<p>
</p>
<p>As this tragedy has brought up issues of misogyny and male female relations:</p>
<h1>YesAllWomen are adults</h1>
<p>Collegevetting, did you actually believe that Swiss women are in the Swiss militia, or did you forget that women are adults when you said that every able bodied adult is required to have a fully automatic weapon? In Switzerland, able-bodied MEN between nineteen and thirty-four have an automatic rifle in their home.</p>
<p>Why dont we have oversight to regulate off label use of psychotropic medication?</p>
<p>Physicians use drugs for off-label indications all the time, emeraldkity. It’s not nefarious and it’s not “bad”. It’s a common trope in the anti-science / anti-medicine camp to point at a doctor using a drug off-label thinking that it’s evidence of some awful conspiracy. Many common uses of medication are off-label. Save your energy for other stuff. </p>
<p><a href=“Gun control – DW – 01/03/2013”>http://www.dw.de/switzerland-though-armed-not-as-violent-as-us/a-16494956</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Words from the head of the Swiss gun lobbyist organization. </p>
<p>Off-label doesn’t bother me so much but I do think that as a society we are overmedicated to near comical and potentially tragic levels. When up to half the 4th grade class at some elementary schools are on medication something is wrong somewhere and it’s probably not in most of those students heads… Kids cannot just naturally all al be this much more unable to function than they were in the past. A high school principal was fired from a local school for getting addicted to the students meds. He was stealing their Ritalin and there was a never-ending supply in the office medicine cabinet. It’s just crazy. </p>
<p>
I know. Some people apparently have a real chip on their shoulder. Something must have happened in their past. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just because people have the same knee jerk reaction after all these events of “ban the gun!”, and don’t understand correlation vs. causation, or that anything they were proposing (gun show rules, assault rifle bans, etc) would not have had an impact on preventing the event does NOT mean they are “ignorant people”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Apparently in Norway, the guy who killed over 70 people and injured another 200 had his sign fall off when his housekeeper was cleaning.</p>
<p>Oh, if only that housekeeper had been more careful!</p>
<p>Part of the problem is that some of this weaponry allows for mass destruction in a matter of seconds. Had the Sandy Hook killer not had the type of guns he did, and he rigged them to even be more potent, there was a chance he could have been stopped. You don’t stand a chance with those semi automatic type guns. Someone wielding a knife, yes, can kill, but chance are better for those attacked with a knife , and the chances are better of disarming someone attacking with a knife. You don’t just get blown away. That these weapons of destruction are so readily available is chilling. I doubt that the mother of the SH killer would have gotten those guns illegally, nor do I believe this killer would have been able to get that kind of weaponry as as easily or at all illegally.</p>
<p>It’s the same thing with drugs. When legal, there will be more who will use them more. There are a number of us, a lot of who do abide by the law even as we disagree with it, or at least temper our actions as we do not want to be caught. </p>
<p>Those coots who go nuts in the sticks and shoot off their guns on rampages don’t tend to do a lot of damage because their guns tend to be simpler. The next generation of such crazies…will probably rack up a lot more carnage because of the weaponry they will tend to have. Just as you can’t spread the word as fast with the old dial phone and snail mail as you can with the cell phone, computer and social media. you can’t get that kind of kill count as quickly with the older guns. There really is no reason other than playing shooting games that anyone needs those types of guns. You don’t shoot for meat with those things. It’s pretty clear what the primary purpose of those guns are.</p>
<p>As for Pfund, and his words, Nancy Lanzer took care of her guns and was well educated in them. Her fatal flaw was not recognizing that she had a killer of a son. That his mental illness had taken him to that side where his expertise (and I’ll bet he know all the rules on care, storage,use of those guns right to being able to improvise their shooting capacity) turned them into weapons of mass destruction.</p>
<p>fluffy, I was responding to comments about “ignorant gun-toting rednecks.” I think anyone with rigid views (at either extreme) takes away from our ability to have a real dialogue. And there ARE a lot of “you’ll have to pry my guns out of my cold dead hands” people and wanna-be cowboys who insist on carrying assault weapons into McDonald’s to prove their point. That’s the kind of ignorant I think PG was referring to.</p>
<p>The answer with Switzerland is part of the problem with the NRA in this country, and that is accountability. In Swtitzerland, all men above a certain age are part of the militia, and they are required to keep arms in their homes. That said, they also are required to maintain tight control of their weapons, and if they are found to be lax, they get in a lot of trouble. If, for example, they left a weapon unsecured and loaded, and a kid got access to it and got hurt, they would be in deep trouble, in many states in the US, they would shake their head and say “how tragic”. If a weapon went missing, if ammo was missing, they would be held accountable, and if that weapon were used in a crime, they would be held accountable. If Adam Lanzas mother had lived, from what I am led to believe, the fact that her guns were not secured could not be used against her, that her son used them in commission of a crime. </p>
<p>In the US, that isn’t true, and the NRA is part of that, as well as the radical gun owners, who want basically no controls over guns, they want in effect unfettered access to all kinds of weapons, and along with that, limited responsibility and liability. In many states, if you own a gun, you don’t have to register it, and if that weapon is lost or stolen, there is no mandatory reporting, which is a loophole large enough to drive a truck through. Something like 60% of the guns pulled off of the streets of cities like NY, Baltimore and so forth, were purchased legally in a handful of states with lax gun laws. Without accountability, people can walk into a gun store, buy a number of guns (I believe the restrictions on weapons purchases on the federal level either expired or were repealed). So someone can buy a number of guns, drive north and sell them in the black market…and if the gun gets traced back, which happens more than a little, the guy can say “oops, I lost it” or “oops it was stolen”, and even though he never reported it, there is absolutely no penalty. Try that in switzerland or states with tighter laws, and that guy is in deep doo doo. </p>
<p>Put it this way, in all 50 states, if your car is used in commission of a crime, and you hadn’t reported it stolen, you likely would be charged as an accomplice to a crime, we have more liability laws with cars than we do with guns. In most states, you aren’t required to have liability insurance if you own guns, and in many of them, there is no registration, something required of both cars and boats. Often, I see death by guns compared to cars, yet we have a lot stricter standards with cars than we do with guns;both can cause great harm, whether accidental or deliberate, but with guns, we often treat them like buying a hammer, when the level of damage a gun can cause is on par with a car (not to mention that there are roughly 300 million guns in this country at last estimate).</p>
<p>My take on guns isn’t redneck versus northern elites, it is trying to let the rational people lead on this. The NRA IMO has been hijacked by the loony right, who go beyond the rights of hunters and sportsmen. The radical type have this anti government bent and really think that the black helicopters are coming for them, that the government is going to ‘take them away’, and therefore think that being armed to the teeth will allow them to ‘fight the government’, and that is a big part of the problem (besides the obvious, that joe blow with his AK47 or AR15 isn’t going to take on military grade firepower, even if their delusions were true). What bothers me is the NRA has some of the best range safety and gun safety classes around, they encourage it, and if I ever decided I wanted/needed a gun to protect myself or wanted to take up hunting (believe me, the squirrels in my yard have me tempted, they are evil little buggers, and fresh, too <em>lol</em>), I would take those classes, they are that good, and I know a lot of NRA members who aren’t happy with Wayne La Pierre and the laissez faire gun bunch…</p>
<p>For a lot of people, guns are what they hunt with for food, or are something they feel they need, and I have no problem with that. What I do have problems with is having something like guns where there is limited accountability, some states gun laws are de facto encouraging a thriving business in illegal guns (and to answer the inevitable question, if the flow of guns that were bough legally and ended up in the black market were staunched, the street price of guns would go up a lot, because importing guns illegally is very, very difficult compared to the route 95 gun supply that goes on today). I also have problems with things like weapons that can fire hundred rounds a minute (semi automatic weapons can do that), along with large clips it makes what happened in connecticut a lot more possible. </p>
<p>It is also recognizing that what works in a rural state like Montana may not work in a densely populated state, Montana has relatively loose gun laws, but being as rural as they are, it works for them, same thing won’t work in another state (and likewise, hyper restrictive laws like they have in a city may not work in a rural area). The only thing I want to see is accountability, I want to make sure that people who own guns cannot abuse the privilege the way they do today, and I also want to see rational limits on what people can own (keyword, rational). I don’t give a darn if someone gets some ego boost out of a gun that looks like a military weapon, what I do care about is that people can’t get their hands on weapons that have near military capability. We severely limit automatic weapons, with semi automatic weapons we need rational bounds on refire rates, reload rates and the size of magazines, for example. There is no reason to allow people to buy teflon coated bullets, despite what the NRA leaders say, there is no rational basis for dum dum bullets or talon bullets, the primary purpose of such ammunition is to basically kill, and play no role in sport hunting, sport shooting or even self defense. The ‘militias’ can rant all they want, but the right to own weapons has burdens on it, and owning weapons that serve no rational use for a civilian has always been regulated (guy once showed up at the Oskosh air show with a restored ME109 fighter from WWII, that had working machine guns…needless to say, ATF and the FAA weren’t thrilled).</p>
<p>One of the problems is that the hard right who have taken of the NRA believe they can keep promoting unfettered gun ownership and not have it backfire on them. Put it this way, other than people who firmly believe we should ban all weapons, most people if the NRA hadn’t been so over the top promoting the idea that people should be able to own any guns they wanted, with no registration, no responsibility, incidents like this wouldn’t generate the backlash it has. They are their own worst enemy,. because every time Wayne La Pierre opens his mouth he might fire up the nuts, but he is turning off people who otherwise might be allies. When a mentally ill person like the guy in Virginia can legally buy guns, when someone like Nancy Lanza is allowed to have guns around someone who is disturbed (can you imagine if Adam Lanza had bought himself guns legally then went on this rampage?), when people can buy guns at a gun show without a background check, or when someone can fill up their trunk with guns, sell them into the black market and say “whoops, don’t know what happened to those guns”, it eventually feeds right into the anti gun people. The same way that the anti gun people turn off moderates when they sit there and say “we should ban all guns”. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Complete nonsense.
<p>@cobrat I stand corrected I didn’t realize they had changed the law. However, all the time they had the law, they didn’t have shooting sprees, so guns still didn’t cause gun crime. [um well given the post above I take back standing corrected… …)</p>
<p>However, I agree with certain gun laws as well, as someone above pointed out. For example that person @calla1 mentioned who shot through the wall of his apartment building accidentally. He was arrested for negligent discharge and having magazines illegal in California (although that law is recent and he may well have had them from before.) However, I would be fine with confiscating guns of people who negligently shoot through residential structure walls for six months or whatever on a first offense (obviously if someone gets hurt, that would be an entirely different scenario.) Then they would only get them back on proof of having taken a gun safety course. Clearly he needs one. However the laws I tend to involve individual solutions for demonstrated individual problems, with opportunity to challenge the result. IE, due process.</p>
<p>First of all, a lot of people knew that Lanza had issues and NOT A SINGLE SOUL ever thought there were any risks from him in terms of harm to others. Also, his mother did keep her guns secured. The thing is, if you have guns in a house, it’s virtually impossible over time, that someone who lived in that house could not get access to them, even if you kept them carefully locked up, especially when it comes to an able bodied male. Lanza was not stupid in certain ways, you know, but actually very smart. He clearly overcame his mother physically, got the guns and shot her, killing her, making her yet another statistic of those shot by their own guns (the #1 person to get shot, statistically) and then in the end of his carnage shooting himself, proving the statistic that the #2 person to get shot is a family member of the gun owner. Tragically, he shot many more in between. </p>
<p>The type of issues Lanza had were not those that one would have thought would lead to the tragedy. I know crazies who are 60X to Sunday more likely to shoot up someone and they have guns–yeah, the rednecks of sorts, but they don’t have these type of weapons. </p>
<p>We are having a crisis about what is happening to those who are mentally ill, who are breaking down, who cannot care for themselves in this very fast moving society we have. The high power weaponry is an accelerant to this problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They had one in a regional parliament back in the early '00s as referenced in the German news article I linked to. That incident prompted discussions over increasing gun restrictions in Switzerland…and from reports, it’s the only one in recent Swiss history. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is is context of ammunition issued by the military authorities to be used in target practice. </p>
<p>The firing ranges where you can buy ammunition in Switzerland is subsidized by the government, but is not run by or solely for the military. Those ranges are open to all eligible citizens. </p>
<p>@cobrat exactly, so lots of guns and no gun crime. The point here is that some do and some do not think having guns creates crime. And that point of disagreement doesn’t change no matter how many gun deaths there are. The other side is people who think the more gun deaths there are, the more people should be able to own equal firepower to protect themselves against it. A ton of people bought their first weapon after Katrina, seeing that they could have such a need themselves, when they hadn’t previously thought so. Those who don’t value gun ownership or think guns are just creepy see no problem with just getting rid of them, but obviously others exist with different views. That is why this conversation happens over and over and as far as I can tell rarely convinces those on the other side, either way.</p>
<p>^^^
Yep. Politics in the U.S.A. are dominated by polarization and entrenchment on both sides. I think that’s a huge problem when it comes to a lot of issues in our country today. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cpt,
That might be true, but how can you possibly know what every single soul who knew Adam Lanza ever thought about his propensities?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If your guns are locked in a gun safe with a combination lock, it is virtually impossible for anyone to gain access to them, except by force. (which I am not saying could never happen)</p>
<p>“And there ARE a lot of “you’ll have to pry my guns out of my cold dead hands” people and wanna-be cowboys who insist on carrying assault weapons into McDonald’s to prove their point.”</p>
<p>My state just allowed concealed carry and now there are signs at the front of office buildings, park districts, coffee shops, and the like with little “no gun” signs indicating that no, you cannot bring your gun into this place. It’s horrifying to even see, because what kind of person is actually walking around carrying a gun into office buildings and Starbucks like he’s Mr. Big Tough Guy ready to Save The Day? It’s scary to think that there are areas and subcultures where that is routine. And yes, I do roll my eyes at that and I won’t apologize for that. </p>
<p>I can actually see my way around to people having guns in their home for self-defense, but carrying it around? Insane. </p>