James Holmes was a "law-abiding citizen" when he amassed his arsenal

[Hugabear]

From all accounts, Holman purchased his guns and ammo through perfectly legal methods. He had a clean criminal background - which means that he had no problem passing the background checks.

The argument that "law-abiding citizens" do not commit these kinds of crimes is absolute bullshit.

[rrneck]

1. What's your solution? nt

[Hugabear]

2. In a perfect world...

I'd repeal the 2nd Amendment, and make gun ownership illegal.

Failing that, I would definitely make it much more difficult to obtain a gun. There is something fundamentally wrong with a country where it's cheaper and easier to get a gun than it is quality health care.

[Johnny Rico]

4. Neither of those things is going to happen for the foreseeable future. You do realize that...

[rrneck]

7. Well, good luck...

So do You have a self defense solution better than a gun? If not, that's why they will always be around.

[ileus]

15. Firearms are easily made out of cheap materials. Healthcare not so much...

[michreject]

21. I can go into a ACE Hardware

and buy the materials to make a zip gun for under 10 dollars.

ETA:

Images of zip guns.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=zip+gun&qpvt=zip+gun&FORM=IGRE

[robinlynne]

50. +1

[Cooley Hurd]

3. 1 - ban high-capacity ammo magazines.

[permatex]

5. What good does that do?

The VA Tech killer, Cho, used 10 rnd mags and managed to kill 32 people before killing himself. I can change out a mag in 1-2 seconds.
Banning hi cap mags would absolutely change nothing.

[Cooley Hurd]

6. The last two mass-casualty incidents of note - the Giffords shooting & the theater...

...were both pulled off with such magazines. THEIR use is, in both cases, credited for the high body counts.

Besides, there is NO legitimate use for them outside of a war zone. None.

[permatex]

9. And both times, Those hi cap mags jammed

so I would think that you would want to keep them.
You say no legitimate use, but you would be wrong
When I go to the range, I have to reload less often so I do have a legitimate use for them.

[robinlynne]

51. reload less often VS dozens of dead people? Are you kidding me?

[permatex]

57. Do I sound like I'm kidding you?

your idea of a ban on hi cap mags won't work. See my post downthread.

[Hugabear]

11. Bravo to you

Bravo, that you can change out a magazine in just 2 seconds.

I'm pretty sure that not EVERYBODY is able to do so that quickly.

For starters, for you to be able to change out magazines that quickly indicates to me that you have considerable practice, and that perhaps you were in the military. Maybe you've been in very high adrenaline situations, where you've developed the experience to change out magazines very rapidly. Most people don't have that level of training or experience. Even if it takes someone a few extra seconds to change out their magazines, those few extra seconds can make all the difference in the world.

[permatex]

13. You would be correct

served as a Navy Corpsman attached to the 1/26 Marines in 68, also avid shooter for the last 40 years, so, yes, I have alot of experience and I concede that an inexperienced shooter would take a second or 2 more to change a mag. and maybe that would make the difference.
but banning hi cap mags, IMHO, is not going to change anything, the only ones who will obey the ban is honest citizens, criminals will always be able to get whatever they want.
Thanks for the civil conversation, I know this is a highly charged issue and we can debate civilly.

[robinlynne]

52. If they're not available, criminals wont get them.

[permatex]

56. How would you stop the smuggling of them?

Really? We can't even stop drugs and immigrants from coming across our border. We've been trying to make illegal drugs not available for the last 60 years, how well has that worked out?
The only ones that a ban would affect are the honest law abiding citizens, criminals certainly wouldn't.
And the only way that a ban could be enforced is to convince the rest of the world to quit manufacturing them. Good luck with that.

Hell, I could make a hi cap mag in my garage with some sheet metal and the tools I have.

See the problem here?

[rrneck]

18. Actually

I haven't been to the range in forever and I can do it.

[Johnny Rico]

29. I'm a collector, and shoot very little. Just had myself timed.

2 seconds to change the magazine on my AR-15.

[Posteritatis]

32. Changing a magazine extremely quick and easy, and it is so by design. (nt)

[rrneck]

16. Won't help.

[pnwmom]

37. I'd put much heavier restrictions on ownership of assault rifles.

Ideally including a psychiatric history, a psychiatric exam, a drug history, and clean drug tests.

[Posteritatis]

39. Define "assault rifle," without pictures or references to a specific model. (nt)

[pnwmom]

42. Easy. An assault rifle is any weapon

that was banned under the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. (A law that expired in 2004 and should be renewed, with amendments to eliminate its loopholes.)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

47. Not exactly

An "assault weapon" is a firearm with a number of mostly cosmetic features banned under the 1994 AWB. An "assault rifle" is a select-fire rifle which can fire semi-auto (one shot for each trigger pull) or full-auto (continuous fire as long as the trigger is held).

In 1999 the Clinton Administration determined from that no significant impact was apparent. I also note that the shooting at Columbine took place during the AWB.

[pnwmom]

48. Yes, the Clinton administration made that determination. And that's because

there were too many loopholes in the original legislation.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

58. Actually...

...if anything, the 100+ million "assault weapons" already in private hands will make any ban on future sales mostly meaningless. However, since only a tiny portion of crimes are actually committed with what is defined as an "assault weapon" this is a law whose only effect is destined to be a burden on law enforcement that doesn't change crime rates at all.

[pnwmom]

60. Tell that to the families of those insignificant people whose deaths didn't change crime rates. n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

61. huh? n/t

[pnwmom]

63. You are implying that the deaths aren't important because the number was small.

As you said, "this is a law whose only effect is destined to be a burden on law enforcement that doesn't change crime rates at all."

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

64. I'm not implying that at all.

You're inferring that but I'm not saying that.

[robinlynne]

53. How about anything which can hold more than 6 bullets? ok? easier to understand?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

62. I infer that...

...You mean ban anything accepting more than 6 rounds. I would not be in favor of that.

[robinlynne]

69. I would.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

70. May I ask why? n/t

[robinlynne]

71. Look. I am a smoker. American society is all up in arms about how dangerous second hand smoke is,

when in reality (science) it is not. Guns ARE. They literally kill. That is what they exist to do. There are some responsible, calm people who use guns wisely and carefully. There are many many wackos who don't. With a knife they may hurt one person. With a gun which fires off many rounds, they hurt or kill 20 at a time. I think guns HAVE to be limited, by type, and people should be carefully tested and permitted like driving is. You can not buy addictive drugs online, for a reason. You can not drive without a license, for a reason. And the police regularly check on unlicensed drivers and arrest them. Guns owners should have to carry insurance like drivers maybe. I'm ok if the gun owners figure out how to keep them safe. I don't really care what the methods used are. But the current methods are ridiculous/non existent. And that is because of NRA lobbyists, nothing else.

If weapons were limited to nothing automatic, that would help[p a lot. If you need an automatic weapon at a firing range, than let there be strict testing for who can be on firing ranges, and let automatics or semi automatics be used only on firing ranges, nowhere else. There are ways for you to have the right to own a gun, if you are mentally fit to do so, and if it does not put others at risk.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

72. I'm an engineer with an extensive science background.

I understand the second hand smoke facts and the truth in what you are saying about it.

Weapons and everything used as a weapon will have their lawful and valid applications hijacked by criminals and mental cases. Guns do not have a monopoly on misuse and neither are they the most efficient means to kill large numbers of innocent people. All that aside, there should be an investigation and analysis of these events so that anything learned may be used to the best advantage of society.

I am not insensitive to death, injury and loss. Driving is a privilege under the law and, as such, is subject to limits and legal requirements such as insurance and licenses. Firearm ownership is a right and can't in general be subjected those types restrictions.

Full-auto firearms are heavily regulated. ATF permission to own one usually takes many months to be approved. Semi-auto firearms have existed for over a hundred years. At least tens of millions are in private hands in this country. My first firearm was inherited by me from my father. Is was a semi-auto .22 cal rifle manufactured in the '50s before there were even laws requiring serial numbers. There is no plausible way to ban anything involved in last week's horrible shootings that will make any difference in preventing their repetition.

IMHO, our best hopes are to pay attention to our friends, associates and family members and play a more active role in getting help for those who show signs of needing it. There are mechanisms in place to deny sales of firearms to those with mental issues. Perhaps now with healthcare reform, more people can get a wider range of help and support.

[robinlynne]

73. It is a right to have firearms to protect the nation. The constitution

constitution doesn't say anything about owning firearms for personal reasons.
It is to establish a militia to protect the nation from tyranny.
big difference. it is noone's right to own a firearm if they are going to kill someone.

of course there is a way to ban them. ban them.
As one poster said it is harder to buy sudafed than to buy a gun.
you cant buy sudafed in quantity online? Why should you be able to buy a firearm online?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

81. The Bill of Rights...

...is foundational to our society and government. The context of the BoR is its relationship to the Constitution. Such an enumeration of protected rights was required by some of the states and those Founders, who were representatives, for the stronger federal government to be accepted.

The 10A states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Aside from the 2A giving ONE reason for the protection of the RKBA, the 10A specifically prohibits such federal bans. The 2A is not meant to be an entire justification for or explanation of the scope of the RKBA.

In a number countries there exists as law the principle of legislative supremacy. We don't have that in the US as legislatures may pass laws and the courts may find them unconstitutional or lacking in some other way. Any such universal ban would never make it as law.

Sudafed; really, I can probably get Sudafed from my daughter if make her a sandwich.

Why are we discussing buying a firearm online? Holmes didn't buy any guns online. Besides you can buy from a licensed FFL dealer anywhere but you need to pass the NICS check at a local FFL where your purchase can be shipped and where you can take possession.

An examination of the ninth paragraph of Federalist Paper #46 written by James Madison, highlights the common perception that the 'militia' was intended to be everyone.

It is also clear to me that the most dangerous or most powerful weapon around is not a Glock or an AR-15. The weapon of most concern is the human mind. The human mind can adapt to overcome incredible challenges. More powerful than a gun is diesel fuel and fertilizer. Tim McViegh proved that. More powerful yet is a Boeing 767 or 757.

A true effort at making acceptable the treatment of emotional and mental illness and supporting the sufferers rather than alienating them is part of the answer.

Colorado participates in the NICS as a 'Point of Contact' state. They have made the effort to establish an office in the state which dealers contact to run the background check. In many states similar offices also have access to data that has not yet or can't be added to the database maintained by the FBI. That data may also be used as a reason to deny the purchase.

[robinlynne]

84. He bought his ammo online. WELL REGULATED MILITIA. not MILITIA. WELL REGULATED MILITIA. whihc is wha

what we are calling for! WELL REGULATED. as opposed to POORLY regulated which allows one man to buy what he had in his car.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

88. The essence...

...of the federal protection of the RKBA is necessary because raising an effective militia is contingent on finding folks who can shoot well. For the most part the only folks who can shoot well, own firearms and use them. In the period of the Founders the term "well regulated" meant effective. A clock that kept good time was "well regulated".

Why does it matter where he bought his ammo?

[robinlynne]

74. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people t

to bear..

WELL REGULATED is in the very first clause. WELL REGULATED. There is no right to bear firearms without regulation.
I dont see the right to bear arms outside of a militia to protect a free nation

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

82. Please see post #81

[rrneck]

45. Okay,

I'm thinking you mean assault weapons. Assault rifles are select fire and heavily regulated. Assault weapons are just scary looking rifles. They are no more or less dangerous than any other rifle.

In terms psychiatric evaluations:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry

Psychiatry possesses a built-in capacity for abuse that is greater than in other areas of medicine.

Psychiatric evaluations to exercise a constitutional right? That's a scary road to travel. You'll probably want to repeal the second amendment before you try it. Imagine what Dick Cheney could do with a database like that. Can you say mission creep?

There is already provision for adjudicated mental health and substance abuse history in the process of purchasing a new gun. NICS is unavailable to private citizens. To make that effective, we would need to document chain of custody just like FFL's. That means we would be regulating relationships. If it doesn't work for LGBT's, it won't work for gun owners.

[Skittles]

76. what's yours???

[rrneck]

78. It was a trick question.

There isn't one. Law abiding citizens have the right to own guns. There in no reasonable way to determine who should be disarmed without adjudication.

The good news, if we could call it that, is that only very rarely do people go from law abiding citizen to murderer. So the process of building a criminal record would make it much more risky for a "bad guy" to arm himself with a gun.

But there will always be lunatics that come out of nowhere with or without a gun.

[Skittles]

79. yes WE GET IT

the "price of freedom" is the occasional MASSACRE

[rrneck]

80. No.

It's just a tragedy. That's all.

[Skittles]

83. yeah, that's all it is

NEXT SUBJECT PLEASE

[rrneck]

85. You sure do yell a lot.

I'm all for a way to keep people from doing horrible things. I'm always open to suggestion.

But something I don't do is follow the emotional impulses of the crowd. I don't apologize for my affect. If you need somebody to tell you what you want to hear the way you want to hear it, I'm not your guy. And no amount of shouting will change that.

[Skittles]

86. LOLOL!!!!!!!!!

BYE!!!!!!!!!!!!
(edited to make BYE in CAPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

[rrneck]

87. Kids. Waddyagonnado. nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

89. re: "Waddyagonnado"

Simple, elect them while they still know everything.

[rrneck]

90. Well

they are fascinated by work until they're old enough to do it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

91. Hmmm...

So it would seem.

[sadbear]

8. This certainly dispels the reasoning that we should just enforce the laws we already have

I don't want to hear that shit ever again.

[Johnny Rico]

10. We should just enforce the laws we already have.

I don't want to hear that shit ever again.

Sorry...!

[sadbear]

14. Did Holmes break any laws up to the point he busted in on that theater?

[Johnny Rico]

17. Yes. It's illegal to make booby-traps.

Not in regards to his firearms, though, as far as I know.

So what? Cho hadn't broken any laws before he killed 33 at Virginia Tech. Does that mean we should outlaw all handguns?

[sadbear]

20. Do you always make that jump?

If someone suggests more reasonable laws or regulations, do you automatically conclude they want to ban something?

[Johnny Rico]

22. I love how the anti-gun side always uses the term "reasonable" to describe what they want to do

in an attempt to make their agenda by definition the correct one.

99% of the time such proposals do involve banning things, hence my "jump", but ok, tell me, I'm listening: What more "reasonable" laws or regulations do you propose that don't ban anything?

[sadbear]

23. How about this, for starters?

Ok, you're right. There are certain "accessories" that I think should be banned. And I think that's reasonable, but that doesn't include banning the firearms themselves.

[Johnny Rico]

24. Well, there you go. You do want to ban things

I'm not sure exactly what, mind you...

[sadbear]

25. Yep

You can keep you guns though.

[Johnny Rico]

26. In point of fact, I can keep everything...since no meaningful gun control legislation

is going to come of this.

But you still haven't told me what you want to ban...

[sadbear]

28. I've told you what I don't want to ban

That's enough to ease your fears.

[Johnny Rico]

30. Since you're not actually going to ban anything, there's no fear whatsoever.

Why are you playing coy? What do you want to ban? I'm simply curious.

[sadbear]

33. I'm not the expert.

You see, I actually post in non-gun-related posts.

And I didn't say I didn't want to ban anything. I'm just not interested in banning your guns. I'm sure you can figure out on your own better than I could myself what someone like me might want to ban. Just think of the accessories that aren't necessary for hunting a single animal at a time, accessories that make it easier to kill massive amounts of people at one time, and maybe even others I don't know exist, and you'll probably be on the right track.

[Johnny Rico]

35. Still playing coy.

Ok, let's nail you down. Should 100 round magazines be freely available as they are now, or not?

You see, I actually post in non-gun-related posts.

Good for you! You get a cookie.

[robinlynne]

75. very strict licensing to own a firearms, including strong testing, stronger than the DMV currently h

has. A FELONY to own a firearm without the proper licensing, or to sell one to an unlicensed person, as they do in gun shows.
Limit use of anything automatic to a firing range or to the military. Noone has the right to have anything semi automatic at home. ever. period.

There you go no bans. lives saved. The second ammendment has the word RESTRICTED in its first clause. written by Jefferson.
It also says you have the right to have a people's militia TO PROTECT THE NATION.
not for any other purpose.

[Zoeisright]

40. Not to mention that the NRA fought against every single one of those laws

they now say should be enforced before any more laws are enacted.

[baldguy]

12. The manager of the local gun range knew he was hinkey from a single phone call.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021000585

I'm sure a few simple queries by a trained investigator - in the process of a license application - would have turned up the same thing.

[pnwmom]

38. Too bad there's not a reporting requirement, with provisions for keeping

the identity of the reporter confidential.

[lunatica]

19. In that case shouldn't his sudden purchases of major fire power (thousands of rounds of ammunition)

been an excellent reason to check him out?

If someone had talked to him, say from Homeland Security or the FBI, perhaps he would have chosen not to act.

[Johnny Rico]

27. The purchase of thousands of rounds at a time is routine for recreational shooters.

Hardly "major" fire power.

[Posteritatis]

31. What's the typical size of such purchases, out of curiosity?

I know the usual freakouts in the news over someone having a couple thousand rounds of ammunition is mainly panicking over something mundane, but I'm trying to calibrate my it's-no-longer-a-mundane-amount point.

[Johnny Rico]

34. It depends on what they're shooting and just how dedicated they are to improving

their skills. If it's .22 LR, I wouldn't be surprised to see someone order 5k rounds or more at a time...it's that cheap. Other calibers are more expensive, but it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for someone to order a few thousand rounds of handgun or rifle ammo at a time.

A really active shooter who goes through a thousand rounds in a week probably will reload to save on expenses.

[lunatica]

65. And shouldn't they be checked out too and found to be routine purchasers?

I ask you, is this concept just too difficult for you to grasp?

edited for spelling

[Johnny Rico]

66. No they shouldn't. I simply disagree with you.

I ask you, is this concept just too difficult for you to grasp?

[lunatica]

68. Why?

[robinlynne]

77. ow about the concept of the second amendment, which says there is the right to a RESTRICTED militia

militia, to protect the country. That first sentence is actually there. Right before the second sentence, which you all take to be the law, out of context.
if you look at what was written, restricting is a necessary part of the second amendment. RESTRICTING was foreseen as a necessity by thomas jefferson. And the reason for the right to bear arms was described as PROTECTING A FREE NATION. to protect the nation. not for sport. to protect freedom. that is why he said it must be restricted.

[4th law of robotics]

36. Prior to committing a crime all criminals are law-abiding citizens

but unless we can radically change the law to allow arresting people for pre-crime (and that movie wasn't so great) that's just something you're going to have to live with.

Prior to breaking any laws the Uni-bomber was a law abiding citizen. Shall we arrest everyone who owns a shack?

[Johnny Rico]

41. 4 guns make an "arsenal"? Talk about a bar that keeps being lowered!

Are 3 guns an arsenal?
2?
1?

[Hugabear]

43. When you have all those guns on you with the intent to use all of them, then yes it is

There is absolutely NO reason why anybody should be walking around with that much firepower on them at any time. Absolutely no reason at all.

[Johnny Rico]

44. Are 3 guns an arsenal? 2? 1?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Give us a number, please.

[TheKentuckian]

46. Whether it is a reason or not (and I'll tend to side with you on that) but don't see the impact of

a law restricting such as a measure to prevent these situations because what the fuck does someone committed to a murder spree care about a vanity law restricting how many weapons are on their person. Whatever you want to throw at them as a deterrent will logically be way the hell down the list of charges.

The best ways to curb violence is broad prosperity and freedom from pressing need and it comes with big benefits in almost every possible area but greed is always good, I reckon under the official state secular religion.

[MrScorpio]

49. That's how I see it exactly

It doesn't take a lot to see what's going on

[sendero]

54. Guess what..

.. the bombs he booby trapped his apt with are ILLEGAL. So all of the putzes around here whining about "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines" get this - HE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT THE LAW or ANY FREAKING POINTLESS LAW YOU CAN ENACT.

[soccer1]

55. Everyone's a law abiding citizen until.....

their not. There's a first time for every criminal.

[customerserviceguy]

59. Because of that fact

there is not a god damned thing we could possibly do to have stopped him. With whatever laws, however carefullly drafted they might be, clearly someone with his intellect could have defeated them. It's illegal as hell to buy bombs, to make or keep bombs, and yet his apartment was fully equipped with them. Making the way he got his guns and ammo fully and totally illegal would have only added a couple of weeks, max, to his plans to be at that midnight showing of a movie, and commit his crimes.

I wish the asshats like him were preventable, but it's just absolutely impossible.

[slackmaster]

67. He was building illegal explosive devices at the same time he was acquiring firearms and ammunition

So he really was NOT a law-abiding citizen; he just hadn't gotten caught yet.