Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Two other points to consider:

1. The majority of suicides resulting from guns. Obviously, these are tragedies, but even if there were no guns in the USA, or on planet Earth, anybody who is prepared to shoot themselves would probably jump off a bridge or a cliff or use a knife or whatever. The absence of guns wouldn't change this sad statistic.

Epidemiological evidence shows that creating a barrier to the means of suicide makes impulse suicide less likely, thus reducing the overall rate.

For instance, when the UK made the sale of more than 32 paracetamol tablets in a single transaction illegal, suicide by paracetamol declined 94%. This is because the need to go out to a series of shops to buy enough pills to kill yourself imposes a pause between decision and action during which you are able to change your mind, find help, or whatever.

Similarly, a law that household pistols must be kept unloaded and locked in a safe, probably would reduce suicide in the USA. Obviously there is no way to test that, but the inference seems sound.

Did the rate of overall suicide go down after the paracetamol was limited for sale? Absolutely useless if it didn't. You have a point about guns being in safes though - and you are in fact responsible for guns in your house if you don't properly store them. Lots of children accidentally shoot themselves or another - those deaths could be reduced heavily with such a law and it would make sense. Typically you will find that the majority of gun owners do this anyways.

Well, one guy has changed his mind on the gun issue at least:

https://twitter.com/Calebkeeter/status/914872808110510080

nfe wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


I don't buy that at all, the brother knew something was up. Because he deflected and claimed his brother only owned a pistol or two and maybe a rifle.

Really? Not how I took that interview at all - and that's the first time I've seen someone interpret it that way.

I'm not saying eric knew the brother was going to go on a shooting spree, but afterwards all those weird feelings he had about his brother, the number of weapons he bought, and probably some odd comments the brother made clicked into place and he felt guilty for not seeing it sooner. hence the deflection

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There are lots of things that could be done to reduce the immediate availability of loaded weapons, but to do so depends on the willingness of US society to accept such restrictions. The NRA has for decade run a successful campaign to push any kind of restriction beyond the pale, and US society broadly supports the current status of gun law.

The question is whether this latest and very bloody massacre has done anything to shift public opinion, and you will need to wait months or years to find that out.

No there really isn't. We already have tens of millions of gun owners who own hundreds of millions of guns and billions of rounds of ammunition. That's not going to change. Whatever new laws that might be proposed would have fight within the existing legal framework that guarantees the right to gun ownership in the US. The NRA has about 4-4.5 million members and that's only about 5-10% of gun owners in the US, for every NRA member there are dozens of gun owners who haven't joined the NRA. That's why gun control laws don't get passed, because a majority of states have permissive gun laws and lot of gun owners and the politicians don't want to make them angry. Look around the US, the states that pass more gun control laws are the states that already have low ownership rates and heavy restrictions and even then we see new laws have toothless enforcement, are largely ignored or are weakened by losing court challenges. The majority of the states have become more permissive with gun ownership not less and no politicians are losing elections over it. This crosses party lines, Harry Reid is a Democrat that the Republican party loves to lambast and hate on but guess what, Reid gets great scores by the NRA and he works against gun control legislation because he represents Nevada, a state with permissive gun laws and lots of gun owners. Bernie Sanders is a current favorite of the Democrat party and his home state of Vermont is one of the easiest states in which you can obtain and carry a gun. Making any significant changes to gun laws in the US would take decades, multiple election cycles on the federal and state level across the country, numerous legislative efforts to repeal existing federal and state laws and replace them with new ones and somehow defuse opposition by tens of millions of gun owners who can vote and convince them to support legislation that goes against their own interests.

Steelmage99 wrote:

Growing pains, I think.

The US is still a young country working on ironing out the various wrinkles in their society - in essence figuring out what kind of society they want.
Politically and socially the country does seem to have a ways to go.

This one's weird, since the United States has one of the oldest governments left on Earth, in terms of composition and style. Europe got largely reset thanks to the war, while other countries have gone from monarchies to republics (or fallen apart then been reborn) ... so, while nations (like China) have stood longer, governments haven't.

We're grandpa out here.

Always hurts my head.

Wakshaani wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

Growing pains, I think.

The US is still a young country working on ironing out the various wrinkles in their society - in essence figuring out what kind of society they want.
Politically and socially the country does seem to have a ways to go.

This one's weird, since the United States has one of the oldest governments left on Earth, in terms of composition and style. Europe got largely reset thanks to the war, while other countries have gone from monarchies to republics (or fallen apart then been reborn) ... so, while nations (like China) have stood longer, governments haven't.

We're grandpa out here.

Always hurts my head.

I guess that makes Britain Great-Great-Great Grandpa?

Prestor Jon wrote:
Making any significant changes to gun laws in the US would take decades, multiple election cycles on the federal and state level across the country, numerous legislative efforts to repeal existing federal and state laws and replace them with new ones and somehow defuse opposition by tens of millions of gun owners who can vote and convince them to support legislation that goes against their own interests.

Definitely true. It taking a while is no reason not to try, though - whilst it does make it politically unlikely in a world where most governments are quite happy to wander towards disaster as long as it's an adminitration away.

nfe wrote:

If it was up to me:
Introduce training and testing for a license, (in addition to reasonable medical background checks).
Strict requirements for storage (safes/ammunition in separate safes) with random checks.
Have a points system for infringements that run up to lifetime bans.
No private sale other than through licensed firearms dealers. All sales to anyone without a licence results in lifetime ban for seller. All private sales not through a licensed dealer also result in lifetime ban for seller.

I agree with all of that, that's pretty much how the system works here (also Scotland), with the exception that you need some vague reason for having one and you don't need one for an air weapon if you only use it at a certified range. You need to pass a test to drive a car, so why not pass a test to own a gun?

That way, you make the bar to firearm ownership "has some basic awareness of how to safely store and use a gun". Maybe allow ownership with gun stored at a range until they've been certified as having x many hours of experience, where they can then take it home.

 Jadenim wrote:
Just caught up on this thread and I have two observations:

1) other than a couple of outliers this is the most civil and constructive gun control / US pol-REDACTED- thread I have seen in a long while, so good job everyone.

Yeah, this thread has definitely been unusual for the subject matter.

"random checks" violates the 4th Amendment.

As an avid competition shooter I would be ok with:
*detailed background check, especially related to mental health. This background check has to be recertified annually. A background check includes a course on firearm safety and conflict de-escalation.
*making bumpfire stocks illegal (something to actually affect the recent crisis).
*making the background check go with the person.
*confirmation of said background check prior to any purchase, including private sales.
*locks with all purchases.
*the ability to require persons who are later adjudicated mentally not fit to temporarily be required to store their weapons with a different legal holder but not in the same domicile until that mental difficulty is fixed.

In return I want:
*Suppressors legal for hearing protection, as in other European countries.
*Nationwide CHL.
*A return of mental health's ability to involuntarily house mentally ill after apppropriate hearings. Prisons should not be where we house the mentally ill.
*Elimination of USPSA courses where one has to kneel or bend over when shooting as I am too old for that gak (sorry couldn't resist).

 Frazzled wrote:
"random checks" violates the 4th Amendment.

1) A check that would be a requirement of your holding a license wouldn't be an unreasonable search or seizure.
2) I don't care, anyway.
2.1) Written constitutions are stupid.


RE: your edit - mostly seems eminently sensible. What's CHL?

Herzlos wrote:

nfe wrote:

If it was up to me:
Introduce training and testing for a license, (in addition to reasonable medical background checks).
Strict requirements for storage (safes/ammunition in separate safes) with random checks.
Have a points system for infringements that run up to lifetime bans.
No private sale other than through licensed firearms dealers. All sales to anyone without a licence results in lifetime ban for seller. All private sales not through a licensed dealer also result in lifetime ban for seller.

I agree with all of that, that's pretty much how the system works here (also Scotland), with the exception that you need some vague reason for having one and you don't need one for an air weapon if you only use it at a certified range. You need to pass a test to drive a car, so why not pass a test to own a gun?

That way, you make the bar to firearm ownership "has some basic awareness of how to safely store and use a gun". Maybe allow ownership with gun stored at a range until they've been certified as having x many hours of experience, where they can then take it home.

You won't get federal mandatory training requirements without changes to the constitution which isn't going to happen anytime soon. We already have numerous federal and state laws that cover firearm purchase, storage and handling that come with harsh penalties. Instead of your proposed points system our existing laws will have you in federal prison and that conviction will prevent you from ever lawfully owning a gun again once you get out. Same thing goes for unlawful sales, we already have harsher penalties than what you propose.

None of these proposals would have done anything to prevent the Las Vegas shooting. Most of them we already have and the ones we don't we can't pass without massive changes to existing laws.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
"random checks" violates the 4th Amendment.

1) A check that would be a requirement of your holding a license wouldn't be an unreasonable search or seizure.
2) I don't care, anyway.
2.1) Written constitutions are stupid.

If you're already resorting to "I don't care" and "written constitutions are stupid" then you really aren't bringing much to the discussion. You can deal with the reality that exists or not, but you're just wasting your time with posts like that.

1) A check that would be a requirement of your holding a license wouldn't be an unreasonable search or seizure.

Yes it would, Brit.

2) I don't care, anyway.

Thats ok, that why we don't have to eat haggis and you do.

2.1) Written constitutions are stupid

.
Thats what the redcoats said when they were running from my relatives and their hunting dogs after losing the battle of New Orleans.

EDIT: CHL means "Concealed Handgun License" Its a more detailed topic than this thread.
Also: I meant to add I want: * mandatory coffee and donuts available for my next match!
EDIT 2: Wow if you type (racCoon) dog the filter edits it...

Do_I_Not_Like_That, I just want to say that I appreciate your reasonable and sane understanding of the United States and it's history/culture. A lot of people from around the world seem to have some really bizarre notions about what the United States is like. I wish I knew where they got some of their strange ideas.

I do hope we get some kind of motive determined in this particular shooting, because on the face of it the perpetrator seems extremely atypical.

Obviously everyone wonders why we have these mass shootings. It seems like we have some ideologically motivated ones (pulse nightclub shooting), but those aside the common thread seems to be mental illness. Perhaps we have more mental illness here than in other places, or maybe we are worse at treating it. I will say the treatment seems to normally be prescribing medication which often seems to do more harm than good.

We do unfortunately seem to have this belief that through the miracle of modern medicine everything can be cured with a pill. Seems like any treatment that requires effort or lifestyle change is often ignored, even if those would give the best results.

 Frazzled wrote:
"random checks" violates the 4th Amendment.

As an avid competition shooter I would be ok with:
*detailed background check, especially related to mental health. This background check has to be recertified annually. A background check includes a course on firearm safety and conflict de-escalation.
*making bumpfire stocks illegal (something to actually affect the recent crisis).
*making the background check go with the person.
*confirmation of said background check prior to any purchase, including private sales.
*locks with all purchases.
*the ability to require persons who are later adjudicated mentally not fit to temporarily be required to store their weapons with a different legal holder but not in the same domicile until that mental difficulty is fixed.

In return I want:
*Suppressors legal for hearing protection, as in other European countries.
*Nationwide CHL.
*A return of mental health's ability to involuntarily house mentally ill after apppropriate hearings. Prisons should not be where we house the mentally ill.
*Elimination of USPSA courses where one has to kneel or bend over when shooting as I am too old for that gak (sorry couldn't resist).

Good with everything said there except the bolded, it helps keep you in shape old man.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Two other points to consider:

1. The majority of suicides resulting from guns. Obviously, these are tragedies, but even if there were no guns in the USA, or on planet Earth, anybody who is prepared to shoot themselves would probably jump off a bridge or a cliff or use a knife or whatever. The absence of guns wouldn't change this sad statistic.

Epidemiological evidence shows that creating a barrier to the means of suicide makes impulse suicide less likely, thus reducing the overall rate.

For instance, when the UK made the sale of more than 32 paracetamol tablets in a single transaction illegal, suicide by paracetamol declined 94%. This is because the need to go out to a series of shops to buy enough pills to kill yourself imposes a pause between decision and action during which you are able to change your mind, find help, or whatever.

Similarly, a law that household pistols must be kept unloaded and locked in a safe, probably would reduce suicide in the USA. Obviously there is no way to test that, but the inference seems sound.

Did the rate of overall suicide go down after the paracetamol was limited for sale? Absolutely useless if it didn't. You have a point about guns being in safes though - and you are in fact responsible for guns in your house if you don't properly store them. Lots of children accidentally shoot themselves or another - those deaths could be reduced heavily with such a law and it would make sense. Typically you will find that the majority of gun owners do this anyways.

Sometimes you see a post so special, you have to take the time to appreciate the mental gymnastics it takes to write it. Bravo good sir.

 Frazzled wrote:

*locks with all purchases.

Already required on guns bought from an FFL.

 Frazzled wrote:
Nationwide CHL.

Which would mean every state conforming to the states with the harshest regulations. No thanks, let the states handle their own CPL laws.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
"random checks" violates the 4th Amendment.

As an avid competition shooter I would be ok with:
*detailed background check, especially related to mental health. This background check has to be recertified annually. A background check includes a course on firearm safety and conflict de-escalation.
*making bumpfire stocks illegal (something to actually affect the recent crisis).
*making the background check go with the person.
*confirmation of said background check prior to any purchase, including private sales.
*locks with all purchases.
*the ability to require persons who are later adjudicated mentally not fit to temporarily be required to store their weapons with a different legal holder but not in the same domicile until that mental difficulty is fixed.

In return I want:
*Suppressors legal for hearing protection, as in other European countries.
*Nationwide CHL.
*A return of mental health's ability to involuntarily house mentally ill after apppropriate hearings. Prisons should not be where we house the mentally ill.
*Elimination of USPSA courses where one has to kneel or bend over when shooting as I am too old for that gak (sorry couldn't resist).

Good with everything said there except the bolded, it helps keep you in shape old man.

Less shape, more auto accients means any time I bend there is about a 20% chance my back or hip will go out...

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Why do civilians need full automatic weapons?

It boils down to our a combination of “because we can” and “because they are fun”.

It’s a pain in the rear and expensive to own a full auto weapon, one might add.

And almost no legal 'full automatic weapons' are available on the market which is a real reason they are so expensive. You are limited to lowers made prior to 1986 I think. Even if you have ridiculous amounts of money it is difficult to find someone willing to sell one now-a-days. Which is why there have been less than a handful of crimes committed in the US with full automatic weapons in the last several decades.

I want to expand on those with some more specifics. Fully automatic weapons are highly restricted in the US: they were made a controlled item in 1934, so you need a background check, fingerprints, and a lengthy waiting period to get one - and even then, many states have a blanket ban on them. I can't own one in Iowa under any circumstance and that's not unusual. New manufacture of a machine gun for US domestic use was further restricted in 1986, so you're functionally unable to buy one made after that date, and that also caused the prices of machine guns to skyrocket - you're going to need at least $15,000 USD to get into the market for a rifle, and as Captain Jake correctly noted, it's a sellers market.

As a result virtually no civilian in the US owns a lawful machine gun. I believe there have only been 2 homicides committed with a lawful machine gun (and one of those was committed by a police officer!).

Until Las Vegas, crime with a lawful machine gun functionally did not exist. It might still not, because we do not yet know what weapon was used:

It could have been a lawful machine gun. The shooter was known to be very wealthy, and Nevada allows machine gun ownership.

It could have been a semi-auto converted to full-auto. While the law bans anything that can be "readily converted" to fully automatic, if you have access to power tools and the internet, it can be done.

It could be a lawful device to increase firing speed, such as a bump-fire stock. This is a lawful device that slides the entire front section of the gun forward and back; when you pull the gun forward with your left hand, it bounces the gun off your trigger, which means technically, it fires one round for every pull of the trigger, and is not a machine gun, legally. These devices are difficult to control, but when shooting at a mass of thousands of people tightly grouped I doubt it matters.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

*locks with all purchases.

Already required on guns bought from an FFL.

Right, but not every purchase, hence why I brought it up.

 Frazzled wrote:
Nationwide CHL.

Which would mean every state conforming to the states with the harshest regulations. No thanks, let the states handle their own CPL laws.

The law could simply be reciprocity, but I understand your point.

 Frazzled wrote:
*making bumpfire stocks illegal (something to actually affect the recent crisis).

I own a bumpfire stock for my AK, and I don't think they should be lawful, and to be honest since the first time I shot it, I knew it was a matter of time until someone shot up a school with one and it would then be illegal.

 Frazzled wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
"random checks" violates the 4th Amendment.

As an avid competition shooter I would be ok with:
*detailed background check, especially related to mental health. This background check has to be recertified annually. A background check includes a course on firearm safety and conflict de-escalation.
*making bumpfire stocks illegal (something to actually affect the recent crisis).
*making the background check go with the person.
*confirmation of said background check prior to any purchase, including private sales.
*locks with all purchases.
*the ability to require persons who are later adjudicated mentally not fit to temporarily be required to store their weapons with a different legal holder but not in the same domicile until that mental difficulty is fixed.

In return I want:
*Suppressors legal for hearing protection, as in other European countries.
*Nationwide CHL.
*A return of mental health's ability to involuntarily house mentally ill after apppropriate hearings. Prisons should not be where we house the mentally ill.
*Elimination of USPSA courses where one has to kneel or bend over when shooting as I am too old for that gak (sorry couldn't resist).

Good with everything said there except the bolded, it helps keep you in shape old man.

Less shape, more auto accients means any time I bend there is about a 20% chance my back or hip will go out...

Well in that case, medical wavers!

Thats...interesting. I may check that out.

Did see a quote making the rounds on social media, which is actually proving quite true and quite sad

Something to the effect of

"In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over."

You won NRA and gun enthusiasts, you won. Hope you enjoy your victory, the 2nd amendment is clad in stone and mortared with blood.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Did see a quote making the rounds on social media, which is actually proving quite true and quite sad

Something to the effect of

"In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over."

You won NRA and gun enthusiasts, you won. Hope you enjoy your victory, the 2nd amendment is clad in stone and mortared with blood.

Your virtue signalling skills are flawless.

 Frazzled wrote:
"random checks" violates the 4th Amendment.

As an avid competition shooter I would be ok with:
*detailed background check, especially related to mental health. This background check has to be recertified annually. A background check includes a course on firearm safety and conflict de-escalation.
*making bumpfire stocks illegal (something to actually affect the recent crisis).
*making the background check go with the person.
*confirmation of said background check prior to any purchase, including private sales.
*locks with all purchases.
*the ability to require persons who are later adjudicated mentally not fit to temporarily be required to store their weapons with a different legal holder but not in the same domicile until that mental difficulty is fixed.

In return I want:
*Suppressors legal for hearing protection, as in other European countries.
*Nationwide CHL.
*A return of mental health's ability to involuntarily house mentally ill after apppropriate hearings. Prisons should not be where we house the mentally ill.
*Elimination of USPSA courses where one has to kneel or bend over when shooting as I am too old for that gak (sorry couldn't resist).

We're not going to create a federal database for peoples' mental health records. If you're deemed mentally unfit by a court it will show up in the NICs system and that's how it should be. You don't need to pass a mental examination to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right. The ATF should let people run NICs checks for a nominal fee that's an easy solution. Locks are already required. The last one has several logistical obstacles along with the problem of establishing a federal standard of mental health for the exercise of protected rights. The limitations that can be imposed on the 2nd amendment would set precedent for similar limits to be imposed on any amendment.

Suppressors should be able to be purchased with a simple NICs check just like firearms. We don't need nationwide CHL, the states can keep that within their purview. I'm not opposed to a quality modern nationwide network of mental health hospitals but I don't really think that the federal govt has the ability to create and administer such a network with the competence and skill required to make it effectual.

 Frazzled wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Did see a quote making the rounds on social media, which is actually proving quite true and quite sad

Something to the effect of

"In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over."

You won NRA and gun enthusiasts, you won. Hope you enjoy your victory, the 2nd amendment is clad in stone and mortared with blood.

Your virtue signalling skills are flawless.

How is it incorrect statement? Its been decided that these mass killings are the price to pay for easy access to large quantities of guns and ammo, you won.

 Frazzled wrote:
"random checks" violates the 4th Amendment.

As an avid competition shooter I would be ok with:
*detailed background check, especially related to mental health. This background check has to be recertified annually. A background check includes a course on firearm safety and conflict de-escalation.
*making bumpfire stocks illegal (something to actually affect the recent crisis).
*making the background check go with the person.
*confirmation of said background check prior to any purchase, including private sales.
*locks with all purchases.
*the ability to require persons who are later adjudicated mentally not fit to temporarily be required to store their weapons with a different legal holder but not in the same domicile until that mental difficulty is fixed.

In return I want:
*Suppressors legal for hearing protection, as in other European countries.
*Nationwide CHL.
*A return of mental health's ability to involuntarily house mentally ill after apppropriate hearings. Prisons should not be where we house the mentally ill.
*Elimination of USPSA courses where one has to kneel or bend over when shooting as I am too old for that gak (sorry couldn't resist).

I'd be OK with all of that as well. I'd also like to see the ban on funding for gun violence research lifted.

I'd like to see a national education requirement and annual proficiency required for a concealed carry permit. You mentioned de-escalation specifically, and that seems smart. As you know but others may not, concealed carry regulations vary wildly by the state. In the state that I live in, to get my carry permit I needed to watch a 90 minute video on a youtube-like site and pass a test and a background check. The video mostly emphasized how to safely carry a gun, and where you could not in Iowa. The "test" was a 20 question multiple choice test that anyone who was not a moron could handily pass without watching the video. While I now know you can't carry a gun on a snowmobile in Iowa, there wasn't a single question regarding castle doctrine, de-escalation, or anything else about when to shoot and when not to - nothing even in that arena.

Unfortunately over the last 20 years, the NRA has made all of these things impossible. They've gone from resisting onerous legislation to functionally rejecting any legislation whatsoever, couching any gun control as an unendurable assault on the second amendment. The NRA has very much become part of the problem.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Did see a quote making the rounds on social media, which is actually proving quite true and quite sad

Something to the effect of

"In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over."

You won NRA and gun enthusiasts, you won. Hope you enjoy your victory, the 2nd amendment is clad in stone and mortared with blood.

Your virtue signalling skills are flawless.

How is it incorrect statement? Its been decided that these mass killings are the price to pay for easy access to large quantities of guns and ammo, you won.

If you want to change it, get rid of the 2nd Amendment via the normal process. Of course, you might lose a few other amendments with it, but hey won't someone think of the children! Meanwhile you can tut tut about how evil X group is to your friends and fellow virtue signallers.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Did see a quote making the rounds on social media, which is actually proving quite true and quite sad

Something to the effect of

"In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over."

You won NRA and gun enthusiasts, you won. Hope you enjoy your victory, the 2nd amendment is clad in stone and mortared with blood.

Your virtue signalling skills are flawless.

How is it incorrect statement? Its been decided that these mass killings are the price to pay for easy access to large quantities of guns and ammo, you won.

There was no effort to pass any new legislation that would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting from happening. Connecticut passed an assault weapon registry that has been largely ignored by both law enforcement and gun owners and New York passed the SAFE Act which had portion struck down by court challenges and had a minor impact on gun control in the state anyway. What is it that you expected or desired to have occurred? If you're going to set wholly impractical and unrealistic expectations for the reaction to Sandy Hook then yeah you're going to be disappointed when those things don't happen.