Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl
Wow... It's really quite frustrating when you say something in facetious way that normally is very effective at illustrating a point, and it's missed completely because people defensively fixate on the wrong thing. (sigh)
Let's try again. If this still doesn't work, then I give up.
How can I say she's was responsible? Well, legally speaking, she was not being irresponsible, otherwise there would be a specific crime to charge her with. As we all know, a legal opinion is the only opinion that has teeth. You subjective opinion, or my subjective opinion, wont affect someone's life any more than my cat's opinion.
I can call you a thief, but unless the law agrees with that, it does not cause you to suffer the penalties a real thief would. There is no distinction in the lifestyle of an innocent person or a guilty person unless the law says you are a guilty person.
The point I'm trying to make is that under the only system of judgement that affects the real world, she did nothing wrong. If pro-gun people subjectively feel that ain't right (and it seems like many do), then I'd think they'd all be in favor of taking a look at making the laws more strict, so that there would be greater alignment between what sanctions can be imposed in the real world, and what sanctions they'd like to see imposed.
Yet, many (not all) of the people who vilify her are also quick to be hyper defensive at the first suggestion of any gun laws (and I'm NOT just talking about the silly 7-round-rule, I'm talking about ANY dialog regarding tightening things up, this thread has included more fundamental discussion points than just the NY law). It's like "stop right there, I wont even finish listening to what you have to say if if might come within a 1000 mile radius of any possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and I'm not open to legally revising it first either". You dont normally see that sort of, well, lack of appetite to consider negotiation, outside of the relationship between the executive and legislative branches of gov.
Honestly, I think if someone suggested re-instituting alcohol prohibition, that would get less of a rise out of people than, "lets talk about your guns".
The majority of responsible firearms owners are open to harsher punishments, and actually enforcing current laws (which is a big problem right now). Just because you see extremists on both sides on TV doesn't mean that's how all gun owners are. You're the one that mentions polls, yet you seem to be ignoring them yourself. Take a poll in this thread and tell me what you come up with.
There will always be extremists on both sides of the argument. But while the more "middle of the road" folks are offering up logical solutions, only the "let's ban all guns" or "we need access to RPG's too" people find themselves on TV. Now it seems like you're backpedaling. How many people in this thread said they would have a problem with harsher punishments for those involved with crimes with guns? Or those who sell them to people who commit these atrocities? When it comes to stripping the weapons from law abiding gun owners, or labeling something an "assault weapon" and saying it should be banned because of the way it looks, that's when the MAJORITY of owners become defensive.
Tell me. Do you have any idea what the purpose of a flash suppressor on an AR-15 is? Can you tell me how that changes the functionality of the rifle? I'll wait while you google it...
I dont live in fear of being shot, so it's harder for me to understand the "I need to protect myself" argument. I've never been shot at, either, so that could change my tune. I hope I dont find out... I do get the recreational user tho, but I still think there's a place for stronger regulations. Adam Lanza's mother was a responsible recreational gun owner too, who legally got her guns and would probably have easily passed any mental health or background test you gave her. She probably wouldnt have hurt a fly.
You straight up said she was a responsible gun owner. Legally obtaining a firearm is only one piece of being a responsible owner, and you'd know that if you knew anything about gun ownership. If she was truly a responsible owner, this tragedy would never have happened. You didn't illustrate a point when you made that statement, and now you're backpedaling with points to justify it after the fact. IMO you are like a fish out of water on this issue because you don't own a gun and have no clue what a real gun owner knows about weapons safety and keeping one secure. The bottom line is that she was not responsible, and the evidence is clear...