What occurred to me was that this guy probably couldn't even have bought a gun had he chosen to do so.

But, to be sure, if he had committed a felony or was registered as psychotic, the computer check would have flagged him.

We already have this kind of computer check in place (which I was in favor of). We already register the guns when bought. We ought to be tracking the crazy people as well as we do the guns.

Then all you have to do is make sure that if you're on the crazy list, you don't get on the gun owner list. Like the lists they have at the airport to make sure suspected terrorists don't get airline tickets.

my point is that everyone should have to go to a licensed dealer, and have everything checked out.
would it have applied in this case? maybe, maybe not. did his mother buy all her weapons from a licensed dealer, and had to perform background checks? i have no idea. but i do know that people buy and sell guns privately every day. how else would felons be in possession? and that happens, a lot.
there is far more at issue than this one mass shooting.

which is why i said private sales should be banned. people don't do background checks, but dealers have to in order to stay in business and keep their license.
there are guns for sale every week in the local paper. no way the sellers are doing checks. at the turkey banquet every year, we have someone there to do all the required paperwork for each gun that is bought or won. they can't take the gun home until they've been cleared; we have a licensed dealer handle it all.

Maybe something similar to vehicle sales would work. In other words, vehicles are sold privately every day. But the seller calls the insurance company and takes it off his policy (date and time), and tells the state that the car is no longer his. The buyer then must insure the car himself, and register it with the state under his name.

With computers this could be enforced pretty easily. You could have private sales, but the registration requirement (which already exists everywhere) is made a component of the sale in the same way as it is for cars, and modernized for enforcement and tracking.

Now I see - after reading this I think your position is pretty close to where I am. I don't want a ban on sales, but like automobiles these are items that should be tracked as sales occur.

here in arkansas, the state isn't necessarily informed of a car sale.
as for private sale, by the time all that is supposedly done, said loony gun buyer could have already done what he planned to do.
i'm not saying a ban on sales-but there should be an blanket ban on private sales. sellers should have to go to a registered dealer, and either sell or consign a firearm. that way, every purchase is handled the way it should be, with no buyer slipping thru the cracks.

I don't know all the particulars about selling a gun (it's been years since I bought one), but I work at a place that sells firearms (no handguns) and I do know that there is a sh*tload of paperwork and identification that goes into selling one, along with a waiting period for State Police background check. Those that do sell the guns are trained to listen for certain phrases and words, and if they suspect something, they are given authority to refuse a gun sale.

The big loophole that has to be closed is that no background checks are required on purchases at gun shows. I know my extreme opinion on gun availability is in the miority and I'm fine with that, but how the NRA can rationally argue that this in in anyone's best interests is beyond me. Their paranoia that there is this slippery slope from having tougher background checks and better registration standards leading to guns not being available is ridiculous.

The other factor in this tragedy concerns mental illness. Everyone feels so good about themselves for supporting breast cancer walks and wearing cancer bracelets, and obviously, these are all incredibly worthwhile charities fighting horrible diseases, but no one wants to talk about mental illness and the toll and expense it takes on this country. I've heard this guy called a nut and a whacko and while there is ZERO justification for what he did, he was ill and the lack of support from BOTH his parents is appalling. And as a society, until we learn to treat mental illness like we do cancer, this will happen again and again.

These mass murdering school shooters are almost always either Infamy seekers or mentally ill.

Obviously, this killer was not an Infamy seeker (no past criminal record, no facebook profile, no Youtube, no homemade videos like the Columbine killers and Va Tech Killers)

I highly doubt he was mentally ill, either.

Asperger's is a social illness, and far from a mental illness. I know from experience, because I have it.

One of the many problems this kid probably had, is that he didn't act out and openly express himself. He repressed his emotions and bottled everything up. This leaves one feeling powerless and makes them like a bomb waiting to go off after long enough.

He also didn't try to make friends and connect with people. I remember when I moved to a new school in 9th grade, I'd eat my lunch standing up in the corner of the cafeteria. I didn't want to talk to people, didn't want to look at people, I was just withdrawn for 90% of the day.

A couple of the older football players took me under their wing and talked me into sitting down and eating with them. Eventually, you feel a lot better when you make friends and express yourself.

On top of that, I think the Lanza kid was probably stuck in a toxic situation at home.

People who try to impose their will and tell you how you should behave bring out the absolute worst in the personality of a person with Asperger's.

Adam Lanza's mom was a Doomsday Prepper and a gun-nut who believed the world economic structure was about to collapse. She stopped working her job, her Husband divorced her and ran away, her oldest son told police he hadn't been back home to visit her in two years ... a "normal" person would have probably slit their wrist if they had to put up with her.

I'm not trying to defend the sick and disgusting final deed of a 20-year-old ... but it is hard for a 20-year-old with autism to get away and escape from her, like her husband and his brother did. The family life was probably unraveling.

This Lanza probably repressed his rage and felt powerless. Finally he took his rage out on his mom and shot her in the head "multiple times" That was the first kill and the most personal one.

From there, He drove to his mothers old place of employment... a school 2 miles away.

I'm guessing someone who worked there was probably the other source of his rage. Probably the principle or a former boss of his mother.

After he took her out -- he no longer felt powerless and was drunk on rage and put on a demonstration.

When he heard sirens and saw first responders -- he probably had a brief moment of clarity and shot himself in the head.

Here is some information on the "Brady Law."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legisla...hecks/bradylaw

says something about mentally ill persons that have been "court ordered." I take this to mean persons that have been at some point in their lives hospitalized for mental illness so that they would not harm themselves or others? Also, note that unlicensed gun dealers such as those at gun shows can get around the background check.

Interesting explanation, but I think you might have gotten one detail wrong. I don't think it was his mom's place of employment. That was reported early on, but later corrected. I wonder whether there might have been some incident at school though, wherever, he was going, because she withdrew him and was home schooling him.

there should always be background checks.
and you're right, mental illness still takes a backseat. and this is another example of a guy with serious issues with parents who did nothing about it. and now it's too late. a friend of mine lost her son a few months back, shot and killed by a 17 year old with years of issues that people knew about-but no one did anything about. now he's in jail, and will be for the rest of his life. not long ago, his parents (divorced) both petitioned to have their son moved to a mental health facility, rather than keep him in jail awaiting trial. they did this out of 'concern'. too bad they waited til after a life altering crime was committed to become so damned concerned.

I only watched coverage on Friday when the story first broke, but I didn't get the impression that anyone was blaming it on Asperger's per se, but there was speculation that if he had other unrelated mental condition(s), that the shyness brought about by Asperger's would make picking up on other indicators difficult.

had seen this article earlier on aspergers, thought i'd put up the link after reading your post:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor...n_violent.html

Good article; I second the recommendation.

My experience is purely anecdotal, of course, but I've met many people on the autism spectrum to varying degrees (Doug included) and I've yet to meet one I didn't think was capable of empathy. Lanza may well have been on the spectrum, but it's hard for me to believe that was a factor. As the article says, people with autism are more likely to be the victim of violence than the perpetrator of it. The article Lori links to mentions other disorders as well that come with a greater possibility of acting outwards.

I'm so glad you had some kids at your school to reach out to you, Doug. That makes me feel better about high schoolers in general.

Yeah, it sounded pretty weird that she pulled him from school.

He was taking college classes at age 16.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2315431.html

I was probably a lot easier for them to reach out to. My only full brother was a very good athlete, still has the school track and field record for the javelin, I think. My oldest brother (half) was the best pitcher in the city. I had two younger brothers and two older ones, and just from studying them, I knew how to act to fit in with guys.

The Asperger's diagnosis saved me from my parents.

My mom and step dad would take me in the basement and beat the hell out of me with a huge wooden paddle.

Eventually, they got so frustrated because all of the paddling, ear-pulling, and head slapping wasn't working...that they took me to a few doctors.

Dr. Barber diagnosed me with it. And liked me so much that he went around filming me. The Barber Center here used me as the film for sort of the textbook case.

Anyway, my mom and stepdad just backed off of me at that point. All of the efforts to discipline me stopped ... all of her dreams that I would one day be a CEO were crushed -- and she accepted it.

I refused to do homework -- but I would shuffle up and memorize 3 decks of playing cards ... stuff like that would drive her almost to violence.

Jeezus. With all that ear-pulling and head slapping, I'm guessing s.hit roles downhill. Is that when you'd rub one out and then 'naughty' up your socks?

So what exactly is the definition of "assault rifle"? Civilian versions of military weapons? Scary looking guns? They are no more dangerous than any other semi-auto rifle and a lot less powerful than most. A friend of mine has a semi-auto 30-06 that wouldn't be touched by an "assault weapon" ban, but makes an AR-15 look like a childs' toy. There was no spike in crime when the federal ban expired. These mass killings get the attention, thanks mostly to an anti-gun media, but your odds of being shot by one are less than being hit by lightening. There are definitely a lot of whackos out there, and that fact doesn't make me want to give up my guns any time soon. This guy was plenty intelligent enough to build a bomb if he had no access to guns, and could have done just as much damage with the handguns he had with him. Hundreds of millions of gun owners did not shoot up an Elementary School last week. One deranged kid did. It wasn't the gun. It was him. There is more violent crime in the UK per 100000 people than in the U.S.. Mexico has the strictest gun laws in the world. How's that working out for them? I don't want the same Govt. that thinks it's a good idea to arm the Mexican Drug Cartels deciding who should own a firearm in America. I'll take my chances with Freedom and the Constitution. Including the 2nd Amendment.

Whatinthehell is MAR?

I attended a workshop on teaching classes of special needs kids and the woman leading it recalled a class she taught that included a severely autistic child, who spent the class standing in the back, swaying and talking to himself. She let him be, and conducted the class. His regular teacher later told her (via his mom) that when he got home that night he recited what she had said, word for word. He clearly got a great deal of things, if he was left to experience them in a way that worked for him.

I think your incredible gift for seeing patterns is one of the things that makes you such a good handicapper.

Temple Grandin referred to NASA as one big workplace for people with autism. Speaking of, did you ever see the HBO Temple Grandin film? I thought the filmmakers did some pretty clever things in attempting to help the viewer "see" the way Grandin does, and I was very curious if someone who has tested on the spectrum thought they did a good job at it. (Have I asked you this before? I can't remember.)

Thanks. I didn't know either.

Some cal them MSR. Evidently the CEO has made the call to stop selling them ASAP.

They are a business and can run it however they like.

It is a symbolic (and meaningless) gesture. The demand will simply be met by someone else - legally, until they ban it, then illegally afterwards.

Let's look at this specific situation. If this douchebag's mother didn't have the weapons in her home, would he have been able to pull off this hideous act? Maybe. Although by most accounts he could barely function around people, so it would have made it a lot more difficult.

Which is the entire point. Let's try and make it harder for people to commit these acts, by limiting (or denying) access to weapons that people have no business owning. Of course people might still be able to get them by illegal means, but it won't be so easy.

Why would anyone not in the military need a military style assault rifle? I've asked and asked and no one seems to be able to muster up an answer other than to say "because I can."

Brilliant.

no, it's not. once made illegal, much of the demand will disappear. the street value of those already owned will rise-but if at the same time all private sales were banned(with stiff penalties for people who buy or sell privately), and cities instituted buy backs, many would be destroyed and gone forever. yes, right now many own these guns- because they can (yeah, the slippery slope argument). but if they can't, they'll get rid of them.

do you think everything should be left as is? that we just throw up our hands and say 'such is life' and not do a thing?

In a free society, purchases with one's own money don't have to be driven by need, or your assessment of another's needs. "Want" is enough. Much of our economy, everything from sports cars to iPads is driven by preferences and capitalism. So your opinion (not picking on you - anybody's opinion) of what someone chooses to buy is irrelevant. And with 99.999% of people who buy "assault" rifles not hurting anybody, reacting to ban them seems like punishment to the law-abiding enthusiast.

As you point out, this nutjob didn't buy the weapon himself. He took his mom's weapons. But once you make the step to something like "If person A didn't have the guns, person B wouldn't have been able to commit the crime", it's unenforcable short of bans and confiscation on everybody.

Even then, criminals, by virtue of the very status conveyed by that word, don't follow rules or laws. Therefore, as the oft-repeated but true cliche' goes, "If you criminalize guns, then only criminals will have them." - not counting the police who always have to show up AFTER a crime has occurred or started.

i want a tank. i guess i should be able to buy one, fully operational. wonder if they're available on ebay?
of course, i would only use it for target practice. i'd never actually blow up anything.

Actually, the desirability of those weapons will increase. Whether that translates to demand of undertaking the risk to get one through the black market is another matter. It becomes the forbidden fruit. Everyone knows that the gun was banned because it was "too good" in terms of performance, for the average guy to have.

i disagree. you can't take the position that most people who own guns are law-abiding, and then turn around and say that certain guns would become more popular if made illegal.

I figured you would avoid answering a pretty direct question. I am well aware of the difference between needs and wants. But this isn't Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory and people aren't Veruca Salt.

Wanting something doesn't mean you should just be able to obtain it if you have the money. There needs to be restrictions on things to protect the public.

So again...why do people not in the military need to have military style assault rifles? I'm genuinely curious.

The law is not a constant. They are about to get more restrictive.

Some (not all) will not obey the new law. Nobody would get hurt any more than when the law was not in effect. The same guys who would not hurt anybody with an "assault" rifle still would not hurt anybody with that same rifle.

So good point on "law-abiding". The smart and determined will find a way to get what they want - though again, those kinds of people - the ones not of the sort to go hurt somebody with a gun - are not the danger in the first place.

This whole issue is degrading nationally to the point where people just want to see "something, anything" done so they'll feel better, even though the measures being proposed would not have helped avert this horrible crime.

And the professional politicians are acting more to further an anti-gun agenda rather than provide any real safety as a result of new legislation. And they know it.

As Rahm Emmanuel said, "Never let a crisis go to waste."

Oh I answered it. I'll be more clear:

Your opinion of what others need is irrelevant. This is a free society, meaning by definition that whatever is not prohibited is allowed. And citizens are not a bunch of children that need supervision by self-proclaimed elites in Washington.

Wanting something is enough so long as you have the means to legally acquire it, and that often means money. Money to buy whatever it is, money to maintain it, insure it if necessary, take lessons on how to operate it.

Paul Newman used to own racecars and compete in races. He had the money. He paid to get lessons to be every bit as good as the other drivers. Paid his own pit crew.

John Travolta has an airliner parked in back of his house. He paid to learn how to fly, get all the licenses.

For most people, race cars and airliners are out of reach financially. Obviously an unprepared or malevolent person could take out more people with an airplane (and maybe a racecar) than somebody with a rifle.

As I figured.

You are absolutely right my opinion is irrelevant, much like your posts. Which is why I am looking for an answer from you or anyone as to why people should be able to own these type of weapons.

Of what purpose does it serve to own a weapon like this? Because if the answer is none...then why are they legal?

That is my point, which I know you are aware of. Are you really this bored? Wouldn't it be nice to have a discussion where actual points of view are shared instead of just talking around what people say?

Everything is legal that is not expressly prohibited.

A purpose is not necessary at all. Like pet rocks and wallpaper.

But most gun owners do have one or more purposes. Most popular are self defense, home defense, target shooting (they do have automatic rifle competitions for that), just having fun with it at shooting range...

I guess here is the discriminator - guns, even automatic rifles, can be used for sport, hobbies and defensively. That would not be true of explosives, which are rightly banned outside of industry and the military, or other more destructive weaponry.

Where we disagree is, I think you're saying "Ban it unless there is a purpose to allow it." I'm saying "Allow it unless there is a reason to ban it." It sounds like a subtle difference but it's not.

You shouldn't think. You might hurt yourself.

I think my point of view is pretty easy to understand. You might not agree but I am not for banning things that serve no purpose. I am for banning things that we should not have because it poses safety risks.

Things like military assault rifles. Not pet rocks.

Like a Woman's right to choose. Some will say you stop caring about protecting our kids once they come out of the womb. Not me mind you but others may think that.

Spoken like a true intellectual, with manners no less.

Who's hijacking now? Nice try.

It's more the reverse: 99% of us are upset about what happened Friday at Sandy Hook, especially because kids were killed. Almost all of us - on both sides of the gun control argument - are upset by that. Six year olds should not be killed.

The number drops to 50% for babies 6 months premature and prior, via the "right to choose" (destruction of the growing baby) - just completing that oft-repeated sentence fragment.

Maybe they don't see it that way, but it is one way to look at it.

Not Hijacking just making a point but it is big of you to admit to your prior hijack. ;)