Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 09:20 PM Jul 2012

In NJ, James Holmes likely would have been caught before committing his massacre

That's because prospective NJ handgun owners are required to submit to in-depth local law enforcement background checks and questioning before being granted a handgun permit. LE would have personally queried family members, neighbors, and employers (if any) to make sure the handgun permit seeker isn't a psycho.

Holmes legally purchased his two Glock pistols and his Smith and Wesson AR-15 semi-automatic rifle in Colorado this past Spring. The Smith and Wesson is not legally available in NJ (as it exceeds the 15-round limit). But more importantly, with all the information surfacing about his personality, any attempt by him to obtain a handgun permit would have alerted police that they had a psycho on their hands.

Do these steps completely eliminate gun massacres and gun crimes in NJ? No, but they would have prevented the massacre in this case.

In Colorado? No gun permit or license required. No way for law enforcement to have prevented last night's massacre.

149 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
In NJ, James Holmes likely would have been caught before committing his massacre (Original Post) brentspeak Jul 2012 OP
100% correct malaise Jul 2012 #1
What information about this guy is surfacing that would have prevented this? Daniel537 Jul 2012 #2
His mom has expressed brentspeak Jul 2012 #3
Well she said they "have the right person" Daniel537 Jul 2012 #4
Or did it mean "yes you have the right person I am his mother" n/t PoliticAverse Jul 2012 #5
Or did it mean: DocMac Jul 2012 #53
It didn't, it was misinterpreted... PoliticAverse Jul 2012 #149
After the fact, your point is moot. Tejas Jul 2012 #51
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness yellerpup Jul 2012 #25
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness AlbertCat Jul 2012 #32
I'm with you, AlbertCat. yellerpup Jul 2012 #33
2nd Amendment trumps emotional cliches. Tejas Jul 2012 #52
If we ever get enough money to buy the Supreme Court back yellerpup Jul 2012 #57
Stanford, is that you? Tejas Jul 2012 #88
Not much of a constitutional professor, are you? Daniel537 Jul 2012 #89
No. Is that what you are? yellerpup Jul 2012 #93
Not legally accurate 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #129
Hang onto that. yellerpup Jul 2012 #134
What "right" 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #136
I'm not upset. yellerpup Jul 2012 #140
You went off on some nonsense about the "right" to pollute water 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #144
I said nothing about the "right" to pollute water. yellerpup Jul 2012 #147
He didn't need the hand guns. n/t PoliticAverse Jul 2012 #6
Even in a perfect society, we must be able to filter out the potentially harmful ones. Gregorian Jul 2012 #7
This message was self-deleted by its author HangOnKids Jul 2012 #56
That assumes that he obtained the guns legally. WillowTree Jul 2012 #8
No need to assume anything. LisaL Jul 2012 #10
Sounds like NJ has a good plan. freshwest Jul 2012 #9
How would you like the NJ approach applied to your right to vote? ProgressiveProfessor Jul 2012 #11
I refered to the OP's take on the matter. It has nothing to do with voting rights. freshwest Jul 2012 #13
Voting is not analogous to possessing a potentially deadly weapon. Chorophyll Jul 2012 #22
Fortunately the courts are not taking such a cavalier attitude towards our constitutional rights ProgressiveProfessor Jul 2012 #37
I'm tired of innocent people being gunned down because of your belief that Chorophyll Jul 2012 #40
an occasional horrific massacre is just the price of freedom then DBoon Jul 2012 #43
Fortunately, courts can be changed and rights for others can be secured by them. CTyankee Jul 2012 #107
This analogy is absurd. 2ndAmForComputers Jul 2012 #117
Should the Chief of Police be judge and jury? obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #60
I'm sorry you had a bad experience. But checking out mental health should be an ohjective criteria. freshwest Jul 2012 #71
I didn't have a bad experience obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #72
The OP didn describe a state with what you term as subjective gun laws. What you describe is not freshwest Jul 2012 #75
Our police chief has saved countless lives including one suicide that I know of. Walk away Jul 2012 #77
Examples of NJ law enforcement prejudicely denying a gun permit? brentspeak Jul 2012 #146
For a variety of reasons it wouldn't have mattered in this case 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #130
maybe not hollysmom Jul 2012 #12
I would go further and mandate an extensive mental health exam. Comrade_McKenzie Jul 2012 #14
That the potential firearm owner pays for himself. jonthebru Jul 2012 #30
+1,000,000 (n/t) klook Jul 2012 #34
Excellent point. nt Comrade_McKenzie Jul 2012 #39
Would you agree to the same to be allowed to exercise other rights, such as voting? ProgressiveProfessor Jul 2012 #70
If you plan on voting with a gun...yes:-) Walk away Jul 2012 #81
I was speaking of basic 2nd Amendment (ownership) ProgressiveProfessor Jul 2012 #102
Those kinds of subjective tests have historically been used 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #131
And THAT is the way it should be nation wide. UnrepentantLiberal Jul 2012 #15
The ant-gun crowd is just as obstinate and extreme. HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #29
They're hollering to ban all guns. AlbertCat Jul 2012 #35
Some here on DU for example ProgressiveProfessor Jul 2012 #38
"Some" UnrepentantLiberal Jul 2012 #44
Yes, "some" indicating a undefinitized quantity ProgressiveProfessor Jul 2012 #69
There is half a dozen threads right here on DU. HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #47
There is half a dozen threads right here on DU. AlbertCat Jul 2012 #135
Bullshit. UnrepentantLiberal Jul 2012 #42
Not true. HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #48
It's too late. UnrepentantLiberal Jul 2012 #49
"All gun advocates oppose regulating access to guns" obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #61
Absolutely. HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #120
Ant crowd uh. The ant crowd. DainBramaged Jul 2012 #74
Can you provide the evidence that he didn't vote for Obama? Marengo Jul 2012 #82
Of course he cant. HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #91
Just like you gunnies DainBramaged Jul 2012 #95
Good luck taking guns I dont own. HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #100
Why not answer the question DainBramaged Jul 2012 #94
In other words, you can't provide evidence for your assertion. Marengo Jul 2012 #109
Fuck my creditability, I don't give a shit, credibility is for Repukes to defend DainBramaged Jul 2012 #114
LOL! It's rare to see someone willing compromise their own credibility... Marengo Jul 2012 #124
Merry Christmas DainBramaged Jul 2012 #126
And Bon Voyage to your Integrity! Marengo Jul 2012 #128
"Fuck my creditability(sic), I don't give a shit, ..." oldhippie Jul 2012 #132
You saw me not vote for Obama? HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #90
Answer the question then instead of deflecting DainBramaged Jul 2012 #96
Why should I reply to your demand? HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #97
I've voted straight Democratic ticket since I turned 18 over 4 decades ago, and I voted for DainBramaged Jul 2012 #98
Its too bad there's no rolleyes smilie... HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #105
.. . taterguy Jul 2012 #119
Who is this "most of you" you are referring to? Marengo Jul 2012 #110
You didn't ask a question, you issued a declaration. Marengo Jul 2012 #111
Those don't seem like unreasonable checks to me. nt gateley Jul 2012 #16
Incorrect. JeepJK556 Jul 2012 #17
If you are a liberal, you might not get a gun permit obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #62
Holmes didn't have a criminal record the way Zimmerman did. Major Hogwash Jul 2012 #18
Should we have test for voting, too? Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #19
"Constitutionally enumerated individual right" beac Jul 2012 #26
+1 yellerpup Jul 2012 #36
. Tejas Jul 2012 #54
What a ridiculous and pathetic argument. beac Jul 2012 #66
So instead of a canned kindergarten reply, offer something of substance. Tejas Jul 2012 #83
How about you offer up something that isn't rehashed and fallacy filled cliche first. cleanhippie Jul 2012 #118
Car ownership is not an enumerated right in the constitution ProgressiveProfessor Jul 2012 #123
Post removed Post removed Jul 2012 #55
Wow, you honored me with TWO pathetic responses? beac Jul 2012 #67
Your OP had multiple fuckups in it, best addressed in kind. Tejas Jul 2012 #84
And yet, the only argument you seem to be able to come up with, beac Jul 2012 #104
"spamming every shooting thread on DU" - oh, another stalker! Tejas Jul 2012 #106
Wow. beac Jul 2012 #148
The individual right was simply recognized in 2008. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #63
And you don't think a "well-regulated militia" beac Jul 2012 #65
+1 (nt) OmahaBlueDog Jul 2012 #27
You mean he would have just bought one illegally instead? n/t krispos42 Jul 2012 #20
NY too with that kind of check evilhime Jul 2012 #21
So, would...... ethereal1 Jul 2012 #23
Oh, well in that case let's have a free-for-all. Chorophyll Jul 2012 #41
Do you think individuals should be allowed to buy nukes? sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #101
You know what is strange. I live in gun-nuttery country. tsuki Jul 2012 #24
Exactly! HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #28
No they're not. UnrepentantLiberal Jul 2012 #45
I have no problem with gun ownership mountain grammy Jul 2012 #31
Exactly. UnrepentantLiberal Jul 2012 #46
Replace the skeleton stock with a wooden one... HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #50
Welcome to DU mountain grammy malaise Jul 2012 #59
All pistols are semi automatics obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #64
Bullshit. jp11 Jul 2012 #58
Wow, looks like you support the selling of death without question. What do the nuts say DainBramaged Jul 2012 #73
Stop blaming the gun for once. LAGC Jul 2012 #86
Wow you can make asinine accusations absent of evidence or facts jp11 Jul 2012 #108
Go rake some dirt DainBramaged Jul 2012 #115
Yankee state vs. the wild west. They'll always be different, I think. Honeycombe8 Jul 2012 #68
NJ, 4.2 murders per 100,000 people. Oregon 2.4, Washington 2.3 Bluenorthwest Jul 2012 #80
This was a post about gun control, not murder. Honeycombe8 Jul 2012 #122
Being in Colorado, where were all those CCW holders? n/t doc03 Jul 2012 #76
Unlike the shooter they were obeying the law. ramikin Jul 2012 #78
How about banning semi-auto weapons and limiting magazine capacity? Do you doc03 Jul 2012 #79
The perp was armed with a rifle. LAGC Jul 2012 #87
I was somewhat surprised that there was not an off duty or retired LEO in the crowd ProgressiveProfessor Jul 2012 #103
Banning semi-autos would be a no brainer in a civilized doc03 Jul 2012 #112
Other countries, other cultures do things differently ProgressiveProfessor Jul 2012 #116
Why not also ban all autos except the ModelT? HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #121
Following the law: the movie theater forbids even CCW holders to carry on their property 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #133
I'm sure people are saying the same thing if it happened in Arizona rucky Jul 2012 #85
It did. Gabby Gifford. HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #92
Someone who was determined would still buy the weapons, even MineralMan Jul 2012 #99
I live in NJ as a former law enforcement Officer it's hard bigdarryl Jul 2012 #113
I don't think he would have needed an actual carry permit freethought Jul 2012 #143
brentspeak, you are assuming that Holmes would have obeyed NJ's laws slackmaster Jul 2012 #125
"Given that he (Holmes) didn't obey Colorado's laws" brentspeak Jul 2012 #137
He broke laws by taking loaded weapons into a movie theater and shooting a bunch of people slackmaster Jul 2012 #138
Why didn't he buy his guns illegally? brentspeak Jul 2012 #139
Because he didn't have to, but I'm quite sure that he would have. slackmaster Jul 2012 #141
"Because he didn't have to" brentspeak Jul 2012 #145
Didn't he use a rifle? 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #127
I think that is higly doubtful freethought Jul 2012 #142
 

Daniel537

(1,560 posts)
2. What information about this guy is surfacing that would have prevented this?
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 09:30 PM
Jul 2012

By all accounts so far he seemed to just be another average person, no criminal history, no threats, no history of mental problems. Unless being a loner is reason alone to deny someone the ability to purchase a firearm. And personally, i don't think my 2nd amendment rights should be subject to the statements of neighbors and employers, as if their word is somehow the gospel.

 

Daniel537

(1,560 posts)
4. Well she said they "have the right person"
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 09:36 PM
Jul 2012

after being informed of his identity by ABC News, i don't know if that automatically translates into "i'm not surprised", but we'll see.

DocMac

(1,628 posts)
53. Or did it mean:
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 03:57 AM
Jul 2012

Take this little shit away. He dropped out and isn't paying rent! He'll be a homeless little shit when he gets home!

??

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
149. It didn't, it was misinterpreted...
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 05:29 PM
Jul 2012

Lawyer Lisa Damiani said her client Arlene Holmes was awakened about 5:45 a.m. PST Friday by ABC News. Damiani she was asked if she was Arlene Holmes, and if her son was James Holmes. Reading a statement from Arlene, Damiani said "I said 'Yes, you have the right person.' But I was talking about myself."

http://www.denverpost.com/theatershooting/ci_21139349/alleged-shooters-mom-reports-she-knew-son-was

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
32. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:04 AM
Jul 2012

trumps the second amendment.



Not to mention the Founding Fathers couldn't even imagine a Smith and Wesson AR-15 semi-automatic rifle.

yellerpup

(12,249 posts)
33. I'm with you, AlbertCat.
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:08 AM
Jul 2012

Life comes first and I'm not willing to lay mine down because some jackass is mad about something. 100 rounds and 71 shot like fish in a barrel. This is sick and wrong. Fuck the NRA and the congress they paid for.

 

Tejas

(4,759 posts)
52. 2nd Amendment trumps emotional cliches.
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 03:51 AM
Jul 2012

Good luck in a court of law with a case based on your emotions.

yellerpup

(12,249 posts)
57. If we ever get enough money to buy the Supreme Court back
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 07:11 AM
Jul 2012

you can check your emotions in a court of law.

yellerpup

(12,249 posts)
93. No. Is that what you are?
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 02:08 PM
Jul 2012

Who said I was? There is nothing constitutional or "well regulated" about any asshat who wants to get his name in the headlines for becoming a mass murderer when all he has to do is buy an assault rifle.

yellerpup

(12,249 posts)
134. Hang onto that.
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:04 PM
Jul 2012

And when all the water in this country is fouled, I hope you can evolve quickly enough to digest petrochemicals.

"life, liberty, etc." comes from the Declaration of Independence and represents the principles upon which the country was founded. The second amendment is outdated. It was written before the US had a standing army and needed citizen soldiers. It was not written in so citizen soldiers could attack the government.

My right to live supercedes your right to pack heat. You may have to kill me to prove my point.

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
136. What "right"
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:23 PM
Jul 2012

in the constitution gives people permission to "foul" all the water in the country?

We're talking about rights in the constitution. Each one is equal. You can't station troops in my house any more than you can force me to adhere to some religion. Both prohibitions are exactly the same (although one comes up more often).


My right to live supercedes your right to pack heat. You may have to kill me to prove my point.


Hyperventilate much?

yellerpup

(12,249 posts)
140. I'm not upset.
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:10 PM
Jul 2012

I don't worry about troops being quartered in my house. I feel sorry that you are so frightened. I'm breathing just fine, but you might try standing on the other side of the fire while I burn your straw men on the trash heap.

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
144. You went off on some nonsense about the "right" to pollute water
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 04:11 PM
Jul 2012

then made a bunch of odd claims and finished with something about us having to kill you.

Safe to say you're a wee bit emotional about this.

No one is going to shoot you.

yellerpup

(12,249 posts)
147. I said nothing about the "right" to pollute water.
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 11:29 PM
Jul 2012

It's just another example of how our elected representatives are not protecting us against special interests. In the case of polluted water the villain is the petro-chemical industry. In the case of mass murder, our representatives are whores for the NRA. I think you are probably more emotional about it than I am.

Think of the victims of gun violence, please.

Gregorian

(23,867 posts)
7. Even in a perfect society, we must be able to filter out the potentially harmful ones.
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 09:46 PM
Jul 2012

I don't think this is an easy task by any means. But this is at the heart of the problem. We are simply not spending enough time and energy making this a good society.

We can blame video games, guns, violence in movies. I do not believe they are at the heart of this problem. When a president invades a country, and snickers about it, it sends a message. And young minds are open to this kind of thing.

My point is that given a healthy mind, and healthy body, and healthy family, we not only minimize the damage and costs to society, but we minimize the potential for people to be manipulated by the things that we seem to enjoy in this country. There is a common thread, from financial institutions to entertainment, that portrays life as being cheap. Given the poor level of societal health we're in, it does more than just set the stage for violence. It promotes it.

But even in a perfect society, we must be spending time and energy carefully selecting those who can and cannot wield a gun.

Guns are a form of power. I think we need to see it in just that light. Who are we willing to give power to. And who should be prevented from having it.







Response to Gregorian (Reply #7)

LisaL

(44,962 posts)
10. No need to assume anything.
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 10:04 PM
Jul 2012

According to all reports, he legally purchased all his weapons and ammunition.

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
11. How would you like the NJ approach applied to your right to vote?
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 10:21 PM
Jul 2012

NJ is well past the reasonable gun laws line.

Chorophyll

(5,179 posts)
22. Voting is not analogous to possessing a potentially deadly weapon.
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 11:41 PM
Jul 2012

Any more than walking is analogous to driving a tanker truck loaded with methane.

Chorophyll

(5,179 posts)
40. I'm tired of innocent people being gunned down because of your belief that
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:16 AM
Jul 2012

a 21st century man with three assault weapons is no different than an 18th century farmer with a musket.

If that makes my attitude cavalier, so be it.

DBoon

(22,288 posts)
43. an occasional horrific massacre is just the price of freedom then
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:42 AM
Jul 2012

we should honor the dead as martyrs dieing to support our constitutional liberty

CTyankee

(63,771 posts)
107. Fortunately, courts can be changed and rights for others can be secured by them.
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 03:59 PM
Jul 2012

Dred Scott and all that followed...

obamanut2012

(25,911 posts)
60. Should the Chief of Police be judge and jury?
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 08:20 AM
Jul 2012

In NJ, that's what happens. If the Chief doesn't like you, you don;t get a gun permit. He didn't like your Obama sign in your yard, you dated his niece and cheated on her, you're in an interracial marriage? No gun permit. Maybe your boss calls you a Communist during the process, guess what? No permit.

This process is ridiculous, and all the examples I have used are real life ones. You can sue if this happens to you, if you have the money for an attorney.

There is nothing wrong with having a criminal and mental health check before you can get a sidearm, which is what happened with me. I had another one and had to take a course, complete with practical and written test, to get my CW.

States like NJ have an UNFAIR process to be a gun owner, because the criteria used is not objective.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
71. I'm sorry you had a bad experience. But checking out mental health should be an ohjective criteria.
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 11:05 AM
Jul 2012

Where I live, records are kept it is law enforcement that knows if a person is unfit to carry a gun. If a person has, for example, been involuntarily committed to a mental ward, there are professionals using objective standards, and families are involved in the process which made it sound like siimilar to our system. As I said, sounds like.

Some people will not overome their mental sitution with a prescription drug or a stay in a hospital, but require a much longer form or a lifetime of care, and there is a determination of what is the last restrictive setting for such individuals where they will not be able to kill themselves or attack others during their episodes. Dependent of the level of incapacity and the record of being able to function safely, that is, not a danger to himself, others or property, that person can be restricted from owning a fire arm for life.

It is not much of a burden as not being able to drive, work, ride public transportation, and does not affect their ability to vote as their situation is a behavioral issue that can be mitigated with care. Owning a weapon is a responsiblity that is greater than voting, driving, working or many other parts of daily living.

Your claim is more about corruption, favoritism or cronyism than a review system. The system that was described was adequate to deal with persons who are not safe to own a deadly weapon by means of proven mental illness. If you lived here and had not convicted of a felony or found otherwise a problem to society, you have had to fill out forms and would have no problems.

I answered the OP which contended that the law in NJ would have prevented a man who many are asssuming to suffer from mental illness, from legal ownership, so I'm not sure what this hysteria is, but corruption in the state of NJ and favortism is the problem, not a system of review.

Since I don't fall into the categories listed as a disqualifier for legal gun ownership, I am not worried about being denied my RKBA where I live. I actually do, however, know some people that have been adjudicated through mental htealth court and are not able to carry a guns. Believe me, being able to carry a gun is the LEAST of their worries.

Some folks are getting emotional and going after neutral comments such as I made about a system described as being reasonable to end a massacre. The responses I've read today are emotional, although yours is well written and not snarky. I merely said it sounded good, didn't call for anyone to deny you your rights.

As as I just explained, your problem when you give examples of who dated who or who has a political sign in their yard not getting a gun permit is not about an objective system. Perhaps you should address your concerns to the OP writer, as he may not know that there are problems with the system he stated.

As far as I am concerned, I can live without a gun. There are guys driving up and down my street every night and day with guns, lots of guns. They are called police. A gun shop is across the street and I can go and buy one, but I don't need to have one. I don't feel the least bit oppressed, either. I would however, be highly aggravated if some of the people that fit the category as a danger to themselves and others were running down the street with a loaded gun, as they do not have sufficient impulse control or judgment to go about without supervision.

It is time for you and others in NJ to fire the police chief by firing the person who appointed him, go into politics, if you think your system is unjust. Or please tell the OP writer. how wrong he is, if you haven't already. The 2nd Amendment is not going to be repealed, and IHMO, none of the laws or conditions for massacres will be changed. ProSense's article about the ban that would have prohibited the purchase of the weapons used made a good point, but that ban is not going to be restored.

There appears to be a bit of hysteria which I am not going to get involved with. The status quo on this has been settled for the rest of my lifetime. The solution to your sense of being wronged is changing the elected officials in your area. Thank you for expressing the problem in enforcing a fair system in NJ.

obamanut2012

(25,911 posts)
72. I didn't have a bad experience
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 11:08 AM
Jul 2012

I don't live in a state with subjective gun laws. I live in a state where law-abiding citizens with a clean criminal and mental health background are allowed to own guns, regardless of personal vendettas or political discrimination by law enforcement.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
75. The OP didn describe a state with what you term as subjective gun laws. What you describe is not
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 11:47 AM
Jul 2012

About a system of regulation, but cronyism and corruptions. A system of regulations about anything can be enforce in an objective manner. I do not know if the OP writer lives in NJ. Perhaps you should ask him.

Your post was full of examples indicating personal knowledge of how such a system would be applied in NJ, which you now say you don't live in. If you did not have this level of knowing what is wrong, why are you going there? You claim that NJ is enforcing 'personal vendettas or political discrimination by law enforcement.'

I also live in a state 'where law-abiding citizens with a clean criminal and mental health background are allowed to own guns' and 'personal vendettas or political discrimination by law enforcement' are NOT a problem here, despite having a number of laws about gun ownership.

You made these charges about New Jersey at the same time you took what I said way out of context:

'Should the Chief of Police be judge and jury?'

What I described in my response to you, did not ask for any such thing. A Chief of Police is not a judge and jury in any state. So why did you go there?

'In NJ, that's what happens.' The OP doesn't mention the Chief of Police, but a system of regulations.

'If the Chief doesn't like you, you don;t get a gun permit. He didn't like your Obama sign in your yard, you dated his niece and cheated on her, you're in an interracial marriage? No gun permit. Maybe your boss calls you a Communist during the process, guess what? No permit.'

That is a lot to say about New Jersey. And your references are all personal ones that don't prove that, the Chief of Police, who is not mentioned in the OP, but rather, says this is the system in place:

'That's because prospective NJ handgun owners are required to submit to in-depth local law enforcement background checks and questioning before being granted a handgun permit. LE would have personally queried family members, neighbors, and employers (if any) to make sure the handgun permit seeker isn't a psycho.'

What's wrong with that? Why would all these other civil rights issues be part of the process? Are you saying there are no objective, verifiable records being kept in the state of NJ? Why assume all of these individuals are going to make subjective decisions, and discriminate? Why go there?

I'm not sure how you find my neutral statement on an OP to be a problem to your idea of your rights. Not all states are full of vendettas and political discrimination by law enforcement. Since you describe what is clearly corruption in NJ, that is still the issue for me, but you have not proven your case since you now say these are not your experiences either. Maybe you have a perception of New Jersey that differs from brentspeak, so you should challenge him.

Apparently, it is too emotional right now to have a rational discussion about gun regulation on DU. So thank you for your time and courtesy, and support of Obama. But I'm not going to respond to any more gun things for a while as I have a splitting headache. Have a nice weekend.

Walk away

(9,494 posts)
77. Our police chief has saved countless lives including one suicide that I know of.
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:11 PM
Jul 2012

One of my neighbors applied for a gun permit and was denied. Two weeks later his life was saved before he bled out from his wrists. That was almost ten years ago and he is alive, well and recovered from his wife's death that caused his depression.

In the 10 years that I have lived here there has been only one incidence of injury or death by gun and that was within a family that had one of the few guns permitted in town.

I wish the NRA would stick to the hicks in the Red States. Why can't the sane people get out of there and let us dump what's left into their quagmire of guns, bigotry and lack of critical thinking!

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
130. For a variety of reasons it wouldn't have mattered in this case
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:21 PM
Jul 2012

no prior convictions or diagnoses for mental illness. Also he could have gotten around it by simply not buying handguns and just purchasing the AR-15 (which is what he used).

And of course all his friends and family seemed shocked by this so interviewing them would have been a waste of time.

Oh yeah and NJ has a murder rate roughly double that of CO.

hollysmom

(5,946 posts)
12. maybe not
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 10:25 PM
Jul 2012

I remember when a guy flew into Newark from Colorado and had a disassembled gun in his checked suitcase. He rented a car and drove through Newark, Belleville and Nutley shooting at people, killed 3 I think, before the Nutley police took him down in a shoot out in a park under a bridge.

Crazies cross state lines all the time, this is why we need a national program.

 

Comrade_McKenzie

(2,526 posts)
14. I would go further and mandate an extensive mental health exam.
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 11:07 PM
Jul 2012

With a yearly checkup to maintain your privilege of ownership.

jonthebru

(1,034 posts)
30. That the potential firearm owner pays for himself.
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:00 AM
Jul 2012

"A well regulated militia" is the line that opens the second amendment. Key word "regulated" or better yet, "well regulated."
What part of that phrase lends us to not have better crazy people gun control?

Walk away

(9,494 posts)
81. If you plan on voting with a gun...yes:-)
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:28 PM
Jul 2012

The right to vote and your debatable right to carry any kind of gun anywhere has nothing in common.

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
102. I was speaking of basic 2nd Amendment (ownership)
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 02:57 PM
Jul 2012

Carrying is another matter. Note that I have carried while voting.

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
131. Those kinds of subjective tests have historically been used
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:22 PM
Jul 2012

to take rights away from minorities.

I wonder if people on DU would support such a measure if it turns out that minorities are being deemed "mentally unfit" at a rate greater than whites.

 

UnrepentantLiberal

(11,700 posts)
15. And THAT is the way it should be nation wide.
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 11:08 PM
Jul 2012

Not confiscate all guns, but regulate the sale of guns. Is this acceptable to gun nuts? No. They'd rather watch innocent people die than be rational. It's a religion. This is why it's a waste of time trying to reason with them.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
29. The ant-gun crowd is just as obstinate and extreme.
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 11:58 PM
Jul 2012

They're hollering to ban all guns. This is precisely the message that makes responsible gun owners dig in their heels.

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
35. They're hollering to ban all guns.
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:09 AM
Jul 2012

Where?

Who here has advocated such a thing?

I'm sure there are some small groups who would like to ban guns, but MOST people want reasonable gun controls. What reason is there for you to be able to buy a big ass gun in a field in Nowhere, Alabama? This "ban all guns" meme is a bunch of malarkey made up by the NRA. It's the gun worshipers who are unreasonable.

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
69. Yes, "some" indicating a undefinitized quantity
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 09:21 AM
Jul 2012

You can always count on Shares United under his new identity and others to post along those lines.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
47. There is half a dozen threads right here on DU.
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 03:19 AM
Jul 2012

I guess you missed them. And automatic weapons are very tightly regulated. And large bore weapons, 50 calibre and up, are flat out illegal. There goes your "buy a big-ass gun in an Alabama field" argument. The shooter wasn't a "gun-nut", he had only bought the weapons in May. The AR 15 he bought is only a .223, thats small for a rifle, smaller even than the Glocks he bought (9mm, I assume).

The answer to drunk-driving wasn't banning cars, it was doing the best we could to keep drunks from getting behind the wheel. The answer to gun-control should be the same. Don't go after the 80 million or so responsible gun owners, enlist their aid in going after the bad ones.

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
135. There is half a dozen threads right here on DU.
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:12 PM
Jul 2012

Oh my GOD!

6 people want to ban guns altogether! We're DOOMED!!!!




As I said: You gun nuts are the problem....as you just proved. It's amusing, and pitiful, that gun nuts think they look and sound reasonable when they are more hysterical about guns than anyone for regulation.

 

UnrepentantLiberal

(11,700 posts)
42. Bullshit.
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:34 AM
Jul 2012

False equivalency again. A few liberals say they want to ban all guns. All gun advocates oppose regulating access to guns.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
48. Not true.
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 03:26 AM
Jul 2012

I think gun enthusiasts are worried that increased regulation would be the foot in the door to banning all guns. Why do they think that? Because the NRA tells them so, and the job is made easy by the "ban all guns" crowd. I think there is ground to be had in the middle. The key is to remove both extremes from the debate.

 

UnrepentantLiberal

(11,700 posts)
49. It's too late.
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 03:36 AM
Jul 2012

The NRA won. 12 innocent people in Aurora and their families and friends lose. So glad I'm a liberal. I would hate to have their blood on my hands.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
120. Absolutely.
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 06:31 PM
Jul 2012

What the anti-gun zealots refuse to grasp is that NRA membership represents about 4% of all gun owners. Thats about the same percentage as black republicans. The NRA has a powerful political prescence, too powerful IMO, but they dont speak for a majority of gun owners on most issues. But talk about banning most gun types made in the last 150years, if not altogether, would spark a huge boost in membership.

DainBramaged

(39,191 posts)
74. Ant crowd uh. The ant crowd.
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 11:29 AM
Jul 2012

I can see you didn't vote for President Obama. Did you hear, the Tea Party wants him to explain why he's a Gay crack head. Can you explain why gun rights advocates are so worried about the government grabbing their guns? Is it paranoia or the drugs?

DainBramaged

(39,191 posts)
95. Just like you gunnies
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 02:21 PM
Jul 2012

ma guns ma guns please don't take my guns da gubermint going to take ma guns.


Who is spewing bullshit, you or us?

 

Marengo

(3,477 posts)
109. In other words, you can't provide evidence for your assertion.
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 04:54 PM
Jul 2012

I suggest you consider retracting it if you care about your credibility.

DainBramaged

(39,191 posts)
114. Fuck my creditability, I don't give a shit, credibility is for Repukes to defend
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 05:44 PM
Jul 2012

when you can't answer who you voted for honestly in the 08 election, I don't need to talk to you any further.


Remember read the T.O.S. and figure it out for yourselves, both of you.


Merry Christmas.

 

Marengo

(3,477 posts)
124. LOL! It's rare to see someone willing compromise their own credibility...
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 11:17 AM
Jul 2012

but, hey, apparently you receive some pleasure from that.

Okay, as we've established you have no credibility, how much do you value integrity? You've imperiled that as well by issuing an accusation without any evidence. This is neither ethical or moral, and therefore violates these fundamental principles of integrity.

"I don't give a shit, credibility is for Repukes to defend when you can't answer who you voted for honestly in the 08 election"

Ah, so anyone who doesn't respond to you inquiry is a "Repuke", are all Democrats required to reveal who thyy have voted for to whomever may inquire? Is this stated somewhere in the party platform?

'Remember read the T.O.S'

It is you who needs this bit of advice.







 

oldhippie

(3,249 posts)
132. "Fuck my creditability(sic), I don't give a shit, ..."
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:28 PM
Jul 2012

So noted. I'll keep this in mind whenever reading any of your future posts. I might suggest others do the same.

DainBramaged

(39,191 posts)
96. Answer the question then instead of deflecting
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 02:21 PM
Jul 2012

yes or no. If you can't honestly answer yes, we know where you stand.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
97. Why should I reply to your demand?
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 02:41 PM
Jul 2012

Getting pretty authoritarian, aren't you? What's next, a demand to see my papers?

DainBramaged

(39,191 posts)
98. I've voted straight Democratic ticket since I turned 18 over 4 decades ago, and I voted for
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 02:44 PM
Jul 2012

the President and I'm proud of it.

Most of you can't say the same.



If you can't answer a simple question like that, our conversation is done. I know who you are now.

 

Marengo

(3,477 posts)
111. You didn't ask a question, you issued a declaration.
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 05:02 PM
Jul 2012
"I can see you didn't vote for President Obama."

I, for one, would like to know how you know this.
 

JeepJK556

(56 posts)
17. Incorrect.
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 11:24 PM
Jul 2012

It is perfectly legal to own an AR-15 in New Jersey. It just must be compliant with the Assault Weapons ban.

Which means when you buy it, the stock will be pinned so that it can't be adjusted for length (Standard AR stocks can telescope about 6 inches for ergonomic adjustment), the bayonet lug/flash hider will be removed, and the rifle will ship with a 10 round magazine.

Pre-ban 30 rounds mags are readily available.

Furthermore, I don't know that I would consider putting a Constitutional right (SCOTUS has ruled handgun ownership an individual right) into the hands of random neighbors or coworkers a very reasonable restriction. Certainly not something a progressive should be supporting.

obamanut2012

(25,911 posts)
62. If you are a liberal, you might not get a gun permit
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 08:29 AM
Jul 2012

If your marriage is interracial, you won't get a gin permit. If your boss doesn't like you, your neighbor thinks you're a dick because you blare music sometime, you won't get a permit. All of these scenarios happen in NJ. And, the Chief of Police can deny your application "just because." People with the money are always suing because of being denied a permit "just because."

SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA should never be used for something like this.

I had to go through a FEDERAL criminal and mental health check, which also included DMV records. Why is this process considered worse than asking my neighbors if it bothers them I have a gun, or a coworker who doesn't even really know me?


on edit: this process also applies to buying a BB gun.


Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
18. Holmes didn't have a criminal record the way Zimmerman did.
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 11:27 PM
Jul 2012

Holmes only got 1 lousy speeding ticket within the last year.

 

Atypical Liberal

(5,412 posts)
19. Should we have test for voting, too?
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 11:33 PM
Jul 2012

I am not willing to submit to government permission to own firearms just because every once and a while a lunatic uses one to kill people.

The right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutionally enumerated individual right.

No one should have to demonstrate competence to speak or to vote. Likewise to own firearms.

If you have been adjudicated mentally incompetent or have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, you should fail your NICS check.

If you want to talk about other ways, that respect due process, to lose your right to keep and bear arms, I'm all ears. But it must respect the due process of law, and it must preserve anonymous firearm ownership.

beac

(9,992 posts)
26. "Constitutionally enumerated individual right"
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 11:51 PM
Jul 2012

Incorrect. That "individual right" was made up in 2008 by our current right-wing Supreme Court when they gutted the "well regulated militia" language put there by the Founding Fathers.

And don't try and tell me that Scalia and the rest of those vile pukes are anything approaching Constitutional scholars. They are 100% paid-for schills for the NRA, among other right-wing organizations.

And just in case you think you're making a new argument:


As you said, why should YOUR "right" to own a gun be in any way regulated "just because every once and a while a lunatic uses one to kill people"?

 

Tejas

(4,759 posts)
54. .
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 04:06 AM
Jul 2012

As you said, why should YOUR "right" to own a gun be in any way regulated "just because every once and a while a lunatic uses one to kill people"?

As you said, why should YOUR "right" to own a car be in any way regulated "just because every once and a while a lunatic uses one to kill people"?



 

Tejas

(4,759 posts)
83. So instead of a canned kindergarten reply, offer something of substance.
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:53 PM
Jul 2012

"YOU'RE A STUPID-STUPE, AND YOU FAIL, NEENER NEENER"

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
123. Car ownership is not an enumerated right in the constitution
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 08:01 PM
Jul 2012

Though in general property ownership is.

Between the Constitution and SCOTUS, there is tremendous wall that those who want to ban and disarm will have to climb legally. Then they will have to deal with the mass civil disobedience that would follow

Response to beac (Reply #26)

beac

(9,992 posts)
104. And yet, the only argument you seem to be able to come up with,
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 03:12 PM
Jul 2012

and are spamming every shooting thread on DU with, is "cars kill people too!" So, forgive me if I don't find your one-trick-pony worthy of any kind of actual debate.

 

Tejas

(4,759 posts)
106. "spamming every shooting thread on DU" - oh, another stalker!
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 03:40 PM
Jul 2012

So, you have enough of a problem with me posting about current events to bitch about it on a public forum?
Spam? You mean the eleventybillion threads about the cold blooded piece of shit that shot...oh wait, my bad...the eleventybillion threads crying OMFG BAN GUNS!!1! ?

beac

(9,992 posts)
148. Wow.
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 11:40 PM
Jul 2012


Do you think you are the only one who has read and responded more than one thread on this topic?

Alas for you, your one-trick-ponery stands out pretty obviously even OPs with dozens of replies. So, yeah, I noticed that you had little or nothing to add to the overall debate pretty quickly.

Stalk you??
 

Atypical Liberal

(5,412 posts)
63. The individual right was simply recognized in 2008.
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 08:36 AM
Jul 2012
incorrect. That "individual right" was made up in 2008 by our current right-wing Supreme Court when they gutted the "well regulated militia" language put there by the Founding Fathers.

Firstly, that individual right existed far before it was recognized in 2008.

Secondly, you'll notice that all nine justices agreed that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right.

Thirdly, yes, the well-regulated militias were gutted, but this happened in 1903 with the passage of the Dick Act.

As you said, why should YOUR "right" to own a gun be in any way regulated "just because every once and a while a lunatic uses one to kill people"?

It shouldn't.

beac

(9,992 posts)
65. And you don't think a "well-regulated militia"
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 08:46 AM
Jul 2012

would know WHO had guns and HOW many?

But, as I thought the cartoon I posted might have clued you in, your "right" to anonymously stockpile killing machines isn't going anywhere.

It should, but it isn't.

 

ethereal1

(11 posts)
23. So, would......
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 11:44 PM
Jul 2012

This super effective NJ system have prevented him from deploying those handy-dandy little Improvised Explosive Devices he made in his apartment?

Unfortunately, a determined psycho such as this will not abandon his dastardly intentions to harm his fellow citizens because he was unable to buy a 30-round magazine.

Ethereal1

Chorophyll

(5,179 posts)
41. Oh, well in that case let's have a free-for-all.
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:25 AM
Jul 2012

Just put the guns in the supermarket, right next to the organic produce. Get one for your three-year-old kid and your 97-year-old grandfather! Why not? Because someone might make a bomb anyway, right?

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
101. Do you think individuals should be allowed to buy nukes?
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 02:55 PM
Jul 2012

I mean a majority of people probably wouldn't mis-use a nuke, just some nutcase every once in a while.

The 2nd Amendment was a protection against the government becoming tyrannical, to make sure the citizenry was prepared if the government ever abused the use of the 'standing army'.

Explain how today, gun ownership would protect the people from the government if it should abuse its power over the people?

Taking the 2nd Amendment literally as it was intended, we the people would have to be armed with the same weapons the government has.

Using this amendment to argue for weapons that will not in any way serve the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment is simply a clever way to get support for the sale of arms which in no way would serve the purpose intended by the 2nd Amendment, imo.

The truth is the FFs could not have predicted the kind of WMDs that governments have today.

So if you are a 2nd Amendment defender, you obviously support individual ownership of every weapon the government has, including nukes, do you not?

tsuki

(11,994 posts)
24. You know what is strange. I live in gun-nuttery country.
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 11:50 PM
Jul 2012

But, the fish & game people will not allow you to hunt with clip that accommodates more than 5 rounds. And nobody bitches.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
28. Exactly!
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 11:53 PM
Jul 2012

Putting emphisis on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies is going to be politically far easier than banning all guns. The anti-gun crowd is being far too obstinate for progress to be made.

mountain grammy

(26,571 posts)
31. I have no problem with gun ownership
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:02 AM
Jul 2012

Have a little Smith and Wesson myself and I love that little sucker. Someday the local bear will try to get in my door, and I'll have a new rug. But semi automatics, weapons of war and mass destruction, thousands of rounds of ammunition? Are we mad?

 

UnrepentantLiberal

(11,700 posts)
46. Exactly.
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 01:03 AM
Jul 2012

I have no problem with someone owning hunting rifles, a shotgun and a hand gun for self defence. I do have a problem with assault weapons. I do have a problem with someone being able to buy a gun without a background check. I do have a problem with illegal gun dealers having unfettered access to guns in the South so they can be sold to gangs in the Northeast and Southwest.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
50. Replace the skeleton stock with a wooden one...
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 03:43 AM
Jul 2012

Presto! A hunting rifle! Most of the popularity of them is the high-tech appearance. Functionally, little difference than many common hunting rifles. Why did Holmes buy an AR-15? He wanted to look like a bad ass.
And he had a clean record, and passed the background check. Im not sure much can be done about that. But there are certainly a lot of private and parking lot sales that are unregulated that should be tightened up.

jp11

(2,104 posts)
58. Bullshit.
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 07:22 AM
Jul 2012

Because the people he would have referenced and would've picked his friends or people who wouldn't piss on him, can't be relatives, as some sort of nut job to 'okay' him as a gun owner.

http://www.njsp.org/info/pdf/firearms/sts-033.pdf

There isn't a team that goes around investigating potential gun owners there is a form and it gets mailed out to people the applicant chooses if it isn't returned no permit, if they say negative things about the person probably, hopefully, no permit.

And in NJ I'm sure he could have driven over to PA for a gunshow and bought guns without any id, but I'm not positive about that. If not he could have driven to other states to buy a gun or just gotten one off the street.

You take the idea that this hindsight was readily available and known to all if that was the case then lots of people, his family members, neighbors, and employers all failed to speak out about him. What seems to be the case is he was just one of many shy, polite people that others would 'peg' as a potential nut because he was shy and nice ie he fit the quiet loner stereotype who goes nuts.

DainBramaged

(39,191 posts)
73. Wow, looks like you support the selling of death without question. What do the nuts say
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 11:26 AM
Jul 2012

kill 'em all let God sort 'em out. Is that the way you folks think it should be?


Bullshit. Stop defending the gun for once.

LAGC

(5,330 posts)
86. Stop blaming the gun for once.
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 01:03 PM
Jul 2012

The only way to nip this problem in the bud is to increase our mental health care system in this country and catch these people before they act.

If not for guns, this psycho would have used bombs or chemicals to kill just as many, if not more, people. The weapon of choice is irrelevant. It's the actor that needs to be addressed, or these killing sprees will keep happening.

jp11

(2,104 posts)
108. Wow you can make asinine accusations absent of evidence or facts
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 04:27 PM
Jul 2012

you are one exceptional DU'er and I do mean exceptional.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
68. Yankee state vs. the wild west. They'll always be different, I think.
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 08:52 AM
Jul 2012

There's just a different mindset, attitude, and priorities in the wild west states, I think, vs. the older nor'eastern states. That doesn't make one worse than the other. Just different.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
80. NJ, 4.2 murders per 100,000 people. Oregon 2.4, Washington 2.3
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:27 PM
Jul 2012

So yeah there is a difference. More murder in Jersey, that's the difference! NY, 4.5. MA, 3.2. That does sort of make one worse, actually. More murder is worse....

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
122. This was a post about gun control, not murder.
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 06:49 PM
Jul 2012

I was speaking of the mindset pertaining to gun control. The west was settled by a wild bunch, including women, who had to use guns and other weapons to stay alive, keep their homesteads, etc. Although people move all over the country, many of the laws date back many years and reflect old attitudes. Once there is a history somewhere about something, an attitude, it's hard to change it. It becomes part of the culture of the area.

That's all I meant.

 

ramikin

(20 posts)
78. Unlike the shooter they were obeying the law.
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:11 PM
Jul 2012

Firearms were prohibited in the theater. AKA a helpless victim zone. Maybe we could pass a law banning the killing of innocent people in theaters so this could never happen again. You know for the children.

doc03

(35,148 posts)
79. How about banning semi-auto weapons and limiting magazine capacity? Do you
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:24 PM
Jul 2012

know if firearms were banned in the theater or are you just assuming? Ronald Reagan was shot and he was surrounded by armed SS and local law enforcement officers. I find it hard to believe all the CCW carriers in the theater obeyed that rule. From the ones I know my guess is they would be hiding behind the seats pissing their pants of knocking people down to get to the exit.

LAGC

(5,330 posts)
87. The perp was armed with a rifle.
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 01:08 PM
Jul 2012

It would be colossally stupid to confront a heavily armed perp with a puny handgun, especially if it was apparent he was wearing body armor.

CCW carriers have no obligation to stop a crime in progress, especially in the very rare situations where they are heavily out-gunned. CCW is still good for most situations where a robber or assailant comes at them with a knife or fists, where the CCW holder has the superior fire-power advantage.

Not so much in these rare mass-shooting situations with heavily armed perps.

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
103. I was somewhat surprised that there was not an off duty or retired LEO in the crowd
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 03:01 PM
Jul 2012

CCW restrictions do not apply to them and they tend to carry.

Just about every CCW holder I have ever known plays by the rules.


Banning semi autos is a non-starter.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
121. Why not also ban all autos except the ModelT?
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 06:41 PM
Jul 2012

You dont NEED a/c, stereo, electric starter, automatic transmission, good brakes, and a top speed over 37 mph.

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
133. Following the law: the movie theater forbids even CCW holders to carry on their property
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:40 PM
Jul 2012

You know, for safety.

rucky

(35,211 posts)
85. I'm sure people are saying the same thing if it happened in Arizona
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:58 PM
Jul 2012

"if everybody were packing..."

I think it could happen anywhere - regardless of gun restrictions. It's symptomatic of a deeper illness in society

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
99. Someone who was determined would still buy the weapons, even
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 02:44 PM
Jul 2012

in New Jersey. He'd just buy them illegally.

That said, the easy access on the Internet to things like 100-round drum magazines, tactical ballistic gear and other items, does facilitate people who want to create mayhem. Most of the sales of that stuff are to people with firearms fetishes of some kind, who are unlikely to perpetrate such a thing, but easy access is easy access.

There's even a 100-round drum magazine for the Glock pistol he owned. Looking at it, it seems like a stupid, almost useless piece of equipment, really, but it's available for those who have $350 and a pressing desire to own such a thing. The photo I saw showed some guy in tactical gear much like this shooter was wearing, ready to take on all comers. Such situations are so infrequent that owning a 100-round magazine for a Glock seems pretty foolish to me. I cannot, for the life of me, imagine any real use for it, other than mayhem.

None of that negates that point that illegal purchases of firearms are also possible, so controlling legal sales to an extent needed to prevent this person, who had no criminal history and maybe no mental health record, would probably not meet 2nd Amendment requirements. Some states have very strict laws, but the weapons could still be acquired by anyone with enough desire, even in those states.

 

bigdarryl

(13,190 posts)
113. I live in NJ as a former law enforcement Officer it's hard
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 05:32 PM
Jul 2012

Even for me to get an permit to carry.NJ has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.I applied last year for a gun permit because I forgot to fill out some of the questions on the permit form

freethought

(2,457 posts)
143. I don't think he would have needed an actual carry permit
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:33 PM
Jul 2012

All he would have needed was the permit to purchase and own a handgun and/or rifle. That's all he needed to commit the act.
In committing a horrific act I don't think the goal of obtaining a concealed carry or even open carry permit was on his mind.

 

slackmaster

(60,567 posts)
125. brentspeak, you are assuming that Holmes would have obeyed NJ's laws
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 11:20 AM
Jul 2012

Given that he didn't obey Colorado's laws and is intelligent enough to get accepted into grad school, that's kind of a stretch IMO.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
137. "Given that he (Holmes) didn't obey Colorado's laws"
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:32 PM
Jul 2012


http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2018737338_shootingguns21.html

Suspected shooter bought guns legally, avoided gun-reporting requirement

The alleged gunman in the Aurora, Colo., theater massacre legally purchased two pistols, a semiautomatic rifle and a shotgun, avoiding federal reporting requirements and taking advantage of the state's failure to pass significant firearms legislation since the Columbine massacre 13 years ago.

The man police said was the gunman, James Holmes, 24, didn't purchase the handguns from the same store within five days, which would have triggered a requirement for the seller to notify the U.S. Justice Department, according to a federal official who spoke on condition of anonymity. Holmes hadn't committed any offenses that would have raised an alarm during required background checks, the official said.
 

slackmaster

(60,567 posts)
138. He broke laws by taking loaded weapons into a movie theater and shooting a bunch of people
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:33 PM
Jul 2012

That's illegal in Colorado.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
145. "Because he didn't have to"
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 05:11 PM
Jul 2012

Thank you for admitting that it was far easier and safer for Holmes to legally obtain his weapons than had he tried to purchase them illegally. Very sporting of you.


 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
127. Didn't he use a rifle?
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:04 PM
Jul 2012

Not a handgun.


Also as far as we know he had a clean record prior to this. What would an "in-depth" background check of accomplished?

Unless he was stupid enough to say "I intend to use these to commit a massacre" it wouldn't have mattered.

Also all his friends say he was nice, a bit shy, and they never would have thought he was capable of this. So interviewing them would have turned up nothing.

Also the murder rate in NJ is about double that of CO.

freethought

(2,457 posts)
142. I think that is higly doubtful
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:29 PM
Jul 2012

As many have said,
Even if he was in New Jersey
-no criminal record, not even misdemeanors
-no history of mental illness or violent behavior
-he was never institutionalized for any deviant behavior
-no history of arrest, for anything
-no ties to terrorists, violent groups, or organized crime in any way
-Sorry, but being labelled as shy, socially "off", nerdy, not outwardly polite or a "loner" does not necessarily raise any red flags against purchasing a gun even in New Jersey.
-He did purchase the guns at the same shop so no red flags were raised
-As far as the body armor he had, well, one can purchase that legally and it's not hard to find an outfit that will sell the stuff to you.
-He didn't commit the crime in New Jersey, rather, in Colorado. Like it or not. Even if he was in New Jersey it may have only taken him longer to put this all together as background checks were made and likely would have turned up nothing.
-Some allude to the fact he died his hair. Somehow I don't think this would have raised any alarms either. Some may have considered it odd but hardly a precursor to a massacre.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»In NJ, James Holmes likel...