Just when I was thinking of selling my T-34

[shoju]

I would say the heart of the problem is social psychology, and not the specific inanimate objects humans use and abuse.

Yeah, you're right, the psychology is important, but the inanimate object is important to. You said so yourself. Guns are the easiest way to do it.

Yeah, so? If we looked at which political party is supported by a constituency, we'd see it was the party that advocates for them best. So, let's not focus on partisan quibbles. I am Adam Lanza's psychiatrist -- he's not really, but he is a psychiatrist who deals with the potential Adam Lanza's.

I'm familiar with it, since it falls into line with the blogs that I posted earlier. I am Adam Lanza's mother, and You are not Adam Lanza's mother.

His lists are fairly good, but if all we do is talk about the psychology aspect of it, we aren't addressing the whole thing.

If you are right, you are right. I'm having a discussion, not a debate. No. We only act against those who've committed a crime. Should we ban Lexus, if they were the make of vehicle most used in DWI deaths? Should we ban alcohol? We tried that once.

No, we don't ban Lexus. We ban cars outright. Cars don't pass safety protocols, or other things, they aren't allowed. You know, sort of like not being allowed to drive an F1 or NASCAR down the street.

We most certainly do make sure that the vehicles we drive meet a certain amount of criteria before we allow the general public to drive in the real world.

So, in that analogy, yes, after someone goes on a mass shooting spree -- they'd lose their access to firearms. Which is already the law, since convicted felons cannot own or possess guns. Do convicted felons use guns now?

No. In my analogy, just like a DUI person who didn't kill someone lost acess to their license to drive a car, a person who commits an offense would lose the right to own a firearm.

After the fact again. What is being called for is a preemptive action to prevent the 1st time unbalanced person from going on a mass shooting. Really, the choices are you lock up people before they've broken any laws, or you outlaw and lock up the stuff they tend to use. This of course denies "the stuff" from people who use it responsibly.

The choices also are, we set up a list of things that would cost you to lose your firearms. Like losing your license for driving drunk before you kill someone. But you're missing the point there. You seem to think in my analogy the only way that they'd lose their license would be murder, and that's clearly not at all what I was talking about.

I was taught by the NRA. Personally, before my kids touch a gun they will go through a firearms safety course. The question is what should the government do to ensure people are responsible?

Well, if they were being responsible, they would deport the NRA. LaPierre, and a large portion of the NRA have come out looking like a pack of frothing dogs in this whole mess willing to blame it on everything, and not accepting anything.

The legal and financial repercussions of the failure to abide by the laws of our government are usually onerous. The issuance of the "license" gives the government the right to permit, or deny you your 2nd amendment rights at their discretion.

That's the point. The penalties are supposed to be enough that they are keeping people from doing it. Will it stop all of it? No.

They already have the ability to deny your 2nd ammendment rights. And they should.

This is a vast and costly proposed remedy for prevention of mass murders, which are a very small percent of murder cases.

This is not a solution to stop only mass murders. This is the first steps of a solution to reduce gun violence and murders in the US.

And, in that, guns are used in only 8% of violent crime -- but hand guns are used in about 60% of murders. Long guns (shotguns and rifles) were used less often than knives or fists, yet we are again looking at the restriction on the objects not frequently used in crimes.

Yes. Because clearly, what I've outlined will have absolutely no effect on the rest of gun crime.

What we are facing is an emotional reaction to a horrible incident resulting in "feel good" legislation and pandering by both sides to their political constituents.

No, you are seeing the steps in getting guns controlled in this country. You have to start somewhere. You can't just come out and say "BAN ALL HANDGUNS!" because that wont work. It's unenforcable. You start small.

But, we do not focus on the *real* issues, meaning we will revisit this type of horrible tragedy in the future, but there will be some other circumstances we did not, or were not able to prevent.

The real issues. Yes. Guns aren't part of the issue at all. Seroiusly? That's the rebuttal? Right. Not at all. We'll just keep going on and on and on about how it's just one thing, and how the guns, the access to them, and the societal outlook on them has absolutely nothing to do with it. That's just about the most ridiculous thing.

It should be rare that we deny a person their constitutional rights.

Unless they are dumb. Dumb people who do dumb things should lose their rights. If you do something dumb that gives someone access to your weapons, you are an idiot. You shouldn't be allowed to have them anymore. You don't know how to behave with them. If you want to be treated like a child, I think that we as a society should go ahead and treat you like a child. You should have more rules. It's pretty simple.

Can't handle the responsibility of having the right? Fine. YOu no longer have that right.

Of course the liberals, democrats, an progressives who are the ones that really care about the people and the children are all to ready to endorse or condone abortion as a form of birth control. They totally overlook the rights and welfare of the children who are killed by abortions.

And the Republicans, the Conservatives, the ones who I was speaking about don't look at the rights and welfare of the mother. And then, once the kids born, they sure as shit don't care about it. They want to cut welfare, and social help. DON'T HAVE AN ABORTION! But we're not going to do a goddamn thing to help you with that baby that we forced you to have.

No medical procedure is 100% successful and abortion is no exception. There are some children who survive abortions and are born. When Obama was a legislator in Illinois, he voted against a bill that would guarantee medical treatment for these children --the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. Where was his compassion for children then?

The same place as Akin's and Mourdock's and all the other member's of Team Rape.

I do not own a gun nor do I care to, but it seems to me that Obama is using the shootings in Conn. to push his own political agenda.

Yes. Because that's clearly a Democrat only problem.