Reducing Gun Violence
-
Once again I have to ask you to go ahead and read that statement. You clearly don't get it as I already said banning anything will be both ineffectual and impossible.
Fair enough. I admit I didn't read all the replies, so I'll offer something pretty rare around here.... my apology.
Fair enough. I admit I didn't read all the replies, so I'll offer something pretty rare around here.... my apology.
It's all good. Because I obviously feel strongly on this issue, and some of you may recall arguing these same points a year or so ago, well before sandy hook, my strong feelings on it may make it seem like I'm advocating the banning of guns which I realize is not possible.
I will say, though, if banning guns weren't toothless, if it could actually get rid of them, then I'd advocate it in a second, no questions asked. But its not possible, so its sort of pointless to be on the side of banning guns. All talk of banning guns does is feed the opposition and divert from the measures that actually could be taken, to set a new standard of criteria for gun ownership which I believe will be the only thing that's even minimally effective in preventing future mass shootings by individuals like loughner, Holmes and Lanza. I don't believe any of those three individuals could have gotten a hold of guns illegally.
(I'll make a partial exception to this statement on account of Lanza who, for the sake of legacy, I will concede stole the guns he used if he (legacy) will concede that the stolen guns were in fact made freely available to him, and thus muddies the term and concept of theft.)
-
Dude. Loughner and Holmes purchased their weapons legally. Nancy Lanza purchased her weapons legally and made no effort to keep them from her son. His mental issues were well known to her. She was his guardian. No matter what symantics you want to use she isdirectly responsible for facilitatating his actions. If you want to hold up a solution and argue instead about whether he stole the guns or not, that's your problem. They were made freely available to him without regard to his mental problems. That makes their legal owner responsible. I don't have any pity for her because she paid for her negligent stupidity with her life.
If you want to stickle over Lanza, look instead at Holmes and loughner and let's go from there.
Lanza was 20 years old. An adult. Not under anyone's guardianship. I'm forced to use semantics (read: facts) to combat your hyperbole.
I already addressed Holmes. His firearms were not legal. (Loopholed via avoidance of the FFL requirement for online purchases)
Loughner bought a single pistol legally. This we can talk about.
He had previous arrests. He was stopped that morning, but let go. His youtube page - wowzers. He was suspended from his Community college because of a crazy internet post.
Personal privacy needs to be part of this discussion, because if somebody quit the PC bullshit and essentially gave this maniac a scarlet letter in his "file" (whatever a "file" is), the background check at the sporting goods store should have been able to pick these facts up and say, "nope, here's a bicycle helmet - have a good day."
Lanza was 20 years old. An adult. Not under anyone's guardianship. I'm forced to use semantics (read: facts) to combat your hyperbole.
I already addressed Holmes. His firearms were not legal. (Loopholed via avoidance of the FFL requirement for online purchases)
Loughner bought a single pistol legally. This we can talk about.
He had previous arrests. He was stopped that morning, but let go. His youtube page - wowzers. He was suspended from his Community college because of a crazy internet post.
Personal privacy needs to be part of this discussion, because if somebody quit the PC bullshit and essentially gave this maniac a scarlet letter in his "file" (whatever a "file" is), the background check at the sporting goods store should have been able to pick these facts up and say, "nope, here's a bicycle helmet - have a good day."
Lanza was a Retard who was dependant on his mother. Maybe she was not his guardian anymore but just because she could no longer claim him on her taxes because of his age doesn't make him NOT her dependant. Again, just symantics. She IS responsible in the matter. And like it or not about Holmes loopholes are legal. Otherwise they wouldn't be loopholes. It would just be illegal.
-
Lanza was 20 years old. An adult. Not under anyone's guardianship. I'm forced to use semantics (read: facts) to combat your hyperbole.
I already addressed Holmes. His firearms were not legal. (Loopholed via avoidance of the FFL requirement for online purchases)
Loughner bought a single pistol legally. This we can talk about.
He had previous arrests. He was stopped that morning, but let go. His youtube page - wowzers. He was suspended from his Community college because of a crazy internet post.
Personal privacy needs to be part of this discussion, because if somebody quit the PC bullshit and essentially gave this maniac a scarlet letter in his "file" (whatever a "file" is), the background check at the sporting goods store should have been able to pick these facts up and say, "nope, here's a bicycle helmet - have a good day."
Lanza was a Retard who was dependant on his mother. Maybe she was not his guardian anymore but just because she could no longer claim him on her taxes because of his age doesn't make him NOT her dependant. Again, just symantics. She IS responsible in the matter. And like it or not about Holmes loopholes are legal. Otherwise they wouldn't be loopholes. It would just be illegal.
Lanza was a Retard who was dependant on his mother. Maybe she was not his guardian anymore but just because she could no longer claim him on her taxes because of his age doesn't make him NOT her dependant. Again, just symantics. She IS responsible in the matter. And like it or not about Holmes loopholes are legal. Otherwise they wouldn't be loopholes. It would just be illegal.
I'm trying to be civil here and educate you as you've clearly never purchased a firearm nor have had any experience with anything related to one.
To purchase a firearm legally online, you must purchase through a FFL dealer, and/or (depending on the state) have the weapon delivered to a FFL dealer. So that background checks and registration can be completed. It is on the seller to either a: have his FFL and b: ship to a FFL dealer. It is on the purchaser to a: buy from a FFL dealer, and b: have the weapon shipped to a FFL dealer. That's not always the case (as with Holmes).
"Loopholes" was used for lack of a better term. I compared his purchases to a speeder not getting caught. Or drunk driver not getting caught. It is on the bartender to not over serve a patron, just as it is on the patron to not get behind the wheel after drinking.
No comment on Loughner?
-
But yes you are absolutely right about loughner and his ability to legally obtain a gun is one reason that some measure has to be taken against people like him. There's not nothing we can do
-
We disagree here.
The only person responsible for pulling the trigger is the person who pulled the trigger.
-
The reason the "gun zealots" are fighting to keep the "loophole" (again, lack of a better term) open, is money. It's always about money. These sellers/collectors etc that are a part of online sales and the gunshow element of society - 20 second timeout - gunshow dealers are like fucking carnies. Truly a remarkable spectacle if you've never been to one. I digress.
This element of society wants to keep the absurd profit margins they can make for buying a stock Bushmaster AR-15 (about $600-800) and add a few "tactical" looking elements to it and turn around and sell the thing for $2500 to people who think that kind of thing looks cool. I think it looks cool too, but I'm not paying for a Cadillac to drive a Pontiac.
Gun show Dealers can mark up ammo, and sell reloads at new prices which is garbage. The only good thing (imo) that online sales have done is keep ammunition prices reasonable. Regionalizing ammunition sales will inflate the prices. Many Dealers keep ammo prices low, (get you to their booth/table) then hammer you on the price of the gun at these shows.
-
Lanza was a Retard who was dependant on his mother. Maybe she was not his guardian anymore but just because she could no longer claim him on her taxes because of his age doesn't make him NOT her dependant. Again, just symantics. She IS responsible in the matter. And like it or not about Holmes loopholes are legal. Otherwise they wouldn't be loopholes. It would just be illegal.
I'm trying to be civil here and educate you as you've clearly never purchased a firearm nor have had any experience with anything related to one.
To purchase a firearm legally online, you must purchase through a FFL dealer, and/or (depending on the state) have the weapon delivered to a FFL dealer. So that background checks and registration can be completed. It is on the seller to either a: have his FFL and b: ship to a FFL dealer. It is on the purchaser to a: buy from a FFL dealer, and b: have the weapon shipped to a FFL dealer. That's not always the case (as with Holmes).
"Loopholes" was used for lack of a better term. I compared his purchases to a speeder not getting caught. Or drunk driver not getting caught. It is on the bartender to not over serve a patron, just as it is on the patron to not get behind the wheel after drinking.
No comment on Loughner?
I'm trying to be civil here and educate you as you've clearly never purchased a firearm nor have had any experience with anything related to one.
To purchase a firearm legally online, you must purchase through a FFL dealer, and/or (depending on the state) have the weapon delivered to a FFL dealer. So that background checks and registration can be completed. It is on the seller to either a: have his FFL and b: ship to a FFL dealer. It is on the purchaser to a: buy from a FFL dealer, and b: have the weapon shipped to a FFL dealer. That's not always the case (as with Holmes).
"Loopholes" was used for lack of a better term. I compared his purchases to a speeder not getting caught. Or drunk driver not getting caught. It is on the bartender to not over serve a patron, just as it is on the patron to not get behind the wheel after drinking.
No comment on Loughner?
You're wrong. I have shot many guns on ranges both military and civilian sides. I actually own several guns including a 9 mm semi automatic pistol a 12 gauge shotgun, a .17 mm 8 shot revolver with scope and a .22 rifle with scope which I inherited rather than purchased, this is true although there was still paperwork involved to transfer them to me legally, and register them, but I don't keep them at my house or near it, on account of my children. They're kept locked away at a family member's house approximately 25 miles away for safety's sake, Guns and a house of inquisitive little boys don't mix.
-
We disagree here.
The only person responsible for pulling the trigger is the person who pulled the trigger.
We disagree here.
The only person responsible for pulling the trigger is the person who pulled the trigger.
Let's clarify. She's not responsible directly for murder. She however is responsible for furnishing her mentally ill child with weapons. We should be able to agree that that was a horrible and completely avoidable mistake.
-
So it seems that where there's some agreement in here is that we should have better background checks, focus some attention on the mentally ill, and stiffer sentences for gun crimes, or allowing your guns to be used by someone else in the commission of a crime.
Not too bad for The Browns Board.
-
Yup.
What constitutes a better background check though? Under current terminology/modus operandi, it would involve infringing on privacy. Can we relinquish that?
Because I think this admin takes the easy way out and bans mags/ARs and doesnt address mental health/privacy at all.
-
Yup.
What constitutes a better background check though? Under current terminology/modus operandi, it would involve infringing on privacy. Can we relinquish that?
Because I think this admin takes the easy way out and bans mags/ARs and doesnt address mental health/privacy at all.
Yup.
What constitutes a better background check though? Under current terminology/modus operandi, it would involve infringing on privacy. Can we relinquish that?
Because I think this admin takes the easy way out and bans mags/ARs and doesnt address mental health/privacy at all.
I have to say I still think insurance is what will force all changes that are likely to be effective. I don't think insurance is a bad idea at all. You HAVE to carry health insurance. You HAVE to carry auto insurance. You HAVE to carry insurance to be a dentist. Or a contractor. Any business really. Why is it unreasonable to HAVE to carry insurance to own the most potentially dangerous object in the world? I don't get that. Let's talk about that.
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
I have to admit, I haven't heard that idea much and find it kind of interesting. Perhaps there's some reason why it's simply not feasible.
As for background checks we'll have to see what gets proposed. There will be lots of privacy questions to be addressed. All sorts of questions, really. You can expect the pushback to be significant.
And yes, I suspect they'll do magazine size, simply because that has some support on both sides of the aisle. Probably not going to have much of an effect, but not the worst idea in the world. Even if it's unlikely to lower body counts in a mass murder, it would allow you to prosecute some criminal elements harder if you catch them with illegal clips.
-
I don't really care if they declare 30 shot mags illegal. Problem with that, is three ten shot clips doesn't take long to interchange. Maybe a couple of seconds. It seems pointless.
I have always been fine with background checks. Like I said another time, we bought our pistol, and even the dealer was surprised how quickly I was cleared. I've had background checks
for security clearances in the service, and as a consultant with some big companies. They do a lot of good.
Ban assault weapons, and Columbine still happens. There needs to be a sincere, direct approach to honest actions that will actually help to avoid
these atrocities in the future.
Bashing millions of gun owners is just exactly wrong, counter productive, and just plain sick and crazy.
We went out and bought some ammo this evening. We got the last box of 9mm, and I saw several people walking around with the same brand, same size box of the same ammo.
It apparently happens every day across this country. Maybe a bunch of federally funded training for school psychologists in the ability to
help kids in school who end up socially outcast, socially absent, bullied and bullying, aloof and angry, whatever. The common thread of prescribed drugs
that some kids with disorders is troubling. It has been overlooked by the media in the political frenzy to support the anti gun lobbies.
The left has hijacked the debate to political expediency, as usual. And that is just another blind eye to the real causes of psychotic violence by these people,
regardless of the weapon or manner involved in the murders. Alas, there is no lobby that dramatically supports gun safety, like the NRA. Not anywhere close.
-
Insurance companies? They pay for accidents.
Not suicides. Dumb idea. Criminals won't buy it, and it's
just another money maker for funding ...whatever the gov wants to fund.
There's already hunting licenses, ccw licenses, purchase taxes, stamps, tags,
adding insurance is nonsense, I think. Unless all those who own knives, baseball bats,
candlesticks and pipes also have to buy it. Wait, that's more nonsense.
-
Yup.
What constitutes a better background check though? Under current terminology/modus operandi, it would involve infringing on privacy. Can we relinquish that?
Because I think this admin takes the easy way out and bans mags/ARs and doesnt address mental health/privacy at all.
I have to say I still think insurance is what will force all changes that are likely to be effective. I don't think insurance is a bad idea at all. You HAVE to carry health insurance. You HAVE to carry auto insurance. You HAVE to carry insurance to be a dentist. Or a contractor. Any business really. Why is it unreasonable to HAVE to carry insurance to own the most potentially dangerous object in the world? I don't get that. Let's talk about that.
I have to say I still think insurance is what will force all changes that are likely to be effective. I don't think insurance is a bad idea at all. You HAVE to carry health insurance. You HAVE to carry auto insurance. You HAVE to carry insurance to be a dentist. Or a contractor. Any business really. Why is it unreasonable to HAVE to carry insurance to own the most potentially dangerous object in the world? I don't get that. Let's talk about that.
You carry insurance in those fields you mentioned due to the constant interaction with people. Brandishing a firearm and waving it around like a moron or pointing it at someone isn't exactly normal behavior and in most cases is a criminal offense.
I mean, the best route (path of least resistance) is to tack on something to your homeowners rates but that seems a little slimey, but I don't think you're going to see an outright "gun insurance" be enacted. I don't have to buy "beer insurance."
And again, I come back to the point of "punishing" law abiding, responsible citizens. Which is what this is. Would Lanza's mom's gun insurance prevented Sandy hook? Nope. Loughner? He bought 1 pistol? 6 weeks before the shooting, so he's maybe seen 1 monthly bill for his "gun insurance" - not sure how much of a deterrent that would have been. Ton's of what if's but I still think this penalizes the law abiding, more than the criminal's. Holmes didn't follow through with the required FFL transactions, think he would have stopped and got his "gun insurance" though? Probably not.
I think you need to look at intensifying background checks and severe & stiffer Penalties for failure to follow FFL protocol. Some online dealers are responsible (with "I only ship to FFL dealers" in all of their listings), so I think you need to make sure that's enforced. Seems pretty easy to me - make the dealers more like warehouses instead of private businessmen. As soon as "buy now" is selected, the transaction goes through a secure state or federal website that makes you put in your SS# or some other ID verification, and a more intense BGC is run.
Also, purchases in person: Cut the PC hippie bullshit of "no profiling" Hindsight is 20/20 but I don't think I would have sold Holmes, Loughner, or Lanza a pack of gum, much less a firearm. You want to be a responsible gun owner? Probably get a haircut, make sure it isn't purple. Speak when spoken to, make eye contact, dress like an adult & not a member of the insane clown posse. Sports jerseys are ok at the stadium or on your couch, but you don't wear them to a job interview. Yes sir, & no sir go along way too.
-
I have to say I still think insurance is what will force all changes that are likely to be effective. I don't think insurance is a bad idea at all. You HAVE to carry health insurance. You HAVE to carry auto insurance. You HAVE to carry insurance to be a dentist. Or a contractor. Any business really. Why is it unreasonable to HAVE to carry insurance to own the most potentially dangerous object in the world? I don't get that. Let's talk about that.
You carry insurance in those fields you mentioned due to the constant interaction with people. Brandishing a firearm and waving it around like a moron or pointing it at someone isn't exactly normal behavior and in most cases is a criminal offense.
I mean, the best route (path of least resistance) is to tack on something to your homeowners rates but that seems a little slimey, but I don't think you're going to see an outright "gun insurance" be enacted. I don't have to buy "beer insurance."
And again, I come back to the point of "punishing" law abiding, responsible citizens. Which is what this is. Would Lanza's mom's gun insurance prevented Sandy hook? Nope. Loughner? He bought 1 pistol? 6 weeks before the shooting, so he's maybe seen 1 monthly bill for his "gun insurance" - not sure how much of a deterrent that would have been. Ton's of what if's but I still think this penalizes the law abiding, more than the criminal's. Holmes didn't follow through with the required FFL transactions, think he would have stopped and got his "gun insurance" though? Probably not.
I think you need to look at intensifying background checks and severe & stiffer Penalties for failure to follow FFL protocol. Some online dealers are responsible (with "I only ship to FFL dealers" in all of their listings), so I think you need to make sure that's enforced. Seems pretty easy to me - make the dealers more like warehouses instead of private businessmen. As soon as "buy now" is selected, the transaction goes through a secure state or federal website that makes you put in your SS# or some other ID verification, and a more intense BGC is run.
Also, purchases in person: Cut the PC hippie bullshit of "no profiling" Hindsight is 20/20 but I don't think I would have sold Holmes, Loughner, or Lanza a pack of gum, much less a firearm. You want to be a responsible gun owner? Probably get a haircut, make sure it isn't purple. Speak when spoken to, make eye contact, dress like an adult & not a member of the insane clown posse. Sports jerseys are ok at the stadium or on your couch, but you don't wear them to a job interview. Yes sir, & no sir go along way too.
You carry insurance in those fields you mentioned due to the constant interaction with people. Brandishing a firearm and waving it around like a moron or pointing it at someone isn't exactly normal behavior and in most cases is a criminal offense.
I mean, the best route (path of least resistance) is to tack on something to your homeowners rates but that seems a little slimey, but I don't think you're going to see an outright "gun insurance" be enacted. I don't have to buy "beer insurance."
And again, I come back to the point of "punishing" law abiding, responsible citizens. Which is what this is. Would Lanza's mom's gun insurance prevented Sandy hook? Nope. Loughner? He bought 1 pistol? 6 weeks before the shooting, so he's maybe seen 1 monthly bill for his "gun insurance" - not sure how much of a deterrent that would have been. Ton's of what if's but I still think this penalizes the law abiding, more than the criminal's. Holmes didn't follow through with the required FFL transactions, think he would have stopped and got his "gun insurance" though? Probably not.
I think you need to look at intensifying background checks and severe & stiffer Penalties for failure to follow FFL protocol. Some online dealers are responsible (with "I only ship to FFL dealers" in all of their listings), so I think you need to make sure that's enforced. Seems pretty easy to me - make the dealers more like warehouses instead of private businessmen. As soon as "buy now" is selected, the transaction goes through a secure state or federal website that makes you put in your SS# or some other ID verification, and a more intense BGC is run.
Also, purchases in person: Cut the PC hippie bullshit of "no profiling" Hindsight is 20/20 but I don't think I would have sold Holmes, Loughner, or Lanza a pack of gum, much less a firearm. You want to be a responsible gun owner? Probably get a haircut, make sure it isn't purple. Speak when spoken to, make eye contact, dress like an adult & not a member of the insane clown posse. Sports jerseys are ok at the stadium or on your couch, but you don't wear them to a job interview. Yes sir, & no sir go along way too.
Yes, uh, but you can't directly murder a bunch of people with beer.
-
Do you care to discuss anything, or do you just want to play "the Hyperbole kid"?
Because I have plenty of other things to do than go back and forth with someone on the same cognitive playing field as Tom Cruise.
Sure, luck means a lot in football. Not having a good quarterback is bad luck. -Don Shula -
Do you care to discuss anything, or do you just want to play "the Hyperbole kid"?
Because I have plenty of other things to do than go back and forth with someone on the same cognitive playing field as Tom Cruise.
Do you care to discuss anything, or do you just want to play "the Hyperbole kid"?
Because I have plenty of other things to do than go back and forth with someone on the same cognitive playing field as Tom Cruise.
Says the guy who's fallback arguement is "crooks will still get guns illegally" you wouldnt sell jared loughner a pack of gum? I'm sure you'd give him a root canal, and its quite likely face to face that he didn't 'look' like a killer. How are you going to profile that? It's not as easy as racial profiling, especially with no criminal convictions. I mean a cop pulled him over the morning of the shooting and let him go. If a cop can't recognize crazy what makes you think you can?
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
Do you care to discuss anything, or do you just want to play "the Hyperbole kid"?
Because I have plenty of other things to do than go back and forth with someone on the same cognitive playing field as Tom Cruise.
Because I have plenty of other things to do than go back and forth with someone on the same cognitive playing field as Tom Cruise.
Funniest post of the year so far. It's still early.
-
While still president in 1986, Ronald Reagan signed into law the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which was hailed by gun rights advocates because it included numerous protections for gun owners. However, it also banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed.
Then, in 1991, four years after the controversial Brady Bill was introduced in Congress and with passage again in doubt, Reagan penned an op-ed in The New York Times titled "Why I'm for the Brady Bill." In it, he expressed support for a seven-day waiting period before a purchaser could take possession of a handgun, an even more stringent restriction than the five day cooling-off period that was included in the final legislation, and less stringent than the 15-day cooling-off period he signed into law as governor of California. Reagan stated that prohibitions on sales to felons, drug addicts and the mentally ill had "no enforcement mechanism" and that "a uniform standard across the country" was necessary.
Regarding handguns, Reagan stated, "This level of violence must be stopped … If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land."
Finally, in 1994, Reagan successfully threw his support behind the Assault Weapons Ban in a joint letter to the Boston Globe, saying, "As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms … I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary."
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login