You know, it's this thread that makes me proud to be a member of this community. The fact that reasoned thought and debate can go forward without the extreme finger pointing or knee jerk reactions is something that we should all continue and build on. They (whoever they are) to Fukshots point, should put us in charge of exploring policy on this type of issue. We can get heated, as we should in an issue like this, but above all, reason prevails. One of the the things that for the most part, liberals do pretty well. Except on this issue, but we seem to be able to bridge that gap fairly well on this forum.

So I guess I'm just saying thanks everyone for contributing to this conversation, we need to make sure that we do our duty and call our senators/congress people to keep them at least a little honest on this issue.

Now is the time for action. I plan to contact my representatives, identify myself as a liberal gun owner and ask for their position on gun issues and give my opinion, universal background check for all gun sales, insuring that the severely mentally ill with violent tendencies are barred from firearm ownership, domestic abuse be promptly reported by the police so the abuser can be flagged. Firearms must be secured unless the owner is present and can exercise control.

I would urge others to express their views. I know there will be differences, we are not like the NRA sheep, we are like a herd of cats but we must let our presence be known. At the very least it will piss off the NRA. We might even be able to influence people


I am affected by this more than other shootings because I was one of the first students to attend Sandy Hook Elementary school. When it opened in early 1956 my 6th grade class went there. I spent 7th grade there and 8th grade went to the High School. It is too damn familiar. The people have changed, I only recognized one name, but it is chilling to see the curving drive and the trees my class planted.
Because of the horror of the slaughter of the innocence, there will be a demand for action and most likely action will be taken whether wise or foolish. Lets not be on the side line.

Fukshot wrote:

larrymod wrote: But I do want to thank everyone for this thoughtful and considerate discussion. You know where else you can go for a thoughtful and nuanced discussion after an event like this?

Nowhere, that's where.

Seconded. I have never been more proud to be a member of this forum.

Yesterday and today, none of my conversations about this shooting have failed to include mention of what the conversation about this event and gun politics is like in the pro and anti mainstreams, and contrasting those conversations with this one here.

Also, begamot, yeah.

Here, here! I checked into another hitherto unnamed "firearms forum" and was disappointed at the amount of psychological distancing from the perp as well as insensitive Obama-fear-mongering as a result of this event. As shallow a response as can be expected from a fearful and defensive crowd as I could even have expected. Probably worst is the suggestion that the event was a set-up by "the Left" to justify amending the 2nd Amendment away. Truly...

It is far easier to kill wildly with a firearm that it is with any other weapon available to the average citizen. That's probably why firearms are often controlled in other first-world countries more strictly than they are here.

And if the comparison be made with that of a suicide bomber, consider that it takes a certain amount of continuous effort and planning to build a bomb and carry out such an attack. Certainly, there have been events like the Oklahoma City bombing so it is worth pointing out to folks that few really considered stricter controls over the purchase and sale of fertilizer after that event.

Disturbances in the house are the most unpredictable and hazardous for LEO's to step into. In many ways, all these mass shootings mirror crimes passions. When looked at from that perspective, we can better understand why Guns have been demonized for being the root cause of such carnage recently. Not exactly immediate passion that pushed the shooters to do what they did but ask yourself whether any of them would have actually carried out their attacks armed with a bowie-knife.

And yet, in lieu of ramping up our mental health spending and solve our shambles of an economy to give the younger generation some semblance of hope for their future, can we see that Americans have the unfortunate tendency to want quick results which often means alleviating the symptoms rather than root out the cause and solve the problem once and for all?

That said, it is worth considering the first point again so that we understand what may be coming and be prepared with conscious and intelligent responses.

I attended a candle-light vigil tonight in 36 degree rain at the city park where roughly 30 people rather spontaneously gathered to memorialize the school shooting. I doubt if any other folks there were gun owners and I didn't volunteer myself to test their response.

And yet the general consensus was an acknowledgement that along with greater control over the sale and registration of guns, more money should be funded for mental health care in this country. To the credit of many who spoke and had a realistic vision of what it takes to achieve their aims, there was very little talk of Banning Guns...

Probably the wisest statement I heard was from an (East) Indian-American man who said, "Let's not imagine this is an issue we can resolve anytime soon. But let us set a goal that such a things like school shootings in our society shall never happen again in 20 years."

It will certainly take people who are in it for the long haul with a wide perspective to make any ground on this issue to truly solve the problem of gun violence in the United States.

SwampGrouch wrote:The attacks at Clackamas Town Center and Sandy Hook Elementary are extraordinary events. Public policy based on extreme events is nearly always made in haste and from emotional reaction, not deliberate, rational consideration. It is therefore bad public policy.

Sandy Hook, Clackamas, Minneapolis, Oak Creek, Aurora, Seattle, Tulsa, Oakland, Seal Beach, Carson City, Tucson, Manchester, Fort Hood....... I could go on. My question is, when is it a good time to discuss some reasonable gun policy? What's the preferred waiting period after a massacre before it's acceptable to you to have this conversation? When are we going to go for long enough between two such events that it is convenient for you?

syth82 wrote:

SwampGrouch wrote:The attacks at Clackamas Town Center and Sandy Hook Elementary are extraordinary events. Public policy based on extreme events is nearly always made in haste and from emotional reaction, not deliberate, rational consideration. It is therefore bad public policy.

Sandy Hook, Clackamas, Minneapolis, Oak Creek, Aurora, Seattle, Tulsa, Oakland, Seal Beach, Carson City, Tucson, Manchester, Fort Hood....... I could go on. My question is, when is it a good time to discuss some reasonable gun policy? What's the preferred waiting period after a massacre before it's acceptable to you to have this conversation? When are we going to go for long enough between two such events that it is convenient for you?

It's not when the conversation begins, but it's duration. How long should that be? Long enough to move from an idea to articulating the proposed law, casting in in specific language, vetting that language for clarity, then consider unintended consequences, then figure out how to fund enforcement. (Lawyers in the group will probably be able to add a few steps.)

In a nutshell, long enough to get it right.

What we don't need are politicians trying to score points by "passing tough new laws" the next term that duplicate statutes already on the books (for example carjacking, which was already armed robbery) to claim credit for. (They almost NEVER talk about which taxpayers are going to pay for it.)

Does that answer your question?

That answer your question?

rolandson wrote:

Awake wrote: So the question stands. How do we limit access to guns by the irresponsible and mentally disturbed? What is 'mentally disturbed' (is being a Liberal a sign of mental issues?)

we can start by locking our guns up...

Locking up our guns.
It seems like a simple and sensible thing to do.
But, go ahead and suggest that on some of the other gun forums. Go ahead, I dare you.
Not only will you be accused of being a muslim terrorist, you may well have threats made against your person.

SwampGrouch wrote:

syth82 wrote:

SwampGrouch wrote:The attacks at Clackamas Town Center and Sandy Hook Elementary are extraordinary events. Public policy based on extreme events is nearly always made in haste and from emotional reaction, not deliberate, rational consideration. It is therefore bad public policy.

Sandy Hook, Clackamas, Minneapolis, Oak Creek, Aurora, Seattle, Tulsa, Oakland, Seal Beach, Carson City, Tucson, Manchester, Fort Hood....... I could go on. My question is, when is it a good time to discuss some reasonable gun policy? What's the preferred waiting period after a massacre before it's acceptable to you to have this conversation? When are we going to go for long enough between two such events that it is convenient for you?

It's not when the conversation begins, but it's duration. How long should that be? Long enough to move from an idea to articulating the proposed law, casting in in specific language, vetting that language for clarity, then consider unintended consequences, then figure out how to fund enforcement. (Lawyers in the group will probably be able to add a few steps.)

In a nutshell, long enough to get it right.

What we don't need are politicians trying to score points by "passing tough new laws" the next term that duplicate statutes already on the books (for example carjacking, which was already armed robbery) to claim credit for. (They almost NEVER talk about which taxpayers are going to pay for it.)

Does that answer your question?

That answer your question?

Mostly, yes. Not an unreasonable stance at all. And I apologize for maybe getting a little pushy there. This whole thing leaves me a bit raw, I guess. I'm tired of the standard NRA response of "not right now". And it sounded to me like that's what you were saying.

This is all just so damn depressing. I know of no law (pro or anti gun) that could be passed in this country that could guarantee to stop things like this from happening. But if one more kid made it out of that building alive..... Well you get the idea. I don't have the answer, but I know this is a conversation that must happen. Now. We are beyond waiting.

Greengunner wrote:

rolandson wrote:

Awake wrote: So the question stands. How do we limit access to guns by the irresponsible and mentally disturbed? What is 'mentally disturbed' (is being a Liberal a sign of mental issues?)

we can start by locking our guns up...

Locking up our guns.
It seems like a simple and sensible thing to do.
But, go ahead and suggest that on some of the other gun forums. Go ahead, I dare you.
Not only will you be accused of being a muslim terrorist, you may well have threats made against your person.

I think that most folks on "other gun forums" would think that locking up one's guns is more than a good idea, and is what any responsible gun owner should do. What gets their dander up is to suggest that there be laws requiring it, and laws creating liability for the gun owner if the gun wasn't secured and a deranged person got ahold of it.
That position is based on the conservative/tea party mentalilty that if someone doesn't have the sense enough to lock up their guns, then a law won't do anything anyway, and keep gov't out of my personal business. Because it's all about "personal responsibility."

However, in my state of residence, Indiana, gun owners have special immunity from the usual tort based on an "attractive nuisance." If I should happen to leave my LE6920 in front seat of my car, with 4 loaded 30 rd magazines, with the doors unlocked and my windows open, parked on the street in front of an insane asylum, and a patient stole if from my car and went on a rampage, I'm immune from liability for his rampage, for the reason that he obtained my firearm illegally, without my consent. How's that for "personal responsibilty"?

However, in my state of residence, Indiana, gun owners have special immunity from the usual tort based on an "attractive nuisance." If I should happen to leave my LE6920 in front seat of my car, with 4 loaded 30 rd magazines, with the doors unlocked and my windows open, parked on the street in front of an insane asylum, and a patient stole if from my car and went on a rampage, I'm immune from liability for his rampage, for the reason that he obtained my firearm illegally, without my consent. How's that for "personal responsibilty"?

Now this is a ridiculous fucking law. Who in their right mind thinks that one should be absolved from all responsibility if you haven't taken some measures to reduce the possibility in the first place. To me, this is a prime example of the type of legislation that the NRA pursues in the name of freedom, at the expense of common sense.

wlewisiii wrote:
No, I do not think that any teacher or administrator should be armed. As someone upthread mentioned, teachers are not trained to be SWAT officers - all guns in their hands will get you is more victims from the cross fire.

An armed & well trained security guard? That's very differerent, much more expensive & much more likely to have positive effect.

Hmmm, so "armed security" guard is cut from a different cloth than a "teacher" ?

Is a teacher PROHIBITED from being/getting "trained" ?

You make no sense.

You can go on Youtube and see hundreds of "trained police officers/veterans" shooting and can't hit a stationary target.
Where as, at shooting ranges I find teachers, mechanics, house wives, teenagers, hitting bullseyes at 15 to 100 yards.

I think an armed security component in most schools makes sense. I'm sure a lot of suburban parents would be horrified, but in nearly every urban school it's SOP. My favorite candidates are all those efficient, alert TSA employees at the airport. Just kidding...sorta.

It makes sense for a lot of reasons, but the best one is a deterrent - the school ends up looking like a less vulnerable target and that is enough. You don't have to have foolproof security, just better than an open door and guaranteed safety for the shooter.

Armed teachers presents a dichotomy to the consumers - the parents. A person with a gun teaching your little snowflake is a threatening prospect for most parents. Besides it should be handled like any concealed weapon situation, concealed means concealed, and staff should have the option with permit.In this case I'd support special training, but who and if any teacher is armed should be up to the person carrying and the licensing agency.

I'd be willing to bet nearly every high school has guns on the premises, just not in the hands of the teachers.

shinzen wrote:

However, in my state of residence, Indiana, gun owners have special immunity from the usual tort based on an "attractive nuisance." If I should happen to leave my LE6920 in front seat of my car, with 4 loaded 30 rd magazines, with the doors unlocked and my windows open, parked on the street in front of an insane asylum, and a patient stole if from my car and went on a rampage, I'm immune from liability for his rampage, for the reason that he obtained my firearm illegally, without my consent. How's that for "personal responsibilty"?

Now this is a ridiculous fucking law. Who in their right mind thinks that one should be absolved from all responsibility if you haven't taken some measures to reduce the possibility in the first place. To me, this is a prime example of the type of legislation that the NRA pursues in the name of freedom, at the expense of common sense.

Excellent observations and points.And an outlook not so typically shared.Thanks be for The Liberal Gun Club.
Lawful firearm 'ownership',use requires the utmost in responsibility,principles of citizenship.A certain "Gun Culture" if you will.......

The hardest right wing elements,well meaning and above all passionate,may in fact harm lawful gun interests.The affects are really part and parcel of so much of the greater hard right/Tea Party narrative regards so many issues.(One author referred to this element as the "Wrecking Crew")

A great many lawful gun owners ignored NRA political endorsement during both of Obama's Presidential bids,and have been a key element in this world of razor thin campaign victory margins.

Current events may contract and mature the collective voice of gun owners,hopefully mitigate Wreck Crew influence.

Consider that Armed Security and metal detectors are all about the TSA mentality. Soon are kids are going to take off their shoes and have undie-scanners to get into school?

No, all of this is not progress but takes away from our Freedoms because it reduces Peace of Mind. Terrorists plan for such outcomes to strike fear at the heart of their enemies' societies which is their end goal in lieu of having the capability for defeating the enemy militarily.

Clearly these emotionally disturbed youths in our society with guns did not have such agendas when they went on their shooting rampage. Yet can you see they are a product of it?

But don't blame the terrorists for creating this atmosphere of fear. Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine is right on for so many reasons.

Peace of mind. That's ultimately what every individual craves. It is also exactly what our society is losing, bit by bit.

Regarding our conservative brethren who are truly paranoid about gun registries and and focused on the 2nd Amendment as if preparing for the 2nd Coming... just understand that they are a throwback to a (fictional) earlier age and do not fit well with modern culture or urban challenges. Many actually live in rural areas and cling to some mythical Wild West where everyone fends for themselves with their totem: the six-shooter.

Their Libertarian ideals fails on the singular fact that nobody in society is an island; that all power, wealth, and security accumulated by the individual is a result of one's background, education, are ultimately the result of literally millions of interactions with, even kindness shown by, others regardless of how intelligent or hard working they were.

Their's is an immature ego that is struggling at a certain stage of development. Most solid Conservatives actually hold a deeper compassion and understanding of social cohesion than Libertarians and their ilk.

Schools should not be a "special" so-called "gun free" place. If you have your CCW permit, and you're a teacher/admin/faculty you should be able to carry, concealed (no one will know, not even the scared parents concerned about an armed teacher teaching their little snowflake), end of story.

People's personal safety is up to the individual. If you don't care enough about you're own life to learn to shoot and defend yourself, just hope nothing ever happens to you I guess. Teachers shouldn't be forced to take a special shooting class for teachers. They need to make the personal decision to care. If there was such a class though, I wouldn't be opposed to it.

People just need to realize, the only person you can depend on in life, is yourself. I learned this sometime when I was a teenager. Didn't everyone else learn that life lesson at a fairly young age too?

I think it's funny when people actually think the cops will be able to save them from anything that ever happens.

Collector1337 wrote:I think it's funny when people actually think the cops will be able to save them from anything that ever happens.

When seconds count, the Police are just minutes away.

GuitarsandGuns wrote:

Collector1337 wrote:I think it's funny when people actually think the cops will be able to save them from anything that ever happens.

When seconds count, the Police are just minutes away.

What's with the new sig? You getting to be a crankier old lady than you were?

Antiquus wrote:

GuitarsandGuns wrote:

Collector1337 wrote:I think it's funny when people actually think the cops will be able to save them from anything that ever happens.

When seconds count, the Police are just minutes away.

What's with the new sig? You getting to be a crankier old lady than you were?

It's my club. I'm a charter member. I was in the Haight in 1967

The line is a take-off on something Fukshot said. Peace out.

I feel terrible about this hobby and I think I regret getting into it.

Shooting is fun, and I know it's not my fault personally, but after reading a bunch of NYTimes readers' comments, I don't feel too good about being part of this "culture of violence."

Yes, I know everyone has a choice about whether to use violence, but frankly, I got into this because guns are fun. I hate wars, and civil wars, and the only political motive for getting into them was that I don't think the right-wing should be the only armed faction. I never really believed in any of that watering the tree of liberty mumbo-jumbo.

And jeez, that woman only had 5 and they call HER a gun nut.

I have many more than 5. I need to actually think for a few minutes and probably have a piece of paper handy. :/

Anyways, I came here to find some moderate thinking on the topic and it was heartening to read that other people are also having some pangs of guilt and trouble with cognitive dissonance.

I never really get along well with people who say "it's our right and it's non-negotiable". I can't get behind that because it's basically telling my fellow Americans to "suck it" and that they have to put up with this mayhem.

I wish I could say free psychiatry for all would end these massacres, but Americans are not a bright lot and not willing to put much stock into "science", especially for a discipline that's still such a crapshoot when it comes to its solve rate.

I am a photographer by trade. I photograph stuff for advertising mostly, some fashion but mostly stuff. I am also what is called a 'fine art' photographer ... useless images that make people feel something. My instruments are my cameras.

There are some who use these same instruments for the most despicable obscenity humans can create...child pornography, exploitation photography, animal fighting and even the 'paparazzi'...unbelievable disgust...sub human.

They are not a reflection of me. They do not represent me or what I am. I make no excuses for them. I am not ashamed of myself or what I do just because someone else uses the same instrument that I do to create human degradation.

I enjoy shooting well. I appreciate a well made firearm functioning perfectly. i take pride in putting the little hole exactly where i want it to go on that sheet of paper, many times. I am not ashamed that I find this enjoyable, nor do I need to explain to anyone why I take pleasure poking holes in paper with a variety of firearms that i choose to own. it is nobody's business but mine. I have harmed no one and I will not be made to feel guilty because some other persons lost or misplaced their humanity.

This tragic horrible obscenity that fell upon us this past week is not my fault. I didn't do it, I will not be held accountable for it by anyone simply because someone took an instrument similar to one that I take pride in using responsibly and well, and created horror with it.

Thats a great analogy, and wonderfully put. I work in mental health and anticipate this will be an interesting Monday.

Pr0Life wrote:And jeez, that woman only had 5 and they call HER a gun nut.

Maybe Nancy Lanza was a gun nut. I'm not sure it's so much about how many guns you own, but one's attitude about it. By some accounts, she was a prepper, a prepper buying assault weapons. What's wrong with this picture? By many, nothing. On the other hand, what are you prepping for? To shoot your neighbors when the shit hits the fan?

Regarding Nancy Lanza, Peck's work, The People of the Lie, comes to mind...