Newtown leader condemns professor who suggested school massacre was 'drill'

Nekochan wrote:I agree with you about the sentencing part for gun crimes. I don't have a problem with gun registration. I am not necessarily against putting restrictions on certain types of guns. But I have read that the gun that was used in this school massacre was never on the banned weapons list and that it is a perfectly legal gun to buy and own in Conn., which already has some pretty strict gun laws.

Now we're getting somewhere. You should call your legislators and tell them that you feel this way.

There are too, too many guns out there to keep them out of the hands of the criminally insane and common criminals. I do not think it's physically possible to keep guns out of the hands of sick or evil people. I would like to keep guns out of the hands of some people but how do you do this when we have hundreds of millions of guns in the country?

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:I agree with you about the sentencing part for gun crimes. I don't have a problem with gun registration. I am not necessarily against putting restrictions on certain types of guns. But I have read that the gun that was used in this school massacre was never on the banned weapons list and that it is a perfectly legal gun to buy and own in Conn., which already has some pretty strict gun laws.

Now we're getting somewhere. You should call your legislators and tell them that you feel this way.

There are too, too many guns out there to keep them out of the hands of the criminally insane and common criminals. I do not think it's physically possible to keep guns out of the hands of sick or evil people. I would like to keep guns out of the hands of some people but how do you do this when we have hundreds of millions of guns in the country?

We can't keep them out of the hands of every sick and evil person, but we may be able to keep them out of the hands of some.

Maybe, an unbalanced guy has better access to psychiatric drugs that quiet the voices in his head, and some innocent people get to go home to their families at the end of the day.

Maybe, an unbalanced guy who chooses not to take his medication succumbs to the voices in his head and starts shooting, but is taken down after 5 or 6 shots because he has to reload before firing off 30 or 50 or 100, and some innocent people get to go home to their families at the end of the day.

I'd take either one of those scenarios over what we've got now.

Wouldn't you?

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:But Sal, the guns in this case weren't "on the street". They were legally purchased. They were in the young man's home. There is nothing that the government could have done to stop this young man from getting the guns and taking them to the school---short of some serious infringements of his and his mother's rights.

Apply strict liability to gun ownership. If the mom knew she would be held equally liable for anything anyone else did with her guns, perhaps they would not have been as easily accessible by someone with mental problems.

That mom paid the ultimate price...death.
I think you're on a slippery slope if you start charging law abiding gun owners for the crimes that other adults commit. If a gun owner actively and knowingly breaks a law, it's one thing. But what you're talking about is a dangerous idea.

I'd rather the danger be internalized with those who choose to own bushmasters than exist as an externality on those who attend elementary school.

Only Bushmasters?
What you are suggesting is dangerous territory. And besides that, I do not think it would have stopped these murders.

What if an 18 year old takes a knife from his parents' home and kills with it? Are you going to hold the parents responsible?

PkrBum wrote:

Nekochan wrote:But Sal, the guns in this case weren't "on the street". They were legally purchased. They were in the young man's home. There is nothing that the government could have done to stop this young man from getting the guns and taking them to the school---short of some serious infringements of his and his mother's rights.

Given his history of mental defect... I don't think it was legal for him to have access to firearms or for his mother to have taken him to a gun range and teach him how to shoot. Those laws were originated in the sixties.

Sal wrote:The mind that could makeup or buy into an insane conspiracy theory that not only denies the tragedy, but also insults the victims and victim's families as frauds, is a particularly sick and twisted mind.

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:But Sal, the guns in this case weren't "on the street". They were legally purchased. They were in the young man's home. There is nothing that the government could have done to stop this young man from getting the guns and taking them to the school---short of some serious infringements of his and his mother's rights.

Apply strict liability to gun ownership. If the mom knew she would be held equally liable for anything anyone else did with her guns, perhaps they would not have been as easily accessible by someone with mental problems.

That mom paid the ultimate price...death.
I think you're on a slippery slope if you start charging law abiding gun owners for the crimes that other adults commit. If a gun owner actively and knowingly breaks a law, it's one thing. But what you're talking about is a dangerous idea.

I'd rather the danger be internalized with those who choose to own bushmasters than exist as an externality on those who attend elementary school.

Only Bushmasters?
What you are suggesting is dangerous territory. And besides that, I do not think it would have stopped these murders.

What if an 18 year old takes a knife from his parents' home and kills with it? Are you going to hold the parents responsible?

There is a difference between a knife and a bushmaster, just as there is a difference between a kitten and a lion. I'm liable for what my pet lion does, no matter what my intent or no matter what precautions I take. This same form of liability should be applied to at least certain types of guns (perhaps those that were specifically engineered to be good at killing human beings effectively). As I said, people wouldn't leave their bushmaster laying around if they knew they were liable for the bullets that came out of it, regardless of who fires them.

Nekochan wrote:

I'd rather that he be taken down before he gets his first shot fired.

Ummm ... well, yeah. That would be ideal.

Wouldn't most guns have to be banned under your scenario?

I'm not even talking about guns. I'm talking about high capacity magazines. I don't see any reason for a gun to be loaded with more than 5 rounds, but I could live with going back to the old assault weapons limit of 10.

And also, someone intent on killing a lot of people could always have more than one gun on him.

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

I'd rather that he be taken down before he gets his first shot fired.

Ummm ... well, yeah. That would be ideal.

Wouldn't most guns have to be banned under your scenario?

I'm not even talking about guns. I'm talking about high capacity magazines. I don't see any reason for a gun to be loaded with more than 5 rounds, but I could live with going back to the old assault weapons limit of 10.

And also, someone intent on killing a lot of people could always have more than one gun on him.

Yes, they could. But then shouldn't we make slaughtering innocent people just a little more cumbersome and inconvenient?

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:But Sal, the guns in this case weren't "on the street". They were legally purchased. They were in the young man's home. There is nothing that the government could have done to stop this young man from getting the guns and taking them to the school---short of some serious infringements of his and his mother's rights.

Apply strict liability to gun ownership. If the mom knew she would be held equally liable for anything anyone else did with her guns, perhaps they would not have been as easily accessible by someone with mental problems.

That mom paid the ultimate price...death.
I think you're on a slippery slope if you start charging law abiding gun owners for the crimes that other adults commit. If a gun owner actively and knowingly breaks a law, it's one thing. But what you're talking about is a dangerous idea.

I'd rather the danger be internalized with those who choose to own bushmasters than exist as an externality on those who attend elementary school.

Only Bushmasters?
What you are suggesting is dangerous territory. And besides that, I do not think it would have stopped these murders.

What if an 18 year old takes a knife from his parents' home and kills with it? Are you going to hold the parents responsible?

There is a difference between a knife and a bushmaster, just as there is a difference between a kitten and a lion. I'm liable for what my pet lion does, no matter what my intent or no matter what precautions I take. This same form of liability should be applied to at least certain types of guns (perhaps those that were specifically engineered to be good at killing human beings effectively). As I said, people wouldn't leave their bushmaster laying around if they knew they were liable for the bullets that came out of it, regardless of who fires them.

You're liable if someone steals your legally owned lion and uses the lion to kill someone?

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:I believe that his mother should have been held liable(had she not been killed) because as some reports indicate, she was aware of his mental illness. If she was aware and she still kept the guns the she should (if alive) the responsibility.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:I believe that his mother should have been held liable(had she not been killed) because as some reports indicate, she was aware of his mental illness. If she was aware and she still kept the guns the she should (if alive) the responsibility.

Nekochan wrote:Boards, is this a place you really want to go? Being held legally responsible for someone stealing your legally owned gun from your home and killing someone with it?

Sal wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:I believe that his mother should have been held liable(had she not been killed) because as some reports indicate, she was aware of his mental illness. If she was aware and she still kept the guns the she should (if alive) the responsibility.

Well, we just don't know enough to make that determination, Ghost. I'll admit that it all sounds bad, but we don't the extent of his mental illness, and we don't know how she secured her guns. I've read that he was off-the-charts intelligent in many ways. Could be that she exercised every reasonable precaution, and he was just smart enough to get around her security.

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:But Sal, the guns in this case weren't "on the street". They were legally purchased. They were in the young man's home. There is nothing that the government could have done to stop this young man from getting the guns and taking them to the school---short of some serious infringements of his and his mother's rights.

Apply strict liability to gun ownership. If the mom knew she would be held equally liable for anything anyone else did with her guns, perhaps they would not have been as easily accessible by someone with mental problems.

That mom paid the ultimate price...death.
I think you're on a slippery slope if you start charging law abiding gun owners for the crimes that other adults commit. If a gun owner actively and knowingly breaks a law, it's one thing. But what you're talking about is a dangerous idea.

I'd rather the danger be internalized with those who choose to own bushmasters than exist as an externality on those who attend elementary school.

Only Bushmasters?
What you are suggesting is dangerous territory. And besides that, I do not think it would have stopped these murders.

What if an 18 year old takes a knife from his parents' home and kills with it? Are you going to hold the parents responsible?

There is a difference between a knife and a bushmaster, just as there is a difference between a kitten and a lion. I'm liable for what my pet lion does, no matter what my intent or no matter what precautions I take. This same form of liability should be applied to at least certain types of guns (perhaps those that were specifically engineered to be good at killing human beings effectively). As I said, people wouldn't leave their bushmaster laying around if they knew they were liable for the bullets that came out of it, regardless of who fires them.

You're liable if someone steals your legally owned lion and uses the lion to kill someone?

I'm liable if my legally owned lion gets out of my backyard and kills someone.

Nekochan wrote:

Do you think a mentally deranged person who deliberately planned this out and went to an elementary school on his evil mission is going to let something like a gun law stop him?

I am ok with registration and a waiting period and with laws against criminals or mentally unstable people buying guns, but do you really think a law or series of laws is going to stop a mad man?

Nekochan wrote:Guns don't just walk out of your back yard, do they? Someone has to take them out of your yard/house.

Nekochan wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:I believe that his mother should have been held liable(had she not been killed) because as some reports indicate, she was aware of his mental illness. If she was aware and she still kept the guns the she should (if alive) the responsibility.

How do you hold the mother legally liable for the crime when the son has never been diagnosed with mental illness?

I understand where all of you are coming from, but when you think this thing out--do you really want to hold law abiding people legally responsible for what their adult children...or other adults....do?

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Do you think a mentally deranged person who deliberately planned this out and went to an elementary school on his evil mission is going to let something like a gun law stop him?

I am ok with registration and a waiting period and with laws against criminals or mentally unstable people buying guns, but do you really think a law or series of laws is going to stop a mad man?

I think we've been over this, Neko.

You keep going back to Sandy Hook specifically, and I don't know enough to have an opinion on whether it could've been prevented, but what I do know suggests it's unlikely.

I am absolutely convinced, however, that gun violence carnage in this country could be curtailed to some degree through a series of common sense measures.

And, that's enough for me.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:I believe that his mother should have been held liable(had she not been killed) because as some reports indicate, she was aware of his mental illness. If she was aware and she still kept the guns the she should (if alive) the responsibility.

How do you hold the mother legally liable for the crime when the son has never been diagnosed with mental illness?

I understand where all of you are coming from, but when you think this thing out--do you really want to hold law abiding people legally responsible for what their adult children...or other adults....do?

All I'm saying is that "if" she knew about his mental state which like Sal said, we just do not have enough information.

In the State of Florida if a minor gets his/her hands on one of my guns and shoots or kills someone, I can be held liable.

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Guns don't just walk out of your back yard, do they? Someone has to take them out of your yard/house.

Looking it up now, but I'm fairly sure that I would be. I believe most state laws state that I am liable for the lion no matter what my intent. They are obviously dangerous and could potentially cause harm to other as well as property damage. It isn't enough for me to simply say "Well, I didn't want them to kill anyone." That doesn't matter. I am strictly liable for whatever they do, whether or not they left their pen with my or anyone else's assistance.

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Boards, is this a place you really want to go? Being held legally responsible for someone stealing your legally owned gun from your home and killing someone with it?

We already apply strict liability in other walks of life. I am perfectly fine with applying this concept to certain types of gun ownership.

Nekochan wrote:Again, I would be interested to see a case where a strict liability law is applied in the case of a stolen, but otherwise legally held and kept object. If you know of a case, I would be interested to read about it.

The problem with comparing lions to guns is that guns cannot "escape" from your house on their own.

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Guns don't just walk out of your back yard, do they? Someone has to take them out of your yard/house.

Looking it up now, but I'm fairly sure that I would be. I believe most state laws state that I am liable for the lion no matter what my intent. They are obviously dangerous and could potentially cause harm to other as well as property damage. It isn't enough for me to simply say "Well, I didn't want them to kill anyone." That doesn't matter. I am strictly liable for whatever they do, whether or not they left their pen with my or anyone else's assistance.

If it was stolen from a locked pen? Seriously?