Qwerty49 wrote:
Let's also agree to recognize that "do nothing" is NOT a viable option politically for anyone -- this latest incident most assuredly means some kind of gesture/action/legislation (you define the spectrum) is expected.

"What opponents of gun rights need to address now is the issue of assault weapons, as well as the almost unlimited trade in weapons. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which was enacted in 1994, included a prohibition on manufacturing assault weapons for civilian use.

The 10-year ban expired on Sept. 13, 2004, and repeated attempts to renew it have failed. While the nation must accept that the courts have upheld an individual’s right to carry a concealed weapon, citizens do not have to accept assault rifles or the unlimited right to buy and own as many guns as possible.

President Barack Obama has called for the assault weapons ban to be reintroduced. People on both sides of the gun issue should support that position. There are enough of them in existence that no more are needed."

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-p latform/editorial-last-conceal-carry-ban-falls-in- illinois-on-to/article_05f59d50-a842-5fd1-ad52-34a b2bf69f74.html

Gerald McGowin wrote: My understanding is that an "assault weapon" wasn't involved.  Perhaps I'm wrong.  What I've heard is a "Glock".

I agree that certain weapons ought not be available for sale to the general public.  But some crazy person like this could do a lot of damage with several handguns, yes?

Gerald McGowin wrote:

To be clear, I don't think anyone should have assault weapons, I don't think crazy people should have guns and I believe that those who are for "gun rights" should be a lot more concerned about guns being in the hands of the wrong people.

CardinalDuck wrote: No, it wouldn't change. 

Reporting 2 pistols and a rifle.

Qwerty49 wrote: Just curious how people line up on this topic, and what they think is a workable approach.

Let's try NOT to make this a partisan issue. 

Let's also agree to recognize that "do nothing" is NOT a viable option politically for anyone -- this latest incident most assuredly means some kind of gesture/action/legislation (you define the spectrum) is expected.

Let's also agree that no system is foolproof and that there is probably a way for someone to obtain these weapons if they try hard enough.

But where is this headed?  I saw some commentary recently that there were 300 million weapons already in the hands of this country's civilian population.  Even if you take away the Elmer Fudd shotguns, that's still a heck of a lot.

mendicant98 wrote: sorry to interject this, but it is apropos:

we care more about 4 Americans killed via firearms in a place well-understood to be dangerous, on the other side of the world, than we care about 27 Americans, mostly children, killed via firearms right here at home.

we care more about whether one terrorist breaks through our borders, or slips through TSA, and kills one person, than whether CT schoolchildren are safe at school.

relativism, yes.  but true nonetheless.


YOU ARE WRONG. 

Gerald, you missed the point completely about the incident in China today:  there, 1 person died, with 20-some-odd injured; in CT, 27 are dead.  roughly the same number killed or injured, respectively.  a single, crazed nutcase in each instance.  the differences are obvious (it's not just 'knife vs. gun', BTW; lex is on the mark here, I think, regarding cultural differences), and inescapable.

at the end of the day, incidents like this illuminate in general the cost of our rights.  the comparison between the school attacks in China and CT today shows exactly the cost of protecting, in particular, 2nd Amendment rights.

so, in my opinion, *something* is going to change.  this time is different.  I don't know why, but on FB I'm seeing conversations and anger like I've never seen before, and it feels sustainable (time will tell on that score).  people are genuinely pissed off.  they no longer agree that costs like this must be borne in defense of the 2nd Amendment; or, at least, they are no longer passive on that question.  what will change will not be just a gesture.  it will involve taking Scalia's opinion in DC v Heller, dissecting it for what will pass USSC muster and what will not, and then pressuring Congress until it happens.  (many are shouting words like, 'gun control!!', but with the recent USSC decisions classical gun control is no longer an option.  look for restrictions on type and number of personal firearms, and increased barriers to entry, e.g. mental health evaluations, and regular reports on how private gun owners are securing their weapons from access to people who aren't licensed.  for example.)

mendicant98 wrote: Scalia thinks society has a problem with gun violence, and that there is room in the law to address these issues (without running afoul of the 2nd Amendment).  He is not, in other words, as convinced as you are that nothing can be done.