Skip to main content

View Diary: Sen. McConnell Posts 'Hilarious' Facebook Photo Following Gun Vote Defeat (227 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  Which background check would've stopped Newton? (0+ / 0-)

      Please explain which background check proposed would have prevented Mrs. Lanza from giving guns to her son?  Did I miss the law that said parents of Aspergers kids lose their 2nd amendment rights?

      Please explain why Newton parents are upset about a meaningless law not passing.  Wake me up when a real bill disarming the mentally ill is up for discussion. Until then, stop pretending background checks are going to stop a fucked up kid from using his mother's gun.

      •  So, those guns were not considered assault weapons (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ericlewis0, NWTerriD

        Nor his magazines larger then 10?
        Didn't Feinstein's bill one of those defeated?

        •  I said background check (0+ / 0-)

          It's debatable that a handgun with 10 round clips couldn't cause the same damage. Handguns are easier to conceal and reloading takes seconds. I doubt it would make much difference.

          But the law that didn't pass yesterday was a background check, not a gun ban. So again, which background check would Mrs. Lanza have failed because of her son?

          •  "and reloading takes seconds." (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nimh

            And that's typically when shooters are rushed and disarmed. So you'd rather they get off 30 shots before anyone has those few seconds to stop them?

            The polls don't tell us how a candidate is doing, the polls tell us how the media is doing.

            by Thumb on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 07:23:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Read them again. Several laws failed to pass. (0+ / 0-)

            Included amongst them was Senator Feinstein's Assault Weapons ban bill which would also have limited magazines to 10 rounds.  There was another, separate bill that would have limited magazine size.  Also failed.

            Read, too, the reports from Newtown that said that 11 kids managed to make it out of a classroom to safety when Lanza had to switch magazines in his assault rifle.  The fact that his magazine held thirty shots so he had to  change it five times only left five such opportunities, but still it saved 11 lives.  Had he had to change the magazine 15 times (to fire the same number of shots), perhaps more than 11 could have fled to freedom, or perhaps one of the people like the principal who charged Lanza might have had an opportunity to succeed in stopping him before 150+ shots were fired.

            Background checks aren't 100% effective.  Nobody is arguing that (other than the NRA types who argue that because they aren't 100% effective they should not be used, and they'd like to do away with all of those checks - are you one of those?).  However, background checks would fail thousands of people and would make it harder for them to get guns.  Adam Lanza might very soon have been unable to pass one - IIRC his mother was trying to get a psych evaluation on him.  Adam knew a source for guns and he procured them as he started his terror spree - he first killed his mother and then he took her weapons of mass-killing and went hunting people who couldn't fight back - kids.  No background check would have prevented that, but they would prevent people with felony convictions, protection orders against them and people with, yes, mental illness from buying guns legally.  Without the avenue of gun shows and advertised gun sales (what the bill yesterday on background checks would have expanded the requirements to), they still could have purchased guns legally from friends and neighbors and they could have still procured guns illegally, through robberies and other situations like Lanza's.  It would be harder for them to get guns, and fewer people would be dead because someone who shouldn't have a gun got one.

            •  Oh please. (0+ / 0-)

              I've posted multiple times that the mentally ill and the parents of the mentally ill must be disarmed if everyone is really serious about preventing another Newton. Those posts have basically received as many HRs as recs. I have zero confidence that all parents of Aspergers kids will be forcibly disarmed, and you know that's true. The ACLU would probably file suit for discrimination.

              Of course felons should lose their 2nd amendment rights, but Adam Lanza wasn't a felon, and no bill being discussed would have disarmed his mother.

              As for magazine limits, I have no constitutional issue.  But if the next school shooting by a similar individual only kills 5-10, don't pretend you will be satisfied with the harm reduction.

              •  I most certainly would feel better if the body (0+ / 0-)

                count were kept to 5-10 because the gunman had to change clips more often because we have examples here and in Aurora, Colorado where large clips and not having to change them as often yielded higher body counts.  We know what could happen, and this would be a case that would support the idea that smaller clips allow for fewer people to be killed.

                I would not be happy that 5-10 people died, but I would be happy it was only 5-10 instead of 20+.

                I can see why you'd be frowned upon for advocating the "forcible disarming of the parents of mentally ill", as that has never been brought up by lawmakers and certainly never inserted into bills.  Adam Lanza's mother, since she had concerns over her son, should have taken steps to protect herself and one way would be to secure her guns where Adam couldn't have accessed them.  He may have killed her in another way - my guess is knives would be available, but the knives would not have then allowed him to go kill 26 innocents at the school.  

                People will figure out ways to murder if they try hard enough.  All we're trying to do is to figure out ways to prevent mass murders of innocents and guns are the way most people try to do that.  The logical step is to see a problem and work on ways to fix it.  Your way seems to not limit guns until/unless someone commits a crime and by that point at Newtown, as in Colorado in Aurora and Columbine, it was too late.  My way would be to limit the availability and efficacy of those guns so that mass killing sprees would be much harder to carry out.

                •  You contradict yourself (0+ / 0-)

                  Why should guns have been locked away from Adam Lanza if he hadn't done anything wrong?  Because he was mentally ill?  If you think that was correct for him, why is it not correct for all of the mentally ill?  Why should they not all lose their rights. That includes their parents, for can they be trusted to always secure their weapons?

                  The alternative is innocent until proven guilty, but then as you say, it's too late. So you have to disarm them first, but how, and for what?  These are questions that must be answered.

                  See, Adam Lanza wasn't a child, he was an adult who owned his own weapons that were bought for him. Should Adam Lanza have failed a background check simply for being mentally ill?  Should his mother have failed one because her son is?  Or is that discrimination against innocent people?  And by what right could Mrs Lanza disarm her adult son without due process?  Note that many here don't want to even define Autism or Aspergers as mental illness.

                  Either all are presumed innocent, and tragedy is a price of freedom, or we disarm all mentally ill as a precaution, without waiting for them to snap.  And without waiting for a mother dragging her feet.

                  •  OK - you win. Guns for everyone with no (0+ / 0-)

                    restrictions.  Happy now?  Probably not.  I'm through trying to show you my logic, and I am done trying to understand yours.

                    •  Innocent until proven guilty (0+ / 0-)

                      And yes, Constitutional rights for everyone unless deprived of those rights theouh due process. That's my only logic.  I find the use of Newton to scream for background checks to be disgusting, as the Lanzas would have passed. Unless you want to go on record as saying every individual (and parents) with Aspergers should fail.  But as you said, that's not being debated. Where's the logic in your position?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site