I have noticed something odd this weekend

[Trunk Monkey]

Or at least it seems odd to me.

As soon as news started to get out about the shooting in Aurora I started seeing posts here calling for:

Closing the “Gun show Loophole” which would have had zero impact on this event (There is no “Gun show Loop hole in Colorado BTW)

Mandatory waiting periods, which would have had zero impact on this event

Ban on NFA weapons which would have had zero impact on this event.

Ban on standard capacity magazines which would have had very little impact on this event.

Limits on how many guns you can buy at one time, which would have had zero impact on this event.

Limits on the amount of ammunition you can purchase, which would have had zero impact on this event.

Calls for stricter gun laws (the shooter has zero criminal record how much stricter does the law need to be?)

I also noted that when these discrepancies were pointed out accusations of paranoia and calls of “No one want wants to ban your gun” (in the midst of several calls to ban my gun) were made.

I want to be very careful how I say this but it almost seems like people were waiting for a crisis to take advantage of.

[mother earth]

1. I think in the aftermath of any gun related crisis it is perfectly natural to try to ensure there's

no repeat. This is how we operate as a society, is it not? It is now fact that no background checks were done in his massive ammunition purchases online. I don't think there's a master plan to do away with gun ownershiper, nor has there ever been any such drive. The right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution.

The responsibility lies with us to ensure gun ownership is responsible and accountable.

The shooter's gun jammed, this could have gone down so much worst, add to that the month of planning he allegedly did, red flags were everywhere and as usual, nobody picked up on them. Why? And how crazy would it be for us to ignore these gaps in the system now that we know?

[AtheistCrusader]

44. Beta-C mags are prone to jamming.

That's the tradeoff. If they worked reliably, everyone would use them, and there would be no small capacity magazines.


The gaps the OP cited had nothing to do with this issue.

[mother earth]

59. I inserted doing the usual background checks as missing in this recent incident. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

62. His weapons were purchased from a store called Gander Mountain. Similar to Cabelas or Sportsmen's Wa

rehouse.

Background checks were not missing, or people will be going to jail. (They aready confirmed the checks were done properly)

[mother earth]

172. Surprisingly you are correct, it was first reported they were NOT done.

I stand corrected on this point. I am completely disgusted now that I know this. Apparently a one man militia is not worthy of further scrutiny, perhaps if he were Muslim that might not be the case.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

80. Hello and welcome...

...to the group.

You have a great point, that in the aftermath of such an incident any sane person would feel compelled to evaluate what's happened, to apply what's to be learned. I would sincerely hope that Law Enforcement, the ATF and any other agencies are reviewing everything connected with the crimes committed.

Just to be informative, background checks are not required for ammo purchases in most areas. (Some jurisdictions like DC have restrictions on the ownership of ammo for which you don't have a registered firearm.) The thinking here is that gun owners will buy ammo with great regularity. The ammo requires a gun to be fired and, since background checks are performed by FFLs when the guns are purchased, had a check been done, he'd have passed. Also, the quantities of ammo Holmes bought are not considered suspicious as bulk buys of 2,500 to 10,000 rounds often yield discounts. For that matter, most of these mental case shooters never manage to fire more than a hundred or sound rounds.

(IMHO) The best way for these incidents to be reduced or eliminated is to pay attention to family members and friends. See to it that they don't feel alone, isolated or paranoid. Maintain social contact at least weekly with anyone and everyone in your circle. As a last resort, speak to other associates/family and on confirming any suspicions of mental or emotional problems, have an intervention and/or get the authorities involved.

Hopefully with healthcare reform more options and support will become available to help more people.

[rl6214]

92. "no background checks were done in his massive ammunition purchases online."

The amount of ammo he purchased had no bearing on what he did. He fired less than 100 rounds, that's less than two standard boxes of ammo compared to the 6000 rounds he purchased.

[mother earth]

171. it was in regard to "limits on ammunition purchased" and I do believe it was reported there were no

background checks on his purchases online. I believe the amounts he purchased should've been a red flag to be acted upon by law enforcement if only via alerting them. Sure, we can say just about everything done as a safeguard is useless against this kind of violence, but the body count just might have been lower, even if one life was saved it would be worth it IMHO.

And the shots he was able to get in were limited only by the AR jamming...the potential was there for far greater casualties. Are we to look at these lives/victims as "collateral damage" to ensure the right to bear arms by the dozens and ammunition by the thousands?
Talk about a soul sick nation...

(I'm editing this for the last time, it was indeed incorrectly reported that the background cks were not done. The rest of my answer stands.)

[gejohnston]

174. there have never been background checks on ammo.

and law enforcement would do what? Nothing. Act on what? That is not a crime. If there is no crime, or even anything that unusual, they are not going to do anything.

The guns were not bought online.

[global1]

2. No - Not Waiting For A Crisis - We're A Reactive Society - Not A Proactive Society......

and we don't have public officials that have balls. We just have money thrown around to prevent us from doing anything that would or could be positive.

I don't know what the solution is to this guns thing. But somehow we need to have a legitimate dialogue to discuss it and see if there are any rational solutions. That's what civilized people do.

This tragedy personally touched a lot of people. It takes that personal touch to make people understand that something is wrong here.

[ileus]

3. They know after all these fail, their ultimate goal can be passed.

We tried this it failed.

We tried that it failed.

We tried banning threaded barrels and pistol grips and failed.

We tried banning bayonet lugs without success.

We tried banning plastic.

Short barrels.

Long barrels.

Large calibers.

Small calibers.

Triggers and firing pins...

red dots and killer clips

special loads

FBI targets

cap guns

bb guns

CO2

We tried it all but failed....well all that's left is a total ban.

No one is really interested in why people abuse firearms, only that firearms are available.

[sarisataka]

6. Exactly

But don't worry, there is no slippery slope

[Starboard Tack]

72. "Follow me guys, there is no slippery slope!" yelled the lead lemming as he headed over the cliff.

We are way past the slippery slope stage. We are in free fall.
BTW, nicotine is an excellent cough suppressant.

[gejohnston]

74. Now you are seeing VPC

and Brady for what they are.

[Starboard Tack]

102. I must confess that I know very little about either.

What I have seen from those and the NRA does not impress me. Lots of sheep and lemmings, not too much critical thinking. Very little common sense. Lots of emotionalism.

[gejohnston]

107. agreed, I dumped the NRA

as soon as I figured out how off the deep end the hardliners were. What I find unfortunate thing, among others, the same types of folks who supported Pittman Robertson Tax would not do so today because Wayne would scream "the greenies want to tax hunting out of existence." or "the granola eaters will freeload and blame us"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman-Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act
http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/FAWILD.HTML

FWIW, the Robertson is Pat's dad. Sometimes the apple does fall far from the tree.

When I was a kid, I knew a couple of guys that made a couple bucks on the side (through their kids) who got screwed by the manufactures getting the ban on military surplus guns being imported.
Let me put it in context.
At the time, various world militaries were switching from bolt action rifles to semi auto battle rifles like the FN/FAL and select fire rifles like the AK. The were also had huge inventories of made during WW2 that they didn't need. They were inexpensive. Hunters would take them to gunsmiths to "sportserize them" by putting prettier stocks, changing the bolt angle, and replacing the military sights with one found on commercial guns. It was cutting into Savage's and Ithica's profits.
then there is that stupid point system for pistols
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=cnozAAAAIBAJ&sjid=N-EDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6679,4197286&dq=gun+control+act+manufacturers&hl=en

that makes this illegal in the US, but not Canada
http://www.swissminigun.ch/
Not that I would buy one. 6500 Swiss Francs is pretty steep for a novelty.

[sarisataka]

89. That is one bad habit I never picked up

and thankfully everyone I know has knicked it. I recommend chantix.

Well the fall never killed anyone, it is that sudden deceleration at the bottom.

[Starboard Tack]

105. So true!

[Callisto32]

148. Almost.

The stop at the bottom is still acceleration, just in the opposite direction.

[Clames]

4. That's the truth.

Some here don't like it. Hope you got your flame suit on just in case.

[permatex]

5. As Rahm Emanuel said

Never let a good crises go to waste.

[upaloopa]

7. People who want sensible gun limits are bullied into keeping quite but when a tragedy such as

Aurora happens, they feel less intimidated. The overwhelming carnage combined with the ease of access to guns gives some people pause and they ask themselves why don't we try and do something about this?

Also they wonder why the gun restrictions we had in place are gone. They wonder why some others don't see the connection between the violence in Aurora and the proliferation of guns in this country,

They are not willing to resign themselves to adopting the cavalier attitude of others to the pain and suffering that takes place when something like this happens.

They are not willing to resign themselves to the idea that we must accept gun violence in this country now and then because the 2nd Amendment forbids any restrictions on gun rights.

Maybe in the future a loud and powerful public outcry of the people driven by the angst they feel will effect enough good thinking gun owners to join in the call for some common sense here.

Until then they hope that the power of the NRA, the intimidation and bullying of the people by gun owners will lessen and we can again debate this issue in the halls of government.

Today they need to resign themselves to the fact that more gun violence will occur in our life time and they must remain silent because there is nothing they can do about it. Nothing they propose or do can have any effect on the violence.

[Kaleva]

8. What restrictions that used to be in place would have prevented this had they remained in place?

There never was any restriction on the amount of ammo one could buy.

Colt changed the name of the AR-15 and made some cosmetic changes to the gun to keep it legal.

High capacity magazines were still legal to buy and own.

[samsingh]

10. perhaps there should be sane restrictions on all of these

who needs high capacity magazines for self defense? are people expecting to fight a war?

there is no reasoning with some gun lovers.

this is stupid bullsit that will lead to the eventual banning of firearms at some point in the future.

[permatex]

14. Eventual banning of firearms in the future

How? How are you going to get a 2/3 majority of states to agree to a repeal of the 2A? How are you going to collect the more than 300 million firearms already in civilian hands? How are you going to stop criminals from acquiring guns? How are you going to stop smuggling across the border?
BTW, who are you to decide what I NEED?

Your little snark ass remark, gun lovers, says all we need to know about you.

[samsingh]

23. this topic needs a lot of give and take for the good of all

there is evidence that gun control works. anger and comments and paranoia from gun owners does not help. The 2A says nothing about the size of gun magazines, the number of guns allowed, background checks, fees, etc.

you know nothing about me except that i care about the victims of crime - in this case gun violence.

i would hope that you would also be concerned about reducing the number of deaths and have an open mind towards how to get there.

[permatex]

27. I've already expressed my deepest condolences for the victim and families

so take your little accusation and place it where the sun don't shine.
The vast majority of angry comments, insults, snark, outright lies are from your side, for the most part the pro 2A side has been pretty tolerant and patient. Here's a pm from a out of control DU'er that you defended and then tried to turn it around.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117252888#post22

It was you side that immediately started attacking us, comments like, all gun owners have blood on their hands, all gun owners are compensating for small penises, gun nuts, gun lovers, gun hoarders, the NRA is a terrorist org., guns should be banned and confiscated, etc, etc.
So don't set behind your keyboard and pretend that we are the ones that are being rude, insulting, unreasonable.

[Hoyt]

76. Seriously, Permatex, I hope you don't carry your new guns until you calm down.

Too easy to shoot an unarmed teenager when you are pissed at the world for threatening your access to guns.

[permatex]

77. Seriously Hoyt

mind your own business and don't pretend to give me advice. Not solicited, Not wanted.

[rl6214]

96. Typical snark

[bongbong]

117. He's a Tough Guy

I just CAN'T figure out why a self-professed "tough guy" needs guns so much.

I'm just a "wimpy librul" and I don't need guns to feel safe. I don't think I want to be as "tough" as the self-professed "tough guys". I'd have to be so scared that I need a gun to walk in public.

[permatex]

118. Give it a rest dude.

Haven't you had enough posts hidden in the last week?

[bongbong]

122. Sorry

I'm sorry my posts make the gun-religionist "tough guys" so scared.

Fear seems to be a theme in their lives.

[gejohnston]

125. impressive

[bongbong]

128. Tiddly

Are you saying you buy your Precious not from fear, but from boredom?

Maybe you should try tiddly-winks, they kill less people.

[gejohnston]

129. I hear your mother calling you

bless your heart.

[bongbong]

131. Your mistake

Take up tiddly winks. Much less dangerous than your Precious, and cheaper too.

That recommendation is based up the implication that your Precious-buying habits are from boredom, which you insinuated on your last post. Tiddly winks is much better at curing boredom than buying another Precious.

Of course, if you are worshiping Precious because you're filled with fear, maybe you should try tiddly winks with grenades or something. REALLY manly!

[gejohnston]

132. bless your heart.

[bongbong]

147. Another mistake by you

I'm sure you meant to say "Bless My Precious"

[friendly_iconoclast]

155. I think he said exactly what he wanted to say. Non-Southerners generally won't get it, however...

[gejohnston]

157. shit, I'm turning into a southerner

I just picked it up here.

[friendly_iconoclast]

159. I gather our interlocutor is not a Southerner, bless his heart...

[bongbong]

162. Make sure

Make sure you "bless your Precious" before you go to bed.

Why do gun-relgionists consider themselves "tough guys" when wimpy libruls are the ones who aren't scared to walk around in public without a gun?

[gejohnston]

163. it's divine spirit doesn't need blessing.

you are so witty.

[bongbong]

164. Fun!

So this is how gun-religionists view their Precious ("divine spirit&quot

I see where the inane and illogical feelings about guns, which achieve their intended use when they kill people, comes from.

[gejohnston]

165. such a genius

your mom must be so proud.

[bongbong]

166. Wouldn't know

I don't know if she's proud.

Is your mom proud you consider weapons "divine"?

[gejohnston]

168. how would she know?

[bongbong]

161. Yawn

I'm well aware of the "southern" meaning.

Ad hominems, which that was a form of, are the bread-n-butter of posts by repigs, conservatives, America-haters, teabaggers, and gun-religionists.

[alabama_for_obama]

169. and by people like you. you seem really good at the personal attacks.

[bongbong]

173. You mean like this?

"bless your heart"?



(note for the clueless: any "personal insults" were made only after I was insulted; when it looks like someone likes flinging poo, I'll fling it right back at them)

[alabama_for_obama]

170. by the way,

bless your precious little heart.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

So, um, yes it does say something about the size of mags, number of guns, etc. Fees that border on an outright ban have already been overturned by the courts, just like a poll tax.

[samsingh]

49. the definition of infringe is clear

'to trespass, to violate'.

controls are not a violation.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

127. ? could you expand on that ?

to control would be to inhibit and that would feel like a violation to me.


con·trol
   [kuhn-trohl] Show IPA verb, con·trolled, con·trol·ling, noun

verb (used with object)
1.
to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command.

2.
to hold in check; curb: to control a horse; to control one's emotions.

3.
to test or verify (a scientific experiment) by a parallel experiment or other standard of comparison.

4.
to eliminate or prevent the flourishing or spread of: to control a forest fire.

5.
Obsolete . to check or regulate (transactions), originally by means of a duplicate register.

[Clames]

58. Where is this evidence?

there is evidence that gun control works.

There is absolutely no consensus that supports that statement. Your opinions are not facts.

[samsingh]

60. really. read the evidence at the link to cnn

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/opinion/donohue-gun-control/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

[Clames]

78. So you accept opinions as facts.

That is what you call evidence?

[samsingh]

83. that is complete evidence. what part of it is opinion to you?

[permatex]

90. It says opinion right in the link

[samsingh]

111. the facts are imbedded in an article where the author talks about his feelings

of what the US should be paying attention to.

All emotion aside, the facts, of gun control making a positive difference is right there in the article.

[permatex]

114. It's not facts its opinion

[Clames]

119. Those aren't facts.

At least not facts with the proper context. Fact is, Australian gun laws have shown no significant decrease in crime. The crime rate was already dropping before those laws went into effect and the rate of decline remained unchanged after.

Before you can say there is evidence you have to know what evidence looks like. Opinions do not support facts.

http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=2240

[krispos42]

121. He he he

It's always fun to point out that the homicide rate has dropped in half while the number of guns per capita in the US has remained steady, the number of semiautomatic rifles per capita has increased, and the number of double-stack magazine handguns has increased per capita. All since 1991.

And of course, the guns are more reliable and the ammunition is deadlier than ever.


So there's been a positive difference without gun control. Who'da thunk?

[samsingh]

123. this is no laughing matter

[HALO141]

91. The idea that any of those measures, even IF you could pass them here,

would have an effect on violence in American culture is 100% opinion.

[samsingh]

110. that is very selective reading and the reason many people are getting frustrated with pro-gun

supporters.

The experience in Australia is fact. how it should be applied is opinion. The question is, does gun control work? It did in this case.

[gejohnston]

115. how often did Australia have mass

murders before them? Their murder and suicide rates remained pretty much the same. What is not being said says as much as what is.

[krispos42]

130. Another fact for you

It needs updating, but there's your Aussie gun control.

[rl6214]

95. And he doubles down on the snark..."paranoia from gun owners"

[HALO141]

101. It's a shame.

Most hoyt's posts are just flinging poo - Demeaning those whose values differ from his. If he pulled this anywhere else on DU he'd have been tombstoned long ago.

[samsingh]

124. if 'they're out to take all my guns away from me' isn't paranoia - i don't know what is.

[rl6214]

136. Every group is going to have the fringe so there are some gun owners

that say that, just like there are some anti-gun people that say all guns should be taken away and banned. That's not the majority opinion though.

[samsingh]

138. i have problems with either extreme.

[rl6214]

145. I fully agree with you there.

[GreenStormCloud]

144. 3/4 of states, not 2/3 are need for ratification. N/T

[permatex]

146. Thanks for the clarification.

I thought it was 2/3.

[Trunk Monkey]

25. How do you define "High Capacity"?

The standard capacity magazine for an AR15/M16 is 30 rounds (used to be 20 but I think they quit making them) The politicians who are screaming for a "High Capacity" magazine ban really want to ban the normal sized magazine for that weapon in favor of a reduced capacity 10 round magazine.

At VA Tech the shooter has 2 guns both w/ ban legal 10 round magazines. He shot one pistol dry then help his victims at bay w/ the other while he reloaded (this is according to the victims who survived). He killed 32 people.

[rl6214]

97. You can still get 20 rd mags for the AR/M16, I bought a number of them last year.

[PavePusher]

42. "who needs high capacity magazines for self defense?"

Well, unless your prescience is better than mine, I don't know. But limiting lawful self-defense seems a lousy way to address actual criminals.


"there is no reasoning with some gun lovers."

With comments like that, you aren't really trying to, now are you?

[samsingh]

50. i did say 'some' not 'all'

[rl6214]

94. The use of the hi capacity magazine may be what stopped more from being killed

just as in the Giffords shooting, hi cap mags are prone to jamming. Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 and injured 17 using the standard 10 round magazines. He changed mags 17 times.

[gejohnston]

12. why should a tiny minority of rich people bully us?

Aurora happens, they feel less intimidated. The overwhelming carnage combined with the ease of access to guns gives some people pause and they ask themselves why don't we try and do something about this?

Why don't they do something before this happens? His family knew, but did nothing. Same with the Tuscon shooter. People around him knew he was off his rocker, but did nothing.

Also they wonder why the gun restrictions we had in place are gone. They wonder why some others don't see the connection between the violence in Aurora and the proliferation of guns in this country,

What restrictions are those? Liberalizing concealed carry laws has nothing to do with this. Our murder rate is lower now since it was in the 1960s. There is no evidence anywhere in the world where gun laws did any good.

They are not willing to resign themselves to adopting the cavalier attitude of others to the pain and suffering that takes place when something like this happens.

What cavalier attitude?

They are not willing to resign themselves to the idea that we must accept gun violence in this country now and then because the 2nd Amendment forbids any restrictions on gun rights.

False. We do have gun laws. We have five federal laws alone. Let me ask you this, why should I have to be restricted for a problem I do not contribute to? Most of our "gun violence" are gangs killing each other over market share. Mexico's problem is 100 percent drugs. When is the drug culture going to step up and take some responsibly?

Maybe in the future a loud and powerful public outcry of the people driven by the angst they feel will effect enough good thinking gun owners to join in the call for some common sense here.

Most "gun control advocates" know gun laws won't do any good.

Many scholars have suggested that Americans' positions on gun control are the product of culture conflicts. This assertion has been largely based on associations of gun control opinion with membership in social groups believed to be hostile, or favorable, towards gun ownership, rather than with direct measures of the cultural traits thought to mediate the effects of group membership on gun control opinion. Data from a 2005 national telephone survey were analyzed to test competing theories of why people support handgun bans. Instrumental explanations, which stress belief in a policy's likely effectiveness, accounted for less than 25 percent of the variation in support. The results supported the culture conflict perspective. Those who endorsed negative stereotypes about gun owners, and who did not believe in the need to defend their own homes against crime (versus relying on the police) were more likely to support handgun bans.

Until then because the NRA, intimidation and bulltying of the people by gun owners is so strong we can't debate this issue in the halls of government. We have to be content with the fact that more gun violence will occur in our life time and we must remain silent because there is nothing we can do about it. Nothing we propose or do can have any effect on the violence.

so political opposition and grassroots action is "bullying"? By your logic, OWS is bullying Wall Street. If you are going to be logically consistent, Brady et al is trying to bully the rest of us?
"Nothing we propose or do can have any effect on the violence" Based on experience of other places, that is absolutely true, but simplistic feel good theater is always nice.

[upaloopa]

21. I was responding to the OP. I am not cranking up the volume or describing posts as theater you are

If you notice when ever someone like me asks why and what should we do. Someone, I suspect a passionate gun owner, tries to bully the author into shutting up as yours does.

I am certain that there will be gun owner restrictions again in this country and when they are in place you can thank yourself for them being there.

You refuse to even come to some middle ground.

It's always "my 2nd amendment rights" "there is no law that can prevent gun violence" and other well worn intimidating statements.

You call my writing theater thus diminishing what I said, but mark my works, your intransigence will have that theater playing in your town.

[gejohnston]

29. a few corrections

So responding is "bullying to shutting up", not much into dialog are you?

there have been federal gun owner restrictions since the 1930s. Federal gun laws since the 1920s. All but one are still on the books.

First, have to know what ground you are at as far as "sensible" goes. Since you don't know what the current laws are, I'm guessing you don't know where we are at.

"there is no law that can prevent gun violence" is hardly an intimidating statement. Criminologists in the US and Europe say the same thing. Don't know what to tell you beyond that.

Your writing isn't theater. The laws are.

[upaloopa]

45. Unlike you I don't have a list of things memorized that I can put in a post.

The pro gun side has a lot of union. Those that want gun restrictions are scattered. They don't have something like the NRA or magazines dedicated to their passions.

I can not do justice to your lengthly list of pro gun talking points. But that doesn't mean there are not some equal justifications for some type of restrictions.

If you and I were going to debate this in a hall with a real audience I would call on experts and other acceptable and creditable sources and be able to do pretty good.

Like I said I do not have a ready source of talking points such as those put out by the NRA or "GUN Digest" .

But that does not diminish the importance of my side. You can win a posting war against me most any day.

[gejohnston]

53. don't have anything memorized

The pro gun side has a lot of union. Those that want gun restrictions are scattered. They don't have something like the NRA or magazines dedicated to their passions.

You have the Brady Campaign. They do lack grassroots force. But then, defenders tend to have an advantage over those on the offensive.

I can not do justice to your lengthly list of pro gun talking points. But that doesn't mean there are not some equal justifications for some type of restrictions.

What pro gun talking points are those? You mean this one? I call that peer reviewed science from a respected criminologist.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235209000932

If you and I were going to debate this in a hall with a real audience I would call on experts and other acceptable and creditable sources and be able to do pretty good.

OK, looking forward to it. What is "acceptable and credible?" I think I can do a reasonable job defending my position.

Like I said I do not have a ready source of talking points such as those put out by the NRA or "GUN Digest"

I haven't been a member of the NRA since 1979, and last time I red Gun Digest, it was mostly technical articles. I do research. I try avoid propaganda sites, other than Brady or VPC when they serve my purpose.

But that does not diminish the importance of my side. You can win a posting war against me most any day.

I would rather work together to get solutions that would actually do something. Universal mental healthcare for example.

[rl6214]

99. "Like I said I do not have a ready source of talking points such as those put out by the NRA"

The Brady campaign and VPC does a pretty good job of putting out propaganda to support their side. Too bad most of it is feelings or outright lies.

"The pro gun side has a lot of union. Those that want gun restrictions are scattered. They don't have something like the NRA or magazines dedicated to their passions. "

That's because the pro-gun controll side has little support and is made up of shrill voices and that's about it.

[permatex]

31. Middle ground?

Every time we came to the "middle ground' it wasn't enough, gun control advocates would just want more and more "if only we would come to the middle ground".
You really think we trust your "middle ground"?

[AtheistCrusader]

47. Just once, I'd like to see the author do some research, and come up with something

Possible
Accurate

I've yet to see it.

[HALO141]

98. "You refuse to even come to some middle ground. "

Middle ground? Been there for quite some time. I don't know exactly how many gun laws there are but the number, "20,000" is thrown around a lot. That sounds high. Brookings institute says more like “about 300 major state and federal laws, and an unknown but shrinking number of local laws.” (As with most things the truth is probably somewhere between the two.) At any rate it's safe to say that we've already hit "middle ground" some time ago. Your contention that because a tragedy happened current gun regulation is not "reasonable" is more than a little self-serving.

[PavePusher]

30. What "sensible gun limits"?

Please list them, explain how they would be enacted and why they would be effective.

What "bullied into keeping quite"? Cites, please?

[4th law of robotics]

55. They've kept quiet?

So every other post isn't about banning guns?

[Starboard Tack]

160. +1. Always good to see another voice of reason participating in the gungeon.

[samsingh]

9. homes was not accepted by a gun club

should this not have also been shared with the authorities? should the authorities not have the power to investigate a suspect in advance of him killing dozens?

he purchased all his guns online with NO background checks even though he was flagged as troubled in the past 6 months.

[Kaleva]

11. A background check would have turned up nothing on him

The opinions of his mother and of the gun club owner would not have been entered into the NICS database.

[samsingh]

13. the suspicion from the gun club should have alerted a visit

[gejohnston]

16. by who, the local cops?

The gun club didn't like his voice mail "away from the phone message". The cops would look at it and say "so?"

[samsingh]

22. given the amount of damage a sick individual can do with the weapons at his disposal, someone should

be looking after it. People would be alive if this was the case.

[gejohnston]

32. That is a police procedure and a prior restraint issue

not really a gun issue.

[samsingh]

37. if someone was buying tons of fertilizer, i think that may prompt a visit from the police

(without a farm)

[permatex]

40. You can buy tons of fertilizer without

a visit from the ATF or LE, just buy it in small quanties at a time. There are always ways to get around laws if your determined to wreak havoc.

[Kaleva]

20. Hard to say if the police would have done anything.

[PavePusher]

34. Because of an odd answering machine message?

Ummmm... I'm really not sure that meets any criteria for a "visit" from police, unless it contained specific threats.

[gejohnston]

15. wrong

he purchased all his guns online with NO background checks even though he was flagged as troubled in the past 6 months.

he did not. He bought them from Gander Mountain. There was a background check. Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, one must be adjudicated as mentally incompetent. A phone call from a gun club manager, who based his opinion on Holmes' voice mail "leave message" pitch, is not going to make its way to an FBI call center. About those "unregulated" online sales:
The Gun Control Act is very clear about interstate sales and buying from an FFL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

[permatex]

18. Jeeeeeeez

I just love it when someone posts a "fact" that is so easily refuted. A little research would have prevented him/her from looking foolish.

[Kaleva]

19. I bought three bolt action Mosin-Nagant rifles on line on 3 seperate occasions

They were shipped to nearby gun dealers where I had to show a photo ID (my drivers license), fill out a questionnaire and sign it, and have a background check done before they handed me the guns.

[samsingh]

38. i guess the news is wrong then. i guess these 'acts' are not very effective and should be changed.

[PavePusher]

43. "changed" how?

What, specifically, do you want to see done that would be Constitutional and effective and actually aimed at criminals, not the law abiding?

[permatex]

17. Another lie

he did not purchase his guns online, he purchased the ammo online, even if he did purchase his guns online, the guns still would have been shipped to a FFL holder, ie: a gun store or an individual who holds an FFL and the Brady Background check would have to be done, no exceptions. The ATF has no sense of humor on that at all.
Will you please do some research before you post.
I just bought one of these online
?v=8CE3CDC7FA4D840

I had to have it shipped to a gun store in Las Vegas.

[rbixby]

24. Would you consider that more of a personal defense weapon or a hunting rifle? NT

[Trunk Monkey]

33. Substitute the 30 round mag for a 5 rounder and you have a deer gun right there NT.

[permatex]

35. Neither

It's more of an investment, the value of this particular rifle will increase over the years, I did shoot it and it is a beautifully crafted weapon, shoots smoothly and accurately.

[PavePusher]

36. Could be either one.

Modularity is quite a useful feature for firearms.

[Callisto32]

149. Ah the joy of both.

Relatively light, handy rifles in intermediate calibers are just plain efficient and effective. The ballistics of the 7.62x39mm cartridge (standard Kalash round) are roughly identical to one of the great N.E. U.S. whitetail deer slaying cartridges, the .30-30 Winchester.

As far as a "game" classification goes, a human is probably roughly equivalent to a whitetail...

[samsingh]

39. i gotta get one of these man

then i can go hunt rabbits or carry it wherever i go.

[permatex]

41. Knock yourself out

although why would you shoot rabbits with a .223 when .22 is so much less expensive? Why would you carry it where ever you go?
That seems kinda dumb.

[Trunk Monkey]

79. I wouldn't even waste a .22 on a rabbits. A Crossman will keep you in all the rabbit you can eat NT

[permatex]

82. Your right

a BB or Pellet gun would work just as well, I was just pointing out the supidity of his statement.

[Callisto32]

150. No such thing as a waste of .22.

Trigger time is trigger time!

[PavePusher]

48. Oh, I see.

This must be an example of some of that "there is no reasoning with some gun lovers".

[permatex]

52. Funny that

they accuse us of being rude, obnoxious, unreasonable, while at the same time posting rude, obnoxious, unreasonable comments about us. What hypocrites.

[Trunk Monkey]

28. he purchased all his guns online with NO background checks

100% untrue he purchased all of his guns at Gander Mountain and Bass Pro Shops right here in Denver and went through a CBI background check for every one of them.

[4th law of robotics]

56. So you'd let self-policing gun-clubs determine who may and who may not carry?

What if they "get a bad feeling" about a disproportionate number of minorities seeking to purchase weapons?

[rl6214]

103. "he purchased all his guns online with NO background checks"

What? This is just a complete falsehood. All of his gun were purchased locally in Colorado from Gander Mountain and Bass Pro Shops.

"even though he was flagged as troubled in the past 6 months."

The only trouble he was "flagged" with was a speeding ticket.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

120. While he indeed rejected, the rest of your post is factually untrue

The firearms were purchased in person, not online, and all required background check were done.

Where was he flagged as troubled and by whom?

In the US there is no provision for reporting those of questionable mental health outside of the health system.

False reporting gets one sued on to the streets in the US.

[villager]

26. The people who lost family and friends in Aurora "noticed something odd this weekend" as well

n/t

[4th law of robotics]

57. Others waving around their dead friend and family in order to push an agenda?

[villager]

139. Others callously ignoring the human costs to push theirs?

n/t

[4th law of robotics]

140. Who is doing that?

Replying to yet another "sensible" gun control post that erroneously states a machine gun was used with "that wasn't a machine gun" doesn't equate to "and therefore it's ok that 12 people are dead".

[villager]

141. You were replying to my post -- where mentions of machine guns were entirely absent.

n/t

[4th law of robotics]

142. You replied to my post with

"callously ignoring human costs"

I did no such thing.

I could then only assume you were referring to the general rather than specific.

[villager]

143. again, the *initial reply* in this sub-thread was yours

I was replying to the OP.

You were replying to me.

You are free to keep operating on assumptions, however...

[patrice]

51. Unless you know the posters well in person, it is difficult to ascertain the intended effect of

the kinds of posts to which you refer, especially in an environment as dynamic as the internet and as complex and cognitively variable as the DU.

[Trunk Monkey]

81. If a given poster states " Fuck you! I want to ban all your fucking guns"

I tend to assume their intent is (oddly enough) to fuck me and ban all my guns.
I'm funny that way

[4th law of robotics]

54. You'll also get "but think of the victims!"

Claim: we need to ban automatic weapons
Sane response: they are heavily restricted and effectively banned for most people. Also an automatic weapon wasn't used in this situation so that ban would have done nothing.
Insane counter-response: TELL THAT TO THE VICTIMS! OH WAIT YOU CAN'T BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL DEAD SO YOU CAN ENJOY MASTURBATING TO YOUR GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!ELEVEN!!!!!

[samsingh]

61. i don't think that thinking about victims is insane at all.

in fact, that should be the place to begin.

[4th law of robotics]

63. Case in point

Let's try another tack, perhaps less emotional and hence rational.

An 18 wheeler driven by a drunkard plows in to a middle school and kills a bunch of kids. Hundreds.

Ok, the response then is immediately "ban all mini-coops".

A few sensible people point out A) it was a drunk driver and B) a mini-coop wasn't used.
Are those people being insensitive and not thinking about the victims or pointing out the flaws in pushing for a ban in response to a specific scenario that would have done precisely nothing to prevent said scenario?

[samsingh]

64. ok - to your point

we would assume that the driver of the mini-coop was licensed? If the driver was acting irrationally e.g. driving on the wrong side of the road, we would assume that a police officer could pull the driver over and apply a breathalizer without being accused of trampling his rights. We would also not allow the driver to driver the vehicle anywhere he chooses.

There would be controls.

[4th law of robotics]

65. Respond to the scenario I made up

would calls to ban all of a certain type of car (and not even the type used in the horrible tragedy) and ignoring the state of the operator (drunk/sober) be sensible or irrational?

[samsingh]

67. i thought i did.

[4th law of robotics]

69. You did not, you altered it

and made it about pulling over drunks.

If after a huge automobile accident people demanded A) banning a completely different kind of vehicle than the one used and B) ignored the state of the driver and sought to punish law abiding drivers as well would that be sensible?

[samsingh]

73. okay

you are missing my point. Drinking laws were put in place because of the idiots who drank recklessly and then drove recklessly. This is an infringement on all drivers. A few caused the rules to be changed for everyone.

[4th law of robotics]

75. Please respond to my scenario

a simple "yes that is sensible" or "no that would be an irrational response" would be fine.

/drinking while operating a firearm is illegal also BTW.

[samsingh]

84. that would be irrational

[4th law of robotics]

87. Whoa whoa whao slow down there rambo

so you don't care at all about the victims?

/see what I'm getting at?

[Trunk Monkey]

85. drinking while operating a firearm is illegal also BTW.

Ummm actually in Colorado it's not. It's illegal to be "under the influence"

[gejohnston]

66. you missed the point

the mini-coop wasn't there. The tractor trailer was there.

[samsingh]

68. okay then, let's substitute tractor tailer in my explanation.

[gejohnston]

71. he wasn't walking around

waving the gun on the way to the place, that is where it falls apart.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

70. "I have noticed something odd this weekend"

I haven't.

It's been the usual crap.

We had a guy who bought stuff to make himself feel powerful and used them.

Then we had all the people who bought the same thing to feel powerful deny that's why they bought it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

86. re: "...feelings..."

We had a guy who bought stuff to make himself feel powerful and used them.

Then we had all the people who bought the same thing to feel powerful deny that's why they bought it.

You seem to be the self-appointed Secretary of Inference. Congratulations.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

93. I'm appointing you my Undersecretary.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

104. Thanks, buddy!

I've actually been jockeying for that Secretary of Analogy spot.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

106. I already got Innuendo covered.

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/1002847020#post12

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

109. Perhaps...

...we can make a deal with GSA to get these offices funded and in the budget.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

112. Let's claim it as a National Security priority and add it to the Pentagon budget.

Hell, they won't even audit us.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

116. Perchance...

...have you spent any time in the employ of Kenneth Lay?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

126. No, but I've enjoyed following the real blood sport of Wall Street.

Namely, the cutthroat bidding over who gets a piece of the Pentagon pie.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

134. It is a bit of a blood sport

One of my favorite parts was the "contest" between Lockheed and Boeing over the JSF. Since Lockheed "won" and Boeing will be making the most money as a subcontractor, I wonder if Boeing really made their best effort.

My motto is 'when the TV goes out read about the government, it's usually funnier'.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

135. Want to see a good one?

Check out the overruns from Raytheon on SDI.

It's like, "No! Trust us! We can make it work! We gave you the Tomahawk! Wo! Wo! Wo!"

Meanwhile, Lockheed is building GPS satellites but tracking for their birds was given to the place that can't hit the broad side of a barn.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

137. Stories...

...I have stories.

[Trunk Monkey]

88. Then we had all the people who bought the same thing to feel powerful deny that's why they bought it

I carry a gun because my job requires it and most of the time I feel like it's a pain in the ass

[Spitfire of ATJ]

100. I did the same.

Also had to when I lived in a place where it wasn't uncommon to find rattlesnakes sunning themselves on my back porch.

Couldn't even feed the chickens in a bathrobe without having a .22 loaded with ratshot.

[img][/img]

[tortoise1956]

176. Pardon?

Do you even realize that you're profiling all gun owners? Not based on race, but on our ownership of a legal product. Hell, you're implying that we are all as psycho as that sick fuck Holmes, since we all only buy guns to feel powerful. That's pretty narrow thinking for a progressive, as well as being personally offensive.

Besides, the only thing I would buy to feel powerful would be Viagra...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

177. Besides, the only thing I would buy to feel powerful would be Viagra...

Try acid. Just be prepared to get naked with someone who's also dropped some.

Trust me.

[tortoise1956]

178. Can't - could cost me my job

Besides, I'm in my mid-50's. I don't know anybody I'd want to get nekkid with, who wouldn't turn and run at the sight of me au naturel!


I take back my personal offendedness; it's had to stay that way after reading your reply...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

179. Some people have a need to be talked down....

[tortoise1956]

181. It's my need to feel powerful...

I haven't stroked my shotgun tonight. I can hear it calling to me from the bedroom:"Come here, big boy!"

And on that night I'm leaving the house...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

182. Do everyone a favor.

Lay down a plastic dropcloth first.

Also pin one to the wall.

The guys in forensics will thank you.

As will the carpet guy.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

180. BTW:

I guess you missed out on the opportunity to know actual organically grown hippie chicks complete with butterfly tattoos going up their legs. I know one that tends bar in Vegas. She gets six figures in tips.

[bowens43]

108. banning the sale of ammunition would have prevented this and it would be realtivily easy to do.

also banning the sale of all guns may have prevented this since he purchased the weapons legally.

Those who say that banning or restricting the sale of guns and ammo would have little or no affect on gun deaths and incidents like this have a hidden agenda.

[HALO141]

113. Rrriiiiight.

Just like banning the sale of explosives would have prevented him from booby-trapping his apartment.


Oh, wait...

[Kaleva]

133. That would have worked but it's a political impossibility

First, one would have to repeal the 2nd Amendment by passing another amendment to do such in order to prevent the judicial branch from overturning such a law and here are the ways that can be done.


"The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)"

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html#process

Once that's done, then the individual states or Congress can pass laws that ban all guns and ammo for civilian use.

[Callisto32]

151. Nobody has EVER homebrewed ammo.

There aren't BILLIONS of pieces of viable cartridge brass out there...

Nope, not at all. The self-contained metallic cartridge certainly isn't a piece 150+ year old tech that you can knock out with nothing but a decent lathe and a billet of brass....

Oy, fucking, vey.

Edit: added omitted word.

[JoePhilly]

152. I know that I was at home saying "PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE ... let a manic kill a bunch of people!!!"

Just so this topic could be debated.

A very simple solution.

Graded weapons licensees.

My driver's license let's me drive any passenger vehicle. But I can't drive an 18 wheeler, or a Commercial Dump truck. I also can't operate a Backhoe or a Bulldozer with the correct license.

Do the same for weapons. Prove you know how to use them responsibly, we'll let you have not just guns, but a damn TANK. But you need the correct license.

Seems obvious.

[Walk away]

153. I have to laugh when someone who needs to have access to unregulated guns,

automatic weapons and enough ammunition to kill thousands of people without anyone in law enforcement being notified...even uses to word "Paranoia" in a sentence.

The first posts I read all over the internet and here as well were from gun lovers (I assume many of them paid) getting their NRA propaganda out ahead of the curve!

[Trunk Monkey]

154. You can't own automatic weapons w/ out STRICT government scrutiny

You may want to do some research on the National Firearms Act of 1934.

As for the ammuntion, there are controls on that but mostly related to age.

regardless of how many rounds the shooter may have bought he fired less than 100 (IE 2 boxes worth). How many rounds shouls a person beable to buy before law enforcement is notified?

[Walk away]

185. It would seem sane to me if local law enforcement had access to a data base...

with the purchase of all guns and ammo in their area. Who bought them, who sold them and where they live. But that would hurt your freeeeeedom!

[Trunk Monkey]

190. Yes it would

It would also be specifically against Colorado state law

[gejohnston]

156. there are no unregulated guns

we have had federal gun control laws since 1927. The major one since 1968.
automatic weapons have been tightly regulated since 1934.

Most of the posts I have seen were from gun haters, who could be paid if Brady had any money, getting their Brady talking points out.

[Walk away]

183. Gee! Was the Aurora shooters gun regulated? If it was then....

in the NRA dictionary the word regulated must mean "just drop in and pick it up no questions asked!"

[DonP]

186. Don't have an NRA dictionary, but check with the gun grabbers

They keep telling us what the NRA says or does or what they think it does. In general they are about as well informed as a Fundie is on evolution.

Never bought a gun or filled out a 4473, have you? Or gone through the FBI and state police background checks that goes with each firearm sale from an FFL?

Did you miss the part where the police said the purchases were all legal and the guy only had a minor speeding offense on his record?

No? Well you just keep believing the crap that Thom Hartman says as if it's real, it makes you sound so well informed.

[Walk away]

188. Everything you just posted seems to prove that with the current restrictions...

we still don't have enough control over guns. Thanks

[gejohnston]

189. Neither do UK or Jamaicia

both pretty much have bans. Come to think of it, so does Mexico. Jamacia has one of the worst murder rates in the world. While the UK doesn't, it isn't very hard to get a sub machine gun or pistol in London for only 200 pounds.

[gejohnston]

187. obviously you don't know anything about current federal gun control laws

Start with National Firearms Act of 1934 (not relevant in this case, but worth noting next time someone brings up automatic weapons)
Federal Firearms Act of 1938
Gun Control Act of 1968 (very relevant)
Brady Bill, (very relevant)
Don't worry about that stupid thing Harding signed in 1927.

[friendly_iconoclast]

158. ...posted by someone implying the NRA has paid agents all over the Net. "Paranoia", indeed...

[Brisket]

167. The usual American approach to any undesirable event is to push for some new laws.

Makes no difference if they are impractical, useless or unconstitutional, they're 'feel-good' ideas that appeal to folks with not much smarts.

[Trunk Monkey]

175. Well said and welcome to DU NT

[Walk away]

184. Turn right and head directly to the Gungeon!

You'll feel right at home

[xxenderwigginxx]

191. “No one want wants to ban your gun” (in the midst of several calls to ban my gun)

Thats my favorite

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

192. I came to a completely different conclusion,

that is that those who call for bans don't seem to know what their talking about. Not that they shouldn't be heard but now and then I talk to another poster here, His opinion is that those who covet guns are probably in a group which should be restricted from having guns simply based on their coveting. I pointed out that this idea was a bit of a Catch 22 and he agreed.

Well here's another: those whose calls for bans demonstrate their own lack of knowledge, should be ignored.

On the lighter side they, should be awarded a t-shirt that says I support Congressman Hank Johnson.