National Tragedy

mgentry

Full Access Member
I think as adults, we can tolerate a lot of things but hurting or killing children is something that goes against our grain. I can not imagine what the parents of the children that were murdered are going through. The grief and anger must be over whelming.

We as gun owners must be part of a solution or a solution that is unreasonable may be forced upon us.

Laws are not the answer because the people that commit these crimes don't obey the law. So since the laws are not obeyed by individuals that are criminals, mentally unfit, or just plain evil, why would we think that more laws are going to protect us? Plus police can't be everywhere to enforce these law.

Gun control is not the answer because one can look at the countries, states, and cities that have strict gun control laws and see that all gun control does is leave the law abiding citizens unarmed and unprotected. I think these senseless killing in Newtown were in a gun free area. Did the laws or gun control protect the kids?

We can't fortify the schools. Evil would still find a way to harm our children. Do we accept the fact that there are evil people in our society and throw our hands up in frustration and walk away????

Is there a way to protect our children, our families, and ourselves?
 

DrkSide

Full Access Member
I think all you can do is prepare as much as possible for the scenarios where you can help and protect your family. There will always be things that we cannot stop and when we stop living because we are afraid of what might happen we have already lost.
 

SilvrSRT10

Super Moderator
In this incident, I place blame on the mother that allowed a known mentally handicapped person get his hands on her weapons. She paid with her life for it. Why on earth would she let her son get to her guns? He then went on to a place where he knew he would find little to no resistance and went berserk. IMO he went to a place where nobody would confront him. If he had gone to the high school there may have been someone to resist him. So he picked a place that wouldn't pose that threat. Again, that's just my opinion. I have no idea what was actually going through his mind.

So the first line of defense is keep weapons (any weapons) out of the hands of the mentally unstable. If anyone has had a history of mental issues, I'm sorry but gun privileges (2nd Amendment) don't pertain to you. Your mental history takes precedence over your right to bear arms.

Second line of defense would be a school resource officer or possibly a trained teacher that could be armed. Being that a lot of teachers are liberals and anti gun, it may be difficult to find a volunteer for that responsibility. With schools being declared "gun free zones" a person with bad intentions has no fear of returned fire. It's so bad in todays schools that even making a shape of a gun with your hand gets you sent to the principals office. It happened to my nephew. There was a story a little while ago about a deaf kid named Hunter. To sign his name he had to make a gun shape with his hand. The school wanted him to find another sign to make his name.
 

kwo51

Full Access Member
OK to kill them before their born.We live in a sick world.Run by the mentally ill, that is way they don't make mandatory psy eval. for politicks. Or Chris Wallace!!!!!!
 

ViperJeff

Administrator
CT was #4 on the Brady Safe List. Their research and carefully reviewed P&P put CT at practically no risk...



I don't care what people "think", you just can't stop every evil person....
 

Dr_Pain

Full Access Member
In this incident, I place blame on the mother that allowed a known mentally handicapped person get his hands on her weapons. She paid with her life for it. Why on earth would she let her son get to her guns? He then went on to a place where he knew he would find little to no resistance and went berserk. IMO he went to a place where nobody would confront him. If he had gone to the high school there may have been someone to resist him. So he picked a place that wouldn't pose that threat. Again, that's just my opinion. I have no idea what was actually going through his mind.

So the first line of defense is keep weapons (any weapons) out of the hands of the mentally unstable. If anyone has had a history of mental issues, I'm sorry but gun privileges (2nd Amendment) don't pertain to you. Your mental history takes precedence over your right to bear arms.

Second line of defense would be a school resource officer or possibly a trained teacher that could be armed. Being that a lot of teachers are liberals and anti gun, it may be difficult to find a volunteer for that responsibility. With schools being declared "gun free zones" a person with bad intentions has no fear of returned fire. It's so bad in todays schools that even making a shape of a gun with your hand gets you sent to the principals office. It happened to my nephew. There was a story a little while ago about a deaf kid named Hunter. To sign his name he had to make a gun shape with his hand. The school wanted him to find another sign to make his name.

I will say that I agree with your general thought process, and my comment in now way comes to contradict that position. I will say though that we will have a hard time with getting fool proof legislation. The main problem I see is the fact that you depend on a SUBJECTIVE diagnostic process. This basically means that you depend on the experience (and agenda) of the clinician making the diagnosis. Here are a couple of questions to ponder:

1) Will you require that everyone pass a mental exam BEFORE they are allow to own a gun or will you go about it from a reactive stand point? (i.e you get diagnosed you have to turn your license in)
2) Will you have a set level of criteria which can be objectified in setting guidelines on who is competent or not?
3) Will it take into account the agenda of the clinician or the licensee? (ie if you are dealing with a gun control psychiatrist etc..)
4) Who will be the overseer in charge of all of that?
5) Will you restrict the type of guns?
6) Will you require that all guns be registered and can only be transferred (even in private sales) through a licensed FFL?
7) Who is going to keep track of all the guns and all the serials?
8) Who will have access to all that information and what might they do with it? (target certain individuals for repossession based on crappy "eminent domain" legislation in case something happens..... because they "know" who has what? OR simply because they "feel" that the particular individual has "enough" <---- who can and will set this standard? Will they inact some Homeland Security crap to "protect" the country from those individuals? or decide that they need to redistribute? or can seize at will if the need arise " for the greater good"?

I could go on and on and on..... too many things to consider by too many flawed individual, with too many agenda and OPINIONS.

Opinions are like buttholes, everybody has one .... AND THEY ALL STINK!

My point on a different forum was to give everyone a gun and let nature take its course. It is a little radical and definitely a joke but my point remains that you have an INDIVIDUAL right to protect yourself and an INDIVIDUAL right to privacy. I don't want Big Brother in my business "for the greater good" unless he has proven without a shadow of a doubt that I am a threat to our society.

So now we are basically back to square one, aren't we?!?! The psycho/sociopath will only be identified "post-facto".

The Rights of the many should not be impeded on because of the transgression of the few!

" An armed society is a polite society "
 

kwo51

Full Access Member
And we all are a threat to Socialism!!!!! Disarm or die was used in USSR, Germany and California. May be coming to your neighbor hood.
 

SilvrSRT10

Super Moderator
I will say that I agree with your general thought process, and my comment in now way comes to contradict that position. I will say though that we will have a hard time with getting fool proof legislation. The main problem I see is the fact that you depend on a SUBJECTIVE diagnostic process. This basically means that you depend on the experience (and agenda) of the clinician making the diagnosis. Here are a couple of questions to ponder:..........

"

Yes the implementation of keeping weapons out of mentally unstable peoples hands can be quite involved. Not everyone seeing a phycologist/psychiatrist means harm to anyone else. But in this case, the mother knew her son wasn't right. She bore the responsibility of keeping those weapons locked up. We all know someone who's not quite right and hope they don't own any guns. People that have to be on meds so that they can act right or cope with society. You never can tell when they'll go off their meds or go off the deep end.

The local sheriff probably has knowledge of his towns mentally impaired people. A responsible gun store owner should refuse a sale if he gets a feeling somethings not right. In my county, to get a pistol permit requires you to list three referral contacts. Hopefully one of them would keep a gun out of the hands of someone who shouldn't have one. On my CCW paperwork, I had to list the names and numbers of my doctors so that they could be called to verify I wasn't on any mind altering medication.

It might not come down to just one person making the decision but rather a group. I could be a clinician and a parent saying they don't want said person with a weapon. Sometimes a person that has never had any signs of being unstable just "Snaps", grabs a gun and goes on a shooting spree. Nothing can be done about that. I was talking about people with known problems, such as the Sandy Hook shooter. Persons with a history of mental problems. Unfortunately, I don't have all the answers to your questions. But they are valid and do need consideration. It just seems that lately, we are hearing of a lot more unstable people going on shooting sprees. Some of them could have been prevented.
 
Last edited:

doublestack

New member
Surprised that Mom would keep weapons in the house w/ a mentally unstable son. What was she thinking?
Ultimately we responsible gun owners will have to put up with more bureaucracy so that some politician(s) can look good in the eyes of their constituents.
 

Jo6pak

Full Access Member
There are no easy answers to any of this. So, people (politicains even more so) will look to the simplest "fix".
They will pass more laws, ban some guns, and pat each other's back and smile because they are "saving lives." Same as it ever was, same as it ever was. We will lose more freedom, and innocent people will still be victims.

If gun laws stopped criminals, shouldn't we be safer now than any other time in our history? We have more restrictiions on buying firearms than ever before, yet these incidents are increasing...... don't worry, we just need a few more "sensible" restrictions

If giving up all my guns could bring even one innocent person back, I would do it without a second thought. But, the fact is that MY guns have never harmed anyone.
 

kwo51

Full Access Member
Given the right question we all could be disarmed. Would you use it? Do you believe in the 2 am.? Do you keep it loaded? Do you lie or steal.We all lie and steal!!!!!
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Top