Originally Posted by Galileo

It certainly is relevant since the outcome would have been a lot less tragic if these killers had had to rely on bombs alone.

Oh? What has killed the most of our troops in the Middle East? Guns or IED's?

You quote from California's law but fail to realize that Lane did not steal the gun from someone that was his legal guardian.

Do tell? What State did it come from and who was tending him at the time?
Tell us the story star gazer. Be creative now.

"It is not that our liberal friends do not know anything, it is simply so much of what they know is wrong" - Ronald Reagan

"Let’s face it. Chardon happened not because an Ohio teenager was so troubled that he became violent. Chardon happened because a troubled, violent Ohio teenager was able to get access to a gun.

"Remove the gun from the equation and there may have been a violent incident involving T.J. Lane. But it is doubtful that three young people would have died and two been seriously injured. The nature and scope of the Chardon tragedy was determined by the nature and lethality of the weapon. It’s not just a question of 'Why?' It’s also a question of 'How?'

"Take the gun from Seung-Hui Cho and 32 Virginia Tech students would not have died almost five years ago. Nor would 15 more have been injured. Take the guns from Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris and 13 students and teachers would not have died at Columbine High School, nor would 21 others have been injured. Give these violent individuals baseball bats or knives instead of guns and everything changes. The problem is not just the people. The problem is also the guns.

"It’s not just the mass killings where the gun makes the difference. In general, assaults with guns are 23 times more deadly than assaults with other weapons or bodily force. Suicide attempts with guns are far more likely to result in death than attempts using other means. Accidents with guns are more deadly than accidents with other dangerous objects.

"While we are trying to figure out how a young heart could become so hardened that it would lead to an act of unspeakable violence, can we not also have sensible policies to prevent hardened and violent kids from getting access to guns? I have no doubt the gun lobby welcomes our obsession with the 'Why?' question. It deflects attention from the deadly role of the guns....

"We are repeatedly told, 'Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.' Clever, but tragically misleading. A gun enabled T.J. Lane to be an efficient and effective multiple killer.
School Kids Dying in Ohio: It’s a Gun Problem-- Brady Campaign Blog

We see Xenamnes in this thread fixating on the intentions of the killer in an attempt to deflect attention from the fact that a gun can make a violent situation much more deadly.

Originally Posted by Galileo

I am not quoting from an overturned verdict. My quote regarding gun storage comes right out of the majority opinion in District of Columbia et al. v. Heller(2008). Learn to use the find function.

Like heck you weren't...try this one from your earlier post..:

"Nor, correspondingly, does our analysis suggest the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents."
(D.C. v. Heller)

Read it, D.C. v Heller was OVERTURNED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT in Heller v D.C.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Originally Posted by Galileo

It certainly is relevant since the outcome would have been a lot less tragic if these killers had had to rely on bombs alone.

Your statement does not appear to be in line with facts in reality. The number of soldiers who have been killed in roadside bombings in the middle east would suggest explosive devices yield considerable more death than firearms.

The school massacre with the highest body count in America still remains as the Bath School bombing. In 1927 forty five people were murdered and another fifty eight were injures when the school was blown up. Even Virginia Tech did not reach that level despite the supposed "easy availability" to far superior weaponry.

You quote from California's law but fail to realize that Lane did not steal the gun from someone that was his legal guardian.

California law is cited because it is one of the strictest standards recognized in the United States. However even under California law it would be difficult to successfully prosecute the owner of the stolen firearm as he was reportedly the student's uncle. Thus the family member exemption is in play.

If the owner was not the student's uncle and instead a random stranger who did not regularly encounter minors on his property and in his barn he had no reason to believe his firearms were readily accessible to anyone but himself and thus could not be prosecuted.

Child access prevention laws were not addressed explicitly in Heller because they were not specifically brought up for challenge. However the Supreme Court ruled that the district's mandatory storage laws were unconstitutional because they made it impossible to use firearms for defensive purposes.

Under this standard there is no reason to believe child access prevention laws would withstand challenges of constitutionality. There is no litmus test sanctioned by the Supreme Court to determine when mandatory storage of firearms is allowable or not, rather it was a blanket determination. And that ruling states that a law which renders firearms inoperable and inaccessible violates a person's right to self defense within the home with a firearm.

Furthermore the argument in favor of child access prevention laws is of dubious nature. If a person's right to bear arms exists only within the confines of their home -an argument that has been supported by firearms control activists- that right would become nonexistent if they were required to keep all firearms locked up at all hours of the day and unusable for the purpose of self defense.

Originally Posted by Galileo

"Let’s face it. Chardon happened not because an Ohio teenager was so troubled that he became violent. Chardon happened because a troubled, violent Ohio teenager was able to get access to a gun.

Through an act of theft, a criminal offense punishable by law The student in question was not able to legally purchase a firearm.

"Remove the gun from the equation and there may have been a violent incident involving T.J. Lane. But it is doubtful that three young people would have died and two been seriously injured. The nature and scope of the Chardon tragedy was determined by the nature and lethality of the weapon. It’s not just a question of 'Why?' It’s also a question of 'How?'

It would appear that rather than question what motivation convinced a seventeen year old to commit several acts of murder and what can be done to tackle such motivations in the future, the Brady Campaign would rather blame the existence of firearms and ignore the existence of the hostile intents possessed by the individuals.

In simple terms it is not not possible to remove firearms from the equation. It is neither realistically feasible nor legally permissible to render firearms in such a manner that they are inaccessible to all. This proposal would require firearms to be unavailable for defensive purposes by the rightful owner in a time of crisis when they are needed immediately. This is a standard that would violate the rulings of the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald.

"Take the gun from Seung-Hui Cho and 32 Virginia Tech students would not have died almost five years ago. Nor would 15 more have been injured. Take the guns from Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris and 13 students and teachers would not have died at Columbine High School, nor would 21 others have been injured. Give these violent individuals baseball bats or knives instead of guns and everything changes. The problem is not just the people. The problem is also the guns.

The students Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris acquired their firearms through felonious acts. The student Seung-Hui Cho could easily have done the same thing. Simply rendering the legal market inaccessible is not a viable option.

"It’s not just the mass killings where the gun makes the difference. In general, assaults with guns are 23 times more deadly than assaults with other weapons or bodily force. Suicide attempts with guns are far more likely to result in death than attempts using other means. Accidents with guns are more deadly than accidents with other dangerous objects.

Firearms are by nature deadly weapons and should be treated as such. Nothing can change this fact nor should the attempt be made to make firearms something less than deadly in nature. When they are used -either legally or illegally- people will die as a result. Nothing will change that fact. Continuing to hold accountable those that own them legally will yield no benefit. Campaigning against firearms will have no real world benefits.

Simply put neither the Brady Campaign nor any other firearms control organization is prepared for what will need to be done to yield actual and sufficient change.

"While we are trying to figure out how a young heart could become so hardened that it would lead to an act of unspeakable violence, can we not also have sensible policies to prevent hardened and violent kids from getting access to guns? I have no doubt the gun lobby welcomes our obsession with the 'Why?' question. It deflects attention from the deadly role of the guns....

The definition of "sensible policies" is highly subjective and open to interpretation. It is already law may not be sold to, transported by, or possessed by minors. However these laws will not stop a minor from acquiring a firearm through illegal means.

"We are repeatedly told, 'Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.' Clever, but tragically misleading. A gun enabled T.J. Lane to be an efficient and effective multiple killer.
School Kids Dying in Ohio: It’s a Gun Problem-- Brady Campaign Blog

Vehicular homicide is responsible for a considerable number of deaths. Children at cross walks are vulnerable to sudden death from an incoming motorist. Their only defense is a crossing guard armed with a stop sign. A vehicle is considerably more deadly than any firearm, and felons are not prohibited from owning and operating them.

We see Xenamnes in this thread fixating on the intentions of the killer in an attempt to deflect attention from the fact that a gun can make a violent situation much more deadly.

One must wonder what drove a seventeen year old to believe that murder would solve whatever problems he was facing. Had such driving factors not been present then perhaps the firearm used by T.J. Lane would still be sitting in the barn where its owner had placed it.

The proper question to ask is not "how to keep guns off of schools" but rather what did the students in question do that would convince the suspect to murder them in response?

Interesting question. We say this guy might have run them down with a car, or perhaps set off a propane explosion, or gasoline, or use some other method.

The antis say if only they just had mandatory storage. Yawn.

Isn't it true that Drug Dealers would instead have another revenue stream? Illegal guns. Maybe just import them in from Mexico with their drugs, or employ a crack addict to purchase a bunch for them, to sell to the criminal class. Or just steal them from owners. Impossible, you say? They will have Mandatory Storage.

I thought I would take a look at a country like ours, Australia where they have Much More Gun Control than the antis say they want, but yet they claim would fix the problem. And they have mandatory approved methods of storage, and home inspections of that storage set up as well.

Recent news.
January 13, 2012 Public urged to reveal illegal guns anonymously

The acting NSW Police Commissioner, Nick Kaldas, launched Operation Spartan yesterday to combat a recent ''spike'' in gun crime amid fears that innocent people would be caught in the crossfire. He said most weapons were imported, but most of the illegal guns being used in the shootings had probably been stolen from legitimate sources, either homes or businesses.

There were 589 guns reported stolen in NSW last year. An independent study suggested there could be as many as 500,000 illegal guns nationwide.

Police say that in the past 18 months, close to 10,000 firearms have been taken off the streets. However, only some of these were black market weapons.

Could be as many as a Half Million Illegal Guns! Whew! And that, 15 years after they enacted all of that gun control.

December 21, 2011 Huge black market for illegal weapons

POLICE admit they cannot eradicate a black market that is peddling illegal guns to criminals.
( A Bold truthful statement.)

Motorcycle gang members and convicted criminals barred from buying guns in South Australia have no difficulty obtaining illegal firearms - including fully automatic weapons.

Drug dealers. Stop drugs and you might have a chance to your mythical gun control scheme, but apparently, we neither want to, nor are we capable of doing that.

But the antis say, if we pass the law, we can do what actually want. Punish Crime Victims for having the Audacity to actually believe in and participate in their Constitutionally recognized as Inalienable, Individual and Fundamental Rights. And this way we can pass more and more and even more laws claiming a loophole. Like this.
Rise in gun theft shows need for tighter control

The pro-firearms lobby claims that it has done nothing to reduce the incidence of firearms-related homicides in the community. They also point out that nearly all firearms-related homicides involve an unregistered firearm or the perpetrator of an offence is not registered to have the firearm that was used.

There are disturbing trends emerging about the rate of firearms thefts in Australia and the increasing number that are stolen from registered owners. It is believed that many of these were not just random burglaries but that gun owners were targeted by organised gun thieves.

A powerful argument to support this is that, of those firearms stolen during that period, 457 were stolen from safes in 128 separate incidents. It takes preparation and planning to break into a house and subsequently, into a gun safe.

What is also interesting about these figures is the number of thefts of multiple guns from the one home or premises. If a criminal is going to the trouble of breaking into a house and gun safe, then they may as well aim for maximum return.

In 20 per cent of all thefts, the firearms were not properly stored. Either they were not in a locked cabinet or the keys were with the cabinet.

Just 20% in where the owner was considered negligent, although it must be pointed out, still victims of criminal acts. This is about as good as it can get with a law like this. Or should we Just dispense with the formality, and Jail all gun owners because they might be a crime victim of safe crackers, or forced to open the safe at gunpoint? Because the Antis are going want to believe, that all crime victims just opened the safe and let the Criminals have them, and then the Antis will want to sue them into oblivion.

We here in the U.S. have approximately 300 million guns. How would a country with that many guns ever enforce law like this? Can't. Well, unless this is just a ruse for a reason to get even more gun laws. Which has been pointed out, have not been proven to have scientific evidence in stopping violent outcomes.

But there again, Australia has so much gun control that it makes the American Gun Controller blush with envy, and they have all of them illegal guns without bordering the Drug Laden Gang territory of Mexico.

Originally Posted by Galileo

"Let’s face it. Chardon happened not because an Ohio teenager was so troubled that he became violent. Chardon happened because a troubled, violent Ohio teenager was able to get access to a gun.

"Remove the gun from the equation and there may have been a violent incident involving T.J. Lane. But it is doubtful that three young people would have died and two been seriously injured. The nature and scope of the Chardon tragedy was determined by the nature and lethality of the weapon. It’s not just a question of 'Why?' It’s also a question of 'How?'

"Take the gun from Seung-Hui Cho and 32 Virginia Tech students would not have died almost five years ago. Nor would 15 more have been injured. Take the guns from Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris and 13 students and teachers would not have died at Columbine High School, nor would 21 others have been injured. Give these violent individuals baseball bats or knives instead of guns and everything changes. The problem is not just the people. The problem is also the guns.

"It’s not just the mass killings where the gun makes the difference. In general, assaults with guns are 23 times more deadly than assaults with other weapons or bodily force. Suicide attempts with guns are far more likely to result in death than attempts using other means. Accidents with guns are more deadly than accidents with other dangerous objects.

"While we are trying to figure out how a young heart could become so hardened that it would lead to an act of unspeakable violence, can we not also have sensible policies to prevent hardened and violent kids from getting access to guns? I have no doubt the gun lobby welcomes our obsession with the 'Why?' question. It deflects attention from the deadly role of the guns....

"We are repeatedly told, 'Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.' Clever, but tragically misleading. A gun enabled T.J. Lane to be an efficient and effective multiple killer.
School Kids Dying in Ohio: It’s a Gun Problem-- Brady Campaign Blog

We see Xenamnes in this thread fixating on the intentions of the killer in an attempt to deflect attention from the fact that a gun can make a violent situation much more deadly.

Henigan's article was debunked the day it was written star gazer.
Dennis Henigan on Chardon: ClockworkEdition - Bruce Krafft - Free Liberty Writers

See which one has the most facts in it.

"Let’s face it. Chardon happened not because an Ohio teenager was so troubled that he became violent. Chardon happened because a troubled, violent Ohio teenager was able to get access to a gun.

Let's face it the Brady Campaign needs to get over it's self because even if he had no access to a fire arm it still would have happened if he was that intent.

"Remove the gun from the equation and there may have been a violent incident involving T.J. Lane. But it is doubtful that three young people would have died and two been seriously injured. The nature and scope of the Chardon tragedy was determined by the nature and lethality of the weapon. It’s not just a question of 'Why?' It’s also a question of 'How?'

A person can do a lot of damage and up close and personal with a 'shette if that is what they had.
Lethality.I won't argue a .22 can be ,but however there are things more so assuming that's the case.

"Take the gun from Seung-Hui Cho and 32 Virginia Tech students would not have died almost five years ago. Nor would 15 more have been injured.

If he was that intent and apparently was, no gun = a big knife maybe 'shette which in close quarters can cut a pretty good path and not make alot of noise(gunfire),imagine going into a classroom. It would get gruesome in a hurry.

Take the guns from Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris and 13 students and teachers would not have died at Columbine High School, nor would 21 others have been injured. Give these violent individuals baseball bats or knives instead of guns and everything changes. The problem is not just the people. The problem is also the guns.

See above.

"It’s not just the mass killings where the gun makes the difference. In general, assaults with guns are 23 times more deadly than assaults with other weapons or bodily force.

Since using a gun in self defense isn't assaulting anyone we won' go there however in self defense it is the weapon of choice.

Suicide attempts with guns are far more likely to result in death than attempts using other means. Accidents with guns are more deadly than accidents with other dangerous objects.

Put the muzzle in your mouth pull the trigger yeah it is more likely to result in death.It's not rocket science.Pull the trigger there's no changing your mind.
In Japan no gun does not mean no suicide

"While we are trying to figure out how a young heart could become so hardened that it would lead to an act of unspeakable violence, can we not also have sensible policies to prevent hardened and violent kids from getting access to guns? I have no doubt the gun lobby welcomes our obsession with the 'Why?' question. It deflects attention from the deadly role of the guns....

We could try a seance so we could see what people are thinking or enact another 20,000+ gun laws that won't be enforced anymore than the first 20,000+ or just stop trying to make guns so mystique and the harbingers of evil ,maybe stop letting the schools and fed and state govts. raise our kids.So very odd we didn't have this problem when I was a teen.

"We are repeatedly told, 'Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.' Clever, but tragically misleading. A gun enabled T.J. Lane to be an efficient and effective multiple killer.
School Kids Dying in Ohio: It’s a Gun Problem-- Brady Campaign Blog

How is this "tragically misleading"I've yet to see a trigger magically pull it's self or just go off(unless it wasn't drop tested of course).Then maybe just maybe.

Originally Posted by Galileo
We see Xenamnes in this thread fixating on the intentions of the killer in an attempt to deflect attention from the fact that a gun can make a violent situation much more deadly.

I don't see him deflecting anything,you don' need a gun to make situation any more deadly besides whats all this crud with the Brady Campaign?

Originally Posted by Xenamnes

Child access prevention laws were not addressed explicitly in Heller because they were not specifically brought up for challenge. However the Supreme Court ruled that the district's mandatory storage laws were unconstitutional because they made it impossible to use firearms for defensive purposes.

Under this standard there is no reason to believe child access prevention laws would withstand challenges of constitutionality. There is no litmus test sanctioned by the Supreme Court to determine when mandatory storage of firearms is allowable or not, rather it was a blanket determination. And that ruling states that a law which renders firearms inoperable and inaccessible violates a person's right to self defense within the home with a firearm.

Furthermore the argument in favor of child access prevention laws is of dubious nature. If a person's right to bear arms exists only within the confines of their home -an argument that has been supported by firearms control activists- that right would become nonexistent if they were required to keep all firearms locked up at all hours of the day and unusable for the purpose of self defense.

CA CAP law does not require the firearm be rendered inoperable or inaccessible "at all hours of the day".

In simple terms it is not not possible to remove firearms from the equation. It is neither realistically feasible nor legally permissible to render firearms in such a manner that they are inaccessible to all.

Nor is it prudent to leave handguns and ammo lying around with a troubled teen grandson from a troubled home living under one's roof. Water under the bridge. Grandpa's suffering enough already.

Firearms are by nature deadly weapons and should be treated as such. Nothing can change this fact nor should the attempt be made to make firearms something less than deadly in nature. When they are used -either legally or illegally- people will die as a result. Nothing will change that fact.

You almost sound like you're saying they should be treated with special care. I'd add especially around children.
That goes double for other people's children visiting my home.

One must wonder what drove a seventeen year old to believe that murder would solve whatever problems he was facing. Had such driving factors not been present then perhaps the firearm used by T.J. Lane would still be sitting in the barn where its owner had placed it.

And perhaps without the gun in the barn Mr. Lane might not have been able to express himself so expediantly.

The proper question to ask is not "how to keep guns off of schools" but rather what did the students in question do that would convince the suspect to murder them in response?

They probably said mean things to him and about him to others. What's the difference?
The proper question is why didn't Mr. Lane think a baseball bat was sufficient to get his point across?

The root cause of the problem is bullying. Bullying so bad you would rather die than face it for another day. We are getting away the real fix.

March 14, 2012 Raids smash Sydney gun-running ring

In the small township of Remscheid, Germany, up to 300 brand new Austrian-made Glock handguns were disassembled, packed in boxes with inconspicuous labels such as "plastic" and "metal", and shipped to Sydney.

They passed without notice under the nose of Customs and, once on the ground, the parts were reassembled for sale on the Australian blackmarket - straight into the heartland of a city in the grip of a drive-by epidemic.

Using the cover of legitimate business, the syndicate members - including the post office franchisee - allegedly imported crates of handguns parts and magazines.

They are criminals. Finding ways around the laws is just what they do.

Originally Posted by sinjin

CA CAP law does not require the firearm be rendered inoperable or inaccessible "at all hours of the day".

The law does not stipulate a time frame during which firearms may be left unlocked and operable. Rather it only provides a list of exemptions to the law under which a person cannot be prosecuted.

Nor is it prudent to leave handguns and ammo lying around with a troubled teen grandson from a troubled home living under one's roof. Water under the bridge. Grandpa's suffering enough already.

In the manner you describe it the adult would be considered the teenager's legal guardian, correct? In which case another exception to the child access prevention laws.

However the issue is largely moot. The laws of California were cited for discussion due to their status being regarded as strict compared to other states. It served to show that even under the law standard of California successful prosecution would be difficult or impossible to achieve.

You almost sound like you're saying they should be treated with special care. I'd add especially around children.
That goes double for other people's children visiting my home.

No such statement is being made. Rather it is a reiteration of the simple fact that firearms are deadly in nature and that nature cannot be changed. Regardless of what may be proposed or suggested as an option it does not change that fact of the real world.

Firearms are not going away and cannot be removed from the equation. Firearms will never stop being anything but deadly in nature. These are two facts that cannot and will not be changed.

And perhaps without the gun in the barn Mr. Lane might not have been able to express himself so expediantly.

This is an argument better suited for idealistic discussion rather than attempting to address real world matters. The firearm was there just as countless firearms will remain where they are now. Unless one is willing to propose allowing police to randomly search private property and confiscate whatever unsecured firearms are discovered then they will continue to remain where they are in whatever manner they are stored.

They probably said mean things to him and about him to others. What's the difference?

You ask what is the difference in attempting to discover what motivated a seventeen year old to engage in murder? Some may consider that to be a rather callous approach in nature. Someone does not decide to murder others over the matter of simply being called names.

It would be a difficult matter to find someone who was not called names and insulted by others while growing up. However not everyone who was called names has felt it necessary to murder other people in response.

The proper question is why didn't Mr. Lane think a baseball bat was sufficient to get his point across?

You are welcome to your opinion as to what the proper question to ask is. However your opinion may not be shared by the majority.

The tool that was used is of little to no relevance when the question at hand is why someone chose to commit a murder. How they chose to commit the murder will not answer the question of why but rather detract from the more important discussion to be had.

I wonder what the brady bunch would feel about this:

Battle-of-Athens

Originally Posted by Doc Jones

I wonder what the brady bunch would feel about this:

Battle-of-Athens

The events as portrayed are the work of fiction for the sake of entertainment. However they are based on true events that have been historically noted and documented. The events that inspired the film are not the work of fiction but rather fact.

Originally Posted by Xenamnes

Your statement does not appear to be in line with facts in reality. The number of soldiers who have been killed in roadside bombings in the middle east would suggest explosive devices yield considerable more death than firearms.

My facts are in line with the reality of the specific tragedies you were talking about. People were killed with guns in those situation not bombs. Stop trying to muddy the waters.

Originally Posted by Xenamnes

The school massacre with the highest body count in America still remains as the Bath School bombing. In 1927 forty five people were murdered and another fifty eight were injures when the school was blown up. Even Virginia Tech did not reach that level despite the supposed "easy availability" to far superior weaponry.

In the Cokeville Elementary School hostage crisis, the detonation of a bomb failed to kill any children. You're still conveniently dodging the reality that certain situations (like Columbine) would have been a lot less tragic if the killers had relied only on bombs.

Originally Posted by Xenamnes

California law is cited because it is one of the strictest standards recognized in the United States. However even under California law it would be difficult to successfully prosecute the owner of the stolen firearm as he was reportedly the student's uncle. Thus the family member exemption is in play.

If the owner was not the student's uncle and instead a random stranger who did not regularly encounter minors on his property and in his barn he had no reason to believe his firearms were readily accessible to anyone but himself and thus could not be prosecuted.

Child access prevention laws were not addressed explicitly in Heller because they were not specifically brought up for challenge. However the Supreme Court ruled that the district's mandatory storage laws were unconstitutional because they made it impossible to use firearms for defensive purposes.

Under this standard there is no reason to believe child access prevention laws would withstand challenges of constitutionality. There is no litmus test sanctioned by the Supreme Court to determine when mandatory storage of firearms is allowable or not, rather it was a blanket determination. And that ruling states that a law which renders firearms inoperable and inaccessible violates a person's right to self defense within the home with a firearm.

So if you can't prosecute someone in California for not storing their firearm in an inoperable and inaccessible manner then what reason do you have for believing that California's gun storage laws are unconstitutional?

Originally Posted by Doc Jones

Like heck you weren't...try this one from your earlier post..:



Read it, D.C. v Heller was OVERTURNED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT in Heller v D.C.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Complete nonsense.....