Las Vegas shooting

[whitewave]

So, because mass shootings aren't at the top of the list, we shouldn't do everything in our power to try and prevent them?

As I said, he also tried to blow up the jet fuel tanks nearby, so I'm not sure anything could have prevented this guy from doing what he did.

These are the things I have come up with.

1) outlaw bump stock
2) limit gun purchases to 5 a year. @redwood66 is there a number you would be willing to live with per year? Just curious.

This guy bought 33 guns in a year.

 

[whitewave]

OMG sox -- that was SO FUNNY. Thank you for posting it!

There is one thing he said though that made me take pause and think for just a moment that in this current environment the right to bear arms for the purpose of forming a malitia and protecting ourselves against a tyrranical government might not be so far fetched...

Exactly why people have guns aside from hunting and recreation and home security.

What makes anyone think a tyrannical government would never happen here?

 

[Dee*Jay]

This sums it up perfectly:

OMG sox -- that was SO FUNNY. Thank you for posting it!

There is one thing he said though that made me take pause and think for just a moment that in this current environment the right to bear arms for the purpose of forming a militia and protecting ourselves against a tyrranical government might not be so far fetched...

ETA: Not sure why this posted twice... but I stand by it both times!

 

[Dee*Jay]

Exactly why people have guns aside from hunting and recreation and home security.

What makes anyone think a tyrannical government would never happen here?

Whitewave, you and I were posting at the same time.

 

[whitewave]

Whitewave, you and I were posting at the same time.

I saw your post and was agreeing with it.

 

[arkieb1]

As I said, he also tried to blow up the jet fuel tanks nearby, so I'm not sure anything could have prevented this guy from doing what he did.

These are the things I have come up with.

1) outlaw bump stock
2) limit gun purchases to 5 a year. @redwood66 is there a number you would be willing to live with per year? Just curious.

This guy bought 33 guns in a year.

I will go one further why do you need to buy 5 guns per year? I'm like what are you people doing with all these guns? You need to have multiple gun safes in your houses? Again I just don't get it. How many guns do people in cities really need and what types of guns in built up areas should they be allowed to own, how many guns do people in rural areas really need and what types of guns should they be allowed to own. These are the types of things you should be asking.

We are actually allowed to own guns in Australia but we are regulated by what type and how many.

 

[whitewave]

I will go one further why do you need to buy 5 guns per year? I'm like what are you people doing with all these guns? You need to have multiple gun safes in your houses? Again I just don't get it. How many guns do people in cities really need and what types of guns in built up areas should they be allowed to own, how many guns do people in rural areas really need and what types of guns should they be allowed to own. These are the types of things you should be asking.

We are actually allowed to own guns in Australia but we are regulated by what type and how many.

Meth. Meth is a scourge here.

Handguns for target practice and self-defense.

Rifles for hunting.

AR15 for huntung (yes, some do) and self defense, etc. Recreational shooting, etc.

 

[Dee*Jay]

I saw your post and was agreeing with it.

Yes -- great minds... !

 

[House Cat]

This is an interesting article in WaPo.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...3edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html

Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site.

Article:

I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I'd lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn't prove much about what America's policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.

When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an "assault weapon." It's an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.

As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don't make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.

As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn't even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?

However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.

By the time we published our project, I didn't believe in many of the interventions I'd heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don't want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can't endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.

Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans' plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.

I don't understand the whole silencer argument. There are other means for preserving one's hearing while hunting. My husband and son (and many hunters that I know) wear these special ear plugs that work on the frequency of gunfire only. They can hear everything else perfectly. They wear them in the woods and in the duck blind. I would think that someone would prefer these to a heavy silencer when they are walking for long distances to find a deer, etc.

When we talk about suicides, I think it is extremely important to acknowledge the people who have attempted suicide and failed. A vast majority of those people are happy that their attempt failed. Most regret attempting during the act and get help. Attempting suicide with a firearm doesn't give you that chance. I remember when my stepdad killed himself. My mom just cried and cried saying it was all over with a "pop.' I remember how quickly he was gone. There was no chance, no opportunity to save him. No pumping of the stomach, no talking him down from a ledge, nothing. He was just gone.

All I wanted was two more minutes. That .45 made sure I didn't have them.

Guns make suicide instant. So, while the gun proponents want to say that most gun deaths are by suicide and that a suicidal person will find another means for killing themselves, maybe we would have a chance for saving them. Maybe there would be fewer suicides overall.

And what's the harm in trying?

Gang violence is a totally different animal. It is largely contained to its own neighborhoods. Someone on this forum said they were more likely to be shot by a gang member? Not if you stay out of their areas. I've lived through two shootings. Both in my old neighborhood. Once I moved to affluent suburbia, nothing. I believe that we have the means for reducing the amount of gang violence in our nation, but that has everything to do with policy change in our poor areas such as education and basic needs so that there are fewer gang members in the first place. Something the conservatives aren't interested in either.

At this very moment, I am interested in how to reduce mass shootings. I don't want to muddy the waters with every other gun debate. I believe that type of deflection is exactly what the gun lobby and gun zealots want. I realize that mass shootings account for a "minuscule" amount of the gun deaths in our nation each year but they are grotesque event that should never happen to our innocents.

Gun ownership without accountability isn't responsible gun ownership. It seems to me that a lot of people in this nation consider themselves responsible gun owners simply because they purchased their guns at Bass Pro Shops, instead of from some guy's trunk. So much more goes into being responsible. People shouldn't be allowed to own guns without education and protocol. This isn't infringing upon anyone's rights. They are still allowed to own the guns, they are just being made aware of the awesome responsibility behind gun ownership.

I wish we could take things a step further. I wish we could refuse to sell guns to people with a mental illness background. ETA: add drug users to this too. I do want a database of gun owners. I want thorough background checks. I also want monthly cross checks so that if a gun owner is prescribed a mental illness medication or is hospitalized, he has to give up his guns. I want AR's gone. Not all semi automatic weapons because I know that is a very broad term and there are shot guns out there that hold three shells that are semi automatic...so that wouldn't really work.

And, I know that the vegas shooting still could have happened without a modified weapon, but I feel like the death toll would have been much, much smaller and the injured would have been so much less.

Or how about a study? How about the Republicans allow a study into why this is happening?

I don't know... It would be really great if the people from the Republican Party would see that it is their moral obligation to give or do something when a mass shooting happens. They are the party that is supported by the gun lobby. They bear that responsibility.

 

[Maria D]

Officials are saying that Paddock spent decades building his arsenal, so yearly limits wouldn't have had much effect on this particular incident. The arguments will always go this way - all "compromise" suggestions will be met with the conjecture that they wouldn't have prevented the current display of the spectacular efficiency of these weapons. All "no-compromise" suggestions will be met with "2nd Amendment." Meanwhile, the weapons will keep getting even better. Silencers today diminish their power? Hey, we put men on the moon - surely we'll figure out better silencers!

Instead of the media going on and on about how wonderful all these victims were and how evil the perpetrators are, maybe we should try a different tact. Why not celebrate the terrific technology of our recreational weaponry? Show close-ups of the bloody blown apart bodies. Bring back Roman style entertainment - instead of gladiators taking on wild animals we could watch people shoot each other up with the very best weapons US manufacturers can create. How long would we put up with that?

They say addicts won't try to change until they hit rock bottom. Americans are no where near rock bottom on this issue.

 

[House Cat]

Officials are saying that Paddock spent decades building his arsenal, so yearly limits wouldn't have had much effect on this particular incident. The arguments will always go this way - all "compromise" suggestions will be met with the conjecture that they wouldn't have prevented the current display of the spectacular efficiency of these weapons. All "no-compromise" suggestions will be met with "2nd Amendment." Meanwhile, the weapons will keep getting even better. Silencers today diminish their power? Hey, we put men on the moon - surely we'll figure out better silencers!

Instead of the media going on and on about how wonderful all these victims were and how evil the perpetrators are, maybe we should try a different tact. Why not celebrate the terrific technology of our recreational weaponry? Show close-ups of the bloody blown apart bodies. Bring back Roman style entertainment - instead of gladiators taking on wild animals we could watch people shoot each other up with the very best weapons US manufacturers can create. How long would we put up with that?

They say addicts won't try to change until they hit rock bottom. Americans are no where near rock bottom on this issue.

I find what you say so shocking and horrifying...

And so ****ing true

 

[arkieb1]

This sums it up perfectly:

OMG sox -- that was SO FUNNY. Thank you for posting it!

There is one thing he said though that made me take pause and think for just a moment that in this current environment the right to bear arms for the purpose of forming a militia and protecting ourselves against a tyrranical government might not be so far fetched...

ETA: Not sure why this posted twice... but I stand by it both times!

The gun commentary from Jim Jefferies, is a few years old now, you will both like this one;

 

[whitewave]

I don't understand the whole silencer argument. There are other means for preserving one's hearing while hunting. My husband and son (and many hunters that I know) wear these special ear plugs that work on the frequency of gunfire only. They can hear everything else perfectly. They wear them in the woods and in the duck blind. I would think that someone would prefer these to a heavy silencer when they are walking for long distances to find a deer, etc.

When we talk about suicides, I think it is extremely important to acknowledge the people who have attempted suicide and failed. A vast majority of those people are happy that their attempt failed. Most regret attempting during the act and get help. Attempting suicide with a firearm doesn't give you that chance. I remember when my stepdad killed himself. My mom just cried and cried saying it was all over with a "pop.' I remember how quickly he was gone. There was no chance, no opportunity to save him. No pumping of the stomach, no talking him down from a ledge, nothing. He was just gone.

All I wanted was two more minutes. That .45 made sure I didn't have them.

Guns make suicide instant. So, while the gun proponents want to say that most gun deaths are by suicide and that a suicidal person will find another means for killing themselves, maybe we would have a chance for saving them. Maybe there would be fewer suicides overall.

And what's the harm in trying?

Gang violence is a totally different animal. It is largely contained to its own neighborhoods. Someone on this forum said they were more likely to be shot by a gang member? Not if you stay out of their areas. I've lived through two shootings. Both in my old neighborhood. Once I moved to affluent suburbia, nothing. I believe that we have the means for reducing the amount of gang violence in our nation, but that has everything to do with policy change in our poor areas such as education and basic needs so that there are fewer gang members in the first place. Something the conservatives aren't interested in either.

At this very moment, I am interested in how to reduce mass shootings. I don't want to muddy the waters with every other gun debate. I believe that type of deflection is exactly what the gun lobby and gun zealots want. I realize that mass shootings account for a "minuscule" amount of the gun deaths in our nation each year but they are grotesque event that should never happen to our innocents.

Gun ownership without accountability isn't responsible gun ownership. It seems to me that a lot of people in this nation consider themselves responsible gun owners simply because they purchased their guns at Bass Pro Shops, instead of from some guy's trunk. So much more goes into being responsible. People shouldn't be allowed to own guns without education and protocol. This isn't infringing upon anyone's rights. They are still allowed to own the guns, they are just being made aware of the awesome responsibility behind gun ownership.

I wish we could take things a step further. I wish we could refuse to sell guns to people with a mental illness background. ETA: add drug users to this too. I do want a database of gun owners. I want thorough background checks. I also want monthly cross checks so that if a gun owner is prescribed a mental illness medication or is hospitalized, he has to give up his guns. I want AR's gone. Not all semi automatic weapons because I know that is a very broad term and there are shot guns out there that hold three shells that are semi automatic...so that wouldn't really work.

And, I know that the vegas shooting still could have happened without a modified weapon, but I feel like the death toll would have been much, much smaller and the injured would have been so much less.

Or how about a study? How about the Republicans allow a study into why this is happening?

I don't know... It would be really great if the people from the Republican Party would see that it is their moral obligation to give or do something when a mass shooting happens. They are the party that is supported by the gun lobby. They bear that responsibility.

A lot to discuss here.

Most people I know/know of who killed themselves jumped off something. Look at how San Francisco wants to add nets to the Golden Gate Bridge.

Gang violence is no longer "contained" in New Orleans.

Hunters have to attend hunter safety classes. To get a concealed
carry permit, you have to attend classes and get certified.

To buy a gun, there is a background check and a waiting period.

Since mental illness is covered by the ADA, I'm not sure there will ever be a "mental illness database" especially in today's world.

ARs are totally fine. We have several semi-automatics... it is a rifle.

 

[arkieb1]

Meth. Meth is a scourge here.

Handguns for target practice and self-defense.

Rifles for hunting.

AR15 for huntung (yes, some do) and self defense, etc. Recreational shooting, etc.

Drugs are a huge issue in rural communities and indeed in some parts of cities here too. We just have drugs and people with knives rather than anything else because a lot of them cannot get guns.

The obvious question is why do you need 5, 10, 15, 20 or more guns for hunting and defending yourselves? How many is too many? I can't wrap my brain around the need to have so many guns.

 

[whitewave]

Officials are saying that Paddock spent decades building his arsenal, so yearly limits wouldn't have had much effect on this particular incident. The arguments will always go this way - all "compromise" suggestions will be met with the conjecture that they wouldn't have prevented the current display of the spectacular efficiency of these weapons. All "no-compromise" suggestions will be met with "2nd Amendment." Meanwhile, the weapons will keep getting even better. Silencers today diminish their power? Hey, we put men on the moon - surely we'll figure out better silencers!

Instead of the media going on and on about how wonderful all these victims were and how evil the perpetrators are, maybe we should try a different tact. Why not celebrate the terrific technology of our recreational weaponry? Show close-ups of the bloody blown apart bodies. Bring back Roman style entertainment - instead of gladiators taking on wild animals we could watch people shoot each other up with the very best weapons US manufacturers can create. How long would we put up with that?

They say addicts won't try to change until they hit rock bottom. Americans are no where near rock bottom on this issue.

He bought 33 guns last year. A limit could have diminished this, as would a bump stock ban. He had 23 guns in the hotel.

ETA: his shooting wasn't accurate (what you call efficacy of the weapon). He killed so many because there were 22,000 people and he was shooting into the herd.

 

[Dee*Jay]

33...

23...

It just takes ONE.

 

[whitewave]

33...

23...

It just takes ONE.

Not for this incident. He needed many because he was shooting so quickly that the barrels burned up. In the published photo of half his body lying dead on the hotel floor, you can see he is wearing an oven mitt. That is also what set the smoke alarm off.

 

[redwood66]

Redwood - I don't live in the US so hopefully that makes me objective enough to see you will never get rid of all guns, they are a cultural part of who America is. I'm trying to comprehend how you can go about regulating to have less guns generally and less guns able to do things like what just happened in Los Vegas -before some other nutball decides they want to do the same thing.... I grew up in a harsh rural environment so I don't have a bleeding heart when it comes to farmers and appropriate responsible people owning guns.

Why does an every day person need to own an "assault" type weapon? No personal attacks, no judgement, all I am suggesting here is doing nothing is not going to solve the issue so therefore something HAS to change.

I don't think you are personally attacking me and am glad to answer your questions. As far as solving this kind of evil I don't think it will ever be fully solved. People are who they are and Vegas is more confounding than others because there is no ideology or sickness to put to it yet, that the public knows of anyway.

The type of weapons you are talking about aren't even what we like to use at our house so I can't answer that question for you about other people. We have one that would be considered an "assault" weapon - AR15. My husband is a former Marine and is very familiar with that style. Ours is very expensive and collectible. But he does not like shooting it that much and I don't like it at all so it mostly sits in the safe. I do know that it is not about "need" for many people, just like the Unicorn said.

As far as the different types of weapons and their uses, sure there are herd and ranch protection for farmers, but there are many different types of competitions that require several weapons to do. We like Cowboy Action Shooting because it is a hoot, requires excellent coordination, and is an opportunity to get together with other people. This requires 3-4 weapons to compete, a rifle, shotgun, and one or two pistols. They are period specific single action weapons and ours are expensive. I would like to teach my horse mounted shooting because that is definitely challenging and requires a rifle and pistol - I would not use my expensive ones. My veterinarian and his wife do this and she was a national champion not too long ago. One can google Keanu Reeves videos of him in a 3 gun competition and he is amazing. He does this with his wife (or girlfriend not sure which). This is not the same as cowboy action but similar in requiring coordination. The rifle he uses is an AR15.

Because shooting is such a hobby with us and I know so many people like me, and millions more I don't know personally, that the depiction of all gun owners as crazy lunatics is maddening beyond belief. I don't claim to be in support of people who cannot be responsible with their weapons and cause harm to others or themselves by accidents in their home. Owning weapons is a heavy responsibility not to be taken lightly.

 

[arkieb1]

33...

23...

It just takes ONE.

True but one that can only fire a small number of bullets at a slowish rate is going to do a hell of a lot less damage than one or 5 or 20 that can fire a lot of bullets in a short amount of time.

 

[Maria D]

He bought 33 guns last year. A limit could have diminished this, as would a bump stock ban. He had 23 guns in the hotel.

ETA: his shooting wasn't accurate (what you call efficacy of the weapon). He killed so many because there were 22,000 people and he was shooting into the herd.

I used the word efficiency. I did not talk about his shooting, but the weaponry. I would call being able to kill almost 60 and injure over 500 people in less than 15 minutes amazingly efficient!

If he didn't have the bump stock, maybe he would have killed only, oh, I don't know maybe 4 people? That would still be enough to be classified as one of the approximately 330 mass shootings per year but not enough for it to even register as national news. Or maybe more? How many could you kill in 10 minutes without bump stock? I'm dying to know!

Did he shoot only with the 33 guns he bought last year? Were the decades in the making arsenal just for other kind of recreation he enjoyed then? Are these important questions or just fun trivia?

 

[Maria D]

He bought 33 guns last year. A limit could have diminished this, as would a bump stock ban. He had 23 guns in the hotel.

ETA: his shooting wasn't accurate (what you call efficacy of the weapon). He killed so many because there were 22,000 people and he was shooting into the herd.

I used the word efficiency. I did not talk about his shooting, but the weaponry. I would call being able to kill almost 60 and injure over 500 people in less than 15 minutes amazingly efficient!

If he didn't have the bump stock, maybe he would have killed only, oh, I don't know maybe 4 people? That would still be enough to be classified as one of the approximately 330 mass shootings per year but not enough for it to even register as national news. Or maybe more? How many could you kill in 10 minutes without bump stock? I'm dying to know!

Did he shoot only with the 33 guns he bought last year? Were the decades in the making arsenal just for other kind of recreation he enjoyed then? Are these important questions or just fun trivia?

 

[whitewave]

I used the word efficiency. I did not talk about his shooting, but the weaponry. I would call being able to kill almost 60 and injure over 500 people in less than 15 minutes amazingly efficient!

If he didn't have the bump stock, maybe he would have killed only, oh, I don't know maybe 4 people? That would still be enough to be classified as one of the approximately 330 mass shootings per year but not enough for it to even register as national news. Or maybe more? How many could you kill in 10 minutes without bump stock? I'm dying to know!

Did he shoot only with the 33 guns he bought last year? Were the decades in the making arsenal just for other kind of recreation he enjoyed then? Are these important questions or just fun trivia?

Very poot taste, Maria... I'm shocked you used a laughing emoji, which given the incident we are discussing is disturbing.

 

[ksinger]

Officials are saying that Paddock spent decades building his arsenal, so yearly limits wouldn't have had much effect on this particular incident. The arguments will always go this way - all "compromise" suggestions will be met with the conjecture that they wouldn't have prevented the current display of the spectacular efficiency of these weapons. All "no-compromise" suggestions will be met with "2nd Amendment." Meanwhile, the weapons will keep getting even better. Silencers today diminish their power? Hey, we put men on the moon - surely we'll figure out better silencers!

Instead of the media going on and on about how wonderful all these victims were and how evil the perpetrators are, maybe we should try a different tact. Why not celebrate the terrific technology of our recreational weaponry? Show close-ups of the bloody blown apart bodies. Bring back Roman style entertainment - instead of gladiators taking on wild animals we could watch people shoot each other up with the very best weapons US manufacturers can create. How long would we put up with that?

They say addicts won't try to change until they hit rock bottom. Americans are no where near rock bottom on this issue.

Indeed. What we are seeing is a true spiritual crisis. And I'm not talking about religion here. I'm talking about we (collective) making true what we hold in our minds. Arguing for our own limitations. Arming to the teeth. Pulling back from fear of failing. It seems a collective madness. I can't see what will end it, but something surely will. It's going to have to be very painful and self-inflicted, not something that can remotely be externalized.

Americans have always been really really bad at dealing with our own reality, our real history. We've happily accepted the sop of deliberately constructed national myths. Now the wheel of fortune is turning, and the fit is starting to finally really hit the shan. I think we are living through what will be called by later historians, the end of the American Empire. It happens, we're just not going to last as long as Rome, or Egypt. It's not unlike personal death, we understand that it happens to everyone, but we never quite can wrap our heads around it happening to us.

 

[Dee*Jay]

Sorry for not replying individually but I have to head out the door.

Yes, it's true that *in this instance* more than one gun was "needed" to do the kind of damage that was done. But JUST ONE weapon like this is, in my opinion, TOO MANY.

 

[House Cat]

A lot to discuss here.

Most people I know/know of who killed themselves jumped off something. Look at how San Francisco wants to add nets to the Golden Gate Bridge.

Gang violence is no longer "contained" in New Orleans.

Hunters have to attend hunter safety classes. To get a concealed
carry permit, you have to attend classes and get certified.

To buy a gun, there is a background check and a waiting period.

Since mental illness is covered by the ADA, I'm not sure there will ever be a "mental illness database" especially in today's world.

ARs are totally fine. We have several semi-automatics... it is a rifle.

Hi,

If you would like to discuss suicidality with me..I'm happy to take that to another thread.

A hunter safety course qualifies you for a hunting license, not the right to purchase a gun. Anyone can purchase a gun. A concealed carry permit requires another "class" which is reading some shit on the internet and taking a quiz. I have a redneck Marine in my house....who votes democrat. LOL... I know all of this.

There are only background checks IN CERTAIN STATES. Other states, you can walk into a pawn shop and buy a gun off the shelf, done, and done.

AR's aren't totally fine when they can be modified into an automatic weapon and can mow down 600 people in a matter of minutes. There is no need for this kind of weapon for a private citizen. There is no practical application for this kind of weapon.

I'm not sure what you have to gain by sharing half truths here.

 

[whitewave]

Hi,

If you would like to discuss suicidality with me..I'm happy to take that to another thread.

A hunter safety course qualifies you for a hunting license, not the right to purchase a gun. Anyone can purchase a gun. A concealed carry permit requires another "class" which is reading some shit on the internet and taking a quiz. I have a redneck Marine in my house....who votes democrat. LOL... I know all of this.

There are only background checks IN CERTAIN STATES. Other states, you can walk into a pawn shop and buy a gun off the shelf, done, and done.

AR's aren't totally fine when they can be modified into an automatic weapon and can mow down 600 people in a matter of minutes. There is no need for this kind of weapon for a private citizen. There is no practical application for this kind of weapon.

I'm not sure what you have to gain by sharing half truths here.

Half truths? Are you seriously accusing me of that?

 

[redwood66]

Hi,

If you would like to discuss suicidality with me..I'm happy to take that to another thread.

A hunter safety course qualifies you for a hunting license, not the right to purchase a gun. Anyone can purchase a gun. A concealed carry permit requires another "class" which is reading some shit on the internet and taking a quiz. I have a redneck Marine in my house....who votes democrat. LOL... I know all of this.

There are only background checks IN CERTAIN STATES. Other states, you can walk into a pawn shop and buy a gun off the shelf, done, and done.

AR's aren't totally fine when they can be modified into an automatic weapon and can mow down 600 people in a matter of minutes. There is no need for this kind of weapon for a private citizen. There is no practical application for this kind of weapon.

I'm not sure what you have to gain by sharing half truths here.

An NICS background check is required in ALL states, even in pawn shops because they are required to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL) if they sell weapons. This is federal law and if a pawn shop is doing this without it then they are breaking the law. They must require a form 4473 to be filled out by a buyer plus call the NICS number to verify the person is able to purchase. The penalty is steep including jail if they break the law which it should be. You are spreading incorrect information.

 

[whitewave]

I am done with this discussion as it is again getting disrespectful to posters.

I've offered two solutions. I've given insight.

Some of you will volly that and make fun of it, including laughing emojis with scarcasm as if gun owners are laughing about this.

There is nothing else I or Redwood can do or add here. Good luck solving the American gun death issue...

 

[ksinger]

Oh, and just in case anyone here thought ksinger and hubs are 2nd amendment fundamentalists, here are some of his suggestions for things to try. It will be too too much for the staunchly ideological, and not nearly enough for the "make-em-all-illegal-yesterday" crowd. Pisses everyone off. They have to be good then, right?

This is something he just wrote on this very topic, on his pet forum, a very wild west place indeed. I lifted it.

"Here are a few but first to state the goal of the legislation, to reduce the frequency and lethality of mass shootings. Notice reduce rather than eliminate. Unrealistic extremes on both sides should be ignored.

A) Permit to purchase card. Go to your state law enforcement office, get a background check and a card with a magnetic stripe. Create a database of prohibited possessors (convicted felons etc ala 4473) and a simple swipe provides a transfer number. If denied, a procedure for speedy appeal installed.

B move AR and AK platform weapons to Class III status and open up an amnesty period (at the same time, get rid of red star classification). The same logic for restricting full auto, the ability to inflict mass casualties by untrained individuals, can be applied to the two platforms.

C Add a zero to the transfer stamp fee. There has never been a crime committed with a legal Class III weapon (that I can find) so we know the system works. Upgrade the 1930's fee to the 21st century.

Yes, some people will choose become illegal weapon owners but the majority will not if for no other reason than the increase in value of their weapons. The sporting impact will be mminimal as the role these weapons fill can be fulfilled by other tools."

ETA - Oh, and don't expect that I can get down in the weeds on this on replies. I can't. Bore-you-to-death gun minutiae is his bailiwick, not mine. (He's a joy at war movies, or watching TV, trust me) He likely won't come back here - having hummingbird tendencies. So have fun guys!

 

[House Cat]

An NICS check is required in ALL states, even in pawn shops because they are required to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL) if they sell weapons. This is federal law and if a pawn shop is doing this without it then they are breaking the law. They must require a form 4473 to be filled out by a buyer plus call the NICS number to verify the person is able to purchase. You are spreading incorrect information.

Ok, I get the confusion.

This is a quick check. A criminal background check. This isn't an extended background check like they do here.

I'm sorry.