Here's what I think....as if it matters.... (Page 7)

I apologize if it's been covered in the previous 8 pages, but couldn't we implement a system that not only checks out the licensed gun owner, but also those he or she lives with?  Take for example the mother of this latest shooter.  Should this 20 year old with a history of mental illness be allowed to reside in a home with the kind of arsenal it held?  

mr2tony - 2012-12-17 12:54 PM

tuwood - 2012-12-17 12:48 PM

mr2tony - 2012-12-17 12:33 PM The only way taking away people's guns would work, peacefully anyway, would be to grandfather anybody who currently owns one in and say `You can keep your guns.' And then promptly shut down sales of guns altogether. The companies would go under and dealerships would close their doors. Then you'd have to make owning a gun by someone who wasn't grandfathered in a serious crime with serious penalties so Joe Sr. doesn't pass his guns down to Joe Jr. or give his guns to a friend or cousin or random stranger. It would probably take at least two or three generations but eventually guns would be phased out as they work their way through the system and be bought back or confiscated or in some other way eliminated. Now, that won't happen, but if it were to happen, that's about the only way you could do it without a full-on civil war. In 100-150 years, guns would mostly be eliminated in America just as they are in most other developed countries. And people wouldn't care because they wouldn't have grown up with guns in society.

Dam Liberals just want to kill jobs.

Just messing with you.  But seriously can you imagine how many people would be unemployed if the gun industry was just shut down.  yeah there's military and law enforcement, but I suspect that's a small fraction of the total sales.

It's 210,000 jobs for the entire industry from manufacturers to wholesalers to retailers. And I like that you admit we'd need fewer cops if we had fewer guns.

lol, I was referring to law enforcement and military still purchasing guns.  

Was this posted yet?

http://www.examiner.com/article/media-blackout-oregon-mall-shooter-was-stopped-by-an-armed-citizen  

All I heard was "mild form of Asberger's". I highly doubt there was a file on this kid. I doubt he would have come up under any sort of background check.

Same with the guy in Aurora. He wouldn't have come up on a mental illness background check and he didn't have to steal guns from his mom. 

Perhaps if the mental illness "system" were better equipped, his mom would have had more options earlier in life and there would have been a file on him. But then do you deny guns to the mother or do you require that she lock them up? How do you enforce her locking them up? Does he kill her with a kitchen knife and then get the key to the safe?

It really is hard to come up with a way to prevent evil whackjobs from doing this sort of thing. 

What about your friends who come in your home.  And your neighbor.  And then your priest.  It's a rabbit hole.  Where do you stop?

This has been my feeling as well.  I don't think either is the right answer, but when I comes to cost and number of people affected, #2 is probably more cost effective and affects the fewer amount of people.

x2

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
? Benjamin Franklin

Was that intentional?

I still don't agree that's at all a reasonable solution, but pointing out he DID say "living with".  So he probably suggests it stops THERE and has nothing to do with neigbor, priest, etc that visit. 

I don't think anyone should get restricted based on who they live with or related to, or friends with.  I should be allowed to drink even if my spouse is an alcoholic, should be able to drive even if my family member killed someone with a car, etc  That's too hard to track and unfair.  Is it WISE to have weapons around mentally unstable people without securing them?  Probably not.  And the shooters mom paid the ultimate price in this case.

But I DO say that if you, as the gun owner, through neglagence, allow someone access to your firearms, should be held accountable (and that WAS discussed earlier).

That's the problem, isn't it?  Nobody knows what that is.  The problem is HUGE and multifaceted....I have no idea what a meaningful solution would even look like....or if it would have any affect at all.  After all, gun deaths continue to drop year by year. 

I think, at this point, the discussion needs to be about security, not guns.

Again, the original post suggested checking the people that live with someone who wants to purchase a firearm (and again, I disagree with even that).

I don't know how house guests or the TV repairman or small farm animals came into the equation?

Exactly.  I'm OK with that.  Better than doing a background check on anyone who might come into my house.

There is no evidence in the CT case that these were factors. There are reports the young man had a hisotry of mental illness (being described as either a personality disorder or an autism spectrum - which sounds more likely based on what I have read and the duration of concerns). 

If you were to blame the parent, then you would have to say that parents of children with mental illness or aggressive behaviors should not own guns. Because in this case, at least, it was known that the mother had a child with mental health problems AND that she was a gun enthusiast. 

I keep seeing in this thread people talking about the guns being stolen - but if he lived at home, he would have ready access, and really it is not implausible that the mother would even have trained him on how to handle guns safely or taken him target shooting or hunting (if she were into those things).  So are we now going to ban gun ownership for people who have been committed AND their families? 

Personally, I think if a child of mine had a history of aggressive behaviors, I would be particularly cautious about bringing guns into the home. But I know plenty of people who take umbrage when we recommend even temporarily removing guns from the home when we discharge someone from the hospital following a suicide attempt. 

I don't have a clear answer to the problem. But I know it will not be a simplistic solution that can fit on a bumper sticker, whether it be "Parent better", "Gun control" or "treat mental illness". 

Wouldn't they kick you out for looking like a little kid first?

Actually there may be: http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2012/12/17/231-Connecticut-school-gunman-was-obsessed-with-violent-video-games.html

I do not disagree with anything you wrote (after your first sentence).  My suggestions were not meant to be a fix to everything but a starting point.  However I'm betting that with a child with mental illness that violent TV and video games do not help the situation.

So now I think I have 2 changes that most folks would agree upon.

1)  draconian penalties for irresponsible gunowners...not properly stored weapons?  said weapon or weapons are used in a crime?  used by minors?  kiss your old life goodbye.  good luck on the ol' rock pile.

2)  draconian penalties for those found with illegal weaponry or unlicensed weaponry.

3)  no weapons for folks in residences in which there is/are one or more individuals with violent criminal backgrounds and/or violent tendencies (with definitions crafted with the help of mental health experts)

Haha we wouldn't let you across the border! Can't trust a short, half Asian guy from Chicago who also spent time in Communist London.  

Fair enough. I find neither tasteful either. The #1 hurdle to all of this is that in fact all people are innocent until proven guilty. Rights can never be taken by the government, they can only be forfieted by the individual... AFTER has has done something wrong.

That's fine that you do not want to ban guns out right... only the "dangerous" ones. An AR-15 (.223) is not a high powed rifle... it is a medium power rifle and is not even legal to hunt deer with. In most states a .243 is minimum for medium game. But never mind about that.

So we restrict semi-auto pistol. You have to apply for it. You have to ask the government to grant you your right. Ask permission and deemed worthy to exercise. Then you will ahve to pay for it, then you will have to pay for administration for people to come check your residence.  We will only allow 6 shots. No reasonable person needs more than one box of ammo. The government will get back to you and let you know when, how, and where you can exercise your right. But for the truely dangerous semi-auto rifles... well there is just no good reason, and that is just out of the question... because we can never be sure what will happen with it.

Now I am not talking about imprisonoing all mentally ill. We will just have a duty to report. they will go on a list. They will be monitored. they must ask permission if they are allowed to be around public gathering. they will file a request to have liberties given back to them. The government will get back to them and let them know if they have been deemed worthy of lighter restrictions or more freedom. But for those that have violent outbursts... well those are just too dangerous. We can never be sure, so unfortunately they will not be allowed to be free. It sucks.... but it is for the good of the country.

I realize that all sounds ridiculous. It is so easy to sit back and talk about restricting rights of law abiding citizens that you choose not to exercise. Doesn't bother you. But that is not how this country works. We HAVE rights, we do not APPLY for rights, or seek permission to use them. If it is sooo easy to just restrict the 2A with the stroke of a pen... then why not the 1st, how about the 4th, perhaps the right to vote?

How willing to negotiate is the ACLU when it comes to infringing on the 1ST? What about the 4th... ya, they don't mind that one, they are pretty open minded to restrictions when it comes to the 4th. I mean it's OK to allow a child predator go just because the police did not arrest him right. But that's right... they are just good honest people protecting our rights from abuse of power.