3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon (Page 9)

I agree with that.  I spent the better part of my life two weeks ago chasing down two AR-15's that were stolen in a burglary.  We had an idea it was a group we were already looking at for prior burglaries, and knowing they may have those guns was unsettling to us.  Personally, I was pretty pizzed off at the victim of the burglary for leaving those weapons just laying in his closet.

Yeah, I agree that you should be able to keep your property anywhere in your home without fear of it being stolen, but that's not the world we live in.  

I agree 100% that gun owners need to always be vigilant in keeping their guns locked away when not in use or being carried....or being "ready".

It would never occur to me to leave my guns out where they could be stolen......it's a HUGE problem...and easily fixed.  That's as far as I will go with "gun control"....personal responsibility.

Well, you said it, so tell me how we make that happen?  We have roughly 400,000,000 guns "out there".....how would you reduce that number?

You mean like locked up inside someones house?  Like the person had to break the law and break into the house and steal it.  What is locked up safely?  Should a person not expect having possions in thier locked house, considered safe?

Possessing firearms requires greater responsibility by the owner. 

When my husband purchased guns, I wouldn't let them in the house till he bought a gun cabinet that he could bolt to the floor. 

^^^^this

I don't know

we start with much longer waiting periods - 10 days is ridiculously short. We need standardization across the country, since the right to bear arms is in the constitution it should be ruled by federal law not state law IMO.

And yes stricter licensing. Maybe even with psychiatric evaluation.

And I do NOT feel that auto/semi auto weapons belong  in the hands of untrained people.

I know some states require training just to have a handgun - I think ALL states should do that.

and yes you should be required to lock them in a box/cabinet.  way too many accidents

I'm certainly in the same mindset as far as locking them up.  All of my firearms and ammo are locked securely in safes that are all bolted to the floor.  That being said somebody with a pry bar could likely "unbolt" any of my safes and carry them off knowing there was "something" valuable in there.

Even in my car I have a small personal safe to put my handgun in when necessary, but somebody could steal my car and pry the safe open in probably just a few minutes.

So, safes are a deterrent, but they won't stop thefts completely.  Kind of like me locking my front door is a deterrent, but it won't stop everyone.

That being said I do agree that people should make some attempt to lock up their firearms but I don't know how I'd go about that.  You can do it with training and recommendations but obviously that will only get you so far.  You could require it by law but how could you ever enforce that with the 4th amendment.  The nuclear option would be to hold the owner criminally responsible for their stolen gun, but that would never be allowed.

How I figure is this... what was said is "If the officer’s intention was not to kill the person, he/she shouldn't have been shooting at them in the first place"  What the he!! kind of logic is that?  By that reasoning every single officer involved shooting should end up with a dead aggressor.

I'm not sure what academy you went too, but I'd be pretty sure that most don't teach an officer that they should intend to kill someone if they fire their weapon... they are taught that death is a likely outcome but it is NOT the intention.  

The former means that an officer would be taught that when they fire their weapon they should continue to fire until the aggressor is likely dead regardless of the threat imposed by the aggressor.  The latter implies that, when justified, you should fire your weapon until the aggressor is no longer a threat.  They are two very, very different things.  

What I'm trying to get across is that the intention to fire a weapon at someone should NEVER be to kill them.  The difference is critical.  If you intend to kill someone then you will regardless of the threat posed by the aggressor.  If you intend to stop the aggression then you stop when the threat is removed. 

BTW.. I was giving the shooter the benefit of the doubt and didn't want to imply that they'd miss their target when they fired the weapon, thus the flinch.  My point remains the same... yes I'd aim and fire center mass all the time every time.  However, I understand that in that high stress environment the shot may not hit dead center.  I'd also contend that I would still stop firing when the threat was removed... that may mean the aggressor is dead, it may mean that they are on the ground with a hole or two in them.  Either way doesn't matter to me.

See that is where we agree but you just don't see it.  First; if you fire 1,2,3 whatever that DOES NOT mean that the person is dead or will die... simply doesn't.  If you INTENDED to kill them then you would go over and put one in his skull until he has stopped breathing.  If you intend to stop the threat then you stop when the threat is removed... what happens from there is anyone's guess, but if the guy is still breathing then he isn't dead, and if you don't put one in his skull after that then you don't INTEND to kill him.

You really don't know anything about guns, do you?  I don't mean for that to come across as it may, I'm just giving my perception of something that seems blatantly obvious.  You need to understand that not a single one of the controls you just listed would stop 99% of the guns purchased in this country from being purchased.  There would also not be a single decrease in the 400,000,000 guns already "out there" despite your desire for fewer guns. Do you know the difference between a full auto weapon and a semi-auto weapon?  Again, if it's just ignorance I'll explain it to you, lots of people don't know.

I have found that the majority of people who are against guns or want more control over guns are not comfortable with them.....for a variety of reasons, but mostly because they don't know anything about them and it scares them. 

Why don't YOU go take a gun safety class.....you don't even have to fire a gun, just go become familiar with the terms, the weapons, and the idea that the gun itself is a pretty safe instrument.  For instance, a semi-auto pistol in someone's house is MUCH safer than a revolver if there are children around because of the many ways you can disable it, but still keep it ready to fire in short order.  There's more.....MUCH more. 

If all you are going to offer is emotion than you won't be taken seriously by gun owners......I'm just saying.

You sound very scared.

I personally don't believe wait periods do anything.  I know it's hard to "prove" that a cooling off period prevented a shooting, but typically what I've seen in crimes of passion or suicide the person already has the gun and doesn't go out and purposely buy the gun to do the deed.  I remember the tragic case where a lady went to a gun range and rented a gun that she used to kill her son and herself.  Bad people will always find way.

I can't even imagine the "standard" that would be brought up for a psychological evaluation.  I know on the surface it sounds good, but the reality of it would be really difficult to implement and easily faked.  "have you ever had thoughts of shooting people in a mall?"  um, no I haven't - Pass

I'm all for gun safety training and think everyone should take it, but it shouldn't be required to own a gun.  Also I'd rather somebody who plans to go shoot up a mall have as little training as possible.  If he's forced by the government to take sharpshooting and tactical training he'll just kill more people.
Also, semi auto guns are no different than any other gun.  I've got a six shooter revolver and a semi auto handgun.  They both do just as much damage and I can shoot them almost as fast.  The only difference is I can reload the semi-auto a lot faster.

I do agree they should be locked up, but I'm just not sure how to go about mandating/enforcing that one per my previous post.

I agree here.  When you look at the VT shooter or Columbine or Batman theater, these guys bought their weapons weeks to months before they plotted to do what they were doing.  10 days was nothing.  The VT shooter had bought his something like 6 months prior.

That's all semantics.  We are trained to shoot into areas of the body that will cause death.....because that's the best way to stop the aggression.  We do't even shoot center mass anymore.....we moved the circle up so our officers would get used to shooting into an area with more vital organs.  And, of course, the head.  All "bad guy scenarios" end with at least one round to the head.  You can call it whatever you want. 

I know in the military they always taught us to shoot until the threat was eliminated.  Kind of like I believe you mentioned earlier if you shoot somebody in the shoulder (intentional or not) and they drop to the ground reeling in pain then the threat is eliminated at that point and there would be no need to continue shooting.  Now there's a huge grey area there so it's not like you'd necessarily go to jail if you kept shooting, but there are limits.

There was a case a few years back of a guy working at a pharmacy and two guys came in to rob him with a gun.  The worker rightfully shot one of the robbers and chased the other one out of the store.  Both were perfectly legal uses of force.  The worker then came back into the store and shot the unconscious guy on the floor five times.  He was charged with and convicted of 1st degree murder and I totally agree with the conviction.

Here's a news story on it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHshsgpsxFg

psych testing is a little more involved that just asking an obvious question. 

Yes I am aware of the difference between full auto and semi auto. 

No I am not afraid. I am a paintball player - that is as close to firing a gun as I will get.

They are nothing alike and most of your posts sound like you are afraid of guns (and you won’t shoot them) and that’s why you want the changes.

It's just target practice....don't make too big a deal out of it....there's not much of an argument going on.  I think I've made it pretty clear that I almost never have a gun if I'm not working.  I have no problem giving my guns back.....as long as everyone on the planet does.

Exactly my point.  He (the store guy) intended to kill the other person, and he did.  That is, and always will be murder.  As it should be, LE or Civ.

But if he would have shot the guy 20 times before he ran out of the store and came back in it would have been fine.  Just saying.

Actually I think the "arguing" is over semantics, not the best way to shoot people.  

A semi auto handgun can also hold a clip with more bullets. So while each individual bullet may pack the same punch, and you might well shoot them about as fast, the fact is that your semi will also need reloading a lot less. It may be more prone to jamming, but in most cases, the damage you can do, especially if you get an extended clip, is going to be more.

No it wouldn't.  I'm not saying that their isn't a grey area here, all I'm saying is that if someone says their intention is to kill someone, and then acts that intention out by firing 20 rounds or shooting someone lying on the floor there is a pretty good chance that person is going to face murder charges.

But as long as that person says, "I fired until I thought the threat was gone" it's fine.  Again, semantics.  The word you should have underlined is SAYS....not intention.  This kind of stuff drives anti-gun people crazy.....I know why.