another shooting

[Danzig]

now, we aren't the murder capital of the world...that's honduras, according to something on the radio the other day.

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d28...141895b7bb51ed

over the weekend, i saw that they had a rally at the alamo (normally not a site for such things, nor should it be), the rally being held by people who are pro-open carry....so, a bunch of folks were at the alamo for hours, carrying around their rifles. i'm sure it gave others pause, who were there to see history, and were no doubt wondering why others felt the need to be armed...after all, long guns are no help against ghosts of the 1830's.

at any rate, i'm a gun owner. own more than i ever thought i would, but will probably aquire more over the years. i believe in our constitution, and all the rights granted therein.

however, could we not come up with some common sense rules? so that i, a law abiding citizen who has never gotten anything more stern from a policeman than a speeding ticket (and it's been over a decade) won't have to worry about ever being disarmed?
you have to jump thru hoops to vote, to get a drivers license, medicare, medicaid, etc.
but a gun. pffft. no worries. oh, and i'm a person who has arrests, restraining orders, etc. no worries.
under a physicians care for mental issues? no worries.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Danzig

now, we aren't the murder capital of the world...that's honduras, according to something on the radio the other day.

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d28...141895b7bb51ed

over the weekend, i saw that they had a rally at the alamo (normally not a site for such things, nor should it be), the rally being held by people who are pro-open carry....so, a bunch of folks were at the alamo for hours, carrying around their rifles. i'm sure it gave others pause, who were there to see history, and were no doubt wondering why others felt the need to be armed...after all, long guns are no help against ghosts of the 1830's.

at any rate, i'm a gun owner. own more than i ever thought i would, but will probably aquire more over the years. i believe in our constitution, and all the rights granted therein.

however, could we not come up with some common sense rules? so that i, a law abiding citizen who has never gotten anything more stern from a policeman than a speeding ticket (and it's been over a decade) won't have to worry about ever being disarmed?
you have to jump thru hoops to vote, to get a drivers license, medicare, medicaid, etc.
but a gun. pffft. no worries. oh, and i'm a person who has arrests, restraining orders, etc. no worries.
under a physicians care for mental issues? no worries.

Zig, are you saying that you find the ATF background check is insufficient?

It is a slippery slope imo. Non-felonious arrests should not keep someone from owning a gun. Felony convictions? Well they do.

Restraining orders?


h. Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner?




Here is a link to the ATF form you have to fill out and attest to.

http://www.thundertek.net/documents/4473.pdf

I don't know what more can be added that would make this process of Legally Acquiring a gun anymore thorough.

[Danzig]

yes, i'm saying the background check is insufficient. especially when they said not long ago that many states don't submit a lot of the info that they're looking for in the background checks. and with the hippa laws, many are also no longer submitting any mental health info. also, background checks are only done in about 4/5 of purchases. when the most recent attempt was made to close loopholes such as gun shows, private purchases, internet sales, people went nuts. saw a lot of comments about 'constitutionality'. er, that ship has sailed. checks are being done, just not in every instance. and i'm sure we know who benefits, knowing they can avoid a check and make a purchase.

the law they tried to pass was to help with state reporting of felony criminals, etc, and to change hippa laws in regards to reporting the mentally ill. youi know, the very people who shouldn't be able to buy. but the republicans did a great job in lying and getting people riled up (and then there's the nra), thus assuring a failure.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yes, i'm saying the background check is insufficient. especially when they said not long ago that many states don't submit a lot of the info that they're looking for in the background checks. and with the hippa laws, many are also no longer submitting any mental health info. also, background checks are only done in about 4/5 of purchases. when the most recent attempt was made to close loopholes such as gun shows, private purchases, internet sales, people went nuts. saw a lot of comments about 'constitutionality'. er, that ship has sailed. checks are being done, just not in every instance. and i'm sure we know who benefits, knowing they can avoid a check and make a purchase.

the law they tried to pass was to help with state reporting of felony criminals, etc, and to change hippa laws in regards to reporting the mentally ill. youi know, the very people who shouldn't be able to buy. but the republicans did a great job in lying and getting people riled up (and then there's the nra), thus assuring a failure.

What is "mentally ill"? Or " Under a physicians care for mental issues?"

A middle-aged man or woman who may be going through a particularly stressful patch in their everyday life (ie. lost a career and/or lost a home due to the economy, lost a parent) who then go to their doctor and are prescribed Ambien or Xanax is technically "Under a physician's care for mental issues".

I don't believe they should be required to forfeit their liberties to give others the false impression of "feeling" "more secure".

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

What is "mentally ill"? Or " Under a physicians care for mental issues?"

A middle-aged man or woman who may be going through a particularly stressful patch in their everyday life (ie. lost a career and/or lost a home due to the economy, lost a parent) who then go to their doctor and are prescribed Ambien or Xanax is technically "Under a physician's care for mental issues".

I don't believe they should be required to forfeit their liberties to give others the false impression of "feeling" "more secure".

i'm talking about people under a physicians care who the physician feels is very much a danger to society, is violent, etc. not talking about someone taking lexapro because they have anxiety or stress and can't sleep well.

[Rudeboyelvis]

A federal database of crazy people? Hmmmm...I think if they want one bad enough they will get one regardless...

I can tell you from first hand experience that I've been required (by the seller) to fill out a background check in two instances; once from an individual and once at a gun sale. Seller's who don't abide by the law need to be held accountable

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

A federal database of crazy people? Hmmmm...I think if they want one bad enough they will get one regardless...

I can tell you from first hand experience that I've been required (by the seller) to fill out a background check in two instances; once from an individual and once at a gun sale. Seller's who don't abide by the law need to be held accountable

i agree.
every gun we've aquired has had a background check done. but there are loopholes, and i'd bet good money who is utilizing those holes.

[GenuineRisk]

The government is not going to pass any laws making gun ownership more restrictive. They're just not. But unfortunately, the NRA is more than happy to stir up people's fears that the government will, because it will sell more guns. Gun ownership is declining in terms of the number of households that own guns, but the number of guns in those households is increasing. Danzig gave a perfect example, when she said she's likely to purchase more, even though she already owns more than she ever thought she would (I'm not saying you're buying out of fear, of course, Danzig, just that you're an example of a household owning more than one firearm, which is a change from a few decades ago).

It's all about moving product, and fear is an exceptionally effective marketing tool.

I wish we could have a conversation about gun violence without it turning into screaming cries of "Freedom!" because, mental health issues aside, there are many, many gun owners who should not be gun owners because they are simply not responsible enough to own one (I have the same feeling about many pet owners). The NY Times ran a piece a few weeks ago about children who die from accidental gun shootings and it was both heartbreaking and head slapping in the careless way these parents and relatives treated their firearms. But even a level-headed conversation is hard because the US gov't froze funds on research into gun violence 20 years ago and even Newtown couldn't change that:

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa...-violence.aspx

The NRA continues to spend a lot of money lobbying against any research into gun violence. What are they so afraid of?

Maybe the findings of the 1993 study that led to the slashing of federal funding:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...99310073291506

[Danzig]

no, we haven't bought one in forever. i think we've won more than we've bought, and then there's the hand me downs, and the ones he inherited from his grandfather. i just know we'll be going to more nwtf events in future, so i have no doubt we will win more guns. all of which go thru a b/g check.

and i agree, it would be nice if we adults could speak with one another as adults, and it not degenerate into 'you're a (insert label here).

it's funny, in a sad way, that just like asking people if they like the rules in the aca (they do), that when you asked people about the individual rules in the latest gun control attempt, they liked them. but, just like obamacare, if you used whatever the name was of the overall bill, they were against it. i guess branding does work.

people won't hand a sharp knife or scissors to a little kid...but many adults sure will hand over a gun without a thought.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The government is not going to pass any laws making gun ownership more restrictive. They're just not. But unfortunately, the NRA is more than happy to stir up people's fears that the government will, because it will sell more guns. Gun ownership is declining in terms of the number of households that own guns, but the number of guns in those households is increasing. Danzig gave a perfect example, when she said she's likely to purchase more, even though she already owns more than she ever thought she would (I'm not saying you're buying out of fear, of course, Danzig, just that you're an example of a household owning more than one firearm, which is a change from a few decades ago).

It's all about moving product, and fear is an exceptionally effective marketing tool.

I wish we could have a conversation about gun violence without it turning into screaming cries of "Freedom!" because, mental health issues aside, there are many, many gun owners who should not be gun owners because they are simply not responsible enough to own one (I have the same feeling about many pet owners). The NY Times ran a piece a few weeks ago about children who die from accidental gun shootings and it was both heartbreaking and head slapping in the careless way these parents and relatives treated their firearms. But even a level-headed conversation is hard because the US gov't froze funds on research into gun violence 20 years ago and even Newtown couldn't change that:

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa...-violence.aspx

The NRA continues to spend a lot of money lobbying against any research into gun violence. What are they so afraid of?

Maybe the findings of the 1993 study that led to the slashing of federal funding:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...99310073291506

I would tend to agree with the majority of this - Namely:

1. The principle issue being irresponsible possession - people that should not have guns are getting them from someone/somewhere that circumvents/violates the background checklist.

2. Which immediately knee-jerks directly into "more laws" against responsible gun ownership.

3. which then immediately knee-jerks into "OMG they are grabbing our guns! Let's buy more before Obama outlaws them!!"

4. Which feeds the lobby and in turn the legislature responsible for the laws in the first place.

Rinse. Repeat.


For the record, I am a staunch Constitutionalist, and I DO NOT support the govt's intervention into any sort of national database of insane people, or serialized gun registration. If the woman in Newtown, who's alleged crazy son grabbed her guns to kill those kids isn't held accountable for her poor judgement which led to her decision to keep firearms within arm's reach of the nutcase - then the whole discussion devolves into meaningless finger-pointing.

Owning a gun is probably the most important decision an American can make; because once you take ownership of that weapon, YOU are responsible for what happens with it. Period.

[Danzig]

regarding a database....
if someone was not a felon, and then they become one, who makes sure they no longer own the guns they had, but aren't allowed to have now? or what if they own a gun, and then a restraining order comes out. if he wanted to buy a gun, would that show up? if so, why not retroactively for the one he could buy when he bought it, but he's banned now?
regarding the mentally ill-if you blackout, go to the doctor, and the doctor can find no reason why you blacked out (which means no treatment, thus you're at risk to blackout again)....he is required to report you to the dmv, and you lose your drivers license for a year. public safety and all that.
so, why can he report, but the psychiatrist treating a guy who is showing signs of severe illness can't? or won't? or he's on meds and quits taking them?
if someone is a stalker, with a history, what does that mean with guns?

and how come the guy who killed his buddy in a hunting 'accident' still owned guns, still hunted, took his kid hunting? but didn't give his 14 year old hunter orange to wear, and then killed his kid-cause he thought the kid was a deer? (i didn't know deer walk upright, amazing feat). how much stupid do you have to put on display before you're not fit to own a firearm?
can a database be used to disarm everyone? yeah. which is why you have rules prohibiting using the database to just go around and confiscate for no good reason. drivers are in a database, dui's come off your mvr after so long, but they still can find that you're a repeat offender.

[dellinger63]

Do you all realize homicides by guns are at their lowest rates since 1981? That in 1993 we had 7 gun homicides per 100K while today the rate is 3.6 per 100K (almost half?).

The gun violence problem is greatly exaggerated by those with a anti-gun stance. If those same people realized in 2010 suicides by gun were almost double homicides by gun it may become clear this is more of a choice issue. Similar to the choice afforded to a mother of an unwanted embryo.

Just wish we could find a way to convince shooters to kill themselves before killing others and many of these mass shootings could be avoided w/o impeding lawful residents with needless/endless regulations.

[dellinger63]

BTW Honduras is on top at 82.1 homicides per 100K.

Some surprising runner ups.

US Virgin Islands 39.2

Puerto Rico 26.2

Jamaica 52.1

Makes the U.S.A. look like a safe haven!

http://www.businessinsider.com/1homi...gin-islands-13

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Do you all realize homicides by guns are at their lowest rates since 1981? That in 1993 we had 7 gun homicides per 100K while today the rate is 3.6 per 100K (almost half?).

The gun violence problem is greatly exaggerated by those with a anti-gun stance. If those same people realized in 2010 suicides by gun were almost double homicides by gun it may become clear this is more of a choice issue. Similar to the choice afforded to a mother of an unwanted embryo.

Just wish we could find a way to convince shooters to kill themselves before killing others and many of these mass shootings could be avoided w/o impeding lawful residents with needless/endless regulations.

The problem with those stats, Dell, which the NY Times article touches on, is that it depends on what the police choose to call a "homicide" and what they call an "accident." Data is only as good as the collection method, and the challenge is that you don't know if the police reported accurately.

Kind of like how "pit bulls," which isn't even an actual dog breed, are listed as the dog in the majority of fatal dog attacks, but the report of the dogs' breed is based on police report or witness identification. And many dogs get misidentified as "pit bulls."

However, unlike guns, dogs actually get banned by cities.

Useless trivia- while "pit bulls" are the dogs at the top of fatal dog attacks, the dogs in the top three spots for dog bites are German Shepherds, Chows and... Golden Retrievers!

Personally, I bet Chihuahuas are actually number one, but people are just too embarrassed to admit they got bitten by a little rat dog.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Owning a gun is probably the most important decision an American can make; because once you take ownership of that weapon, YOU are responsible for what happens with it. Period.

This. I would support laws that hold gun owners responsible for any crime committed by a gun they own, including an accidental shooting and including a gun stolen from them. Give them a grace period to report a weapon stolen (72 hours or whatever), but after that, it's on the owner. I really don't think people start to take responsibility until the risk of not taking responsibility becomes enough of a threat to them. And for those for whom that's too much of a hassle, maybe they'll choose to not own a gun.

Thanks to the constant fear mongering of the media over gun control laws that will never be passed, and turning it into a FREEDUMB issue, I think a lot of people get them as some kind of status thing. Like people who get a thrill out of owning mean dogs, to use the canine analogy again.

My uncle had a lovely collection of hunting rifles, and they were on display... in a locked cabinet, and they were unloaded. I never saw him open the cabinet. He also was a cop, and I have no idea where he kept his revolver because I never, ever, ever saw it. I know first hand it's possible to own guns safely.

Now, if I could also come up with a solution for the a**h*les in Central Park who don't leash their f*cking dogs, I'd be ecstatic.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

However, unlike guns, dogs actually get banned by cities.
.

Except Chicago where until just recently handguns were banned, even in one's own home. The Supreme Court rightfully ruled for plaintiff McDonald over the City however unlike other past civil rights violations, citizens who were violated in this case received no compensation.

[bigrun]

Landsberry coached several youth sports. He also served two tours in Afghanistan with the Nevada National Guard and was well-known in the school community, Sparks Mayor Geno Martini said. Landsberry served in the Marine Corps from 1986 to 1990 and was stationed in Camp Lejeune, N.C., and Okinawa, Japan, according to military records.

Police: Nev. middle school student who killed teacher, himself brought handgun from home..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...2c7_story.html

From the eve news sounds like the kid shooter may have been bullied..

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Except Chicago where until just recently handguns were banned, even in one's own home. The Supreme Court rightfully ruled for plaintiff McDonald over the City however unlike other past civil rights violations, citizens who were violated in this case received no compensation.

And that was a fairly old law, yes? The point is, there are no new gun control laws being passed, yet somehow people are turrified dat Obamma's gunna tek der gunssss....

Speaking of "responsible" gun owners:

http://gawker.com/unsecured-ar-15-st...hom-1450289582

This is the same Congresswoman who said she wasn't refusing her paycheck during the shutdown because she needed it.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And that was a fairly old law, yes? The point is, there are no new gun control laws being passed, yet somehow people are turrified dat Obamma's gunna tek der gunssss.....

It was in place from the '70's to 2010. Actually it was crafted where you needed a license to own a handgun in Chicago yet there was no such thing as a license. Many in Chicago are still trying to work a way around the Supreme Court's decision yet those same people are fighting a mandatory/minimum of 3 years (80% minimum served) law for felony gun use both Sen. Kirk and Rahm Emanuel support that is now being pushed. Still no gun stores in Chicago as they are illegal.

Imagine a city outlawing abortion clinics while allowing abortions, with a background check, as long as it takes place somewhere else?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/us...hots.html?_r=0

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

This. I would support laws that hold gun owners responsible for any crime committed by a gun they own, including an accidental shooting and including a gun stolen from them. Give them a grace period to report a weapon stolen (72 hours or whatever), but after that, it's on the owner. I really don't think people start to take responsibility until the risk of not taking responsibility becomes enough of a threat to them. And for those for whom that's too much of a hassle, maybe they'll choose to not own a gun.

Thanks to the constant fear mongering of the media over gun control laws that will never be passed, and turning it into a FREEDUMB issue, I think a lot of people get them as some kind of status thing. Like people who get a thrill out of owning mean dogs, to use the canine analogy again.

My uncle had a lovely collection of hunting rifles, and they were on display... in a locked cabinet, and they were unloaded. I never saw him open the cabinet. He also was a cop, and I have no idea where he kept his revolver because I never, ever, ever saw it. I know first hand it's possible to own guns safely.

Now, if I could also come up with a solution for the a**h*les in Central Park who don't leash their f*cking dogs, I'd be ecstatic.

i wouldnt want to be held responsible if someone stole my gun and used it. i lock my house, and my guns are stored in a safe. ive taken every precaution....this would be akin to being charged if someone carjacked me and killed someone in a high speed chase.
now, those who knowingly buy a gun for a felon, give to or sell a gun to someone who is banned from buying-by all means, prosecute. but then i doubt anyone fails to report a stolen gun, unless they had it illegally. they want them back after all