We don't need no gun control!

[Buzz123a]

Well, maybe we do: if this lunatic could buy a high-capacity autoloader legally something is pretty seriously wrong, IMO.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ch...-roof-bought-pistol-locally-officials-n380341

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Well, maybe we do: if this lunatic could buy a high-capacity autoloader legally something is pretty seriously wrong, IMO.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ch...-roof-bought-pistol-locally-officials-n380341

I Agee

This is why I said the first step must be to remove the immunity the entire industry enjoys about how these deadly products are distributed and sold. The best way to keep the guns away from nut jobs is to put the industry at risk. This won't solve all the problems but it's a start. I'm surprised all the constitutional conservatives who fret about the second amendment ignore the frequint legislative restrictions on the seventh.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I Agee

This is why I said the first step must be to remove the immunity the entire industry enjoys about how these deadly products are distributed and sold. The best way to keep the guns away from nut jobs is to put the industry at risk. This won't solve all the problems but it's a start. I'm surprised all the constitutional conservatives who fret about the second amendment ignore the frequint legislative restrictions on the seventh.

Gotta say, COH, I've heard you rail about this for years, and I agree 100%. When you're right, you're right. The legal system is there for a reason, and when the legislature interferes with it, bad things usually happen.

 

[Buzz123a]

I Agee

This is why I said the first step must be to remove the immunity the entire industry enjoys about how these deadly products are distributed and sold. The best way to keep the guns away from nut jobs is to put the industry at risk. This won't solve all the problems but it's a start. I'm surprised all the constitutional conservatives who fret about the second amendment ignore the frequint legislative restrictions on the seventh.

I don't disagree that it would be a positive, but I think it would be a little tiny positive in response to a truly monumental problem. There's no way its the best way to keep guns from whacks like Dylann Roof.

 

[Rockfish1]

I don't disagree that it would be a positive, but I think it would be a little tiny positive in response to a truly monumental problem. There's no way its the best way to keep guns from whacks like Dylann Roof.

Australian comedian Jim Jefferies humorously disagrees.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I don't disagree that it would be a positive, but I think it would be a little tiny positive in response to a truly monumental problem. There's no way its the best way to keep guns from whacks like Dylann Roof.

Perhaps not

But the best place to begin to address the problem is at the point of sale. Maybe Roof presented as the all american boy, or maybe he presented as a racist nut job. If the latter, the seller would need to think twice about the sale if there was no immunity.

 

[NPT]

I Agee

This is why I said the first step must be to remove the immunity the entire industry enjoys about how these deadly products are distributed and sold. The best way to keep the guns away from nut jobs is to put the industry at risk. This won't solve all the problems but it's a start. I'm surprised all the constitutional conservatives who fret about the second amendment ignore the frequint legislative restrictions on the seventh.

Why do you think that would make such a big difference.....wouldn't it be hard to prove in court that a gun shouldn't have been sold to a person? People seem to concentrate on guns as the root of all evil when there are many more alcohol related deaths than gun deaths (88,000 deaths/year...see here). I read somewhere that a lot of gun related deaths was because of alcohol use. Having said that I do think you should be required to have an extensive background check before you can buy a gun.

 

[Buzz123a]

Perhaps not

But the best place to begin to address the problem is at the point of sale. Maybe Roof presented as the all american boy, or maybe he presented as a racist nut job. If the latter, the seller would need to think twice about the sale if there was no immunity.

I don't see why, C. The people at the point of sale have a strong interest in selling guns, not much in not selling them, little to no access to any organized data on nut jobs like Roof, and, I strongly suspect, little to no interest in making customers stand around with $$ in their pockets while the go online and explore social media to sort out the nuts from the flakes. This strikes me as another example of completely non-rigorous thinking; you have a hunch this might be good, because of your background as a litigator, but are unable to explain in any kind of detail how or why it would work to keep people like Roof from buying guns designed to kill people efficiently.

 

[Buzz123a]

Why do you think that would make such a big difference.....wouldn't it be hard to prove in court that a gun shouldn't have been sold to a person? People seem to concentrate on guns as the root of all evil when there are many more alcohol related deaths than gun deaths (88,000 deaths/year...see here). I read somewhere that a lot of gun related deaths was because of alcohol use. Having said that I do think you should be required to have an extensive background check before you can buy a gun.

I agree, N: if it were up to me the regulatory regime for buying a handgun would look a lot like the requirement for a CCP in a state where they're serious about it. I wouldn't require a showing of need; the 2d Amendment bars that, IMO, but I'd require a handgun purchaser to demonstrate real knowledge of gun handling, defensive firearm tactics and the law of the use of lethal force, and I'd require a background check that would bar people who present in any substantial way as goofy and potentially dangerous from acquiring handguns. That someone as obviously whacko as Roof, or James Holmes, or Seung-Hui Cho to buy guns is just beyond insane; only America thinks the right of citizens to own handguns is so fundamental that selling them to people who are obviously dangerously crazy is an acceptable price to pay to protect it. Consequently we're the only developed country in which shit like this happens regularly.

 

[Ladoga]

I agree, N: if it were up to me the regulatory regime for buying a handgun would look a lot like the requirement for a CCP in a state where they're serious about it. I wouldn't require a showing of need; the 2d Amendment bars that, IMO, but I'd require a handgun purchaser to demonstrate real knowledge of gun handling, defensive firearm tactics and the law of the use of lethal force, and I'd require a background check that would bar people who present in any substantial way as goofy and potentially dangerous from acquiring handguns. That someone as obviously whacko as Roof, or James Holmes, or Seung-Hui Cho to buy guns is just beyond insane; only America thinks the right of citizens to own handguns is so fundamental that selling them to people who are obviously dangerously crazy is an acceptable price to pay to protect it. Consequently we're the only developed country in which shit like this happens regularly.

I'd agree in large part, however, there is a dearth of public record for those who have not had some sort of adjudication of a mental illness or drug dependency/misuse. There have been too many instances of folks who the entire neighborhood/nation knows are insane but who haven't been found of record to be so. Thus, they can buy legally - as if buying legally was any bar at all to a criminal or lunatic obtaining a weapon illegally. So the hurdle is to get society to go along with open adjudications of the nut jobs and disclosure of information that is currently HIPPA protected. I just doubt our society is prepared to point accusatory fingers at folks like that. We'd rather treat them as victims and cover for them.

 

[ARMZP]

Buzz, You can put all the rules and regs against buying guns you want to. It isn't going to keep guns from people that want them. We have all kinds of regs against selling liquor to minors, and drunk driving etc. How have those worked? Besides, the legal profession (where most of our problems start and are expanded) wouldn't allow that anyway. Violation of rights, discrimination etc etc.

I also agree with background checks. I think it slows down some impulse/anger buying. But I am not silly enough to think it solves much of the problem. You guys are basically blaming arson, on the match makers.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Why do you think that would make such a big difference.....wouldn't it be hard to prove in court that a gun shouldn't have been sold to a person? People seem to concentrate on guns as the root of all evil when there are many more alcohol related deaths than gun deaths (88,000 deaths/year...see here). I read somewhere that a lot of gun related deaths was because of alcohol use. Having said that I do think you should be required to have an extensive background check before you can buy a gun.

I agree, N: if it were up to me the regulatory regime for buying a handgun would look a lot like the requirement for a CCP in a state where they're serious about it. I wouldn't require a showing of need; the 2d Amendment bars that, IMO, but I'd require a handgun purchaser to demonstrate real knowledge of gun handling, defensive firearm tactics and the law of the use of lethal force, and I'd require a background check that would bar people who present in any substantial way as goofy and potentially dangerous from acquiring handguns. That someone as obviously whacko as Roof, or James Holmes, or Seung-Hui Cho to buy guns is just beyond insane; only America thinks the right of citizens to own handguns is so fundamental that selling them to people who are obviously dangerously crazy is an acceptable price to pay to protect it. Consequently we're the only developed country in which shit like this happens regularly.

Of course it depends on the facts.

But as a general rule, the threat of civil liability does change behavior. Liquor liability from over-serving intoxicated customers is one example. In many cases, individual gun sales might not be affected, but there would be some. And the odds go up with such increasingly easy access to individual records. The most important benefit of repealing gun industry immunity, though, is to control the gun-running in cities, which is the most important activity the gun lobby and congress intended to protect.

 

[VanPastorMan]

Well, maybe we do: if this lunatic could buy a high-capacity autoloader legally something is pretty seriously wrong, IMO.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ch...-roof-bought-pistol-locally-officials-n380341

I don't have a problem with mentally ill people being eliminated from gun ownership. But the problem is you have to get around the hipaa laws. Gun stores, flea markets etc would have to be required to sign off that this person is not mentally unstable. As the law works now this would be illegal. As a pastor I have to deal with hipaa a lot in the hospitals. I have to tailor my questions in the right way or I can't find out if my people are in this particular hospital or not.

 

[Buzz123a]

I'd agree in large part, however, there is a dearth of public record for those who have not had some sort of adjudication of a mental illness or drug dependency/misuse. There have been too many instances of folks who the entire neighborhood/nation knows are insane but who haven't been found of record to be so. Thus, they can buy legally - as if buying legally was any bar at all to a criminal or lunatic obtaining a weapon illegally. So the hurdle is to get society to go along with open adjudications of the nut jobs and disclosure of information that is currently HIPPA protected. I just doubt our society is prepared to point accusatory fingers at folks like that. We'd rather treat them as victims and cover for them.

Depends on what you mean by "public," I suppose. If you count social media most of these loonies were on the public record. If the entire neighborhood knows Joe Jackass is way too crazy to be allowed a gun, and we can't figure out how to convert that into Joe Jackass doesn't get to buy a gun, we're even dumber than I think, and I already think America is the most backwards developed country in the world.

And if you look into this you'll find that the vast majority of loony killers, as opposed to career criminals, got their guns legally, either by buying them or by taking them from the mommies or daddies. They're the folks I'm worried about; the career criminals scare me much less than the average cop does these days, but James Holmes scares me more.

And I don't give two shits about the record, or HIPAA; that bullshit doesn't seem to keep the Aussies, the Japanese, the French, and the rest of the developed world from dealing with this problem so as to prevent monthly massacres. Do you really think we can't do as well? If we can, don't you agree that we should?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Buzz, You can put all the rules and regs against buying guns you want to. It isn't going to keep guns from people that want them. We have all kinds of regs against selling liquor to minors, and drunk driving etc. How have those worked? Besides, the legal profession (where most of our problems start and are expanded) wouldn't allow that anyway. Violation of rights, discrimination etc etc.

I also agree with background checks. I think it slows down some impulse/anger buying. But I am not silly enough to think it solves much of the problem. You guys are basically blaming arson, on the match makers.

That's an awful lot of dumb in one post. To start, handguns aren't matches. Unlike guns, matches have plenty of non-dangerous uses. Handguns only exist to shoot people.

Second, why are people so insistent on ignoring other Western countries? If the goal is to dramatically reduce gun violence, other countries have already shown that strict gun control works.

 

[Buzz123a]

Of course it depends on the facts.

But as a general rule, the threat of civil liability does change behavior. Liquor liability from over-serving intoxicated customers is one example. In many cases, individual gun sales might not be affected, but there would be some. And the odds go up with such increasingly easy access to individual records. The most important benefit of repealing gun industry immunity, though, is to control the gun-running in cities, which is the most important activity the gun lobby and congress intended to protect.

If the liability of the booze vendors has had a major impact on drunken idiots driving and killing people I haven't seen much evidence of it, and that's a much easier problem that liability for selling guns to people who shouldn't have been able to buy them.

If the threat of civil liability really affects behavior there must be evidence of that, and you must be in possession of some of it. You should provide it, IMO.

I think your problem, C, is that you tend to assume that the average American is to at least some extent a rational actor. In my experience nothing could be farther from the truth.

I don't even know for sure what "gun-running in cities" is, so I'm unable to respond to your assertion. However, I don't think Dylann Roof got his gun from a gun-runner.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

If the liability of the booze vendors has had a major impact on drunken idiots driving and killing people I haven't seen much evidence of it, and that's a much easier problem that liability for selling guns to people who shouldn't have been able to buy them.

If the threat of civil liability really affects behavior there must be evidence of that, and you must be in possession of some of it. You should provide it, IMO.

I think your problem, C, is that you tend to assume that the average American is to at least some extent a rational actor. In my experience nothing could be farther from the truth.

I don't even know for sure what "gun-running in cities" is, so I'm unable to respond to your assertion. However, I don't think Dylann Roof got his gun from a gun-runner.

Seriously?

Evidence of changed behavior is all over the place. The best way to see this is to walk around public areas in Mexico where the Mexicans instead of tourists hang out. Premises liability risks are everywhere. Not so anywhere the U.S.

I won't defend all of the responses to civil claims because many are overreactions.

Examples:

Warning labels on products
Slip and fall warnings
Fences or tape around any construction site
Impact absorbers on highway maintenance vehicles
Right of way guard rail design
Better bike, motor cycle and athletic helmets.
Jail conditions and police officer training
Professional standards of care
No more 3-wheeled ATV's
And finally: hot beverage warnings.

I could go on but you get the idea.

I explained the gun running issue as it played out in Chicago a few days ago. As I recall you responded by saying I am not being a thinker, not being coherent, or something.

 

[ARMZP]

That's an awful lot of dumb in one post. To start, handguns aren't matches. Unlike guns, matches have plenty of non-dangerous uses. Handguns only exist to shoot people.

Second, why are people so insistent on ignoring other Western countries? If the goal is to dramatically reduce gun violence, other countries have already shown that strict gun control works.

 

[ARMZP]

speaking of dumb. Guns have plenty of uses besides killing people. I get sick and tired of people always talking about other countries. Those people are all wanting to come here, so we must be doing something right.
But speaking of dumb...9 people were killed in a church, and it sets off a stupid discussion about a flag. Which has nothing to do with the real problem. But if we can bash, religion (done) bash a flag (done) bash gun control (done), hell we can ignore or not give any thought to any real solutions.
PTI, back to trying to solve gun violence by banning a flag. Talk about dumb.)

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

speaking of dumb. Guns have plenty of uses besides killing people. I get sick and tired of people always talking about other countries. Those people are all wanting to come here, so we must be doing something right.
But speaking of dumb...9 people were killed in a church, and it sets off a stupid discussion about a flag. Which has nothing to do with the real problem. But if we can bash, religion (done) bash a flag (done) bash gun control (done), hell we can ignore or not give any thought to any real solutions.
PTI, back to trying to solve gun violence by banning a flag. Talk about dumb.)

Deflection.

What purpose does a handgun have other than to shoot people?

 

[ARMZP]

I have one on top of the frig. I haven't shot a single person yet. But I do keep the skunks and groundhogs off the farm. And I can keep the SOB from entering my home.

But I agree. I am not against gun laws. But people have to realize that gun laws themselves, aren't going to stop gun violence. They have to be combine with other sensible changes in society, and nobody is willing to talk about those..

But if we can only get rid of a damn flag...that will do it.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I have one on top of the frig. I haven't shot a single person yet. But I do keep the skunks and groundhogs off the farm. And I can keep the SOB from entering my home.

But I agree. I am not against gun laws. But people have to realize that gun laws themselves, aren't going to stop gun violence. They have to be combine with other sensible changes in society, and nobody is willing to talk about those..

But if we can only get rid of a damn flag...that will do it.

You shoot rodents with a handgun? Successfully?

Remind me not to piss you off.

Of course gun control won't work here the way it works in other countries, simply because we already have too many guns. But the fact is countries that have stricter gun regulations have fewer gun deaths.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

I don't disagree that it would be a positive, but I think it would be a little tiny positive in response to a truly monumental problem. There's no way its the best way to keep guns from whacks like Dylann Roof.

No, but CO is right. It's a start. We have to start somewhere. There's no regulation that works 100%. Do kids under 21 get ahold of alcohol? Yes, but I think as a whole we keep it away from minors pretty well. Do kids under 18 get ahold of cigarettes? Yes, of course. Our regulations on alcohol and tobacco make it difficult, but not impossible for underage people to get them, but they don't interfere with law abiding 18 & 21 year olds getting them. Any regulations on guns, done right, could and should make it difficult for criminals and psychos to get them, while not interfering with law abiding citizens getting them. Will it work 100%? Of course not, nothing does, but we have to do something. Maybe somewhere along the way we'll figure out the best way to do this.

 

[Buzz123a]

Seriously?

Evidence of changed behavior is all over the place. The best way to see this is to walk around public areas in Mexico where the Mexicans instead of tourists hang out. Premises liability risks are everywhere. Not so anywhere the U.S.

I won't defend all of the responses to civil claims because many are overreactions.

Examples:

Warning labels on products
Slip and fall warnings
Fences or tape around any construction site
Impact absorbers on highway maintenance vehicles
Right of way guard rail design
Better bike, motor cycle and athletic helmets.
Jail conditions and police officer training
Professional standards of care
No more 3-wheeled ATV's
And finally: hot beverage warnings.

I could go on but you get the idea.

I explained the gun running issue as it played out in Chicago a few days ago. As I recall you responded by saying I am not being a thinker, not being coherent, or something.

Claiming evidence is all over the place isn't the same as providing it, C.

 

[zeke4ahs]

speaking of dumb. Guns have plenty of uses besides killing people. I get sick and tired of people always talking about other countries. Those people are all wanting to come here, so we must be doing something right.
But speaking of dumb...9 people were killed in a church, and it sets off a stupid discussion about a flag. Which has nothing to do with the real problem. But if we can bash, religion (done) bash a flag (done) bash gun control (done), hell we can ignore or not give any thought to any real solutions.
PTI, back to trying to solve gun violence by banning a flag. Talk about dumb.)

What does people from other countries wanting to come here have to do with anything? The point, obviously, is that most other countries have figured out how to curb gun violence. Why can't we? Partly because other countries don't have the billions of dollars the NRA does to promote making sure that every single person can get their hands on a gun. That seems to be their mantra, regardless of how many innocent victims lose their lives to gun violence.

 

[Buzz123a]

I have one on top of the frig. I haven't shot a single person yet. But I do keep the skunks and groundhogs off the farm. And I can keep the SOB from entering my home.

But I agree. I am not against gun laws. But people have to realize that gun laws themselves, aren't going to stop gun violence. They have to be combine with other sensible changes in society, and nobody is willing to talk about those..

But if we can only get rid of a damn flag...that will do it.

The experience of nearly every other Western and/or developed country refutes your claim, A: the Aussie experience did exactly what you assert it couldn't have done. What's up there, do you suppose?

 

[Buzz123a]

Buzz, You can put all the rules and regs against buying guns you want to. It isn't going to keep guns from people that want them. We have all kinds of regs against selling liquor to minors, and drunk driving etc. How have those worked? Besides, the legal profession (where most of our problems start and are expanded) wouldn't allow that anyway. Violation of rights, discrimination etc etc.

I also agree with background checks. I think it slows down some impulse/anger buying. But I am not silly enough to think it solves much of the problem. You guys are basically blaming arson, on the match makers.

That's nonsense, A: as I note elsewhere, the experiences of a lot of other developed countries are that stricter gun laws do in fact keep people who want guns for antisocial uses from getting them in enough cases to pretty much eliminate the gun violence we see here on a regular and frequent basis.

As far as I know the laws against selling booze to minors work pretty well, and the laws against drunk driving do too. The fact that they don't work 100% of the time is not a good argument for doing nothing.

Whether a strict regime solves much of the problem depends on what problem you're trying to solve. Will any reasonable regime keep guns out of the hands of serious criminals? Probably not, but that's not the problem I'm trying to address. I'm interested in James Holmes (12 dead, 70 wounded), Seung-Hui Cho (32 dead), Adam Lanza (26 dead), George Hennard (23 dead), Michael McClendon (10 dead), and so on and so on and . . .

I've studied these incidents pretty closely, and am satisfied that a stricter regime would have kept many of them from getting guns, or from getting such efficient guns, and thus lowered the death toll.

I'm certainly not blaming arson on people who make lighters. I'm blaming shootings on people who defend the right of whackos to obtain guns. Those two cases don't seem to me to have much in common.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

That's nonsense, A: as I note elsewhere, the experiences of a lot of other developed countries are that stricter gun laws do in fact keep people who want guns for antisocial uses from getting them in enough cases to pretty much eliminate the gun violence we see here on a regular and frequent basis.

As far as I know the laws against selling booze to minors work pretty well, and the laws against drunk driving do too. The fact that they don't work 100% of the time is not a good argument for doing nothing.

Whether a strict regime solves much of the problem depends on what problem you're trying to solve. Will any reasonable regime keep guns out of the hands of serious criminals? Probably not, but that's not the problem I'm trying to address. I'm interested in James Holmes (12 dead, 70 wounded), Seung-Hui Cho (32 dead), Adam Lanza (26 dead), George Hennard (23 dead), Michael McClendon (10 dead), and so on and so on and . . .

I've studied these incidents pretty closely, and am satisfied that a stricter regime would have kept many of them from getting guns, or from getting such efficient guns, and thus lowered the death toll.

I'm certainly not blaming arson on people who make lighters. I'm blaming shootings on people who defend the right of whackos to obtain guns. Those two cases don't seem to me to have much in common.

I've paid pretty close attention to the gun debate, Buzz

And I am fairly certain that nobody has defended the right of whackos to obtain guns. That is one area of the debate that is close to unanimity. Of course the question really is how do we find the whackos and separate them fom everybody else; and, how do we find those who are not whackos now but will be?

BTW, I don't like Heller anymore than you would, but given Heller, what is your solution to thie problem?

 

[NPT]

That's an awful lot of dumb in one post. To start, handguns aren't matches. Unlike guns, matches have plenty of non-dangerous uses. Handguns only exist to shoot people.
.

Your same sentence could be used to describe this post. I've shot a handgun all my life and have never pointed at a person or never have been tempted to. Handguns are no different from alcohol (which I never use).. either can be used for good purposes or bad purposes. Why do you drink....probably because you like it. That is the same reason I shoot handguns...I like to shoot at targets to see how good I can do. I would guess that 99% of the bullets that come out of handguns are never intended to kill anything so your statement about handguns existing only to shoot people is outlandish.

 

[Buzz123a]

I've paid pretty close attention to the gun debate, Buzz

And I am fairly certain that nobody has defended the right of whackos to obtain guns. That is one area of the debate that is close to unanimity. Of course the question really is how do we find the whackos and separate them fom everybody else; and, how do we find those who are not whackos now but will be?

BTW, I don't like Heller anymore than you would, but given Heller, what is your solution to thie problem?

You're not paying attention, C: Wayne LaPierre and the extremist NRA in practice defend the right of all Americans to own all the guns they want: they make some of the right noises in public, though not often, but they still assert that the answer to bad guys with guns is good guys with guns, they never saw a gun control measure they actually liked. As to keeping guns from whackos, the active issue is how we identify whackos, and the NRA consistently advocates for a very narrow definition, which effectively eviscerates any attempt to keep James Holmes et al. from shooting at the rest of us.

I personally don't give two shits for Heller, or for the conservative bloc on the current USSC, a couple of members of which I suspect of being clinically insane, and at least two of being clinically brain-dead. The truth is this: at the time of adoption of the BofR, and well into the 1800s gun control was a common feature of the American landscape, and the 2d leaves a lot of room for stringent requirements. That we don't regulate transfer and ownership of guns, particularly those expressly designed for killing people, in the same way as the rest of the developed world suggests that we're the most backward nation in it. Discussion of what Heller held, in light of what Dylann Roof did, is just obscenely stupid.

 

[Buzz123a]

Your same sentence could be used to describe this post. I've shot a handgun all my life and have never pointed at a person or never have been tempted to. Handguns are no different from alcohol (which I never use).. either can be used for good purposes or bad purposes. Why do you drink....probably because you like it. That is the same reason I shoot handguns...I like to shoot at targets to see how good I can do. I would guess that 99% of the bullets that come out of handguns are never intended to kill anything so your statement about handguns existing only to shoot people is outlandish.

Its not, N: I have the same experience with shooting that you do, and a collection of handguns that currently approaches double figures, but Goat is right here. My bedside gun is a Beretta PX4 compact, my TV room gun is a S&W M&P compact in .45ACP, and my car/carry gun is a Walther PPX. All are defense weapons, specifically designed to kill people efficiently and in large numbers if necessary, and the fact that you can shoot for fun with them doesn't change that. I selected them precisely because if I ever have to pick one up and defend myself or SWMBO they're better choices than a Colt Peacemaker.

The number of rounds fired through Glocks, other high-capacity autoloaders, defense-oriented shotguns and assault rifle replicas which aren't aimed at people is irrelevant; what they were designed to do and how well they do it, especially in the hands of folks like James Holmes, is.

 

[zeke4ahs]

I've paid pretty close attention to the gun debate, Buzz

And I am fairly certain that nobody has defended the right of whackos to obtain guns. That is one area of the debate that is close to unanimity. Of course the question really is how do we find the whackos and separate them fom everybody else; and, how do we find those who are not whackos now but will be?

BTW, I don't like Heller anymore than you would, but given Heller, what is your solution to thie problem?

I know over 90% of the public polled for stricter background checks! yet even that couldn't get through congress. I realize it's tricky with Hipaa laws, but we have to figure out a way to get it done. And we need to get the public to pay more attention. I think most people would turn in someone they felt like was an Isis supporter with a gun. We need a public awareness campaign that gets people to understand it's part of their responsibility to turn in someone with mental issues that has access to a weapon.

 

[Ladoga]

Depends on what you mean by "public," I suppose. If you count social media most of these loonies were on the public record. If the entire neighborhood knows Joe Jackass is way too crazy to be allowed a gun, and we can't figure out how to convert that into Joe Jackass doesn't get to buy a gun, we're even dumber than I think, and I already think America is the most backwards developed country in the world.

And if you look into this you'll find that the vast majority of loony killers, as opposed to career criminals, got their guns legally, either by buying them or by taking them from the mommies or daddies. They're the folks I'm worried about; the career criminals scare me much less than the average cop does these days, but James Holmes scares me more.

And I don't give two shits about the record, or HIPAA; that bullshit doesn't seem to keep the Aussies, the Japanese, the French, and the rest of the developed world from dealing with this problem so as to prevent monthly massacres. Do you really think we can't do as well? If we can, don't you agree that we should?

What I mean by "public" is a record of adjudicated mental illness that a background check would reveal thereby prohibiting sale of a weapon to a person. No one wants to address the fact that we have lots of really mentally ill people walking around amidst a huge number of people who are aware of the problems, but no one has had them before a court to make a record that is public. A background check, as required, does not reveal a record of mental illness unless it is in an accessible public record. Now why you don't know that is a mystery because you know everything - or make it up if you don't which is most of the time.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You're not paying attention, C: Wayne LaPierre and the extremist NRA in practice defend the right of all Americans to own all the guns they want: they make some of the right noises in public, though not often, but they still assert that the answer to bad guys with guns is good guys with guns, they never saw a gun control measure they actually liked. As to keeping guns from whackos, the active issue is how we identify whackos, and the NRA consistently advocates for a very narrow definition, which effectively eviscerates any attempt to keep James Holmes et al. from shooting at the rest of us.

I personally don't give two shits for Heller, or for the conservative bloc on the current USSC, a couple of members of which I suspect of being clinically insane, and at least two of being clinically brain-dead. The truth is this: at the time of adoption of the BofR, and well into the 1800s gun control was a common feature of the American landscape, and the 2d leaves a lot of room for stringent requirements. That we don't regulate transfer and ownership of guns, particularly those expressly designed for killing people, in the same way as the rest of the developed world suggests that we're the most backward nation in it. Discussion of what Heller held, in light of what Dylann Roof did, is just obscenely stupid.

You said you "know" me,

So you obviously know that I am in favor of more gun control.

You are correct that we need stronger measures to regulate the sale and transfer of guns. I made one easily adopted suggestion. I consider you to be a gun nut. I also consider you to be a little unhinged in your views of certain groups of people. The question for you to address is what kind of background check will separate you from Dylann Roof where you would be allowed to buy guns but not Roof.

All your bravado and bluster about brain dead and ignorant conservatives doesn't cut it.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I know over 90% of the public polled for stricter background checks! yet even that couldn't get through congress. I realize it's tricky with Hipaa laws, but we have to figure out a way to get it done. And we need to get the public to pay more attention. I think most people would turn in someone they felt like was an Isis supporter with a gun. We need a public awareness campaign that gets people to understand it's part of their responsibility to turn in someone with mental issues that has access to a weapon.

Well we had a lot of "awareness" about

Nidal Hasan and nobody turned him in. And Hasan was even subject to some measure of command and control that the rest of us are not.

I don't know what you mean by "turn in" anyway. If you knew Dylann Roof was a racist and owned a gun, what would you do? There are probably 100's of thousands, if not millions, of people who own guns and own a Rebel flag. Do you turn them all in?

 

[zeke4ahs]

Well we had a lot of "awareness" about

Nidal Hasan and nobody turned him in. And Hasan was even subject to some measure of command and control that the rest of us are not.

I don't know what you mean by "turn in" anyway. If you knew Dylann Roof was a racist and owned a gun, what would you do? There are probably 100's of thousands, if not millions, of people who own guns and own a Rebel flag. Do you turn them all in?

Obviously, by turn in I mean let the police know. And again, common sense tells you you can't turn in everyone that has a rebel flag and has a gun. However, Dylann had been making violent threats and had plenty of warning signs. My guess we will learn of many more. So someone like him, yes, I'd definitely turn in that info to the police. In addition to that he had drug issues, so you can add that to the lethal combination of mental issues and guns.

 

[Ladoga]

Obviously, by turn in I mean let the police know. And again, common sense tells you you can't turn in everyone that has a rebel flag and has a gun. However, Dylann had been making violent threats and had plenty of warning signs. My guess we will learn of many more. So someone like him, yes, I'd definitely turn in that info to the police. In addition to that he had drug issues, so you can add that to the lethal combination of mental issues and guns.

And having "turned them in" there still would not be a record available in a background check that would disqualify Roof from purchasing. There might be a police report, might and perhaps even an investigation regarding your complaint to police, but he has to have a felony conviction or adjudication of mental incompetency - different names in different states. So, the turning in of a person you decide shouldn't have a gun would not prevent that person from passing a background check. So, would you change the law to prohibit the sale of a weapon to anyone who you had "turned in"?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Obviously, by turn in I mean let the police know. And again, common sense tells you you can't turn in everyone that has a rebel flag and has a gun. However, Dylann had been making violent threats and had plenty of warning signs. My guess we will learn of many more. So someone like him, yes, I'd definitely turn in that info to the police. In addition to that he had drug issues, so you can add that to the lethal combination of mental issues and guns.

Maybe you want to live in a country where people can be turned in for that

But what you described Roof did was not illegal except for the drug issues which the law dealt with. Don't get me wrong, I want to control the Dylann Roof's of the world as much as you do, but we aren't talking about Dylann Roof here, we are talking about giving the cops license to respond to people calling about you and me. For months you and people like DeBlasio have been talking about reigning in cop activity, now you want them more active?

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Maybe you want to live in a country where people can be turned in for that

But what you described Roof did was not illegal except for the drug issues which the law dealt with. Don't get me wrong, I want to control the Dylann Roof's of the world as much as you do, but we aren't talking about Dylann Roof here, we are talking about giving the cops license to respond to people calling about you and me. For months you and people like DeBlasio have been talking about reigning in cop activity, now you want them more active?

I think they were talking about reigning in all the excessive force and not all "activity".

 

[zeke4ahs]

Maybe you want to live in a country where people can be turned in for that

But what you described Roof did was not illegal except for the drug issues which the law dealt with. Don't get me wrong, I want to control the Dylann Roof's of the world as much as you do, but we aren't talking about Dylann Roof here, we are talking about giving the cops license to respond to people calling about you and me. For months you and people like DeBlasio have been talking about reigning in cop activity, now you want them more active?

Well, I don't think he should be killed, but I think he should have big questioned. Big difference.