Another AR-15 "owner" who shouldn't have been one legally!

[rdharma]

And several more people dead in a mass murder in Santa Monica.

SO ........what went wrong........ THIS TIME?

[friendly_iconoclast]

1. Bong...and bong again

[Decoy of Fenris]

8. Prolly.

Account created right before Bong got nuked for blatant racism in a self-destructive nosedive. Also, Bong liked to self-rec as well, as does this guy. I'd put probability at about 52-55%.

[CokeMachine]

12. Picked that one out long ago. Even had a post blocked

for bringing it up.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: One of your posts has been hidden by a DU Jury

At Wed May 29, 2013, 03:37 PM, an alert was sent on the following post:

Nope -- just a couple of Mountain Dews.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=123412

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Accusing another member of being a banned member makes DU suck.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Wed May 29, 2013, 03:43 PM, and voted 5-1 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: I like to think that aggressive troll hunting went the way of Meta. Maybe it's what did Meta in? I don't know, but I do see this as an obvious, personal call out.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: Calling out another Democratic underground member is a no-no
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: Yep.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: About par for the course, er, I mean it does not violate the community standards of the group.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Not cool.

CONSEQUENCES OF THIS DECISION

You will no longer be able to participate in this discussion thread, and you will not be able to start a new discussion thread in this forum until 4:43 PM. This hidden post has been added to your <a href="/?com=profile&uid=279126&sub=trans">Transparency page</a>.

[Decoy of Fenris]

13. Eh. It ain't against the TOS, and it's not like he has new material.

Just as easy to dismantle now. Let 'em hang around and feel like he belongs somewhere.

[CokeMachine]

15. Yep -- that one and a couple of others are just here to disrupt.

Have a great weekend. Time for pool and beer or beer and pool, depends on if I have to wait for a table.

[Decoy of Fenris]

17. Rack 'em good, mate.

Wish I had that luxury. Got work tonight. Have fun, brother.

[Duckhunter935]

2. I am sure

eventually the full story will come out. California already has some of the most restrictive gun laws. I am sure some were broken.

[Decoy of Fenris]

3. I don't know! CA banned all the guns, HOW COULD HE DO IT?! They were banned!

Seriously, kid. Wise up. People will -always- kill one another, legislation be damned. You could ban every single firearm in the nation and people would still get shot, still die.

You want to know what went wrong? Somewhere along the line, the system failed this guy. Our delicately-balanced society teetered on the brink and this poor soul fell, seeing no way out and raging at the world around him. THAT is what went wrong. We need to start addressing root causes that provoke mass killings like this one and start preventing them before they begin. It's a long road, and a difficult one (far more difficult than "OMG BAN ALL TEH THINGS&quot , but once we can address the illness, not the symptoms, we can begin to repair the damage. Until then, though, lost souls like this guy will continue to flame out in their twisted version of a blaze of glory.

[sdrake]

38. agree

we live in a fucked up world with fucked up people, (playing devils advocate) wouldn't we be safer if firearms never existed?

[gejohnston]

39. there was a time in history when they weren't

and much of Europe, including the UK, made LOLA and Chicago look like Japan. Perhaps not.

[sdrake]

41. im sorry i don't understand

could you please elaborate?

[gejohnston]

42. during the middle ages,

the murder rate in the UK was 100 per 100K, plus feudalism is basically what Somalia devolved to. Of course I don't attribute the firearm being invented. Some historians attribute it to the invention of table manners.

[NYC_SKP]

4. Yessir. Enforce the laws already on the books... This was an illegal firearm.

Lord only knows how many different ways this should have/could have been avoided using existing laws.

No new legislation would have stopped it, not in this state.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

5. Assault rifles and high cap magazines have been illegal in California

for as long as I can remember. Guess that ban didn't work out so well.

[rdharma]

7. Not with Nevada and Arizona next door!

Though, it works FINE in Hawaii!

[Decoy of Fenris]

9. Nope, but good try:

http://www.kaneohegs.com/inventory_rifles.htm

Also, just smaller sample size, higher quality of living and overall better societal conditions.

ON EDIT: Yes, that's short-barreled AR combat rifles and carbines. And yes, you can get 'em in Hawaii. Methinks you don't understand the laws too well...

[rdharma]

10. Yes! Nice try! Shall we talk about REGISTRATION AND BACKGROUND CHECKS?

I thought you would!

http://www.kaneohegs.com/classes.htm

[Decoy of Fenris]

11. Oh, y'see, the poster you were replying to was talking about bans.

So were you, until I proved you wrong.


Background checks? I've been behind those for a long while.

[rdharma]

14. I was talking about Nevada and Arizona.

No background checks required for private sales. No "assault" weapons ban of any type in either state.

If you're going to try to put words in my mouth....... at least post them accurately!

[Decoy of Fenris]

16. I'll grant a misunderstanding. Grudgingly.

The poster you replied to was talking about bans, your response contained no mention of background checks (also given that those two states also have no assault weapon ban. Given that the other poster was talking about bans, talking about Nevada and Arizona continued the "ban" process seamlessly. Furthermore, no one mentioned background checks until after I educated you.)

However, I'll grant this technicality in good faith, and offer this meeting a draw, at least for the time being, given that we don't disagree on the background check part.

[gejohnston]

18. still a violation of the Gun Control Act

BTW, where did it say it was an AR type? CNN claims one witness said it was an "assault weapon" and another said it was a shotgun. Unless you have something better, the information is based on witnesses who don't know much about guns.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/07/us/california-college-gunman/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Since the UK banned private ownership of machine guns in 1937, how did this happen last year?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/machinegun-attack-on-russian-banker-in-london-7584104.html

[rdharma]

25. "BTW, where did it say it was an AR type?"

Oh, puhlease!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-santa-monica-shooting-20130607,0,323148.story

[gejohnston]

27. should have included the link in the OP.

it could have been sitting in a PVC tube for years.

[rdharma]

29. Could have been shipped from Mars too!

With flat top upper! In a box!

[gejohnston]

30. more likely teleported from

an orbiting 24th century spacecraft.

[rdharma]

31. More likely purchased through "legal" sources!

Yup!

[gejohnston]

33. slim chance

if it was, we would already know which store or individual it was from. You can count on the media following the same pattern.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

19. The point is that he didn't have one legally. And even if Nevada and Arizona banned them

There are literally millions of them out on the street. Another way of dealing with this problem needs to be found. Banning them will only drive up the prices of the ones already out there. If someone wants one, they will still be able to get one.

[rdharma]

6. It'll be interesting to see how this crazy dude circumvented the existing CA gun laws.......

I have my suspicions...... but I'll wait to see what comes out.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

20. I know that in Arizona you have to be able to prove you are a resident

before any gun store will sell to you. Don't know about gun shows though.

[gejohnston]

21. that's actually federal law

it is actually a felony, the Gun Control Act, to sell to someone who is not a resident of the same state as you.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

22. Thanks. Did not know that.

[rdharma]

23. Let's see that.

And let's see what proof is required!

[gejohnston]

26. how many newspaper ads are there for ARs at the moment?

Last I checked, everyone is still in stocking up mode.

[rdharma]

44. "But he said he was from Nevada".......

......... since there is no background check required, it's the seller's word against the governments lack of evidence to the contrary.

[gejohnston]

45. so you think this guy was reading the want ads in NV papers?

What are the odds of finding an ad selling a used AR these days? I would say close to winning the lottery three times and being struck by lightening twice in the same month.

[rdharma]

48. No. But I'll bet there were announcements for gun shows.

Why do you guys always employ those "straw man" arguments? Geesh!

[gejohnston]

51. most gun show sellers are FFLs

of course you knew that.

[rdharma]

24. Not talking about a "gun store"!

Private sales. Like can be done at gun shows and lots of other ways.

[Twofish]

32. Doesn't matter.

That law applies regardless of whether it is at a gun store or a private sale.

[rdharma]

50. NO. No requirement for private seller to perform background check on private sale.

No requirement to even demand ID!

I'm sure you knew that!

[gejohnston]

52. it is more accurate to say that

private sellers are prohibited from doing BGCs. Many do require ID.

[rdharma]

54. Many DON'T require ID.

Especially when they're selling a gatt at a highly inflated price.

It's not their job to require ID.

[gejohnston]

56. you haven't provided evidence that the purchase was recent

or in another state. It was likely a pre ban that has been sitting around for awhile. So, your speculation is of no value.

[rdharma]

57. Proof?

No. I don't know where or how this murderer got his AR lower at this time. But it's QUITE EVIDENT that there are gaping holes in gun laws, eh?

[gejohnston]

59. maybe, maybe not.

are there gaping holes in UK's?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article3682228.ece

The answer is only knowable if you find where he got the rifle.

[rdharma]

62. "The answer is only knowable if you find where he got the rifle"

You got that right!

[rdharma]

28. At least you admit ....... YOU DON'T KNOW!

Well then........ find out!

[OffWithTheirHeads]

34. Why? To make you happy? I really don't give a fuck what you think.

I happen to like Arizona's gun laws.

[rdharma]

66. "I happen to like Arizona's gun laws."

So do certain others!

[premium]

37. Same in Nevada,

if you're not a resident, you can't legally buy a firearm here.

[ileus]

35. Just when ARs were starting to show back up

At the LGS...

This will no doubt cause another micro run on ARs.


I still need a bolt to complete my latest AR.

[gejohnston]

40. judging from the photo

The AR is probably a pre ban, complete with handguards like an M-16A1 would have.
the handgun is a replica of a Remington percussion revolver. I shit you not.
I don't get the extra upper receiver. unless he had two kinds of ammo.
http://www.mail.com/news/us/2138498-chief-santa-monica-killings-were-premeditated.html#.23140-stage-hero1-2

[kudzu22]

43. Some of the ammo appeared to be still in the box

I'm not sure how much time he thought he'd have to reload his magazines.

http://www.mail.com/news/us/2139694-list-santa-monica-gunmans-weapons-ammunition.html#.2138498-stage-related1-2

[rdharma]

47. Since he had approx. 30 x 30 rd. mags,

I doubt he was counting on "reloading" mags. Guess he figure 900 rounds was enough and probably left the remaining ammo behind.

Remember, the article said he "had" that much ammo. It didn't say he had all the ammo with him.

SO ...... what was your point?

[rdharma]

46. "Remington percussion revolver"

Rem. 1858 with Colt .45 cylinders. NOT A PERCUSSION REVOLVER THAT HE WAS CARRYING.

Check out those loaded rounds in the lower right of the photo. .45 Colt!

[gejohnston]

49. maybe

http://www.buffaloarms.com/Kirst_Konverter_Pietta_1858_45_Colt_With_Loading_Gate_it-160404.aspx?CAT=3782

However, we could be both right. He could have also had the wrong ammo for the gun, since the article identified it as a .44

[rdharma]

53. No. It's a common trick. Order a Rem. 1858 percusion in .44 and get different cylinders......

.........to fire .45 Colt.

Wrong ammo? I think not. This guy was a "gun hugger". SO I figure he knew how to get around gun laws for the handgun.

BTW..... did you notice the blue painted 30 rounders? I come up with two possible sources for those. AF range mags or PD less than lethal marked mags.

That upper has a short barrel (probably an 11.5&quot with an extended permanently affixed "flash hider".

This murderer was crazy....... but he knew how to navigate the giant loop holes in the gun laws.

[gejohnston]

55. so the media says.

Wrong ammo? I think not. This guy was a "gun hugger". SO I figure he knew how to get around gun laws for the handgun.

or just a lawyer.

BTW..... did you notice the blue painted 30 rounders? I come up with two possible sources for those. AF range mags or PD less than lethal marked mags.

Strange, I have used USAF range mags for 20 years at several bases. Never saw a blue one. PD, maybe.

That upper has a short barrel (probably an 11.5&quot with an extended permanently affixed "flash hider"

I'm betting he got around the NFA too.

[rdharma]

58. I've used a USAF range on occasions.

"Strange, I have used USAF range mags for 20 years at several bases. Never saw a blue one. PD, maybe."

Did you put your empty mags in large plastic containers after range qualification?

Did they even allow you to load your own magazines?

I couldn't believe it either.

[gejohnston]

60. no, and yes.

You must have been in SAC or Space Command, not deployable units like TAC.

[rdharma]

61. Nope. Not a "zoomie"!

Just had access to the ranges. And that's what I saw.

I was speechless!

[gejohnston]

63. Yeah, right.

I was both Army and Air Force, just not at the same time. What ranges and when? If it was basic training at Lackland before 1995, they were using .22lr adapters.

[rdharma]

64. Oh, puhlease, gejohnston..... don't get me started on AF small arms training.

I've attended enough inter-service schools to know what's up there.

[gejohnston]

65. I'm sure you have

But I'm guessing the ranges were either SAC or Space Command, or maybe the academy. The only difference between the Army and AF is that the Army used pop up targets, at least FT Sill and Dix. AF used paper targets like the cops. We loaded our own magazines, cleaned our own rifle, etc. Sure you don't mean the RAF? or RAAF?

[rdharma]

67. "But I'm guessing the ranges were either SAC or Space Command, or maybe the academy."

Why are these units...."different"?

[gejohnston]

68. because they were commands I have never been in.

Meaning your experience was outside of my experience. TAC, MAC aka AMC and PacAF trained to deploy forces to bare bases. SAC, they just pretended to turn keys and launch bombers.