boulder shooter , middle eastern decent
- Thread starter kurt cloverdales
- Start date
Thought I saw where either his brother or sister said the guy was totally paranoid. Like a full on paranoid schizophrenic. I wonder how he was able to purchase a firearm, unless he stole it.
There's nothing "decent" about this guy. (It's "descent").
If this follows suit of many other mass shootings, he either had easy access to it in his house or a family member's house or he bought it at a gun show.
Stating the obvious here, but I wish there were meaningful gun laws that prevented someone like this from getting a gun - or at least punishing the people who paved the way to his mind-numbingly easy access to it - but there won't be any laws like that anytime soon.
No serious politician/legislator has ever seriously proposed legislation that would ban all gun ownership in this country, but you wouldn't know it by the gun lobby's reaction and those that parrot their talking points. Essentially their response to a mass shooting is that it sucks to be those guys, but let's not talk about how we prevent this in the future lest they won't be able to fend off all the criminals laying in wait just outside their cul-de-sac or keep the US government from rounding them up and put them in internment camps. Yeah, that line of reasoning is batshit crazy and paranoid, but it's essentially where the gun debate begins and ends.
I know a number of really responsible gun guys. Old military guys. Big fancy gun safes blah blah. They love their guns. Ar15s all of em. And I don’t know anything about gun laws but I’d be curious from those that do - what if they required a license to buy certain guns. A super expensive license. $10k or something. I would think serious collectors would pay it and it would deter sales to those wanting to kill
It would never fly. The NRA and 2A folks would go ape shit over that kind of license fee. To them, that’s a direct violation of their rights. Look at all the states currently moving to constitutional carry.
Their numbers have to be on the decline. All the guys I know who love guns and collect are north of 70
I don’t think that’s correct. Gun sales have been through the roof since Biden’s election. So scared they are.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
The plan should be:
- Government tries to buy back for high figure: ~$10k
- Those that wish to keep it at home need bonafide safety reason to do so (eg ranchers, farmers, live near predatory wildlife, etc)
- All others can keep but has to be at a gun range like golfers keep their clubs at a country club
I like the gov buy back. Amnesty day. No questions asked. Turn it in get $10k
Fearing violence and political uncertainty, Americans are buying millions more firearms
More than 2 million guns were sold in January, an 80% jump and the third-highest monthly total on record.
When the riots were going on here I know many people who bought guns. Wives. Then what you cited with the capitol shit. Good time to be in the gun biz
Prior experience with buy back taught us that it was a trade in program. The owners would turn in a POS gun and use the dough to buy a better one.
The Democrats are as hopeless about gun control as they are about most issues. All I’ve heard heard in the last 24 hours from the Democrats is more background checks and more hurdles to legal gun ownership. All of that is typical governmental thinking that heaping on more regulations will solve a problem.
No!
The AR 15 and its insanely destructive high velocity ammo is an unreasonably and ultra-hazardous product that has no business in the stream of commerce. The way to address that is to repeal immunity and turn the trial lawyers lose on that product. The singular political response to gun violence should be to repeal immunity not to pile on more useless red tape.
However, there might be good news on the immunity front. Sandy Hook survivors have sued Remington and their clever trial lawyers are attempting to chisel out an exception to immunity. So far so good. SCOTUS has denied cert on the case that allows the case to go forward. Still a tough row to hoe, and a plaintif’s verdict will bring another appeal. Years of litigation are assured. But there is hope.
see.
that's a shit show. last i saw it was stayed for remington's bankruptcy. the smith & wesson suit involving the synagogue will pop first
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Maybe. There will be months and years of motion practice before discovery starts.
I think if the political class makes a big mistake by not mobilizing public opinion against immunity.
I could probably be talked into this but I'm skeptical that the powers to be would be satisfied with this as the end game.
You're going to have nerds writing policy that couldn't tell us the difference between a 12 gauge and a .308.
Lifting immunity only for the AR15 and guns of that nature? Lifting Immunity for what specifically?
no difference for those on the receiving end.
the daily death toll is a much bigger problem than mass shootings.
and for those saying banning guns and ammo won't remove what's already out there, that's totally irrelevant.
the day they are banned, gun deaths plummet starting the next day, and continue down with each passing week, month, yr, and decade.
once banned, those already holding will want to keep what they have, and the only way to do that will be to keep them out of sight, out of reach, out of earshot.
That was kinda my question. I haven't researched what CoH is discussing but at first glance i would be concerned with access for "elites" and not "peasants". My thinking here is that this would cause enormous price increases.
But I could be way off base.
Immunity means they can’t be held liable in civil negligence suits. I just wonder if the immunity he contemplates lifting is specific to certain guns
All of it. The industry should also not be immune from retail practices directly related to black market sales. The industry should be exposed to the OxyContin-type litigation. This would also address gun show loopholes.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
So if I'm reading this right...and there's a good chance I'm not...wouldn't this lead to increased firearm pricing?
Oh yeah. And insurance will skyrocket; if they can even get anyone to write it
Last edited:
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
what good would that do? just pocket 9k and go buy another one for 1k, you can make a automatic rifle with a 3d printer, everyone knows its a problem but nobody wants to do anything about it
Yes. The industry will pass the costs of increase risks on to the consumer. It might also cause some products, like the AR 15, from being sold at all. I think it will also cause the industry to be much more careful about who is buying guns thus obviating the need for more regs. For example, if a gun shop owner knew he could be responsible for selling to a nut-job, he might not make the sale. If the Boulder shooter was as crazy as they say, he might not have been able to buy a semi-auto.
Hell I don't even see acquisition cost anymore. My occupation is a shadow of what it used to be. In 2012, I could've given you all the numbers. Now I see cost only if the customer asks me about it.
