The aftermath - realistic assessments of the situation please

[No1der]

Jim, thank you. I appreciate the links and I'm familiar with all of them. As they say, this ain't my first rodeo. If I am to be honest, right now, today, I am unable to tell anyone where I stand. Maybe once the emotion of the situation settles down a bit within me I'll come around but it's a strange place I'm at right now.

I did make a new thread regarding an SKS I'm considering so it's not that I've turned against guns, I haven't and I'm not going to get rid of my own. My thoughts, rather, linger around whether or not I trust every Tom, Dick & Harry to purchase a tool that can deal such incredible destruction to such incredibly innocent people (kids).

Like I said, my mind is in uncharted waters and I find myself questioning a lot of my own beliefs.

[JimDandy]

Just have faith that they are capable of as much good as evil, if not more. And not every Tom, Dick, and Harry can buy one.. even this guy didn't buy one.. he stole them.

[K_Mac]

A condition on your firearms certificate here is that the firearms have to be locked away in a approved gun safe. The safe has to be bolted to the wall only the gun owner is to have access to the safe. The police check the safe and if its installed properly before a firearms certificate will be granted.

The idea that the police would have the right to enter my house to monitor/approve the way I secure my guns, and that my ability to own them is based on their approval is antithetical to my rights as a free man. I understand this idea is as offensive to much of the world now as was when we told England we would do things our way whether they liked it or not. I could not care less.

[No1der]

Thanks Jim, I know what you're saying and I'm not arguing with you at all. I probably need a little more time to come to terms with everything.

Whoever mentioned Police coming into anyones house to see their gun-safe? That is 100% unacceptable. I'd rather there be a ban than to have Police in my house double-checking where and how I keep my guns.

[Webleymkv]

The discussion seems to be turning towards what should be done now which is a very good thing IMHO. If we are to weather this storm without substantial blows to our rights, we're going to have to be able to offer meaningful and easily articulable solutions of our own rather than just rejecting any and all new proposals.

I think that most of us can agree that a new AWB or similar gun control laws are not the answer here. Lanza undoubtedly broke numerous state and federal gun laws in the commission of his heinous actions and it seems obvious at this point that he neither respected the law nor feared the punishment for breaking it. Because Lanza had no regard for the law and because there is no reasonable way to make every possible means of committing mass murder unavailable, it seems to me that focusing on the tools Lanza used is the wrong approach.

Mention has been made of Lanza's access to his mother's guns. I think it's really too early to make judgement calls based on that because we still do not know exactly how easy it was for Lanza to gain access to said gun. More broadly, I think that mandating all gun owners to keep their firearms locked away from children is a more complex issue than many might think and is frought with unintended concequences. Not all children are the same and some are psychologically and emotionally stable and mature enough to be trusted with firearms at a remarkably young age while others obviously are not. Compounding this, children can, have, and do use firearms for lawful self-defense more often than one might think. While not a perfect solution, I still feel that the ultimate decision about how much access a given child should have to firearms should remain with that child's parents or legal guardians. I would have no problem holding adults legally responsible for crimes or negligent accidents that minor children might commit with their firearms, but such is already the case in many, if not most, jurisdictions. Lanza's case is somewhat different, however, in that he was 20 years old and thus legally an adult himself.

The mental health issue is another in which we should tread carefully. Mental health is one of the most complex areas of medicine and there is surprisingly little consensus on the best treatment and even definitions for many disorders. While the litmus test for abridgment of rights is generally whether or not individuals poses a danger to themselves or others, that is not as clear cut as we'd like it to be. We must be very careful that, in our attempts to keep guns out of the hands of the extremely small number of people who are dangerously ill that we don't abridge the rights of those who are not unnecessarily. The more important facet of mental health that I think needs to be addressed is the availability and quality of mental health care in our current system.

The final, and IMHO most important, issue that needs to be addressed is the security of our schools. No matter how restrictive our laws nor how good our mental health care system, someone will eventually slip through the cracks and attempt to do something horrible again. We need to transform our schools from "soft targets" into "hard targets" where people like Lanza are not free to carry out their deranged intentions while meeting little or no resistance. It is no accident that these sorts of mass murders usually occur in areas with little or no police presence and where the victims are likely, if not guaranteed, to be unarmed.

Some have proposed stationing armed guards in schools. As Tom Servo has pointed out that presents financial problems particularly for small communities without deep coffers. These financial problems could, I think, be addressed through the allotment of federal funds to districts that cannot afford such measures on their own. Furthermore, this whole "gun free school" nonsense most certainly needs to be re-examined. Lunatics like Lanza obviously do not care whether or not guns are banned on school property while the ban serves to ensure that the victims are helpless. I see no good reason that school faculty, and in the case of colleges students, who meet the legal requirements to carry a handgun for self-defense in their state should not be allowed to do so in a school. The whole property rights argument of schools (colleges in particular) has lost me, your property rights do not trump my right to self-defense.

[manta49]

we told England we would do things our way whether they liked it or not. I could not care less

Do you realise how you sound harking to 1775. I thought we were bad in N Ireland talking about ancient history but i see i was wrong.

[JimDandy]

Actually they do. My property rights trump your self defense rights. You don't need to be on my property. You don't need to go to college, don't even have a right to. You see where I'm going here? Your employer can ban guns in the workplace if they so desire. You can either carry and be fired, quit, or not carry. You can't take them to court to force them to allow you to carry. Unless they're a state or local agency, and your state has preemption laws that work in your favor and don't prohibit in the state agency you happen to work at whch is so narrow and unlikely to fall exactly into place that its not really worth mentioning.

[No1der]

The discussion seems to be turning towards what should be done now which is a very good thing IMHO. If we are to weather this storm without substantial blows to our rights, we're going to have to be able to offer meaningful and easily articulable solutions of our own rather than just rejecting any and all new proposals.

I think that most of us can agree that a new AWB or similar gun control laws are not the answer here. Lanza undoubtedly broke numerous state and federal gun laws in the commission of his heinous actions and it seems obvious at this point that he neither respected the law nor feared the punishment for breaking it. Because Lanza had no regard for the law and because there is no reasonable way to make every possible means of committing mass murder unavailable, it seems to me that focusing on the tools Lanza used is the wrong approach.

Mention has been made of Lanza's access to his mother's guns. I think it's really too early to make judgement calls based on that because we still do not know exactly how easy it was for Lanza to gain access to said gun. More broadly, I think that mandating all gun owners to keep their firearms locked away from children is a more complex issue than many might think and is frought with unintended concequences. Not all children are the same and some are psychologically and emotionally stable and mature enough to be trusted with firearms at a remarkably young age while others obviously are not. Compounding this, children can, have, and do use firearms for lawful self-defense more often than one might think. While not a perfect solution, I still feel that the ultimate decision about how much access a given child should have to firearms should remain with that child's parents or legal guardians. I would have no problem holding adults legally responsible for crimes or negligent accidents that minor children might commit with their firearms, but such is already the case in many, if not most, jurisdictions. Lanza's case is somewhat different, however, in that he was 20 years old and thus legally an adult himself.

The mental health issue is another in which we should tread carefully. Mental health is one of the most complex areas of medicine and there is surprisingly little consensus on the best treatment and even definitions for many disorders. While the litmus test for abridgment of rights is generally whether or not individuals poses a danger to themselves or others, that is not as clear cut as we'd like it to be. We must be very careful that, in our attempts to keep guns out of the hands of the extremely small number of people who are dangerously ill that we don't abridge the rights of those who are not unnecessarily. The more important facet of mental health that I think needs to be addressed is the availability and quality of mental health care in our current system.

The final, and IMHO most important, issue that needs to be addressed is the security of our schools. No matter how restrictive our laws nor how good our mental health care system, someone will eventually slip through the cracks and attempt to do something horrible again. We need to transform our schools from "soft targets" into "hard targets" where people like Lanza are not free to carry out their deranged intentions while meeting little or no resistance. It is no accident that these sorts of mass murders usually occur in areas with little or no police presence and where the victims are likely, if not guaranteed, to be unarmed.

Some have proposed stationing armed guards in schools. As Tom Servo has pointed out that presents financial problems particularly for small communities without deep coffers. These financial problems could, I think, be addressed through the allotment of federal funds to districts that cannot afford such measures on their own. Furthermore, this whole "gun free school" nonsense most certainly needs to be re-examined. Lunatics like Lanza obviously do not care whether or not guns are banned on school property while the ban serves to ensure that the victims are helpless. I see no good reason that school faculty, and in the case of colleges students, who meet the legal requirements to carry a handgun for self-defense in their state should not be allowed to do so in a school. The whole property rights argument of schools (colleges in particular) has lost me, your property rights do not trump my right to self-defense.

Yeah, I do agree with you that we should be the ones to be proactive and that we, the gun owning community, need to be the ones to make some of the first proposals from our end. Naturally this is a multifaceted problem and guns are a minor aspect of it but I do believe that we need to be the ones coming up with solutions before solutions are imposed on us.

Who knows more about this community than we do? Nobody. So if any rules are to be made, and it is looking like the will be made, then we should be the ones to, at least, have a voice in making them.

People, myself included, are very upset and they have every right to be. If we take our standard circle the wagons stance I think we will marginalize ourselves and that is a terrible fate as we will never be taken seriously again.

Like it or not, we need to probably have a talk amongst ourselves about what we would like to suggest in the form of solutions in so far as the gun debate extends. We obviously can't speak for other communities like mental health professionals as it is IMHO up to them to propose solutions from their end.

Keep in mind, I'm still very much in a strange place with all of this and nothing I'm saying is absolute or etched in stone. I'm just thinking out loud.

[K_Mac]

Do you realise how you sound harking to 1775. I thought we were bad in N Ireland talking about ancient history but i see i was wrong.

Mantra49 you make a good point. I contend that reference to the start of this grand experiment is relevant though.

Now answer me this: Do you realize how it sounds to suggest to most Americans that the police have the right to approve my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms?

[manta49]

The whole property rights argument of schools (colleges in particular) has lost me, your property rights do not trump my right to self-defense

Like terrorists they want a easy target. If you secure one area they will go to a less secure to carry out the shooting. You can't guard every area were children gather. Why has it got to the stage in America that people are talking about turning schools into armed compounds. People are always talking about crime rates in the UK and Europe. It hasn't got to the stage that we have to have armed guards at our schools. PS Any thoughts on why.

[JimDandy]

We love our kids better, that's why we give them better beef and dental?

Truth be told, they're talking about barbed wire topped 12 foot fences and patrolling german shephards for the same reason theyre talkin about banning the black rifle. There was just a catastrophe, and everyone wants to do SOMETHING.... that SOMETHING is colored by their perspective. When the emotion drains away, and America as a people start moving on, we won't be talking about putting a Bradley on the front lawn of every school in America anymore.

[No1der]

I have been thinking about the idea of having an armed and trained person stationed at every school and I've seen something mentioned on another forum that doesn't sound too outlandish.

What about using a rotating schedule for member of the Armed Forces aka National Guard for legal reasons. They are already on the Government payroll and making this a part of their duties isn't beyond the realms of possibility.

I don't think that military uniform/garb would work in schools as it could scare children and adults alike but perhaps there could be a more civilian looking uniform adopted? Also I don't think that the idea of an automatic weapon being carried around in plain view is all that great so I'd limit it to sidearms or other concealable or non-blatant firearms.

It's just a thought and certainly not fully baked.

[Webleymkv]

Actually they do. My property rights trump your self defense rights. You don't need to be on my property. You don't need to go to college, don't even have a right to. You see where I'm going here? Your employer can ban guns in the workplace if they so desire. You can either carry and be fired, quit, or not carry. You can't take them to court to force them to allow you to carry. Unless they're a state or local agency, and your state has preemption laws that work in your favor and don't prohibit in the state agency you happen to work at whch is so narrow and unlikely to fall exactly into place that its not really worth mentioning.

Very briefly so that we don't stray too far from the topic at hand, the majority of schools and colleges receive at least some government funding. Most people private property and business are not government funded so they can set whatever rules they like on their private property. It is quite different, IMHO, when a college or other institution gladly takes John Q. Taxpayer's money and then tells him to go hang when he doesn't like being stripped of his rights while using the facilities that he paid for. Your argument carries some weight if we're talking about schools that are 100% privately funded, but those are a very small minority.

[DanWesson357]

manta49
Safe Firearm Storage
It is your responsibility to ensure that your firearms and ammunition are stored safely and securely at all times. You must take any necessary steps to prevent unauthorised access, so far as is reasonably possible. A gun cabinet is required - specification BS 7558 (1992) - and it must be secured to the fabric of a building.

If you are moving your firearm and ammunition by vehicle then it must be hidden from direct view and stored within a locked box or secured to an anchorage point.

PS Seems reasonable to me.

I agree. And like I said, NOTHING is a failsafe. Seatbelts aren't either, but does that mean we must throw a fit over enforcement of seatbelt laws? I don' think it's unreasonable.

[manta49]

]Now answer me this: Do you realize how it sounds to suggest to most Americans that the police have the right to approve my Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms?

Its not so much that the police approve if i can have a firearm. There are checks if someone wants a firearm. Criminal record checks. Allowing the police to check with your doctor for mental health issues. With all the talk of gun control in America baning certain firearms etc. Checking for mental health issues securing your guns so only you have access to them could help. Banning certain firearms and mag cap limits won't.

[DanWesson357]

No1der
There's an old saying that a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. I mention this because I think that is the mindset in Washington right now. I can honestly say that I'm not certain how I feel about this. The tragedy in Newtown was/is horrible and definitely a watershed moment that has caused this gun enthusiast to seriously reassess this long time gun enthusiasts beliefs.

Please nobody jump on my back for saying that, I'm not making any kind of political statement at all. I'm making a personal statement about my own state of mind in these very troubling times.

Edit: Sorry for the clumsy way in which I said what I said.

This is exactly how I feel as well. The death of 20 children will do funny things to you. Yes, it is emotion. But I still find myself questioning if perhaps we need to make some changes. But the key is, WHAT changes?

[No1der]

Its not so much that the police approve if i can have a firearm. There are checks if someone wants a firearm. Criminal record checks. Allowing the police to check with your doctor for mental health issues. With all the talk of gun control in America baning certain firearms etc. Checking for mental health issues securing your guns so only you have access to them could help. Banning certain firearms and mag cap limits won't.

Police checking with your doctor? No that is not viable in the least. There are very strict laws against the release of patients personal details by medical professionals and I quite frankly agree with these rules.


Edit: I mean think about it. If your doctor is now the person who decides what you are and aren't allowed to do then you're going to do everything in your power to not see your doctor.

Lets say that this rule were limited to mental health professionals. OK, so now we have a situation where people with depression or other serious but mundane illnesses will avoid getting help.

Lets say that your beautiful marriage breaks up and you end up in counseling. Well, now you're seeing a mental health professional. So one word from him and you can never buy another gun again? Really?

That's why this is not viable. We don't want people avoiding their doctors and avoiding getting much needed medical help. This would possibly cause more problems than it would ever solve.

[manta49]

Police checking with your doctor? No that is not viable in the least. There are very strict laws against the release of patients personal details by medical professionals and I quite frankly agree with these rules.

The police don't have the power to check with your doctor without your permission. I have nothing to hide so i have no problem giving permission. They don't get your medical records the doctor is asked if any treatment would affect your ability to own a firearm.

Quote Police Service N Ireland Firearms application.

A18 I give my consent for the police to approach my GP, consultant or other medical authority to obtain factual details of my medical history if necessary.

Lets say that your beautiful marriage breaks up and you end up in counseling. Well, now you're seeing a mental health professional. So one word from him and you can never buy another gun again? Really?

Situations like that would not prevent you form having a firearm. Do you think someone with Lets say paranoid schizophrenia or other sorts of mental illness causing them to be violent or unpredictable should have access to firearms.

[No1der]

The police don't have the power to check with your doctor without your permission. I have nothing to hide so i have no problem giving permission. They don't get your medical records the doctor is asked if any treatment would affect your ability to own a firearm.

Quote Police Service N Ireland Firearms application.

A18 I give my consent for the police to approach my GP, consultant or other medical authority to obtain factual details of my medical history if necessary.

OK, so what happens if you see a psychiatrist for your phobia of aluminum cans as well as your regular General Practitioner.

The psychiatrist tells the cops, sure I don't see a problem while your GP is completely against guns and based on this alone tells the police he doesn't think it's a good idea for you to have a gun. Which doctor trumps which? What rules do they follow for making such a decision concerning your rights? What is the criteria?

[Webleymkv]

Like terrorists they want a easy target. If you secure one area they will go to a less secure to carry out the shooting. You can't guard every area were children gather. Why has it got to the stage in America that people are talking about turning schools into armed compounds. People are always talking about crime rates in the UK and Europe. It hasn't got to the stage that we have to have armed guards at our schools. PS Any thoughts on why.

The differences between what security is needed in the UK and what is needed in the US is much more complex than gun laws. The US and UK are different cultures with different problems and different levels of diversity. Also, to clarify, I'm not suggesting that we should turn our schools into fortresses, but rather that stationing a police officer in a school and simply allowing the people who are licensed to carry elsewhere carry in schools as well would go a long way towards preventing or at least minimizing the damage of deranged mass murderers. In all fairness though, I seem to recall that the impetus for the very stringent gun control laws throughout most of the UK was a highly publicized school shooting in Scotland, so the UK isn't immune to it either.

Its not so much that the police approve if i can have a firearm. There are checks if someone wants a firearm. Criminal record checks. Allowing the police to check with your doctor for mental health issues. With all the talk of gun control in America baning certain firearms etc. Checking for mental health issues securing your guns so only you have access to them could help. Banning certain firearms and mag cap limits won't.

So what mental disorders would barr one from owning a gun, how are they diagnosed, are there objective or subjective criteria? Also, what sort and how much information can your doctor disclose? As I said before, mental health is an extremely complex issue that needs to be dealt with carefully to ensure that people's rights are not abridged unneccesarilly or unjustly. Afterall, an irrational fear of spiders and psychotic hallucinations are two very different things even though they can both be classified as mental illness. Likewise, suppose someone is seeking treatment for a mental illnes that was caused by sexual abuse as a child as opposed to someone undergoing treatment for a mental illness that causes them to torture and kill small animals. Obviously some details and background information is more private or relevant than others, and we must be careful not to betray the patients' confidence unnecessarily.

You have to understand that here in the US, we view keeping and bearing arms not as a special privelage reserved only for those who can show good cause, but a fundamental right of a citizen. As such, abridgment of that right is subject to the same scrutiny as abridgment of any other fundamental right such as freedom of speech, trial by jury, or freedom of religeon in that it is the government that must show cause to deny the rights of a citizen rather than the citizen showing cause not to have his rights denied. The government bears the burden of proving that one is too dangerous to have a gun rather than the citizen proving that he isn't.

[manta49]

OK, so what happens if you see a psychiatrist for your phobia of aluminum cans as well as your regular General Practitioner.

The psychiatrist tells the cops, sure I don't see a problem while your GP is completely against guns and based on this alone tells the police he doesn't think it's a good idea for you to have a gun. Which doctor trumps which? What rules do they follow for making such a decision concerning your rights? What is the criteria?

Having being treated for depression in the past wouldn't ban you form owning a firearm serious mental illness could. If your appalachian it rejected you have the right to appeal.

[No1der]

Lets take it further.

Lets say that you are a veteran returning from Afghanistan and you have PTSD or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. You've served several tours of duty and you are now home and you want to buy a gun.

PTSD is a mental illness and many shooters in the past who have committed murder have had PTSD while 99% have not committed murder (yet).

So, now we have someone who served his country with emphasis on using a firearm and now that he's home, what should his psychiatrist say based on the vets PTSD alone?

Edit: Should a Veteran have to make the choice between getting help for his PTSD and his right to own a firearm?

[BikeNGun1974]

The tragedy in Newtown was/is horrible and definitely a watershed moment that has caused this gun enthusiast to seriously reassess this long time gun enthusiasts beliefs.

If an event like this, which is only about a half a degree off from other mass murders that have happened in the past, caused anyone to rethink their beliefs, they haven't thought their beliefs through very well.

[No1der]

The tragedy in Newtown was/is horrible and definitely a watershed moment that has caused this gun enthusiast to seriously reassess this long time gun enthusiasts beliefs.

I said I was questioning my beliefs regarding firearms, I didn't say that I'd completely lost my mind.

I also admitted that nothing I said is etched in stone or that anything I'm suggesting is fully baked just yet and I said I needed time.

I know what I'm questioning myself about, doesn't mean I've changed my mind on it. I also know what I find completely out of the question.

[manta49]

I seem to recall that the impetus for the very stringent gun control laws throughout most of the UK was a highly publicized school shooting in Scotland, so the UK isn't immune to it either

There were two incidents that lead to strict gun controls in the UK. The first ban was on semi-auto rifles except .22.

Crimes That Shook Britain: The Hungerford Massacre
8 May 2012 13:50

One August afternoon in 1987, a heavily-armed Michael Robert Ryan shot and killed sixteen people - including his own mother - before turning a gun on himself. It remains one of the worst shooting atrocities in British history.



The seckond lead to the ban on handguns.

Shortly after 9 a.m. on March 13, 1996, Thomas Hamilton, a 43-year-old former Scout leader, burst into the gymnasium of a primary school in the tranquil Scottish town of Dunblane.

Within minutes 15 children aged five and six had died in a hail of bullets. One died later in hospital. Their teacher, Gwen Mayor, a 44-year-old mother of two, died in the attack, reportedly while trying to shield her pupils. Two other teachers were also seriously injured while heroically trying to protect children. Hamilton turned one of his four handguns on himself and was found dead at the scene.


It didn't stop other incidents.



Twelve people have been killed and 25 injured by a gunman who opened fire in west Cumbria.

A body thought to be that of the suspect - taxi driver Derrick Bird - has been found in the Boot area.