Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

[leswp1]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Not sure I understand the argument of the last couple of pages.

Of course the gun was invented as a tool of warfare, with a design to kill people. Humans found a secondary use in the form of hunting. Sharpshooting competitions similarly followed.

But that doesn't make the gun inherently evil, or justify limiting its access no more than early medical uses of cocaine justify widespread distribution today. Like scissors and knives and and chainsaws and thousands of other things, guns are simply inanimate objects that are capable of being misused to the point of life threatening danger to the user, another party or both.

Medicine has a ton of regulation. When they figure out meds cause bad things to happen they regulate the poop out of them. Work in medicine. Have no problem with that. The med is not inherently evil but there is no reason to give unlimited access and a whole lot of argument and research occurs if things go bad. Wouldn't a little research in our country on this topic be nice. I am confused why people who support no regulation don't want to do research to see if it would make a difference. If it wouldn't then it would be so much easier to support the case for no regulation!

Fastest revolver shooter in the world can pull eight times (accurately) in one second. That's faster than some automatic weapons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHG-ibZaKM

Cool! Not sure this is pertinent. I would imagine most people aren't that good.

Not in North Dakota. However, a North Dakota retailer is only allowed to sell handguns to North Dakota citizens. (Snarky comment here about Minnesotans. )

Is there anything preventing them from transferring ownership?

There isn't an amendment that requires a voter ID, but many states REQUIRE a voter ID, and somehow, that's ok.

Still, the argument is more about the larger concept of regulation, not a specific idea of IDs. Seems like that concept it totally lost.

Why is it so freaking hard to want to come up with ideas and rules to reduce the scale of mass shootings??? I just don't get that. You get so lost in the details that the big picture is totally lost.

How about this, the anti-gun crowd wants ideas on what can be done that we (the pro-gun people) would accept, so I'll propose a few items that I, personally, would be ok with. (no guarantees with flaggy, we all know he's a few doughnuts short of a dozen)

1. Get tougher on gun ownership responsibility. Make people liable when they make weapons they own available to people that commit violent crimes. This encourages people to lock up their guns, and be more responsible gun owners, and potentially keeps guns out of the hands of dangerous people.
2. Install a system to efficiently allow background checks for private gun sales, and encourage its use. As a gun owner, if I were to sell a gun, I'd use this voluntarily, as would many others.
3. Install an option for "Advanced" concealed carry permits. This would be a training that is the same, or very similar to the weapons training that police officers receive. It would be tough to pass. It would also allow citizens, that are very highly trained, to carry in the same locations off-duty police officers do.
4. Create a system to allows law enforcement to add people under investigation to a no-buy list (the felon list). This is tricky, because there needs to be adequate checks and balances, we cannot have people put on this list for no reason, with no way to get off of it. There needs to be a quick way to fight having your name on the list.

w00t! just when I lost faith. I wish this could be discussed in the 'real world'. Would also, like I said above, like to see some research to look at the dynamics of why people do this kind of stuff. People are so caught up on being on one side or the other it is very hard to sort through the facts.

Someone previously posted a list of incidents in other countries but they are anomalies for those countries. Something just happened again in France but the response to it is so different from here.

Sources I'm seeing state 60-70% of weapons smuggled in from the US. Building a wall would lower that number drastically. Thus, we should build the wall.

Ha. When they export large portions of those lawless, horrible rapists maybe they would bring all thier guns back to keep the flow going? (sarcasm, even if it is in bad taste)

Well, some guns have a "lighter" pull weight, some "heavier". Some have a longer "range" to engage the firing mechanism. There are honestly quite a few variables to be able to answer your question(s), as it is different for all firearms.

Of course, "slapping" the trigger, as one tends to do with a shotgun more than a rifle ("squeezing" the trigger is more common with rifles, as it enhances accuracy/precision) can take care of most pull "weight" differences.

I am learning a lot on here (and seeing some really amazing feats of armed prowess)

[Handyman]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

How about this, the anti-gun crowd wants ideas on what can be done that we (the pro-gun people) would accept, so I'll propose a few items that I, personally, would be ok with. (no guarantees with flaggy, we all know he's a few doughnuts short of a dozen)

1. Get tougher on gun ownership responsibility. Make people liable when they make weapons they own available to people that commit violent crimes. This encourages people to lock up their guns, and be more responsible gun owners, and potentially keeps guns out of the hands of dangerous people.
2. Install a system to efficiently allow background checks for private gun sales, and encourage its use. As a gun owner, if I were to sell a gun, I'd use this voluntarily, as would many others.
3. Install an option for "Advanced" concealed carry permits. This would be a training that is the same, or very similar to the weapons training that police officers receive. It would be tough to pass. It would also allow citizens, that are very highly trained, to carry in the same locations off-duty police officers do.
4. Create a system to allows law enforcement to add people under investigation to a no-buy list (the felon list). This is tricky, because there needs to be adequate checks and balances, we cannot have people put on this list for no reason, with no way to get off of it. There needs to be a quick way to fight having your name on the list.

All of that seems pretty good to me. I am sure a few will tell us though this is step one towards Obama coming to take all your guns though

[RaceBoarder]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Is there anything preventing them from transferring ownership?

Any private sale that crosses state lines must go through an FFL in the buyer's home state. That means that the seller must send the firearm to the FFL. The FFL then must preform a background before allowing the buyer to take possession of the firearm. Going through an FFL also puts a check in place since they must meet all laws within that state before passing off the firearm. What this prevents is buying a firearm that is illegal in your state through a dealer in another state. It's a very important "safety check" in place since laws vary state to state.

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Any private sale that crosses state lines must go through an FFL in the buyer's home state. That means that the seller must send the firearm to the FFL. The FFL then must preform a background before allowing the buyer to take possession of the firearm. Going through an FFL also puts a check in place since they must meet all laws within that state before passing off the firearm. What this prevents is buying a firearm that is illegal in your state through a dealer in another state. It's a very important "safety check" in place since laws vary state to state.

I had to go through this process to get my slug gun. Bought it online in Michigan, had to have it shipped to a gun shop here, in MN, to get the background check and take possession.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Had there been a restriction on the gun, it's likely that the number dead would be fewer. Fewer rounds in a clip is a good start, a rate of fire limit would be a good thing, a speed of clip change limit would be a good thing- none of those would change the legal use of an automatic weapon, realistically.

I don't think people are saying that the crime itself would have been prevented, but the scale of it probably would be changed. And that would be a good thing.

Why does the measure of a law have to be 100% when you and everyone else knows that 100% is not possible?

(then again, I'd like to repeat that women should feel more empowered to turn in abuse. If that allegation was true, and the first wife turned him in, it's likely that none of this would have happened by this guy)

This isn't meant to be snarky, but I assume you mean semiautomatic, right?

[RaceBoarder]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

I had to go through this process to get my slug gun. Bought it online in Michigan, had to have it shipped to a gun shop here, in MN, to get the background check and take possession.

It's a key safety check that is often overlooked by anti-gun people. Once you know the process it's pretty simple to understand. It's just getting to that point that's the problem.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

How about this, the anti-gun crowd wants ideas on what can be done that we (the pro-gun people) would accept, so I'll propose a few items that I, personally, would be ok with. (no guarantees with flaggy, we all know he's a few doughnuts short of a dozen)

1. Get tougher on gun ownership responsibility. Make people liable when they make weapons they own available to people that commit violent crimes. This encourages people to lock up their guns, and be more responsible gun owners, and potentially keeps guns out of the hands of dangerous people.
2. Install a system to efficiently allow background checks for private gun sales, and encourage its use. As a gun owner, if I were to sell a gun, I'd use this voluntarily, as would many others.
3. Install an option for "Advanced" concealed carry permits. This would be a training that is the same, or very similar to the weapons training that police officers receive. It would be tough to pass. It would also allow citizens, that are very highly trained, to carry in the same locations off-duty police officers do.
4. Create a system to allows law enforcement to add people under investigation to a no-buy list (the felon list). This is tricky, because there needs to be adequate checks and balances, we cannot have people put on this list for no reason, with no way to get off of it. There needs to be a quick way to fight having your name on the list.

1. Yup. That "safe handling" are trigger words for me (pun intended).
2. We have this system in place (sorta) now for commercial sales, so, fine.
3. Where do I sign up? (I love it when I'm on the local range and out-shoot ND HP and Feds. Them, not so much. )
4. Indeed "tricky". Could be very good; could end up as bad as the no-fly lists keeping toddlers off planes. I'd favor if the "under challenge" condition of a name was off the list.

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

4. Indeed "tricky". Could be very good; could end up as bad as the no-fly lists keeping toddlers off planes.

As someone who has flown a crap-ton and as a former employee of a very large airline, I don't know that keeping toddlers off planes is all that bad of an idea....

[SteveP]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. Heck, Dan Rather reported Jim Brady died the day Reagan got shot. Hillary was under fire when she got off the helicopter in Bosnia. Millions believe an AR-15 is an assault rifle and that AR stands for "assault rifle."

When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.

FYP, but I agree with you completely.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

How about this, the anti-gun crowd wants ideas on what can be done that we (the pro-gun people) would accept, so I'll propose a few items that I, personally, would be ok with. (no guarantees with flaggy, we all know he's a few doughnuts short of a dozen)

1. Get tougher on gun ownership responsibility. Make people liable when they make weapons they own available to people that commit violent crimes. This encourages people to lock up their guns, and be more responsible gun owners, and potentially keeps guns out of the hands of dangerous people.
2. Install a system to efficiently allow background checks for private gun sales, and encourage its use. As a gun owner, if I were to sell a gun, I'd use this voluntarily, as would many others.
3. Install an option for "Advanced" concealed carry permits. This would be a training that is the same, or very similar to the weapons training that police officers receive. It would be tough to pass. It would also allow citizens, that are very highly trained, to carry in the same locations off-duty police officers do.
4. Create a system to allows law enforcement to add people under investigation to a no-buy list (the felon list). This is tricky, because there needs to be adequate checks and balances, we cannot have people put on this list for no reason, with no way to get off of it. There needs to be a quick way to fight having your name on the list.

1. Ban all Assault weapons (I need a better definition of assault weapons. It can't just be what people think looks scary or militaristic. Especially given the difference between an assault weapon and a semi-automatic rifle.) and limitations on high capacity magazines What is the proposed cap? I'd suggest 10-15.
2. Universal background checks on all gun sales Agreed.
3. Close the Charleston loophole: no firearm sale without a completed background check Agreed
4. Close the terror gap by prohibiting gun sales to those on the No-Fly list I think I need better definition here. I've always been squeamish about this. For someone to have their Constitutional rights taken away, it has to have a high standard. A very high standard. Take convicted felons as an example. Being convicted of a felony has a very high bar and there is an open and documented appeals process.
5. End the CDC ban on gun violence research I'm almost positive I'm in agreement here. What are the legitimate concerns with this research? I know this is asking a lot of some people, but if you respond, please be intelligent in your answer
6. Domestic violence restraining order to prevent abusers with a temporary restraining order from possessing firearms Temporary fine. I think. Again, this goes back to the high bar for removing a person's Constitutional right. There needs to be a cap on both one-time length and a cap on total length stemming from a single report/request. Basically, I would like to see a 30-day (or less) cap on the first time it's approved. Maximum 120 days overall. This can't be a permanent temproary order.
7. Repeal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) No. In 99% of all cases, no.
8. Child access prevention law for safe storage of firearms I'm ok with this depending on what the constraints are.

I think most people will find that gun owners are ok with many of the proposed changes, see the posts above.

1. Universal background checks. 100%

2. I like bbdl's suggestion about the system to complete a background check on private sales. However, I'll go a step further and say it's use is required for any sale or transfer of ownership.

3. I'd propose a national permit to buy law for all handguns and semiautomatic rifles that qualify as "assault weapons". The permit must not be financially imposing. For example, the permit cannot cost $10,000. I'd propose something under $25 to cover administrative costs. Though I'm still somewhat uneasy about requiring a fee to purchase a gun. On it's face, I like Minnesota's law. The permit should be valid for one year. I don't understand why semiautomatic rifles can be bought by an 18-year-old but handguns can only be purchased by someone 21 or older. I would raise both of these to 21.

4. We need a more "inclusive" no-gun list. Like BBDL, the process must be open, evidence must be made available, and the list must have a speedy appeals process that is not stacked against the person. The ban must be renewed on a regular basis.

5. Mental illness disqualifications must be reviewed by an appropriate person or panel. They need to have a background and a degree (possibly advanced degree). I actually had a friend who was trying to buy a shotgun. He has a very common name and someone with that name had been declared mentally unstable in California. It took him months, maybe even close to a year, to get a gun. That's a problem.

6. Allow the CDC to study gun violence. Again, I don't understand the arguments here.

7. Enact safe storage laws. But this needs to be carefully worded. The SCOTUS has already ruled that requiring a gun to be locked and unloaded in a house is not Constitutional. If someone is found to have negligently or maliciously provided access to a gun to someone who commits a crime, that needs to be punished. Having a gun on display in your house without children present should be fine. Having a gun in your car should be fine if it's being legally transported (like when I keep mine in the trunk or under the back seat when going to trap). I would be interested to see what the SCOTUS's take is on requiring weapons to be locked when children are present and unsupervised.

8. Require firearms licenses for people who commercially 3D-print guns. This is really uncharted territory and we need to study this quite a bit more before enacting restrictions that wouldn't stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.

9. Apparently, federal law already bans possession of a firearm for anyone convicted of "qualified" domestic violence

10. Did I miss anything? Let's talk.

(There's some good stuff in this link: https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-...ons-report.pdf though I disagree with other parts.)

[RaceBoarder]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

I think most people will find that gun owners are ok with many of the proposed changes, see the posts above.

1. Universal background checks. 100%

2. I like bbdl's suggestion about the system to complete a background check on private sales. However, I'll go a step further and say it's use is required for any sale or transfer of ownership.

3. I'd propose a national permit to buy law for all handguns and semiautomatic rifles that qualify as "assault weapons". The permit must not be financially imposing. For example, the permit cannot cost $10,000. I'd propose something under $25 to cover administrative costs. Though I'm still somewhat uneasy about requiring a fee to purchase a gun. On it's face, I like Minnesota's law. The permit should be valid for one year. I don't understand why semiautomatic rifles can be bought by an 18-year-old but handguns can only be purchased by someone 21 or older. I would raise both of these to 21.

4. We need a more "inclusive" no-gun list. Like BBDL, the process must be open, evidence must be made available, and the list must have a speedy appeals process that is not stacked against the person. The ban must be renewed on a regular basis.

5. Mental illness disqualifications must be reviewed by an appropriate person or panel. They need to have a background and a degree (possibly advanced degree). I actually had a friend who was trying to buy a shotgun. He has a very common name and someone with that name had been declared mentally unstable in California. It took him months, maybe even close to a year, to get a gun. That's a problem.

6. Allow the CDC to study gun violence. Again, I don't understand the arguments here.

7. Enact safe storage laws. But this needs to be carefully worded. The SCOTUS has already ruled that requiring a gun to be locked and unloaded in a house is not Constitutional. If someone is found to have negligently or maliciously provided access to a gun to someone who commits a crime, that needs to be punished. Having a gun on display in your house without children present should be fine. Having a gun in your car should be fine if it's being legally transported (like when I keep mine in the trunk or under the back seat when going to trap). I would be interested to see what the SCOTUS's take is on requiring weapons to be locked when children are present and unsupervised.

8. Require firearms licenses for people who commercially 3D-print guns. This is really uncharted territory and we need to study this quite a bit more before enacting restrictions that wouldn't stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.

9. Apparently, federal law already bans possession of a firearm for anyone convicted of "qualified" domestic violence

10. Did I miss anything? Let's talk.

(There's some good stuff in this link: https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-...ons-report.pdf though I disagree with other parts.)

Well said. Agree with everything posted.

In regards to #10: "Common Sense" needs to reign supreme with anything regarding this matter. If you choose to be a gun owner, you have to take responsibility. This means knowing what you can and can't do. People need to respect this!

Story time: I work for a sporting good retailer. Although I'm not in the firearms dept., I have to process the sale of ammo on a pretty regular basis. Several times each year, someone will lose their s*** because I have to deny a straw purchase on ammo. (In IL all ammo purchases require a valid FOID card.) This usually happens in a similar fashion each time: Guy A and Guy B come to the register together. Guy A goes through ringing out, but can't produce a valid FOID card cause he forgot it at home. I say I have to deny the sale and take away the ammo. Guy B then says that he has his FOID card, so put them on his tab. I can't legally do that since I know Guy A was the one who intended to purchase the ammo. People then proceed to flip their s***.

It's stuff like this that ticks me off. Guy A+B will be the 1st in line to protest any sort of gun regulation, but they don't respect the simple processes we have in place. They want to own guns but don't want the associated responsibility. This isn't a gun thing, but a general culture thing. Everyone wants to blame someone else instead of looking in the mirror. As gun owners, we need to look at ourselves and take steps to educate the masses that are too lazy or stupid to educate themselves.

This is why I feel that we need to start holding people accountable for all aspects of firearm ownership. You don't complete all aspects of a legal sale and that firearm proceeds to be used in a crime, you're responsible. Your 12 year old shoots his friend because you left a loaded weapon in the kitchen drawer, you're responsible.

Like I said, it's a general American cultural thing that is the problem. Unfortunately I don't have a remedy, but it needs to be addressed. We are a stupid, stupid society and that is a dangerous thing when it comes to firearms.

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Well said. Agree with everything posted.

In regards to #10: "Common Sense" needs to reign supreme with anything regarding this matter. If you choose to be a gun owner, you have to take responsibility. This means knowing what you can and can't do. People need to respect this!

Story time: I work for a sporting good retailer. Although I'm not in the firearms dept., I have to process the sale of ammo on a pretty regular basis. Several times each year, someone will lose their s*** because I have to deny a straw purchase on ammo. (In IL all ammo purchases require a valid FOID card.) This usually happens in a similar fashion each time: Guy A and Guy B come to the register together. Guy A goes through ringing out, but can't produce a valid FOID card cause he forgot it at home. I say I have to deny the sale and take away the ammo. Guy B then says that he has his FOID card, so put them on his tab. I can't legally do that since I know Guy A was the one who intended to purchase the ammo. People then proceed to flip their s***.

It's stuff like this that ticks me off. Guy A+B will be the 1st in line to protest any sort of gun regulation, but they don't respect the simple processes we have in place. They want to own guns but don't want the associated responsibility. This isn't a gun thing, but a general culture thing. Everyone wants to blame someone else instead of looking in the mirror. As gun owners, we need to look at ourselves and take steps to educate the masses that are too lazy or stupid to educate themselves.

This is why I feel that we need to start holding people accountable for all aspects of firearm ownership. You don't complete all aspects of a legal sale and that firearm proceeds to be used in a crime, you're responsible. Your 12 year old shoots his friend because you left a loaded weapon in the kitchen drawer, you're responsible.

Like I said, it's a general American cultural thing that is the problem. Unfortunately I don't have a remedy, but it needs to be addressed. We are a stupid, stupid society and that is a dangerous thing when it comes to firearms.

Well, in defense of the mythical guys in your example, the laws in IL are really ****ing stupid, and would **** me off regularly if I lived there as well.

[jericho]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

So I see the "it didn't happen, the gubmint did this" conspiracy theorists on social media are out in full force. Linda Richman is feeling verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves, she'll give us a topic. Social media is neither Social nor Media. Discuss.

[Kepler]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

So I see the "it didn't happen, the gubmint did this" conspiracy theorists on social media are out in full force. Linda Richman is feeling verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves, she'll give us a topic. Social media is neither Social nor Media. Discuss.

Link or GTFO. (Though I can well imagine.)

If some Christo-nut ever shoots up a mosque I fully expect 90% of Republicans and their entire Echo Chamber to believe it was a government hoax.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

So I see the "it didn't happen, the gubmint did this" conspiracy theorists on social media are out in full force. Linda Richman is feeling verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves, she'll give us a topic. Social media is neither Social nor Media. Discuss.

So, ... you're podcasting "Ground Zero with Clyde Lewis" ... (iHeart.com is awesome, eh?) ...