Like all legislation, if they propose legislation they should make sure that it would have prevented the incident if it had been in place before the incident . Most legislation don't even come close. The so called assault weapon ban sure ddnt,

People shouldn't propose legislation that will cut off millions of people' freedom on a knee jerk response to a tragedy that wouldn't have been prevented if the legislation had been in place before.

Dave

Pardon me, but that's an unworkable standard. Acts such as murder, rape, robbery, embezzlement are all against the law, yet people still commit those crimes regardless -- does that mean we shouldn't have laws making those acts illegal in the first place?

Laws are deterrent, not preventive, since it's unreasonable to expect any law to guarantee it will prevent a determined enough person from breaking it. Even if you're willing to go to Orwellian lengths, you're never going to actually guarantee some one person won't commit a criminal act -- the best you can do is make the punishment harsh enough so as to be a deterrent in most cases, or put enough logistical road blocks in the way such that they, too, become a deterrent (or, ideally, both).


Inconclusive, actually. Since the ban lasted only ten years, in a society so saturated with guns, that wasn't enough time to gather any really meaningful data one way or another.

Plus, how do you gather data on a person intending a crime, but who actually was deterred by a law and its consequences and walked away? There's just no way of tallying that kind of thing ...


A few points:

a) This kind of thing has happened often enough that I'd think the suggestion of reviewing our gun control laws as a result is hardly a "knee jerk" response at this point ...

b) Nobody is suggesting repealing the 2nd Amendment (although that could be an interesting national dialogue). And if, say, passing a law limiting ammo clips to single-digit rounds is "cutting off millions of people's freedom," then perhaps it's time to also have a conversation about what we actually mean by "freedom" these days ... And,

c) With the person dead, it's unknowable wether a particular law would have prevented him from committing this specific act. Again, such a standard is untenable since the data we have available isn't that definitive or fine-grained -- the best we can do is find trends in crime rates and whatnot, and even that can be a bit fuzzy. All of which doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and not examine how we as a society should be addressing this issue.

I totally agree on the single digit clips... IF you can have only 6 shots you either have to carry lots of clips, or lots of weapons. They're going to be harder to conceal in those cases and maybe in some situations, the shooter will be spotted before they start. Plus if you have to reload every 6 shoots, maybe they'll get nailed, or removed in the process, thus limiting the carnage.

Think of this - there are clips you can get with 30-33 shots... you pack only 5 of those and you can kill >150 people. The facility can hit the 9-11 alarm after the first shot BUT with that firepower - anyone can take out >100 people before the Police even arrive. That is INSANE - that capability has nothing to do with freedom and only mass killings !

Now the assault rifle ban - it'll take 10-20 years to reduce the weaponry in this country . . even if you did ban large clips. You could have any weaponry ban and not see tangible results for years. BUT the fines or penalty would have to be VERY severe, so the risk to the average person isn't worth it. NRA can still have their hunting rifles and limited hand guns, etc.. but we don't need citizens to be armed to the hilt like they're hitting Normany beach ! SOME say they need it so the Federal Govt won't think of becoming a dictatorship or stripping their freedoms. Really, you're that delusional ??. IF that really happened, "you" really think you can take on the whole armed forces with your 30 round clips ? . . .they'll probably send in a drone to take your sorry azz out so you won't even get the satisfaction of a firefight ! There is just no justification for their wanting this huge capacity for firepower.. it's lunacy !

Plus we tried "Dodge City"- how'd that work out ? There was a reason they checked guns at the city limit. ONLY then did things become "civilized". How in the HLLL did we ever get here ?
More people with guns that have insane firepower only feeds the paranoia !!

What people call "Dodge City" is a misconception. The town of Dodge City was kept wild on purpose to bring in the cattle from Texas. They did ths for about 15 years from 1872 to 86. When the boom died. They tried to keep a balance so that the town could profit from the cattle drivers when they were paid at the end f the drive. They spent their money at the numerous saloons and brothels, bath houses, cafes. Also the men would buy fancy clothes, and tack.

I saw a receipt from Robert Wrights store ( the main mercantile) where his daily gross was over $4,000 that's a lot of money in those times and for a town with pop of 1500.

They wanted to keep the drivers liquored up. So they tried to keep the guns down.

But why the mass shootings now, when it is hard to get legal weapons when for decades is was easy but not so many publicized shootings? Is it the attitude of the populace? It must be. Why don't folks look at the prevalence of the populace to use drugs. When I was in school, I never worried about getting shot at school. Why not? Every farm boy had a gun in his car or truck. I did on occasion have a car at school. When I did it often had a rifle in it. No one thought about it. Why now. Can't be the guns. There are no guns at school now. Haven't been for years. Can you say that about drugs?

But peeps who like their drugs say they are no problem. Peeps who like their guns, say they are no problem. Interesting isn't it. Oh, but people who like their drugs say that when they are using them they aren't thinking of killing people. Well, people who work with guns recreationally aren't thinking of killing people, in fact, they are very cautious.

Dave

While I disagree that it's hard to get legal weapons these days, the underlying question is a good one -- definitely part of the problem is societal. My take on this is that back when you and I were going to school, massacring people by the room-full was unheard of -- so far out of our experience as to not even be an option we could consider. Not that the world was necessarily a less-violent place back then, but a vast majority of Americans were blissfully ignorant of such violence, even if only conceptually.

By contrast, in 2012 not only are such things part of our daily lives -- via TV, movies, the interweb, etc. -- but they are positively tolerated. And I can't help but think that our failure as a society to react concretely to such events since Columbine* has only added legitimacy to their being seen by disturbed minds as valid forms of expression. Not that disturbed minds wouldn't imagine such things regardless, but that we have basically done nothing to make killing large numbers of people in a short period of time more difficult certainly makes that kind of thinking more likely.

Drugs are also a problem, but in a vastly different way. Or maybe I've missed the coverage of theater-goers being violently assaulted with dime-bags of weed ;-)


*I use Columbine as the starting point since it was the first such event to really spark a national sense of outrage, if for only a little while, that I can think of.

Reasonable gun control and better mental health protocols are a big part of the problem. But let's not forget the media. The glamorization of violence — especially gun violence — in video games and movies and on TV is very much a part of the problem. Yeah, I know... Freedom of speech. But a line has to be drawn somewhere.

What is hard about buying a gun today? You can buy a 30 round assault rifle at Wal-Mart.

http://reviews.walmart.com/1336/19235996...ews/reviews.htm

40% of guns are sold at gun shows and there is a "loophole" that says guns sold at trade shows don't require a background check. Huh???

The ad doesn't say what Walmart stores carry this rifle. In our store, they don't sell firearms at all.

I still contend its not that easy.

Dave

No, I tend to agree with B on this - none of those comparisons are seen as constitutional rights. Any attempt to interfere with such rights must at least have some prospect of achieving the desired objective although I'd be inclined to replace his use of the verb 'would' with 'could' (have prevented the incident).

km

Well, if you make that replacement (with which I agree), you change the standard significantly. My point was that since no law can guarantee someone won't break it (or at least try to), using that as a standard for drafting the legislation in the first place isn't terribly realistic =)

I do agree that passing a law that doesn't have at least a reasonable chance of achieving its purpose is a complete waste of time ...