves to the role. Yet, we need them. Once a shooter is inside a school, and the police ain't there, someone needs to fight back and have the means to do so.

      The "Constitution" never contemplated it– it contemplates nothing but embodies what its authors thought and believed– but the Founders and Framers certainly did when they wrote it, and there's ample evidence in their writings.


    • TrueBlue says:

      For a lawyer you're pretty ignorant to believe that increasing gun laws will have any effect on the criminal element that use guns to kill or threaten people.

      Just as a lock only stops an honest thief, so too do laws only stop honest criminals.

      Facts on the other hand support the pro-gun crowd. As gun ownership in an area increases violent crime goes down. Just look at the decrease in crime in the DC area since the Supreme Court overturned their gun ban.

    • NotChuck says:

      "As a pasrting remark, fuck the 2d amendment. For you strict constructionists out there, if you have anything but a musket, the constitution didn’t contemplate anything else."

      BillC: First, go sleep it off, then re-read what you posted.

      The Constitution addressed raising an Army and a Navy. The 2nd Amendment addressed the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms. It was crafted to avoid having a standing army available to a central government. The militia could be called for the common defense after Congress declared war (another Constitutional requirement). That was the reason why, unlike the other Amendments which restricted Congressional authority ("Congress shall pass no law. . . "), this Right ". . .shall not be infringed." By anyone!

      Your argument about muskets is historically inaccurate as well. The infantry weapon of armies was the smoothbore musket, but civilians had rifles — a technological advance that increased accuracy and range. The national armories didn't adopt rifling until much later. Also, while percussion cap ignition systems, which facilitated faster reloading and more reliable ignition, were spreading widely among civilian riflemen, they weren't adopted by the Army until the early 1840's to replace the flintlock. In the last half of the 19th century, multiple cartridge repeating rifles such as the Winchester and Henry repeating rifles were in common usage among citizens, while the Army relied on single-shot cartridge rifles from 1866 to 1894.

      I don't see anything in the 2nd Amendment or history that precludes me from having to settle for less than today's para-military constabulary for my own self-defense or the defense of others. As a target of leftist hate, vitriol, and death threats merely because of my association with like-minded persons, egged on by the agitprop media, my self-determination of effective defensive weaponry (or offensive if the situation deteriorates sufficiently) doesn't require proving a need to the ignorant.

      As a blood-sucking unproductive leech on society (lawyer), you should know that the courts have held that the police have no duty to respond, so their promise of protection is hollow. How rapidly can they respond? In the Westroads Mall (Omaha) massacre of eight people, it was six minutes. In the Sandy Hook slaughter, it was twenty little lifetimes plus eight others. I would much rather have teachers and administrators who volunteer and get the proper training in the schools.

      Instead we get NYPD Commish Raymond Kelly boasting how the New York City schools have a cop in every school. With apologies to Wayne LaPierre, that shouldn't comfort anybody. Kelly failed to mention the recent incident where his highly trained officers took down 8 (eight!) innocent bystanders as they unloaded on a perp 5 yards away. Why does he even still have a job?

  7. BK says:

    My heart aches for the parents of the children lost. Especially during a time of year in which the happiness of children is so focused. I cannot imagine the horror of losing my own children for any reason but can understand the need to lash out against anything for their harm. In a perfect world, eliminating all firearms in this country would make it safer for our children.

    But this isn't a perfect world, and the statistics don't bare out this line of reasoning. In 2008 (numbers are rarely as current as you would like), there were 16,000 murders committed by handgun. Another 420,000 violent crimes were committed with a visible handgun (rape, assault, robbert, etc.) From multiple surveys (1982, 1993, 1994, 2000), handguns were used on average 1,000,000 times for self-defense (to inlcuding "scaring off," wounding, shooting, or apprehending) against potentially violent crime. Let's emphasize that, in a single year, on average, 1,000,000 people defense themselves and their families against criminals. That's over twice the number who are killed by handguns (and crime statistics generally indicated that many, if not most, of those killed by handguns are involved in criminal activities themselves).

    So we end up with a problem. We could ban all handguns. We could do a nation-wide buy back as Australia did and we could potentially prevent some 400,000 violent crimes per year (and as many as 16,000 murders), including horrible incidents such as the murders of these 20+ children and their teachers in this case. But we could end up suffering 1 million deaths because people were unable to defend themselves from people who were willing to do them harm.

    Where handgun laws have been strictest, such as in Chicago and Washington DC, crime rates fell along with the rest of the country. But they fell at a much lower rate. Gun violence continued in these locations despite the fact that it was illegal to own a firearm. (Or possibly, specifically because it was illegal for potential victims to own a firearm.) Based on a survey of crimiansl (1982) 69% of those surveyed had either been deterred (scared off, shot at, wounded, or apprehended) themselves or knew other criminals who had been dettered by a victim with a firearm (in some cases, when the possesion of a firearm was only suspected but not proven). So that's another 69% of violent crimes that could be expected to occur because firearms were banned.

    This is not a simple problem. And we should avoid the false dichotomy of saying we should have no further restrictions on firearms or we should restrict all firearms. There is room for negotiation over background checks, prerequisite training, tracking, etc. These are things that need to be discussed and carefully considered. But where things are simple, where you look at just numbers, 16,000 murders vs. 1,000,000 incidents of self-defense, the case appears much clearer…handguns prevent more crimes than are committed and to take away that right will mean accepting more murders that could have been prevented.

    I personally have little faith in the belief that an armed teacher or principal could have stopped this. Without sufficient training and an appropriate mind-set, this type of violence occurs far too quickly for most people to do much about it. A few more lives might have been saved but I suspect, not many more. I do, however, believe that our schools are sufficiently vulnerable that dedicated professionals should be employed to protect our most cherished. That in this case, saying a school is a "gun free zone" is only as credible as the people you have enforcing that rule. Granted, when we have schools that are already failing to make ends meet, hiring professional security is not going to be high on the list and we may end up getting what we pay for (mall cops now with guns). But I believe it is a potential mitigating factor that should be considered.

    Finally, for Bill, the 2nd Amendment was specifically envisioned by Madison and Jefferson and the like to account for advancing technology. The fear was always that an ambitious central government would attempt to take away the other granted freedoms and the only thing keeping that government in check would be an armed populace. To argue that they assumed weapons would never advance beyond the musket is foolish and completely ignores the impressive intellects of these Founding Fathers.

  8. Dave says:

    No one is talking about the drugs. We are filling our kids with pills and in my opinion this is the outcome. In the 50's many schools had shooting ranges onsite and offered classes on marksmanship. Now schools are gun free zones and end up being the slaughterhouse of choice by these wackos. Semi-automatic weapons have been around since the Civil War, but these massacres have only become a problem in the last 20 or so years. Again I believe it is the usage of modern drugs (both legal and illegal) and potentially the non-stop violence of modern media (TV, Movies, and video games) that somehow snaps the governor on people inclined to commit such heinous acts. I don't expect the LL medial to pay any attention to these sources though. I have an AR because it is the only thing that will allow me to dictate the situation in the event of a major earthquake which is a reality where I live. I fully expect the majority who are not prepared to come and attempt to take from those of us who are. My AR ensures it will not be easy for them to do so.

  9. MajW says:

    AND THERE THEY ARE……. "the founding fathers wouldn't agree with this", and, the age old "my 2nd amendmemt rights are being trampled!", and, the tried and true: "I'll be ready by god when the world ends" and all that "cold-dead hands" malareky. You know what, I got it – I understand, give it a rest for God's sake.

    Before you all excoriate me, you should know that I'm a staunch supported of the second amendment, I support gun ownership, I know the importance of a strong personal defense as a combat veteran, AND, I am especially in fear for it all with this event and this President….

    Men, this is not the time to break out the tired, old, mantra that conjures up what the people now in charge think of as the tired ramblings of a bunch of coverall wearing, wheat stalk chewing, cowboy hat sporting, scared country bumkins. -yeah, that's right, that's how they see us whether you like it or not. Live here in DC with me and eat dinners out with the people who are making policy here and field questions from them like – what is an assualt rifle, or, why would I need to protect myself, or, "did you know people in Texas can walk around with a pistol in a holster on their jeans and no-one will arrest them? Isn't that dangerous? that need to stop….". Nobody pro-gun control people up here are sitting around discussing the intellectual merits of gun control… they just know that they don't like guns, they dont understand their neccesity, AND, they have zero experience with them… what in god's sake would you expect of them. They have the high ground now and if you think this is going to pass unaddressed – hey – you're delusionsal.

    So as you all start screaming about what they don't care about, or KNOW about for that matter, I'd begin to start thinking of it interms of DADT…. You certainly didn't like it, you know the reasons why it may not work, you know that it's counter to our country's moral's, but you know what, it steamed down the tracks like a hell-bent coal locomotive on fire and as you guys listened to it's whistle from over the horizon, you had your backs to the tracks wringing your hands with each other on how bad it was… it not only blew through the station, it knocked you flat as it hauled ass into the distance, not stopped or even slowed. Thats what is happening at this very instant whether you like it or not – and I have news for you – this debate is yet another train hauling ass towards the station and this time it's bigger, meaner, and faster than the last one.

    Now is the time to rethink the whole arguement – and you know what – I'm not sure what that new argument is, but I know now is the time to do what we do as professional soldiers, Marines, airmen, and sailors – we look the problem in the face and get something going to fix it and move on.

    Come on now – we know there are some problems – let's find a solution – really.

    • MajW says:

      Here's an interesting article which highlights my earlier comments on how we need to change the entire argument and perceptions surrounding gun ownership – this take on the perceptions of recently developed industries (google, ebay, amazon, paypal… all "new era" companies) that reflect their philosophy on gun ownership is instructive. Also, it details WWP's refusal to have anything to do with guns. I personally find this a pretty weak – they probably couldn't get large donations from more wealthy clients and firms without doing so.


      Tom Gresham of Gun Talk Radio details the recent revelation that the Wounded Warrior project–a frequent recipient of donations from the firearms industry–is, in fact, anti-gun.

      From Gresham:

      Does the Wounded Warrior Project (WWP) have a bias against guns and gun makers?

      Two weeks ago that would have sounded crazy, but this week many shooters are convinced that it’s true. Hundreds of hunts and shoots are held as fundraisers for the WWP, and gun companies donate to WWP for its projects. How could it be that this $185 million (2013 projected revenue) outfit could be anti-gun?

      It started with a simple invitation — I wanted someone from the Wounded Warrior Project to join me for the Veteran’s Day episode of my national radio show, Tom Gresham’s Gun Talk. I had no idea it would turn into a national dustup which now has the gun rights community in a turmoil — so much so that people are burning their Wounded Warrior Project shirts.

      We were disappointed when the Leslie Coleman, PR director for WWP, said they couldn’t come on the show, but that happens. Schedules don’t mesh, things happen, but that’s not uncommon. No big deal. Except that Ms. Coleman said they were declining because we “are related to firearms.”

      “While we appreciate the interest in having a WWP representative on your show on Veterans Day we are not able to participate in interviews or activities with media/organizations that are related to firearms,” said Ms. Coleman in her email.

      That really rocked us because we knew of all the firearms-related activities used to raise money for WWP. I asked for clarification, and Coleman reconfirmed their position. That Sunday I talked about it on the air and sent out a tweet (@guntalk) with the information. Some doubted that I had reported it correctly, so we posted the entire email exchange on our Facebook page.

      That lit the fuse, and hundreds (if not thousands) of gun rights supporters contacted WWP for clarification. The response was . . . a bit bland. Mostly it was along the lines of “We support the Second Amendment . . .,” but the WWP web site specifically called out the firearms industry as one it would not “co-brand” with. That is, it would not allow the use of its logo on guns (and it turns out, on knives, either.)

      The other industries it won’t co-brand with? Alcohol and sex.

      Coleman’s explanation that guns are used in suicides, and suicide is a big issue for returning vets, set off a firestorm of response. WWP quietly started making changes to its web site, removing mention of firearms, or changing it to “weapons.” Online firearms boards documented the changes, posting the before and after. The pressure mounted on WWP.

      By midweek, with the help of the Professional Outdoor Media Association, WWP offered to put its CEO, Steve Nardizzi, on Gun Talk Radio to explain what they now called a big misunderstanding that had been blown out of proportion. I welcomed the chance to clear up this mess, which no one wanted. I hoped that Nardizzi would announce a change in the policy.

      He didn’t. Once on the air, he said they support the Second Amendment (which really did remind me of when President Obama starts a sentence that way), and that they participate in hunts and shoots as fund raisers. Yes, we knew that. But what of the policy blocking the use of the WWP logo on guns? In fact, the policy prohibits the use of the logo at fundraisers where there is shooting, though that seems to be flexible.

      No, he said, they would not “co-brand” with firearms or knives. The return on investment just wasn’t there, he explained. I asked why they would turn down the money from such a program when it didn’t interfere with their larger projects (ketchup, clothing, etc.), and he explained that co-branding requires much internal coordination with lawyers, PR people, and others to manage it, and that I wouldn’t understand it. Hmmm.?

      What if we offered to cover all their internal expenses, and then co-brand (use their logo on guns and knives) as a way to contribute to WWP, I asked. Would that be okay? I never got a straight answer to that.

      There was much back and forth, with it quickly taking on the feeling of dealing with a politician who has to be there, but who doesn’t really want to answer the questions. To get the full flavor of the interview, you can download it or listen online.

      Nardizzi even went on the offensive, saying he can’t believe we would withhold donations from wounded vets because we don’t get anything out of it (use of the logo). This feigned indignation didn’t fly. I explained that we have many avenues for donating to our veterans – WWP is only one of many – and that just because someone decides not to support a group which he thinks has taken an anti-gun stand doesn’t mean that person isn’t going to continue to contribute — just to other groups.

      Having been in the gun rights fight since before the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, I’ve seen a lot of changes. For decades I’ve said this fight really is a struggle for public opinion. We have made great strides. Forty years ago a majority of the U.S. population thought that handguns should be severely restricted. That’s not the case now. Through education and exposure the public recognize gun owners as “normal” people just like them. This is huge.

      On the other hand, there is a major push to demonize and marginalize gun owners, gun makers, and the shooting sports. It is in this light that I see the WWP policy of prohibiting gun and knife makers from using the WWP logo. What are they telling the world?

      Take the longer view. Ebay blocked firearms from being listed. Paypal blocks the use of its service for buying guns. Google blocks guns, dealers and makers from searches in its shopping service. We have reports of banks closing the accounts of gun makers simply on the basis that they won’t do business with the firearms industry.

      Each of these is a very public way of saying “We don’t do business with ‘those people’.” Each is a way of saying that reasonable and responsible people should have nothing to do with the firearms business. We are being put into the same box as pornography.

      Sure, the Wounded Warrior Project is only too happy to take our money. They “allow” shoots and hunts as fundraisers, but they don’t want their logo associated with us. They are saying in a very public way that they refuse to be associated with us.

      Some have suggested that there is pressure from the board, from big donors, or from elsewhere, to prevent the use of the WWP logo on “weapons.” Honestly, I don’t know and don’t care. I just know it to be a continuation of the demonization of firearms, the firearms industry, and those who use guns responsibly.

      There is no doubt that the WWP does good work. That’s why I’m left disgusted and sad at this whole affair. But I know that we never win when we shrug and put up with this kind of treatment.

      Throughout last week we continued to hear from people and groups which have been rebuffed by WWP because the groups were involved in firearms. One significant donation from a company in our industry was returned because it came though a faith-based foundation.

      One element of this rather sad tale has been gratifying. The firearms community responded instantly to this with questions and pressure — so much so that WWP recognized they had to go public to answer the charges. The connectivity of the gun rights movement through the internet made that possible. It has changed the game.

      I had hoped that WWP would come to its senses. Once it became clear that the policy would not change, many identified and donated to other groups which help vets, and which are only too happy to be associated with guns, hunting and shooting. Last Sunday I had someone from on the radio show. Each week for the rest of the year, we’ll have various groups which help wounded veterans on the radio to help them get additional exposure.

      On Gun Talk Radio I created a “No Shrug” policy. We will always speak up. No longer will we just shrug when faced with a distorted media report about guns. No longer will we just go about our business when a politician makes outrageous claims about gun owners.

      No longer will we continue to give money to, or do business with, any outfit which in any way labels us as “undesirables.” To shrug and just go on is to not just accept the demonetization but it actually agrees with it and supports it.

      No longer.

      -Tom Gresham

      About: In its 18th year of national syndication, Tom Gresham’s Gun Talk Radio airs live on Sundays from 2PM-5PM Eastern, and runs on more than 135 stations, plus on XM (Ch. 165) Satellite Radio. All Gun Talk shows can be downloaded as podcasts at and Apple iTunes, or through one of the available Apps: the Gun Talk iPhone App, the Blackberry Podcast App, and the Gun Talk App for Android on Amazon. The Gun Talk Minute on XM also airs on XM 165, 166, 168 and Fox Sports every day throughout the week. More information is available at

      Wounded Warrior Project CEO Confirms Organization Is Anti-Gun and Anti-Knife | The TF&G Report

      Wounded Warrior Project CEO Confirms Organization Is Anti-Gun and Anti-KnifePosted on November 27, 2…

  10. Doug says:

    As long as there are handguns and rifles available massacres will happen and even the lefty Piers Morgan and NY Times reporter Frank Bruni said eliminating all guns was not feasible. So that leaves the human side of the equation. Whether a case like this where a gun owner essentially made available several weapons to an unbalanced person, or when a once sane person goes off the deep end. The only way to try and prevent this is by screening gun owners for mental stability. Now, I am not talking about sending everyone to a pshrink, however, if owning a weapon required a mandatory 10 to 20 hour class on the safety, laws and firing of a weapon I believe a person's true colors will come through. An unstable person might be able to pull himself together long enough to work through the current system, but this would be less likely over the course of a class. The instructor would have to be trained to pick out potentially unstable people for either further review or to deny them a weapons permit. Plus it would make me feel better knowing my fellow gun owners are at least stable and not likely to put a round through my wall while they clean their weapon.

    • Maj W says:

      Doesn't that then insert yet another government official in the approval process? What if it was run locally or run through a quasi gov body like cmp? In fact, why not run it through cmp?

      • Doug says:

        It does not bother me that another government official will be involved. You would not privatize the DMV so it would make sense to run this the same way. If nothing else the workers at such an agency would be nicer to the customers since they would all likely be armed!

        • NotChuck says:

          It does bother me that another government official will be involved. First, any such agency would be hugely overwhelmed by demand.

          Secondly, since this would be an approval process and the goal of the anti-gunners is disarmament of the public, it would be deliberately understaffed and underfunded, leaving millions without "permission."

          Thirdly, how long would it take to work the kinks out? When CCW was first passed in my state, the State Highway Patrol recommended that a person be required to get a permit for EACH CCW weapon he/she might carry. Caught carrying the weapon not listed on the permit of the day would be a felony.

          I used to work in a small gun store near a base, and on more than one occasion, general officers were negatively flagged by NICS because they had recently been subjects of other background checks — for TS clearances!

          Finally, you must surely be aware of Sen Coburn's recent attempt to get 150,000 PTSD-suffering veterans (and veterans who were having financial difficulties) who were arbitrarily placed on the NO list by the VA to at least be granted judicial hearings to get their rights restored. But Sen Schumer was having none of that! What will be the standard another government agency follows for you (me) to even get in the front door to get training evaluation? Atty Gen Holder suggested putting every gun owner on the No-Fly List!

    • BK says:

      Two issues here, first of all, it still would not have done anything to mitigate this problem. The shooter was not the gun owner and therefore would not have been required to take the classes you are suggesting. His mother would have taken the classes and while she sounds like she was a prepper, that doesn't equate to mentally unstable in most definitions. So the woman would have gotten her weapons and her son still would have been able to killer and take those weapons to the school.

      Secondly, as you point out yourself, what if the shooter is a "sane person [who] goes off the deep end"? Mental stability may be fine when he first takes the coure, but twenty years later when he finally snaps and kills someone, that course and the potential for this highly trained instructor you are talking about would have done nothing to prevent this.

      Like most suggestions being offered in response to this tragedy, your response does nothing to mitigat this threat. It only serves to further infringe upon the 2nd Amendment. Furthermore, a study of mass killings has demonstrated that fire arms are NOT the weapon of choice. Rather, arson, closely followed by explosives, is the most effective/lethal way of killing large numbers of people. And then you have the really inventive types like the guy in Cologn who went to the local garden center, got himself a pesticide sprayer and turned it into a flamethrower. Went to the school busted in the windows with his home made mace and set fire to the people inside. Stricter gun laws would not have prevented any of that.

      But do you know what would work in every one of those cases? An armed and proerly trained security guard. Show up at the school with a couple of high capacity magazine pistols? You get a bullet in the face. Park your truck next the building and act suspiciously? You get a warning shot, and then a bullet in the face. Show up with a homemade flamethrower? Yep, bullet in the face.

      Anybody who's been to Israel knows that the Israeli's didn't go out of their way to increase legislation with regards to the type of suicide vests that could be worn by their discontents. They recognized that they could not "out law" the problem. Instead, every supermarket you go to, every bar, every nightclub, has a guy sitting out front with a pistol and the training to kill anyone who might threaten his patrons.

      You cannot confiscate every weapon in the US. There are far too many. And even if you somehow convinced every legally owning, lawful abiding citizen to give up their weapons, there is no reason to suspect criminals would do the same. Realistically, it is cost prohibitive to have a buy back program on the scale necessary. Why this continues to be discussed at all is beyond me.

      • Doug says:

        Yes, it would not have mattered in this case, but the idea is to limit the number of massacres because, unfortunatley, as long as there are weapons on the street these horrific accidents will happen. The same holds true if the principle or a teacher were armed. He could have simply shot her down and continued on.

        My main point is something will have to be done because a majority of Americans want some kind of action.

  11. Maj W says:

    I wonder if the NRA could have pulled a bigger boneheaded move than to have THAT press conference with THAT topic on the day of the national memorial to those slain. Boneheaded, bneheaded, boneheaded… you've hit rock Wayne – keep digging fellas!