The aftermath - realistic assessments of the situation please

S

simonrichter

New member
I guess the media is even far more anti-gun biased here in Europe than it is in the States, so I would be really interested in your (Americans') REALISTIC assessment of what is going to happen next in the US?

The thing is, while Washington may use this horrible homicide of a single lunatic as an excuse to cut off little pieces from the 2nd Amendment, the EU is prepared to completely disarm its citizens the sooner the better. Whatever happens in the States will affect us here, too, within the logic of "if even the weapons enthusiast US tighten their laws, we might as well ban guns completely!"
 
My guess would be that it's not going to hit Port Arthur levels here...
Not right away anyhow. Probably won't be too long until it does though.

Opps - sorry - I misread where you're from. I thought you were an Aussie.
 
I'd see a limit on magazine size - probably 10 rounds and probably another 'assault rifle' ban of some kind. Beyond that it's hard to tell. I do think it will be a rough ride as geetarman mentioned.
 
My hope is that somewhere in the public discussion someone will ask: can we learn from these type shooting incidents what, if anything, seems to work to stop or mitigate the scope of the incident? Then, possibly the public can be presented with the facts about at least two school shootings or attempted shootings where an armed individual confronted and stopped the shooter before it became a mass casualty situation. One was at a law school in West Virginia where other students, licensed to carry a handgun, retrieved their guns from their cars and confronted and stopped the shooter. A second was a high school inPearl, Mississippi where a principal (or assistant principal) used his personal firearm to contront and stop the shooter. The U.S. Justice Department itself conducted a study of the impact of gun control laws just a few years ago and concluded that these laws had no impact upon crime rates. Maybe some highly emotional folks could be impressed with these facts and recognize that in a free society it is probably impossible to prevent mentally ill or evil people from committing mayhem, but that law abiding citizens with firearms can limit or stop the incident at least in some cases.
 
The media is certainly more anti-gun in Europe than the United States. When I lived in Switzerland, I was surprised at how anti-gun that country was becoming. Many people didn't even believe they could legally own a gun. This is coming from a society that had a long tradition of private gun ownership.

Realistically, I can't see anything coming from this. Do you think the entire Republican house is going to just cave in to Dianne Feinstein? There are many Democrats and voters who lean Democrat on issues such as social security, education, and environment who own guns (many hunters are very pro-environment/pro-conservation) and further attempts at gun control would be political suicide at the mid term elections after this gun hysteria dies down.
 
and further attempts at gun control would be political suicide at the mid term elections after this gun hysteria dies down.
Click to expand...

I am not sure that this issue will die down. I think we reached a tipping point.
 
I don't think this storm will just blow through, this was an entire classroom of kindergardners some mental reject killed this time, this is 9/11 order of magnitude for the gun politics issue in the U.S. Like another poster said, it probably won't be post-Port Arthur-or-Dunblane level, but a revamped and permanent AWB with magazine capacities reduced to no more than ten is coming. Meanwhile, nothing will be done to address the mental health issue. I think politicans of both parties are going to love this, as it means they can shift their focus away from a much more difficult and nationally-far-more-serious issue of working on a way to keep this declining superpower solvent.

Makes me think of that old Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times."
 
Much of the problem is that people are really running on a lot of emotion right now and not looking at the facts. While I realize some of the recent high profile incidents are horrible the fact remains that violent crime is actually down while gun sales have risen.

As insidious as it may sound I do firmly believe that the ant-gun crowd was emboldened by the recent election and have planned a major assault on gun rights. They have just been waiting for the right moment and regrettably an incident has occurred to jump start their plans. The recent election was seen by many as reaffirming an anti-gun agenda and they are moving full steam ahead.

Many gun rights folks feel the US House of Representatives will be the stalwart for Second Amendment rights, but I’m not so sure. Recently we have seen many in the Congress abandoning long held philosophical beliefs in exchange for what they believe to be the new political reality.
 
My mother is a school principal, my little sister is currently in school to become a teacher, so events like this at schools comes pretty close to home for me.

My response to her call to ask me if I had heard the news was: "Would you like to ask me again why I feel the need to be armed and not frequent 'No Gun' Zones any more than necessary?"

Got to work today and, the "water-cooler" was all over it. One coworker bemoaned that "assault weapons" should only be in the hands of the military and had no business in civilian hands. I figured what the heck and specified that first, there is no such thing; second, assault rifles are mainly in military hands and there are many, many differences between civilian versions and military; and third, that every single gun law was broken in these cases - how would a ban law have made a difference?

Her response was "I don't care, they should be banned"

"So what about the law-abiding owners of these weapons who use them legally?" I foolishly ask, knowing the response.

Reply: "The guns should be taken away and they (the owners) should be locked up"

That, my friends, is the mentality. No reason, all emotion.
 
That, my friends, is the mentality. No reason, all emotion.
Click to expand...

Yes, I saw a reporter speaking with some people around a school in Atlanta. He asked their opinions on the recent events and a woman said, “We need to do something”. He then calmly asked her what would she like to see done and she replied, “I don’t care just do something”.
 
Do you honestly believe more damage could have been done with a real "assault rifle" instead of the sporting arm that was used? You might want to rehearse your argument.
 
"So what about the law-abiding owners of these weapons who use them legally?" I foolishly ask, knowing the response.

Reply: "The guns should be taken away and they (the owners) should be locked up"

That, my friends, is the mentality. No reason, all emotion.
Click to expand...
That's what the other side wants and expects to capitalize on. I've noticed several quotes from long-time antis in the press over the last few days stating that they've been waiting for something like this. It creates the emotional shift in perception they need to get the ball rolling.
 
"they've been waiting for something like this."

I find this rather disgusting and sad that it happens on both side of the fence. This is something you don't politicize, but sadly it undoubtedly will and already has.
 
Well, you may notice that the NRA has been silent on the issue. Many have taken that as a sign of guilt or fear, which could not be further from the truth.

They've simply chosen not to politicize the incident. Let the other side do it. To quote the Brady Campaign vastly out of context, "we're better than that."

There have been calls to close the gun show loophole, but the gun wasn't purchased at a gun show. There have been calls for background checks on private sales, but Lanza was denied on that same background check when he tried to purchase a gun at retail. There are calls to reintroduce the AWB, but that wouldn't have stopped Lanza from stealing the gun from someone who'd legally purchased it.

None of the laws they want would have stopped this.
 
The comments have been coming from all over the country, so many of the commenters (but not all ... I'm sure some DO know) are aware that Connecticut is one of a very few states that still has an AWB in place. It's very close to the old Federal AWB, in fact. So the simple fact that the mother purchased the (evil) Bushmaster legally (confirmed by the CT State Police) by definition tells us that this was NOT an "assault weapon."

But we need to be careful. If we make that clear, it just gives the antis more grounds to claim that "civilians" shouldn't even be allowed to own sporting arms, that ALL guns are bad and only the police and the military should have guns.

Unfortunately, we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If we say nothing, we get run over. If we say anything, we are hard-hearted [bleeps] who don't care about the children. This, despite the fact that most of us HAVE children, and are vitally interested in finding the best way to protect them. In fact, that may be our best counter-argument. The NYPD detective who rattled a Fox News commentator by advocating that gun-free school zones be abolished and that teachers hsould be armed made a point of repeating multiple times that he has three children in elementary school and that he was making his suggestion because he thinks that's the best way to keep his kids safe.
 
As a parent I too cry.
This fellow Lanza stole the weapons he used to perpetrate the crime from one
of his victims.And to those who would collectively punish law abiding citizens
for the crimes of others I would like to ask:just exactly how would you have
prevented this tragedy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top