The 294th mass shooting this year in the U.S.

[jordyonbass]

http://www.news.com.au/world/mckayla-dyer-8-shot-dead-by-11-year-old-neighbour-over-a-puppy/story-fndir2ev-1227558669097

I wonder what the NRA's response will be for this one...

'This would have never happened if that 8 year old child had a gun!'

This has gone on for so long now that I feel the need to write a song about it. And political issues like this are the LAST thing I write about so it gives you an idea on how much this upsets me as an outsider looking in.

 

[packrat]

What are we doing to our kids that teaches them it's ok to do this? What are we doing in our own lives that teaches them these things? What are we teaching them?

 

[purplesparklies]

I am in favor of holding parents accountable for not having guns secure. Kids should absolutely not have access to weapons. Period. There are ways to keep tragedies like this from occurring.

We opted to enroll ourselves in gun safety training when we decided to purchase our gun. I think it should be required for anyone purchasing a gun.

 

[jordyonbass]

What are we doing to our kids that teaches them it's ok to do this? What are we doing in our own lives that teaches them these things? What are we teaching them?

It's a combination of the culture and history the US has with guns, de-sensitization via CONSTANT media reporting and complacency or the lack of knowledge on gun safety by parents. There's probably other factors in there as well but these are the big 3 problems that I see.

 

[kenny]

I am in favor of holding parents accountable for not having guns secure. Kids should absolutely not have access to weapons. Period. There are ways to keep tragedies like this from occurring.

We opted to enroll ourselves in gun safety training when we decided to purchase our gun. I think it should be required for anyone purchasing a gun.

So, did this training show you how to make your guns instantly-available enough to actually function as protection against the loaded-assalt-gun-toating criminal who suddenly shows in your living room, while somehow keeping your guns unavailable enough so your daughter can't grab one and, oppsie, blow off her little brother's head ... ala that Jim Jefferie's clip?

The point of Jim's clip is, if the guns are available enough to function as protection then your kids can use them.
If the kids can't get to them then they are not available enough to function as protection.

 

[jordyonbass]

I am in favor of holding parents accountable for not having guns secure. Kids should absolutely not have access to weapons. Period. There are ways to keep tragedies like this from occurring.

We opted to enroll ourselves in gun safety training when we decided to purchase our gun. I think it should be required for anyone purchasing a gun.

So, did this training show you how to make your guns instantly-available enough to actually function as protection against the loaded-assalt-gun-toating criminal who suddenly shows in your living room, while somehow keeping your guns unavailable enough so your daughter can't grab one and, oppsie, blow off her little brother's head ... ala that Jim Jefferie's clip?

The point of Jim's clip is, if the guns are available enough to function as protection then your kids can use them.
If the kids can't get to them then they are not available enough to function as protection.

And therein lies the real-life conundrum, you can't have both.
That's why I previously stated that the only reason I accept for people needing guns is hunting or target practice.

I find it interesting that, while going through my own licensing requirements for firearms, if I said to anyone involved in the firearms industry or regulation process in Australia that I wanted a firearm for 'protection from people' then I had to be prepared to NEVER get one. Yet in the US it's the #1 reason and it's universally accepted when it's been shown that the excuse is not sound or logical (as explained by my good mate Jim Jeffries loll)

Vermin Eradication and target practice are the only reasons you should want a gun in Australia and they're the only reasons that someone can get licensed. Say anything else and you'll be lucky to get a peashooter.

 

[purplesparklies]

I am in favor of holding parents accountable for not having guns secure. Kids should absolutely not have access to weapons. Period. There are ways to keep tragedies like this from occurring.

We opted to enroll ourselves in gun safety training when we decided to purchase our gun. I think it should be required for anyone purchasing a gun.

So, did this training show you how to make your guns instantly-available enough to actually function as protection against the loaded-assalt-gun-toating criminal who suddenly shows in your living room, while somehow keeping your guns unavailable enough so your daughter can't grab one and, oppsie, blow off her little brother's head ... ala that Jim Jefferie's clip?

The point of Jim's clip is, if the guns are available enough to function as protection then your kids can use them.
If the kids can't get to them then they are not available enough to function as protection.

Yes, the training did include info about various types of safes and how to decide where to keep them based on our life. Instantly is not possible, obviously. I saw the clip and I'm sure it makes perfect sense to those who are not aware of the options currently available for gun safes. Again, we have a biometric safe. I touch one button and a little screen. That's it. Being curious as to actual time, I just tested for myself. If I were in my bedroom and felt I needed it, I can have my hands on my gun in under 10 seconds. That's pretty darn quick. We do have an alarm system and we also have security glass on the outer front door. It will take a bit longer than the usual kicking in of the door to gain entry into my home. I would have plenty of time unless I were to be in my basement, which is unlikely. Obviously, I can not account for every single scenario. I can say with full confidence that I would be able to have my weapon in hand within 30 seconds from anywhere on my main floor. My dog will alert me at the first sign of trouble so no one will suddenly show up in my living room unannounced.

As to being unavailable to others, our safe is set for my fingerprint or my husband's. No one else is getting in. Yes, we have tested with other family member's fingers to see if we can cause it to fail. It has proven to be very reliable.

 

[packrat]

If I'm on the couch and the door bursts open and someone jumps in, there's nothing I can do-the door is 4 ft from my spot on the couch. The bedroom is farther than that. If someone is fiddling w/the door, I'd have time to get to the bedroom.

 

[Laila619]

None of that is going to help if you're at the mall or a restaurant or whatever, and some nut with an automatic assault rifle comes in and starts shooting the place up. These are mass shootings in public places that are occurring, not home invasions. Even if you conceal carry, it probably won't help you because the shooter will have better weapon and the element of surprise.

 

[Loves Vintage]

That is crazy.

I agree that changes need to be made. Firstly, our country needs to figure out a way to uniformly enforce the laws already on the books. Until the current enforcement problems are fixed, creating more unenforceable laws will accomplish nothing other than quieting the mobs of people who are blindly demanding more laws. Means nothing if they can not be/ are not enforced.

Holding firearms manufacturers accountable is ridiculous. Makes as much sense as holding automobile manufacturers accountable for deaths by auto accidents. I don't know what the answer is but I know this is not it.

I agree, completely wrong approach. Holding them accountable is not going to help with anything at all and convict honest businessmen. It reminds me of when I ran a pub and there was a lobby to make venues accountable for domestic violence if customers had been in the venue at some point in the previous 24 hours. I agree that alcohol fuelled domestic violence is terrible, but it would be insulting to a customer to refuse them service in the fear they may assault their spouse and could possibly cause a staff member of the venue to be assaulted. Our union argued that it is the governmet and law enforcement's job to deal with the issue of domestic vioence, not a small business owners.

There needs to be a screening, background check and other red tape procedures that make it difficult to obtain a deadly weapon. If people want to argue that a car is also a deadly weapon then they will see we also test drivers and will not let them behind the wheel if they aren't deemed fit. I just can't understand how there is a large proportion of the population there that disagrees.

I disagree. I disagree that an on-line gun seller who ammos up a psycho with thousands of rounds of ammunition shouldn't be held liable. They have blood on their hands. And, yet, victims are not allowed to sue them. And, in Colorado, victims have to pay the dealers' legal fees IF the victim brings a suit against them (i.e. tries to hold them accountable) and the suit fails. This law is exclusive to gun dealers and manufacturers who are deemed SPECIAL by our government. In other words, this special treatment only applies to gun dealers/manufacturers, not to any defendants in any case in general. Know how that happens in America? NRA. NRA. NRA. $$$$$$.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28911793/family-jessica-ghawi-aurora-theater-shooting-victim-stuck


"After 12 people were ruthlessly murdered and 70 injured in an Aurora movie theater during a midnight screening of "The Dark Knight Rises" in July 2012, the parents of Jessica Ghawi — who was 24 at the time and working as an aspiring sports broadcaster for the Colorado Avalanche — sued four gun companies to change their business practices. Lucky Gunner sold 4,000 bullets to shooter James Holmes prior to the massacre; three other websites provided him with high-grade weapons.

"A few minutes before my daughter died, she sent me a text message. 'I can't wait for you to come next week. I need my mama,' she said," Ghawi's mother, Sandy Phillips, told The New York Times in 2012. "I replied, 'I need my baby girl.' "

The case was dismissed before it could go to trial by U.S. District Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch because Colorado and federal laws protect firearms and ammunition sellers from liability based on a customer's wrongful acts. Not only was the case dismissed, but Ghawi's parents were liable for the legal fees of the defendants, $258,000, due to the Federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a Colorado immunity law for firearms and ammunitions companies, and Colorado's House Bill 1208 from 2000.

"The killer in our case was able to amass ammunition, tear gas and body armor, things a normal civilian would not need and they didn't even bother to get an ID, or driver license on him," said Sandy Phillips, in a phone interview.

"There were absolutely no background checks required, and that puts the public in a very dangerous position, which we found out the hard way."

The judge reduced the legal fees the family had to pay to $203,000, as the Colorado laws only apply to firearm and ammunition sellers, with the company that sold Holmes tear gas grenades left to foot their own bill.

"The irony is the gun websites don't plan on using it to pay their attorney fees, which means their attorneys were free, probably supplied by the NRA, and that they are planning to give it to gun rights groups, which is an extra slap in the face," Phillips said. "Our daughter is dead. We can't save her, but we can save another person's loved one, and that's why we filed the suit. We dropped the appeal, and we hope they drop their need for the $203,000, which will bankrupt us.""

I applaud Hillary Clinton for standing up and pledging some measures to help save us from the mess we are in. Re: Clinton's plan:

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/10/05/hillary-clinton-gun-law-plan/


"The most significant part of Clinton’s plan may be her vow to use executive action to update background check laws to account for Internet and gun show sales. The likelihood that Congress will pass new gun laws has been very low ever since Congress failed to act on a bipartisan plan to boost background checks in the aftermath of the December 2012 shootings that killed 20 schoolchildren and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn. Republicans also control both chambers of Congress and are unlikely to initiate votes on new gun laws.

Clinton’s plan would also close the “Charleston Loophole’’ that allows a gun sale to proceed without a background check if the check isn’t complete within three days. The alleged shooter who killed nine people at a Charleston church had a federal criminal record but was able to buy a gun anyway.

Other components of the plan include repealing laws that prevent victims of gun violence from holding negligent manufacturers and dealers accountable; providing more funding to increase inspections of gun stores and a plan to revoke the licenses of dealers that knowingly sell to traffickers and straw purchasers.

She would also press for legislation to prohibit all domestic abusers from buying and possessing guns. Current law does not cover people in dating relationships or convicted stalkers. Her plan did not call for a reinstatement of the federal assault weapons ban that her husband, former president Bill Clinton, signed into law."

 

[purplesparklies]

None of that is going to help if you're at the mall or a restaurant or whatever, and some nut with an automatic assault rifle comes in and starts shooting the place up. These are mass shootings in public places that are occurring, not home invasions. Even if you conceal carry, it probably won't help you because the shooter will have better weapon and the element of surprise.

? Obviously. Never claimed it would. My responses were concerning the ease with which I obtained a gun, I stated that it was too easy, and the fact that it is possible to keep a gun secure but accessible.

 

[Karl_K]

Lucky Gunner sold 4,000 bullets to shooter James Holmes prior to the massacre; three other websites provided him with high-grade weapons.

Websites did not provide him with firearms, firearms have to be bought in person from an ffl if across state lines and face to face if in person to person. That is already the law.
When you buy a gun from a non-local source they send it through your local ffl dealer who then transfers it to you.

4k rounds back in the day when I more into shooting and had full time work was 2 weekends with friends and I would often buy 5k rounds at a time.
By buying 5k I often saved half and could shoot that much more.

 

[purplesparklies]

As to holding various entities responsible, I am all for legislation allowing prosecution of sellers who are proven to be acting outside of the scope of the law. It absolutely should be harder to obtain weapons and ammunition. No question. And businesses should be required to follow the law. The issue I have is with holding manufacturers responsible. Do manufacturers of guns sell directly to the public? I don't know. If so, they should have to follow the usual laws pertaining to sales. I'm all for prosecuting sellers who circumvent the processes set forth by law. Manufacturers, though? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Loves Vintage]

Lucky Gunner sold 4,000 bullets to shooter James Holmes prior to the massacre; three other websites provided him with high-grade weapons.

Websites did not provide him with firearms, firearms have to be bought in person from an ffl if across state lines and face to face if in person to person. That is already the law.
When you buy a gun from a non-local source they send it through your local ffl dealer who then transfers it to you.

4k rounds back in the day when I more into shooting and had full time work was 2 weekends with friends and I would often buy 5k rounds at a time.
By buying 5k I often saved half and could shoot that much more.

Naive question, but genuinely curious -- where would one shoot that much in a weekend? At a gun range?

 

[Karl_K]

Naive question, but genuinely curious -- where would one shoot that much in a weekend? At a gun range?

Yes, either at a club or in someones back yard range depending on how many were there.
When shooting dueling trees ammo goes fast.
Each person takes a side and in 30 seconds and 15-18 rounds the one with the most plates on their side of the tree lost.
Tournament would be ladder style if there were enough people.

 

[kenny]

I am in favor of holding parents accountable for not having guns secure. Kids should absolutely not have access to weapons. Period. There are ways to keep tragedies like this from occurring.

We opted to enroll ourselves in gun safety training when we decided to purchase our gun. I think it should be required for anyone purchasing a gun.

So, did this training show you how to make your guns instantly-available enough to actually function as protection against the loaded-assalt-gun-toating criminal who suddenly shows in your living room, while somehow keeping your guns unavailable enough so your daughter can't grab one and, oppsie, blow off her little brother's head ... ala that Jim Jefferie's clip?

The point of Jim's clip is, if the guns are available enough to function as protection then your kids can use them.
If the kids can't get to them then they are not available enough to function as protection.

Yes, the training did include info about various types of safes and how to decide where to keep them based on our life. Instantly is not possible, obviously. I saw the clip and I'm sure it makes perfect sense to those who are not aware of the options currently available for gun safes. Again, we have a biometric safe. I touch one button and a little screen. That's it. Being curious as to actual time, I just tested for myself. If I were in my bedroom and felt I needed it, I can have my hands on my gun in under 10 seconds. That's pretty darn quick. We do have an alarm system and we also have security glass on the outer front door. It will take a bit longer than the usual kicking in of the door to gain entry into my home. I would have plenty of time unless I were to be in my basement, which is unlikely. Obviously, I can not account for every single scenario. I can say with full confidence that I would be able to have my weapon in hand within 30 seconds from anywhere on my main floor. My dog will alert me at the first sign of trouble so no one will suddenly show up in my living room unannounced.

As to being unavailable to others, our safe is set for my fingerprint or my husband's. No one else is getting in. Yes, we have tested with other family member's fingers to see if we can cause it to fail. It has proven to be very reliable.

Thanks you.
It sounds like a very good system.

 

[Laila619]

None of that is going to help if you're at the mall or a restaurant or whatever, and some nut with an automatic assault rifle comes in and starts shooting the place up. These are mass shootings in public places that are occurring, not home invasions. Even if you conceal carry, it probably won't help you because the shooter will have better weapon and the element of surprise.

? Obviously. Never claimed it would. My responses were concerning the ease with which I obtained a gun, I stated that it was too easy, and the fact that it is possible to keep a gun secure but accessible.

I understand. But a lot of "gun people" claim they need guns to protect themselves from mass shootings, or that if people who were caught in the middle of one had been armed, they would have been able to prevent the mass shooting themselves. I don't necessarily think that's true.

 

[purplesparklies]

Ah. Thanks for clarifying.

I think that guns in the hands of the right people could help in situations of mass shootings. People need to understand and acknowledge their abilities/inabilities with their weapon. The average person would likely do more harm than good as it is not going to be easy to quickly and accurately assess a situation and respond effectively while in the midst of those chaotic, stress filled and adrenaline charged moments. One also needs to be willing to accept the consequences and legal ramifications of acting. I could exercise my right to concealed carry but I choose not to as I recognize my limitations. The only reason I have my concealed carry is for safety leaving work at night. I teach fitness classes and exit into a dark and largely empty parking lot after evening classes.

I do, however, think there is an issue with large areas being pistol free zones. That makes is very easy for those who wish to perpetrate a crime to know they have little risk of being stopped. The possibility of someone else being able to take them out can be a powerful motivator to reconsider. Fear can be a healthy thing.

 

[purplesparklies]

No problem, Kenny.

It is the best we could come up with to meet our needs. Safety is the absolute top priority as I am fully aware of the potential danger and I am unwilling to risk the safety of my boys.

One other thing that was interesting to me is the fact that our trainers, current and retired police officers, were very clear in advising participants that we should be very careful and ready to shoot only when absolutely necessary. We were advised to be in position and shout out that we have a gun and will shoot if they come through the door/up the stairs/ whatever the scenario. A shot is only to be taken as a last resort. They let us know that taking action may mean prosecution and will almost certainly result in a lawsuit being brought against us by the family of the attacker, regardless of circumstances. It truly is a lose/lose. Do nothing and risk the lives of yourself and your family. Take the shot, live with knowing you took the life of another and eventually lose everything you own in court or to legal fees to defend yourself. That is a sobering thought.

 

[House Cat]

No problem, Kenny.

It is the best we could come up with to meet our needs. Safety is the absolute top priority as I am fully aware of the potential danger and I am unwilling to risk the safety of my boys.

One other thing that was interesting to me is the fact that our trainers, current and retired police officers, were very clear in advising participants that we should be very careful and ready to shoot only when absolutely necessary. We were advised to be in position and shout out that we have a gun and will shoot if they come through the door/up the stairs/ whatever the scenario. A shot is only to be taken as a last resort. They let us know that taking action may mean prosecution and will almost certainly result in a lawsuit being brought against us by the family of the attacker, regardless of circumstances. It truly is a lose/lose. Do nothing and risk the lives of yourself and your family. Take the shot, live with knowing you took the life of another and eventually lose everything you own in court or to legal fees to defend yourself. That is a sobering thought.

You shout that you have a gun, but did they train you make sure that you have made a positive visual ID that the person you are about to shoot is indeed an intruder?

 

[House Cat]

Responsible gun owner...

This is a term that gets thrown around a lot but it has a different definition for different people.


For most, it means "lacking the desire to commit unprovoked murder." This is what I find most disturbing.


The other truly responsible gun owners out there project their feelings and actions onto the irresponsible gun owners and think that everyone out there is like them. Well, they aren't.

People I have seen:

A man who is purchasing an AR15, looking down the barrel and asking the clerk, "how do you aim this thing?" is not a responsible gun owner.

A kid who goes out and buys a handgun to be just like all of the rappers he listens to and points his gun sideways...driving around with it loaded, is not a responsible gun owner.

The cop who puts his loaded weapon on top of the fridge so that his kids can't reach, is not a responsible gun owner.

The parent who plans to teach his kids to shoot real firearms someday, who takes his kids into his teeny tiny .08 acre backyard to shoot a pellet gun and fails to teach his kids that ALL guns are weapons, is not a responsible gun owner.

The parent who takes his five year old hunting, without knowing the child's true temperament, is not a responsible gun owner.

Anyone who has been violent toward their spouse and has firearms in their house, is not a responsible gun owner.

Anyone with children and firearms and no gun safe in the home, is not a responsible gun owner.


I can go on and on with everyday scenarios of people who own guns and who consider themselves responsible gun owners, but who are clearly NOT acting responsibly with these very dangerous weapons.


Even with a gun safe in your home, people should still be ultra vigilant about firearm safety. They should never take for granted that people can die if they become lazy even for a minute. Make sure your safes are very well made. Someone shared a video of little children breaking into small gun safes on this forum. It is really my belief that a person should buy a really well made gun safe before they ever consider buying a firearm. If you can't afford to safely store your weapons, then you shouldn't have them.

 

[purplesparklies]

You shout that you have a gun, but did they train you make sure that you have made a positive visual ID that the person you are about to shoot is indeed an intruder?

Um, yes. Again, these were current and retired police officers. The training was thorough and went well beyond making sure you are not just shooting at anything that moves.

 

[purplesparklies]

Responsible gun owner...

This is a term that gets thrown around a lot but it has a different definition for different people.


For most, it means "lacking the desire to commit unprovoked murder." This is what I find most disturbing.


The other truly responsible gun owners out there project their feelings and actions onto the irresponsible gun owners and think that everyone out there is like them. Well, they aren't.

People I have seen:

A man who is purchasing an AR15, looking down the barrel and asking the clerk, "how do you aim this thing?" is not a responsible gun owner.

A kid who goes out and buys a handgun to be just like all of the rappers he listens to and points his gun sideways...driving around with it loaded, is not a responsible gun owner.

The cop who puts his loaded weapon on top of the fridge so that his kids can't reach, is not a responsible gun owner.

The parent who plans to teach his kids to shoot real firearms someday, who takes his kids into his teeny tiny .08 acre backyard to shoot a pellet gun and fails to teach his kids that ALL guns are weapons, is not a responsible gun owner.

The parent who takes his five year old hunting, without knowing the child's true temperament, is not a responsible gun owner.

Anyone who has been violent toward their spouse and has firearms in their house, is not a responsible gun owner.

Anyone with children and firearms and no gun safe in the home, is not a responsible gun owner.


I can go on and on with everyday scenarios of people who own guns and who consider themselves responsible gun owners, but who are clearly NOT acting responsibly with these very dangerous weapons.


Even with a gun safe in your home, people should still be ultra vigilant about firearm safety. They should never take for granted that people can die if they become lazy even for a minute. Make sure your safes are very well made. Someone shared a video of little children breaking into small gun safes on this forum. It is really my belief that a person should buy a really well made gun safe before they ever consider buying a firearm. If you can't afford to safely store your weapons, then you shouldn't have them.

Agreed.

 

[telephone89]

So, I read through the whole thread and wanted to touch on a few thigns, but dont want to go back and quote.

Packrat - You had said something about the sentences being less for gun violence in the US. Personally, I believe our Canadian sentences are pitiful. Not just gun violence, but crimes in general. At times I am disgusted at how lightly criminals are let off. Now, some of our criminals are given more 'rehabilitory' terms, and I wonder if that makes a difference. This is totally unrelated, but I read this study the other day on child molesters back in society. Long prison terms, isolating them from society, making them feel like outcasts, etc - will actually increase their chance of reoffending. Rehabiltation is possible and successful. So this could be a contributing factor.

Canada actually has lots of guns. People think we don't. I mean, not as many as the USA or some south american countries, but we do. I personally have only ever shot a gun once. I know some folks who have them, but they are for hunting only. We don't have guns to carry around and feel powerful. I wonder if that makes a difference.

To hear of the accidental/children shooting children stories are some of the worst IMO. Completely preventable, and the parents should be prosecuted as much as the child.

 

[aljdewey]

What are we doing to our kids that teaches them it's ok to do this? What are we doing in our own lives that teaches them these things? What are we teaching them?

Packie, I think it's more about what we're not teaching them.

We aren't teaching them that they won't get anything and everything they ever desire, so we're also not teaching them how to deal with disappointment when they don't get what they want or think they deserve.

We aren't teaching them that the world isn't their personal little oyster.

We aren't teaching them how to respect others around them, so they have no regard for others' lives or feelings. We aren't firmly rejecting their rationalizations for misbehavior.

We aren't holding them accountable for their actions when they don't meet expectations; instead, we make excuses or deny that our kids are out of control.

We aren't teaching them that persuasion is much more effective than aggression.

We aren't instilling a sense of right and wrong.

And by not doing these things, we are shortchanging ourselves and those around us.

None of this is to say that some parents aren't still teaching their kids solid values.....some really are. But man, look around you - it really does seem to be a scant minority doing so these days.

 

[jordyonbass]

That is crazy.

I agree that changes need to be made. Firstly, our country needs to figure out a way to uniformly enforce the laws already on the books. Until the current enforcement problems are fixed, creating more unenforceable laws will accomplish nothing other than quieting the mobs of people who are blindly demanding more laws. Means nothing if they can not be/ are not enforced.

Holding firearms manufacturers accountable is ridiculous. Makes as much sense as holding automobile manufacturers accountable for deaths by auto accidents. I don't know what the answer is but I know this is not it.

I agree, completely wrong approach. Holding them accountable is not going to help with anything at all and convict honest businessmen. It reminds me of when I ran a pub and there was a lobby to make venues accountable for domestic violence if customers had been in the venue at some point in the previous 24 hours. I agree that alcohol fuelled domestic violence is terrible, but it would be insulting to a customer to refuse them service in the fear they may assault their spouse and could possibly cause a staff member of the venue to be assaulted. Our union argued that it is the governmet and law enforcement's job to deal with the issue of domestic vioence, not a small business owners.

There needs to be a screening, background check and other red tape procedures that make it difficult to obtain a deadly weapon. If people want to argue that a car is also a deadly weapon then they will see we also test drivers and will not let them behind the wheel if they aren't deemed fit. I just can't understand how there is a large proportion of the population there that disagrees.

I disagree. I disagree that an on-line gun seller who ammos up a psycho with thousands of rounds of ammunition shouldn't be held liable. They have blood on their hands. And, yet, victims are not allowed to sue them. And, in Colorado, victims have to pay the dealers' legal fees IF the victim brings a suit against them (i.e. tries to hold them accountable) and the suit fails. This law is exclusive to gun dealers and manufacturers who are deemed SPECIAL by our government. In other words, this special treatment only applies to gun dealers/manufacturers, not to any defendants in any case in general. Know how that happens in America? NRA. NRA. NRA. $$$$$$.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28911793/family-jessica-ghawi-aurora-theater-shooting-victim-stuck


"After 12 people were ruthlessly murdered and 70 injured in an Aurora movie theater during a midnight screening of "The Dark Knight Rises" in July 2012, the parents of Jessica Ghawi — who was 24 at the time and working as an aspiring sports broadcaster for the Colorado Avalanche — sued four gun companies to change their business practices. Lucky Gunner sold 4,000 bullets to shooter James Holmes prior to the massacre; three other websites provided him with high-grade weapons.

"A few minutes before my daughter died, she sent me a text message. 'I can't wait for you to come next week. I need my mama,' she said," Ghawi's mother, Sandy Phillips, told The New York Times in 2012. "I replied, 'I need my baby girl.' "

The case was dismissed before it could go to trial by U.S. District Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch because Colorado and federal laws protect firearms and ammunition sellers from liability based on a customer's wrongful acts. Not only was the case dismissed, but Ghawi's parents were liable for the legal fees of the defendants, $258,000, due to the Federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a Colorado immunity law for firearms and ammunitions companies, and Colorado's House Bill 1208 from 2000.

"The killer in our case was able to amass ammunition, tear gas and body armor, things a normal civilian would not need and they didn't even bother to get an ID, or driver license on him," said Sandy Phillips, in a phone interview.

"There were absolutely no background checks required, and that puts the public in a very dangerous position, which we found out the hard way."

The judge reduced the legal fees the family had to pay to $203,000, as the Colorado laws only apply to firearm and ammunition sellers, with the company that sold Holmes tear gas grenades left to foot their own bill.

"The irony is the gun websites don't plan on using it to pay their attorney fees, which means their attorneys were free, probably supplied by the NRA, and that they are planning to give it to gun rights groups, which is an extra slap in the face," Phillips said. "Our daughter is dead. We can't save her, but we can save another person's loved one, and that's why we filed the suit. We dropped the appeal, and we hope they drop their need for the $203,000, which will bankrupt us.""

I applaud Hillary Clinton for standing up and pledging some measures to help save us from the mess we are in. Re: Clinton's plan:

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/10/05/hillary-clinton-gun-law-plan/


"The most significant part of Clinton’s plan may be her vow to use executive action to update background check laws to account for Internet and gun show sales. The likelihood that Congress will pass new gun laws has been very low ever since Congress failed to act on a bipartisan plan to boost background checks in the aftermath of the December 2012 shootings that killed 20 schoolchildren and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn. Republicans also control both chambers of Congress and are unlikely to initiate votes on new gun laws.

Clinton’s plan would also close the “Charleston Loophole’’ that allows a gun sale to proceed without a background check if the check isn’t complete within three days. The alleged shooter who killed nine people at a Charleston church had a federal criminal record but was able to buy a gun anyway.

Other components of the plan include repealing laws that prevent victims of gun violence from holding negligent manufacturers and dealers accountable; providing more funding to increase inspections of gun stores and a plan to revoke the licenses of dealers that knowingly sell to traffickers and straw purchasers.

She would also press for legislation to prohibit all domestic abusers from buying and possessing guns. Current law does not cover people in dating relationships or convicted stalkers. Her plan did not call for a reinstatement of the federal assault weapons ban that her husband, former president Bill Clinton, signed into law."

If they have sold the items within the parameters of the law then they should not be held liable IMO. I concur that laws need to change but until there are stringent background and screening checks required by law then they have done nothing illegal. Negligence would be where they fail to screen their customers when there are compulsory screening laws. In that case, sue away.

It sucks, but that's the way it is right now. The system needs to change and I know people are lobbying for that but until it does then they should not be held liable for negligence when there isn't a clear, legal procedure. Firearms vendors who sell legally online are not qualified to be able to determine whether the person they are selling ammo is either an avid hunter or sports shooter or whether they may be planning something sinister. That's an enormous responsibility to place on people who are not trained in dealing with assessing those situations.

 

[GliderPoss]

I simply cannot understand WHY everyone in the US seems to feel the need to carry a weapon for "protection"?

Please.
Not everyone.

I'm an American living in America, and to my knowledge nobody I know owns a gun.
Guns creep me out.
No thanks.

I'd never get a gun.
No reason to.
I'm not afraid.

I wish we could get rid of them as other countries have.

My apologies, you are correct I was generalising too much, I did not mean LITERALLY everyone of course! But honestly the overall statistics of gun ownership are still shocking to me so I am glad to hear this is a serious debate in the US - hopefully there will be some positive action in the future.

 

[kenny]

No prob.

Yes we have a HUGE gun problem here.

 

[packrat]

What are we doing to our kids that teaches them it's ok to do this? What are we doing in our own lives that teaches them these things? What are we teaching them?

Packie, I think it's more about what we're not teaching them.

We aren't teaching them that they won't get anything and everything they ever desire, so we're also not teaching them how to deal with disappointment when they don't get what they want or think they deserve.

We aren't teaching them that the world isn't their personal little oyster.

We aren't teaching them how to respect others around them, so they have no regard for others' lives or feelings. We aren't firmly rejecting their rationalizations for misbehavior.

We aren't holding them accountable for their actions when they don't meet expectations; instead, we make excuses or deny that our kids are out of control.

We aren't teaching them that persuasion is much more effective than aggression.

We aren't instilling a sense of right and wrong.

And by not doing these things, we are shortchanging ourselves and those around us.

None of this is to say that some parents aren't still teaching their kids solid values.....some really are. But man, look around you - it really does seem to be a scant minority doing so these days.

You are correct, as usual. You know what, I see a lot of these things you mentioned...in preschool. It starts young. Kids don't just wake up and act like jerks-it's learned behavior. It's pretty sad. Parents don't want to do their jobs, so they let schools handle it. Drives me completely batcrap crazy. Again, I feel we've righted ourselves into a corner, and that's just where we're going to stay.

 

[packrat]

There have been instances of people stepping in and helping in situations or controlling a situation that is happening. Please don't act like that never happens.

And I don't think it's a "gun" problem. It's a human problem. A problem w/people's hearts and minds. You can have 50 million guns sitting there and they're never going to be used against a human except by another human, and if that is the case, there is a problem w/the *human*, not the *gun*.