And so it begins...again (gun control)

They use to have a program where kids & others could turn in guns for a gift certifacate from footlocker I did 30 days just trying to give it to them because they had a rode block about 5 or 10 miles from the site so all you can do is keep you eyes open for weirdos people will always get killed by what ever means

Yeah, I knew as soon as this happened there would be a clamor for gun control. No, just 10 round clips. And it's tragic that it would happen. But it's worth noting that there are relatively few instances of legally purchased guns being used in crimes of violence. What percentage? Do you have statistics to cite or are you just speculating? If only a few instances of people getting killed with legally purchased gun doesn't bother you, and you do nothing to correct the problem, then you can expect more of the same in the future.
Someone, I think MuffRider, mentioned concealed carry. People with CC permits are usually even safer. They have further background checks, training and are subject to MUCH stiffer penalties if they carry into unauthorized areas. Most of the training consists of making sure you know all the places you CAN'T carry like schools, churches, hospitals, government buildings, political rallies and bars. Restaurants you can (unless they have a sign posted). But what if they serve alcohol. Is it a bar or a restaurant? That'd be up to the DA to decide after you're arrested.

Anyway, I've always wondered why guns are such a hot topic. ...because people get killed in violent mass murders with them... I mean we live in a country where EVERY 16 y.o. (14 or 15 in many states) only have to read a small booklet and not kill the grader on the 5 minute driving test and you get a license for life unless you REALLY mess up. More people are killed by legally-owned cars than legally-owned guns. Cars and guns aren't the same thing. But maybe you're saying that you'd like to pay property taxes on your guns and have to renew your license every few years. That sounds like gun control. Why do you hate America? But there's no cry to make it more difficult or expensive to own cars. But there have been calls for higher fuel taxes to pressure people to buy more fuels efficient vehicles and pay for infrastructure improvements. If you're going to compare guns to cars then you should compare ammo to gasoline and high capacity clips to oversized fuel tanks, no? If you get stopped without a license on expired tags you will detained briefly, pay some fines and be back driving in no time. Get caught carrying without a permit with an illegally registered gun and you're going to prison. That's because a handgun is used for shooting people and a car is used to take your butt to McDonalds for junk food. A car can also be used for about a million other things, but a handgun can't. You either shoot people, practice shooting people, or carry it around in case you might have to shoot people. And handguns with high capacity clips are what this discussion is about. That was what was used in the attack, not a single barrel bird hunting shotgun. So don't get sidetracked into hunting guns.

Look, there will always be violence. Yes. There will always be violence. But we shouldn't make it absurdly easy. Taking guns won't stop lunatics from getting them. How do you propose to stop the next violent mass murder if you acquiesce to the idea that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" and give up on the idea of taking guns from those people?
If you could magically make all the guns in the world disappear today they'd still use rocks, knives or whatever else they can get their hands on. Yes, and that would make it much more difficult and slower to mass murder innocent people. In the Tucson attacks, let's replace the attackers weapon with the next best thing; a knife. Explain to me how he could have racked up the same body count. Violence has been around since Cain slew Able and isn't going any where soon. That never happened, btw. We need to do what we can to keep ILLEGAL guns out of the hands of thugs, gang members and dangerous felons. Didn't you just give up on that idea earlier in this paragraph? BTW it's illegal for them to own guns already, but I'm pretty sure most gang bangers are packing. 15 yo gang bangers are packing. The "law" didn't exactly stop them from getting it. That doesn't sound like a solution to the Tucson shooting. The attacker wasn't a felon, and his weapons were legal. So, I ask you again; How do you prevent an attack identical to the Tucson attack from happening again?

Someone asked a very telling question earlier in asking what might have been if someone could have shot the nutjob before he got to his 2nd victim. What about disarming him before he got to his first victim? That sound better, doesn't it? You know that the guy (Zamudio) that ran up to help almost shot the wrong guy, right? He almost shot the guy that was the first person to disarm the attacker. I bet you didn't hear about THAT guy and his mad skillz with a folding chair, did ya? To me THAT is the question. And I'd be willing to bet the answer is because it's illegal to carry a gun to a political event. In Arizona? I don't think so. Prove me wrong. So those law-abiding citizens who had legal carry permits were not allowed to bring them for fear of going to prison. Zamudio! Zamudio! ZAMUDIO! But that's an argument I bet you won't hear on CNN......because it's pure horseshit. Originally Posted by Sens55

"Whether or not there's some measure there in terms of limiting the size of the magazine that you can buy to go with a semiautomatic weapon — we’ve had that in place before. Maybe it’s appropriate to re-establish that kind of thing, but I think you do have to be careful obviously," Cheney told NBC's Jamie Gangel, national correspondent for "TODAY."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540...53709#41153709

Click the video. Mitch Daniels is going to be your Republican presidential candidate in 2012, BTW.

I don't have time to address every point, and it's worthless to do so. You mentioned "high-capacity" clips. High capacity clips are used in weapons that don't have much stopping power, like 9mm or below. Trust me, a well-trained person with an 8+1 .45 would do a lot more damage. I don't know where you got the idea this was "all about high capacity clips" because it's not.

I never mentioned hunting. I mentioned cars. And cars kill more people than guns, intentionally or unintentionally. Dead is dead. So yes, you can compare them because cars are inherently more dangerous then guns on total death/capita ratio. Oh, and do I have the statistics on legally purchased guns...not handily, but they're available. NRA definitely has them, but I doubt you'd give that much credence. I don't have time to look them up for you, but I've seen them. Many times. And, again, there have been stories of people using cars to run down people, cops and others (Waffle house in Killeen, TX comes to mind) and again, people look at the guy and go "What an idiot". But no one put in legislation to make it so more crazies with cars can't run them through a public facility. For that instance everyone realized it was the individual, not the car. Same with guns. You make a point about "killing people". Hey, I enjoy target practice. It requires skill and concentration. There are entire skill shooting events that have NOTHING to do with killing. And for the vast majority of people, yes, we carry in case we do need to shoot someone...but if you're breaking into my house or trying to jack my car or rape my wife, you've got it coming. And if you're the one getting pistol whipped or shot at, you might appreciate a good guy carrying that can protect you. Trust me, the police sure can't do it. It's not their job, even though people think it is. It's OUR job to protect ourselves.

"Insanely easy" to get a gun? Not quite. It's not horrific, but it's still a major pain in the ass, takes time, money and a clean record. Sure, you can buy from someone without records, but that goes with anything. But someone, somewhere had to buy it as an original purchase. How do I propose to stop it? Arm more good guys. Not everyone. People who can pass the background checks, drug tests and training. You should have nothing to fear of decent, law-abiding citizens being armed. Once upon a time, everyone was. Look up the Dalton Gang in Coffeeville, KS. They learned what a well-armed populace can do when need be.

And you keep asking, "how do you stop it". You can't. Get real. There will always be people that will find ways to do major harm to others. Especially unstable people. Laws won't stop it. In fact, most laws now are barely enforceable. Right now you have to be 21 to own a handgun. You can't be a criminal. You can't be a felon. You can't have any warrants or restraining orders. But I promise you most gang bangers carry. What makes you think making a "less than 10 round clip" law will stop them? My point would be have more armed people and drop the dude after the first few shots.


\http://www.azdps.gov/Services/Concea.../Questions/#32
Here's the link about carrying. And it's not horseshit. You just refuse to believe it. There's a difference.

Feel free to respond again. I won't. You can say whatever you want. But I know what I believe. And I've lived in areas around the world where the main populace is unarmed by law and regular people become victims to the gangs because they have no way to defend themselves and the police are unwilling or unable to stop the criminals. I will not live like that. I will protect my family and my self. And there's nothing you will ever say that will make me change my mind. I firmly believe I have a right (and in a way, an obligation) to protect my family in the way I see fit. You have nothing to fear from me unless you jeopardize my family's safety. And then, with my legally-owned, registered .45 I will make sure my reasonably well-trained, law-abiding self will not miss.

LM I do think its important that we address some issues but these issues need to be focused on the background checks. When you apply for a weapon purchase the FBI needs to be able to get access to mental health records. It does not have to be full access, but with medical records now being required to be kept electonically, the individuals record could be flagged if they seek treatment for certain mental health illness, this would not mean the individual would be turned down, but would require the FBI to do further inquery into the individuals mental health history so that a determination of their fitness to purchase can be made, if there is no mental health flag then the individual is granted a purchase. It is easy to look at the hi capasity magazine as the issue, but the reality is most people with average familiarity can change out a mag in a matter of seconds, and return to firing the weapon. The brady bill banned hi capacity magazines for 10 years. Weapons were limited to 10 round magazines. The FBI statistics showed that violent crime did not drop so it has been shown that this measure, while it may make people feel good and feel like they have done something, does not reduce violent crime. We need to do a better job preventing those whom should not have weapons from getting them, if this means we have to allowed limited access to mental health records, then we need to do that.

This is my weapon, this is my gun. One is for shooting the other for fun.

Keep your hands off my junk!

LM I do think its important that we address some issues but these issues need to be focused on the background checks. When you apply for a weapon purchase the FBI needs to be able to get access to mental health records. It does not have to be full access, but with medical records now being required to be kept electonically, the individuals record could be flagged if they seek treatment for certain mental health illness, this would not mean the individual would be turned down, but would require the FBI to do further inquery into the individuals mental health history so that a determination of their fitness to purchase can be made, if there is no mental health flag then the individual is granted a purchase. It is easy to look at the hi capasity magazine as the issue, but the reality is most people with average familiarity can change out a mag in a matter of seconds, and return to firing the weapon. The brady bill banned hi capacity magazines for 10 years. Weapons were limited to 10 round magazines. The FBI statistics showed that violent crime did not drop so it has been shown that this measure, while it may make people feel good and feel like they have done something, does not reduce violent crime. We need to do a better job preventing those whom should not have weapons from getting them, if this means we have to allowed limited access to mental health records, then we need to do that. Originally Posted by dirty dog

DD you really bring up a good point and one that I agree with. Now someone said that there are certain things that one cannot have to get a CC permit. I know more than a couple of people that did get there CC permit while they had warrants out on them. This was in KCMO so with that being said it appears that the background check did not do its job. One of my ex-friends that now has a CC permit should not be allowed to handle any weapon let alone a fire arm. She has anger issues. a very mean drunk, and likes to start fights. Once she got her CC permit and started carrying anywhere and everywhere that she could I no longer felt safe around her and needless to say she is not a friend anymore.

The thing I would like to know is how is control defined? I mean I do not think that making guns illegal is a good idea but I do think some things need to change. Police officers go through proper gun training (at least that is my understanding) so why not the rest of us? I know that the police are suppose to be trained to protect us and all but when it comes to gun safety why hold them to a higher standard than the rest of us that want to own a gun?

Mya,

Your questions are outstanding and worth thinking about. Most people view "control" as creating legislation. But in reality there are many gun laws already on the books that, if enforced, would eliminate a lot of the gun violence in America. BUT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE THE LAWS WE HAVE!

Think about it guys. We are on THIS board. Doing what we do. And we all know what side of the ledger this activity falls under. And yet it exists and has ALWAYS existed. Same for drugs. Same for speeding. Same for robbery. Making laws doesn't prevent anything. It only creates a standard for punishment IF you get caught. Making more laws will not keep gangsters, thugs and crazies from getting guns. It won't. Period. If it did, then stiffer drug laws would stop drug usage....oh, wait, we saw how that turned out didn't we?

I do not condone violence and when idiots misuse weapons I finding it appalling like everyone else. But I probably get madder than most because I know that it opens the door for more gun control crazies to try to take away my rights. And, hey, if I truly believed making stiffer laws would prevent needless violence, I'd be for it. But I just don't see how that will happen. If you outlawed guns it'd only put more money in the Mexican Cartels to run more guns than they already do over our border. And history has shown that disarming a populace leads to much more violence on a grander scale than one asshole shooting 10 people. Look at Hitler, Stalin and many other despots throughout history. They were able to do what they did, in part, because no one could stop them. Only the police and military had weapons, and once they were no longer on the side of the people, the people had no choice but to flee or follow.

DD you really bring up a good point and one that I agree with. Now someone said that there are certain things that one cannot have to get a CC permit. I know more than a couple of people that did get there CC permit while they had warrants out on them. This was in KCMO so with that being said it appears that the background check did not do its job. One of my ex-friends that now has a CC permit should not be allowed to handle any weapon let alone a fire arm. She has anger issues. a very mean drunk, and likes to start fights. Once she got her CC permit and started carrying anywhere and everywhere that she could I no longer felt safe around her and needless to say she is not a friend anymore.

The thing I would like to know is how is control defined? I mean I do not think that making guns illegal is a good idea but I do think some things need to change. Police officers go through proper gun training (at least that is my understanding) so why not the rest of us? I know that the police are suppose to be trained to protect us and all but when it comes to gun safety why hold them to a higher standard than the rest of us that want to own a gun? Originally Posted by Miss_Mya

I personally have no problem with requiring all gun owners to complete a firearms training course. If you have a ccw you should already have recieved this training. But the scary thing about this is that it would have made the problem in AZ worse because a highly trained individual would have done more damage with the weapon than the doush bag did. Training does not eliminate mental health issues. It could make them a more dangerous crazy person. As to your friend, if she is stopped while drunk even if walking down the sidewalk and she is carrying a firearm she will be charged and if convicted will lose her right to own a weapon. Does this mean that she wont hurt someone before that happens, no it doesnt, but I suspect that more training will not stop her either. I wish there was an easy answer, but their isn't.

You are right DD there are no easy answers to this and many other questions. Many answers bring about more questions and to whether or not the answer would work. No system or law is ever perfect and as Sens55 said the true enforcement of the laws that are in place is extremely difficult to do and not to get to much of the subject when it comes to certain areas of the country many police forces have been drastically cut making harder to enforce those laws that are already there to protect us.

What I find truly amazing is the fact that (for the most part) we as a community can discuss something like this in more or less a civilized manor but the powers that be (the ones elected) can't do the same.

I don't like coming into this section anymore (too many freakin idiots to count) but I saw that Mya was asking questions. You ask about control; I've had a CCW in CT, FL, LA, and KS. There is training to handle yourself; hitting the target, when to shoot and when you can't shoot, and what to do afterwords but in a couple of states they had a special question regarding control. In CT you sit down with a Lieutenant and he asks you some hypotheticals. The major point in that town was "will you shoot when the situation warrants it?" The CT police don't want to give a permit to someone who wants to wave a weapon around and then allows some SOB to take it from them because they are afraid to the job. In Arizona there were a couple of CCW holders in the crowd but they held their fire. I don't believe either one of them unholstered their weapon. One has admitted that he had the wrong person chosen as the shooter. As for the police a FBI report from the 90s stated the civilians were about 5 % more likely to shoot the right person than the police. I have no reason to suspect that has changed any. There was some college research in a psych class a while back; a group of about 30 were assembled and asked if you were trapped in an isolated location with 29 other people from completely random backgrounds, skills, and socialization. You have a choice that only person has a gun or everyone has a gun. The person who gets the gun will be randomly chosen. So that one person could be a priest or a murderer. The vast majority chose that everyone have a weapon. I recall that most would have chosen that there be no weapons but that choice was not allowed just like in real life. The United States has a vibrant life style which can be violent at times. Unlike most other societies in the world we were not trained to submit to an elite caste. Millions of people quietly marched into the camps in Germany in World War II, millions more quietly allowed themselves to be starved and brutalized in the Soviet Union and communist China. In Africa the losers submitted to slavery and genocide as they did in Asia. In the US we fight about everything. Sometimes its very serious and sometimes its frivolous but that is our nature. Another value that we in the US hold is to defend the underdog and the helpless. I am always proud when I see our soldiers defending children with their lives in war zones and I always am appalled when some few attack our soldiers humanity. This has always been a hallmark of the left though. Back at the turn of the century (1901) anarchist/socialist Emma Goldman constantly wrote about the inhumanity of all soldiers. Her words were quoted during Vietnam by people like Jane Fonda...I'm getting off topic here.
All the dictatorships in the world have believed in confiscation of guns and denial of their use by the common citizen.

WHat the fuck does this have to do with anything MYA asked, which you pointed out was your only reason for coming to the sandbox, other than another platform for you to beat your chest. Mya never advocated getting rid of guns so why more of your there coming to get us bullshit. You know Galt I think me and you need to get together for a beer, somewhere nice and quite and isolated.

Judas effin Priest! Galt you almost made a point. A completely off the topic, random point, but you almost made one. Then you have to jump in and blame the "Left" for something. Well I call BS on that. Soldiering requires killing. Ultimately, that leads to inhumanity. Thats why soldiers get PTSD, having to deal with that inhumanity and what it made them become. Jane Fonda is and was an ass. Used to be a fine one, but still, an ASS. No one cares about her, she doesn't represent the "Left", me or any other liberal or progressive that I know. Get off it. For once just make your point and get out of the reply box.

I don't have time to address every point, and it's worthless to do so. You mentioned "high-capacity" clips. High capacity clips are used in weapons that don't have much stopping power, like 9mm or below. Trust me, a well-trained person with an 8+1 .45 would do a lot more damage. Explain how you could kill 6 and injure 14 with only 9 bullets, genius. I don't know where you got the idea this was "all about high capacity clips" because it's not. Yes, it is. The shooter was not able to change clips. His killing spree ended when his clip was empty, and he was tackled by an unarmed man. Ok...he had a chair, but why quibble?

I never mentioned hunting. I mentioned cars. And cars kill more people than guns, intentionally or unintentionally. Dead is dead. So yes, you can compare them because cars are inherently more dangerous then guns on total death/capita ratio. Is that true for mass murders? Because that's what we're discussing. Are we to believe that mass murders by automobile are greater in the US than firearms? Or did the FRA spoonfeed you information that lumped accidental deaths by automobile in with intentional shootings with guns? Oh, and do I have the statistics on legally purchased guns...not handily, but they're available. NRA definitely has them (created them), but I doubt you'd give that much credence. I don't have time to look them up for you, but I've seen them. I've seen a Leprechaun fucking a unicorn, too. Are you calling me a liar?!?! Many times. And, again, there have been EXCEPTIONALLY RARE stories of people using cars to run down people, cops and others (Waffle house in Killeen, TX comes to mind) and again, people look at the guy and go "What an idiot". But no one put in legislation to make it so more crazies with cars can't run them through a public facility. For that instance everyone realized it was the individual, not the car. Same with guns. You make a point about "killing people". Hey, I enjoy target practice. It requires skill and concentration. There are entire skill shooting events that have NOTHING to do with killing. Nothing? Then why are the targets shaped like men? Tell me you've NEVER shot at a man-shaped target. And for the vast majority of people, yes, we carry in case we do need to shoot someone...but if you're breaking into my house or trying to jack my car or rape my wife, you've got it coming. And if you're the one getting pistol whipped or shot at, you might appreciate a good guy carrying that can protect you. Trust me, the police sure can't do it. It's not their job, even though people think it is. It's OUR job to protect ourselves.

"Insanely easy" to get a gun? I don't remember saying that. Are you quoting me? Not quite. It's not horrific, but it's still a major pain in the ass, takes time, money and a clean record. Sure, you can buy from someone without records, but that goes with anything. But someone, somewhere had to buy it as an original purchase. How do I propose to stop it? Arm more good guys. Not everyone. People who can pass the background checks, drug tests and training. You should have nothing to fear of decent, law-abiding citizens being armed. Once upon a time, everyone was. Look up the Dalton Gang in Coffeeville, KS. They learned what a well-armed populace can do when need be.

And you keep asking, "how do you stop it". You can't. Get real. I'm not talking about how to stop all crime, stop all gun crime or even gun control. I'm specifically talking about outlawing high-capacity clips EXACTLY like the Tucson shooter used to avoid outcomes EXACTLY like the Tucson shooting in the future. There will always be people that will find ways to do major harm to others. ...and it should be made burdensome for them to do so... Especially unstable people. Laws won't stop it. In fact, most laws now are barely enforceable. Production at factories and sales in gun shops are relatively easy to enforce compared to the laws concerning what the end user does with them. Isn't part of your argument that all gun shop owners have passed background checks and are good guys? Maybe DD can weigh in here. Right now you have to be 21 to own a handgun. You can't be a criminal. You can't be a felon. You can't have any warrants or restraining orders. But I promise you most gang bangers carry. They're consumers, not manufacturers. BIG difference. What makes you think making a "less than 10 round clip" law will stop them? My point would be have more armed people and drop the dude after the first few shots. After. You said after. So your best case scenario is to let 3 or more people get shot and die and then have strangers with concealed weapons unholster and start shooting into the crowd. Hopefully one of their bullets will eventually strike the shooter. I can imagine if there was a guy that did exactly what you suggested in Tucson. He would have been mistaken as a shooter himself and killed by Zamudio. Multiple amateurs firing into a crowd of men, women and children (basically a crowded circular firing squad) and friendly fire on top of it...doesn't sound like a solution.


\http://www.azdps.gov/Services/Concea.../Questions/#32
Here's the link about carrying. And it's not horseshit. You just refuse to believe it. There's a difference."State or local government/private establishments or events when asked by the operator/sponsor/agent." Weak.

Feel free to respond again. I won't. You can say whatever you want. But I know what I believe. And I've lived in areas around the world where the main populace is unarmed by law and regular people become victims to the gangs because they have no way to defend themselves and the police are unwilling or unable to stop the criminals. I will not live like that. I will protect my family and my self. And there's nothing you will ever say that will make me change my mind. I firmly believe I have a right (and in a way, an obligation) to protect my family in the way I see fit. You have nothing to fear from me unless you jeopardize my family's safety. And then, with my legally-owned, registered .45 I will make sure my reasonably well-trained, law-abiding self will not miss. I'm not trying to outlaw guns. Quit imagining things. That sounded a little bit like a threat, too. Just stop it. You really went down a slippery slope there. Why is it when somebody brings up something SPECIFIC about a particular gun crime, conservatives turn it into a general "Liberals wanna take ma guns."? Originally Posted by Sens55

There is no law until the law is there.

LM I do think its important that we address some issues but these issues need to be focused (partially) on the background checks. When you apply for a weapon purchase the FBI needs to be able to get access to mental health records. It does not have to be full access, but with medical records now being required to be kept electonically, the individuals record could be flagged if they seek treatment for certain mental health illness, this would not mean the individual would be turned down, but would require the FBI to do further inquery into the individuals mental health history so that a determination of their fitness to purchase can be made, if there is no mental health flag then the individual is granted a purchase. Guns are durable. Humans change. What you're suggesting will only deal with people that have already been flagged as looney. It doesn't address people that went nuts after they purchased guns, nor sane people that just want to commit a mass murder. It is easy to look at the hi capasity magazine as the issue, but the reality is most people with average familiarity can change out a mag in a matter of seconds, and return to firing the weapon. A second is a very long time when you're surrounded by men a few feet away that want to tackle you. In the Tucson shooing, that second is the break that ended the bloodshed. If high-capacity clips were outlawed again, the cost would be that same second to a guy on a shooting range. Are they too lazy to trade one second on a shooing range for that one golden second in a mass murder spree? The brady bill banned hi capacity magazines for 10 years. Weapons were limited to 10 round magazines. The FBI statistics showed that violent crime did not drop so it has been shown that this measure, while it may make people feel good and feel like they have done something, does not reduce violent crime. Clips are durable. Tell, me...did the Brady Bill ban them OUTRIGHT or did it ban ALL NEW PRODUCTION? See...what you said is misleading. People were still allowed to POSSESS high-capacity magazines during the ban. We need to do a better job preventing those whom should not have weapons from getting them, if this means we have to allowed limited access to mental health records, then we need to do that. We should also ban high capacity magazine possession, right? Originally Posted by dirty dog

too easy

Judas effin Priest! Originally Posted by Bartman1963