One of the must frustrating things in the debate following the tragedy has been the profound ignorance of those pushing for more gun controls. I got dressed down on the radio yesterday for disagreeing with the host (via twitter) that "assault rifle sales have spiked". Everyone here (Canada) is saying that the US needs to ban "assault rifles" and "assault weapons", which ignores that 1) the weapon used (from what I understand) does not qualify as an assault weapon under the arbitrary definition and 2) assault rifles have been functionally banned in the US for decades.

It's not just that they don't know anything, it's that they don't know anything with such outrage.

it was her irresponsible storage of them in a home with a mentally ill youth.

And we'll never know how extensive that irresponsibility was for sure. We haven't been told how and what type of safe she had. She may have thought the combination on the safe was not obvious and the madman guessed it.

And even if we had facts in hand -- there is not really much that can be done to change the gun laws that would have prevented this.

There are some changes that could be made to mental health laws, but even that probably wouldn't have helped.

Kevin: "It's not just that they don't know anything, it's that they don't know anything with such outrage."

YES! This exactly, I don't mind if someone isn't too sure about something and opened minded. It is a real problem when they are so sure about something and outraged over it when they have the facts just plain wrong.

It would be nice if they could admit their mistakes, and as Emily Litella used to say . . .oh, never mind.

I've heard one good argument for owning assault rifles. She said the populace should be as well armed as the military. Then again, the military has tactical nukes, so what do I know?

I've been thinking about buying a gun for some time now. This mass hysteria with people thinking the government may ban all guns (and who knows, they may try) finally put me over the edge. I have a good friend who is well versed in guns and is going to teach me to shoot, clean the gun, etc. He took me out yesterday and I fell in love with his 9MM Sig. So, off to the gun store we went.

The waiting time for a firearm went from a 20 minute background check to FIVE DAYS in less than one week, due to the sheer number of people trying to buy guns. The three gun shops we hit were nearly picked clean - of EVERYTHING, including ammo. I finally found what I wanted at the "big box sports store" - it was the last one they had and everyone was saying it would be 2-5 weeks before they got any more.

I have never seen anything like it. What worries me about this is not that people are buying guns. It's that a lot of these people are likely buying guns with no intention of learning how to use them.

I'm all for people owning guns, as long as they're responsible about it.

"Everyone here (Canada) is saying that the US needs to ban "assault rifles" and "assault weapons", which ignores that 1) the weapon used (from what I understand) does not qualify as an assault weapon under the arbitrary definition..."

Kevin, a lot of people would poop their pants if they knew that Bushmaster XM-15 rifles and other scary-looking guns are legal and for sale right here in Canada:

http://www.wolverinesupplies.com/details/6476/Bushmaster-XM-15-M4-556-Nato-16-with-Red-Dot-Sight.aspx

"It's not just that they don't know anything, it's that they don't know anything with such outrage"

If there's any silver lining to this tragedy, it would serve as a lasting blow to the credibility of mainstream media. Mark Shields on PBS blubbering to a panel of journalists that it's easier to buy automatic weapons than to rent a car, and nobody correcting him...I hope people will remember the mind-blowing ignorance on display here when these buffoons pontificate about other subjects.

If guns are so evil, why does the Secret Service carry them? why are there armed guards at banks, sports events, and other public places? remember the story about the idiot who tried to rob the Short STop on Sunset? Place was a cop bar--every patron was armed.

How were Nancy Lanza's guns stored, and how did her son get access to them? I've wondered that, but haven't read anything definitive about it. Did the police ever say?

(A different) Kevin

There's a trailer online for the new "Bates Motel" tv series on the A&E network. If you didn't know better you might think that someone had made a movie based on the Lanza family...

http://www.aetv.com/bates-motel/video/#12196419945

By criminalizing the ownership of assault weapons, we are making one of the victims a criminal.

A true story. I read it in the American Rifleman about thirty years ago.

A woman was kidnapped, I think it was in a parking lot at a mall. The assailant threw her into her own trunk, then stole her car and drove her out into the back woods somwhere.
Unfortunately for him, he didn't check the trunk first or tie her hands.
There was a loaded shotgun in the trunk, and when he opened it...she opened up with both barrels.... instant justice. and no repeat offender.

How to stop a massacre:

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/04/when-mass-killers-meet-armed-resistance.html

it was her irresponsible storage of them in a home with a mentally ill youth.

Presumes facts not yet in evidence and conclusions that are arguable.

We don't know right now what steps she had taken to store them, nor what her attempts were, nor even, what he was doing and so on and so forth.

When you ay "irresponsible storage" because a smart 20 year old was able to get to them, it's the same playbook as the banners, and their presumptions of what safe is (and in retrospect, anything stolen is "unsafe").

In Canada, a collector went on vacation, and thieves monitoring him went to work on his safe.

It took them 2 days of constant work to break in.

He was charged with "Unsafe storage"

Mike Hargreaves, a former Toronto-area gun-safety instructor and collector. Over the Christmas holidays in 2003, while Mr. Hargreaves was visiting his son in Florida, thieves worked to open the 770 kilogram concrete and steel safe he had had installed in his north Toronto apartment. For nearly two days, burglars used sledgehammers and blowtorches to open the vault, before they could make off with 35 high-powered handguns and rifles worth more than $40,000.

Still, police decided the precautions Mr. Hargreaves had taken to protect his collection were inadequate. They obtained a warrant for his arrest on unsafe storage charges, which forced him to remain in Florida to avoid prosecution.

What is or isn’t “safe storage” has become so ambiguous that police and prosecutors now use this provisions to harass otherwise law-abiding gun owners, who are guilty of no other offence.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/01/lorne-gunter-canadas-laws-on-the-safe-storage-of-firearms-need-clarifying/

His mother was his first victim. We don't have enough evidence to know if she failed, or just failed to correctly predict.

Well, I would say the fact that he got his hands on her guns is evidence that her storage methods were inadequate.

Hindsight is 20/40.

She apparently didn't think he was going to do what he did. We have the advantage of looking back and seeing that he did.

Might as well blame her for failing to secure his vehicle, nWell, I would say the fact that he got his hands on her guns is evidence that her storage methods were inadequate thus forcing him to walk, carrying less, and being more likely to have someone call the police.

You protect an item by taking into account who or what its predators could be.

And there's always an engineering tradeoff.

_Knowing what we know now_, she should have shot him.

But had she done that last week, the newspapers wouldn't say "Woman saves 30".

When you have a very smart kid in the house, who is or may be mentally ill, you need to store guns in an extremely clever way - or not have them at all.

Which is what the banners are saying. Thus "don't have them", tada.

Nevermind the tradeoffs that requires.

The problem wasn't soley her storage, it wasn't her planning, it wasn't her belief in her son.

He could have driven her car onto the playground. Didn't you have a car stolen? If had been used in a crime, was it your fault?

Blaming her, at this point, with our knowledge, is far premature, and easily done - but that impulse needs to be resisted, because at the time, there wasn't that knowledge. And there's a limit to how paranoid you can get.

Need me to quote you quoting Lenore Skenazy? :)

It's exactly the thought process of the banners, those who want to keep you safe over having liberty or self-determination. "The only way to be safe is to make sure no one CAN have access".

And they'll ignore the other failures or that the real failure was that the guns in the hands of the good guys were 20 minutes away, and apparently, there was no way to restrict him via the mental health system.

And, you know, that's not totally bad, either. Being able to point and say "She's crazy, lock her up" needs to be a very high bar.

"let's not take the leap of equating a gun and a car."

TOTALLY agree.

There are about 225 Million registered cars, pickups, and SUVs in the USA, and they slaughter about 33,000 unwilling victims a year.

There are about 200 million firearms in the USA, and they slaughter about 12,500 unwilling victims a year.

I know Amy isn't advocating for gun control but for those of you who are - please give up your car. You're more than twice as likely to unintentionally slaughter someone than a murderer who intentionally kills his victim(s).

Again, when there's a mentally ill person living in your house, you need to take precautionary steps

Absolutely. I've found the pushback against responsible gun ownership to be as appalling as the rush to ban all guns. I mean, how dare we ask people to take responsibility for their weapons? How dare we demand that if people are going to have public access to machines whose only purpose is to kill, that they have some demonstrable skill in using those weapons?

I know Amy isn't advocating for gun control but for those of you who are - please give up your car. You're more than twice as likely to unintentionally slaughter someone than a murderer who intentionally kills his victim(s).

The purpose of a car is to get from point A to point B. Some people die as a result of their use, but that's not their purpose. A gun's only purpose is to stop living things from being alive. It's not wrong to want limits on who can own them and how they can use them, nor is it a violation of the second Amendment.

While rules change from state to state and city to city, it's generally easier to get a gun license than it is to get a driver's license. In most areas, to get a driver's license, you need to pass a written test and a practical test. You need to renew your licence every few years as well as register your vehicle. If you drive like an asshole, your license can be revoked. Having a general driver's license doesn't mean you can drive a motorcycle or a large moving truck. We recognize that those vehicles require different training, so we make people to get more training and special licenses to use them.

I'd love to see us treat guns more like cars, frankly.

True, MonicaP, exactly right: guns are built to kill. Intentionally.

And for those of you who didn't get the point, remember: Cars are not built to intentionally kill, yet kill at the rate of 3:1 to murderers with guns.

Can't trust cars. Lock 'em up.

IMHO it's better for the (A) rapist to be killed than the victim, (B) murderer to be killed than the victim, and (C) pheasant to be shot completely dead before you toss it in the oven.

"Mentally ill" is not the same as dangerous.

Did he show signs of violent behavior?
Did he show any indication that he intended to do what he did?
Did he have a criminal history that included violence?

Remember, this man was buzzed in BY the school, because they recognized him as the son of a colleague. They knew the man, they did not consider him to be a danger or a threat of any kind.

What is the lesson here? That the mentally ill are dangerous and violent, and that the likelihood of them being violent is so high that you have no right to the means of self defense in your home?

I do not believe the facts bear that out when you look at the nation as a whole.

While rules change from state to state and city to city, it's generally easier to get a gun license than it is to get a driver's license. In most areas, to get a driver's license, you need to pass a written test and a practical test. You need to renew your licence every few years as well as register your vehicle. If you drive like an asshole, your license can be revoked. Having a general driver's license doesn't mean you can drive a motorcycle or a large moving truck. We recognize that those vehicles require different training, so we make people to get more training and special licenses to use them. -- MonicaP at December 23, 2012 5:36 PM

Monica,

You are operating under false assumptions.

With the exception of a few states you have to take, at minimum, an NRA certification course, including a shooting test, before you can get a concealed carry license. You also have a basic background check of some sort. In addition, if you want to carry concealed in other states, you may have to get additional licenses (popularly Utah and Florida for the most reciprocity). I know individuals that have a state license, and both a UT and FL CCW license.

As for special licenses for other vehicle types. That would say you need a license for a rifle or shotgun. Most people I can teach the safety rules and basic operation of a shotgun in 20 minutes or less. Twelve minutes of that is the safety rules. Now "precision" fire is a long term thing. Pretty much the same thing with a rifle.

The basic gun safety rules:

1. All guns are always loaded!
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy!
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target!
4. Always be sure of your target!

Please don't let your hoplophobia overcome your intelligence.

Remember, this man was buzzed in BY the school, because they recognized him as the son of a colleague. They knew the man, they did not consider him to be a danger or a threat of any kind. -- Robert at December 23, 2012 6:44 PM

That was erroneous reporting from the first day of the slaughter.

The mother had no association to the school, and the killer broke the door's window to enter.

But I do agree with the sentiment of your post. The mentally ill are usually not dangerous.

"I'd love to see us treat guns more like cars, frankly."

Google that line, read the article by Dave Kopel, and be prepared to change that tune.

HERE is an article comparing gun laws to others.

More like cars? COOL! I can buy whatever I want - and all I have to do is have cash money. They'll hand it to me as fast as the ink wets paper, too!

They'll even let me take it home over the weekend to see if I like it!

While you're reading, you might want to take this quiz.