Assuming you do agree with that, how would you propose going about it, then? Do you think there even is a way that you could call responsible or reasonable?
The easy answer is to require some sort of safe storage. The problem is that given enough time and ambition, anyone can get into any safe. That doesn’t stop me from keeping my stuff locked up, but it is always in the back of my mind when I am gone for a few days.
Being that he lived with his mom, it seems likely that he would have known how to get into a safe if she had one.
I think a starting point is to get rid of the ridiculous idea of “gun free school zones.” Yes, it sounds wonderful, but such laws only keep guns out of the hands of people who are law abiding. Lanza sure didn’t care that he was violating CT state law by bringing guns onto school property. And he knew that he was (almost) guaranteed that nobody in the school had a gun. If he would have went to, say, Wal-Mart, probably half of the people in there would be packing heat. 
Let people with state issued concealed weapons permits carry their guns on school property. I’m not saying it’s a perfect solution, because even though I have a CCW, I rarely carry a gun. If I was at the school on business, I probably wouldn’t have had it, even if it were legal.
But wouldn’t it be nice if the state gave those teachers and administrators at least the opportunity to keep themselves and those kids from being killed? Worse yet, the state affirmatively denied them that opportunity.
Other than that, I can’t think of a reasonable gun regulation that isn’t over inclusive and under inclusive, or that would solve the problem of lunatics and mass shootings. None of the proposals I’ve heard, short of a full gun ban–everyone turn in all your guns, would make a difference in Lanza’s case or any other. But the full gun ban would be unconstitutional and deprive millions of law abiding citizens a basic right, so that’s a non-starter.
One must wonder why mass school shootings didn’t happen in the 1920s when anyone could buy a Tommy gun in a hardware store. (Although in Bath, MI a guy killed 45 people at a school with black powder explosives). I continue to believe that the tools are not the issue and that there is some evil at the core of these people that needs to be examined and dealt with. Perhaps its medical, perhaps it’s moral. Maybe it is violent video games or violence on TV. Maybe broken families don’t give these young kids the love they need in their developing years. Perhaps it some, all, or none of the above.
But I continue to believe that it’s the evil that must be addressed and not the tool used to perpetrate that evil.
“submit to registration with a picture, fingerprints and ID”
what’s the problem with this? if you have a deadly weapon, why shouldn’t it be traceable to you?
Etc. So your solution is more guns. Got it. Ever wonder why that approach seems insane to so many people?
The Constitution can be fixed, you know. If that’s the alternative to letting 10,000+ people a year getting killed (or more, since you advocate even more guns out there), since that’s the only option you allow can exist, which should we as a responsible, civilized society choose? Hmm, ponder ponder ponder …
Then you must have a constructive proposal to make to fix that, since it’s what you identify as the problem, right? Well, what is it, then?
This is at least something reasonable. You want to carry a gun in public, then one needs to show that you’re at least up on the current laws, don’t have an obvious physical or mental disability that would prevent safe operation (we do the same with drivers licenses). Not sure from what you wrote is if this goes into a national law enforcement database or not (and I think it should).
Now I’m not sure the above steps go far enough.That said, the above steps IMHO seem like at least a minimum starting point. You want to go out armed in public, then the burden of proof is on you to show that you’ll be responsible. Again, not unlike a driver’s license where one is required to be current and have insurance to drive legally (although that does not prevent illegal driving).
Frankly, I’m not entirely comfortable with CCW. I have run into responsible CCW types, and others that used it as a form of bullying or intimidation. Or you get someone like Martin Zimmerman, who I think reasonable minds can agree probably wouldn’t have left his vehicle and an innocent youth wouldn’t be dead.
Because, again, it does nothing to prevent these mass shootings. None of these people have any idea of getting out alive, let alone worry about jail. So, Lanza’s mom registers her guns, with fingerprints and picture ID, how does it change the outcome?
Say Lanza himself bought the guns with fingerprints and ID. Would that have stopped him?
Again, I’m for a reasonable measure that actually does something constructive instead of passing a law just for the sake of passing a law.
If it seems insane, it’s only because you are focused on the wrong thing: guns. These things aren’t the guns’ fault anymore than when a drunk driver kills a guy it was his 2004 Nissan Altima’s fault.
If I said that we need to combat drunk driving by having more cops on patrol, would you say that my solution to car deaths are (cue scary music) MORE cars? And then act like I’m insane?
Guns, like free speech or press, are tools that can be used for good or evil. Let the good guys have them; the bad guys have them already.
Requiring licensing to own or use firearms is a non-starter because it turns owning firearms from a right into a privilege. Given our theoretically egalitarian society, telling people “you aren’t good enough to own a gun” isn’t going to go down well.
If these weapons are so dangerous that they pose an existential threat to society, why weren’t people demanding they be banned over half a century ago? What’s different now?
It might be giving Feinstein too much credit for intelligence, but since no one believes that total confiscation now could possibly work and would raise too much opposition, the registration scheme is quite clever if one’s goal is eventual abolition: Split off the people willing to accept registration from those who won’t, concentrate law enforcement efforts on the non-registrants (declare them “terrorists”, “militiamen”, “gun traffickers”, etc.) until most of the unregistered items are confiscated. Then go after the registered, easy-to-find stuff.
What’s my alternate proposal for dealing with gun massacres? Abolish gun-“free” zones and let people law-abiding and responsible enough to qualify for carry permits carry. And I’d go for laws mandating accessible but secure storage.
How do you find non-registrants? Sure, you could confiscate all of the ATF 4473 forms and see who has bought guns in the last 20 years and compare it to who has/hasn’t registered them. But if they come to my house, I just say, “Sorry, officer, I sold all of those guns 4 years ago. To whom? I don’t know. I advertised them in the local circular and met him at the gas station. Describe him? He was about 5’ 10” 190 lbs., white guy, brown hair. Is that all, officer? Thank you. Have a wonderful day fighting crime!"
Well they’ll certainly try. Harsh federal sentences for anyone they do catch, undercover sting operations, rewards for informants, etc. My point was that if that’s going to be difficult, it would be even more difficult to try to enforce a total ban up front.
Clamoring for that, are they? Teachers demanding that, by the thousands?
For those teachers who are licensed and want to take on the responsibility - why would you object that they would carry in school?
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Handgun-classes-are-drawing-teachers-4154485.php
The local firm’s owner, Josh Felker, advertised the class Dec. 17, three days after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings. All 400 available slots were booked within 24 hours, Felker said.
But Thursday’s event near Salt Lake City, organized especially for educators in the aftermath of Newtown, drew interest from hundreds, and the class was capped at 200 because of space limitations.
In Ohio, the Buckeye Firearms Foundation is swamped with 20 times more applications — from teachers and administrators to custodians and bus drivers – than they have space for in a three-day tactical defense course to be offered this this spring.
I find it funny that people are still arguing to ban “assault weapons” in this thread when Lanza didn’t use one, he used two pistols.
The fact that people on the banning side are still obsessed with flash suppressors and grenade launchers proves that they are pushing for legislation out of fear and not reality.
As I pointed out in another thread, even in Australia, which has an almost “total ban” you can obtain firearms exactly like used in Sandybrook and at VA Tech without much problem.
Heck news reports are now claiming that the rifle found in Lanza’s trunk was a bolt action .223 and not an AR15, also note that even if it was an AR15 it was in the trunk! He didn’t use it to commit his horrid crime yet Feinstein is trying to use is evil actions to justify a ban.
Yes there is a good reason look at her actions as an attempt to move towards her personal preference of a total ban because she is obviously not trying to solve the problem and is only using the event to push towards her own long held personal agenda of a total firearms ban.
Why does it matter if the majority of teachers don’t carry? The idea is that the crazy bastard has no idea who might be carrying. Any teacher or administrator COULD be carrying, and in some circumstances might plug the guy before he shoots anyone.
I took a jab at Wal-Mart earlier, but when has there been a mass shooting at a Wal-Mart? Never? Because the rednecks there are carrying guns. A crazy person finds some other place to do maximum damage: Gun Free Zones.
I thought that those early reports were incorrect and that Lanza did in fact use a Bushmaster .223 to kill all of his victims.
Note that these reports that he only used pistols may be wrong, I am not claiming they are correct, but he did shoot his mom with a .22LR rifle.
The point is that the facts are not what is driving her legislation.
I think it’s taken as read that the views expressed should be reasonable. JFPO is composed almost entirely of crazy people.
So instead of explaining why they are wrong you just use a logical fallacy to dismiss them? This may make your argument more valid in your own mind but really isn’t a good way to convince people your stance is correct.
Because the wording left the impression of teachers being forbidden, their efforts stymied. Very possibly a perfectly innocent wording, but worthy of question. I’ll take a wild stab at it, and guess that the vast majority of teachers would prefer money to be spent on mundane concerns, like books. 'Puters. Stuff like that.
And have you any statistics on the redneck prevalence at Wal-Mart? Not that I doubt it, mind, the redneck is far less advanced then the peckerwood. Though both look down on disdain upon the cracker.