Flash: Gun Control “Worked” in Newtown

As the country looks for answers to fix the perceived problem that caused the shooting in Connecticut on Friday, one of the things people are running to is increased gun control. An assault weapons ban and other measures are already on the table for national discussion, and appear to be on track for a lengthy congressional battle. But as we seem to get closer to the point of enacting more gun control measures, there’s something that we all need to remember: The existing laws worked and kept guns out of the killer’s hands . . .

The shooter in Friday’s massacre owned exactly zero guns. By federal law he was forbidden from buying a handgun from a gun dealer for another year (he was only 20 years old), and even then in Connecticut he would have needed to obtain a permit from the state first and pass a firearms safety course. And a rifle would subject him to a background check and require a 14 day wait.

Despite what some readers may think about waiting periods they appear to have successfully deterred the shooter form buying a gun. NBC reported that the shooter tried to buy a rifle on the Tuesday before the shooting, but left when he realized that there was a waiting period.

So existing restrictions — laws already on the books — kept guns out of Adam Lanza’s hands. The shooter didn’t legally own a firearm. You can question how his mother stored her guns, but it was only when he killed her and stole her firearms that he was able to obtain the guns he used in the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting.

This shouldn’t be a story about increasing gun control. No amount of additional gun control would have done a better job of keeping weapons out of the shooter’s hands, since existing laws worked just fine. At most, this should be a cautionary tale about what happens when firearms aren’t secured and unauthorized people can access them. That kind of gun control I can get behind.

So when you’re thinking about what laws would have prevented this shooting, just remember that the laws already on the books did the job. Perfectly. It was the human element that failed.

avatar

About Nick Leghorn

Nick Leghorn is a gun nerd living and working in San Antonio, Texas. In his free time, he's a competition shooter (USPSA, 3-gun and NRA High Power), aspiring pilot, and enjoys mixing statistics and science with firearms. Now on sale: Getting Started with Firearms by yours truly!

100 Responses to Flash: Gun Control “Worked” in Newtown

  1. avatarRob says:

    I agree that this is great news that the existing laws already work, however this just strengthens the argument the gun control crowd is using that the only way to solve the problem is to take all of these guns out if the hands of citizens since we can’t stop people from breaking the law and stealing them.

    • avatarDBeans says:

      It’s great only because it illustrates exactly what happens with these laws…… They say darn ill have to get a gun illegally and then commit the act in was going to anyway……. It proves all these gun restrictions add up to an unprotected populace, and a slightly delayed plan for mass murder.

    • avatarMattK1 says:

      How do we know that she was not attempting to defend her life with that rifle from her out of control/ill son? That rifle could have been in her hands when she was killed. She lost the battle, but it’s possible that she had a fighting chance.
      **This is just one angle. I believe she didn’t properly secure her weapons**

    • avatarGranny Grunch says:

      Don’t people realize that bwhen the gov confiscates all the guns we won’t have to worry about anything ever again With the guns gone nour black brothers will cease the car jackings,muggings,home invasions,whitey punching,etc etc. We can walk down Martin L King blvd at 3am on a Saturday night without a care in the world..we will be free of fear and it will only be the backyard swimming pools that takes the lives of soooo many children each year. You might,however, consider taking knife fighting lessons….just in case.

  2. avatarJTPhilly says:

    +1 (to this article)

    The discussion we should be having should revolve around mental health, not firearms.

  3. avatarAlphaGeek says:

    I’m OK with a waiting period the first time you want to buy a particular class of firearm. Example categories might include rimfire pistol/rifle, centerfire pistol, centerfire long gun.

    However, once I already own a firearm of a particular class, it’s absolutely pointless to make me wait 10 days before I can take delivery. I already have a shotgun (several, in fact) so why the hell should I have to wait 10 days to receive the new one I bought for my son? Just doesn’t make sense.

    The only argument against that would be “but what if your guns had been confiscated and that’s why you’re buying another”, to which I say: stop sucking at background checks.

  4. avatarready,fire,aim says:

    the liberials are blind and will not accept this piece of info they see blood and the only way to cure it is to melt all the guns down…that how they are…you can’t change them

  5. avatarmountocean says:

    I see this as highly vulnerable to gun-ban spin. Examples being, “no civillan [mother] can trusted with firearms” or “we need 100% registration and home storage inspections”.

  6. avatarIng says:

    So gun control worked…except that it didn’t.

    Because despite all the current checks and restrictions doing what they’re meant to do, the guy still got one. There were several in his mother’s house, so he stole them. It’s not like guns are hard to find. Anybody that really wants one can get one anytime — from a friend, by theft, a random private sale, whatever.

    Which means that more — vastly more — must be done if we’re serious about keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people. If guns were as rare and restricted here as they are in the UK, odds are this guy would never have got his hands on one. No gun, no children being shot in kindergarten class. *That* is what successful gun control looks like.

    On the other hand, we’ve all seen what the violent crime rate looks like in England. With absolute gun control on the table, that’s the tradeoff: 20 children for thousands of additional rapes, muggings, robberies, and beatings, and yes, even murder (guns aren’t the only objects that can kill). This is also what successful gun control looks like.

    Would it be worth it? You tell me.

    • avatarPascal says:

      Laws do not work to stop bad moral and ethical behavior.

      The founders knew this and relied on religion to help teach that which they understood could not be legislated.

      The myth is that laws stops bad human behavior. They are really only a way to punish it after it happens.

      In this case, when you are dealing with someone with a mental disorder, he may not have any moral or emotional compass to speak of.

      None of the families will want to hear that “nothing” can be done. They will all want “something” to be done if for nothing more than to make them feel better. Given the left leaning highly Democratic way CT is made up, feelings will trump logic and if something is not done at the national level, something will happen at the state level given the Democrates hold both seats and at the national level its all Democratic.

      No one will want to listen that the gun laws worked and this was the work of a very sick person.

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      Let me rephrase your statement,

      “No gun. Children being stabbed in kindergarden class.”

      Seriously are all you antis that stupid. This man mass murdered 6 year olds. Hes that screwed up! Do you honestly beleieve deep down in your blind heart that this man would have stopped if he couldnt get a gun?

      • avatarIng says:

        It was a rhetorical question.

        I’m 100% with you. People like this will find a way to kill. Garden-variety criminals will always find victims. The biggest question is whether anyone will be able to stop the violence once it starts.

        I’m just saying, let’s not pretend guns are the answer to a perfect world. The same thing that gives us the ability–the right–to tool up and protect ourselves gives sick people the ability to do even more damage.

        But to answer my own question, no, I don’t think a full UK-style gun ban would be worth it. The UK’s crime rates are proof enough for me.

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      Ing,

      I just reread your statement and think I may have misunderstood. If so, I appologize.

      • avatarIng says:

        No worries.

        This, in a nutshell, is the biggest reason why I still read and comment here. You didn’t *have* to apologize (and I wouldn’t have held it against you), but you did it anyway.

        This is a great community we’ve got going here on TTAG.

    • avatarKat says:

      Other violent acts have nothing to do with gun control and everything to do with society at large. Other European countries have very strict gun control, and also have very low violent crime rates. Hell, in the Netherlands, there’s organized crime…for stealing bicycles. This is hardly what I would call a violent or dangerous crime. It’s mostly inconvenient.

      The violence problem in the UK is just that–a problem with violence. But you know, if someone comes at me with a knife, I at least have a chance to defend myself. Someone points a gun at my head and I’m totally helpless. There would still be violent crime in the US if there were no guns, sure…but the guns do make it a hell of a lot easier, particularly when they are assault weapons. I can’t really fathom why anyone would need such weapons in their home (surely, your home is not going to be a war zone?).

      These gun laws didn’t work. They did what they were supposed to, and yet prevented nothing–obviously, then, they need improvement of some sort. But, many things need improvement, like society as a whole. However, far too many people want simple answers to complex problems, so people will scream about either gun control or mental health improvement (sometimes both) but neither of those are the sole problem. They are part of a larger problem, all the factors of which should be addressed. But that would be more difficult and actually take some brainpower, so it probably won’t happen.

  7. avatarCasey T says:

    Gun control worked all right as it killed all of those people because of the Unconstitutional gun free zones. If the public wants to solve the problem by eliminating these dangerous places that criminals target then I’m all for it. Otherwise, there is no chance I’m getting behind it.

    • avatarGeorge King says:

      I will volunteer on a local basis we need to keep children safe. Make schools safe zones I’m for that.

  8. avatarLance says:

    I agree te AWB the media and Dems are drooling over is no stop in the end. IN many cases the solution is protection in school (armed guards or teachers) and ways to lock nut jobs like this kid up.

  9. avatarPascal says:

    In CT we have 100% registration including for private sales.
    When we go to a range, public or private, you must sign-in and provide your permit number next to your name.

    The state police in various conferences said they knew all the guns were registered to the mother and since a sales slip is sent to the local PD, they have the date of purchase and the type of gun on file. They visited all the shooting ranges within 1hr of the residence and found where they had been shooting and the last time they had been shooting and I assume how often as well. As NBC reports, it was already said by police that he tried to purchase a gun and failed.

    For all we know, he asked mom to go the range, as she opened the lock box he picked up the pistol and shot her and then went on to shoot the others.

    State PD still has not said what they concluded, but no gun laws would have stopped this person with an obvious mental problem.

    Emotions are trumping logic right now and the anti-gun crowd will not allow a good crises to go to waste.

    Notice how we allowed the Patriot Act to be passed that now allows searches of our email without a warrent provided it is over 180 days old. Good Crises = Bad Laws driven by emotion lead by an agenda of no merit.

    • avatarshawmutt says:

      Patriot Act, Guantanamo, and the TSA as a result of 9/11. I completely trust the government when they eventually enact the Nanny Act, open another offshore prison for those suspected of having a possible mental illness, and start the Firearms Inspection Administration.

  10. avatarPhil says:

    I agree the laws did work. I just wish this was being pumped over the airwaves to show the general public that the curent laws did there job and that the media has caused mass histaria

  11. avatarmatt says:

    To be honest, the laws didnt prevent him from anything. Wasnt there a article here that said he shot everyone with the AR? And when was there a 14 day wait on rifle purchases, is that a CT law? Would this wait really stop him, or would it just delay him? Dont get me wrong, I’m not saying we need laws to impede people from getting guns, but I dont think any of the laws would have stopped him.

    • avatarPhil says:

      It did stop him because 1 he wasn’t old enough to own eather , second he needed a permit wich he also did not have

    • avatarshawmutt says:

      I wonder if the AR-15 was an illegal configuration. As far as I know CT still has an assault weapon ban.

      • avatarIn Memphis says:

        If I remember correctly CT dosnt have a FULL ON AWB. I think you are limited up to 3 items on an “assault rifle” that make it such a “weapon.”

        In other words you can have an AR with a bayonet lug, collapsable stock and flash hider but nothing more.

        That may not be correct though, I grew up in CT but didnt take much interest in guns because of the stupid laws.

  12. avatarRalph says:

    AP is running this report:

    The White House says curbing gun violence is a complex problem that will require a “comprehensive solution” including addressing gun control measures.

    Still, spokesman Jay Carney says gun control is not the only solution to stopping shootings like the horrific attack at a Connecticut elementary school Friday. He says no single piece of legislation or single action will fully address the problem.

    Things are going to get really ugly.

    • avatarPascal says:

      All he did was restate what the president said at his speach.

      If something does not happen at the National Level, CT will do something stupid at the state level.

    • avatarAharon says:

      It does ring ominous.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        Or, and I think this is FAR more likely, he’s signaling that the White House is going to push the mental-health and background-check angle pretty hard.

        I think there’s substantive progress to be made in terms of both mental health and awareness, as I mentioned in my editorial.

        I also think we could use a significant reworking of the privacy regulations to ensure that persons suffering from potentially violent mental disorders are flagged in NICS. It’d be even better if we could come up with a reasonable system for separating them from dangerous weapons of any sort, including guns, until their competence is restored.

        If the “worst” thing that happens as a result of this tragedy is that all firearms transfers must be processed by an FFL, I’m kinda OK with that. Especially since the lawsuits challenging any such law will be filed weeks or possibly days after any such law is signed.

        • avatarIn Memphis says:

          Speaking of privacy, we healtcare providers throw HIPAA around a lot when talking about patient rights and confidentiality.

          Truth is the Health Insurance Portable Acountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) does not protect medical information – such as mental health issues. It strictly pertains to billing information and its use as well as social security.

          Seeing as you have to provide your SSN for a background check and almost anything else personal, having access to mental health information for purpose of being flagged, isnt a stretch.

        • avatarMark N. says:

          That was already in the pipeline at Justice, tabled because of the election and Fast & Furious. It will resurface now, and is far more likely to gain traction that an AWB. The fact is that the background check system is a disgrace. Some states do not, despite the law, even report to the feds., others are spotty at best, and most have issues with compatible computer systems. Not that throwing federal dollars at it is going to change anything–look at the mess the HSA did with trying to create a unified database.

  13. avatarSpoons Make You Fat says:

    Dear Congress-critter:

    We can all agree that the shootings last week at Sandy Ridge Elementary School in Newtown, CT were a tragedy. Where we may disagree is in our willingness to consider gun legislation as an appropriate response.

    I strongly support US citizens’ right to keep and bear arms. I was not always a supporter of this right, however. Time was I did not see a need for it.

    Now I understand that the only way to deter the use of force is with force. Kind thoughts are helpful, but ultimately do not protect us. Similarly, laws are no impediment for a determined individual.

    The use of a gun for self defense is, at many levels, a failure. We can discuss the points of failure but we also need to acknowledge that (i) our schools are gun free zones and carrying weapons onto school property is a crime; (ii) gun purchases are currently subject to a background check; and, (iii) murder is a crime. Other laws are also in place which make it clear that unjustified gun use is intolerable. The bloodshed in Newtown represents a failure first of the individual who pulled the trigger and also enforcement of our existing laws.

    The answer is not to infringe the Second Amendment but to enforce the laws already in place. Effective gun restrictions would require controls far beyond those which define a free society. Further, we each have an inalienable right to self-defense which supersedes the Constitution.

    I sincerely hope there will never again be a need for anyone to use a gun in self-defense. I understand, however, that future gun use may be necessary in self-defense or in the defense of family. I recognize that such use could be necessary outside of my home.

    I do not at this time support any further gun control legislation or any efforts to infringe upon the Second Amendment. I will be active and vote accordingly.

    Sincerely,
    Spoons

  14. avatarhmmmmmmmm says:

    “The existing laws worked and kept guns out of the killer’s hands”

    So you’re saying that 28 are dead from what? Harsh language?

    Quite obviously the laws didn’t work since the killer was easily able to obtain the weapons he used. It’s rather ridiculous to claim that they did work IMO – what will be your next demonstrably false claim on the “truth” about guns? That the sky is green?

    • avatarPhil says:

      Clearly you didn’t get the “memo” he stole the guns

      • avatarhmmmmmmmm says:

        You know how many guns I can get if I kill my parents (in England) and steal theirs?

        Go on, have a guess!

        Want another one? You know how many guns I can get if I kill literally everybody in the entire city I grew up in and steal theirs?

        Go on, have another guess!

        Then think about how stupid you sound.

        • avatarUK Skeptic says:

          My guess is more than you naively think considering that the quick search of UK periodicals I just did shows that gun crimes in the UK are up 89% over the past decade, there are on average 28 gun murders a day, the violent crime rate per 100,000 is higher than the United States, and interviews with UK criminals suggest that finding and buying firearms is actually quite easy for those who care nothing for the law. While I agree there are probably fewer firearms in England than the US, criminals still have easy access. Therefore, I suspect that unless you grew up in a city with zero crime, you likely would be surprised how many guns you would find.

        • avatarhmmmmmmmm says:

          LOL here we are on “the truth about guns” and not one single person steps up to tell this moron that his “facts” are completely ludicrous.

          29 gun murders per day in the UK? Are you high? There is barely more than that in a whole YEAR.

          But nobody points this out but me? Is that because you fools believe him? Or because you don’t dare speak up against the majority here, even when the truth is at stake?

        • avatarUK Skeptic says:

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576406/28-gun-crimes-committed-in-UK-every-day.html
          I stand corrected, somewhat. 28gun crimes, not gun murders. Nonetheless, I think you are the one blind to the facts. Even on an island much smaller than the United States there are still plenty of guns, just not among law abiding citizens.

        • avatarUK Skeptic says:

          also http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html.

          I am willing to admit to my original mistake. Further, I never insulted you or called you a moron. I appreciate debate, and I am willing to engage in an argument backed up by some data and evidence. My point was not to condemn the UK. My point was not even to argue that some changes to US gun laws might not be in order. My point was that there are probably more guns in the UK than you seem to think. Nothing more.

          I don’t know you, and you don’t know me. You are clearly making statements on this forum with the intention of insulting gun owners with malicious intent. I don’t know why. My suspicion is that it makes you feel better about yourself to mock people who disagree with you. If you are not able to understand that good people can share opposing points of view then I feel sorry for you, as you contribute to the divisions we see in this world. I own guns, and I believe in the second amendment, but I respect those who disagree with me and I believe the vast majority of anti-gunners who want more gun control genuinely believe that it will save lives. I happen to think they are wrong, but I don’t hate them for it, and I respect their opinion. I wish they would go to the range or a shooting competition with somebody who is knowledgeable on firearms before they write gun owners off altogether, but I don’t believe they are stupid or that they are bad people. It seems clear that you, on the other hand, see everything in black and white. You seem to think that anybody who disagrees with you is not only stupid but evil. I would have admitted my mistake without your vitriolic attack. Perhaps you should learn to be more civil. It would make the world a nicer place regardless of what happens with America’s gun laws.

    • avatarjwm says:

      Once again, Hmmmmmmmjob, thank you for supporting our right to keep and bear arms. Nervous pols will view a pro gun site with nearly a milliom hits on it and see votes against gun control pols. Keep helping us with those numbers, they drive up ad revenues and will help contribute to the defeat of any upcoming AWB ban.

      • avatarhmmmmmmmm says:

        A whole 0.3% of the population – that firmly puts you into the “couldn’t care less” section for politicians. LOLcats get far more page views that that, but I don’t see Obama lobbying congress to change “we the people” to “I can haz cheeseburger”, do you?

        • avatarjwm says:

          Plus the owners of the other 300= million guns in America. Be shrill, be strident, be emotional all you want Hmmmmmmer. The upshot of all this is very likely to be nothing.

          And when you left the gun free paradise in England you didn’t know we had guns in America? Sucks to be you.

        • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

          FLAME DELETED

    • avatarBig john says:

      I hate you. No, sorry. I hate voluntary ignorance. That’s what I meant to say.

    • avatarPascal says:

      He killed the mother, then stole her guns and shot her several times in the head according to reports. If you consider going in and killing someone to get to their guns as easy access, then you would be correct in your twisted logic.

    • avatarSanchanim says:

      The point of the article is that the shooter was not able or didn’t purchase legally the firearms which he used. Obviously he got his hands on some and committed this horrible act.
      How they were stored in the mothers home is another question. One we can not answer at this time.
      The reality is bad people will find a way to do what they want. The facts are those poor children never had a fighting chance. There was no one with a concealed or open carry on campus to do anything about it.

    • avatarjwm says:

      Yes the laws did work, nobody in the school were able to shoot back. That’s what happens when the laws prevent the good guys from carrying.

    • avatarRandy Drescher says:

      The existing laws worked beautifully. They made sure that no one could stop this killer in a school zone. They did exactly as they were intended to do. The cops after hurricane Katrina confiscated all guns they could, they wanted to make sure,also, that no criminals were hurt. You don’t give a shit about the kids do you, Randy

      • avatarhmmmmmmmm says:

        Just how mentally damaged do you need to be to think the laws are designed to hurt people?

        And then you kooks wonder why the rest of the country doesn’t take you seriously!

        • avatarjwm says:

          What rest of the country? Look around you hmmmmmbag. Your neighbors, the people that you encounter on your daily travels are most likely gun owners. 300+ million guns aren’t owned by a handfull of rednecks in lower podunk.

          At one time you yourself claimed to be a gun owner. Hell feinstein, who’s pushing for an AWB had a concealed carry permit. I don’t know if she still does.

          Pull your head out of your ass girl and consider that even if you somehow manage to get an AWB there’ll still be millions of them in circulation for generations to come.

  15. avatarSanchanim says:

    I have been saying this (article idea) since day one.
    The truth is we don’t know or at least it hasn’t been reported how the mother stored her firearms. For me, I can say since I have lots of kids, that safety, and safely securing all firearms from little hands is priority one.

    • avatarAharon says:

      So true.

    • avatarhmmmmmmmm says:

      A 20 year old man does not have “little hands”. Trying to palm this off on the mother’s method of gun storage is beyond pathetic, though I don’t doubt it will be a central part of the pro-gun lobby’s defence in the wake of this atrocity.

  16. avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

    So in what way would having the mother’s firearms secured have prevented this. Presumably, he killed her and then took the firearms.

    Antis will simply be of the position that had she not owned firearms in the first place this would not have happened. This is why the anti’s argument is always construed by the pro-gun side as to imply confiscation. Therefore, the accusations of over-reacting to “common sense gun-control” are unfounded and deceptive.

  17. avatarJoseph says:

    As someone said on here before, every time there is a shooting the gun-grabbers think that coffins make excellent soap boxes. Because of the horrific nature of the recent shootings they see an open door, and they are going to run through it at full speed. That nut Bloomberg is already calling for BO to bypass congress and initiate gun control by presidential fiat. It’s going to be a long ride.

  18. avatarAharon says:

    “The existing laws worked and kept guns out of the killer’s hands . . .”

    The existing laws did not work to keep him from gaining access to his mother’s guns. He still murdered 27 or 28 innocent people with a stolen gun (I couldn’t care less about his suicide).

    • avatarshawmutt says:

      What further controls would you suggest that would have prevented this tragedy?

      • avatarAharon says:

        He was able to gain access to his mother’s guns. If those guns had been secured in a high quality safe (by law or by the gun owner’s own sense of responsible planning re: securing her guns) without his having access by key, knowing combo etc, things would (possibly) have turned out differently. Heck, I know it wouldn’t be a guarantee to have avoided the murderers if he 1) tortured his mother into getting the combo or 2) spent enough time drilling through the safe provided he had the willingness to do so.

        Apart from the above, I’m all for school personal to be armed and trained, and to use lethal force.

        After this week’s past shootings using stolen guns, I plan on buying a secure storage safe for mine. Again, it isn’t a guarantee yet it might keep mine from ever being stolen and used in a criminal manner.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          This is one of the few CA firearms laws that make sense. In order to take delivery of a gun, it must be sold with an effective locking device, the owner must have a gun safe meeting some minimum standards, or both. My recent shotgun purchase included supplying the make/model/serial number of my long gun safe, though I came to find out when I opened the boxes that Weatherby supplies complimentary locks.

        • avatarMark N. says:

          Alpha Greek. The locks that come with new firearms do not comply with the stupid California law that requires a safe or proof of purchase of a locking device within 30 days of the purchase of the firearm–receipt required. Silly, when pretty much all new handguns come with locks in the cases, but it is the law.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Good thing I had all the info required to fill out my “gun safe affidavit” when I picked up my recent purchase, then. ;)

    • avatarSanchanim says:

      This is a very good question… shawmutt…
      Were the guns simply in a closet? Were they in a safe?
      We simply don’t know at this point how the shooter gained access to the firearms. It is a tragedy all around, and this includes the mother, but a ban confiscation won’t fix mental illness or anything else.

      • avatarIn Memphis says:

        I havnt been able to keep up on the latest info, have the police said if there was even a safe in the house that could hold a long gun?

        Im not asking if it was secure, just if the ability was there.

  19. avatarTom Hobbs says:

    Yes the laws worked. How had mother had them secured is another really good question. I am sure in reading this and the many other comments that the question of “how are my guns stored and could I improve this? has come about.
    I am now looking for a newer safe.

    • avatarAharon says:

      I have found too many “gun safes” over-priced and not very secure unless of course a large amount of money is spent on a very large safe bigger than I need.

      I think this is the type of storage unit (and currently on sale) that I am thinking about using:
      http://www.toolboxes4less.com/jobox-heavy-duty-chests.html#.UM-y0jO8tYw

      If I have excess space inside, I am going to place lead weights on the bottom, guns and ammo on top of the weights. These units can be bolted down and/or chained too. I am going to buy high quality combo locks to secure them so no key can be found. I like it that they do not shout ‘guns inside’.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      I’ve been reasonably happy with the $400 Sentry dial-combo safe I picked up at Home Depot. Got a firefighter friend to help me get it up the stairs into my office, bolted it to the wall joists and the floor.

      It’s not quite as quick to open as one with a push button electronic lock, but it will never need batteries at the exact moment I need it open right away. Besides, I have a GunVault in my bedroom for quick access.

      • avatarjwm says:

        Had one of those battery lock safes, don’t remember the brand. It worked sometimes. Had to use the backup key too often. Got rid of it and got an all manual safe.

  20. avatarMOG says:

    Bottom line: One way or another, the anti-firearm branch of the government is going to do what it wants to do. No amount of reason will deter them. Once a law is passed, it will be; “There, we fixed it”, and the senseless, unopposed, killings will go on.

  21. avatarDavid says:

    Sell all public schools to private institutions. Repeal all taxes that fund schools. Let parents home school or send children to private schools. If you choose to send your children to a private school, you can pick one that arms the teachers or has parents/relatives that provide security. In high schools you can teach the older/mature students to do the same. This will not only resolve the problem of free fire zones we currently have but will give us better education of our children and teachers and schools will have to earn their money by producing well taught students. No government solution to a govt. created problem and it will cost less. A lot less. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9PEqmpGK9k

  22. avatarIdahoMan says:

    TheTruthAboutGuns.com, defending gun-control.

    You now how the old saying goes: “With friends like you, we don’t need enemies.”

  23. avatarGeorge King says:

    Gun control is a big no, if only one gun had been at the front door it would have been different,if guns go who will protect you, the president and the govt, I don’t think so.While the gun debate is in full swing, can’t you at least let the families mourn over their loved ones. When you can control people you will control violence, mental Heath ,and the way in which we all act. Guns are not at fault , it is the way we overlook our children, just think 1 gun in the right hands would have saved many,we need to look at all things before we jump.

  24. avatarMark N. says:

    The belief that banning guns will prevent violent crimes is as sensible as believing that disbanding all armies will result in an outbreak of peace. I know England sure is trying to eliminate its armed forces. Its Navy is almost gone, it has only one aircraft carrier it shares with the French (heresy!) and it is using old aircraft until the wings fall off before it will agree to replace them. If another Hitler rises to conquer the world, England hasn’t a chance.

  25. avatarAussiePete says:

    If the sale of guns was illegal, how would his mother have a gun in the first place for him to steal? Ban guns, by back all existing ones, and harsh penalties on anyone found with a weapon. Australia did it, no more massacres.

    • avatarjwm says:

      Constitution doesn’t allow it mate. Nice hearing from you.

    • avatarUK Skeptic says:

      There is that troubling piece in the constitution banning unreasonable search and seizure called the 4th ammendment. Firther, Article 1, Section 9 states “no ex post facto law shall be passed.” Essentially this means that a law can’t be passed that makes it illegal to own something that was purchased legally. Further, confiscation of a legally purchased item, or failure to pay market value, could be construed as theft by the goverent and challenged in court. If we go down that road with firearms, then the 2nd will not be the only liberty infringed.

      • avatarIn Memphis says:

        “If we go down that road with firearms, then the 2nd will not be the only liberty infringed.”

        This right here is our whole damn reason for fighting for the Second Amendment! You cant take one without taking others.

        Maybe if the second and fourth go we should take the first and shut the damn MSM up. Then everyone can sort of pretend to be happy.

        Okay so we also fight because we just like shooting but thats not the big picture.

      • avatarAussiePete says:

        Australia didn’t confiscate weapons, the Fed Government bought them back. Cost the tax payers around $350 Mil if I remember correctly – a figure that would be massively larger in the US which raises the next ugly question of how we would pay for it.
        Gun Control and the Second Amendment can co-exist quite happily. Currently there are many people that are unable to bear arms, because they fail the existing criteria set per state (felons, crazies etc). So we just make that criteria stricter – much stricter – everyone still has the right if they meet them. You can still buy a gun in Australia, it’s just very hard to do.

        • avatarGeorge King says:

          The NRA has it 100 per cent right watch what Wayne said. You can’t give up one gun they are after all. My heart goes out to the parents of those children, but one gun in the right hand and maybe the children would still be here. Protect our children ,put a armed personal there, problem solved and children safe.

        • avatarGeorge King says:

          First the real point I was trying to make with you was that we are here in America and if we find solutions to protecting our children, we don’t need to waste time, we need to act, period, put guards at schools for now, it will help. Today on the news a father and marine is guarding his child’s school now. As for my comment to you about, if you like somewhere else better, go was only to say lets compare apples to apples. Our population is 311,591,917 at last count, that said we will always have problems agreeing on anything. However now is a time to protect children in our schools, we don’t need more gun control we need to find a way to see the real problems that face us.

    • avatarSlim Legal Standing says:

      There is that troubling piece in the constitution banning unreasonable search and seizure called the 4th amendment. Further, Article 1, Section 9 states “no ex post facto law shall be passed.” Essentially this means that a law can’t be passed that makes it illegal to own something that was purchased legally. Further, confiscation of a legally purchased item, or failure to pay market value, could be construed as theft by the goverent and challenged in court. If we go down that road with firearms, then the 2nd will not be the only liberty infringed.

      • avatarGeorge King says:

        You are 100 per cent on the money, taking guns away will only lead to more crime and we don’t need that, I am one that will not give up mine, my children and my wife are safe, and a guard at the schools will solve the problem with children safe at school. Give up one of my rights and lose all.

    • avatarGeorge King says:

      We have a constitution in America if you love somewhere else better do us all a favor and go there, leave guns alone dont tell us they do it better there.

      • avatarAussiePete says:

        Hi George King,
        Thanks for your delightfully constructive response. Yes you are correct the US does indeed have a Constitution – as does almost every other country in the world. Ironically I believe there are a couple sections you should brush up on allowing me to voice my opinion as a US Citizen and choose to live where I please. It may also surprise you that while the US is amazing in so many ways there are some areas other countries are actually better, in this case Australia for solving their massacre problems. Staffing LEO’s at every school is a great approach to help unemployment but it hasn’t seemed to deter shootings in the past. You may recall Columbine High School had an armed and uniformed Deputy Sheriff on premise the day of the shooting, yet tragically this did very little for the 13 killed that day. Here is a transcript of the days events. Let me know if you’d like me to summarize, it’s rather long I’m not sure if your meth addled attention span stretches that far. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/DEPUTIES_TEXT.htm
        Seriously? “if you love somewhere else better do us all a favor and go there” – did you go to Ignorant Moron School for that one or does being a total douche bag just come naturally to you?

        • avatarARs are not more dangerous says:

          I agree he is an ass. You have as much of a right to your opinion as everyone else here. And the argument that you should go elsewhere is just imbecilic. That said, arguing that armed security doesn’t work because it didn’t work one time is fallacious. If security doesn’t work, why do government offices, private businesses, and so many other organizations pay for it. Why would a school be an exception. NOTHING can guarantee safety but armed security, you should be willing to admit, is a feasible solution. You have a right to believe gun control would be better, but I think the concept that trained, armed, security makes a given protected space more secure is grounded on somwhat incontestable evidence. The debate over whether the need for such security indicates the depravity of American society, that we shouldn’t NEED such security, is more compelling but is one I will leave for another time

        • avatarAussiePete says:

          Hi “ARs are not more dangerous”, I completely agree protecting our schools would be a theoretical solution but the point of that link was to show in all reality how impracticable this would be. There were 2,000 kids on the grounds of Columbine, one cop eating lunch in the parking lot did diddly so just how many would you need to adequately do the job? Given there were kids dead within seconds of the first shots you’d need one officer to cover every class right? Lets say 20 classes per average school, and the current 100K public schools in the US, we’re talking 2 million new cops. You just made Obama cream his pants.
          So going back to my original point, the issue of gun control to me is one of prevention vs cure. Your cure is to shoot the crazies before they shoot us, where as my prevention avoids anyone getting shot in the first place.

        • avatarVoices of moderation needed says:

          AussiePete. I think you make many good points and, despite some of the other wackamahoos on this forum, I am glad opposing voices can come on this forum and make a rational argument without personal attacks. I also probably differ with a lot of the people on the forum, in that not all Government is bad. I actually would pay more in taxes if I though that revenue would go to paying for a police officer in school. I think both should be done. More security and some additional requirements for firearm ownership. Like your above post, some make sense, and are not violations of the constitution. On one point I disagree. While new requirements might need to be more rigorous, and perhaps even take time, they should not be so expensive that only people of means can afford their own defense. So, like always it’s more complicated, but thank you for the debate.

        • avatarGeorge King says:

          If we are to protect our children, let the govt do it? ,they have never moved in any direction fast enough to help anything. On a local bases our school board is looking at what to do. If someone is going to kill they will,with some kind of a weapon . If we are to compare other countries with ours lets remember the populations of each, then look at all things in that aspect . Asking for new gun control is like asking our Govt to fix the economy, quit spending, and to protect all citizens. We can stand by and do nothing or we can put someone with a gun in our schools until someone can come up with an alternative. Stand by and wait on Govt or Act, what choice is there? We do know what has happened, who can see the future? Just listen to the news media they do not report the news they sway the news to what they need to for rating and money. Lets look locally for solutions, don’t wait on Govt and more regulations to protect our children. On the news was a marine and a father watching over his child’s school now, how great is that?

    • avatarGeorge King says:

      Isn’t all crime rates up in Australia ? Maybe because of gun control?

  26. avatarSlim Legal Standing/UK Skeptic says:

    Stupid I phone. I’m embarrassed. Sorry for the duplicate posts.

  27. avatarSlim Legal Standing/UK Skeptic says:

    Dang I phone. I’m embarrassed. Sorry for the duplicate posts.

  28. avatarSlim Legal Standing/UK Skeptic says:

    Dang I phone. I’m embarrassed and I apologize for the duplicate posts.

  29. avatarSlim Standing/UK Skeptic says:

    I phone trouble. I’m embarrassed and I apologize for the duplicate posts.

  30. avatarJack Sullivan says:

    I sure miss hmmmmmmmm’s posts. He sure seems like a smart guy and has great things to say… said no one ever!

  31. avatarJustAJ says:

    I’m amazed at how many people missed the point of the article entirely. The gun laws worked in the sense that this guy was not legally able to obtain the guns used. He broke at least 3 laws in obtaining the weapons, but “more” laws would have been a better deterrent?

    The gun laws also magaed to fail at the same time, by banning firearms on school grounds, creating a target rich environment. That is where the “laws designed to hurt people” comes from, and I totally agree.

    • avatarGeorge King says:

      You are totally correct, with more gun control, you will still be able to buy illegal guns everywhere. Even our Govt sold them South of the border. We have to protect our children and our homes.

  32. avatarTom Cherry says:

    Its not just about guns. It is, has been ….and always will be…about evil. A crazy man’s 1927 Michigan school bombing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster killed more children, so did Timmy McVeigh. Are bombs legal? As Christmas approaches let us not forget that (2000 years ago) Herrod had all the babies slaughtered to prevent the birth of a feared messiah. Our country’s president authorizes (on a weekly basis) drone bombing of villiages in Pakistan. Few are crying for the Pakistani babies (they are brown) or that this country’s illegal and immoral killing of (brown) people be stooped.

  33. avatarMatt in FL says:

    I just read something on another site that I thought was interesting, and this seemed the most relevant thread in which to post it:

    “CT has a state “assault weapons” ban so it is likely to be a ban compliant Bushmaster if it was used. So not an “assault weapon” by their own definition.”

  34. avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

    “At most, this should be a cautionary tale about what happens when firearms aren’t secured and unauthorized people can access them. That kind of gun control I can get behind.”
    Again, the devil is in the details. How exactly do we enforce this kind of gun control? How does this differ from any other effort to keep arms out of the hands of those that need them just when the gun is needed most? How many more lives will be lost because of these kind of blanket restrictions?

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.