HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The latest murderer
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:06 PM

The latest murderer




http://myfox8.com/2012/12/12/jacob-tyler-roberts-oregon-mall-shooting-suspect-identified/
<snip>
Officials have identified the Oregon mall shooter as Jacob Tyler Roberts, born March 16, 1990.

According to police, Roberts shot himself as police converged on him, but not before fatally shooting Steve Forsyth, 45, of West Linn, Ore., and Cindy Ann Yule, 54, of Portland.

Clackamas County Sheriff Craig Roberts says that Jacob Tyler Roberts had armed himself with an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and had several fully loaded magazines.

Roberts says the rifle jammed during the 22-year-old’s attack, but he managed to get it working again.
-----------------
Yep he had the right to buy aan AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and several fully loaded magazines.
Bravo NRA!!!

264 replies, 19353 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 264 replies Author Time Post
Reply The latest murderer (Original post)
malaise Dec 2012 OP
Remmah2 Dec 2012 #1
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2012 #2
progressoid Dec 2012 #50
me b zola Dec 2012 #61
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #63
patrice Dec 2012 #100
BainsBane Dec 2012 #117
Ohio Joe Dec 2012 #191
Warren Religion Dec 2012 #208
rustydog Dec 2012 #3
malaise Dec 2012 #5
soleft Dec 2012 #7
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #54
malaise Dec 2012 #167
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #198
Arugula Latte Dec 2012 #4
bluestate10 Dec 2012 #240
hack89 Dec 2012 #6
malaise Dec 2012 #9
hack89 Dec 2012 #13
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #56
hack89 Dec 2012 #58
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #74
JDPriestly Dec 2012 #128
trouble.smith Dec 2012 #165
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #249
trouble.smith Dec 2012 #250
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #252
trouble.smith Dec 2012 #253
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #254
trouble.smith Dec 2012 #256
JDPriestly Dec 2012 #118
hack89 Dec 2012 #139
JDPriestly Dec 2012 #193
hack89 Dec 2012 #194
JDPriestly Dec 2012 #199
hack89 Dec 2012 #202
JDPriestly Dec 2012 #241
blueamy66 Dec 2012 #209
Hangingon Dec 2012 #62
DanTex Dec 2012 #70
Hangingon Dec 2012 #73
DanTex Dec 2012 #89
malaise Dec 2012 #186
RetroLounge Dec 2012 #192
malaise Dec 2012 #180
rbrnmw Dec 2012 #83
hack89 Dec 2012 #87
maxsolomon Dec 2012 #108
hack89 Dec 2012 #142
maxsolomon Dec 2012 #179
hack89 Dec 2012 #183
maxsolomon Dec 2012 #231
hack89 Dec 2012 #233
maxsolomon Dec 2012 #238
hack89 Dec 2012 #239
Indydem Dec 2012 #8
Tommy_Carcetti Dec 2012 #17
Myrina Dec 2012 #29
Remmah2 Dec 2012 #33
Tommy_Carcetti Dec 2012 #36
patrice Dec 2012 #94
morningfog Dec 2012 #210
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #51
Tommy_Carcetti Dec 2012 #53
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #57
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #59
Tommy_Carcetti Dec 2012 #67
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #72
jtuck004 Dec 2012 #68
Tommy_Carcetti Dec 2012 #69
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #78
Tommy_Carcetti Dec 2012 #99
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #116
DanTex Dec 2012 #121
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #125
DanTex Dec 2012 #134
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #143
DanTex Dec 2012 #145
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #153
DanTex Dec 2012 #156
malaise Dec 2012 #168
Tommy_Carcetti Dec 2012 #211
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #215
Tommy_Carcetti Dec 2012 #222
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #225
Tommy_Carcetti Dec 2012 #226
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #228
Tommy_Carcetti Dec 2012 #229
patrice Dec 2012 #131
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #146
patrice Dec 2012 #160
PavePusher Dec 2012 #80
DanTex Dec 2012 #102
jtuck004 Dec 2012 #123
hack89 Dec 2012 #77
Tommy_Carcetti Dec 2012 #110
hack89 Dec 2012 #135
Bake Dec 2012 #166
PavePusher Dec 2012 #174
patrice Dec 2012 #140
hack89 Dec 2012 #144
kurtzapril4 Dec 2012 #120
morningfog Dec 2012 #212
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #218
PavePusher Dec 2012 #79
Tommy_Carcetti Dec 2012 #105
PavePusher Dec 2012 #136
rustydog Dec 2012 #181
Carolina Dec 2012 #158
PavePusher Dec 2012 #173
Tommy_Carcetti Dec 2012 #213
Carolina Dec 2012 #237
Mangoman Dec 2012 #21
justanidea Dec 2012 #22
rustydog Dec 2012 #25
hack89 Dec 2012 #31
rustydog Dec 2012 #38
hack89 Dec 2012 #40
justanidea Dec 2012 #35
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #101
PavePusher Dec 2012 #85
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #97
villager Dec 2012 #30
justanidea Dec 2012 #37
Remmah2 Dec 2012 #39
villager Dec 2012 #64
Flatulo Dec 2012 #172
villager Dec 2012 #178
Flatulo Dec 2012 #188
villager Dec 2012 #230
Flatulo Dec 2012 #242
villager Dec 2012 #243
Flatulo Dec 2012 #244
villager Dec 2012 #248
Flatulo Dec 2012 #255
Mangoman Dec 2012 #32
justanidea Dec 2012 #44
Mangoman Dec 2012 #49
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #103
rustydog Dec 2012 #152
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #162
PavePusher Dec 2012 #175
Flatulo Dec 2012 #177
former-republican Dec 2012 #47
Coyotl Dec 2012 #203
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #223
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #84
lapislzi Dec 2012 #27
PavePusher Dec 2012 #86
lapislzi Dec 2012 #104
PavePusher Dec 2012 #107
lapislzi Dec 2012 #113
kurtzapril4 Dec 2012 #119
Indydem Dec 2012 #127
former-republican Dec 2012 #132
oneshooter Dec 2012 #185
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #81
Indydem Dec 2012 #124
bongbong Dec 2012 #138
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #184
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #224
PavePusher Dec 2012 #154
wtmusic Dec 2012 #88
Indydem Dec 2012 #122
wtmusic Dec 2012 #150
PavePusher Dec 2012 #157
wtmusic Dec 2012 #163
PavePusher Dec 2012 #170
wtmusic Dec 2012 #171
PavePusher Dec 2012 #176
Recursion Dec 2012 #10
malaise Dec 2012 #11
Recursion Dec 2012 #14
malaise Dec 2012 #15
rustydog Dec 2012 #18
malaise Dec 2012 #20
former-republican Dec 2012 #23
rustydog Dec 2012 #26
Remmah2 Dec 2012 #43
PavePusher Dec 2012 #90
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #106
former-republican Dec 2012 #141
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #147
former-republican Dec 2012 #151
RC Dec 2012 #149
PavePusher Dec 2012 #159
Journeyman Dec 2012 #12
rustydog Dec 2012 #19
hfojvt Dec 2012 #45
DeSwiss Dec 2012 #66
Bicoastal Dec 2012 #115
Carolina Dec 2012 #161
hfojvt Dec 2012 #200
Tommy_Carcetti Dec 2012 #214
hfojvt Dec 2012 #232
Tommy_Carcetti Dec 2012 #235
hfojvt Dec 2012 #246
Tommy_Carcetti Dec 2012 #247
neverforget Dec 2012 #190
Live and Learn Dec 2012 #207
maxsolomon Dec 2012 #111
Not Me Dec 2012 #16
former-republican Dec 2012 #24
rustydog Dec 2012 #28
Remmah2 Dec 2012 #41
former-republican Dec 2012 #46
Remmah2 Dec 2012 #48
kurtzapril4 Dec 2012 #129
PavePusher Dec 2012 #91
secondvariety Dec 2012 #130
PavePusher Dec 2012 #164
secondvariety Dec 2012 #182
PavePusher Dec 2012 #204
secondvariety Dec 2012 #257
PavePusher Dec 2012 #258
secondvariety Dec 2012 #259
PavePusher Dec 2012 #260
secondvariety Dec 2012 #261
PavePusher Dec 2012 #263
secondvariety Dec 2012 #264
BanTheGOP Dec 2012 #34
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #55
DanTex Dec 2012 #71
BanTheGOP Dec 2012 #148
Flatulo Dec 2012 #189
BanTheGOP Dec 2012 #234
Flatulo Dec 2012 #236
Flatulo Dec 2012 #245
PavePusher Dec 2012 #95
Capt. Obvious Dec 2012 #42
progressoid Dec 2012 #52
wtmusic Dec 2012 #82
ErikJ Dec 2012 #60
Recursion Dec 2012 #227
raccoon Dec 2012 #65
PavePusher Dec 2012 #75
Liberal_in_LA Dec 2012 #76
taught_me_patience Dec 2012 #92
slackmaster Dec 2012 #93
patrice Dec 2012 #96
malaise Dec 2012 #137
George II Dec 2012 #98
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #109
George II Dec 2012 #196
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #197
George II Dec 2012 #206
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #217
dmallind Dec 2012 #114
George II Dec 2012 #195
PavePusher Dec 2012 #221
Skittles Dec 2012 #112
kurtzapril4 Dec 2012 #133
libodem Dec 2012 #126
onethatcares Dec 2012 #155
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #220
PavePusher Dec 2012 #169
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #201
PavePusher Dec 2012 #205
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #216
PavePusher Dec 2012 #219
live your bliss Dec 2012 #187
mercuryblues Dec 2012 #251
malaise Dec 2012 #262

Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:10 PM

1. Was he high?

 

Could be that newly legalized stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:12 PM

2. On gunpowder

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:25 PM

50. You forgot the sarcasm thingie

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:42 PM

61. A couple of points

a) Oregon did not legalize cannabis

b) Unlike alcohol or many presription drugs, cannabis does not make people violent, angry, or worked up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to me b zola (Reply #61)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:46 PM

63. Indeed.

We came pretty close...but the referendum was pretty poorly written (instead of the legalization of what was more or less the status quo of the pot market in WA and CO, our Measure 80 would have set up state packaging and sales of pot, sort of like out annoying and expensive state-run liquor stores...it was a terrible idea). A better written measure would likely have passed, as I suspect will happen very soon.

And yeah...pot smokers aren't exactly known for violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:43 PM

100. Why didn't you ask: Was he drunk? Was he on meds? Bias much? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:00 PM

117. If he had been high

He would have hung out at home watching tv and eating Cheetos, not shooting up people at a mall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #117)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 10:32 PM

191. Well...

I got home tonight and smoked a nice bowl of Purple Kush topped with Hash. I then had a simply amazing Torta... Eggs and chorizo, a slice of ham, cheese and onion grilled on flat bread... Cheetos... pffft

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:31 AM

208. Yes: He was high on his God-given Second Amendment RIGHTS!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:13 PM

3. It is sad that so many people will have such a horrific event they need to absorb

come to grips with and accept. someone lost the love of their life yesterday, someone's little girl, little boy someone's mother, father, sister or brother.

This is horrible that someone in a second can wreak so much havoc on innocent people.

My thoughts are for the victim's family and the law enforcement and emergency personnel who ran into this horror as others were running out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:17 PM

5. I looked at the photos of the two persons he killed

This moron destroyed their families for no good reason.
And any other moron who wants to do the same can access weapons like these.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:17 PM

7. I used to wonder what it would be like to live in Israel, Iraq, Mexico

Some place where every day when you got on a public bus you never knew if you would be a victim of a mass act of violence.

Never mind, we're here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to soleft (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:33 PM

54. You're right. And our American mass violence is even more senseless. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #54)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:25 PM

167. Turned on Florida news at 6.00pm

Saw two gunmen robbing a bank with two assault rifles. No one was shot because the frightened teller gave them the money.
Who will stop this shit????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #167)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:10 AM

198. it seems there are a lot of bank robberies lately. don't know how valid that perception is but it

 

seems i see more on the news lately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:16 PM

4. More bloody victories for the NRA.

We can never have enough carnage in this country, you know! We're #1! USA!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arugula Latte (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:18 PM

240. The shooter had only two speeding tickets. He had no criminal record.

He would have likely passed any background check. I have thought about this some. We aren't going to stop people from shooting up a public place. If such a person does not use an assault weapon, they would use standard automatic pistols. A person walking into a public place with three standard automatic pistols would have 18 rounds, with any aiming ability at all by the shooter, a dozen plus people could end up seriously injured or dead.

Our focus should be on getting a robust system of gun registration and background checks. The majority of americans, including most legal gun owners don't appear to have a problem with background checks and registration. The right will use their standard scare tactics like registration will allow people to be tracked for other reasons and gun id numbers can be filed off. What the right won't focus on is that gun owners that own registered guns will protect them from being stolen, and if they are stolen, will be likely to immediately report the theft to police.

Background checks and gun registration will make it more difficult for people that are most likely to use them for crime and killing to get guns. Criminals will have to steal them or buy them on the black market. Background checks and registration will immediately shrink the size of the black market. If the government turns resources from chasing people smoking weed to tracking down and closing black market gun sites, the supply of illegal guns could be shut down completely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:17 PM

6. Other stories say he stole the gun. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:19 PM

9. There are jsut too many guns period

legal and illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:22 PM

13. Once you get rid of the illegal ones

we can talk about the legal ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:34 PM

56. We can talk about the legal ones right damn now.

Because our recent spate of mass shootings are the result of legally owned weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #56)


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #56)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:17 PM

74. Including knives and Bow/arrow

 

We should register all knives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #74)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:16 PM

128. How many people die from intentionally inflicted knife wounds

each year?

In 2008, there were 9,484 deaths due to guns in the US and 1,897 due to stabbing.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html

To kill someone from the distance with a knife takes practice and skill. To do the same thing with a gun takes very little practice or skill. That is especially true with guns that have a lot of firing capacity.

Gunlovers can apologize for guns, and I have no problem with responsible hunters. But, if I had my way, a person should have training, a license and a character examination in order to get a gun license.

I know that our Constitution does not permit that, but I think that would be the ideal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #56)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:24 PM

165. the more you talk about it, the worse it will get.

 

There will be approximately 16-17 million guns sold in 2012. Every year is another record year for the gun industry. Assault weapons are more common than they have ever been. why do you think that is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trouble.smith (Reply #165)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:57 PM

249. Is it because I'M TALKING ABOUT IT?

Explain that, please. Explain it to me right now, today, in the aftermath of a shooting in A KINDERGARTEN CLASSROOM WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF 27 DEAD.

I'm waiting. I'll wait hear all fuckin' year for you to get back to me on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #249)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 01:21 PM

250. I've already explained it but you won't hear it. Keep playing politics with this.

 

Keep blaming gun owners for this shit. keep threatening to take away guns. Keep panicking the firearms market. We'll see how much your all caps typing fixes things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trouble.smith (Reply #250)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 01:42 PM

252. Where have you explained it?

Explain it to me slowly, because I'm really really pissed today. Explain it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #252)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 01:52 PM

253. when you threaten to ban guns, you incite panic buying

 

and create a market that would otherwise have not existed. You have been doing this since 1992. Assault weapons were fairly obscure until you tried to take them away. Now they're common as dirt. Same with high cap semi-auto pistols. Revolvers were the norm prior the ban on high cap magazines. The anti-gun movement has been the best thing to happen to the firearms industry since WW2. The all powerful NRA, the outright plague of guns, this is a result of losing a fight that was started in 1992. I hate seeing this shit but I'll be damned if you lay it all on my shoulders. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Well, here we are and there is no fixing it now. You can only exacerbate it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trouble.smith (Reply #253)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 02:02 PM

254. That's the most specious argument I've ever heard in my life.

Guns are regulated in Canada and in any decent country in Europe. Where are the mass shootings in those places? Few and far between if at all.

Don't you dare lay the blame for the shooting deaths of innocent people on the only people who are trying to do anything about it. You're ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #254)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 02:48 PM

256. I'm sure it's a bitter pill to swallow, the truth often is.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:04 PM

118. Problem is that the illegal guns all started out legal.

If we controlled the whereabouts of all legal guns, it would be harder for someone to make those legal guns illegal.

People who are going to use their guns for legitimate purposes like hunting or defending themselves in their homes do not need to fear registering them.

It is people who want to do illegal things who need to hide the fact that they own their guns.

If you own a gun, you should register it and be responsible for knowing precisely where that gun is and who has access to it at all times. It should not be sticking out of your pocket in a mall where some gang member can reach in and grab it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #118)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:35 PM

139. How does registration stop mass killings?

it is not like it is mystery who the shooter is or what weapons he owns.

It won't stop criminals - they simply won't register their weapons. Lets not forget a simple fact: there is presently a huge pool of weapons completely invisible to the government. There will be a huge black market for guns.

Registration is a common gun control desire. It was a colossal and expensive failure in Canada.

In March, Stephen Harper’s government reversed decades of increasing restrictions on civilian firearms, scrapping the controversial long-gun registry on grounds that it was wasteful and ineffective. Gun laws, the prime minister correctly said, should focus on criminals rather than law-abiding citizens such as farmers and hunters.

In 2002, the auditor-general revealed that the Firearms Centre had grown out of control. Despite political promises that the program would not cost over $2-million, costs were expected to exceed $1-billion by 2005. By 2012, this had ballooned to $2.7-billion. The auditor-general uncovered irregularities including mismanagement and corruption. Her findings stimulated a parliamentary revolt. In 2003, Parliament imposed an annual spending cap. The auditors’ reports led to RCMP investigations of Liberal insiders and contributed to the fall of the Liberal government in 2006.

To this day, it has been claimed that the registry is important in protecting women. But in fact, there is no convincing evidence that registering firearms has been effective in reducing either homicide rates overall, or spousal murders in particular. Even though homicide rates have been gradually falling since the 1970s, a wide variety of researchers have been unable to find solid evidence linking gun laws to this decline. Changing demographics, not firearms laws, better explain the decline in homicides involving long guns over the past 20 years. It is difficult to argue that Canadian gun laws are effective when homicide rates have dropped faster in the United States than in Canada since 1991.


A third claim is that long guns are the weapon of choice in domestic homicides, and that registration can help to identify the perpetrator. (This is related to the aforementioned claim that guns promote violence against women.) In fact, the long-gun registry and licensing are rarely needed by police to solve spousal homicides for three reasons: (1) in almost all cases, spousal murderers are immediately identified; (2) firearms are not often used to kill female spouses; and (3) the firearms used by abusive spouses to kill their wives are almost all possessed illegally. Statistics Canada data show that just 4% of long guns involved in homicides were registered.


http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/11/gary-mauser-why-the-long-gun-registry-doesnt-work-and-never-did/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #139)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 10:48 PM

193. If guns were registered and owners held responsible for knowing

at all times where their guns are stored, and if the registration, as I said, involved checking on the character of the gun-owner, we might be able to keep the numbers of guns in the hands of unstable people and/or criminals under control.

Remember. Guns were created for one purpose: to kill.

That doesn't mean they necessarily are only used to kill, but all of the other uses of guns are derived from the central purpose of killing (animals or humans).

We all know that guns in the wrong hands are extremely dangerous.

In an ideal world, I would place the responsibility for figuring out how to keep guns out of the wrong hands on those who advocate for guns. And if they could not execute that responsibility successfully, I would severely limit access to guns.

Of course, we don't live in an ideal world. So we can't do that. Gun owners (including sellers) still need to remember that when their gun ends up in the hands of a killer of humans, it is the gun owner's fault.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #193)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 10:55 PM

194. That won't stop violence

You don't address the issue of criminals getting guns. There are tens of millions of unregistered guns right now. And guns are easy to smuggle - gun trafficking is a profitable business for organized crime right now.

You just want to ban guns by setting up an impossible standard. Please be honest.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #194)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:02 AM

199. No. I do not want to ban guns.

I have relatives who hunt regularly, and I happen to love venison. I used to live in an area of Europe in which we ate a lot of venison. My husband's uncle was the senior hunter in the area of Europe in which my husband's family is from.

My point is that criminals get guns that are stolen, lost or sold on a market that is irresponsible. If gun owners had to register their guns regularly, say every year, the fact that a registered gun was lost or illegally sold would be known to the police.

If guns were registered, the police would be able to stop suspicious people and check not only on their car registration but also their gun registration. In fact, police could look for unregistered guns in cars.

I don't think you can stop the deaths from shootings, but I think you could decrease them. Other countries do not have such high incidences of mass murders from guns. We could lower that number if we made it harder, more embarrassing and more difficult for fanatics and unstable people (and maybe their families) to get guns.

I am not opposed to guns for killing animals -- coyotes, deer, other animals that can be harmful to people or pests.

While we are at it, I like to garden. I live five miles from L.A. and have to put up with raccoons and squirrels eating up my garden. When I asked my very elderly mother who has gardened for many years what I should do about it, she advised me to shoot the squirrels and find someone who knows how to cook them. I treated that like a joke, but I suspect that is what her dad did when she was growing up.

No. I am not totally anti-gun. I just want the assurance that guns are used responsibly and accounted for. I live in a city and there have been a lot of horrible gang shootings in my area. That makes me feel very different about guns that I would feel if I lived in a rural area like some members of my family. It's not that I am opposed to gun ownership. It's that I don't want a lot of guns in my densely populated area of a big city. Other than squirrels and raccoons, there is no game here. People can have guns, but they should only take them out of the house to go elsewhere, say to a lake, to hunt. And I would prefer no one had guns in my immediate area. Because the fact is that mostly criminals have guns here. And if the very fact that have a gun was reason to arrest them, then criminals would still have guns -- until they were arrested and sent away. That would be fine with me. I think that it would be great if mere possession of a gun on the streets in my crowded area of the city was enough to permit a judge to sentence someone to prison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #199)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 07:36 AM

202. Ok - thanks for the polite conversation

your tone was greatly appreciated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #202)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 07:50 PM

241. Austria is a mountainous country with lots of game and a culture

and tradition of hunting.

They have occasional killings with guns but not as many (in my subjective perception) as we do in the US.

Here is the information about their gun possession (about 30% of the, I assume adult, population) and their laws including restrictions on the kinds of guns people can own and licensing requirements.

They have plenty of guns for sport and hunting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #199)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:41 AM

209. Very good

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:45 PM

62. I am wondering where the guns in Jamaica come from

since the murder rate in Jamaica exceeds the United States - according to the UK Guardian

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #62)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:04 PM

70. Like Mexico, a lot of them come from US gun stores.

The NRA death toll is not limited to the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #70)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:09 PM

73. Sure be interested in something to back that up.

Did Fast and Furious guns go to Jamaica too? Or are they F&F guns sent thru Mexican drug dealers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #73)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:34 PM

89. LOL. I didn't realize there were still some gun nuts pushing Fast and Furious conspiracy theories.

Sometimes I am surprised how clueless the NRA crowd is...
Most firearms seized in Jamaica are traced back to three US counties— Orange, Dade, and Broward—in the state of Florida, all of which have large Jamaican populations.


http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/B-Occasional-papers/SAS-OP26-Jamaica-gangs.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #89)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 09:05 PM

186. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Not all of us are idiots

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #73)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 10:38 PM

192. Fast and Furious?

ANother gun nut just outs himself...

Geez, where the fuck am I? Free Republic?

RL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #62)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 07:56 PM

180. Most come from the US

but there is also the guns for drugs trade with Haiti

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:26 PM

83. whether he stole it or not

SOMEONE Bought it legally

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rbrnmw (Reply #83)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:31 PM

87. So what do you suggest?

no more legal guns? That might be one answer - it would be a long fight though. What lesser restraints do you think might work in the short term?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #87)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:50 PM

108. registration and licensing

works for automobiles, and i understand that they're just as dangerous as firearms.

beyond that, proof of trigger lock/gun safe purchase. proof of safety course training. police interviews and approvals. pysch evals for a 2nd weapon purchase.

but all that's pie in the sky. the cat's out of the bag, and there's no hope of "controlling" firearms. there's just too many in circulation - as proved by this massacre with a stolen semi-auto rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #108)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:39 PM

142. I have no problem licensing guns like cars

no license or registration needed if kept on private property. License required if carried in public (we can call it a concealed carry license.)

Police interviews? Because we know that the police are completely unbiased and always have our civil rights in mind? The country has moved to "shall issue" precisely because of a long history of abuse and bias.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #142)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 07:51 PM

179. other countries do the police interviews

australia i believe. i'd rather trade some abuse of power in issuing weapon permits for some suicidal loners with arsenals. liberty, temporary safety, yeah yeah, i've heard it.

regardless, like i said, the cat's out the bag.

"it's WAY too late for gun control in America" -Steve Earle, Live at the BBC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #179)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 08:08 PM

183. There are always some willing to give the police arbitrary power over someone else.

don't lose track of one salient fact - you have never been safer and will be even safer next year. Gun violence peaked in 1992 with the crack epidemic and has been steadily falling since. We have cut deaths due to murder and manslaughter by nearly 50% over the past 30 years. Our murder rate is lower than it was in 1960. You may think the rate is still too high but there is no epidemic of gun violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #183)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:52 PM

231. i am not contending that there is an epidemic of gun violence

i will contend, however, that there has been no equivalent decline in the number of firearm suicides or in these amoklauf killings. i find this unacceptable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #231)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 01:15 PM

233. Suicides are a mental health problem

the solution is single payer healthcare.

While it is unacceptable, giving police arbitrary power over civil rights is just as unacceptable. Find a better solution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #233)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:16 PM

238. no, the intersection of handguns and suicide is not simply a mental health problem:

that is too simplistic. firearms vastly increase the success rate of suicides:

http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/content.detail/id/534468/Guns-and-suicide.html?nav=5041

your solution, single payer, would not be likely to impact most impulsive suicides or spouse killings. less access to firearms would. i personally know of 2 people who have impulsively committed suicide with firearms.

my "solution" has zero chance of being enacted in america during my lifespan, so you can end your existential worries about theorectical arbitrary police powers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #238)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:54 PM

239. Just remember that you have never been safer

and next year you will be even safer yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:18 PM

8. He didn't BUY anything - he STOLE it -

From a law abiding citizen exercising their 2nd amendment rights.

This douche was a criminal, pure and simple, no law would have stopped him from being a murderous asshole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indydem (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:24 PM

17. From what I heard, it was a friend.

And I'm curious to see how the facts turn out whether he actually "stole" the weapon or was lent it, a la Columbine.

Which still raises a whole host of questions: How well are these "law abiding citizens exercising their 2nd amendment rights" either ensuring that they do not lend out their weapons as if they were lending their lawnmower to a neighbor, or that they are securing their weapon in a location that they cannot be easily accessed or stolen by others.

Sorry, buddy, you gun enthusiasts aren't out of the woods yet. Not even close.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:47 PM

29. +1 Brazillion

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:51 PM

33. "you gun enthusiasts aren't out of the woods yet"

 

Guilt by association?

That cracks me up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #33)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:53 PM

36. If one wishes to be an apologist.....

...then one must be prepared to back one's positions up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #33)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:39 PM

94. Even if you do nothing else, silence is assent. & Maybe the rest of us would be okay with

that assent with this kind of behavior if you all, who agree about it, would just go somewhere and get it over with one another, so that the rest of us can live in as much peace as possible without the CONSTANT oppression from this kind of behavior in our midst.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #33)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:45 AM

210. I would want to distance myself from gun enthusiasts, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:26 PM

51. "you gun enthusiasts aren't out of the woods yet"

That makes as much sense as me telling you that "you males aren't out of the woods yet" over rape.

See how that works? Collective guilt is an idiotic notion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #51)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:30 PM

53. No, I'm sorry.

If it be your position that "law abiding citizen exercising their 2nd amendment rights" are somehow blameless when it comes to gun violence, and there are facts that indicate otherwise, then you've got to be prepared to back that shit up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #53)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:36 PM

57. Thank you. Seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #53)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:38 PM

59. Feel free to provide said "facts."

And in any case, that's a straw man (in that I stated no such position).

As it happens, I have no objection to legislation that provides that gun owners bear (partial) responsibility for crimes committed with stolen weapons that were not adequately secured. While most any security measures can be overcome, I don't think it's an impossible task to legally define "reasonable security measures" for firearms. I consider it to be a gun owner's responsibility to lock up any firearm not in their immediate possession or observation. I was certainly taught to do so as a lass...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #59)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:56 PM

67. Well others have made that position.

Glad you have some common sense in that department, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #67)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:09 PM

72. Thanks.

Seems a matter of responsibility to me. If I'm going to keep deadly weapons, it's my responsibility to indeed keep those weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #53)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:57 PM

68. Since 35,000 people are killed in auto collisions every year, does that make every licenesed driver

an accomplice to murder? Especially since they are required to maintain control of their vehicle?

Or just the people that wrote the second amendment?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jtuck004 (Reply #68)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:00 PM

69. Guns = Cars. Gee, I haven't heard that one before.

You do realize the difference between accidents and non-accidents, right? And the difference between objects that are designed to kill versus objects that may incidentially kill, right?

Do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #69)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:22 PM

78. Sure. And vehicles are used for intentional homicide

 

about 100 times per year.

Which is about as many as are killed in mass killings by guns each year.

Obviously some also happen via knife each year (like the nanny killing the two kids recently)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #78)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:43 PM

99. And non-mass killings?

How about that one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #99)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:00 PM

116. I thought the discussion and the angst

 

was about the mass murderers.

Otherwise the title is wrong because murders have certainly happened in the US since that one.

But, as someone pointed out, most gun homicides are gang related using illegal weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #116)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:09 PM

121. Who said most gun homicides are gang related?

Do you guys just make this stuff up as you go? It's funny how false statements and made-up statistics are so central to the NRA ideology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #121)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:13 PM

125. The Nat'l Institute of Justice

 



http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm

Sorry, I thought someone had mentioned it in this thread but is must have been another one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #125)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:26 PM

134. LOL. You probably want to take a closer look at that chart.

That statistic says that most gang homicides are committed using a firearm, not that most firearm homicides are gang-related. I hope I don't need to explain the difference. For example, that's why those percentages don't add up to 100...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #134)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:43 PM

143. I realize that

 

But the chart was mainly eye candy for the link.

It is hard to find specific data on what percentages of gun homicides are gang-related. I've seen numbers from 40% to 75%. Clearly the data is out there, I just wasn't able to find the specific authoritative number in the time I searched.

Most of the specific data is location-dependent as opposed to being nation-wide. Example:

http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/archive/x1216783395/86-percent-of-city-killings-gang-related-police-plead-for-help

"86 percent of city killings gang-related; police plead for help"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #143)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:47 PM

145. LOL again. Did you try googling "gang homicide statistics"?

http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Measuring-the-Extent-of-Gang-Problems

The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2006 to 2010. During the same time period, the FBI estimated, on average, more than 16,000 homicides across the United States (www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls). These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 12 percent of all homicides annually.


Sorry, but "most homicides are gang vs gang" is one of a long line of false NRA talking points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #145)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:59 PM

153. I stand corrected

 

It looks like it is a high percentage in cities, especially in the younger age groups but it is indeed lower nation-wide than I had heard.

Thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #153)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:07 PM

156. Wow, that's a first -- someone in a gun debate admits they were mistaken.

I guess now is the time I apologize for being so snarky -- I'm used to the gungeon where people hold the line no matter what the statistics say. In my defense, I've heard "most homicides are gang vs gang" (along with "most murderers have prior felony convictions" and "defensive gun uses outnumber gun crimes" etc.) more times than I can count.

Yes, in urban areas with lots of gangs, and in younger age groups, the percentage will be higher.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #145)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:27 PM

168. Facts win every time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #116)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:48 AM

211. The "angst" is about gun related violence.

Whether it results in the murder of 1 or 32 people. Or even a mere serious injury.

You gun enthusiasts are so about trying to control the conversation on your own terms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #211)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:40 AM

215. So other violence is OK, right?

 

Just trying to figure out exactly where your concern lies and why it is so focused on guns, which are used and kept safely 99.9999% of the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #215)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:17 AM

222. Guns are the only weapons with a major lobby that obstructs all regulations.

Supposedly there is a burgeoning knife lobby, but I haven't heard much about it, so I doubt it's really that big of a factor. And do they lobby for butter knives as well?

There is no bombing lobby.

There is no "use your car as a weapon" lobby.

There is no "throwing stones" lobby.

There is no drowning lobby. No slitting wrists lobby. No electrocution lobby.

Just a gun lobby.

Hence, that's why I'm focused on guns here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #222)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:28 AM

225. It is also the only one covered by the Constitution

 

It is also the only one where there is a big push to ban them. I've not seen the anti-knife activists, have you?

And yes there is a car lobby. And yes, there is a lobby for swimming pools. I'll bet there is a lobby for rock quarries.

And there is a huge lobby for bomb-makers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #225)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:33 AM

226. Does the car lobby advocate the use of cars as a weapon?

Does the swimming pool lobby?

No?

Cars and swimming pools are not designed to be weapons. Guns are.

As for knives, deaths from guns far outweigh death from knives in this country. And guns are far more efficient weapons than knives. Yet less versitile in their overall use. That's why there is more of a focus on guns, and more of a lobby for guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #226)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:47 AM

228. No gun lobbyists advocate using the guns for homicide

 

or even suicide.

That is the concern, right?

The fact that guns are used for those things are as relevant as the fact that knives are as well or that drunk drivers use their vehicles irresponsibly and kill many Americans.

Using your logic, since handguns are used for homicide the majority of the time and "other guns" have approximately the same homicide use rate as knives, there should be no restrictions on anything besides handguns, correct?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #228)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:01 PM

229. Homicide does not equal murder.

Homicide is the taking of a human being's life by another human being. Whether that is justified or not.

The NRA and other gun lobby groups are not going to advocate use of guns for murder. But they have defended use of guns in the taking of another's life presumably in the act of self-defense.....the problem is, what is and is not self-defense is not always cut and dry and one man's justifiable homicide is another man's unjustifiable homicide (see Zimmerman, George.) Moreover, the culture of "they're all out to get you so you better be armed" is way too prevelant amongst these groups.

I guess if the NRA advocated for the use of guns only in the context of competitive target shooting that would be one thing. But that's not the case at all.

As it relates to handguns versus other guns, the NRA and similar groups have taken it upon themselves to advocate for the use of all types of guns: handguns, rifles, gauge shotguns. Hence, guns are to be considered as a whole, and not as a subset. Not to mention that they all techinically do the same thing in the end: they shoot bullets into a target, either living nor non-living.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #78)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:22 PM

131. So this is about numbers. How is more of some 1 thing that is not intrinsically valuable in and

of itself, a single life, more valuable if, instead of 1, it's 2 or 2million?

What if 1 of those 100 per year were you or someone you love? Even if it weren't what about the families of those who are murdered?

If we can't value what we are to one another, we need to just go ahead and get this thing over with, because kill-or-be-killed is all we're really doing in the first place and to procrastinate is to reduce the likelihood that the so-called "fittest" will in fact survive and that's the WHOLE principle of that ideology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #131)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:51 PM

146. Bingo

 

Each of those killed die from someone doing the killing.

And the common thread is not the means but the fact that a human is doing it.

Man has been killing man for a long time--long before guns. The only way you are going to solve the killing problem is to solve the human problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #146)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:10 PM

160. If that means anything at all, it means that MEANWHILE the killing has to stop. This idea that

the pro-gun ownership cohort has NO responsibility other than to defend gun-ownership is invalid, because of the nature of guns.

If guns are so valuable to them, you'd think they'd protect their ownership by addressing these INTRINSICALLY associated issues, but NO, all we ever get from pro-gun people is more guns, lots more guns, nothing else matters, there are NO problems associated with gun ownership.

And pathetic pro-forma "safety" classes just don't cut it. I'm talking about those other human problems, the addressing of which will not solve, but damn straight has a higher probability of reducing some of what is going on better than BLIND balkanization, TTE, "I have MY guns. I'm not a murderer. Fuck all of these other issues that add up to murder. It's not my fault."

People who may want to respect gun-owners' rights are having a hard time, because all we get from gun owners is more of the same, even adding up to the possibility of secession, rather than being responsible and facing precisely *H*O*W* this shit happens and doing what we can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #69)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:25 PM

80. No, false-analogy responsibility=false-analogy responsibility.

 

Try to keep up, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #69)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:44 PM

102. Just wait till you get to guns = swimming pools!

The NRA talking point rabbit hole is very deep and very loony!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #69)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:11 PM

123. Well, baby, you've heard it now <G>.

I could shorten this by responding to your assertion about vehicle design by noting that Ralph Nader (and a lot of people dedicated to making automobiles more compatible with life) fairly well proved that cars WERE engineered to kill, and it took the power of the people, the U.S. Government, to effect change.

But, nahh...

It's gory, but that's why they paid people like me to attend to the scene...

So, to any dear, tender reader, you may not want to read it. But it's my experience, and it's all around us.

You've been warned.

Warned again...

It's an accident when a meteorite falls on your moving car, (and a hell of a coincidence).

It's not an accident that some idiot doesn't slow down and slams into a family of 6 killing them because she was thinking about what a bad day she at work and wasn't paying attention. It's no damn accident when a person drinks too much alcohol and then drives into and rips up a family of people that people you know are friends with. In the process of extricating them you find the brains of their two infant children on the windows of what's left of their VW.

Note: If you are at an intersection with 4 cars after midnight it's a damn good possibility that 2 of those drivers are chemically impaired, and a near dead certainty that one is. Be careful out there

It wasn't an accident when the cheap sob of a CEO didn't buy a set of tires to replace the balding ones on his Cadillac Esplanade, which skidded in the rain while he and his wife were on a way to a party and wiped out whatever might have been of a homeless woman on the side of the road, far away from that road. The driver that left only a tennis shoe on the road after he or she knocked the guy changing his tire about 300 yards down the road, and then left? No accident there either.

The lists of such calls is near endless. If we are complicit we must all accept that, when Jan 1 rolls around, we are signing the death warrants for 30-40,000 people (last year first time under 40K in a bit). Can't argue we didn't see it coming. It would border on irrational to argue that we destroy all the cars (that alone would kill millions). Yet by the standards in the above post everyone who has a license is complicit in continuing this little death march for our own convenience. But those good and innocent people are not less dead because they weren't shot with a pistol. (or an AR-15).

If drivers don't do it for you, how about the people organizing against their employers, who, when someone else threw a bomb (after women and children and men were beaten and shot by the police over 2 days, police working at the behest of the employers), were hung because they were part of the protest, were among those who gave speeches, and thus were "complicit" even though there was no evidence that they knew anything about a bomb or could have predicted it?

One would have been in good company in 1886:

The majority view was expressed by the owner of a Chicago clothing firm who declared, “No, I don’t consider these people to have been found guilty of any offense, but they must be hanged...the labor movement must be crushed!"


Here

One could substitute the second amendment in those last words quite nicely

It feels weird to me to read where someone wants to paint others hands with the guilt of a psychopath, though I understand the emotion. But if one wants stop the next one instead of just lambasting people who had nothing to do with it to assuage their own ego, it might be better to ask if he could have been stopped if we weren't so far apart as a culture, where we sometimes just don't even see each other any more, much less talk in civil manner, and if there is anything that can be done about that.

Or maybe we just all lack knowledge to identify those among us who are ready to take any and all of us out on their way across the Stygian River.

Or maybe we need to restore what Reagan did away with, iirc.

If there are issues such as those which can be addressed, we should do so, or accept that we can't keep track of the activities of mass murderers in our midst.

Which will come as little comfort to the family of the woman killed here a couple months ago when a complete stranger stepped out of the bushes and stabbed her several times in the chest, and then ran off. She died in her daughter's arms.

Please don't tell me I'm complicit because I bought the Ginsu knives on that infomercial. I won't be able to handle the guilt.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #53)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:22 PM

77. Is every drinker complicit in the damage done by alcohol?

Is every recreational drug user complicit in the violence done by drug gangs?

Just wondering if it is just guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #77)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:52 PM

110. Gun owners are under greater responsiblity to ensure the safety of deadly weapons.

Items that don't just kill, but are designed to do so.

Greater responsibility than drivers. Greater responsiblity than drinkers. Greater responsibility than drug users.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #110)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:27 PM

135. Only their own weapons, correct?

or are you holding me responsible for every irresponsible gun owner?

And if so, why aren't I held responsible for every irresponsible drinker?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #110)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:24 PM

166. I'm very responsible with my guns.

And I haven't killed anybody yet.

But I'm not responsible for what some idiot hundreds of miles away does with a gun just because I own one or two.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #110)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:40 PM

174. Sez who? You? On what authority? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #77)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:36 PM

140. It's not just guns, but the use of guns does have a more direct, more highly probable, relationships

to death than the other things that you mention.

and If it were not for that high probability, there would be no such thing as guns, whereas death is not why we produce alcohol or recreational drugs, yet they are regulated and guns aren't. Users are complicit in regards to their substance abuse, but not as directly responsible as those who pull triggers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #140)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:43 PM

144. Guns are highly regulated compared to alcohol

tell me how someone can lose their privilege to buy alcohol. Do you need a background check to buy alcohol?

I agree that the person who pulls the trigger is responsible. But you seem to be holding me responsible for someone else pulling a trigger. So why can't I hold you responsible for that drunk driver?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #53)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:08 PM

120. Everybody's law abiding.....until they aren't. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #51)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:49 AM

212. I find it hilarious when gun enthusiasts try to distinguish themselves from

gun enthusiasts. Very funny.

Your analogy is wrong. A correct analogy would be when rape apologists are told that rape apologists aren't out of the woods yet.

Or are you claiming that your gun enthusiasm is an immutable characteristic and that only a small portion of those born that way actually engage in gun apologia?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #212)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:10 AM

218. My analogy's fine, thanks. Yours? Not so much.

enthusiast =/= apologist

But thanks for playing...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:22 PM

79. Do you own a car?

 

Then you are partly responsible for all intentional and accidental car deaths.

Own it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #79)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:48 PM

105. Nope, sorry.

If my car gets stolen, it's unlikely that the person stealing it is stealing it for the purposes of commiting vehicular manslaughter.

For the 1 millionth time, cars are not guns.

Repeat after me.

Cars are not guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #105)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:29 PM

136. Intent doesn't matter. Results do. No-one intends to get their firearms stolen.

 

If a criminal steals your car, and somehow kills with it, intentional or not, by your own philosophy, you own that death.

Or are you going try to pin this attribute only on objects you don't personally like?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #136)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 08:02 PM

181. Why go for the NRA knee-jerk defensive tactic?

Too many innocent people are killed by unnecessary gun violence.
Yes there is a 2nd amendment, and many of the mentally deficientNRA supporters and Repugnants like to claim rights to: "2nd amendment remedies...and gun control:holding with two hands.(ha, ha,ha so funny, I wonder if the shooter held with both hands as he killed two people, ha, ha, ha....

There needs to be a serious discussion about, yes, GUN CONTROL in this country. And as soon as some members of the NRA tell Wayne LaPierre to STFU already, maybe some headway can be made in a reasoned discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #79)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:08 PM

158. FAIL!

cars are meant for transportation! What are guns meant for?! Oh, and BTW, why are they called deadly weapons?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carolina (Reply #158)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:38 PM

173. So when someone does suffer a car death, it's meaningless?

 

A car can be a weapon. One with about 4-6 orders of magnitude more kinetic energy than a gun. If you own one of the tools, you own part of the problem. Consistancy is essential in logic, don't you think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #173)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:53 AM

213. "Can be a weapon" versus "is a weapon"

That's the key point that you are refusing to let into your thick skull.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #213)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:05 PM

237. Thank You, Tommy!

I couldn't have replied better to such false equivalency. Some people, usually repukes and trolls, are willfully blind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indydem (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:34 PM

21. Ya , cause ....

 

His friend needed an AR 15 because ....

Tell me again why his friend needed an AR 15 ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mangoman (Reply #21)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:38 PM

22. Hunting/target shooting/competition

 

Even home defense if chambered in a weaker non-rifle caliber like 9mm.

AR-15s are not machine guns like they are portrayed in the media. They're just a regular rifle that shoots a low-medium power round.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justanidea (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:41 PM

25. You forgot to add- as fast as you can depress the trigger

Unless deer and Elk are shooting back, why do you need an AR15 to "HUNT"

I hunded ages ago. 30-30, 7mm remington magnum bolt-action- 30-06 and shotgun.
I never felt the urge to unload multiple rounds on the deer I wanted to take for food.

Home defense? Shotgun because in a crisis, when someone is about to kill you(you think) at 2am, unless you kill a person every other week, you will have to empty the semi-auto in the hopes of hitting the target once...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:48 PM

31. AR-15s are not powerful enough to shoot game like deer.

but for smaller game they are good hunting rifles - compact, light, weather resistant and accurate.

Most states limit rifles to 5 round magazines.

But you miss the point - rifles and shotguns of all kinds are responsible for a little less than 3% of murders. Handguns are and will always be the big killers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #31)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:54 PM

38. Good point...OOPS, three are still dead in Oregon from the AR15

Sorry, your point fell on deaf ears

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #38)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:56 PM

40. So you support a ban on on guns that can be used for mass killings?

Is that your position?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:52 PM

35. There are plenty of ARs set up for hunting.

 

Get one with a longer barrel chambered in .308 and it makes a great deer rifle. Reliable, extremely accurate, endlessly customizable to build the perfect rifle. Sure you can dump the whole mag into the deer if you want to, but then you're just wasting meat. Semi-auto has its benefits though if you need a quick follow up shot.

Of course I dont hunt. This is just based on what I've been told and read.

Shotguns don't spread nearly as much as hollywood movies show. From across a room 00 Buck won't even have a 12" pattern. It would be no easier than using a rifle. Besides if you need to empty an entire rifle to hit a target 20 feet away, its time for a seeing eye dog. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justanidea (Reply #35)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:44 PM

101. A case can be made for the shotgun, for your neighbor's sake though.

That OO Buck cartridge is going to throw the equivalent of 8 or 9 9mm rounds at that wall, if you miss your target. Much safer for your neighbors than a .308 round.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:28 PM

85. All your cited hunting calibers are far more powerful than most AR-pattern rifles...

 

and all of them are available in semi-auto varients.

What was your point again?

you will have to empty the semi-auto in the hopes of hitting the target once...

Good ghod, how bad a shot are you? And where are you getting your information?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:41 PM

97. What the fuck

You can't hunt Deer or Elk with an AR-15 chambered in .223. The round is too weak. Every state I am aware of bans it. It's inhumane.

Are you thinking of the AR-10?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justanidea (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:47 PM

30. What utter comfort to the bereaved families!

See, the shooter's gun of choice really wasn't such a bad gun, after all! ... Why, it could have been piano wire, or lawn darts!

There there, don't cry....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #30)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:53 PM

37. I didn't mean it that way.

 

He asked why someone would have an AR-15. So I explained it.

Obviously someone dying is tragic no matter what kind of weapon was used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #30)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:54 PM

39. So what if my family was murdered w/an ax because guns were banned?

 

Utter comfort to the gun banners.

We cry because common sense died.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #39)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:49 PM

64. Yes, the spate of "mass axings" in our culture -- at workplaces and shopping malls -- is disturbing

indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #64)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:36 PM

172. The UK saw a pretty large spike in knifings after they enacted their near-total gun ban.

People seem hell bent on killing each other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #172)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:49 PM

178. Are you proposing that wholesale reintroduction of guns into the UK will make violence go down?



But yes -- we're a hell bent species in many ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #178)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 09:42 PM

188. No, not at all - just that the causes of violence are more complex than

the availability of weapons. We're a clever and violent species.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #188)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:42 PM

230. Yes, but guns are routinely an "amplifier" of those causes.

indeed, that is their existential purpose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #230)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:08 PM

242. I see them more as tools. They can be used

to automate and simplify the killing of beings. Knives and bats are just as deadly, but more difficult to wield.

Either way, there has to be an underlying pathology that can explain why Americans are so violent. I wish we could address this, because the reality is that there are over 100m guns out there, and they're not going to go away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #242)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:27 PM

243. Well, knives and bats have killed far fewer in history than guns have.

Those who have a stake in minimizing gun violence love these false equivalencies, but false they remain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #243)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:41 PM

244. Well, throughout history armies slaughtered whole populations with swords and spears.

I know, that's a false equivalency too, but even if every firearm magically disappeared, Americans (in particular) would still be extremely violent. Yes, the death toll would be much, much lower due to the reduced efficiency of more primitive weapons, but I believe there would be a much higher murder rate compared to other developed states.

I would suggest that our society is a pressure cooker. People, especially young people, are bombarded with violence from birth courtesy of the popular media. Add to that the isolation and lack of any connection to community, and top it off with relatively easy access to deadly weapons, and mass murder happens far too frequently.

There are other developed nations that have high rates of gun ownership, but extremely low murder rates.

What is different about them? Well, they're a lot smaller for one thing. They have better social structures including safety nets for those who are struggling. More homogeneous populations. More lax drug laws.

But then there are outliers like Venezuela, which has one of the highest murder rates in the world, despite very strong anti-poverty programs and a homogeneous population.

I wish there was a simple answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #244)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:36 PM

248. a very false equivalency, as today's events prove. yet again.

N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #248)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 02:12 PM

255. After today's shootings, I'm finally turning a corner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justanidea (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:48 PM

32. I am clueless about hunting

 

I think people that kill animals for fun are sick and disgusting

Do people actually go hunting with A.R. 15's ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mangoman (Reply #32)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:02 PM

44. I own an AR but I don't hunt.

 

I target shoot. Just for fun and have also done some competitions like that involve rifles. I don't hunt though.

Some do hunt with them though.. You can buy ARs with longer barrels. Some even finished in camouflage instead of black. The AR would also have to be a larger caliber since the basic round it shoots isn't powerful enough to take down deer humanely unless you make a perfect shot. They're semi-auto, so each time you squeeze the trigger, it only fires one round. (its not a machine gun)

They're popular guns nowadays due to the fact they're extremely accurate, reliable, and customizable. Every single part can be swapped out and replaced for something that suit's one's needs better. Thats the reason they are now the most popular rifle in America.

Anyway, I don't want this thread to turn into a discussion of gun specifications. Just pointing out that an AR isn't really something strange and unusual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justanidea (Reply #44)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:22 PM

49. Well that's great

 

AR 15's have to be legal because some people like to go have fun shooting at targets with them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mangoman (Reply #49)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:45 PM

103. Funny, I missed that part in the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #103)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:58 PM

152. You mean: "Well regulated militia"?

You belong to a well regulated militia?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #152)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:21 PM

162. I do, actually.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #152)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:42 PM

175. Why should I?

 

It's not a limiting condition by any rule of grammar, and it would probably just make you complain more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mangoman (Reply #49)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:46 PM

177. I think the real point is that if we could magically make every AR-15 disappear,

people would just go buy Ruger Mini-14s or other comparable rifle. They fire the same round and are equipped with a removable magazine. Functionally, there is no difference from an AR-15.

If we banned every semi-auto rifle, people would kill each other with muskets, and then swords if needed, and eventually mallets and rocks.

People hell bent on destruction like the AR-15 because it looks like a real machine gun, ie, scary. It makes them feel tougher/meaner/stronger than the people they want to terrorize. On that basis alone it may make sense to begin restricting them.

Full disclosure - I have an AR-15 and back in the day enjoyed target shooting with it. I haven't touched it in many years because they're a bitch to clean.

I could live with a ban, but I don't think it would accomplish the desired goal - less violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mangoman (Reply #32)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:11 PM

47. They do

 

It's mostly used as a varmint rifle or predator rifle.
Groundhogs , coyotes etc..

Some will also use them hog hunting .

AR15's also can be configured to different calibers for hunting larger game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justanidea (Reply #22)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:06 AM

203. AR-15s are military rifles for combat



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire rifle for the United States armed forces.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #203)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:21 AM

223. Wikipedia, full of shit as usual.

The AR as produced for the civilian market is NOT a military rifle for combat. No segment of the armed forces uses it.

Before 1986, you could swap components in the upper and lower with a M-16 and make a military weapon (an actual M-16, depending on what the upper was made out of and how, so it could take the stress of select fire) out of it, but it was not one on its own.

After 1986, manufacturers are no longer allowed to produce them in a manner that would allow them to be converted to full-auto simply by swapping out parts. So pre-86 AR-15's share some components with the M-16, post-86 AR's are a completely different animal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mangoman (Reply #21)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:27 PM

84. The same reason people but throwing knives

 

And most states allow those as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indydem (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:44 PM

27. You. Must. Protect. Your. Weapon.

This was beaten into my brain by a young South African policeman in the late 1980s, when violence against the white minority (self) was commonplace.

My husband purchased two guns, and we were required to pass a shooting course before we could be issued licenses.

The young police recruit could not have been more earnest with Silly White Lady and her revolver. Owning a gun is an awesome and terrifying responsibility. You need your faculties at all times. That means, no alcohol to dull perceptions and reflexes. Complete familiarity with your weapon. Confidence. Know the whereabouts of your weapon at all times, and know a clear path to it. We kept the combination lock on the bedroom safe turned to near the last digit. Other times, I drove with my weapon in the door pocket of my car, within easy reach of my right (shooting) hand, but out of sight.

He said, if a person is able to disarm you, that person will use your weapon on you.

That's your responsibility as a gun owner. That's what it's like to own a gun. If you can't wrap your head around that, you have no business owning a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #27)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:31 PM

86. When there is a way to make anything theft-proof, be sure to let us know, O.K.? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #86)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:45 PM

104. Don't put words in my mouth.

Like everything else, weapons can and do get stolen. My point is that the gun owner needs to be aware of, and guard against this possibility. The same way you lock your car or house, and take precautions against theft. If your weapon is stolen, it could result in a calamity for you or someone else.

You could argue that this possibility exists with cars, and weed whackers, and other things that can be used for destructive purposes. But guns are the only things I know of that are produced specifically to kill living beings (OK, rat poison and weed killer, but I digress). If you are not fully comfortable with this idea, and the responsibility this entails, then you have no business owning a weapon.

It is not a nice way to live.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #104)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:49 PM

107. You seemed to be insinuating that the lawful owner did not properly safeguard his property.

 

If that was not your intent, my apology.

My point was that even if you take reasonable, or beyond-reasonable, security precautions, there are no guarantees. People are amazingly adaptive and ingenius when they truely want to do something. As the old adage goes, build a better mouse-trap, breed a better mouse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #107)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:58 PM

113. True enough. But...

...as a former gun owner, I can assure you that the weight of responsibility was very great. Greater than for other possessions (family silver and Mom's diamond ring included) because of the gun's potential to cause harm.

I think that if more people took this responsibility more seriously, there would be fewer guns and fewer gun thefts.

I don't have enough facts to comment on the gun theft in this situation, however. My comments were just a caution to owners and prospective owners of firearms.

Peace to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #107)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:07 PM

119. Obviously, he didn't properly safeguard his property.

I'd like to see someone get into my sister's gunsafe without using c-4.

I think if the owners of stolen weapons started getting prosecuted as an accesory to the crimes commited with those weapons, people would start making sure their guns were secured.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kurtzapril4 (Reply #119)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:14 PM

127. This guy is a criminal - he murdered people.

The leap of logic to think that simply locking up (or taking away) every firearm in the country will prevent evil fuckers from committing heinous acts is simply naive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kurtzapril4 (Reply #119)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:23 PM

132. not really most gunsafes are not as secure as most think. A good safe cost more than most

 

people want to spend , a good secure basic safe starts at around
$5000.00 and to get a large one to hold a lot of guns be prepared to spend over 10 grand





Most safes in the $1000.00 to $4000.00 are just lockers.


skip to 3 minutes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #27)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 08:51 PM

185. I was there in the early 80's. Ranch security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indydem (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:25 PM

81. Is this supposed to excuse the NRA?

 

1. I would like to see the law-abiding NRA member prosecuted for the murder for not securing his gun

2. One of the big problems with so many "legal" guns around is that they can get stolen

3. Without a gun, shooting up a mall is very difficult

Seriously, the "reasoning" from you people gets stupider with every mass murder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #81)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:12 PM

124. Assuming controlling firearms will make anything better is a putrid leap of logic.

People will still kill. They will use bombs or cars or knives.

Mentally unstable people who want to commit murder are not going to be stopped by the simple obstacle of the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indydem (Reply #124)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:34 PM

138. You're right!

 

I keep reading stories of the mass bombings in the USA!

Oh, wait, that's just another NRA Talking Point (AKA, Big Lie).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #138)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 08:28 PM

184. Don't forget mass knifings, mass baseball battings,

 

and all of those mass shootings in the civilized countries where, magically, they actually DO control guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #184)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:26 AM

224. Ok.

"An attacker named Wu Huanming (吴环明, 48, killed seven children and two adults and injured 11 other persons with a cleaver at a kindergarten in Hanzhong, Shaanxi on May 12, 2010; early reports were removed from the internet in China, for fear that mass coverage of such violence can provoke copycat attacks. The attacker later committed suicide at his house; he was the landlord of the school, Shengshui Temple private kindergarten, and had been involved in an ongoing dispute with the school administrator about when the school would move out of the building"


"On March 23, 2010, Zheng Minsheng (郑民生 41, murdered eight children with a knife in an elementary school in Nanping, Fujian province; The attack was widely reported in Chinese media (called 南平实验小学重大凶杀案, sparking fears of copycat crimes. Following a quick trial, Zheng Minsheng was executed about one month later on April 28."

China is one of those countries where civilian access to firearms is EXTREMELY controlled.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34400715/ns/world_news-asiapacific/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #81)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:02 PM

154. What did the NRA have to do with this?

 

Anything can be stolen and used as a weapon. Kitchen knives, cars, cans of gas, sports equipment, hand-tools....

I don't see any reasoning in you statements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indydem (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:33 PM

88. What does one need to cross the divide from "Murderous" to "Mass Murderer"?

A high-powered weapon, like say, an AR-15.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #88)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:10 PM

122. What about a bomb?

45 people enough to be "mass murderer"??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indydem (Reply #122)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:56 PM

150. Very hard to build a bomb in the heat of the moment.

Very easy to use an assault weapon in the heat of the moment.

Making sense?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #88)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:07 PM

157. AR-15's are not at all "high powered". No matter how many times you claim they are. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #157)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:22 PM

163. Yeah and three people are not at all "dead".

Did you see the AR-15 on the cover of Gun Lust this month?? Freaking HOT!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #163)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:33 PM

170. Ah, guns as sexual fetishes. Weak sauce. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #170)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:35 PM

171. Sexual?? Where'd you get that from?

Pervert.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #171)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:43 PM

176. Probably I am.... but not with guns.

 

They'd get all sticky, and they don't snuggle worth a damn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:19 PM

10. He (possibly) had the right to buy it, but in fact he stole it.

You know, the whole "criminals don't obey laws" thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:20 PM

11. Please add a link to the stolen gun story

I haven't seen that yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Recursion (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:23 PM

15. Thanks n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:27 PM

18. Here is the link, but it doesn't change the fact, that guns are too readily available

http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/124646-clackamas-town-center-gunman-stole-weapon-used-in-attack

This punk stole a firearm and apparently a few loaded magazines and intended to go on a killing spree until the gun jammed. Why we need AR15s in this country I do not know, unless deer have begun shooting back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #18)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:32 PM

20. +1,000 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #18)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:38 PM

23. "I do not know, unless deer have begun shooting back."

 


Most gun owners are not hunters in this country.
Are you suggesting that only hunters should own guns?





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #23)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:44 PM

26. Shit no, I own firearms

It is the lame old NRA stand by of "hunters rights" 2nd amendment remedies! Our defense against the black helicopters!!!!! .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #18)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:02 PM

43. Hint: Because the 2A is not about armed bears.

 

Sheeshee......... Read the memo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to rustydog (Reply #18)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:48 PM

106. Once again, AR-15's as designed, are not legal for hunting deer.

They are too small and underpowered.

Thanks for furthering a misconception.
The AR-15 IS versatile, and can be re-chambered in a larger caliber for deer. (Or you can just buy an AR-10) But off the shelf, in the spec .223, almost every, or every state bans it because it cannot humanely and quickly kill a deer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #106)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:38 PM

141. There's a lot of other hunting than whitetails

 

Why do you keep referring to deer hunting?

Or just is it that everyone else in the thread is and you are responding to them?

The .223 round and AR 15 rifle is a perfectly acceptable caliber and rifle for many species of game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #141)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:52 PM

147. I don't know, why don't you read the post I was responding to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #147)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:57 PM

151. But you are incorrect on that , there are at least 6 states I know of where the .223 is legal

 

for deer hunting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #18)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:55 PM

149. When did the gun become stolen?

 

Before or after the Mall murders?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #149)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:09 PM

159. According to the news reports it was stolen by the shooter the day prior. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:21 PM

12. Looks like a pleasant enough fellow. Wonder what went wrong? . . .

Moreover, wonder what, if anything, we can do to intercede and help before people get to the point this man crossed with deadly result.

My heart goes out to the victims' families and friends. I wish there were more we could do, but it can't be addressed until we at least start talking about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Journeyman (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:28 PM

19. The sad truth is the NRA controls the "discussion" in America

A serious discussion on gun violence and gun "control" (not using two hands) is long overdue in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:03 PM

45. but the other part of the discussion is not about guns

it is about this young American. Just 22 years old and he felt that he did not have anything to live for.

How many other young Americans feel that way? Why? and what can we do about it?

If we keep guns away from these people can we then safely ignore them? Heck, he could have easily killed more than two people with a car, which I feel is at least as deadly a weapon as a gun. This guy managed to kill nine, supposedly without even trying http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Russell_Weller

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #45)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:56 PM

66. Exactly. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #45)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:58 PM

115. Goddamit, I'm sick of this foolhardy equivocation.

You know what the difference is between guns and things like cars and knives?

Cars can kill but their primary function is to get you from point A to point B

Knives can kill people but their other function is to cut through objects, especially objects that are not currently alive.

Guns have only one function and exist for only one purpose: to hurt things. Guns aren't tools. Guns are weapons.

I'm sensitive about this one because the Weller incident happened in my hometown. The old man had a minor stroke or some other age-related lapse and plowed into a farmers market at a crowded mall. I doubt Mr. Weller would have caused nearly as much mayhem if an automatic was in his hand and he didn't realize he was pressing on the trigger.

You can't accidentally kill multiple people with a gun; people who fire guns in shopping malls are people who want to be murderers. The issue is NOT "guns can kill but only if they're abused;" the issue is they're being correctly used, fulfilling their sole function, all too effectively upon the general population.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bicoastal (Reply #115)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:15 PM

161. Touche!

"the issue is they're being correctly used, fulfilling their sole function, all too effectively upon the general population."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bicoastal (Reply #115)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:57 AM

200. you missed my point

First, that there are many young men like this young man. He sorta had his whole life in front of him, but did not see any point, did not have any desire to live it. Second, not only did he hate his own life, he also had a hatred for society - a desire to kill some of us before he killed himself.

That is the first part of the discussion.

Can we help these young people? How?

Do we even want to help these young people?

Or do we just want to keep them from deadly weapons so we can safely ignore them?

Well, that's kinda hard to do. Besides himself, this guy killed a mere two people with his rampage. Well, he could have easily killed more than two people if he had chosen to act out his anger with an automobile instead of a gun. There are many other tools, which, while not designed for the purpose of killing, neverthekless could easily be used to kill many more than two people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #200)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:07 AM

214. Your logic makes no sense.

It's okay to discuss ways to help people with mental illness. Of that, I'm sure both you and I agree.

But you can't discuss people with mental illness getting access to guns. Apparently, that's verbotten.

Why is okay to discuss one problem but not the other? As if discussing the former absolves us from ever having to discuss the latter, which is a very real problem (See Holmes, Loughner, etc.)

The conversation is not governed that way. It doesn't have to follow your terms and conditions. We shouldn't have to stick our head in the sand regarding very real problems just because it offends some people's sensibilities about their prized possessions.

Guns are far and away the favored tools in most murders, including mass murders. They are efficient and can be used at a safe distance. It is easier to kill with a gun, a tool designed with the intent to kill/injure/simulate killing/injuring, than just about any other tool. They do not require close personal proximity, such as cars, knives or other blunt/sharp instruments. They do not require complex assembly, as do bombs. I'm not saying we need to outlaw guns in their entirety, I'm just saying that they need to be held up to higher scrutiny than objects that were not designed with the intent to be used as a lethal weapons, i.e. cars.

Repeat after me: Cars are not guns. Cars are not guns. Cars are not guns........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #214)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:53 PM

232. some people seem to think we are only talking about guns

the original post said

"...wonder what went wrong.

Moreover, wonder what, if anything, we can do to intercede and help before people get to the point this man crossed with deadly result.

My heart goes out to the victims' families and friends. I wish there were more we could do, but it can't be addressed until we at least start talking about it."

and the reply which I responded to, answered that question as if - the only thing that went wrong was that this angry young man got his hands on a gun. I disagree and think the original comment was a question about "How did he get so angry, so full of hatred and despair?" and not "How did he get a gun?"

Now you come out and say it is abouit "mental illness" and I also see that as a deflection. I don't think the problem is that this guy was insane. I am not sure if I would classify anger and despair as mental illnesses.

To me, it is our SOCIETY which is insane. Not just one guy. I would want to fix our society, not just give this guy some prescripton drug and call it a day - now he is adjuested to our insane society, problem solved.

And I never said that cars were guns.

What I said is that a car is a deadlier weapon than a gun, and I stand by that.

Guns killed 8,775 people in 2010 in homicides and 17,352 in suicides and perhaps 1,000 in accidents. Less than 28,000. Well, in 2009, cars killed 35,900 without even trying. Imagine how much deadlier they would be if people used them as weapons. Imagine if the batman guy, instead of using guns, had plowed his car into a line of people waiting for the batman screening. He could have killed twelve people that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #232)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:10 PM

235. Objects that only accidentially or negligently cause harm are not by definition "weapons."

And yes, sure, a person can always use a good number of objects as a weapon, secondary to their intended use. Including cars.

But something being used as a weapon is not always the same as something being a weapon, and therein lies the difference.

And I believe 99%+ of those 35,900 car related deaths in 2010 were not as a result of something deciding to intentionally plow one's car into another person, hence those are not weapon related deaths. And sure, James Holmes could have chosen to use a car to kill people instead of shooting them, but he didn't. And most people who want to intentionally kill someone don't chose to use a car. It comes off bulky and inefficient, not to mention the fact that it could likely cause injury or death to the driver, and not everyone who wishes harm to another person wants to injure or kill him/herself in the process.

You compare the number of intentional homicides with guns with the number of intentional homicides with cars and it would be incredibly lopsided. And that goes to the whole intended purpose of the object at hand, so it shouldn't be a surprise that a person would use an actual weapon versus an object that could be used as a weapon.

It is always important to try to understand why someone is driven to kill. That was the big question after September 11th, if you remember: "Why do they hate us?"

But motive and means are two seperate and independent entities. And trying to determine underlying causes that may lead to someone killing should not preclude examining the means in which they are killing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #235)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 02:16 AM

246. really fixated on the whole guns vs. cars thing

which was a minor aside to my main point.

Although my other point was, yes, if they cannot get the favorite preferred weapon, there are always many other things, many of them quite deadly, which can be used as weapons.

And yes "to do, is to be". A knife has many other uses besides as a weapon, but nobody denies that it is a weapon if I strap one to my belt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #246)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:20 AM

247. I'm only fixated on it because it is repeated ad nauseum by the gun enthusiasts.

And it is such a ridiculously flawed analogy, yet they think if they repeat it enough times, it will somehow become truer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #45)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 10:25 PM

190. An objects availability and its intended use must be taken into account.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald%27s_massacre

Huberty used a 9 mm Uzi semi-automatic (the primary weapon fired in the massacre), a Winchester pump-action 12-gauge shotgun, and a 9 mm Browning HP in the restaurant, killing 21 people and wounding 19 others. His victims were predominantly Mexican and Mexican-American and ranged in age from 8 months to 74 years. The massacre began at 3:59 p.m. and lasted for 77 minutes. He had spent 257 rounds of ammunition before he was fatally shot by a SWAT team sniper, Chuck Foster, perched on the roof of the post office adjacent to the restaurant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #45)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:25 AM

207. +1 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Journeyman (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:56 PM

111. Anomie

go re-watch Taxi Driver.

He was suicidal and angry, and wanted to make the world hurt like he hurt, and to have made his mark on society, no matter what it was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:23 PM

16. My grandfather used to hunt deer in the winter time...

and when his shotgun was not at his side, it was locked in a gun safe.
Pretty hard to steal when it's secured properly.

And that's part of the problem. Lazy ass (legal) gun owners and very lax registration and serial number tracking.

It is time for some serious laws regarding gun ownership in this country. And everytime I read about another one of these shootings I am going to let my elected officials know my feelings on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Not Me (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:41 PM

24. They seem to have been able to track this weapon quickly

 

Any gun sold through a FFL dealer can be tracked to the purchaser of the weapon

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:46 PM

28. Private party or fairgrounds gun show and the sale is untraceable

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:00 PM

41. Every gun show at the fairgrounds/firehall I've ever been to requires a 4473 and a background check.

 

Any dealer on site is required to be an FFL. So you're wrong (probably again.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #41)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:07 PM

46. I think he's talking about a private sale at a gun show

 

I have never been to a gun show but the way I believe it happens is a private individual can also rent a table.

Why not make the NICS check available to all gun sales not just dealer sales?
Let a private citizen have access to it before he sells a firearm privately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #46)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:11 PM

48. It has to differ by state.

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #48)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:20 PM

129. The last time I went to

Webster's Flea Market, in Tarrytown, FL., you could straight up buy guns from individuals who had rented a table, in the area behind the main flea market. No background check, no license check, no nothing. One of the people I was with bought one, so I know this for a fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:37 PM

91. Not at all. It just requires some extra police work to do interviews and locate people. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:21 PM

130. My buddy and I

went to a gun show in Tampa. He bought an Uzi from some guy in the parking lot. $600 cash and that was it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to secondvariety (Reply #130)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:23 PM

164. Cool story.

 

What caliber? Was it full-auto or semi-only? Closed-bolt or open-bolt? What model Uzi (they make several) and manufacturer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #164)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 08:04 PM

182. You'd have to ask him,

if he's not in jail. But since your such a curious cat, it was 9mm, semi-only (I think). Personally, I don't get a woody over fire arms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to secondvariety (Reply #182)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:33 AM

204. I guess I was too subtle and you missed my point...

 

which was that if it was a full-auto, or fires from an open bolt, it was an illegal sale and you may be an accessory to a felony.

If only semi-auto/closed-bolt, it was presumably legal, unless he's a prohibited possesor, see accessory, above.

Other than that, I'm not seeing any problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #204)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:15 PM

257. And you missed my point.

He bought an Uzi from a dude in the parking lot, no questions asked, no paperwork, no nothing but a cash transaction. There's a reason why my friend bought it on the down low. "...you may be an accessory to a felony". Get real. It was 20 years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to secondvariety (Reply #257)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:43 PM

258. So you seem to be saying that your friend did have criminal history or intent....

 

and that you were present at the commission of a felony and did not report it.

Is this correct?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #258)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:05 PM

259. THAT'S what troubling to you?

That I didn't rat my friend out? The fact that semi-autos are readily available from the trunk of a car is ok to you? I also had friends who sold a lot of weed back then (felonious amounts)-I didn't rat them out, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to secondvariety (Reply #259)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:21 PM

260. The law states that one may not sell a gun to a person if you have reason to believe that the buyer

 

is a legally prohibited person.

I'm in full agreement with that law. The problem, of course, is that proving knowledge can be difficult and tedious.

Here, you have admitted to witnessing, possibly aiding/abbeting, a federal felony. Yes, it's a problem for me that you allowed a person (with a higher than average potential for endangering others) to purchase a firearm illegally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #260)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:50 PM

261. And I'm amused by the fact

that you don't have a problem with firearms being sold out of the trunk of a car. I'm also amused that you think I "allowed" someone to purchase a firearm illegally-I was neither the buyer or seller. Maybe we should just make it hunky-dory for anyone to buy a gun (the NRA would love that)-that way we can get rid of your "difficult and tedious" problem of actually following the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to secondvariety (Reply #261)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 08:57 PM

263. You were there. You witnessed it. You did not report it to police.

 

I have no problems with private, lawful sales. I have problems with private, unlawful sales.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #263)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:43 PM

264. Lol.

Are you being purposely obtuse or is it a condition you can't help? That was my original point-private sales at gun shows don't need any paper work. No background check, no names exchanged, no questionnaire. The fact that any lunatic in the world can buy a firearm at a gun show from a private seller, while technically legal, is an invitation for trouble.

P.S.
I never said my friend was a felon or what he did was illegal, but he is odd and paranoid. That seems to be a common trait among gun fanatics, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:51 PM

34. Why can't we just rule the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias?

 

We do NOT need people owning guns in any capacity except for law enforcement anyway.

Once we have one more Obama-appointee, gun ownership is dead anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:34 PM

55. Because that would require a constitutional amendment.

The language of the amendment, when subjected to rigorous linguistic analysis, simply doesn't limit the RKBA to militia members. I won't add yet another lengthy explanation of that (they're easily found), but the upthrust is that the language of the Second Amendment would have to change to introduce that requirement. I suspect such an effort at amendment would be a complete non-starter.

"Once we have one more Obama-appointee, gun ownership is dead anyway."

Um...no. If that somehow occurred, all it would do is create an unnecessary adversarial relationship between law enforcement and literally millions and millions of previously law-abiding citizens. That would have the horrible effect of inhibiting investigations of real crimes...just for a start. Any pro-active attempt to enforce such a restriction would end in widespread violence. The police (even those who obeyed orders to carry out enforcement of such a provision...and many, many would not) are not remotely adequate to the task.

It's just not going to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:06 PM

71. Because there are 5 right-wing justices on the supreme court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #71)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:54 PM

148. Correctomundo!!

 

You get the prize for the correct response. It is NOT the Constitution that dictates the laws; it is the interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court that dictates constitutional decree. To that end, we need at least one more progressive on the court (replacing one of the 'bagger robes) to be able to interpret the constitution in a more inclusive, progressive manner, which would most likely render the 2nd Amendment to allow us to restrict (or preferably ban) gun usage.

Frankly, we need a complete rewrite of our constitution; indeed we don't really need one, we can just use the UN's. That is as progressive as we can get, and a successful Obama administration that transfers to a new progressive president in 2016, coupled with a super majority in the Senate and huge majority in the House, will allow that to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #148)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 10:20 PM

189. What are you smoking? Please do not tell me that you actually believe that

the United States is going to jettison its constitution and adapt the UN's...?

Funnily enough, that's the same argument that many crazy people have used in their unfair characterization of Mr. Obama as a one-world commie.

Really, my friend, come back to reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #189)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 01:43 PM

234. I give you two links...

 

US CONSTITUTION: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

UN UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

Which one would YOU rather have as our constitution? Yes, I realize the "Declaration of Human Rights" is not specifically a "Constitution," but then the process of guaranteeing those rights are at odds with much of the US Constitution, specifically the republicanist ambiguity on "freedom," which nowadays means "free for white rich assholes to screw the poor/minorities/women/children/etc."

THAT is reality. Pure, unadulterated reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #234)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:54 PM

236. I have a big problem with the fist part of Article 25.

1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

So people have an inherent human right to a certain standard of living that guarantees food and shelter and medical care?

If half the world's population decides that their life's calling is to smear their feces on a wall and admire the aesthetic, then I guess the other half will just have to work twice as hard to support them, eh? Sorry, no sale. Able bodied and able minded adults should be required to toil in some way to earn the standard of living described.

I cannot imagine a more undignified existence than to be supported by the efforts of others. Disability and unemployment and economic dislocation excluded, of course.

Then again, someone with the username 'BanTheGop' seems likely to have no compunction against using brutal force to get their way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #234)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:46 PM

245. Upon further examination, I see the UN document also guarantees private property rights,

which is the bedrock foundation of Capitalism. So your egalitarian utopia would remain elusive, as some people are going to be naturally better at acquiring wealth the others.

The only mechanism we have at our disposal to prevent ridiculous piles of money accumulating in the hands of the few is the tax code. I suggest that if we wielded it properly, America would not have the widest disparity in wealth in the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:39 PM

95. Article 5 of the Constitution awaits you. Go hog wild. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:01 PM

42. Now, now, he could have just as easily gone on a murder spree with rocks

What are we gonna do, ban rocks now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #42)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:29 PM

52. Bombs.

Seriously, I read that in another thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #42)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:26 PM

82. Just the hard ones...NRA sez 17,556 are killed with quartz every year.

There's no legit reason to be packing quartz.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:38 PM

60. The more guns manufactured-the more guns stolen.

Thats why the gun industry has a lobby, the NRA. So they can keep demand as high as possible and keep the assembly line going full speed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ErikJ (Reply #60)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:35 AM

227. No, the gun industry's lobby is the NSSF

It's in Newtown, CT.

http://www.nssf.org/industry/aboutnssf.cfm

They still use ColdFusion, the poor bastards...

The NRA is the gun owners' lobby, and disagrees with the NSSF on several issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:52 PM

65. Great thread title. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:20 PM

75. As it turns out, he stole it.

 

Now what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:21 PM

76. young handsome guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:37 PM

92. If only all the other shoppers had AR-15 assult rifles

They could have killed him before he got going

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:38 PM

93. Looks like a kid. I wonder what happened to him to twist up his mind so badly.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #93)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:41 PM

96. +++1!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #93)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:30 PM

137. Yep he's way too young for this end

but the people he killed and the one he seriously injured are young too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:41 PM

98. Since the second amendment was adopted in 1791.............

.....would it be fair to say that the "Founding Fathers" meant that the people had the right to bear ONLY arms that were used at that time, i.e., knives, muskets, etc.?

Did the Founding Fathers intend to permit AR-15s and all the other high-powered guns to be "borne" by the people?

I wonder what they'd think about that amendment in today's day and age!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #98)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:52 PM

109. In 1791 there existed a 20 shot rifle.

Girandoni Repeating Rifle.
You can read all about it in the Lewis and Clark expedition.

The Austrians used it against the French too. Seems the French were pretty annoyed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #109)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 11:17 PM

196. Okay, fine..........let's include teh Girandoni Repeating Rifle, not an AK-46.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #196)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:00 AM

197. Why?

Do you have a reason?
Logic that couldn't be used to limit freedom of the press to archaic technology?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #197)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:07 AM

206. Did you read your post to which I responded?

Where does freedom of the press fall into this? You pointed out that a particular type of gun existed when the 2nd Amendment was adopted, so...................

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #206)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:10 AM

217. Sure.


"Since the second amendment was adopted in 1791............."
".....would it be fair to say that the "Founding Fathers" meant that the people had the right to bear ONLY arms that were used at that time, i.e., knives, muskets, etc.?"


No it would not be fair to state that. First of all, the founders left the statement open-ended with 'arms', and knowingly so with wildly advanced (for the time) technology appearing all the time. Some of it high-capacity, repeating action.


The parallel to the first amendment is strong. It doesn't protect movable type block presses, it protects expression, speech, and the press. Like the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect muskets, and some early rifles, it protects 'arms'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #98)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:58 PM

114. Free speech should not include telephones? Freedom of the press not online?

What other rights should we freeze to 18th C limits? The vote?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #114)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 11:16 PM

195. The Constitution was amended to expand the vote, it wasn't amended to expand........

...the right to assault rifles. Telepones don't infringe on the rights of others nor do are they used to shoot people!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #195)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:17 AM

221. There is no restriction of "assault rifles" (which you probably can't define) inherent....

 

in the Constitution.

There were specific restrictions on voting. So we fixed that, after a long struggle, both in the courts and (literally) on the battlefield.

Article 5 of the Constitution awaits you. Go hog wild.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:57 PM

112. zzzzzzzzzzzz

another day, another NRA wet dream

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #112)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:23 PM

133. Yes sir/m'aam! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:13 PM

126. Oh, the NRA backs him

Just like they do Zimmerman. He is their kind of hero. Poster boy for the postal. Any instance that uses more guns and bullets, creates sales and more money for the industry.

Just watch they will come out and push concealed carry as the answer to mass murder/violent gun crime. Yes, buy MORE guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #126)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:02 PM

155. where were the concealed carriers?

I'm not up on Oregons concealed law, but I'm sure I'll be reading "if only a citizen could have drawn and shot him it would have been over far earlier" on a different forum or two.

Gauddammmint, this isn't Kabul or Beruit, I don't want to have to worry about some nutcase opening up like the first day of deer season while I'm buying my s.o. something at Spencer gifts/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onethatcares (Reply #155)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:15 AM

220. Depending on the state you live in, out of a crowd of 30 people, you can assume 7 have a permit to

carry.

Most people with a permit do not carry 100% of the time. For instance, I don't carry to the mall, because my local mall has clear 'no firearms' signs, and can have me cited for trespassing if I am on their property armed.

Law abiding tends to mean... yanno... law abiding. The mall in which this shooting occurred is a 'gun free zone' just like the local mall here.

You also have localized populations. Where I live, our district has only 2% of the population possessing CPL's. Other districts score as high as 80%. These things are not distributed uniformly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #126)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:30 PM

169. There is plenty of reason to oppose the NRA without making crap up, even as snark.

 

That's what Repubs do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #169)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:14 AM

201. You think this killing won't make the gun manufacturers more money?

You think this killing and others like it won't be used by the NRA to push for more concealed carry?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #201)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:58 AM

205. "more"? Oregon already has CC. Not sure how to make it "more".

 

Regardless, lawful CC played no part in this, unless one wants to speculate that the practice of it is currently too rare to be sufficiently effective in preventing crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #205)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:04 AM

216. I'm not in Oregon, are you?

Nevertheless we are discussing this incident.

Hopefully when everyone is armed all the time these sorts of incidents will taper off.

I await the day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #216)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:14 AM

219. Interesting hypothesis.... but your facetiousness really isn't helpfull. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)


Response to malaise (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 01:23 PM

251. Not the latest anymore

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mercuryblues (Reply #251)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:51 PM

262. I had the same thought

And the latest one has slaughtered 20 innocent children just in time for Christmas.
I give up!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread