The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

Silly British? Taking into account the difference in size of of our populations the number of annual gun deaths here is tiny compared with the US....

---

Correct. You have less gun deaths. But, your knife crime rate has increased drastically. Hence your bizarre laws regarding knife sales, including plastic picnic knives. You even have MP's who are trying to introduce legislation to ban kitchen knives. The problem isn't the weapons. The problem is the people and your criminal justice system. Go ahead and mandate the use of plastic or rubber sporks for the public safety. It isn't going to stop criminals from using hammers and cricket bats next.

And taking into account the differences in our populations, the UK's violent crime rate is four times that of the United States, when calculated via the standard "per 100,000 population" statistics system. It is also among the highest violence rate nations in Europe.

Actually our laws are quite simple. It is illegal to:

• sell a knife of any kind (including cutlery and kitchen knives) to anyone under 18
• carry a knife in public without good reason - unless it’s a knife with a folding blade 3 inches long or less, eg a Swiss Army knife
• carry, buy or sell any type of banned knife (the list of banned knives is below)
• use any knife in a threatening way (even a legal knife, such as a Swiss Army knife)

Information below is from a House of Commons Note of Nov. 2012.

During the year to June 2012 there were approximately 29,613 recorded offences involving knives or other sharp instruments, accounting for 7% of selected offences, a similar proportion to previous years. The number of knife offences recorded was 9% lower than in the preceding year.
According to the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSES) in 2011/12 a knife was used in 6% of all incidents of violence experienced by adults, similar to the previous year’s proportion
Over the year to the end of June 2012 there were 19,382 disposals given for possession of a knife or offensive weapon. • Juveniles (aged 10-17) were the offenders in 17% of cases. The custody rate was 10% for juveniles and 28% for adults.
A Court of Appeal judgement in May 2008 said that magistrates should normally sentence those convicted of knife crime possession offences at the top end of the range. Following this custody rates and average custodial sentence lengths have risen.
• NHS data suggests there were 4,490 people admitted to English hospitals in 2011/12 due to assault by a sharp object. The lowest level since 2002/03.


Info from a Freedom of Information request to Home Office (2013)



There has been a significant reduction (-19.7%) in reported knife crime offences from the financial year 2011-12 to 2012-13. With some boroughs notably: Lambeth, Westminster, Brent, Camden, Greenwich, Islington and Merton seeing reductions of over a third. Three London boroughs saw small knife crime offence increases, Croydon, Southwark and Barnet, with Southwark having the highest volume of knife crimes in a London Borough and Croydon the second highest volume.


Oh, do wish people would check the facts and then base arguments on them. We can all have our own views but we can't have our own facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kittyKaiti

Correct. You have less gun deaths. But, your knife crime rate has increased drastically. Hence your bizarre laws regarding knife sales, including plastic picnic knives. You even have MP's who are trying to introduce legislation to ban kitchen knives. The problem isn't the weapons. The problem is the people and your criminal justice system. Go ahead and mandate the use of plastic or rubber sporks for the public safety. It isn't going to stop criminals from using hammers and cricket bats next.

And taking into account the differences in our populations, the UK's violent crime rate is four times that of the United States, when calculated via the standard "per 100,000 population" statistics system. It is also among the highest violence rate nations in Europe.

---

"Get a nice job and move to the suburbs". Unfortunately, for many people, it is not that easy.

There was a spot on the TV news years ago featuring 5 black kids who grew up in a high crime area, they were all lifting their t-shirts showing off how many times they had been shot. They weren't even 18.
In their neighborhood everything that can be wrong goes on.

My Coke Dealer/Whore friend Diane lived there.
She got knifed to death. One time she set fire to the rowhouse she lived in. She was half American Indian, half White, sometimes she could be pretty, sometimes she looked sick. Whenever we sat in the carry waiting for the coke guy to get our product, the cops would drive by and say "Hi Diane"
She was famous for her temper. The first time I met her I came real close to strangling her myself.
One time when we were talking, she said she had no regrets about anything, she had her fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kittyKaiti

Correct. You have less gun deaths. But, your knife crime rate has increased drastically. Hence your bizarre laws regarding knife sales, including plastic picnic knives. You even have MP's who are trying to introduce legislation to ban kitchen knives. The problem isn't the weapons. The problem is the people and your criminal justice system. Go ahead and mandate the use of plastic or rubber sporks for the public safety. It isn't going to stop criminals from using hammers and cricket bats next.

And taking into account the differences in our populations, the UK's violent crime rate is four times that of the United States, when calculated via the standard "per 100,000 population" statistics system. It is also among the highest violence rate nations in Europe.

---

The UK has one quarter the murder rate of the United States. So it's likely that not everyone who would kill with a gun ends up finding other means of committing murder. It goes without saying that a country with fewer guns will probably have fewer gun deaths. But that would not prove much if everyone who would commit murder if they possessed a gun ended up instead committing murder with a hammer or a knife when their guns are taken away.

But Britain, a country with dangerous cities, and as you mention, its fair share of violent crimes, has one fourth the murder rate of the U.S. It could be that it's more difficult to kill someone with a knife than a gun couldn't it? Or that some people who kill with guns do so impulsively and would not commit the murder if they did not have such an efficient means of killing.

Just thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I love that what he actually said was wiser and more eloquent.

---

Agreed...I love this quote and wish I had the ability to remember it verbatim (I don't ...too many dead brain cells). Here it is for those who didn't click on Trish's link (thanks Trish):

“When a Library expels a book of mine and leaves an unexpurgated Bible lying around where unprotected youth and age can get hold of it, the deep unconscious irony of it delights me and doesn't anger me.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

Agreed...I love this quote and wish I had the ability to remember it verbatim (I don't ...too many dead brain cells).

---

I know. Me too. I've decided my consolation is to remember the word unexpurgated. I can see myself at a dinner party when the subject of censorship comes up, "you know Mark Twain had quite a profound quote about this that uses the word unexpurgated."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I know. Me too. I've decided my consolation is to remember the word unexpurgated. I can see myself at a dinner party when the subject of censorship comes up, "you know Mark Twain had quite a profound quote about this that uses the word unexpurgated."

---

lol...my ex-wife used to say "say it ten times then write it on your forehead"...or something like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kittyKaiti

Correct. You have less gun deaths. But, your knife crime rate has increased drastically. Hence your bizarre laws regarding knife sales, including plastic picnic knives. You even have MP's who are trying to introduce legislation to ban kitchen knives. The problem isn't the weapons. The problem is the people and your criminal justice system. Go ahead and mandate the use of plastic or rubber sporks for the public safety. It isn't going to stop criminals from using hammers and cricket bats next.

And taking into account the differences in our populations, the UK's violent crime rate is four times that of the United States, when calculated via the standard "per 100,000 population" statistics system. It is also among the highest violence rate nations in Europe.

---

I don't think the comparative statistics are a useful way of discussing this. Rather, I would like to suggest that at the core of the problem with gun related incidents that are not part of crime or terrorism, is mental health. The issue then becomes whether or not the local authority has the right to remove firearms from a household because one of its members is receiving medication for a mental illness, say, depression. I wonder how often a crime is committed by someone who has stopped taking their medication? It also means that a licence to own firearms should not be given to people in a household with someone on medication -I don't know if this is a violation of 2nd Amendment rights, or if the issue is protecting citizens that is something you need to discuss. It might sound harsh, but aside from politically motivated killings and the 'day-to-day' criminal activities of gangs, the Mafia and so on, the headline killings could have been avoided if mental health issues were recognised as being important. In the UK mental health is, and has been, a 'cinderella' service compared to the money spent on cancer treatment; yet it is problems such as depression and paranoia that can account for needless deaths, in Leicester, Hungerford, Dunblane and the Lake District.

In the USA, its where you draw the line. Tax rates. Minimum wage. Age of Consent. Age to buy booze. This is how we do it.

But there is no law that says smart people can do one thing but dumb people can't.

You can't say the the govt OKs skeet shooting at the yacht club but not in the ghetto wink wink.


There are many small towns with low crime rates where families take care of each other, and they all have guns, and they all do not like Democrats on TV talking down to them. Laughing at them. Calling them hicks, hillbillies, backward.

The majority of people that come on this site are here to gawk.
The majority of transgenders are here to squeeze a buck out of the non-transgenders. Not to win them over to their way of thinking.

Polls say the majority of people want stricter gun controls. To keep THOSE people away from guns. In one way this is like putting a lock on your house to keep the honest people out. It is also like putting bars on the windows and doors to keep the criminals out.

Everybody makes mistakes, sometimes the mistake is you got caught.
In the USA sex for money is wrong. In England it's right.
Who is correct?

Maybe not who? Think of it as a legal process.
Clearly the majority of gun owners in the USA are responsible, or the death toll on a weekly basis would be unacceptably high. So the issue is not about the law per se, but the individuals who are expected to abide by the law -which is why I raised the mental health issue because it does enable you to make a distinction between people and decide if mental health issues are sufficient to suspend 2nd Amendment rights to identifiable individuals. Stricter gun controls can in fact make sense, if the argument for them is sensible.

Stavros,
The Heller opinion, which is a fairly recent Supreme Court opinion, strongly implied that banning gun sales to the mentally ill and felons would be acceptable. They did not say how severe the mental illness would have to be in order for the ban to be upheld. It was in dicta, which means that it wasn't central to their decision in the case, and so they can change their mind (even if it was their holding they can change their mind, but when it's dicta it is considered persuasive but not binding as precedent).

Here's what they said (from wikipedia):
(2) "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

There are probably a lot of people who can answer this better than I can. Since the gun control laws are state laws, I am not sure how many states actually regulate even close to as stringently as they are allowed to under the 2nd amendment. I would guess not many.

But I see you said something about banning sales to those who have a mentally ill family member in the household. Or removing the gun from the house because of it. I bet such a law would be considered too broad. The state could probably make it illegal though to allow the mentally ill person in the household access to the gun, since they are allowed to ban the direct sale to that person.

They've found that motorists will obey the traffic laws even in ridiculous traffic jams, but when it is apparent the powers that be time road repairs during rush hours, or something stupid like that, motorists will revolt and drive all over the median or curbs to get to work or get home.
It's not so much a question of whether the insane should be allowed access to guns. the question is should black males, (late teens early twenties) be allowed access to guns. Or Dick Cheney after a few friendly drinks.
You've got maybe three million people in the US, cream of the crop, they are the few people who really understand Art, or Physics, or Medicine, math, science, humanities, writing, religion.

Then you've got the three million at the bottom. The insane, serial killers, pedophiles, criminals, drug traffickers.

With the exception of the drug traffickers, all the people at the top are well educated, articulate, and usually pretty rich. And the scum on the bottom are poor and uneducated.

I used to live in a really bad neighborhood. I had to pay 4 times as much mortgage to get to a neighborhood where folks were swell.

Guns are a problem in poor areas. You can't fix that with laws. Unless you hire more Police.

If the 2% of the Country gave the 98% of the country all it's money, everybody would immediately be twice as rich, billions of problems would be solved.

I went to College with a bunch of rich kids from NYC, they really were the beautiful people, right out of an F Scott Fitzgerald book. They had their sins, sure, who doesn't? But they sure didn't eat shit at some crap job or go to public school.

Lincoln's idea for slavery was to send all the blacks back to Africa,
Hitler gassed jews and gypsies,
The French guillotined their problem children.
I'm not sure if it would be better to shoot the richest, or the poorest......
just kidding, guns are here to stay, so are the rich and poor.
people think you legislate good and bad, but really you legislate rich and poor.

Ain't We Got Fun, Great Gatsby - YouTube

Guns are a problem in middle class areas as well. The various Colorado school shootings, the school shooting in Vermont, the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon, the shooting of Trevon Martin, the shooting in Florida over loud music, the shooting in Texas over texting in a movie theater, Cheney shooting his friend in the face, etc. etc. These incidents have no root in poverty; they are not low income, bad neighborhood crimes. They have no root in crime whatsoever, although they are crimes. They stem from idiocy, inadequate firearm regulation and laws that incentivize violence (stand your ground laws and laws that protect owners and manufacturers from libel).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Maybe not who? Think of it as a legal process.
Clearly the majority of gun owners in the USA are responsible, or the death toll on a weekly basis would be unacceptably high. So the issue is not about the law per se, but the individuals who are expected to abide by the law -which is why I raised the mental health issue because it does enable you to make a distinction between people and decide if mental health issues are sufficient to suspend 2nd Amendment rights to identifiable individuals. Stricter gun controls can in fact make sense, if the argument for them is sensible.

---

And we are. The majority of lawful gun owners are responsible. FBI and CDC statistics show that. I spent four hours going through FBI and CDC reports to create these two charts to put it into perspective for people.

When it comes to mental health, there becomes a multitude of questions. The biggest I see is, "What constitutes a disqualifying mental health disorder?" Quite obviously, a blanketing ban on persons with "mental health problems" would throw every trans-person into that mix, based on the existence of "Gender Dysphoria" and "Gender Identity Disorder", and both being considered DSM-V mental health issues in the United States.

Kittykaiti,
A blanket ban on those with mental health disorders would probably be unconstitutional. It would have to be those that significantly increase the risk to one's self or others of owning a gun. This would certainly include the psychotic disorders. Sometimes bipolar disorder involves psychotic symptoms, but often it doesn't. Bipolar II involves only hypomania; it's not hypomania in my understanding if it includes hallucinations or grand delusions. I doubt they would even be able to include a ban for those with depression. Major depression can involve psychotic symptoms, but atypical depression is unlikely to.

The reason I say it would have to significantly increase the risk to one's self or others is because the law would have to be narrowly tailored since it implicates a fundamental right. A ban on owning guns for someone who has social anxiety disorder or gender dysphoria would not be narrowly tailored.

I can only imagine that such a law would be struck down if it banned those with gender dysphoria or any anxiety disorder. Barring those with gender dysphoria from owning would might even give rise to an equal protection challenge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

They stem from idiocy, inadequate firearm regulation and laws that incentivize violence (stand your ground laws and laws that protect owners and manufacturers from libel).

---

No. They stem from poor education systems, defenseless targets and Hollywood media and music that glorifies and fetishizes murder, rape, drugs, sex, hate, selfishness, greed, suicide and rebelliousness. Kids are fucked up today and they're all having kids of their own. Each generation is more violent, self centered, hateful and lacking of any decent human emotion and moral empathy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1SZurGArxE

The retired policeman who shot a texter in a movie theater wasn't a kid, he was well trained in firearm care and safety and were the texter armed wouldn't have made a difference. Giffords never seen her assailant before she was shot, her being armed wouldn't have made a difference. The assailant was disarmed by an unarmed woman. Kids are not generally fucked up. But yes, children are immature. Can't help that. When there a guns everywhere in society, it only takes one depressed child or one angry child for tragedy to ensue. Prosecuting the people who allow their guns to fall into the hands of children would help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kittyKaiti

And we are. The majority of lawful gun owners are responsible. FBI and CDC statistics show that. I spent four hours going through FBI and CDC reports to create these two charts to put it into perspective for people.

When it comes to mental health, there becomes a multitude of questions. The biggest I see is, "What constitutes a disqualifying mental health disorder?" Quite obviously, a blanketing ban on persons with "mental health problems" would throw every trans-person into that mix, based on the existence of "Gender Dysphoria" and "Gender Identity Disorder", and both being considered DSM-V mental health issues in the United States.

---

Broncofan's clarification of the law, and your post raise the follow-up question to my point about mental illness, which Broncofan says is included in measures designed to prevent Americans owning or having access to firearms. And that is, what is a mental illness?

I referred to depression because it can be, and is treated with medication, although medicine alone does not deal with the problem and therapy, which can help, is expensive and beyond most people's reach. I would include paranoia in the mix as it has been an element in gun crimes in Columbine, Sandy Hook and so on, but the key point must be in identifying the individuals as suffering to the extent that they are a danger to themselves and others, and I don't know how this is done if say, a parent decides claiming to be the son of Lucifer is just a phase Johnny is going through. The same would apply to Gender Dysphoria, which raises again the question of what is a mental illness, and why Gender Dysphoria would be classified as a mental illness, when, for example in the cases of people born intersexed or with indeterminate gender markers, it is a physical medical issue, albeit one with potential psychological impacts on the person. And, as you would probably agree, many transexuals before and after SRS are actually well adjusted people and safe to be around.

The law must have the right to intervene, and it must be clear what those rights to intervene are, and the imposing authority ought to have the resources to do it. It is a difficult area because of the stigma of mental illness and the reluctance of people to enter into a debate on it. Most people who get depressed will never admit to it, not even with their friends, and though a lot of depression may not be severe enough to require medication, talking about it is a thin end of a wedge people avoid. That, plus limited resources in local authorities, and a reluctance to intervene in private lives, means that sensational acts of gun crime will recur. Not sure how you deal with that, whereas in the UK we already limit gun ownership and don't have a problem doing so.

If you ignore gang violence, almost all the murders are related to the severely depressed, the suicides, killing your spouse.

There is a thin line between the American dream and the American nightmare.

Better legalize marijuana.

http://www.kctv5.com/story/25235053/...mmunity-center

Hate crime shooting at two Jewish community centers. Too early to tell how he bought his guns and whether it's something sound gun control could have prevented.

Five people were shot outside two Jewish community centers in Kansas city, heartland of America. Three are now dead, a boy, his grandfather and an employee of the assisted living facility.

The alleged shooter, Frazier Glenn Miller, is a 73 year old anti-semite, founder and former leader of the Knights of Ku Klux Klan (forced to shut down after being sued for being an illegal paramilitary organization) and the White Patriot Party. He currently publishes the Aryan Alternative.

Mr. Miller has advocated (on internet forums) the extermination of Jews. In the 1980’s he served three years in jail on weapons charges and for conspiracy to assassinate Morris Dees, founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Three years was his reduced sentence for having testified against other white supremacists.

Yes, I think the law could have done a better job of keeping firearms out of his hands. Did he buy them at a gun show? From the back of a van? Can they be traced? If not, why not? Shouldn’t the people who sold them to him have some liability?

Passover beings tonight at sunset.

Aside from the gun issue I wanted to chime in and say what an incredible coward Frazier Glenn Miller is. Loser, ex-KKK filth that I don't want to share the same air with either. To target innocent people who cannot defend themselves on the eve of a holy Jewish celebration is beyond unforgivable. As much of a pussy as shooting kids opening Christmas presents while they smile under the tree.

What does Holy Friday and Easter mean to you, Frazier Glenn Miller? Where will you be on those days?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

In the 1980’s he served three years in jail on weapons charges and for conspiracy to assassinate Morris Dees, founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Three years was his reduced sentence for having testified against other white supremacists.

Yes, I think the law could have done a better job of keeping firearms out of his hands. Did he buy them at a gun show? From the back of a van? Can they be traced? If not, why not? Shouldn’t the people who sold them to him have some liability?

---

He is obviously a felon and therefore disqualified from lawfully purchasing or owning firearms. I'd say 99% chance they were acquired illegally (probably from a fellow klansmen). 1% chance it was a gun show.

Can they be traced? Yes. Every time a firearm is lawfully purchased from a FFL dealer (which is where the gun had to have been bought at one point), you must fill out an ATF form, that includes the serial number on the gun. That number can be traced back to the FFL dealer it was sold from and therefore, through a search of gun sales, find the original owner. From there it's an investigation on who owned it, if they are affiliated with the suspect or if they sold the gun off to someone else, etc.

Business Insider published the following chart showing the effect of Florida's stand your ground law on gun deaths.

Letter we get the following addendum

Note: BI reader P.A. Fedewa created an easier-to-read version of the above chart from Reuters. It more clearly shows that gun deaths increased between 2005 and 2007 by flipping the y-axis. We're adding it to this post with his permission. The original chart and graphic design was done by Reuters.

Is this a joke or what?? Nice job, Reuters.

http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-deaths-in-florida-increased-with-stand-your-ground-2014-2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Letter we get the following addendum

Note: BI reader P.A. Fedewa created an easier-to-read version of the above chart from Reuters. It more clearly shows that gun deaths increased between 2005 and 2007 by flipping the y-axis. We're adding it to this post with his permission. The original chart and graphic design was done by Reuters.

Is this a joke or what?? Nice job, Reuters.

http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-deaths-in-florida-increased-with-stand-your-ground-2014-2

---

Nice Romney right there...meaning flip-flop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kittyKaiti

He is obviously a felon and therefore disqualified from lawfully purchasing or owning firearms. I'd say 99% chance they were acquired illegally (probably from a fellow klansmen). 1% chance it was a gun show.

---

Fuckin' called it

http://www.kansascity.com/2014/04/18...n-johnson.html

Gun ban? Fat chance...

http://www.wired.com/2014/04/an-sofi...kids-with-guns

Thanks for the article, though I did find the closing quote, “I don’t want to be like I’m against guns or pro guns, but I do think giving a child a gun is sort of like giving your kids car keys,” somewhat amusing. Giving a child a gun is like, giving a child a fucking gun!!

On the good news side, there a very small window in which States might be able so pass legislation that would disarm spouse abusers.

http://nyti.ms/1k6Cb1v



.....

The NRA won't rest until the gifting of guns to new born children at christenings becomes compulsory.

Mark my words.

This right here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

Gun ban? Fat chance...

http://www.wired.com/2014/04/an-sofi...kids-with-guns

---

The girl in the first picture and the boy in the third picture need more trigger discipline. 4 out of 6 ain't bad for a bunch of kindergartners.

Yeah, if we give children guns and 1/3 have poor trigger discipline, what could happen? Zombies and werewolves, look out!

Yep, here we go again. A FedEx employee entered a company warehouse in Georgia this morning, armed to the teeth. He shot six people, three of whom were critically injured, before killing himself.


http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-fed...ry?id=23511924

Georgia just last week passed a law allowing secret carry everywhere in the state, including schools, churches, bars etc. Here's Santorum praising the new law explaining how it makes everyone in Georgia safer.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...safer-america/


Yuck, I now I gotta flush all the santorum out of my eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Georgia just last week passed a law allowing secret carry everywhere in the state, including schools, churches, bars etc. Here's Santorum praising the new law explaining how it makes everyone in Georgia safer.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...safer-america/


Yuck, I now I gotta flush all the santorum out of my eyes.

---

At least now law abiding citizens have the ability to return fire, and kill the spree killer, instead of having to follow Department of Homeland Security recommendations to duck under desks and defend themselves with scissors (Or wait 10-20 minutes until SWAT arrives). Returning fire is the only way to stop a crazed gunman on a spree.

Quote:

---

Returning fire is the only way to stop a crazed gunman on a spree.

---

Stop them from what? If you're returning fire, it means they already got some rounds off and probably shot someone.

Pull your gun out and shoot them before they get the idea to go on a spree, that's what I say.

Oh, wait. Better yet. Don't let them get hold of a gun in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Stop them from what? If you're returning fire, it means they already got some rounds off and probably shot someone.

---

Well yea, that is kinda the point of "self defense". One must come under attack to utilize force of any kind to protect them-self. Returning fire means stopping further loss of life, obviously. One person was killed, rather than a dozen or two or three.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Pull your gun out and shoot them before they get the idea to go on a spree, that's what I say.

---

You miss the point of nearly all of these shootings. They are premeditated spree killings. It's not like Adam Lanza decided to walk into Sandy Hook Elementary with the intent to shoot one person and then suddenly thought, "why not kill everyone?".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Oh, wait. Better yet. Don't let them get hold of a gun in the first place.

---

You wish it would be that easy. Unfortunately, even with universal background checks, criminals have multitudes of ways to access illegal firearms, even in countries where guns are outright prohibited like the UK and Japan. They find ways if they are that determined.

..........