Villager Slashes 22 kids with Knife

[WallyWeaver]

One way is that if you have guns you must have a safe and all other safety measures that comes with it, I know people that leaves gun unlocked around the house where anybody can get them, in other words if you can't proove that you have all safety required you can't have a gun, exemple, an inspector that comes to your house and aprooves and gives you a permit for you to buy gun. I know this would take a long time to do but a few years down the road we would be much safer.

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

I'm not familiar with the laws in other states but what you have described is actually the law in California, as far as safe securement practices. There is not an inspector that comes over, however, as the logistics (as you have stated) would make it virtually impossible and there could be some possible flirtations with personal privacy laws that we wouldn't want to breach. Instead you simply have to provide proof that you own a safe (or locking device) by showing a receipt for purchase and/ or an owners manual for the safe during the 10 day waiting period.

In my state (California) in order to purchase a pistol you also have to pass an exam to get a Handgun Safety Certificate with the California Department of Justice. Mentioned throughout the study materials for the exam, and in the exam itself, is it is illegal in the state of California to have an unsecured hand gun, or any gun for that matter. You cannot purchase a handgun in my state without a HSC.

We are also limited in the round capacity of a magazine for "assault" rifles. In this state "assault" rifle magazines can only legally have a 10 round capacity; 30 round magazines are illegal in the state of California. Do I feel infringed upon? It's a tough question because I am a true libertarian when it comes to what I believe the government can and can't tell me what to do. But, in the end, I do believe it's a good compromise because it does allow me to still own an "assault" rifle while at the same time it satisfies those who are against guns.

In conclusion, here in California we have some of the strictest gun laws of any state in the United States. The result: to date (as far as I know) we also have not had any major gun tragedies at our schools, either. But like I said, my highschool had a police substation on campus with at least 1 on-duty police officer during school hours and also at every sporting event. This was instituted during my sophomore year and not only did it deter violent crime but the number of on-campus fights also dramatically decreased. I don't know how many other California schools employ this practice but I decided to put it here because it was something that I experienced and it worked.

Okay, I have errands to run but thanks again for your civil response.

WW.

[caz1104]

You mean she actually read a bill before passing it?

LOL........no vote on it 1st then read it. I'm all in-lol

[krome2ez]

The difference between this incident in China and the one in Newtown is that in China the people were injured not killed. No one wants to be attacked and in a world this populated there will always be a crazy ready to do it. I bet if this guy had guns the problem would have been worse than 22 injured.

Actually the article stated 3 died.

And are you then saying that because not as many children died, that this is not tragic?

I'm sure that the parents of those 3 children are just as devistated as those parents in Newtown.

The point is that laws and bans will not stop a mentally unstable psychopath from killing.

It does.... how so? So let's say this young fellows Mother only purchased 1 pistol legally, rather than several. So he steals her one pistol, kills her with it, and then walks into a school and kills 15 more folks, mostly women and children.

In other words, how would limiting the amount of guns one can legally obtain STOP a massacre from occurring?

One way is that if you have guns you must have a safe and all other safety measures that comes with it, I know people that leaves gun unlocked around the house where anybody can get them, in other words if you can't proove that you have all safety required you can't have a gun, exemple, an inspector that comes to your house and aprooves and gives you a permit for you to buy gun. I know this would take a long time to do but a few years down the road we would be much safer.

Gun training and safety is ALWAYS key.

But you don't ban all for the ignorance and improper use by a few.

Connecticut gun laws among the nation’s strictest

Posted by Aaron Blake on December 17, 2012 at 1:03 pm

Democrats in Congress are moving quickly to introduce new gun legislation in the aftermath of the tragedy in Newtown, Conn.

But gun rights advocates — once they start speaking out more publicly — will note that the state in which the tragedy took place has among the most stringent gun control laws on the books.

Below, we look at a few different maps comparing Connecticut to the other 49 states by the strictness of their gun laws.

Here’s a map from February from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which is in favor of gun control. As you can see, Connecticut is ranked as having one of the strongest gun control regimes in the country, ranking in the second tier behind only California.

And here’s a similar map from Brown University from October 2011 showing very much the same thing, with Connecticut ranking only behind New York and New Jersey.

When it comes to concealed weapons, Connecticut is also one of the strictest, according to this map from the Christian Science Monitor.

As the gun debate heats up in the coming days, expect those who oppose additional gun control measures to point to these maps.

Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy (D) preemptively fought back against that argument Sunday, saying gun-makers can get around half-measures and that federal action is needed.

“Connecticut has a pretty aggressive law — probably of the 50 states, I think we’re ranked fourth most aggressive in trying to limit access to these kinds of weapons,” Malloy said. “But what happens in the absence of a Brady bill, in the absence of federal legislation, people use descriptive terms to try to get around the limitations that are built into our statutes here in Connecticut, or might otherwise not happen if we had federal legislation on this issue.”

Connecticut is one of just a few states with at least a partial ban on assault weapons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/17/connecticut-gun-laws-among-the-nations-strictest/

[Lostenso]

Actually the article stated 3 died.

And are you then saying that because not as many children died, that this is not tragic?

I'm sure that the parents of those 3 children are just as devistated as those parents in Newtown.

The point is that laws and bans will not stop a mentally unstable psychopath from killing.

Actually, recheck your article because you are wrong. The part where it says three died is actually a link to another completely separate article which also goes on to prove my point! No one wants to be stabbed OR shot, but chances of survival are better during an attack without guns. In the axe attack, 81% of the people attack survived. So far from what we know in the other knife attack, 100% of the people survived. 0% of the shooting victims survived. I think we can all agree that all of these incidents are innately bad. I don't know about you but I would rather be a victim of some knife wielding crazy person than a shooting based on these statistics simply because of my chance of survival.

[SnowGlobe7]

You can not pass a law to ban crazy...we just have to be better educated to see it and be able to do something about it.

[caz1104]

You can not pass a law to ban crazy...we just have to be better educated to see it and be able to do something about it.

Sure you can............................but the majority of our political leaders would be affected-peace