Gun Control Failed Newtown

[deacon blues]

This article nails it:

Question One in Our National Conversation: Why Did Gun Control Fail the Families of Newtown
It is sickening that we have to discuss this with the dead not all buried, but such is our fallen world.

By: Thomas Crown (Diary) ..|.. December 17th, 2012 at 04:40 PM ..|..

Were we a decent society, we would allow the parents of Newtown to grieve before we started talking about taking away guns. We are not a decent society, and the ghoulish, deranged left is once again trying to use a tragedy as an opportunity.

So, as they begin their ritual descent into bathing in the blood of children about whom they wouldn’t care were they just inside the birth canal, let’s have the “conversation” about pretending away the Second Amendment they want. Because they want to change the law, the burden of proof lies on them; so here is the first question they must answer:

Why didn’t restrictive gun control laws save the victims of Newtown?

This is what the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has to say about Connectictut’s gun control regime:

Connecticut has strong gun laws that help combat the illegal gun market, prevent the sale of most guns without background checks and reduce risks to children, according to the Brady Campaign. In the organization’s 2009 state scorecards released for all 50 states, Connecticut earned 53 points out of a total of 100 and has the nation’s fourth strongest gun laws.

“Connecticut has done more than most states to combat illegal guns and has worked to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. In fact, Connecticut has a one-of-a-kind law that allows a judge to remove guns from people who have been determined to be a threat to themselves or others,” said Ron Pinciaro, President of CT Against Gun Violence.

The Washington Post — no opponent of a disarmed citizenry — agrees with this characterization. Connecticut “has among the most stringent gun control laws on the books,” the..Post notes, citing three disparate groups of experts, before allowing Connecticut’s chief Democrat to explain that his state can’t enforce its own laws without adult supervision.

I don’t believe that we should be making domestic policy based on anecdote or on a single event. No system is properly tested in a single instance. The proof of a policy is how it performs over time — after hundreds or thousands of events. But gun control proponents do not agree. Piers Morgan, Michael Moore, Rupert Murdoch, and many more..seem to believe that the vicious and evil killings in Connecticut prove the need for more stringent gun control measures. They race to change the law in the wake of tragedies because they know that they long ago lost the policy debate and that cooler heads will reject any such regulation absent the immediate aftermath of a tragedy.

A lesser-noted detail of America’s current demographics is that in the midst of an awful economic downturn, violent crime is falling. Americans recognize that..gun crimes have continued to trend down as more law-abiding citizens have gotten access to firearms. So having failed to fool the people into signing onto their policies, they pretend that their ideas have been ignored — rather than considered and rejected again and again — and they call for a “national conversation,” a term of art the Obama Administration has embraced since the beginning that translates into American English as “agree with me, or I’ll regulate it anyway, democracy be damned, you idiots.”

Defenders of the Bill of Rights ought to welcome that debate, one that we’ve been having for every year of the roughly four decades I’ve drawn breath on this planet. (We keep having it because the Left, like the Roman legions, refuses to admit defeat until they win.) After all, we can and will win one more time if the sense of the American people (also known to its opponents as “the gun lobby,” “the Israel lobby,” and so on) is allowed to prevail. But if we are to discuss the value of gun restrictions, we first need an explanation from gun control advocates of why their ideas failed the victims in Newtown.

As noted above, according to the Brady Campaign, Connecticut has the nation’s fourth-strongest gun laws. The sale and possession of so-called assault weapons are banned under state law. As noted above, the state empowers judges to remove guns from those who constitute a threat. The state earns high marks for gun dealer regulation, reporting of lost or stolen guns, background checks, permit to purchase, child safety, and earns the maximum score on guns in public places.

So here’s the challenge for gun control advocates: explain why you failed the people of Newtown. You cited Connecticut as a national example. You said its laws “reduce risks to children.” You gave no state a higher rating for keeping guns out of public places — like schools.

And a criminally insane man stole legally-owned guns (owned under Connecticut’s regime) after being denied their legal purchase, broke in through a window, and killed children and adults — adults who were not armed to shoot back, and so died unable to save the children who also died.

You want this one event to be a national test? Fine. Why are there 20 children dead when the state of Connecticut did what you said they should to keep their people safe?

Once you answer that question, we can get this conversation underway.

[Aquila]

I'm entertaining the following ideas... I think I could support:

- Reinstating the assult weapons ban. However, I'd allow a permit for those who can justify owning such a weapon.
- Closing gun show loopholes.
- Setting a higher standard for security (including armed private security guards) and screening in schools.
- Allowing designated "staff" to carry concealed weapons in schools, libraries, churches, and various businesses as long as they had a concealed weapons permit and proper training. On this point I'd allow schools, libraries, churches, and other entities to "opt into" the concealed carry program for staff.

The way I see it... we have some limitations on assult weapons. However, we also expand gun rights for personal protection in various venues. This, in my opinion, would be a decent compromise betwen the gun lobby and gun control advocates. A little give and take from both sides. It's worth doing this in efforts to make our children safer.

[Walks_in_islam]

Private owners/sellers would LOVE to have access to the FBI background check files and be able to call in purchasers to be screened. Right now my understanding is that the system is limited to FFL (firearms licensees)

Average citizens therefore cannot do background checks because the FBI is prohibited from giving them the information. This is to protect the privacy of criminals <shakes head>

In addition to local, state, tribal, and federal agencies voluntarily contributing information to the NICS Index, the NICS Section receives telephone calls from mental health institutions, psychiatrists, police departments, and family members requesting placement of individuals into the NICS Index. Frequently, these are emergency situations and require immediate attention. Any documentation justifying a valid entry into the NICS Index must be available to the originating agencies

Few to no calls are made however. This is to protect the privacy of the mentally ill <shakes head>

Without a database the background check system is no good. The list of certified nutcases is shorter than the list of 40.5 million gun owners. Mental health / medical professionals and/or family members should be compelled to call the mentally ill in or take responsibility for what they do.

The bottom line on the shooting in Ct is that those people in that community knew that this kid had problems and they did nothing. Not his family, not the school he finally had to drop out of, not the community. They are striking out against uninvolved strangers (example the NRA) to cover their inaction - for which - sadly - the community paid a heavy and dear price.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm entertaining the following ideas... I think I could support:

- Reinstating the assult weapons ban. However, I'd allow a permit for those who can justify owning such a weapon.
- Closing gun show loopholes.
- Setting a higher standard for security (including armed private security guards) and screening in schools.
- Allowing designated "staff" to carry concealed weapons in schools, libraries, churches, and various businesses as long as they had a concealed weapons permit and proper training. On this point I'd allow schools, libraries, churches, and other entities to "opt into" the concealed carry program for staff.

The way I see it... we have some limitations on assult weapons. However, we also expand gun rights for personal protection in various venues. This, in my opinion, would be a decent compromise betwen the gun lobby and gun control advocates. A little give and take from both sides. It's worth doing this in efforts to make our children safer.

[Aquila]

All rights have limits. For example, I have the freedom of speech... but I can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded building. I have freedom of speech, but I can't threaten someone's life or threaten someone with bodily harm. I have the right to bear arms... but I can't own a nuclear warhead.

Every liberty has limits that extend only to the point in which someone else's right to life, liberty, or property is in danger. Allowing assult weapons to be sold freely presents an unnecessary danger to the lives of citizens, in this case, our children.

I wonder... Why did this young man's mom need this kind of firepower??? For show? For ego? Just because she was free to? When I ask myself these questions I also ask... And at what cost???

In my opinion, some common sense needs to be brought to bear on the subject from both the gun lobby and gun control advocates.

[Pressing-On]

We own assault weapons, because we live close to the border, and because we can.

Every argument in support of "Gun Control" completely ignores the nature of government and human nature.

It was because our founding fathers understood the nature of governments and human nature that they saw a need to include the Bill of rights along with the Constitution.

And this one single fact is immutable, the principles that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were founded upon were timeless and it makes no difference what technology we are talking about, whether ball & musket or a .50 cal machine gun. Human beings have a God given right to protect themselves and according to the Declaration of Independence, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

Ted Nugent nails it here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlkhQ6GybPs

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

We own assault weapons, because we live close to the border, and because we can.

Every argument in support of "Gun Control" completely ignores the nature of government and human nature.

It was because our founding fathers understood the nature of governments and human nature that they saw a need to include the Bill of rights along with the Constitution.

And this one single fact is immutable, the principles that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were founded upon were timeless and it makes no difference what technology we are talking about, whether ball & musket or a .50 cal machine gun. Human beings have a God given right to protect themselves and according to the Declaration of Independence, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

Ted Nugent nails it here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlkhQ6GybPs

Every right has limits. When significant danger to the life, liberty, and property of another is presented... your rights have limits. For example... you have the right to bear arms... but you can't own a nuclear warhead. You have freedom of speech, but you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded building.

P.S.

In the idea I have, you might qualify to own an assualt weapon.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Every right has limits. When significant danger to the life, liberty, and property of another is presented... your rights have limits. For example... you have the right to bear arms... but you can't own a nuclear warhead. You have freedom of speech, but you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded building.

P.S.

In the idea I have, you might qualify to own an assualt weapon.

LOL! Might? Come and take it from me.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

LOL! Might? Come and take it from me.

LOL

I think we could grandfather you in... or at least seriously consider your case for needing one. I'd approve it.

[Cindy]

If this young man was as withdrawn as reported, where did he get the clothes and gear that he had? Did his Mom buy them for him. It's reported when he got a haircut he never even spoke for himself. Or even seemed to be able to think or move without his Mom telling him to. And did Nancy Lanza's fascination with weapons, and protection set her son up for this action? But he was still able to destroy hard drives on a computer.
I guess you don't need to be able to think or act for yourself to be a mass murderer.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Cindy

If this young man was as withdrawn as reported, where did he get the clothes and gear that he had? Did his Mom buy them for him. It's reported when he got a haircut he never even spoke for himself. Or even seemed to be able to think or move without his Mom telling him to. And did Nancy Lanza's fascination with weapons, and protection set her son up for this action? But he was still able to destroy hard drives on a computer.
I guess you don't need to be able to think or act for yourself to be a mass murderer.

I don't know. Here's something your post reminded me of:

Friends: Newtown Gunman’s Mother Home-Schooled Son, Kept Arsenal Of Guns
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/12/...senal-of-guns/