2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

[mookie1995]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

At least the uber-liberal Nadler is being honest. "Exploit" is exactly the right word....

isn't that how most things are done/used? from exploiting pearl harbor or the gulf of tonkin to 9/11 to attack/declare war upon (axis, vietcong, iraq). or build the panama canal? or push civil rights bills through? take something that happens are run with it.

also, have any wackos offered up a theory that holder got lanza a ride to the school?

 

[Rover]

hmm...so Boehner sort of caves and sort of holds his ground too....floated the idea of a 39.6% tax bracket starting with income of $1 million. Current rates extended for everyone below that mark.

weird that the Dems are opposed to means testing for Social Security and Medicare, I thought their whole mantra was "soak the rich" and that's what means testing does, no?


No surprise that the dems are opposed to limiting deductions; since five states account for half of the entire country's itemized deduction for state and local income tax! (that's probably 8 Dem Senators right there....) CA, IL, NY, CT, NJ

I can see the higher tax rate settling in for those over 500K, but The Boner is going to have to offer up some concessions for that, because again in two weeks time Obama gets his tax hike which the GOP is powerless to stop. That offer might be to extend the debt ceiling for a year.

Dynamics are odd on means testing entitlements. Especially when you consider wealthy seniors are most like GOP leaning voters. I'd take that deal with the caveat that all SoS savings get plowed back into the program, not be used to close the deficit.

Lastly, as us itemizers in wealthy northern states are paying the freight for shiftless conservative layabouts in Kentucky, Kansas, West Virginia and Mississippi we d @ mn well better keep our tax breaks!

 

[SJHovey]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Disagree to some extent with OP. What needs to happen is all gun sales go through the required background checks, which is the only way to net mentally ill individuals. Now that's not foolproof of course, as they can always resort to theft. But, before they do that its entirely possible they go into the local gun shop looking to buy a weapon or ammo. If the customer is talking to themselves while looking at their choices and then a check comes back that they've got a problem, a quick call to local law enforcement with the person's name and address for them to follow up on might avert a potential tragedy even if they then go and attempt to obtain a firearm by other means.

Its a similar concept to if I own a bar and somebody stumbles in and orders a drink. I refuse because they're already bombed, but then I see them stagger back into a car and peel off. Even though I didn't serve the guy, I'm calling up the cops and having them be on the lookout for the boozer who might plow into someone. Now he may do that before they get a chance to respond, but its far better than doing nothing.

About 15 years ago a severely mentally ill 50 year old man walked into the local Kmart. His clothing reeked of urine and feces. He asked to buy a gun. The clerk, a minimum wage stiff, amazingly refused to sell it to him. He then asked to buy a knife. She again refused.

Finally, he tried to buy some rope. Even this was refused.

The mentally ill man then went down the street to a local, licensed gun dealer. The owner, and two off duty police officers who were his friends/acquaintences were the only individuals in the gun shop when the mentally ill man entered. Within 30 minutes he left the store with a .243 caliber semi-automatic rifle and a box of ammo. The federal form was filled out by the gun shop owner, including the questions relating to mental illness, and was signed with an "X" by the mentally ill man, all in front of the two cops.

He took a cab to his mother's house, where he shot and killed his 75 year old mother and 78 year old uncle, because, in his words, "I wasn't able to keep the house clean enough."

So what's the point? No amount of legislation stops that type of action, short of a complete ban on guns (which will never happen). Thinking that we should leave it in the hands of the "authorities" to do the right thing is clearly a myth. They may or may not save you. You can't legislate away the actions of the completely crazy or psychotic. All you can do is pray you're not around when they go off.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

About 15 years ago a severely mentally ill 50 year old man walked into the local Kmart. His clothing reeked of urine and feces. He asked to buy a gun. The clerk, a minimum wage stiff, amazingly refused to sell it to him. He then asked to buy a knife. She again refused.

Finally, he tried to buy some rope. Even this was refused.

The mentally ill man then went down the street to a local, licensed gun dealer. The owner, and two off duty police officers who were his friends/acquaintences were the only individuals in the gun shop when the mentally ill man entered. Within 30 minutes he left the store with a .243 caliber semi-automatic rifle and a box of ammo. The federal form was filled out by the gun shop owner, including the questions relating to mental illness, and was signed with an "X" by the mentally ill man, all in front of the two cops.

He took a cab to his mother's house, where he shot and killed his 75 year old mother and 78 year old uncle, because, in his words, "I wasn't able to keep the house clean enough."

So what's the point? No amount of legislation stops that type of action, short of a complete ban on guns (which will never happen). Thinking that we should leave it in the hands of the "authorities" to do the right thing is clearly a myth. They may or may not save you. You can't legislate away the actions of the completely crazy or psychotic. All you can do is pray you're not around when they go off.

Even a complete ban on guns won't work. How do you think Al Capone made his money in the roaring 20's?

 

[mookie1995]

Even a complete ban on guns won't work. How do you think Al Capone made his money in the roaring 20's?

In Atlantic city with jimmy dermity

 

[Rover]

About 15 years ago a severely mentally ill 50 year old man walked into the local Kmart. His clothing reeked of urine and feces. He asked to buy a gun. The clerk, a minimum wage stiff, amazingly refused to sell it to him. He then asked to buy a knife. She again refused.

Finally, he tried to buy some rope. Even this was refused.

The mentally ill man then went down the street to a local, licensed gun dealer. The owner, and two off duty police officers who were his friends/acquaintences were the only individuals in the gun shop when the mentally ill man entered. Within 30 minutes he left the store with a .243 caliber semi-automatic rifle and a box of ammo. The federal form was filled out by the gun shop owner, including the questions relating to mental illness, and was signed with an "X" by the mentally ill man, all in front of the two cops.

He took a cab to his mother's house, where he shot and killed his 75 year old mother and 78 year old uncle, because, in his words, "I wasn't able to keep the house clean enough."

So what's the point? No amount of legislation stops that type of action, short of a complete ban on guns (which will never happen). Thinking that we should leave it in the hands of the "authorities" to do the right thing is clearly a myth. They may or may not save you. You can't legislate away the actions of the completely crazy or psychotic. All you can do is pray you're not around when they go off.

Disagree quite a bit with this. First of all, that level of incompetence out of all involved isn't the norm as cops tend to do their jobs or we'd all be overrun with crime like the Bronx from the 1970's.

Second, vigilence can't necessarily be legislated, although you could open up the gun owner to some penalty if they illegally sell a weapon, such as to a guy signing his name with an X. Again with the bar example, if you serve someone until they're falling down drunk and they get into an accident later on the roads, the police will be having a chat with you as well as possibly the victims family in civil court when they sue your business. Beyond this however, gun sellers in the context of complying with the Brady law should alert the police, or the ATF or the staties or whoever, when someone gets rejected for a sale or if someone looks like trouble. Admittedly a judgement call.

A long time ago, an actress was shot to death by an obsessed fan. During the investigation, it turned out said fan tried to legally purchase a firearm (this was before the Brady bill) and the owner told him to get lost because he was acting all freaky. Even went as far as posting a description of the guy in his store so that other employees wouldn't sell to him. Dude then had his brother buy a gun which he used for the crime. Can you stop someone else from purchasing a weapon for somebody? No. Can you coordinate with gun shop dealers to give cops a heads up if someone unstable comes in to buy a weapon? Yes. It'll take some education, but it needs to be done.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Disagree to some extent with OP. What needs to happen is all gun sales go through the required background checks, which is the only way to net mentally ill individuals. Now that's not foolproof of course, as they can always resort to theft. But, before they do that its entirely possible they go into the local gun shop looking to buy a weapon or ammo. If the customer is talking to themselves while looking at their choices and then a check comes back that they've got a problem, a quick call to local law enforcement with the person's name and address for them to follow up on might avert a potential tragedy even if they then go and attempt to obtain a firearm by other means.

Its a similar concept to if I own a bar and somebody stumbles in and orders a drink. I refuse because they're already bombed, but then I see them stagger back into a car and peel off. Even though I didn't serve the guy, I'm calling up the cops and having them be on the lookout for the boozer who might plow into someone. Now he may do that before they get a chance to respond, but its far better than doing nothing.

Putting our trust in sales clerks, no matter how highly motivated, is a prescription for disaster. There are so far unconfirmed reports that Lanza tried unsuccessfully to buy a weapon last week. In a house full of weapons, why? Maybe because he was nuts. But just because he was turned down once doesn't mean somebody somewhere won't sell him a gun. We cannot delude ourselves into believing or relying on sales clerks to do the job that psychiatrists should do: cut these people from the herd. And pass laws requiring them to be treated, whether they want to or not. We emptied out our insane asylums in the 70's and 80's and had an uptick in violent crime as a result. We need for the pendulum to swing back to a more reality based policy. IMO, this is a mental health problem, not a gun control problem. Banning from sale rifles with bayonet clips will not stop the next Adam Lanza, I assure you.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

If my children had been killed by someone with a gun, and at their funeral a person showed up holding a sign that said "if you supported gun control your children might still be alive today," I'd be strongly tempted to choke that person to death with my bare hands. I probably wouldn't actually do it; the point being that if I did, would his relatives then be out demanding stricter laws on how we use our hands?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Disagree quite a bit with this. First of all, that level of incompetence out of all involved isn't the norm as cops tend to do their jobs or we'd all be overrun with crime like the Bronx from the 1970's.

Second, vigilence can't necessarily be legislated, although you could open up the gun owner to some penalty if they illegally sell a weapon, such as to a guy signing his name with an X. Again with the bar example, if you serve someone until they're falling down drunk and they get into an accident later on the roads, the police will be having a chat with you as well as possibly the victims family in civil court when they sue your business. Beyond this however, gun sellers in the context of complying with the Brady law should alert the police, or the ATF or the staties or whoever, when someone gets rejected for a sale or if someone looks like trouble. Admittedly a judgement call.

A long time ago, an actress was shot to death by an obsessed fan. During the investigation, it turned out said fan tried to legally purchase a firearm (this was before the Brady bill) and the owner told him to get lost because he was acting all freaky. Even went as far as posting a description of the guy in his store so that other employees wouldn't sell to him. Dude then had his brother buy a gun which he used for the crime. Can you stop someone else from purchasing a weapon for somebody? No. Can you coordinate with gun shop dealers to give cops a heads up if someone unstable comes in to buy a weapon? Yes. It'll take some education, but it needs to be done.

I'm guessing you're talking about Rebecca Schaeffer. She lived in an apartment and the whackjob just walked up to her door, rang the bell, and shot her when she opened up. People in the public eye have security concerns and problems normal people don't. They becme magnets for obsessives. I recall reading an article where Michael J. Fox said he was spending a million bucks a year on personal security. Much of it related to sorting through "fan" mail, lookng for threats both real and potential. You know, the person who writes ten letters a day.

Remember all that trouble Letterman had with some babe who kept showing up at his home, breaking in and making herself at home? Rather than waiting around for the cops to help him. Or for her to produce a weapon, Letterman should have simply plugged her and called 911. Problem solved.

Sure, having sales clerks more observant and motivated and trained to deny sales to obvious nutcakes and report the would be purchasers would help, at the margins. But only at the margins. Lanaza's mother was quoted as saying recently she was losing him or losing contact with him. Yet she did nothing. How about some sort of involuntary, short term, commitment to assess him? With mandated treatment if indicated? As always, we have to balance the rights of the individual against the rights of society. I think we err too frequently on protecting the rights of the individual and we wind up paying a horrible price. The shooters in Tucson, Aurora and Blacksburg were all obvious nutcases, recognized by everyone who came in contact with them, yet nothing was done. So, apparantly, was the shooter in Newtown. Waiting until these people show up in a gun store is going to be too late a lot of the time.

 

[unofan]

If my children had been killed by someone with a gun, and at their funeral a person showed up holding a sign that said "if you supported gun control your children might still be alive today," I'd be strongly tempted to choke that person to death with my bare hands. I probably wouldn't actually do it; the point being that if I did, would his relatives then be out demanding stricter laws on how we use our hands?

Of course the only purpose of a gun is to kill things. Your hands, cars, knives, bats, etc. all have non-lethal purposes.

You're also far more likely to survive an assault without guns than one with guns.

More to the point, why are we trying to find reasons to maintain a status quo that clearly does not work rather than attempt to solve the farking problem? Don't tell me it's too hard...20 ***** six year olds are dead, along with a half dozen adults. They should not simply be a price to pay for some gun nuts' constitutionally protected fetish.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Of course the only purpose of a gun is to kill things. Your hands, cars, knives, bats, etc. all have non-lethal purposes.

You're also far more likely to survive an assault without guns than one with guns.

More to the point, why are we trying to find reasons to maintain a status quo that clearly does not work rather than attempt to solve the farking problem? Don't tell me it's too hard...20 ***** six year olds are dead, along with a half dozen adults. They should not simply be a price to pay for some gun nuts' constitutionally protected fetish.

And how about those strict Connecticut gun laws? Did real well, eh?

Oh, but because the mother was a "prepper", that explains things...

 

[unofan]

And how about those strict Connecticut gun laws? Did. eal well, eh?

Oh, but because the mother was a "prepper", that explains things...

Reagan really screwed the pooch eliminating state mental hospitals. I generally think he was an above average to good president, but the state of mental health care in this country is pathetic.

We require licenses with periodic testing for drivers, why can't we do the same for guns? Why can't we place excise taxes on par with cigerette and tobacco upon guns and ammo? Again, why is the status quo acceptable?

 

[Rover]

I'm guessing you're talking about Rebecca Schaeffer. She lived in an apartment and the whackjob just walked up to her door, rang the bell, and shot her when she opened up. People in the public eye have security concerns and problems normal people don't. They becme magnets for obsessives. I recall reading an article where Michael J. Fox said he was spending a million bucks a year on personal security. Much of it related to sorting through "fan" mail, lookng for threats both real and potential. You know, the person who writes ten letters a day.

Remember all that trouble Letterman had with some babe who kept showing up at his home, breaking in and making herself at home? Rather than waiting around for the cops to help him. Or for her to produce a weapon, Letterman should have simply plugged her and called 911. Problem solved.

Sure, having sales clerks more observant and motivated and trained to deny sales to obvious nutcakes and report the would be purchasers would help, at the margins. But only at the margins. Lanaza's mother was quoted as saying recently she was losing him or losing contact with him. Yet she did nothing. How about some sort of involuntary, short term, commitment to assess him? With mandated treatment if indicated? As always, we have to balance the rights of the individual against the rights of society. I think we err too frequently on protecting the rights of the individual and we wind up paying a horrible price. The shooters in Tucson, Aurora and Blacksburg were all obvious nutcases, recognized by everyone who came in contact with them, yet nothing was done. So, apparantly, was the shooter in Newtown. Waiting until these people show up in a gun store is going to be too late a lot of the time.

Yes that's the woman. Regarding mental health, it ties into how I'd like to see this play out. By law and regardless of insurance availabillity these people in question should get one free psych exam a year, and here's how it would work for example. A direct relative, be it a parent, child, spouse or sibling, gets in touch with local law enforcement and explains the problem (this cuts down on people turning in their neighbors, political or personal rivals, etc). Cops if they determine threat is credible stop by for a visit. If person is perceived to be dangerous or just out of it mentally they decide what's best - maybe a hospital visit to adjust meds, maybe something more serious, maybe nothing at all but that's where a psych evaluation comes into play.

Only other people who can make such a request to cops are people licensed to sell things like guns, dynamite or poisons. Again, if somebody flaky tries to purchase any of these, make the call to the police and have them check it out. Also school heads working through their teaching and staff can make a request for their students.

While us libs tend to get accused of always wanting to do a top down approach, this absolutely has to be a ground up endeavor. The local teachers/gun dealers/relatives/police are the boots on the ground who are going to know first hand who might have issues. That kind of community involvement is what needs to be harnassed here. The only law that needs to be passed is one that sends all gun sales through a background check, and one that provides training for everyone involved.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Of course the only purpose of a gun is to kill things. Your hands, cars, knives, bats, etc. all have non-lethal purposes.

You're also far more likely to survive an assault without guns than one with guns.

More to the point, why are we trying to find reasons to maintain a status quo that clearly does not work rather than attempt to solve the farking problem? Don't tell me it's too hard...20 ***** six year olds are dead, along with a half dozen adults. They should not simply be a price to pay for some gun nuts' constitutionally protected fetish.

A typically hysterical libstain response is not calculated to "solve the problem" either. If the problem is gun violence, then by all means let's look at ways to reduce it. But these mass shootings are totally atypical and actually quite rare. Of the 30,000 people killed by guns every year, only a handful die in these kinds of events. Let's not kid ourselves. If we increase the paperwork requirments for gun purchases, put some weapons on a black list, reduce clip capacities, whatever, that's fine by me. But please don't kid yourself that has anything to do with stopping the Adam Lanzas of the world. And it's intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise.

Your hyper-emotionalized response to this event is, sadly, typical of the breed. Adam Lanza had no "constitutional" right to kill children or anybody else. And nobody's suggesting he did. If you think the only way to solve the problem is through total prohibition and confiscation, why not say so? Because those are the only remedies which would seriously diminish the liklihood of another Lanza.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Reagan really screwed the pooch eliminating state mental hospitals. I generally think he was an above average to good president, but the state of mental health care in this country is pathetic.

We require licenses with periodic testing for drivers, why can't we do the same for guns? Why can't we place excise taxes on par with cigerette and tobacco upon guns and ammo? Again, why is the status quo acceptable?

Why, because knuckledraggers like Fishy, OPie, and me are loose?

Sure you could require a gun safety school, and obviously I hope that people who own firearms have learned that sort of proper usage, but you're not going to get very far with that, because just like automobiles, they can be stolen (just like in this most recent case). Sure you could try banning them, but guess who's going to be buying the things Eric Holder let go to Mexico. As for the tax level, it's not so much federal excise taxes, but rather the states ones that kill you (I believe the Vampire State is up to $4.35 a pack for taxes alone, once again the highest in the country). Not to mention, that doesn't stop other sellers, similar to how Native Americans are able to sell tobacco on the cheap when you're on the reservation.

 

[unofan]

And how about those strict Connecticut gun laws? Did. eal well, eh?

Oh, but because the mother was a "prepper", that explains things...

Reagan really screwed the pooch eliminating state mental hospitals. I generally think he was an above average to good president, but the state of mental health care in this country is pathetic.

We require licenses with periodic testing for drivers, why can't we do the same for guns? Why can't we place excise taxes on par with cigerette and tobacco upon guns and ammo? Again, why is the status quo acceptable?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Reagan really screwed the pooch eliminating state mental hospitals. I generally think he was an above average to good president, but the state of mental health care in this country is pathetic.

We require licenses with periodic testing for drivers, why can't we do the same for guns? Why can't we place excise taxes on par with cigerette and tobacco upon guns and ammo? Again, why is the status quo acceptable?

So this tragedy was Reagan's fault? How can anyone take seriously the pathetic yapping of a libstain who, no matter how horrible the situation, reaches for some Republican to blame? This isn't a political problem. It's a mental health problem. And the sooner you and the rest of the libstain chorus realizes that, the sooner we may be able to put policies in place that might, might, reduce the number of these horrors.

You keep repeating that "status quo" mantra like the head bobbing dog in the back windows of cars. Fine, let's license people. How would that have stopped Lanza? His mother taught him how to shoot. Taxes on weapons? Fine. How would that stop Lanza? His mother was well off and he stole the weapons from her in any case.

Years ago, gun registration was the holy grail for gun control types. For those with long memories, you'll recall Bobby Kennedy was murdered with a registered gun. Shirhan Sirhan refused to talk to cops after the shooting. They only way he was identified was through tracing the gun, which was registered to his brother. Sadly, gun registration didn't help Bobby.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

While us libs tend to get accused of always wanting to do a top down approach, this absolutely has to be a ground up endeavor. The local teachers/gun dealers/relatives/police are the boots on the ground who are going to know first hand who might have issues. That kind of community involvement is what needs to be harnassed here. The only law that needs to be passed is one that sends all gun sales through a background check, and one that provides training for everyone involved.

And that still doesn't stop the shooting. The kid stole the legally acquired firearms.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Reagan really screwed the pooch eliminating state mental hospitals. I generally think he was an above average to good president, but the state of mental health care in this country is pathetic.

We require licenses with periodic testing for drivers, why can't we do the same for guns? Why can't we place excise taxes on par with cigerette and tobacco upon guns and ammo? Again, why is the status quo acceptable?

I tried putting forth the requirement for licensing of gun owners similar to vehicle licenses. The folks on this board did not like it due to Constitutional questions.

Somebody tweeted today that since 1968 almost 400K people have been killed by guns in the USA. That's more than all the US deaths in WW-II. Bad use of math. WW-II was 4 years, we've had almost 45 years since '68. How many died in vehicle accidents since then? How many from drug overdoses?

He could also cite that a majority of deaths in the world population since the dawn of time have occurred in the last 100 or so years.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Sometimes, in the wake of a tragedy, we look at the problem and take appropriate steps to prevent a recurrance. After the Titanic went down, investigations were held on both sides of the pond. The Senate hearing in America was essentially a one man show, William Alden Smith of Michigan. And almost immediately, important changes were put in place: enough life boats for all, wireless sets manned 24/7, the creation of the Atlantic Ice Patrol. In fact, in the century that has passed since the Titanic foundered, not a single passenger life has been lost because of an ice berg.

The key difference, to me, is that in the case of the Titanic, we weren't dealing with crazy people. Captain Smith, sadly, behaved like other captains of the day would have under the same circumstances. The Titanic actually carried more lifeboats than the Board of Trade required. Ships had gotten so big so quickly that those regulations were horribly out of date. Captain Stanley Lord of the Californian (the ship that "stood still" while the Titanic sank) could have easily learned what was going on by simply waking up his wireless operator. And in the process could have saved many if not all of the lives that were lost. IMO, Captain Lord wasn't interested in knowing what was going on. He dissembled all over the place. He got away with it in 1912, but he wouldn't now. The point being, these were rational people, who, shocked by the loss of 1500 lives, realized they needed to update the regime by which ships of the "Atlantic Ferry" operated, and they quickly did so.

Identifying the next Lanza or Loughner or Woo Tang Klan and stopping him before he shows up with guns at a grade school or political meet and greet or college classroom is much more difficult. And the kinds of laws that will come out of Congress or state legislatures (at least the laws regulating guns) are likely to have zero impact in protecting us from these loons.