3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon (Page 4)

I'm peeved about all of them, we are just discussing this one.

If we have a waiting period or a background check, I can accept that as reasonable. But show me any right you have that you have to qualify to use. Or to show competence in it's use, or to show training first. That's what many people want for "reasonable" gun control. But then you run into that pesky little Bill of Rights.

Look at Jim Crow laws.... required things in order to exercise your Constitutional right to vote, or prove your worthiness to use your right... those laws were struck down as a way to keep you from exercising your rights... how is this different?

Tough call... hummm Constitutional right... civic privilege to use public paid for roads... hard one.

So does 2A... murder is illegal.

This is not aimed at powerman just using his post to add this question.

Here in CA we have a 10 day wait while they do background checks for criminal and mental history. We also can only buy one hand gun per 30 days and have to pass a basic true false hand gun safety test every 5 years. I know why they do it so I deal with it rather than complaining about it.

Is there anyone here that thinks what I listed above is too much?

I do.

How would that have stopped the Aurora killings? How would that have stopped this shooting?

We don't know much about this new guy but we know plenty about the last one. He was obviously mentally able to pass some stupid state test to get a gun. He planned for months, heck he had to wait longer to get his 1,000's of rounds in the mail than he would have had to wait to buy the gun. 

I don't see how any of these "controls" would have prevented anything. All they do is hinder law abiding people from exercising their constitutional right.

"Gun control" only works on people who are already willing to follow the law. It does nothing to stop some whackjob who wants to shoot up a food court. 

We have a full on war on drugs, books of laws with stiff penalties for getting caught. Has that stopped anyone from using drugs? 

I agree with the premise you have been arguing in previous posts. Forget the gun rants, focus on the person. 

Yes I do.

Heres the thing, there are already laws to control ones behavior... just to remind people... MURDER is illegal punishable by death in many states.

Do I want criminals and violent offenders to have guns no I don't. So we do background checks first. I find that acceptable, because it is the least we can do. But obviously it does not stop criminals from getting guns... they just have to break another law to do so and can be punished more for it. But as a society, if you show you are apt to encroach on someone else's freedoms based on your past conduct, then you should not have the right to certain things... like 2A.

Other than that... there is nothing gun control laws do except to control law abiding gun owners. Period. Someone determined can wait 10 days.... Idiot on Colorado did. WV kid did. Remove someone's freedom of speech before they have done wrong and see how bonkers the ACLU goes. Deny someone's due process with no crime committed and see what happens then... what do you think GITMO is about and they are not even U.S. citizens. The Patriot act does just that which is why so many people have such a  problem with it... but it's OK because the government knows what is best for public safety.

There is no law you can pass to stop someone from murdering someone. We have tried for a while now.

I was strictly talking about mass shooting incidents.....of course people defend themselves with guns with a positive outcome.  I haven't seen a citizen stop one of the mass shooting incidents. Many times the Police shoot the suspect, we shot the suspect in the incident I was involved in....but a private citizen?  I'd be REALLY careful about pulling out a gun while that was happening......the police are coming, and you don't want to be in the middle of shooting anything when they get there. 

By all means, protect yourself if you have to, but be prepared for what is coming......alot of guys with the intention of killing whoever is doing the shooting.

Something that has been bugging me for the last year or so is somewhat related to this topic. We seem to be going further and further toward polarization in this country. I have a few theories as to why.

1. The political climate and class warfare. Us against them, they are holding me down, they aren't giving me my fair share.

2. Rabid sense of entitlement in people especially younger people. If everyone owes you something and aren't giving it to you that can lead to anger against that person.

3. Unemployment, boredom, too much free time, general lack of self worth due to unwillingness or inability to succeed.

4. On the flip side there is anger from the working stiff toward the guy/gal who doesn't work and feeds off the system. There are people in my life who game the system constantly so they don't have to work yet here I am 40 hours a week working to pay for their food stamps. And yes, it angers me. 

etc.

My point is that all this anger toward the "other guy" seems to make human life less valuable. I know we hear a lot more about stuff than we used to but it sure seems to me like there are more road rage incidences, shootings, domestic violence, etc than I remember in years past. All of this is obviously my opinion and no I don't have the stats to back it. 

But if you consider a young person who is unemployed, bored, self loathing, has a feeling that it is everyone else's fault that they feel this way and don't see a better life in the future, what is to make them value their own life or the lives of others? 

I know people exactly like this, going nowhere in life, no plans to do anything about it, sitting around day after day stewing on their anger toward anyone who is successful and won't give them whatever they want. Or they had rough childhoods and still harbor anger from the past. I don't trust these people at all and their actions have lead me to believe they do not value human life and are not that far from the mall shooter.

You take someone that is already in that situation, then add drugs or alcohol and bad things are going to happen.

Or I could be way off and maybe stuff like this has been happening all along and we just didn't realize it because we didn't life in a fast food news world before. Perhaps we mistakenly focus too much on the perpetrator and not enough on the victims. But IMO gun laws will never do anything to stop these people from getting a gun and doing something bad with it. 

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 9:54 AM (First off: Yes, yes, I understand that guns are constitutionally protected and cigarettes/ booze/whatever are not, so it’s not exactly apples to apples, but indulge me for a second&hellip

gearboy - 2012-12-12 9:38 AM

It's not that I am not a firearms fan (I think that target shooting and skeet shooting look like a lot of fun. And I don't think we could have an unarmed police force the way they do in England). But I think the best fix would be a change in how the discussion is framed. 

It is not realistic to turn back the clock and somehow have a lot less firearms in circulation. But maybe a better analogy is not to look at a Prohibition model, but the drunk driving model. Look, alcohol is still legal. You can own as much as you want (after 21), and drink all you want as well. And not that long ago, no one really thought twice about going to the bars and drinking, and then hopping into the car and driving home. Today, most people at least acknowledge that is a bad idea, and will either plan a designated driver, or to take a cab. What changed? The national discussion. MADD and similar groups did not talk about banning alcohol. They got us to be aware of the statistics of harm, and made it socially unacceptable to drink and drive. We also don't generally consider drinking at lunch to be acceptable if we are going back to work in the afternoon (the fabled "3 martini lunch"). Yes it still happens, but less often, and with more social approbation.

I think a similar approach could work with firearms. I know of people who think that being banned from owning/using firearms due to a history of involuntary commitment or incarceration is stupid, and will themselves purchase a firearm with the intent of allowing someone not allowed to use it to do so. In at least two cases I am aware of, this resulted in a death. 

If we generally, as a society, believed that having been involuntary committed, or committed a crime that resulted in loss of freedom also meant that your judgment was suspect and you should not be allowed access to firearms, I believe it would reduce these episodes. This would not even require changing a lot of laws - it is using social pressure (basically, the "free market" model) to acheive the desired end - i.e. less gun violence. Which I would hope is a desired endpoint even for fervent guns rights advocates.

The big difference, I think, is that, unlike alcohol, the gun lobby staunchly and unwaveringly defends the position that guns are not, in and of themselves, dangerous at all. That is it only the user who is dangerous, and that there is no merit whatsoever to the suggestion that fewer guns will have any effect on the amount of gun violence. If anything, they and others (like JC in Cinci above, for example) frequently suggest that, if only there were more people with guns that tragedies like this one, or Colorado, or VA Tech or Columbine might have been prevented. The liquor lobby (to the extent that there is one), at least cops to the fact that alcohol when used irresponsibly, can have dangerous and even deadly consequences and they say so publicly, even in forums that are not necessarily targeted specifically to drinkers (“Please drink responsibly” appears on every beer commercial, regardless of when it runs, etc.) By contrast, the gun lobby seems to me to take the approach that every gun owner is a responsible citizen enjoying his constitutionally-protected right to bear arms, and, it seems to me, that any discussion of limiting that right in any way, outside of banning military weapons and certain ammunition or modifications, is pretty much a non-starter. I’ve never seen an ad from the NRA or any other pro-gun group on any broad public medium saying something similar about guns.

How many liquor ads do you see in the course of a day... how many Remington ads do you see in the course of a day? Just because you do not see it, does not mean it is not said. It is said plenty, and it held up by the NRA of the responsible things gun owners should do... beside donating to the NRA.

Here's the thing... buying a gun does not automatically turn one into a homicidal maniac. Right? But now anti-gun people want to go the route of consumer protections and public safety. That it is a heath threat to have guns. A threat to public safety.

Same thing... alcohol... has MOUNTAIN RANGES of data that shows in fact it's very use will turn otherwise responsible adults into wildly unpredictable people. Capable of reckless, dangerous, and violent behavior. It is a HUGE public safety problem.... domestic violence, lost time and production at work, criminal acts, DUI... where is the public outcry for stricter control laws? Where is the consumer protection agency, where is the CDC, where is the protest and endless debate by the talking heads every time someone dies at the hands of another under the influence of alcohol... that actually happen much much more that firearms BTW?

When fans are beaten after a game by other drunk fans... where is the protest to stop selling alcohol at sporting events.... oh ya, there isn't any... because lots of people enjoy getting plowed at sporting events and can accept the public safety issue alcohol brings.

That's how I see it. If I was a witness to a person being killed and I was armed.... well, tough call. Even unarmed, I would try to do "something" to stop it.

In a mass public shooting and I was armed... as much as people like to talk about CCW people stopping such an attack... sorry, that is not why I want a CCW. I want one to increase my chance of me going home to my wife every night and providing for my family, not to be an ill trained off duty police officer. If I have cover, I'm going to remain there. Start shooting, now I am in a gun fight with a rifle and my pistol at long distance... bad bad decision.

There was the lady at the New Life Church that got that shooter... she was a security guard, but was off duty, and it was not getting better, and she had an opportunity. It all depends.

i didn't look through all the examples on that page, but a few of them could have easily escalated had the civilian not used their weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre

read the "Consequences" part of the following page. i wonder how this may have turned out if the concealed carry laws were already in place. 

Tony, seriously, that the point though. Gun are not a consumer product. It isn't a civil privilege. We can restrict and ban those things all we want. The 2a is a right, that no government can take away. Are you trying to be so obtuse you can't see that?

So then please tell me.... what gun control laws would you like to see, that would actually stop violent acts from happening?

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 9:54 AM (First off: Yes, yes, I understand that guns are constitutionally protected and cigarettes/ booze/whatever are not, so it’s not exactly apples to apples, but indulge me for a second&hellip

gearboy - 2012-12-12 9:38 AM

It's not that I am not a firearms fan (I think that target shooting and skeet shooting look like a lot of fun. And I don't think we could have an unarmed police force the way they do in England). But I think the best fix would be a change in how the discussion is framed. 

It is not realistic to turn back the clock and somehow have a lot less firearms in circulation. But maybe a better analogy is not to look at a Prohibition model, but the drunk driving model. Look, alcohol is still legal. You can own as much as you want (after 21), and drink all you want as well. And not that long ago, no one really thought twice about going to the bars and drinking, and then hopping into the car and driving home. Today, most people at least acknowledge that is a bad idea, and will either plan a designated driver, or to take a cab. What changed? The national discussion. MADD and similar groups did not talk about banning alcohol. They got us to be aware of the statistics of harm, and made it socially unacceptable to drink and drive. We also don't generally consider drinking at lunch to be acceptable if we are going back to work in the afternoon (the fabled "3 martini lunch"). Yes it still happens, but less often, and with more social approbation.

I think a similar approach could work with firearms. I know of people who think that being banned from owning/using firearms due to a history of involuntary commitment or incarceration is stupid, and will themselves purchase a firearm with the intent of allowing someone not allowed to use it to do so. In at least two cases I am aware of, this resulted in a death. 

If we generally, as a society, believed that having been involuntary committed, or committed a crime that resulted in loss of freedom also meant that your judgment was suspect and you should not be allowed access to firearms, I believe it would reduce these episodes. This would not even require changing a lot of laws - it is using social pressure (basically, the "free market" model) to acheive the desired end - i.e. less gun violence. Which I would hope is a desired endpoint even for fervent guns rights advocates.

The big difference, I think, is that, unlike alcohol, the gun lobby staunchly and unwaveringly defends the position that guns are not, in and of themselves, dangerous at all. That is it only the user who is dangerous, and that there is no merit whatsoever to the suggestion that fewer guns will have any effect on the amount of gun violence. If anything, they and others (like JC in Cinci above, for example) frequently suggest that, if only there were more people with guns that tragedies like this one, or Colorado, or VA Tech or Columbine might have been prevented. The liquor lobby (to the extent that there is one), at least cops to the fact that alcohol when used irresponsibly, can have dangerous and even deadly consequences and they say so publicly, even in forums that are not necessarily targeted specifically to drinkers (“Please drink responsibly” appears on every beer commercial, regardless of when it runs, etc.) By contrast, the gun lobby seems to me to take the approach that every gun owner is a responsible citizen enjoying his constitutionally-protected right to bear arms, and, it seems to me, that any discussion of limiting that right in any way, outside of banning military weapons and certain ammunition or modifications, is pretty much a non-starter. I’ve never seen an ad from the NRA or any other pro-gun group on any broad public medium saying something similar about guns.

I think the difference here is the intent.

If I have one too many and decide to drive home anyway, I am not intending to cause an accident, I am not intending to cause bodily injury or property damage. But the likelihood of an accident does go up which is why there is a law against it and why the beer commercials asks you to be responsible.

We are not talking about a gun accident here. We are talking about an intentional act of murder. There is no way to murder responsibly. 

Your argument would work for me if this news story was about a tragic accidental shooting. And if I had ever seen a gun commercial and we had lots of accidents then yes they could say please get trained and use responsibly. But this story was not an accident. Kind of a given that the gun lobby doesn't want you to go out and intentionally kill someone. 

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 11:54 AM (First off: Yes, yes, I understand that guns are constitutionally protected and cigarettes/ booze/whatever are not, so it’s not exactly apples to apples, but indulge me for a second&hellip

gearboy - 2012-12-12 9:38 AM

It's not that I am not a firearms fan (I think that target shooting and skeet shooting look like a lot of fun. And I don't think we could have an unarmed police force the way they do in England). But I think the best fix would be a change in how the discussion is framed. 

It is not realistic to turn back the clock and somehow have a lot less firearms in circulation. But maybe a better analogy is not to look at a Prohibition model, but the drunk driving model. Look, alcohol is still legal. You can own as much as you want (after 21), and drink all you want as well. And not that long ago, no one really thought twice about going to the bars and drinking, and then hopping into the car and driving home. Today, most people at least acknowledge that is a bad idea, and will either plan a designated driver, or to take a cab. What changed? The national discussion. MADD and similar groups did not talk about banning alcohol. They got us to be aware of the statistics of harm, and made it socially unacceptable to drink and drive. We also don't generally consider drinking at lunch to be acceptable if we are going back to work in the afternoon (the fabled "3 martini lunch"). Yes it still happens, but less often, and with more social approbation.

I think a similar approach could work with firearms. I know of people who think that being banned from owning/using firearms due to a history of involuntary commitment or incarceration is stupid, and will themselves purchase a firearm with the intent of allowing someone not allowed to use it to do so. In at least two cases I am aware of, this resulted in a death. 

If we generally, as a society, believed that having been involuntary committed, or committed a crime that resulted in loss of freedom also meant that your judgment was suspect and you should not be allowed access to firearms, I believe it would reduce these episodes. This would not even require changing a lot of laws - it is using social pressure (basically, the "free market" model) to acheive the desired end - i.e. less gun violence. Which I would hope is a desired endpoint even for fervent guns rights advocates.

The big difference, I think, is that, unlike alcohol, the gun lobby staunchly and unwaveringly defends the position that guns are not, in and of themselves, dangerous at all. That is it only the user who is dangerous, and that there is no merit whatsoever to the suggestion that fewer guns will have any effect on the amount of gun violence. If anything, they and others (like JC in Cinci above, for example) frequently suggest that, if only there were more people with guns that tragedies like this one, or Colorado, or VA Tech or Columbine might have been prevented. The liquor lobby (to the extent that there is one), at least cops to the fact that alcohol when used irresponsibly, can have dangerous and even deadly consequences and they say so publicly, even in forums that are not necessarily targeted specifically to drinkers (“Please drink responsibly” appears on every beer commercial, regardless of when it runs, etc.) By contrast, the gun lobby seems to me to take the approach that every gun owner is a responsible citizen enjoying his constitutionally-protected right to bear arms, and, it seems to me, that any discussion of limiting that right in any way, outside of banning military weapons and certain ammunition or modifications, is pretty much a non-starter. I’ve never seen an ad from the NRA or any other pro-gun group on any broad public medium saying something similar about guns.

What is interesting to me is that when I was growing up (in the last century), I thought of the NRA primarily as an organization that was focused on teaching gun safety (for all purposes - hunting, self defense, target shooting). It seems that it became more of a political entity focused on the most extreme positions some time later. Maybe I was just naiive in my youth? Can anyone else see a change in the role of the NRA in the last 50-60 years?

If they were doing what I thought they did in my youth, they would indeed be promoting the use of guns but also the safety isses (e.g. "guns are serious business and should always been treated as loaded. Please handle responsibly") instead of the more common approach of "The democrats are coming to take our guns away!" that they seem to be associated with now.

And kind of a given that you shouldn't drink and drive. Yet, although it should go without saying, the liquor industry routinely now puts "Please drink responsibly" on their ads. Where are the NRA ads offering a similar comment. Saying it should go without saying, or that it is "kind of a given" is not the same as saying it.

gearboy - 2012-12-12 10:17 AM

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 11:54 AM (First off: Yes, yes, I understand that guns are constitutionally protected and cigarettes/ booze/whatever are not, so it’s not exactly apples to apples, but indulge me for a second&hellip

gearboy - 2012-12-12 9:38 AM

It's not that I am not a firearms fan (I think that target shooting and skeet shooting look like a lot of fun. And I don't think we could have an unarmed police force the way they do in England). But I think the best fix would be a change in how the discussion is framed. 

It is not realistic to turn back the clock and somehow have a lot less firearms in circulation. But maybe a better analogy is not to look at a Prohibition model, but the drunk driving model. Look, alcohol is still legal. You can own as much as you want (after 21), and drink all you want as well. And not that long ago, no one really thought twice about going to the bars and drinking, and then hopping into the car and driving home. Today, most people at least acknowledge that is a bad idea, and will either plan a designated driver, or to take a cab. What changed? The national discussion. MADD and similar groups did not talk about banning alcohol. They got us to be aware of the statistics of harm, and made it socially unacceptable to drink and drive. We also don't generally consider drinking at lunch to be acceptable if we are going back to work in the afternoon (the fabled "3 martini lunch"). Yes it still happens, but less often, and with more social approbation.

I think a similar approach could work with firearms. I know of people who think that being banned from owning/using firearms due to a history of involuntary commitment or incarceration is stupid, and will themselves purchase a firearm with the intent of allowing someone not allowed to use it to do so. In at least two cases I am aware of, this resulted in a death. 

If we generally, as a society, believed that having been involuntary committed, or committed a crime that resulted in loss of freedom also meant that your judgment was suspect and you should not be allowed access to firearms, I believe it would reduce these episodes. This would not even require changing a lot of laws - it is using social pressure (basically, the "free market" model) to acheive the desired end - i.e. less gun violence. Which I would hope is a desired endpoint even for fervent guns rights advocates.

The big difference, I think, is that, unlike alcohol, the gun lobby staunchly and unwaveringly defends the position that guns are not, in and of themselves, dangerous at all. That is it only the user who is dangerous, and that there is no merit whatsoever to the suggestion that fewer guns will have any effect on the amount of gun violence. If anything, they and others (like JC in Cinci above, for example) frequently suggest that, if only there were more people with guns that tragedies like this one, or Colorado, or VA Tech or Columbine might have been prevented. The liquor lobby (to the extent that there is one), at least cops to the fact that alcohol when used irresponsibly, can have dangerous and even deadly consequences and they say so publicly, even in forums that are not necessarily targeted specifically to drinkers (“Please drink responsibly” appears on every beer commercial, regardless of when it runs, etc.) By contrast, the gun lobby seems to me to take the approach that every gun owner is a responsible citizen enjoying his constitutionally-protected right to bear arms, and, it seems to me, that any discussion of limiting that right in any way, outside of banning military weapons and certain ammunition or modifications, is pretty much a non-starter. I’ve never seen an ad from the NRA or any other pro-gun group on any broad public medium saying something similar about guns.

What is interesting to me is that when I was growing up (in the last century), I thought of the NRA primarily as an organization that was focused on teaching gun safety (for all purposes - hunting, self defense, target shooting). It seems that it became more of a political entity focused on the most extreme positions some time later. Maybe I was just naiive in my youth? Can anyone else see a change in the role of the NRA in the last 50-60 years?

If they were doing what I thought they did in my youth, they would indeed be promoting the use of guns but also the safety isses (e.g. "guns are serious business and should always been treated as loaded. Please handle responsibly") instead of the more common approach of "The democrats are coming to take our guns away!" that they seem to be associated with now.

Most likely a change in the news you pay attention to or the recent big wins for the NRA in the court system. They are still heavily involved in gun safety and training. My wife and I just finished a day long course in CCW from a certified NRA gun safety instructor. 

I know they still do that - but it seems their PRIMARY mission has changed from training to advocacy.

My point was that you people (yep, I said it) who don't like guns say "Look at all the Death and Destruction from guns!!!"

My point is that it is ill-pointed attention at guns since gun deaths are not even a top-10 killer.  

It's also funny how we're up to 5 pages of arguing over gun control when we know nothing about the shooter.  Was he carrying legally?  Are there If there were better laws, would it stop him from carrying illegally? 

A gun is as safe as a car until it's put in the hands of the wrong person or the right person doing the wrong thing.

When was the last time you saw an NRA ad? I watch a decent amount of football and I haven't seen any.

And sorry but everyone drinks and drives. One beer with dinner then a drive home is drinking and driving. However I have never tried to murder someone with a gun.