Johhny Electriglide wrote:
I suppose they could check for a schizo record, but how about those effectively treated for other things, like PTSD and depression? Why threaten their rights?
That would be due to the fact their rights in such a case impact the rights of others. The potential threat to others would have to be determined and appropriate decisions made.
I agree that owning a firearm should have a prerequisite of training, but that is often done by a responsible relative, who should be able to sign them off.
Assuming the responsible relative is actually responsible? No, they can provide the training just not the test. That is the same situation as the hunting classes I took. I knew the safety procedures but I still had to take the class and the test to be sure. I already knew how to drive when I took my test for my learners permit the day I was old enough to do so and then took my drivers test the following day. I never took drivers ed in school because I had my license before I could have taken the class due to the way the semester and my birthday shook out.
The Connecticut shooter was using illegal firearms for that state, with the 5th toughest gun laws in the country.
Not according to the reports I have read.http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html
A law enforcement official says some guns owned by the mother of the gunman in the Connecticut elementary school rampage match the models of the guns used in the shooting.
The official cautions that investigators haven’t conclusively linked the guns used in the rampage to the ones the woman owned.
The official says state police records show the woman had legally purchased five firearms and all were registered in Connecticut. Authorities are still trying to account for all the guns.
So why punish 80 million law abiding Americans with extra expense and restrictions?
Maybe because the other 200 million law abiding Americans do not want to have a loved one shot by another person. I have more guns than many, I have had my letters to the editor passed on to the NRA for repeating, but there comes a time for a reasonable effort to resrtict the legal access to guns by those who would do such a thing as kill children in their school or anywhere for that matter.
I believe gun control should be hitting an authorized target, whether at the range or an intruder trying to hurt you. The Constitution states firmly that the right shall not be infringed.
It also says we shall not be deprived of life without due process, which clearly was not the case in Sandy Hook Elementary. The relative strength of the rights in conflict is where the decision will fall according to precedent.
A 20 year old outlaw should not cause infringement anymore than an armed bank robber should. If teachers at the school were not restricted from carrying, they could have stopped some of the carnage of the 20 year old outlaw.
Maybe and maybe not. The ability to hit a target in such a stressful situation is very difficult especially for a person who is not trained to do so. Some schools have police officers on hand all day, which may have helped, but cannot be counted on for clear prevention. I admit controls may not have prevented this case either, but if some reasonable effort is not made to control access the puch to remove access will grow in strength.
I just heard the latest on the shooting. the man who did the shooting had a significant altercation with FOUR school personnel the week before. He killed 3 of them the day of the shooting and would have got the 4th but he had the day off. WHY didn't they report him????
How would that have prevented anything? Unless a law was broken an altercation is not grounds for arrest or the removal of his mother's guns.