Another Shooting

[GowerND11]

Do we know how long these guys owned their guns (serious question, I don't know)? I don't think I've ever seen an example of a guy who bought his gun that day, the day before, or that week immediately before committing a crime like this.


These people are movie characters. James Eagan Holmes was wearing damn body armor. Yeah, it can take a lot more than 8 shots to land a kill shot on a highly armed and armored shooter in a room full of innocents when your adrenaline is on overload.

I would guess that many probably already owned guns or used guns before incidents. I would also take a guess that some took time to build up a stockpile for the crimes they committed as well. I agree with Lion here in that we may be able to prevent something from happening with a waiting period, though I get what you're saying.

True to the second point I quoted. However, most people who are concealed carry or open carry permitted are doing so with a pistol or revolver MOST of the time. So I would argue they only have so many bullets anyway. If you could limit how much the shooter has as well, he would have to reload more often presenting more chances for people to close in. IDK just spitballing here.

 

[IrishLion]

Several obvious differences. The first is that there's no constitutionally protected right to operate a motor vehicle or any other type of transportation device. The second is that you're actually buying something when you talk about the cost of insurance. Registration fees and background checks do not add value to the consumer.

Just because it's constitutionally protected doesn't mean we can't try to "do better" at keeping guns from bad guys. I'm not advocating we strip away the 2nd Amendment, but we could do a better job or making sure it's hard for bad guys to get guns.

The "buy a car and maintain driving privileges" is just a jumping-off point for my belief.

Do we know how long these guys owned their guns (serious question, I don't know)? I don't think I've ever seen an example of a guy who bought his gun that day, the day before, or that week immediately before committing a crime like this.

I don't know. I'm just saying that if there's a chance that a waiting period might deter even just one bad guy, it's worth it in my eyes. People that already own guns having to wait three months for their new purchase seems reasonable, to me.

And gun collectors already know that it can take more than 3 months to find the gun you want at a price you want to pay, so I don't think it's an undue burden on gun owners, either.

These people are movie characters. James Eagan Holmes was wearing damn body armor. Yeah, it can take a lot more than 8 shots to land a kill shot on a highly armed and armored shooter in a room full of innocents when your adrenaline is on overload.

If a regular civilian with an everyday carry can't take down the bad guy with 8 shots, there's probably a 99% chance that the same civilian wouldn't have had ANY weapon on them at the time that could combat an armored bad guy, clip-limit or not.

 

[wizards8507]

I would guess that many probably already owned guns or used guns before incidents. I would also take a guess that some took time to build up a stockpile for the crimes they committed as well. I agree with Lion here in that we may be able to prevent something from happening with a waiting period, though I get what you're saying.

That's one of the most interested things in the psychology of all of this. Reports are conflicting, but they indicate that Stephen Paddock had anywhere from ten to fifty guns in that Vegas hotel room, but he only fired maybe one or two of them.

True to the second point I quoted. However, most people who are concealed carry or open carry permitted are doing so with a pistol or revolver MOST of the time. So I would argue they only have so many bullets anyway. If you could limit how much the shooter has as well, he would have to reload more often presenting more chances for people to close in. IDK just spitballing here.

The Glock 19 is one of the most popular pistols on the planet, including for concealed carry purposes. The standard magazine holds 15 rounds, with optional configurations of 10, 17, or 33. Obviously, the larger capacities wouldn't be practical for carrying, but I included them for the sake of thoroughness.

 

[GowerND11]

The Glock 19 is one of the most popular pistols on the planet, including for concealed carry purposes. The standard magazine holds 15 rounds, with optional configurations of 10, 17, or 33. Obviously, the larger capacities wouldn't be practical for carrying, but I included them for the sake of thoroughness.

Fair point

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I don't understand using the ol' "constitutionally protected right" as an argument against any form of new law/regulation. Speech is a constitutionally protected right but we still have libel and slander laws.

We have a right to own a gun, yes. But with said ownership comes great responsibility. Since there is plenty of evidence to suggest that not every gun owner acts in a responsible manner, it stands to reason to suggest that along with the right, comes a certain level of laws.

 

[wizards8507]

I don't understand using the ol' "constitutionally protected right" as an argument against any form of new law/regulation. Speech is a constitutionally protected right but we still have libel and slander laws.

We have a right to own a gun, yes. But with said ownership comes great responsibility. Since there is plenty of evidence to suggest that not every gun owner acts in a responsible manner, it stands to reason to suggest that along with the right, comes a certain level of laws.

I agree with all of this. I'm not against gun laws per se. I'm against gun laws that disproportionately burden the "good guys" while doing little to nothing to curtail the "bad guys."

Example: Devin Patrick Kelley killed 26 people in Sutherland Springs, Texas with an AR-15. Kelley had domestic violence convictions for assaulting his wife and breaking his infant son's skull. This data was known to the United States Air Force but they did not register the information in the appropriate databases so Kelley passed his federal background checks.

So, rather than saying broadly that "people shouldn't have AR-15s," let's focus on solutions that prevent the Devin Patrick Kelleys of the world from acquiring AR-15s (or any firearms). First step, prosecute whatever desk jockey at the Air Force who dropped the ball for criminal negligence and 26 counts of accessory to first degree murder.

 

[IrishLion]

I agree with all of this. I'm not against gun laws per se. I'm against gun laws that disproportionately burden the "good guys" while doing little to nothing to curtail the "bad guys."

Example: Devin Patrick Kelley killed 26 people in Sutherland Springs, Texas with an AR-15. Kelley had domestic violence convictions for assaulting his wife and breaking his infant son's skull. This data was known to the United States Air Force but they did not register the information in the appropriate databases so Kelley passed his federal background checks.

So, rather than saying broadly that "people shouldn't have AR-15s," let's focus on solutions that prevent the Devin Patrick Kelleys of the world from acquiring AR-15s (or any firearms). First step, prosecute whatever desk jockey at the Air Force who dropped the ball for criminal negligence and 26 counts of accessory to first degree murder.

I agree with all of this, I think we just have different ideas of what is reasonable to restrict on the "good guys."

There was an incident yesterday at a middle school where a kid brought in a gun and discharged the weapon at school... if that weapon is registered to mom or dad, they need to get put on the "do not sell" list, IMO, and have any registered weapons taken from them.

If you can't be responsible gun owners, then you don't need guns, period.

I'm not sure if that goes too far away from the 2nd Amendment for others to be comfortable with... but it's my opinion that mom and dad forfeited their 2nd Amendment when they put their child and others in danger.

 

[wizards8507]

I agree with all of this, I think we just have different ideas of what is reasonable to restrict on the "good guys."

There was an incident yesterday at a middle school where a kid brought in a gun and discharged the weapon at school... if that weapon is registered to mom or dad, they need to get put on the "do not sell" list, IMO, and have any registered weapons taken from them.

If you can't be responsible gun owners, then you don't need guns, period.

I'm not sure if that goes too far away from the 2nd Amendment for others to be comfortable with... but it's my opinion that mom and dad forfeited their 2nd Amendment when they put their child and others in danger.

Agreed. Not only that, but the kid should be taken away and they should be prosecuted for child endangerment.

 

[Bishop2b5]

I agree with all of this. I'm not against gun laws per se. I'm against gun laws that disproportionately burden the "good guys" while doing little to nothing to curtail the "bad guys."

This is where the vast majority of conservatives are on the issue. Feel good laws that disarm the good guys and do little to nothing to disarm bad guys not only don't help, they hurt the situation. I'm all for anything that actually works in disarming criminals and nutjobs while allowing the average person to still be able to hunt or defend his family and home.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I agree with all of this. I'm not against gun laws per se. I'm against gun laws that disproportionately burden the "good guys" while doing little to nothing to curtail the "bad guys."

Example: Devin Patrick Kelley killed 26 people in Sutherland Springs, Texas with an AR-15. Kelley had domestic violence convictions for assaulting his wife and breaking his infant son's skull. This data was known to the United States Air Force but they did not register the information in the appropriate databases so Kelley passed his federal background checks.

So, rather than saying broadly that "people shouldn't have AR-15s," let's focus on solutions that prevent the Devin Patrick Kelleys of the world from acquiring AR-15s (or any firearms). First step, prosecute whatever desk jockey at the Air Force who dropped the ball for criminal negligence and 26 counts of accessory to first degree murder.

You are absolutely right to question the AF and the background check system who overwhelmingly failed. We have every right to question the FBI hotline for failing to pass along info to the local branch in FL. Of course we should talk about why it's so easy to lie on the application. I could on an on. The bottom line is that people ARE trying to find solutions and it's met with constant backlash like, "the left just wants to ban guns. F*ck that." (Admittedly, there is a faction of people calling for that....I disagree with it. But there is also a lot of reasonable talk occurring and it's being blatantly ignored.) I mean what kind of world are we living in when even the National Review and The Federalist are posting blogs about common sense gun laws?

 

[BleedBlueGold]

This is where the vast majority of conservatives are on the issue. Feel good laws that disarm the good guys and do little to nothing to disarm bad guys not only don't help, they hurt the situation. I'm all for anything that actually works in disarming criminals and nutjobs while allowing the average person to still be able to hunt or defend his family and home.

Can you still hunt/defend yourself without a bump stock and high capacity magazine? I believe the answer is yes. So why are both still legal and easily accessible?

It's my opinion that the average pro-gun, law-abiding, citizen is willing and able to jump through any necessary hoops put in place that may in return make it more difficult for criminals and nutjobs to access said firearms and ammo.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Can you still hunt/defend yourself without a bump stock and high capacity magazine? I believe the answer is yes. So why are both still legal and easily accessible?

It's my opinion that the average pro-gun, law-abiding, citizen is willing and able to jump through any necessary hoops put in place that may in return make it more difficult for criminals and nutjobs to access said firearms and ammo.

Of course no hunter needs bump stocks or high-capacity mags. Most of us have no problem seeing those banned. In fact, Trump signed a memo yesterday to start the DOJ on the path to banning bump stocks.

I don't think you have to make the process prohibitively difficult or expensive to keep guns out of the hands of criminals & nuts. Making it take 6 months and cost a small fortune is excessive. It shouldn't be more difficult or expensive than, as pointed out above, getting a driver's license and buying insurance. We just need some precise, effective laws that sift finely and are rigorously enforced with tough penalties for all involved if they're not.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Of course no hunter needs bump stocks or high-capacity mags. Most of us have no problem seeing those banned. In fact, Trump signed a memo yesterday to start the DOJ on the path to banning bump stocks.

I don't think you have to make the process prohibitively difficult or expensive to keep guns out of the hands of criminals & nuts. Making it take 6 months and cost a small fortune is excessive. It shouldn't be more difficult or expensive than, as pointed out above, getting a driver's license and buying insurance. We just need some precise, effective laws that sift finely and are rigorously enforced with tough penalties for all involved if they're not.

No disagreement from me.

See, we CAN find common sense gun regulations that make both sides happy. Now lets get it done!

 

[wizards8507]

Can you still hunt/defend yourself without a bump stock and high capacity magazine? I believe the answer is yes. So why are both still legal and easily accessible?

Hunting sure. But self-defense? It's much easier to defend yourself against a guy who has a high capacity magazine if you have a high capacity magazine yourself.

Also, define "high capacity." Connecticut defines it as more than 10 rounds. Most normal, everyday, non-AR-15-style, regular Joe pistols come with magazines greater than 10 rounds in their standard configurations. That would be an unreasonable restriction.

Finally, firearms are a necessary tool to the fundamental right to revolution. They're not for hunting. They're not for self-defense. They're tyranny suppressors. If you don't believe such a right exists, we won't find common ground on this particular issue.

It's my opinion that the average pro-gun, law-abiding, citizen is willing and able to jump through any necessary hoops put in place that may in return make it more difficult for criminals and nutjobs to access said firearms and ammo.

The issue isn't the hoops. I have no objection to hoops.

Reasonable hoop: Background check.

Undue burden: Background check that you have to pay for and costs $200 for some reason.

Useless hoop: Background check that doesn't turn up relevant information because or federal and state databases were built in the 1980s by two kids who took one Visual Basic class in high school.

 

[Bishop2b5]

No disagreement from me.

See, we CAN find common sense gun regulations that make both sides happy. Now lets get it done!

I believe so. Most people would be fine with some sort of common sense approach that works and everyone could be happy with.

 

[GowerND11]

I believe so. Most people would be fine with some sort of common sense approach that works and everyone could be happy with.

You rang?

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Hunting sure. But self-defense? It's much easier to defend yourself against a guy who has a high capacity magazine if you have a high capacity magazine yourself.

Also, define "high capacity." Connecticut defines it as more than 10 rounds. Most normal, everyday, non-AR-15-style, regular Joe pistols come with magazines greater than 10 rounds in their standard configurations. That would be an unreasonable restriction.

Finally, firearms are a necessary tool to the fundamental right to revolution. They're not for hunting. They're not for self-defense. They're tyranny suppressors. If you don't believe such a right exists, we won't find common ground on this particular issue.


The issue isn't the hoops. I have no objection to hoops.

Reasonable hoop: Background check.

Undue burden: Background check that you have to pay for and costs $200 for some reason.

Useless hoop: Background check that doesn't turn up relevant information because or federal and state databases were built in the 1980s by two kids who took one Visual Basic class in high school.

I'll omit the point re: revolution.

Re: mag capacity: A lot of what we're seeing is legal purchase of a firearm and legal accumulation of ammo loaded into legal high capacity mags. I'm simply saying, lets find an arbitrary (or research-suggested, if possible) number that restricts the number of rounds someone can fit into a mag. Then perhaps a ban on "high capacity" mags followed with a buy back or credit towards the smaller capacity ones? (buy backs w/o a ban don't work) I just don't buy the self defense argument here.

I'm all for updating the background check system and requiring an application fee no less than it costs to get a driver's license, but no more than the cost of TSA approval.

 

[Legacy]

Anyone wish to itemize their weapon-related costs?

Prices of each weapon and also ammo in a year
Costs of any courses, training and registrations
NRA membership cost and any donations
Gun range membership
Responsible gun ownership costs, e.g. gun safe, gun locks
Costs paid for other family members
Hunting license/trips and other license costs

The average number of guns in a gun-owning household is 8.1 guns. Four in ten Americans (323 million) own guns, estimated to total 310 million guns in America. Americans own 48% of the 650 million civilian-owned guns in the world.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I own one 9mm handgun - Roughly $600
Don't shoot at the range as often as I'd like - Roughly $100/yr
No courses, no memberships, no donations.
Wall safe - approx $200
No CC license. No hunting.

 

[Legacy]

Cack post from the Wiz get your gun thread:
(Conn's permitting fees)

Fee: $206.50. Breakdown: $70 for temporary local permit, $70 for state permit, $66.50 fingerprint fee.

Duration: Five years.

Renewal: $70.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I live in Indiana and it's pretty easy (and cheap) to get a gun.

INDIANA
Permit to purchase: Not required for any firearms.

Firearm registration: Not required for any firearms.

License: Not required except to carry a concealed handgun in public.

Handgun permit/license: Indiana's 92 county sheriffs review concealed carry permits for personal protection on a "shall issue" basis.

Fee: $40. Does not include fingerprinting, FBI check, and cost of required training courses. State also offers a lifetime concealed carry permit for personal protection for $125.

Duration: Four years or lifetime.

Renewal: $40.

Open carry: May carry openly with a carry permit.

State preemption: Only the state legislature can impose gun laws and regulations since 2011.

"Assault weapon" laws: No.

Legislative outlook: Indiana lawmakers have proposed no new laws aimed at limiting or controlling access to guns but there are proposals for providing funding for armed police officers in schools and allowing properly permitted college students to carry guns on campus for personal protection.

 

[wizards8507]

I live in Indiana and it's pretty easy (and cheap) to get a gun.

"Does not include fingerprinting, FBI check, and cost of required training courses."

Pretty sure that's over $200 right there.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

"Does not include fingerprinting, FBI check, and cost of required training courses."

Pretty sure that's over $200 right there.

No one says you have to do that though. That's if you want CC. I shoot at the range as a hobby. Nothing else.

 

[wizards8507]

No one says you have to do that though. That's if you want CC. I shoot at the range as a hobby. Nothing else.

Maybe Indiana isn't one of them, but several states use that as a technicality. You can shoot at the range without your CC, and you can buy a handgun without your CC, but you can't put the gun in your car to drive it to or from the gun shop/range without your CC.

It's actually more dangerous in a lot of ways. I have a revolver that I legally acquired through inheritance 1) before moving to Connecticut and 2) before the post-Newtown regulations were passed. But I can't legally drive to the range to practice with it, i.e. I have no way to become competent using the weapon in my possession.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Maybe Indiana isn't one of them, but several states use that as a technicality. You can shoot at the range without your CC, and you can buy a handgun without your CC, but you can't put the gun in your car to drive it to or from the gun shop/range without your CC.

It's actually more dangerous in a lot of ways. I have a revolver that I legally acquired through inheritance 1) before moving to Connecticut and 2) before the post-Newtown regulations were passed. But I can't legally drive to the range to practice with it, i.e. I have no way to become competent using the weapon in my possession.

Indiana prohibits carrying a handgun in a vehicle without a license to carry a handgun unless the vehicle is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by the person, and the handgun is unloaded, not readily accessible, and secured in a case.1 The same conditions apply if the person is lawfully in a vehicle owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by another person so long as the person carrying the handgun is lawfully in the vehicle.

No CC required.

*Although rumor has it they may do away with the lifetime permit at some point so it makes sense to get it sooner rather than later. Still looking into that just in case I ever want to down the road. Much cheaper to get the lifetime one that doesn't expire.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Finally, firearms are a necessary tool to the fundamental right to revolution. They're not for hunting. They're not for self-defense. They're tyranny suppressors. If you don't believe such a right exists, we won't find common ground on this particular issue.

These always make be LOL

With this line of thinking, a private American militia should be able to possess force equal to the US military. Tanks, drones, jets, nuclear weapons, etc, all are fine. A billionaire should be allowed to assemble his own army basically. Scientology should be allowed to fund their own army even.

People who think this are stuck in the 18th century, a common problem with libertarianism.

 

[wizards8507]

These always make be LOL

With this line of thinking, a private American militia should be able to possess force equal to the US military. Tanks, drones, jets, nuclear weapons, etc, all are fine. A billionaire should be allowed to assemble his own army basically. Scientology should be allowed to fund their own army even.

People who think this are stuck in the 18th century, a common problem with libertarianism.

I'm a federalist, not an anarchist.

Remember, the States are supposed to be on the side of the People, not on the side of the Federal Government. So no, Joe Redneck can't own a tank, but the Texas National Guard sure can.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I'm a federalist, not an anarchist.

Remember, the States are supposed to be on the side of the People, not on the side of the Federal Government. So no, Joe Redneck can't own a tank, but the Texas National Guard sure can.

They sure can. A well regulated militia. (Should the Texas national guard possess nuclear weapons?)

This is a conversation about private citizens and sensible regulation of the right to bear arms. The whole defense against tyranny angle is comical because tens of thousands of AR-15s in the hands of macho men aren't going to make a difference against a drone that takes out electricity, water, and the interconnected food system hauling you vegetables from 2,000 miles away.

 

[Wild Bill]

They sure can. A well regulated militia. (Should the Texas national guard possess nuclear weapons?)

This is a conversation about private citizens and sensible regulation of the right to bear arms. The whole defense against tyranny angle is comical because tens of thousands of AR-15s in the hands of macho men aren't going to make a difference against a drone that takes out electricity, water, and the interconnected food system hauling you vegetables from 2,000 miles away.

Your scenario places the US government in a lose lose. It would be impossible to occupy and disarm tens of thousand of citizens in a large territory who are armed with AR15s and willing to fight. Our military can destroy with efficiency but they're not so efficient when it comes to occupation. The disaster that is the ME provides all the proof we need. They would be forced to destroy their own infrastructure and kill their own people to stop tens of thousands of civilians who are heavily armed and ready to kill or be killed. The day our leaders give orders to destroy infrastructure or kill civilians in mass numbers is the day they lose control and power. That ain't happening.

 

[Bishop2b5]

They sure can. A well regulated militia. (Should the Texas national guard possess nuclear weapons?)

This is a conversation about private citizens and sensible regulation of the right to bear arms. The whole defense against tyranny angle is comical because tens of thousands of AR-15s in the hands of macho men aren't going to make a difference against a drone that takes out electricity, water, and the interconnected food system hauling you vegetables from 2,000 miles away.

You're assuming the entire military would attack their own citizens and support the government in a crackdown on a citizen's revolt against a tyrannical government that had become so oppressive and intrusive that The People fought back. Don't count on that. Half the people in the US military would probably join such a revolt.