There's more to the story. Gun control regulations touted in the WSJ article are so pooly enforced as to disqualify their effect on viloent crime in general, and mass shootings in particular. Consider this from a more balenced article, written by a gun rights advocate:

The Brady lobby is upset that there has been no progress in leveraging tighter gun control legislation following the shooting January 8, 2010 rampage that killed 6 people and injured 13, including Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords. That tragic incident raised serious questions about background checks after it was determined that the accused shooter, having previously exhibited erratic behavior, legally purchased the weapon he “allegedly” used from a store.
The National Rifle Association clearly agrees that guns should not be sold to individuals found to have serious mental problems, although many states fail to provide mental health records to the federal computerized background check system. According to a November, 2011 report by the Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), 23 states have shown “major failures” in complying, and four (Alaska, Delaware, Idaho and Rhode Island) submit no records at all.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/

 

That follows on the same trail I've been mentioning. Mentally ill should not have access to firearms. The mental health system needs a major re-vamping. It isn't that the laws aren't in place, CT already has some of the strictest gun-control laws in the country, yet the shooting happened there. The problem is the laws aren't able to be enforced due to some valid privacy policies when it comes to healthcare. Getting the existing laws to be functional would save far more lives than making new rules that also cannot be effectively followed.

Well, that and the oddity that save one, every mass shooting has happened in a "Gun Free Zone". Eliminate gun free zones, and you remove "soft targets". The zones are feel-good restrictions anyway, only the law abiding responsible people obey them. Somebody intent on murder isn't bothered by a sign.

 

I agree that the existing laws should be enforced better before pasing new laws. I disagree on eliminating gun free zones. There are some places that guns just don't belong. The WJS author reommends making gun free zones real, by having active weapons checks at the entry points. That's a position I support.

I checked on those 'strict' CT gun restrictions. The laws are strict on gun registration, but lax on other measures, like open and closed carry laws, bans on only select assault weapopns, allowances for big clips, etc. The shooter's mother had a small arsenal, including assult rifles, which was all apparently legal.

Comments Added: Thanks for this discussion. I didn't want to get into problems and solutions because I don't feel qualified to offer any reasonable solutions. But I will say this; from what I've seen so far, the real problem is people are falling back into the same 'binary' thinking they always do. Should there be/not be more gun regulation? Should there be more/less mental hospitals? etc. What everyone seems to be missing is that the patient ( our society ) is ill and needs a holistic cure. Just restricting guns and not moving on any of the other issues will not work. Just blaming single parent families, the media or any other single issue just papers over the real issues. What needs to be done is everything. First and foremost, the safety of our children needs to be the priority, over economics or whatever inconvenience we may suffer. This goal much be kept in the forefront of our consciousness.

But I fear we'll talk and debate about it until we forget about it and move on to the next sensational story.

 

Here's how much sense the last assault weapons ban made. In the attached photos, one of the guns was illegal and one was legal under the AWB. If you remove the magazines, can you tell the differences? BTW, they are both semi-automatic and the same caliber.

 

Here's how much sense the last assault weapons ban made. In the attached photos, one of the guns was illegal and one was legal under the AWB. If you remove the magazines, can you tell the differences? BTW, they are both semi-automatic and the same caliber.

Actually, both were illegal during the 1994-2004 "Assault Weapons Ban" aka AWB (and CURRENTLY in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, California, and New York, yes, all are limited to 10 round magazines). The collapsible stock fell under the ban (unless the one on the right is permanently fixed extended).

The key difference is that horribly dangerous bayonet lug under the front sight toward the front of the barrel. It's missing on the right one, which is OK, but the one on the left is EVIL (somebody could put an 8" knife on it!).

It was a cosmetic ban. They try to ban the most popular selling rifle in the USA because it "looks scary", and in movies, they are all fully automatic and never run out of ammo. Hence, it was/is called the "Hollywood Ban". Guns banned by name because they were used either in movies or rap songs, and others by the way they appeared.

The odd thing about it is that the AR15 is essentially the lowest powered center-fire rifle in mass production (the .222 is lower, but not common. AR15 uses .223/5.56mm rounds). At the same time, deer rifles and other semi-automatic rifles were NOT effected, because they were for hunting, and had wood furniture on them. Same goes for shotguns.

I agree that there needs to be a holistic change. History shows that every time a gun ban goes into effect, crime rises. Every time a ban is removed, crime drops. Not just murder, but all violent crime, including break ins and theft.

I don't want to alienate my fellow members here, so I will simply state that the problem we have isn't related to any particular ITEM. Unless that ITEM is a "Moral Compass". America has lost it's Moral Compass over 30 years ago.


P.S. Trivia: The rifles shown above are NOT "Assault Weapons". Assault Weapons were designed by the Germans in World War 2. They were fully automatic and fired pistol or very small rifle rounds (no need to release trigger between shots). Their name was Sturmgewehr which translates to "Storm Rifle", and Americanized to "Assault Weapon". In actual use, the German Sturmgewehr in America is called a "Subgun", or "Submachine Gun", as it uses handgun caliber bullets. Examples are the Uzi, Mac-9/10, and Thompson (all of which require a VERY thorough background check by the FBI and a $200 tax stamp to own).

 

Juxtapose the number of mass murders (more than four killed) at police stations and at "gun free" school zones.

The softer target will have the higher number of mass murders.

 

That follows on the same trail I've been mentioning. Mentally ill should not have access to firearms.
...

There's too much focus on the mentally ill as some king of solution to mass violence. For one; criminals are not allowed "access to firearms" but 99% of gun crimes are perpetrated by criminals. Restricting access does not work for any group.

And two; even with an oppressive future regime where anybody with a hint of mental illness is safely locked up, you will still get tragic shootouts etc when someone who has never had a hint of mental illness suddenly goes troppo and starts shooting people.

And if you want a number three; I'm not sure the mentally ill are more violent than the norm anyway, most I have met are kind and gentle. Maybe we should remove gun access from people who are sadistic violent assholes.

...
Well, that and the oddity that save one, every mass shooting has happened in a "Gun Free Zone". Eliminate gun free zones, and you remove "soft targets". The zones are feel-good restrictions anyway, only the law abiding responsible people obey them. Somebody intent on murder isn't bothered by a sign.

And that EXACTLY matches my point. Removing or resricting rights from the any group, or even the majority of people does not stop the one freak from committing one freaky act. Restricting gun access from criminals has not stopped them obtaining guns to commit crimes with. Areas with high gun restrictions have not stopped freaky acts from occurring. Restriction does not work any better than alcohol prohibition did (the determined minority will still find access to it).

The solution comes with people bringing up their kids better, not with this silly modern thinking that people can bring up their kids to be self-centred unthinking amoral violent a-holes but that will be OK because we will ban guns.

 

Couple of quick things:
On November 5, 2009 13 people were killed and 29 injured in a mass shooting at Ft Hood Texas. On May 11, 2009 five soldiers were gunned down in Iraq by one of their fellow soldiers. In March 2003 a member of the 101st airborne division attacked US soldiers with a hand grenade. There are other incidents. These aren't soft targets. Having an arsenal of weapons didn't prevent these tragedies. Also, schools aren't the only soft targets. 12 were killed and 58 wounded in an Aurora theater earlier this year. But schools are targeted more often that all the other 'soft' targets. Why? Also, schools should be one of the most defensible places because access can be controlled better. So why isn't this happening?

Speaking of Aurora, nobody thought to question a heavily armed man entering a theater wearing camouflaged cloths. Why? How is someone like that able to just walk in unchallenged? The culture that makes that seem like nothing out of the normal is curious to say the least.

I've looked into the claim that crime always goes up when gun restrictions are passed and down when gun restrictions are revoked, and that just doesn't hold up to examination. Sometimes crime goes up during a gun restricted interval and sometimes it goes down. There seems to be other factors totally unrelated to gun restrictions that have a much greater impact. Violent crimes, including murder, peaked in the early 90's and has gone down since. I see no gun laws that were coincident with this trend. I've also looked at individual state gun laws vs violent crimes, and found no credible correlation.

 

Actually, both were illegal during the 1994-2004 "Assault Weapons Ban" aka AWB (and CURRENTLY in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, California, and New York, yes, all are limited to 10 round magazines). The collapsible stock fell under the ban (unless the one on the right is permanently fixed extended).

The key difference is that horribly dangerous bayonet lug under the front sight toward the front of the barrel. It's missing on the right one, which is OK, but the one on the left is EVIL (somebody could put an 8" knife on it!).

Here is a a graphic showing the four differences that made the one on the top legal; it had a 10 round magazine, a non-adjustable stock, a non-removable flash hider, and no bayonet lug. Note that the stock could be set to any position (short, medium, long) so long as it was not adjustable. And of course, whether the flash hider was removable or not wasn't really the issue; the issue was that if the flash hider was removed, the barrel length was an inch too short for the law. Thatoneguy has already pointed out the "evil" bayonet lug, which serves no purpose whatsoever while firing the gun. It's a perfect example of ignorant politicians making stupid laws that serve no practical purpose. The AWB saved zero lives during its ten year existence.

 

Speaking of Aurora, nobody thought to question a heavily armed man entering a theater wearing camouflaged cloths. Why? How is someone like that able to just walk in unchallenged? The culture that makes that seem like nothing out of the normal is curious to say the least.

He wasn't dressed in camo or heavily armed when he came in the front door. It was after he left the theater and propped a back door open that he returned during the movie and began firing.

 

He wasn't dressed in camo or heavily armed when he came in the front door. It was after he left the theater and propped a back door open that he returned during the movie and began firing.

You are correct. However, once he entered the theater, few people thought he was a threat. Many believed he was dressed in costume, or that it was some kind of joke. That truned out to be a fatal mistake for some.

 

On November 5, 2009 13 people were killed and 29 injured in a mass shooting at Ft Hood Texas. On May 11, 2009 five soldiers were gunned down in Iraq by one of their fellow soldiers. In March 2003 a member of the 101st airborne division attacked US soldiers with a hand grenade. There are other incidents. These aren't soft targets. Having an arsenal of weapons didn't prevent these tragedies.

The military has a long history of keeping the gangs out, as well as unstable. They also have far more latitude in how/what they check on an individual who is signing up. Yet gangs and radicals still manage to slip through.

In all but one of the military cases, the soldiers were in "weapon free zones". No live ammo/weapons on base/in barracks. Ammo is checked out when leaving the base for a mission, and checked in when entering. Any and all discrepancies must be accounted for. If the military cannot fully enforce such rules, what would make anybody think civilians would be able to?

 

There were no weapons free zones in any of the cases. In the Iarq shooting, the shooter took his own escort's weapon, which the escort was leagally authorized to carry on the base. Many others would be so authorized, other escorts, MP's, people on guard duty and officers. There are always many armed people at any military installation.

 

Fort Hood is 340 square miles. The number of weapons per square mile in the hands of soldiers is minimal except when mustering and returning from a mission.

Did the Foot Hood shooter use their issued weapon?

 

Actually oneguy The Storm Rifle was the model for the AK47 which is an assault rifle. The m-16, m-4 and AR15 are assault rifles too. They have just been tamed to take the burst and full out of it for civi use. Its actually very easy to turn all these rifles full auto. Also the first Storm 44 fired rifle rounds, just really fat short ones.
Heres the Storm Rifle or MP44 and ammo. Notice how close it looks to the AK47 and SKS?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/MP44_-_Tyskland_-_8x33mm_Kurz_-_Armémuseum.jpg

 

The military has a long history of keeping the gangs out, as well as unstable. They also have far more latitude in how/what they check on an individual who is signing up. Yet gangs and radicals still manage to slip through.

According to almost all sources the military is flooded with gang members. They've found MS13, and all the other major gang tags from every state in the US all over Iraq and Afganastan. We had the same problem with vietnam. We drafted a bunch of gangbangers taught em to fight, then when they came back they taught their friends and the hoods never been the same. Even when you get popped for a felony they offer you to goto jail or join the military.

 

Any rifle can be an assault rifle if it is used to assault...just as any knife can be an assault knife if it's used to assault. It's not the color, or the caliber, or the accoutrements, or the magazine capacity, or any other attribute of the rifle that makes it an assault rifle; it's the use of the rifle that determines whether it is an assault rifle, or a hunting rifle, or a home defense rifle, or a target rifle, or a plinking rifle, etc. I don't see why people don't understand that.

And before I'm asked, I will say that I do believe there is a legitimate use for guns of all kinds in the hands of sane, law-abiding citizens who want them. The reason doesn't have to make sense to everyone, any more than the reason that some people want to keep poisonous snakes makes sense to everyone. Just because you (or I) don't want to keep a diamondback (or a dog or a cat or a gecko, etc.) in our house doesn't mean we should object to someone else doing so.

 

The Ft Hood shooter was stopped when a DOD officer brought him down with non-fatal shots, leaving him paralyzed. Before that, another armed officer engaged the shooter, and was shot several times. She survived.

 

Is a yugo a supercar just because its got a motor and wheels? Or is it because it goes 200mph and 0-60 in 2.8 seconds?

 

And in recent news an old lady went to a gun buy back program at her police station. Turned out it was a trophy MP44 in non shooting condition valued at $25k-$35k. They did not take it because it would have to be destroyed but the police station is holding it for her till she finds a buyer. These are supposed to be INCREDIBLY RARE!
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blog...-buy-back-022155231--abc-news-topstories.html