Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Ryan Lanza said he had not been in touch with his brother since 2010, so its very likely that he took his mother's guns and killed her.
Incidentally, two days before the massacre Adam had tried to buy a rifle at a sporting goods store in Danbury, Connecticut. He was turned down because he didn't want to undergo a background check or abide by the state's waiting period for gun sales.
Considering Connecticut's gun laws are among the toughest in the U.S. and Adam stole his weapons, I really don't think a lack of gun control is responsible for this particular massacre (unlike the Aurora Movie Theater Shooting).
edited 15th Dec '12 11:01:20 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016@43960 Are the people who make the straw punches being held accountable? Because to me it seems that if you buy a gun fro someone then they commit a crime with it you should be prosecuted as an accessory, even if you didn't know they were going to use the gun to commit a crime. If it's so easy to break into the cases where people keep their guns then the security standards for keeping a gun need to be increased. In the UK the police will normally come round and inspect the place where you are going to keep you gun, so as to ensure that it's up to scratch. As for your example, it means that as everyone in the home you rent a room in has effective access to your gun then they have to all be subject to the same kind of checks you are subject to. If you want to keep a gun then keep it safely. That means not keeping it in a locker that can be easily broken into, not keeping it in the same house as someone who isn't mentally sound enough to be around a gun and not buying it for someone else.
Adam Lanza's mother shouldn't have been allowed to have a gun if she was living with someone who could not pass the background check required to buy a gun himself. You don't let someone have a gun if their living with a crazy guy, that's a recipe for fucking disaster.
@43962 Also this.
Edit: forget to refresh.
edited 15th Dec '12 11:36:42 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Against which the idea of police coming in to check and make sure your home is safe for a firearm would generally be said to violate the Fourth Amendment (the protection against unreasonable search and seizure).
Straw purchasers are accounted as accessories in crimes if they have prior knowledge of malice beforehand, and also face a $250,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison for defrauding the US government on the 4473.
What happens right now is that almost all firearms are also required to have devices which lock the weapon into a safe position and prevent the firearm from being loaded and operated. Usually this is a cable lock or trigger lock, and it's recommended (and required in some places) to own a gun locker, container such as a locking case, or gun safe. By definition, a locking container would even be your car's trunk (the "boot" in the British vernacular) qualifies.
The idea that Adam Lanza's mother should require her son to get a background check so that she may have a firearm is also unreasonable.
Did Adam Lanza himself have any actual strikes against him, such as either felonies or a history of mental illness that required him to be placed in a mental institution. Either one of those would have disqualified him, and would be a serious issue presented to his mother, but you cannot punish her and violate her 2nd Amendment rights.
It does sound like Adam himself had some issues, but none so serious to that point as to disqualify him from buying a gun, aside from his age. There's a lot of people with Asperger's Syndrome, and plenty of people who just aren't sociable.
The suggestion being made is that anyone who owns a gun must have a psychiatric evaluation for oneself, their immediate family, or anyone else who might have access to the house. So, if someone close to a potential gun owner fails, that person is therefore punished by being denied their right.
edited 16th Dec '12 12:10:34 AM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!See I find it entirely reasonable that everyone that has access to a gun (even if it's not technically theirs) should have a background check. Likewise that you should be mandated to keep your gun securely seems completely reasonable to me.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI really don't think that's unreasonable, given the number of shootings we've had. I prize the right to life over the right to a gun. And I don't think anyone can sanely argue against the fact we all have the right not to be shot to death by the mentally ill.
That relative will have access to the gun and a personal responsibility to make sure they're not a danger to society. Right now, I have little sympathy for this dilemma.
And whoever things teachers should be allowed to carry guns in schools is a fucking moron. That's just asking for an angry teenager to do something stupid in the heat of the moment.
edited 16th Dec '12 12:51:04 AM by AceofSpades
An average of 70 people are shot every day in the United States, which is actually down from years before. But you don't hear about them because the media simply doesn't talk about most of them. "A massacre" is the only time people give an outcry because of all the coverage surrounding such events.
I think arming teachers who are not prepared to be armed is an extremely dumb idea as well. But I also think the idea of a "Gun-Free Zone" is equally as dumb. We do need security, and Concealed Carry for those who are properly mandated and trained would not be unreasonable (there's a reason why it's called "CONCEALED" - students don't have to know about it). A police officer on the grounds or nearby during school hours would be extremely helpful, as well.
As for what qualifies as mentally prepared or capable of access to a firearm, remember the Fifth Amendment. Due process. Innocent until proven guilty. You're not mentally faulty until you are shown to be a danger to yourself or others and placed into a mental facility. People with known mental issues who wind up in a mental institution lose their right to own a firearm.
You don't have to be sympathetic, you just need to be respectful of the rights of other people.
edited 16th Dec '12 12:29:55 AM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!A. That's not guaranteed. Just because there's a gun in the house doesn't mean the relative would know about it or have easy access to it.
B. It still doesn't change the fact that a person would be denied a weapon if whoever they were living with refused to give out there personal information.
And again despite this year having several infamous shootings, the homicide rate is still going down.
As for arming teachers, it's probably not that good of an idea. If your school needs security just get a guard.
edited 16th Dec '12 12:36:32 AM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Why the hell not? They are gona have access to the gun, if they have access to the gun then they should be checked, makes since to me.
Then again I do some from a country with a radically different gun culture (handguns are banned completely over here). here's a quote from Wikipedia on British gun law to show exactly what I’m talking about.
Edit:
B. It still doesn't change the fact that a person would be denied a weapon if whoever they were living with refused to give out there personal information.
A. Going by the state of you guys gun security law I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that they will have access to it.
B. Tough. Keeping people from getting shot is more important then the 2nd amendment.
edited 16th Dec '12 12:40:04 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
By "have access to" I mean live in the house. If you live in a house where a firearm is kept then you have access to it. The only exception would be that you don't go refusing a permit because the person has kids (who obviously would fail the check on account of being a kid).
Edit: When I talk about kids I'm talking young children, I'm unsure of where the line should be drawn with kids in their late teen (16/17).
edited 16th Dec '12 12:43:56 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranFirst off, in this country it is.
Secondly your missing the point. You're creating this scenario:
Guy 1: I need you to come to the local gun shop, so I ca-
Guy 2: Fuck off.
Guy 1:
And now Guy 1 doesn't get a gun
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Devil, I am being respectful of people's rights. I'm just far more respectful of the right to life than I am to the right to guns. Because guns are a tool specifically meant to take that away, and far too many people use them maliciously, or just plain incompetently. And I do not want a single fucking teacher armed with a gun; that opens up too many opportunities for tragedy fueled by human error and childhood stupidity.
So? Guy one can move out.
Really though, the most infuriating thing about the gun rights discussion is that the Far Right has successfully shut down any attempt to discuss it intelligently for years. We can't have a discussion at all when one side refuses to actually discuss it in good faith. And the fucking NRA is going around stirring up people's fears, ignoring the members that actually agree with points like mental checks and controlling the amount of ammo is sold per magazine and such.
We simply can't solve any of this when such a large chunk of our representatives refuse to come to the table with any intent to genuinely solve this. And when they do come, they bullshit around just as much as they are with the country's debt and welfare issues.
edited 16th Dec '12 12:58:02 AM by AceofSpades
I figured that the special branch background check would include ensuring that no one you live with is mentally unstable and such. I could be wrong but it would make sense.
![]()
That is a valid point, now an alternative I'd be happy with would be that you have to keep your gun in a highly secure storage locker. No leaving it lying around where anyone in the house can grab it, keep it in a secure lock box that they don't have access to.
edited 16th Dec '12 1:09:55 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
Life is more than just being alive. "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" as it says in the Declaration of Independence regarding the inalienable rights of the people.
The mentality here is that you don't need or want Big Brother (or whatever term you might use for your governments) looking over your shoulder every second because you are choosing to exercise your rights.
It's about living the life you want to live while being within your rights to do so. The fundamental idea here is that you are also tasking yourself to be responsible when you exercise your rights. And that includes taking into account the people in your household. The state's responsibility for your choice to exercise your rights ends with you.
People without driver's licenses will have access to your car, but that's why you have the keys, right? And if improperly used, a car can cause havoc just the same. It's up to you to regulate access to your vehicle, your wallet, your computer.
What's the difference? The first thing you will probably say is that "cars are not made to kill people". But the fact that they can be misused and accidents can happen is not in question. More people die in car accidents every year than anything related to firearms (crime, accidents, whatever). There's more firearms than cars on the road in the United States.
Not really, no.
edited 16th Dec '12 1:13:07 AM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!A gun's only function is as a weapon. That's it. It's not useful for anything but killing. And what makes people happy is not having to fear that some wacko is going to come in to their children's school and kill them. That's happiness through peace of mind. It's not the first time that something ends up banned because someone misused something.
It's not like I'm even calling for a total restriction on guns. I just utterly despise and revile the thought on the right that the answer is "arm the teachers" rather than "hey maybe we should look and see if the laws we have could be tightened up". Or "hey, maybe we should rethink our position on making healthcare more available, because this guy has obvious mental issues."
It's absolutely disgusting that they're trumpeting "second Amendment rights violation!" instead of thinking about their responsibility to their constituents to make safe environments. It's kind of fucking hard to be happy when you're fearing everyone around might be a crazy with a concealed gun. So I'm pretty much done with blind defenders of the second amendment. I prize life over guns. Period. You want me to pay attention to you? Propose a fucking real solution instead of claiming it's violating your right to have an object whose only function is to kill.
That threat is always gonna to exist no matter how tough your country's gun laws are. Just ask Anders Behring Breivik.
Finally, Adam Lanza was not (as far as we currently know) mentally ill. So all the Gun Control suggestions that have been offered would do jack sh*t to stop what happened in Connecticut.
Look I agree that arming teachers (or students) is rather stupid. I think we should require people to go through at least a 48hour waiting period before getting a gun. But some of the measures suggested in this thread come off as absolutely draconian. I don't think our gun laws should be any tougher than what Massachusetts currently has.
edited 16th Dec '12 1:31:54 AM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016^^
Although it might not be as effective, you don't even need a gun to do something similar. Just a knife could be enough.
edited 16th Dec '12 1:28:29 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On

edited 15th Dec '12 9:31:44 PM by carbon-mantis