Oregon CC shooting

[jazyd]

different reports but looks like maybe 13-15 dead and 20 wounded. shooter is dead. Supposedly asked people to stand and give their religion and then opened fire anyway.

Of course the liberals and parents want more gun laws, evidently they dont' know we already have 20,000 on the books now and of course Oregon is strict on guns as a liberal state. I never see they demand more to be spent on mental health care instead of it being cut year after year. Or to actual hold criminals accountable for their guns, or gang members who the law knows who they are and where they are. Its always the law abiding gun owner who is targeted.

I pray for the families who lost students or teachers today. I have no idea the motive of the shooter at this time but I am betting he is a head case whether he 'thought' he was a Christian, atheist, or Muslim or something else. Life meant nothing to him obviously nor did his life. Glad he is dead, can't hurt anyone else again.

[Darrell KSR]

Good thing it was a gun free zone.

[KeithKSR]

Good thing it was a gun free zone.

Never ceases to amaze me how people expect more laws will prevent crimes. Laws only impact the law abiding citizens.

[bigsky]

ONE security officer--unarmed.

Pictures of IRA on his Facebook page--religion described by him on a dating site as "spiritual not religious".

Handguns and One "long gun" which could be anything. What effective gun law is Mr Obama proposing?

[CitizenBBN]

I find it interesting that Obama chose to comment immediately on this shooting, but has avoided commenting on the cops being gunned down by, well, GUNS. Those shootings don't warrant more gun laws?

Another senseless tragedy, but also yet another one in a "gun free zone" with no security.

I'd love to pass a magic law where we didn't disarm the nation yet could just keep lunatics from having anything more dangerous than a nail file, but there is no such law. I'll wait to see what comes out in the details about this person, his mental health, his access to firearms, etc.

I'm sick of seeing this stuff, but Obama's answers are tired and failed. I'll be interested to see how the mental health angle plays out, if there was something there that could have been done. Maybe not, sometimes there isn't.

[bigsky]

Don Lemon said something about "keeping guns for hunting and fishing". Guns for fishing? Clueless

[dan_bgblue]

Don Lemon said something about "keeping guns for hunting and fishing". Guns for fishing? Clueless

As a Mythbusters fan, I would like to mention the episode where they examined the "shooting fish in a barrel" saying. ;-)

[suncat05]

With the 2nd Amendment liberties that we enjoy, there is also a price to be paid for them. These types of incidents are that price.
The shooter is dead, having chosen to shoot it out with police. So, in a sense, justice has been served. And of note, the Sheriff of this county, Douglas County, has gone on record as saying he WILL NOT enforce any laws that constrain an individual's right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amendment.
Oregon is a very, very strange place, Constitutionally speaking. For the most part, those people out there are very, very liberal, except for their 2nd Amendment rights. They do value their gun rights out there, and overwhelmingly. So, in a sense, we have a Constitutional paradox in Oregon.
In our country today, we have a need for way more protections for our school children(even college age kids, too!), and therefore, we really should consider placing more well trained, responsible, well armed individuals in our schools to protect our kids. Period. But these damn "gun free zones" are no more than death traps for our kids. But until we end this nonsense, our kids will keep dying because of this liberalism that doesn't truly value them over senseless ideals that have been proven over and over again to be failed and dangerous for our children. JMHO.

[bigsky]

A "gun free zone" is an invitation for murder. ONE security guard, unarmed, for the campus is a ridiculous policy.

Note, Bearcat urban assault vehicle fans, that two cops "ran into the burning building" and shot
it out. Waiting for the Bearcat or SRT wouldve resulted in many more casualties.

Brave Cops doing their jobs.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I find it interesting that Obama chose to comment immediately on this shooting, but has avoided commenting on the cops being gunned down by, well, GUNS. Those shootings don't warrant more gun laws?

Another senseless tragedy, but also yet another one in a "gun free zone" with no security.

I'd love to pass a magic law where we didn't disarm the nation yet could just keep lunatics from having anything more dangerous than a nail file, but there is no such law. I'll wait to see what comes out in the details about this person, his mental health, his access to firearms, etc.

I'm sick of seeing this stuff, but Obama's answers are tired and failed. I'll be interested to see how the mental health angle plays out, if there was something there that could have been done. Maybe not, sometimes there isn't.

Me too.

My question is when are we, as a nation, going to consider mental illness a true threat to national security and allocate funds appropriately? We've been able to protect our nation from an outside threat of mass killings, but we've failed miserably to protect ourselves from one another. We're killing each other WAY more than the enemy is killing ourselves.

It's just wrong.

[jazyd]

I find it interesting that Obama chose to comment immediately on this shooting, but has avoided commenting on the cops being gunned down by, well, GUNS. Those shootings don't warrant more gun laws?

Another senseless tragedy, but also yet another one in a "gun free zone" with no security.

I'd love to pass a magic law where we didn't disarm the nation yet could just keep lunatics from having anything more dangerous than a nail file, but there is no such law. I'll wait to see what comes out in the details about this person, his mental health, his access to firearms, etc.

I'm sick of seeing this stuff, but Obama's answers are tired and failed. I'll be interested to see how the mental health angle plays out, if there was something there that could have been done. Maybe not, sometimes there isn't.

Citizen, mential health does not help the liberal agenda even though they at the federal level and state level keep cutting funding back for mental health. The guy was a wacko, busted out of the army just months into his service. His mom said he sought mental help, now how far or if he got it I have no idea yet. The Conn shooter's mom said she tried often to get him in a hospital but couldn't. The Col shooter was a nutcase but his doctor was not allowed to tell authorities what she knew. Just how far should we protect the mental health person vs the country?

Remember the former chief of staff for Obama said to never let a tradegy go wasted, always use it to promote your agenda.

And for me I am tired of Lebron James and his BS. First it was the shirt about black lives matter and now he says there should be NO guns for anyone. Why does he never talk about the black on black crime, the gangs full of blacks who kill, the blacks who kill cops. Same deal with obama, never mentions Chicago and the 900 a year that are murdered there, do they not matter? Baltimore? Washington DC?

We have what 20,000 gun laws at the federal and state levesl, how about enforcing them instead of all the liberal judges who keep letting these thugs and gangs out of jail. How about funding mental health instead of adding 25 million to the food stamp roles, or adding more and more to the welfare roles, or giving away free phones and minutes, or increasing my favorite..the EARNED income tax credit.

[bigsky]

It's common knowledge that campuses and public schools are gun free zones with lots of targets. Nobody who wants to shoot people has to "drive around and hunt for" these institutions.

Further, no "gun registration" effort will identify "evil" adults or "school shooter" adults. Most guns used in these shooting are legally acquired and enhanced background checks would provide no additional protection.

"Hardening targets" seems to be a legitimate response given the history of these gun free zones.

Right now the guidance on campus is, "run, hide, fight". If the first two fail, how is facing a shooter with only a textbook in hand the best answer we have to these events?
m

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Every time an incident like this happens, everybody wants to bring up Chicago, and most people don't have a clue what's going on in this city. First of all, we're nearly 2 years in on conceal and carry and it's done nothing one way or the other to change the nature of crime life.

Also, there's a misconception that law enforcement isn't doing enough to stop the crime. That could be further from the truth. They've tried everything including bringing in the national guard. It doesn't work because they're not getting to the core of the problem, fixing the culture.

IMO, there's only one solution to fixing Chicago. Relocation and demolition. Start with the most dangerous areas, compensate property owners, help law abiding families relocate, seize the property and tear it all down. Almost like what we do when we bomb foreign targets. Give the warning to evacuate, destroy and rebuild. As the city continues to develop southward, sell the property to the highest bidders and use the funds to meet the pension obligations of cops and firefighters. Chicago has had success with past relocation efforts in the past, so they should do it again. It's most likely going to eventually happen, but delaying it will make it much more costly.

Doubling law enforcement does nothing, except increase future pension liabilities that the city can meet anyway.

Unlike many think, though, this a completely separate issue. Gang related crime, minorities killing minorities is nothing compared to what is happening with these mass killings. They're equal in the devastation and effect on innocent lives, but couldn't be anything more related in their cause. Using similar approaches to solve, and doing those poorly, is no way to fix either problem.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

It's common knowledge that campuses and public schools are gun free zones with lots of targets. Nobody who wants to shoot people has to "drive around and hunt for" these institutions.

Further, no "gun registration" effort will identify "evil" adults or "school shooter" adults. Most guns used in these shooting are legally acquired and enhanced background checks would provide no additional protection.

"Hardening targets" seems to be a legitimate response given the history of these gun free zones.

Right now the guidance on campus is, "run, hide, fight". If the first two fail, how is facing a shooter with only a textbook in hand the best answer we have to these events?
m

I both agree and disagree with that statement. I agree with it in the aspect of adding additional background checks under current scenarios will do nothing to curb the problem.

I disagree though from the perspective that common sense ideas, favored by a majority of gun owners, were implemented would have an effect of enhanced background checks keeping guns out of the hands of the type of individuals that are committing these senseless acts. These type of ideas would do nothing to impact the ability of mentally capable, law abiding citizens the right to bear arms. I completely support the 2nd amendment, but it never defines process, and because of that we have to constantly evolve our laws and enforcement to protect.

Process is something that should always be reevaluated. As a country, we've lost our way, focusing on certain parts of our Constitution and forgetting the core principle as stated in the Preamble, "to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare". On this topic, and many others, we as a nation our failing ourselves. We're becoming a nation of cowards that would rather blame than problem solve, and what is scary is that too many people are OK with that.

[CitizenBBN]

Every time an incident like this happens, everybody wants to bring up Chicago, and most people don't have a clue what's going on in this city. First of all, we're nearly 2 years in on conceal and carry and it's done nothing one way or the other to change the nature of crime life.

Chicago is so far from concealed carry they might as well still have a ban in place. The city has done everything possible to insure that the people in areas that most need to defend themselves can't get a gun and carry it.

Things like banning carry on public transportation. Well most poor people rely on that service, so if they can't legally carry there they effectively can't carry outside the house. No more concealed carry for those folks.

They require a $100 per year fee plus the application plus the other stuff to have one, per gun. They've thrown up every roadblock possible. The percentage of carriers in Chicago is so low compared to a "real" carry state/city that I have no doubt it's made no difference.

Gang related killings are far from equal to these lunatic random shootings. there are more gang/drug related murders and shootings in a week or two versus all the lunatic shooting sprees in a year. it's not even close. There are more gang/drug killings a year in Chicago alone (not to pick on Chicago, other than the irony of their gun laws) than the total number of these mass shooting murders, much less nation wide.

There are more than a thousand of those murders a year in the US, some say as many as 2 thousand, compared to 100 maybe of these spree killings? Of course the spree killings scare people more b/c they are random. Most people figure they aren't in a gang or dealing heroin so those other murders aren't a threat to them, but these lunatics can strike anywhere. That's the basic principle behind all terrorism of course.

I do agree 100% that all the cops or troops on earth won't fix the problem, and the problem is cultural. It's a natural offspring of 60 years of the victim society and government regulation, in this case the war on drugs.

[CitizenBBN]

I both agree and disagree with that statement. I agree with it in the aspect of adding additional background checks under current scenarios will do nothing to curb the problem.

I disagree though from the perspective that common sense ideas, favored by a majority of gun owners, were implemented would have an effect of enhanced background checks keeping guns out of the hands of the type of individuals that are committing these senseless acts. These type of ideas would do nothing to impact the ability of mentally capable, law abiding citizens the right to bear arms. I completely support the 2nd amendment, but it never defines process, and because of that we have to constantly evolve our laws and enforcement to protect.

Process is something that should always be reevaluated. As a country, we've lost our way, focusing on certain parts of our Constitution and forgetting the core principle as stated in the Preamble, "to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare". On this topic, and many others, we as a nation our failing ourselves. We're becoming a nation of cowards that would rather blame than problem solve, and what is scary is that too many people are OK with that.

I"m curious what "common sense" solutions we're discussing. Not saying there aren't some out there, there are, but usually those words are a preamble to some very nonsensical ideas from the anti-gun groups.

Not sure about which ones a majority of gun owners really support. I'm pretty tied to every level of the gun owning community and if there is one thing that cuts across all of them, and a growing number of non-gun owners, it's a fundamental fear of government and what they will do with the information they seem to want to gather on us in every way, including our gun ownership.

[CitizenBBN]

It's common knowledge that campuses and public schools are gun free zones with lots of targets. Nobody who wants to shoot people has to "drive around and hunt for" these institutions.

Further, no "gun registration" effort will identify "evil" adults or "school shooter" adults. Most guns used in these shooting are legally acquired and enhanced background checks would provide no additional protection.

"Hardening targets" seems to be a legitimate response given the history of these gun free zones.

Right now the guidance on campus is, "run, hide, fight". If the first two fail, how is facing a shooter with only a textbook in hand the best answer we have to these events?
m

It's no coincidence so many 'gun free zone' signs are white and red. They just need to make them circular and it would be very accurate.

Only three choices right now that would make any real difference in the number of these events and the death toll:

1) Ban and collect all guns. Anything short of that is a piss in the ocean. these people rarely have criminal records, they'll meet the requirements or their friends or family will and they will simply borrow or steal those guns.

2) psych screening of all gun owners, the most invasive government push into controlling us since the nation's founding.

3) Turn Gun free zones into gun welcome zones and harden all the softest targets with security and carry.

Not hard to guess which one I think is the most doable and effective.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I"m curious what "common sense" solutions we're discussing. Not saying there aren't some out there, there are, but usually those words are a preamble to some very nonsensical ideas from the anti-gun groups.

Not sure about which ones a majority of gun owners really support. I'm pretty tied to every level of the gun owning community and if there is one thing that cuts across all of them, and a growing number of non-gun owners, it's a fundamental fear of government and what they will do with the information they seem to want to gather on us in every way, including our gun ownership.

Gun show loopholes is a big one. I've seen recent polls that say as much as 85% of gun owners, 90% of all pollsters want required background checks consistent with any type of gun sales, including on the secondary market. Other high polling restrictions include restricting gun ownership for convicted juveniles, those convicted of domestic abuse, unlawfully displaying guns in public places. Also stricter punishments and mandatory sentences for those who sell to criminals is favored by a majority of gun owners. Assault Rifles is a little more split among gun owners, but still at about 50/50. For non-gun owners that number is obviously extremely high.

If all of these laws were passed, does it guarantee there will be no more mass killings? Absolutely not. However, does it create an environment that makes it less probable to happen? Of course. Will it infringe upon people's right to gun ownership? Of course not.

One comment about fear. No matter what the topic, fear is irrational. On this topic, fear is extremely irrational. The 2nd amendment isn't going away. It's not a binomial proposition or outcome. We've sacrificed some of our rights in the name of security in other instances, so I always have a tough time trying to reconcile why this is any different. It's just practicing some control, making sure that guns are in the hand of the right people. The fear on what the government is going to do with information collected, well we've moved way past that. Anyone with a cell phone, a laptop with an internet collection or other modern technologies are having way more information collected than anything that would come from additional background checks.

I don't want to get too detailed on gun control, because I feel like the solution is an 'all of the above' answer. Identifying and treating the mentally ill is a huge part of the problem, but once those people are identified, they shouldn't have any easy route to gun ownership.

I want to reiterate, though, we need to treat this topic as an issue of national security and commit the proper resources.

[CitizenBBN]

Well Stu I can about guarantee those "common sense" laws won't reduce the number of these incidents since not one of them in the last several years has ever bought a gun at a gun show. Why pass a law that does nothing to change the outcome?

I dispute that statistic, it's produced by anti-gun groups, but regardless what these last shootings all have in common is that the person in question could and did pass the background checks or had direct access to guns from someone who could and did pass them, even in states (like Sandy Hook) with very tough laws.

So why expand background checks that are being passed by those we're trying to prevent from having guns? That makes no sense at all, it's just throwing laws on the books and hoping they do something different. the definition of insanity.

Displaying guns in public? Oh please, that does nothing. Domestic violence? It's already illegal for anyone convicted of domestic violence to own a gun, has been for a long time.

I'm 100% for making it hard if not impossible for these people to be identified and not get access to guns, but the only thing on your list that does that is mental health evaluation and action.

In fact the background check system, the law of the GCA, already is set up to take care of it, IF we'd use the courts and mental health system to rule people mentally incompetent. That won't catch them all either, but that's more likely than just running checks these people will pass and in fact have repeatedly passed, or their relatives have passed and they just use those guns.

I'm all for doing something, but it has to be something that based on the facts of these cases will actually make a difference.

In fact I have no problem expanding background checks if that were something that would help, but since it doesn't seem that it is really a "loophole" of any consequence I see no reason to do it. I'd rather focus on something that can make a difference.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Gun shows aren't the only source of secondary market transactions. I'll admit, though, that I don't know enough about how guns were acquired in these killings, but I think we can all agree that they shouldn't have them, so the question is what do we do about it.

I'm going to assume your answer doesn't include an 'all of the above' solution.

Not sure why you want to dispute polling. Whoever is doing the polling shouldn't be an issue. If you want to debate methodology, then that's fine. Are you accusing them of masking non-gun owners as gun owners? Besides, I've seen Fox News Polls with similar findings. They're certainly not part of the anti-gun group.

I think you(and proponents of these common sense laws) and I have different definition of expanding background checks. I'm not saying to add additional hurdles. I'm saying that apply the same methodology across ALL transactions. Private and secondary transactions should require the same process. Currently, that's not the case.

You can almost liken this to the immigration problem. Most people are not anti-immigrants, but we want people to follow the same process to attain citizenship the right way. Gun ownership should be the same. There shouldn't be two ways for people to acquire guns.

[CitizenBBN]

These are the ways to acquire a gun:

1) Buy one from a FFL, which requires a background check (and that's true at gun shows as well, if you buy from a dealer anywhere you get checked and many selling at shows are dealers)

2) Buy one from another private person. These transactions also have federal rules, such as it's illegal to sell across state lines, and several states also have tough rules (Illinois has a bunch, California and others as well). But federally these are not subject to background checks.

3) Borrow one, with or without permission. This is a key for these kinds of crimes, b/c a) it's happened in multiple of these cases, and b) it's impossible to do much about them. Sandy Hook the kid got the gun from his mother, who legally owned them, same for several other shootings.

4) Get one through non-relational theft or the black market. I know of no mass shootings where this has been the case, these guys aren't criminals and don't operate in the black market. They do "steal", but it's from family or friends, which is why I made #3 above b/c it's kind of different. This is however how the vast majority of criminals get guns.

Here's a great study, a survey of actual criminals in jail done by CJIS, as to how criminals who used guns in crimes got them. Very few managed to sneak by the FFL/background check process, they got them from friends, direct theft or the black market. http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=940


As for what I want from checks, actually I would like to see "more hurdles" in the sense that I know a lot about the way NICS works and I know it's not nearly as good as it could be. Many states still do not report mental health and other offenses that would get them rejected for gun ownership. That's not changing the requirements, it's just getting the states to make the NICS database complete.

The reason many are against more checks are:

1) They are afraid of government. I know many gun owners who will not buy from FFLs at all b/c they dont' want records of their gun ownership. They arent' criminals, have no ill intent, they are afraid the government will eventually begin confiscation and don't want a record of their guns anywhere.

That sounds extreme to many, but that's exactly what was done in Jersey after the hurricane, and we've seen senior Senators and others call for exactly that action. Not saying it's likely, but I can't say they are wrong b/c I bet if you went back to the 1940s and told people all the laws we'd have today they'd be ill. Government is as you mentioned tracking all our calls, texts, internet access, etc. I'd say some paranoia in this case is in fact healthy for the nation.

2) Many "private transfers" of guns are in fact among family and friends, and they don't feel the government has a role deciding if that's OK. I'm weaker on this one, I think a father shouldn't have a right to give the family guns to his son if his son is a felon, but they are really just worried about the intrusion itself, not that they are giving guns to people who wouldn't pass.


I think if we changed the law so that transfers were subject to the check but the checks were never stored anywhere, that would help. Right now they have to be deleted from NICS after 48 hours, but honestly people don't trust that it's happening. Given what we see with the IRS scandal and Clinton's email repression as well as the Chinese hack and other things, I think those people have good cause to believe that the NSA may be storing it all or that it otherwise may be compromised through intention or poor IT systems.

But in the end all of this dances around the main point: almost every one of these people either would have or did pass the check. Their problems relate to their mental health and none of that information will be in NICS, so they won't be denied.

So we go back to the main issue, and the one that must be fixed before anything else matters: what to do about people who are a threat to others due to their mental state. B/c if we can't identify and acknowledge those people in any way in a database somewhere then there is nothing that all the background checks in the world can do to help. They depend on that information, and that information isn't being provided.

That's why NSSF (the main trade group for the gun industry) has been spending its own money for years now going state to state to get laws changed to submit more complete mental records to NICS, esp. mental competency records from courts.

here's the truth: The gun industry has done more to keep guns out of the hands of these people than the Obama Administration and the anti-gun groups. We want these shootings to stop more than anyone, they are the biggest threat to the 2nd Amendment.

So let's focus on getting mental health in this country improved and properly recording those who have been ruled a threat, b/c we already have the laws to make it hard for them to get guns, but not if we don't address mental health and reporting first.

[suncat05]

A "gun free zone" is an invitation for murder. ONE security guard, unarmed, for the campus is a ridiculous policy.

Note, Bearcat urban assault vehicle fans, that two cops "ran into the burning building" and shot
it out. Waiting for the Bearcat or SRT wouldve resulted in many more casualties.

Brave Cops doing their jobs.

Training takes over when events like this happen. That's why these guys run to the sound of the gunfire.
And it's not that they're fearless, because I can tell you from experience that fear is there, whispering to you that this might be bad, but you do it anyway, because if you can save even one life then the training and effort and the fear and the adrenaline rush and the actual event all become crystal clear in your mind, and all that matters is stopping whatever madness is happening.
We MUST confront evil wherever we find it, and crush it and destroy it, for the sake of our families and our communities that we live in. Sometimes, like these times, it just happens because the circumstances favor the event happening (read: GUN FREE ZONES), and the desires of evil people overtake the lives of good, innocent people. That is the price we pay for living in a free society.
Our current POTUS has this all wrong, just like most everything else he believes. He is a liberal idiot, raised by liberal idiots, mentored by liberal idiots and Communists, and schooled by liberal idiots and Communists. He has lived a sheltered, privileged life and really has no idea what daily life is like for most of us. And he is too stupid to see that his way doesn't work for us. That, or he just doesn't give a damn about anything except his precious outdated and outmoded mindset, and 'making' us conform to his will.
Not. Going. To. Happen.

[bigsky]

Inherit them.

All the people wanting to take my grandfather's guns from me because they aren't "registered" can kiss my Aunt Fanny.

That starts with the Head Gun Grabber himself.

[bigsky]

And thanks, suncat.

I've been reading that these killers often kill themselves when stopped by armed force, police or private.

Your anger and mine are the same.

[suncat05]

And thanks, suncat.

I've been reading that these killers often kill themselves when stopped by armed force, police or private.

Your anger and mine are the same.

I believe that you & I do see this the same way, bigsky.

And another intelligent, in-depth, well thought out and factual post by CBBN. Thank you!

[Darrell KSR]

These are the ways to acquire a gun:

1) Buy one from a FFL, which requires a background check (and that's true at gun shows as well, if you buy from a dealer anywhere you get checked and many selling at shows are dealers)

2) Buy one from another private person. These transactions also have federal rules, such as it's illegal to sell across state lines, and several states also have tough rules (Illinois has a bunch, California and others as well). But federally these are not subject to background checks.

3) Borrow one, with or without permission. This is a key for these kinds of crimes, b/c a) it's happened in multiple of these cases, and b) it's impossible to do much about them. Sandy Hook the kid got the gun from his mother, who legally owned them, same for several other shootings.

4) Get one through non-relational theft or the black market. I know of no mass shootings where this has been the case, these guys aren't criminals and don't operate in the black market. They do "steal", but it's from family or friends, which is why I made #3 above b/c it's kind of different. This is however how the vast majority of criminals get guns.

Here's a great study, a survey of actual criminals in jail done by CJIS, as to how criminals who used guns in crimes got them. Very few managed to sneak by the FFL/background check process, they got them from friends, direct theft or the black market. http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=940

As for what I want from checks, actually I would like to see "more hurdles" in the sense that I know a lot about the way NICS works and I know it's not nearly as good as it could be. Many states still do not report mental health and other offenses that would get them rejected for gun ownership. That's not changing the requirements, it's just getting the states to make the NICS database complete.

The reason many are against more checks are:

1) They are afraid of government. I know many gun owners who will not buy from FFLs at all b/c they dont' want records of their gun ownership. They arent' criminals, have no ill intent, they are afraid the government will eventually begin confiscation and don't want a record of their guns anywhere.

That sounds extreme to many, but that's exactly what was done in Jersey after the hurricane, and we've seen senior Senators and others call for exactly that action. Not saying it's likely, but I can't say they are wrong b/c I bet if you went back to the 1940s and told people all the laws we'd have today they'd be ill. Government is as you mentioned tracking all our calls, texts, internet access, etc. I'd say some paranoia in this case is in fact healthy for the nation.

2) Many "private transfers" of guns are in fact among family and friends, and they don't feel the government has a role deciding if that's OK. I'm weaker on this one, I think a father shouldn't have a right to give the family guns to his son if his son is a felon, but they are really just worried about the intrusion itself, not that they are giving guns to people who wouldn't pass.

I think if we changed the law so that transfers were subject to the check but the checks were never stored anywhere, that would help. Right now they have to be deleted from NICS after 48 hours, but honestly people don't trust that it's happening. Given what we see with the IRS scandal and Clinton's email repression as well as the Chinese hack and other things, I think those people have good cause to believe that the NSA may be storing it all or that it otherwise may be compromised through intention or poor IT systems.

But in the end all of this dances around the main point: almost every one of these people either would have or did pass the check. Their problems relate to their mental health and none of that information will be in NICS, so they won't be denied.

So we go back to the main issue, and the one that must be fixed before anything else matters: what to do about people who are a threat to others due to their mental state. B/c if we can't identify and acknowledge those people in any way in a database somewhere then there is nothing that all the background checks in the world can do to help. They depend on that information, and that information isn't being provided.

That's why NSSF (the main trade group for the gun industry) has been spending its own money for years now going state to state to get laws changed to submit more complete mental records to NICS, esp. mental competency records from courts.

here's the truth: The gun industry has done more to keep guns out of the hands of these people than the Obama Administration and the anti-gun groups. We want these shootings to stop more than anyone, they are the biggest threat to the 2nd Amendment.

So let's focus on getting mental health in this country improved and properly recording those who have been ruled a threat, b/c we already have the laws to make it hard for them to get guns, but not if we don't address mental health and reporting first.

Very informative. Who stole CitizenBBN's password?

[CitizenBBN]

Inherit them.

All the people wanting to take my grandfather's guns from me because they aren't "registered" can kiss my Aunt Fanny.

That starts with the Head Gun Grabber himself.

I consider that a subset of #3, but should have said.

The basic point is this: the guns are property, and the idea we'd remove property from people without them having done anything to warrant such an act is egregious and against the fundamental reasons this nation exists.

I also left out a big reason many are against expanded checks: they don't think it will end there, but be just another step down a very dark road for the nation.

Since we know that step wont' do anything to stop these crimes, we also know that once we do those checks there will be a call for the next level of gun control, then the next and the next, all of them focusing on things that restrict ownership of guns and nothing that addresses the fundamental mental health issues that are the real cause of the problem.

That's how the legal creep of government has worked in every area. We started the EPA to deal with obvious environmental disasters like big piles of hazardous waste, and it has evolved to regulating a farmer putting a pond on his property for his crops or livestock. People fear that this is just a stepping stone b/c historically that's exactly what we see time and again with government action.

[KeithKSR]

I"m curious what "common sense" solutions we're discussing. Not saying there aren't some out there, there are, but usually those words are a preamble to some very nonsensical ideas from the anti-gun groups.

Not sure about which ones a majority of gun owners really support. I'm pretty tied to every level of the gun owning community and if there is one thing that cuts across all of them, and a growing number of non-gun owners, it's a fundamental fear of government and what they will do with the information they seem to want to gather on us in every way, including our gun ownership.

Obviously the Chicago formula isn't a common sense solution.

[KeithKSR]

Gun show loopholes is a big one.

The gun show loophole is primarily a myth, and is perpetuated by idiots who have never been to a gun show. There are few guns at a gun show that change hands without a background check, because the vast majority of guns sold at the shows are sold by FFL dealers. People will go to a show to pick up accessories, ammo, etc.; firearms tend to be higher and people don't buy them there.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

The gun show loophole is primarily a myth, and is perpetuated by idiots who have never been to a gun show. There are few guns at a gun show that change hands without a background check, because the vast majority of guns sold at the shows are sold by FFL dealers. People will go to a show to pick up accessories, ammo, etc.; firearms tend to be higher and people don't buy them there.

The gun show loophole is more encompassing than actual gun shows. It includes the entire secondary market and private sales that don't require background checks. There's the 40% number thrown out there, but most people don't think that is accurate. Even if that number is as low as 10-15%, which you would be hard to find people that believe that(at least a majority of people), that number is too high and certainly qualifies as a loophole, and is certainly not a myth.

[CitizenBBN]

The gun show loophole is more encompassing than actual gun shows. It includes the entire secondary market and private sales that don't require background checks. There's the 40% number thrown out there, but most people don't think that is accurate. Even if that number is as low as 10-15%, which you would be hard to find people that believe that(at least a majority of people), that number is too high and certainly qualifies as a loophole, and is certainly not a myth.

Remember the vast majority of those transfers are between people who know each other,which really changes the equation. That includes transfers between family, friends, etc.

Now with the internet it has expanded the number of non-related transfers betwene private people, they post on facebook or wherever then meet in person to buy/sell, but in truth that's still a small number compared to all gun transfers b/c it's a) riskier, and b) more trouble in many cases.

I'm not saying those transfers aren't out there, but it's a lot lower than you might think. Of those we'd want to check, the transfers between strangers hooking up to buy/sell, what are the chances they'll obey a law to do checks? Some will, many won't. One reason they're going that route is to stay off the radar, and they don't believe in the government tracking what they are doing on principle.

One thing we could do is change the law on NICS checks to allow for voluntary checks. Right now as a FFL it's actually illegal for me to run a check on anyone not buying a gun from me. If you wanted to sell your gun to Joe and Joe was willing to be checked, I still couldn't do it without you transferring the gun to me, then me transferring to Joe. FFLs dont' want that hassle. But if we were to allow for checks for private transfers on a voluntary basis we'd get a lot of them, certainly most that would obey a required law, without having to make it a law.

[jazyd]

Training takes over when events like this happen. That's why these guys run to the sound of the gunfire.
And it's not that they're fearless, because I can tell you from experience that fear is there, whispering to you that this might be bad, but you do it anyway, because if you can save even one life then the training and effort and the fear and the adrenaline rush and the actual event all become crystal clear in your mind, and all that matters is stopping whatever madness is happening.
We MUST confront evil wherever we find it, and crush it and destroy it, for the sake of our families and our communities that we live in. Sometimes, like these times, it just happens because the circumstances favor the event happening (read: GUN FREE ZONES), and the desires of evil people overtake the lives of good, innocent people. That is the price we pay for living in a free society.
Our current POTUS has this all wrong, just like most everything else he believes. He is a liberal idiot, raised by liberal idiots, mentored by liberal idiots and Communists, and schooled by liberal idiots and Communists. He has lived a sheltered, privileged life and really has no idea what daily life is like for most of us. And he is too stupid to see that his way doesn't work for us. That, or he just doesn't give a damn about anything except his precious outdated and outmoded mindset, and 'making' us conform to his will.
Not. Going. To. Happen.

Sun, you hit him on the end. He knows it won't work nor does he care. All he cares about is getting rid of guns by any means which promotes his liberal agenda and helps his liberal buddies. He knows what he saying is a big lie but he also knows most voters on his side are too stupid to know the truth nor will they investigate it to find the truth.

Let me give you a perfect example of uninformed voters, the ones Obama and his ilk love. In our primaries in Aug for all offices in Miss including governor the democrats had 3 people running to be their candidate in the general election. The top candidate was a black female lawyer. Second was a black female doctor. The third candidate was a black male truck driver. Truck driver did not tell his family he put his name in the hat, his mom laughed thst night and said she voted for a candidate with his name. Candidate didn't even vote because he had a load of sweet potatoes to Haul up east. He spent no money, no speeches. Guess who won the primary with 142,000 votes? The guy no one knew and left the media scrambling to find him. Still haven't heard from him and election is a month off

That is who Obama is targeting. And he and the rest of the liberal politicians know they are there by the millions

[jazyd]

IMO, I don't believe it makes a bit of difference if a school or whatever is gun free zone or guns everywhere zone, when a person is mentally unstable like this person was , all they want to do is kill, they are full of evil and in most cases they then committ suicide. His objective was to kill Christians. The conn shooter wanted to kill children at a school he felt slighted him.. They cannot think logically and IMO a gun free zone is not part of their thought process.

They kill, then end their own life to rid themselves of the inner pain. The only thing that could have prevented "some" of those kids was if that teacher had a gun or one of the students. The teacher was killed first so he could not have helped.

It is something that happened and unfortunately for everyone the government doesn't care about those with mental health problems and refuse to provide help for them

[KeithKSR]

The gun show loophole is more encompassing than actual gun shows. It includes the entire secondary market and private sales that don't require background checks. There's the 40% number thrown out there, but most people don't think that is accurate. Even if that number is as low as 10-15%, which you would be hard to find people that believe that(at least a majority of people), that number is too high and certainly qualifies as a loophole, and is certainly not a myth.

These mass shootings have not come by way of a secondary market. Anyone who thinks forcing background checks on law abiding citizens will keep criminals from obtaining firearms is fantasizing. If the logic they use actually worked there would be no illicit drug trade in the U.S.

[KeithKSR]

Remember the vast majority of those transfers are between people who know each other,which really changes the equation. That includes transfers between family, friends, etc.

Now with the internet it has expanded the number of non-related transfers betwene private people, they post on facebook or wherever then meet in person to buy/sell, but in truth that's still a small number compared to all gun transfers b/c it's a) riskier, and b) more trouble in many cases.

I'm not saying those transfers aren't out there, but it's a lot lower than you might think. Of those we'd want to check, the transfers between strangers hooking up to buy/sell, what are the chances they'll obey a law to do checks? Some will, many won't. One reason they're going that route is to stay off the radar, and they don't believe in the government tracking what they are doing on principle.

One thing we could do is change the law on NICS checks to allow for voluntary checks. Right now as a FFL it's actually illegal for me to run a check on anyone not buying a gun from me. If you wanted to sell your gun to Joe and Joe was willing to be checked, I still couldn't do it without you transferring the gun to me, then me transferring to Joe. FFLs dont' want that hassle. But if we were to allow for checks for private transfers on a voluntary basis we'd get a lot of them, certainly most that would obey a required law, without having to make it a law.

Another reason face to face sales among non-acquaintances are small in number is due to people not wanting a stolen firearm dropped on them. I belong to multiple closed groups that sell/trade firearms. Trades are far more frequent than outright sales, and people will primarily deal only with people that within their locale, and follow state laws regarding private sales only to instate residents.

[CitizenBBN]

Another reason face to face sales among non-acquaintances are small in number is due to people not wanting a stolen firearm dropped on them. I belong to multiple closed groups that sell/trade firearms. Trades are far more frequent than outright sales, and people will primarily deal only with people that within their locale, and follow state laws regarding private sales only to instate residents.

The vast majority of gun owners are very responsible, and don't want guns in the hands of criminals or lunatics even more than anti-gun folks, and don't want to buy stolen guns.

those deals are out there, but I'd contend those people by and large would ignore a law requiring checks, as they ignore a lot of other existing laws.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

These mass shootings have not come by way of a secondary market. Anyone who thinks forcing background checks on law abiding citizens will keep criminals from obtaining firearms is fantasizing. If the logic they use actually worked there would be no illicit drug trade in the U.S.

Several of these mass shootings have come from the background check process failing, with guns falling into the hands of people that were never intended by law to possess them. From there, kids are getting access to them, in some cases and committing these killings. If the background check process is failing at times and guns are falling into the wrong people's hands, then what do you think is happening when there is no check at all? We can't just assume that every transaction is between the mentally capable and the law abiding. That's the fantasy. It's just wrong to say that these mass killings have not come by way of the secondary market. Most have not, but some have, even if that's defined by someone using a family members gun.

We need to know who owns guns and what their mental state is. If it means that people are a little inconvenienced, then that's the price to pay. I always have to ask, though, if you're a law abiding citizen why wouldn't you want to participate in a process that does the most it can to keep guns from the wrong people?

We're dancing around the big topic, though, without better enforcement of current laws and a commitment to recognizing and treating the mentally ill, then it doesn't really matter. That's a big cost. My questions is why aren't pro-gun groups and supporters demanding increased spending to treat the mentally ill, if that is what they deem the problem to be? Also, why is it that when Republican governors cut spending in their states, caring and supporting the mentally ill is always one of the first on the chopping block.

How can it be explained that in a world that is filled with evil and mentally ill, that the U.S. stands alone in the number of incidents like these? What is so special about our mentally ill that pushes them to do this?

Finally, as a non-gun owner, but a supporter of the rights to do so, I look to the pro-gun side to solve this problem. Unfortunately, there is no will or support to do anything about it. If the pro-gun side does nothing, what do you think the anti-gun side is going to do?

[bigsky]

You dont "need to know who owns guns and what their mental state is". That is exactly the big brother is watching tyrant state america is not supposed to be.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

You dont "need to know who owns guns and what their mental state is". That is exactly the big brother is watching tyrant state america is not supposed to be.

Obviously, we do, since these killers are going through legal processes and still ending up with guns, either through failure of proper mental evaluations or failure of background checks.

Automobile registration, licensing and other controls are greater in a majority of states than guns. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

This topic is such a bad example of irrational fears of big brother watching over you. The government is already watching over you, whether you like it or not. Enforcing current laws, expanding them to all gun transactions, and proper registration will not produce an obtuse incremental oversight by government as so many want to think.

I just stand by my belief that if the pro-gun knows what will solve these senseless mass killings, then support the people with the power to implement what is necessary to solve. I still see support for leaders that immediately cut mental health, government spending and all other things necessary at first tries when elected. If the pro-gun crowd can't fix it, who else do you think is going to try?

Everybody loves to point to Chicago, but one of the first things Bruce Rauner tried to do upon inauguration was cut mental health spending across the state, as well as cut taxes. A practice of many Republican politicians. You can't have it both ways and expect the anti-gun crowd to sit by and watch. If you're serious about saying it's a mental health issue, then you need to put the money where your mouth is, or you think that mass killings have an acceptable place in society.

Also, the pro-gun crowd says we need more people carrying guns in public places. OK, but who's going to pay for training these people? Who's going to pay for the cost of employing these people? I've never seen a political candidate even propose an idea about how to implement.

I so want the pro-gun crowd to fix this problem, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of courage to do so.

[KeithKSR]

We need for drivers to prove they don't drink before issuing a driver's license. That will cut down on DUI caused deaths.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

We need for drivers to prove they don't drink before issuing a driver's license. That will cut down on DUI caused deaths.

I don't know how this is a parallel argument, but being a drinker is not against the law. That's a whole other discussion about what needs to be done there. Feel free to start that.

Owning guns under certain scenarios is, and people are getting guns under current laws because for several reasons, and they need to be fixed and can be done without infringing upon anyone's rights.

I hear so many people deflect, point fingers, blame but offer up nothing of substance to fix the problem.

[CitizenBBN]

FWIW the NSSF has spent millions trying to address the mental health issue, going state to state to get more spending and to get the NICS system fixed. You say the pro gun groups haven't done anything, but they've done more in real results and spending than the anti-gun forces and this Administration, which has yet to come out in any real support of those efforts.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

FWIW the NSSF has spent millions trying to address the mental health issue, going state to state to get more spending and to get the NICS system fixed. You say the pro gun groups haven't done anything, but they've done more in real results and spending than the anti-gun forces and this Administration, which has yet to come out in any real support of those efforts.

Is there any evidence that it's working? It certainly doesn't appear so yet, considering that the mass killings are not slowing down and guns keep getting in the hands of the mentally ill, through legal channels. Anyone can throw money at problems, it takes good ideas and proper execution. That's where the government has failed us. I'm not going to consider their efforts a failure, though, it needs time to recognize real change.

As far as the Obama administration, what else can he do? It takes Congress to take action and they've defeated everything that he's put through thanks to Democrats in red states that are up for reelection. Congress is the problem, not the administration. Besides, pointing out the faults of the administration, the inability to get something passed should be a win for the pro-gun crowd.

Back to the point on the spending on mental health, what defines success and failure? Also, is the NRA involved? If so, how does their spending on mental health causes compare to the money spent on lobbying against gun control efforts?

I just read a couple of articles by the NSSF and I greatly applaud their efforts, but it's not going to be enough. I still stand by it's going to take an 'all of the above' solution that includes additional, common sense gun control.

This is a great debate, though, as I must admit that I didn't know a whole lot about the topic just a few days ago as I have never been passionate one way or the other. I've known enough to know when people are full of it, or simply tow their respective lines, which basically encompasses the entire media. So to read some info on hear that stimulates me to research and draw my own conclusions is great.

[CitizenBBN]

You talk about "throwing money", but the NSSF initiative is very specific and is the mortal opposite of "throwing money". The only people doing anything substantive are the pro gun forces, in fact the gun industry itself.

Has it worked? How do you know it hasn't? How many have been denied a gun b/c those mental health records are now in the system as they are supposed to be? Well the FBI doesn't have those numbers so we can't say for sure, but you are calling for exactly the same kind of think and you don't worry about solvency but with this you do? I know your'e getting at that it wont' be enough, but in truth they aren't even done yet, and the next step isn't more gun laws, it's getting more of those who are a risk to others to be handled through the system.

Is it not logical that we first make sure everyone who has already been declared mentally incompetent be properly identified in the system BEFORE we start identifying every gun owner in America as you suggest we need to do?

The problem with the "all of the above" approach is that it's what pro-government and pro-regulation forces always argue, and all it really does in the end is lead to more government without anything like a corresponding improvement in the problem. Then we have round after round of "pass some more laws, see if those help". that's the worst possible way to make policy. It's leading to the death of this nation.

The sad truth is we can't ever eliminate all of these attacks. There was an incident some months ago where a person killed 6 people with a car intentionally, so it's not even about guns alone. Arguably the Boston bombing was the work of a mentally ill lunatic, though that was couched in terrorism.

We can minimize them, but we need to try everything we can that doesn't infringe on the rights of the law abiding before we start curtailing the rights of all Americans. that's the first answer of the Left to about everything, and it should be the last desperate recourse. we aren't there yet on this issue, there are a LOT of other steps to take first.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

You talk about "throwing money", but the NSSF initiative is very specific and is the mortal opposite of "throwing money". The only people doing anything substantive are the pro gun forces, in fact the gun industry itself.

Has it worked? How do you know it hasn't? How many have been denied a gun b/c those mental health records are now in the system as they are supposed to be? Well the FBI doesn't have those numbers so we can't say for sure, but you are calling for exactly the same kind of think and you don't worry about solvency but with this you do? I know your'e getting at that it wont' be enough, but in truth they aren't even done yet, and the next step isn't more gun laws, it's getting more of those who are a risk to others to be handled through the system.

Is it not logical that we first make sure everyone who has already been declared mentally incompetent be properly identified in the system BEFORE we start identifying every gun owner in America as you suggest we need to do?

The problem with the "all of the above" approach is that it's what pro-government and pro-regulation forces always argue, and all it really does in the end is lead to more government without anything like a corresponding improvement in the problem. Then we have round after round of "pass some more laws, see if those help". that's the worst possible way to make policy. It's leading to the death of this nation.

The sad truth is we can't ever eliminate all of these attacks. There was an incident some months ago where a person killed 6 people with a car intentionally, so it's not even about guns alone. Arguably the Boston bombing was the work of a mentally ill lunatic, though that was couched in terrorism.

We can minimize them, but we need to try everything we can that doesn't infringe on the rights of the law abiding before we start curtailing the rights of all Americans. that's the first answer of the Left to about everything, and it should be the last desperate recourse. we aren't there yet on this issue, there are a LOT of other steps to take first.

I think they can be done simultaneously, but priority given to identification, which is something that I don't feel we're currently doing well at all.

I don't necessarily agree with your "all of the above" conclusions, but I do agree that those risks could be possible, but it should not deter from passing sensible laws that don't infringe. I have no problems for adding burdens, however. That's just me, though. I don't mind to be burdened by anything if it means getting things right.

We need to fix the current laws first, and the systems, but I'm not going to be convinced otherwise that control from the secondary markets is extremely necessary, which I still fail to understand how that would be infringing on any law abiding citizens rights to ownership.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I just ran across this on my twitter feed, which touches on the subject. His last sentence pretty much sums up my feeling on the matter, which I've been saying, but a little less direct.

John Oliver Takes A Look At Mental Health (http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/watch-john-oliver-explain-broken-u-s-mental-health-systems-20151005)

[Doc]

I just ran across this on my twitter feed, which touches on the subject. His last sentence pretty much sums up my feeling on the matter, which I've been saying, but a little less direct.

John Oliver Takes A Look At Mental Health (http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/watch-john-oliver-explain-broken-u-s-mental-health-systems-20151005)

I tend to agree with the article. I see the "mental health issue" as a red herring. Pro gun folks want to criticize the president for his lack of a plan claiming yet they offer no plan when it comes to improving the mental health of America. What is the plan? Spend more money doing what? If you want a gun do you go to the DMV, apply and have some civil servant give you a Rorschach test?

http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/75/7572/W8XD300Z/posters/kentoh-rorschach-test-of-an-ink-blot-card.jpg
If you see a butterfly you get a gun. If you see a devil you don't?

Or do you need a note from a psychologist before you can get a gun? Do I have to go see a shrink prior to heading over to Pete's firearms? Or is it that if I've ever seen a shrink I'm ineligible to own a gun? Guess doctor patient confidentiality goes out the window because now my psychoanalyst is now required to check in with the government too. But not like that matter since that's a moot point with Obama care and all because the government already has access to my medical records.

How about restraining orders? Does a restraining order forever ban me from gun ownership or is there a time limit on that? How about complaints by "concerned citizens" who think I'm crazy, or that I have a bad temper? What about vindictive ex-spouses or girlfriends/boyfriends?

Come on, all of you that are critical of Obama's lack of a plan, lets hear yours. Rest assured I don't like anything Obama has yet to NOT offer. I don't like anything he has offered either in his 6 years of his presidency in any area but offer something better that is something of substance. One thing I do agree with though is the idiocy of "gun free zones". Might as well put up a sign that says "if you want to commit a mass shooting, do it here".

As for Obama himself, he needs to take much of the blame for these shootings. They have occurred under his watch for a reason. Part of that is due to the civil unrest HE HAS CREATED concerning law enforcement, racial tension and gun control. These are all issue that he consciously elected to bring to the forefront and issue he needs to live with the consequences.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Doc, did you watch the video? It's pretty funny.

In rebuttal to you, I totally disagree that the President deserves much of the blame. We can all debate whether what you think of his policies ability to work, but he tried and lost to a do-nothing Congress. Law enforcement issues, racial tensions and gun control differences have existed forever, no one President can own improving or hurting them. More blame lies towards governments at all levels who fail to fix the problems and enforce the laws that exist today, the true cause of these people to acquire these weapons.

Honestly, most of the blame falls on the people, all of us. We can debate cause and effect, but we keep going to the polls and electing leaders that have differing opinions but don't prioritize the solutions. We keep putting "stuff happens" leaders in place, on both sides. We deserve MUCH of the blame.

[Doc]

Doc, did you watch the video? It's pretty funny.

In rebuttal to you, I totally disagree that the President deserves much of the blame. We can all debate whether what you think of his policies ability to work, but he tried and lost to a do-nothing Congress. Law enforcement issues, racial tensions and gun control differences have existed forever, no one President can own improving or hurting them. More blame lies towards governments at all levels who fail to fix the problems and enforce the laws that exist today, the true cause of these people to acquire these weapons.

Honestly, most of the blame falls on the people, all of us. We can debate cause and effect, but we keep going to the polls and electing leaders that have differing opinions but don't prioritize the solutions. We keep putting "stuff happens" leaders in place, on both sides. We deserve MUCH of the blame.


Where is he when a cop gets shot, when an officer in the line of duty is gunned down in cold blood? Yet when a black person is shot he is there in support. When a officer in the course of doing their job arrests a black professor in Mass, they "acted stupidly" because the police are racist, enough so that the president comments on it and calls a "beer summit" in support of the individual who is making the police officers job more difficult. That would be the police officer who are the people whos daily job it is to put their lives on the line protecting us. Yet when a thug punk in Ferguson Missouri tries to take the gun from an officer and gets gun down, the President doesn't look for the facts but rather comes out with cries for social justice against the police. When the President supports social unrest, its no surprise when there is social unrest. Why would one be surprised when the violence moves from killing of police, which doesn't seem to bother him too much since it doesn't warrant a comment, to killing of citizens? Kill a single black kid and he will comment on that EVERY TIME but have a black man walks up to a police car and puts a couple bullets in the back of the heads of two unsuspecting police officers and that's just an occupational hazard and something he couldn't give a crap about. One act warrants comment on racial tension and gun control, the other doesn't. Sorry that we see it differently. I used to believe the President represented ALL citizens of the country whether they be black or white, democrat or republican, and did so equally. Clearly this one doesn't. It you're democrat he cares more. If you're black he cares more. If he can buy your vote he cares more. I say he deserves much of the blame because he has elected to focus on these issues. Gun control is something he elected to make part of his agenda. When that is something he wanted to bring attention to, those who seek attention will do so by killing. I believe much of the escalation in mass shooting is simply because of a copy cat factor. There were crazy people 15 years ago too, and people could get guns then. Now there is much more attention on it.

PS: Yes, I did watch the video. Yes, it was funny and yes I agree with most of it. Thought my post said that. I don't think the GOP and their mental health approach offers any solutions at all. I don't believe that is the problem nor will addressing it solve the problem. That doesn't mean mental health isn't an issue or that it should be better funded, only that better funding or fixing that won't solve mass shooting incidents.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Doc, I know you mentioned you read the article, not sure if that meant watching the video. I was only asking from a humor standpoint, not necessarily a topic standpoint.

On your other points, I see them as two entirely different debates. Your view, in a real quick summary, is the opposite of the Kanye, "George Bush doesn't care about black people". There are huge perception gaps.

[Doc]

Doc, I know you mentioned you read the article, not sure if that meant watching the video. I was only asking from a humor standpoint, not necessarily a topic standpoint.

On your other points, I see them as two entirely different debates. Your view, in a real quick summary, is the opposite of the Kanye, "George Bush doesn't care about black people". There are huge perception gaps.

I don't think the president should care more about any specific group of people. IMO he, or she, should care and treat them all equally. If the people in NOLA were in need of help then they all should be helped, regardless of skin color. If a group is being treated unjustly then you correct that injustice.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I don't think the president should care more about any specific group of people. IMO he, or she, should care and treat them all equally. If the people in NOLA were in need of help then they all should be helped, regardless of skin color. If a group is being treated unjustly then you correct that injustice.

I agree, just no President actually has done that, or at least has been perceived to have done that. At least in my time.

[CitizenBBN]

1) Why do these people get/have guns? Simple: we are a free society where we don't remove the rights of people BEFORE they do anything to deserve them being removed. We are BORN with inalienable rights. they are not granted by the state, we have them by act of being born. They can only be removed for cause.

I could prevent a LOT of crime and deaths if you let me start taking away people's rights without them having done anything to warrant it, but purely on the basis of wanting to reduce crime or deaths.

but we don't do that, and that means we pay a price on the back end, which is people being able to commit crimes we could have prevented if we had just not had those pesky liberties.

2) Addressing "mental health" in this country is a good thing beyond the gun issue, and there have been some very concrete plans suggested. None of them are a catch all answer, there is no such thing, but they are good incremental steps that do NOT infringe on individual liberties (at least not those proposed by the conservative side, I can't speak to some of the other plans).

The NSSF work to fix NICS involves only properly reporting those who have already been ruled a threat. Other plans to simply improve access to mental care are all sound. they won't lead to a 1:1 solution to these episodes, but it will reduce the pool of people who are so troubled they come to this end by getting some of them help.

Doc - yes, the law as it is written today says if you are even accused of domestic violence your guns can be confiscated pending the outcome, and if you are convicted you will lose that right to own guns. that has been in place a LONG time, just like the restriction on felons.

3) How do we balance rights and avoid having to have a note from a shrink to buy a gun? Easy enough, we use the current system but just use it instead of ignore it. To have that right removed it should be by decision of a judge ruling someone mentally incompetent. That's a system with sufficient protections to insure it is still the removal of a right to self defense, and not turned into a privilege of self defense granted by a sympathetic doctor or bureaucrat.

[Doc]

1) Why do these people get/have guns? Simple: we are a free society where we don't remove the rights of people BEFORE they do anything to deserve them being removed. We are BORN with inalienable rights. they areu not granted by the state, we have them by act of being born. They can only be removed for cause.

I could prevent a LOT of crime and deaths if you let me start taking away people's rights without them having done anything to warrant it, but purely on the basis of wanting to reduce crime or deaths.

but we don't do that, and that means we pay a price on the back end, which is people being able to commit crimes we could have prevented if we had just not had those pesky liberties.

2) Addressing "mental health" in this country is a good thing beyond the gun issue, and there have been some very concrete plans suggested. None of them are a catch all answer, there is no such thing, but they are good incremental steps that do NOT infringe on individual liberties (at least not those proposed by the conservative side, I can't speak to some of the other plans).

The NSSF work to fix NICS involves only properly reporting those who have already been ruled a threat. Other plans to simply improve access to mental care are all sound. they won't lead to a 1:1 solution to these episodes, but it will reduce the pool of people who are so troubled they come to this end by getting some of them help.

Doc - yes, the law as it is written today says if you are even accused of domestic violence your guns can be confiscated pending the outcome, and if you are convicted you will lose that right to own guns. that has been in place a LONG time, just like the restriction on felons.

3) How do we balance rights and avoid having to have a note from a shrink to buy a gun? Easy enough, we use the current system but just use it instead of ignore it. To have that right removed it should be by decision of a judge ruling someone mentally incompetent. That's a system with sufficient protections to insure it is still the removal of a right to self defense, and not turned into a privilege of self defense granted by a sympathetic doctor or bureaucrat.

And?

What else is there to this pro-gun/mental health plan that stops these mass shootings? I don't recall the Columbine kids ever being accused of domestic violence. The guy in LA had a restraining order by an ex on him from years ago, but was convicted of nothing. I suspect that you would not favor a lifetime ban due to a RO by an ex? Nothing in there would have deterred the Fort Hood shooter (Nadal Hasan). As the link article and video stated, few of these shooters have ever been deemed legally incompetent prior to their shootings. Its easy after the fact to declare somebody nuts but then its too late. Applying the rules in place would have made no difference in almost all the cases.

Addition, that doesn't take into account what you have rightly pointed out as the biggest cause of gun violence. Shooters DON'T FOLLOW THE LAW. So it hard to say we have this gun violence because we don't apply the laws so we need to apply the laws to decrease it and we have gun violence because criminals don't follow the laws. Personally I agree with the second part, not the first

[bigsky]

Run-Hide-Fight is the current campus wisdom for mass shooters.

It is insufficient. It wont stop a mass shooting.

What does stop mass shooters is being confronted with a gun, either by a private person or a policeman. Once confronted, they are likely to kill themselves. Or they're shot.

Welcome to reality.

[Doc]

Run-Hide-Fight is the current campus wisdom for mass shooters.

It is insufficient. It wont stop a mass shooting.

What does stop mass shooters is being confronted with a gun, either by a private person or a policeman. Once confronted, they are likely to kill themselves. Or they're shot.

Welcome to reality.

I agree. IMO we should have armed guards on campus. I'd also have them gun free with the exclusion of those armed security guards.

[dan_bgblue]

Doc, what would be your estimate on the number of armed guards that would need to be employed to protect all the students on every campus, Universities, tech schools, community colleges, down thru kindergarten, in the US? I honestly can not come up with a reasonable number of guards for just one campus, WKU, whose dorms, classroom buildings, admin buildings, etc that I am familiar with.

[Doc]

I say enough that response time of 5 min MAX

[suncat05]

Doc, what would be your estimate on the number of armed guards that would need to be employed to protect all the students on every campus, Universities, tech schools, community colleges, down thru kindergarten, in the US? I honestly can not come up with a reasonable number of guards for just one campus, WKU, whose dorms, classroom buildings, admin buildings, etc that I am familiar with.

Hmmmmmm...............I wonder how much tax revenue would be created by the creation of ALL of those jobs?

[dan_bgblue]

Don't know, but the guards will be paid for with tax money, so it would seem to be a net negative number

[dan_bgblue]

Doc, 5 mins is a lifetime when their is a nut loose with a gun/guns in a crowded classroom. The shooter could easily get off 100 shots in that time.

[Doc]

Doc, 5 mins is a lifetime when their is a nut loose with a gun/guns in a crowded classroom. The shooter could easily get off 100 shots in that time.
What would you suggest, a pillbox in every room?

Or get rid all guns, as in 100% of them. That would work too however that thing called the constitution makes that difficult

[KeithKSR]

Eliminate gun free zones and you eliminate the target of most of these murders. The talk of mental health sounds good, but you cannot deny people their right to privacy in the process.

[CitizenBBN]

I agree. IMO we should have armed guards on campus. I'd also have them gun free with the exclusion of those armed security guards.

When seconds matter the police are only minutes away. :)

I've really never understood why campuses are "gun free". the theory in secondary schools is that somehow a kid may find a gun somewhere (presumably by being a good pickpocket), but what's the issue on a college campus? How is it unsafe to have a gun there but safe everywhere else in town?

Given the overall positive results we've seen with concealed carry, IMO the only place that should be banned from carry is one that has hardened security on its own. Things like court houses, where you have to go through metal detectors. Otherwise, if we're just talking a "no guns" sign, all you're doing is clearing the path for a lunatic or criminal who will never observe that sign, cutting down on chances to stop them before they do more harm.

So IMO you put hard security in secondary schools b/c they are usually in more monolithic structures that can be secured, and on campuses you allow carry and beef up armed security as well.

Security design is never about making something impenetrable. it's about making it so much work the thief goes elsewhere. Same here, make the softest targets harder, raise the bar and make it harder for them to do significant harm before they get dropped by either security or a citizen prepared to defend himself.

[CitizenBBN]

Eliminate gun free zones and you eliminate the target of most of these murders. The talk of mental health sounds good, but you cannot deny people their right to privacy in the process.

The "mental health" solution isn't about reporting and denying guns, it should be about simply getting more help for people who need help. More availability and more costs covered for those who can't afford to seek help. Make it easier for them to get help without regard to whether they are a risk to others or not, and we will help the situation.

I'm not a fan of entitlements, but in a world where more than half the federal budget is now health care, the slice of that allocated to mental health versus keeping someone alive but in a coma an extra day is really out of whack in its priorities. Both in terms of quality of life for the respective patients and in the benefit to those around the person and in society in general.

If we're going to spend the money let's spend it with priorities that address the mental as well as physical health of people. that is where the problem lies now, you can get all kinds of health care for a broken toe, not so much for depression.

[CitizenBBN]

Applying the rules in place would have made no difference in almost all the cases.


well, it would have in the case we're currently discussing:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/30/father-washington-high-school-shooter-convicted-gun-charges/?intcmp=ob_article_sidebar_video&intcmp=obnetwork

The kid got the guns from his father. his father PASSED multiple background checks despite having a domestic violence order against him that should have gotten him denied.

As I've said here many times, the order never got reported to NICS b/c the states are not good at reporting domestic violence and mental competence results to NICS. It was issued by a "tribal court" (I assume a native american court) but was never put in any databases.

The same thing happened with the Louisiana movie shooter, who had been ruled incompetent by a court in Georgia but the order was never put in the database.

Guys, the details of data management matter. They sound mundane, and as if it's not a solution, but simply doing the right data entry that was agreed to by the NRA and everyone else decades ago would in fact make a difference and cost us absolutely nothing politically.

We could accomplish this improvement a lot faster if the Administration and anti-gun forces gave a damn about making things better and got behind the effort.

This guy faces 10 years in jail btw b/c he lied on his 4473 forms. I've also mentioned here that the ATF barely even tries to prosecute those people (and I've posted the stats, it's stunningly low, about 114 or something like that a year) and no doubt only did in this case b/c of the profile of the situation.

Will it make the problem go away? No, nothing short of confiscation and restriction of the Bill of Rights will do that (and even that won't be 100%), but we need to take the easy steps first and do all we can that doesn't further erode our liberties before we take more of them away. Enforce the laws and see how we do. What's so hard for that to get everyone behind?

[KeithKSR]

well, it would have in the case we're currently discussing:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/30/father-washington-high-school-shooter-convicted-gun-charges/?intcmp=ob_article_sidebar_video&intcmp=obnetwork

The kid got the guns from his father. his father PASSED multiple background checks despite having a domestic violence order against him that should have gotten him denied.

As I've said here many times, the order never got reported to NICS b/c the states are not good at reporting domestic violence and mental competence results to NICS. It was issued by a "tribal court" (I assume a native american court) but was never put in any databases.

The same thing happened with the Louisiana movie shooter, who had been ruled incompetent by a court in Georgia but the order was never put in the database.

Guys, the details of data management matter. They sound mundane, and as if it's not a solution, but simply doing the right data entry that was agreed to by the NRA and everyone else decades ago would in fact make a difference and cost us absolutely nothing politically.

We could accomplish this improvement a lot faster if the Administration and anti-gun forces gave a damn about making things better and got behind the effort.

This guy faces 10 years in jail btw b/c he lied on his 4473 forms. I've also mentioned here that the ATF barely even tries to prosecute those people (and I've posted the stats, it's stunningly low, about 114 or something like that a year) and no doubt only did in this case b/c of the profile of the situation.

Will it make the problem go away? No, nothing short of confiscation and restriction of the Bill of Rights will do that (and even that won't be 100%), but we need to take the easy steps first and do all we can that doesn't further erode our liberties before we take more of them away. Enforce the laws and see how we do. What's so hard for that to get everyone behind?

States should be required to report or risk losing federal funding.

[KeithKSR]

The "mental health" solution isn't about reporting and denying guns, it should be about simply getting more help for people who need help. More availability and more costs covered for those who can't afford to seek help. Make it easier for them to get help without regard to whether they are a risk to others or not, and we will help the situation.

I'm not a fan of entitlements, but in a world where more than half the federal budget is now health care, the slice of that allocated to mental health versus keeping someone alive but in a coma an extra day is really out of whack in its priorities. Both in terms of quality of life for the respective patients and in the benefit to those around the person and in society in general.

If we're going to spend the money let's spend it with priorities that address the mental as well as physical health of people. that is where the problem lies now, you can get all kinds of health care for a broken toe, not so much for depression.

Mental healthcare is an example of healthcare in our country since 2009. Access to services is limited.

[Doc]

well, it would have in the case we're currently discussing:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/30/father-washington-high-school-shooter-convicted-gun-charges/?intcmp=ob_article_sidebar_video&intcmp=obnetwork

The kid got the guns from his father. his father PASSED multiple background checks despite having a domestic violence order against him that should have gotten him denied.

As I've said here many times, the order never got reported to NICS b/c the states are not good at reporting domestic violence and mental competence results to NICS. It was issued by a "tribal court" (I assume a native american court) but was never put in any databases.

The same thing happened with the Louisiana movie shooter, who had been ruled incompetent by a court in Georgia but the order was never put in the database.

Guys, the details of data management matter. They sound mundane, and as if it's not a solution, but simply doing the right data entry that was agreed to by the NRA and everyone else decades ago would in fact make a difference and cost us absolutely nothing politically.

We could accomplish this improvement a lot faster if the Administration and anti-gun forces gave a damn about making things better and got behind the effort.

This guy faces 10 years in jail btw b/c he lied on his 4473 forms. I've also mentioned here that the ATF barely even tries to prosecute those people (and I've posted the stats, it's stunningly low, about 114 or something like that a year) and no doubt only did in this case b/c of the profile of the situation.

Will it make the problem go away? No, nothing short of confiscation and restriction of the Bill of Rights will do that (and even that won't be 100%), but we need to take the easy steps first and do all we can that doesn't further erode our liberties before we take more of them away. Enforce the laws and see how we do. What's so hard for that to get everyone behind?

Except I've heard over and over and over and over by you and every nra card carry gun toting individual that criminals DONT FOLLOW THE RULE. So why should this person just not get his gun somewhere else?

Oh, and I agree with all you nra card carrying gun toting individuals. I think if his dad didn't have a gun, he would gotten one himself

[KeithKSR]

Except I've heard over and over and over and over by you and every nra card carry gun toting individual that criminals DONT FOLLOW THE RULE. So why should this person just not get his gun somewhere else?

Oh, and I agree with all you nra card carrying gun toting individuals. I think if his dad didn't have a gun, he would gotten one himself

If he had absolutely no access to a gun he would find another method. Those intent on harming others will find a way.

[CitizenBBN]

Except I've heard over and over and over and over by you and every nra card carry gun toting individual that criminals DONT FOLLOW THE RULE. So why should this person just not get his gun somewhere else?

Oh, and I agree with all you nra card carrying gun toting individuals. I think if his dad didn't have a gun, he would gotten one himself

He very well could have, but then the conclusion is no gun laws at all. Honestly I'm not sure it would be any worse as far as felons or nuts having guns, but that's not going to fly either.

[BrassowFan]

There are some great thoughts and opinions on both sides of the discussion and I don't pretend that I've thought through the issue but I do think that we as a country need to consider the level of violence and number of incidents that we have compared to other first world nations, and then look to figure out what we're doing wrong.

[Doc]

He very well could have, but then the conclusion is no gun laws at all. Honestly I'm not sure it would be any worse as far as felons or nuts having guns, but that's not going to fly either.

That's not the conclusion I drew. I've drawn no conclusion because to be honest I have no answer. I believe those who think they do are just blowing smoke, and all smoke does is confuse the issue whether it's from the left or right. Believing every American walking around with a loaded 6 shooter on his hip is as idiotic as trying to rid the country of guns IMO. Dumping $$$ into mental health will have zero effect IMO and is a smoke screen to divert and make it appear as if something of substance is being done. That's fine because I don't have an answer

[CitizenBBN]

There are some great thoughts and opinions on both sides of the discussion and I don't pretend that I've thought through the issue but I do think that we as a country need to consider the level of violence and number of incidents that we have compared to other first world nations, and then look to figure out what we're doing wrong.

It's odd b/c in some ways we have less violence. Britain for example is relatively gun free but has more overall violent incidence, i.e. people getting beat up. Of course the gun free part works a lot better on a tiny island too.

Violent crime is steadily declining, and IMO the reasons why are so multi-faceted it's impossible to pin it all on any one area of law or socio-economics. It's a lot of things all interacting.

[BrassowFan]

It's odd b/c in some ways we have less violence. Britain for example is relatively gun free but has more overall violent incidence, i.e. people getting beat up. Of course the gun free part works a lot better on a tiny island too.

Violent crime is steadily declining, and IMO the reasons why are so multi-faceted it's impossible to pin it all on any one area of law or socio-economics. It's a lot of things all interacting.

Violent crime is in decline but I haven't seen anything to say that it's due to the availability of guns, in fact, I think that the anti-gun movement also increased during that same period - which I don't believe is a correlation.

Some attribute the decrease in violent crime to the incarceration rates but there are theories out there ranging from legalized abortion, aging population, to even unleaded gasoline. The truth is that despite a lot of money spent on studying, there's not a single explanation that really explains why it's happening.

All that said, while violent crime has declined dramatically since the 80's, mass shootings have been on a sharp increase and cannot be a separate conversation. There is clearly a problem and when tools that allow people to kill on a mass scale are so readily available, multiple things need to be done to address.

[KeithKSR]

Violent crime is in decline but I haven't seen anything to say that it's due to the availability of guns, in fact, I think that the anti-gun movement also increased during that same period - which I don't believe is a correlation.

Some attribute the decrease in violent crime to the incarceration rates but there are theories out there ranging from legalized abortion, aging population, to even unleaded gasoline. The truth is that despite a lot of money spent on studying, there's not a single explanation that really explains why it's happening.

All that said, while violent crime has declined dramatically since the 80's, mass shootings have been on a sharp increase and cannot be a separate conversation. There is clearly a problem and when tools that allow people to kill on a mass scale are so readily available, multiple things need to be done to address.

Locales that have bought into the anti-gun movement have a much higher incidence of violent crimes. Locales that have liberalized concealed and open carry have had the greatest violent crime decreases. The correlations exist, the reasons for the correlations are likely far deeper than many imagine, or want to imagine.

[ukblue]

The guy was asking each person were they a christan? If they replied yes he shot them and if no he walked on. If this person had got lose in the white house reckon how many people would of been shot?

[jazyd]

The guy was asking each person were they a christan? If they replied yes he shot them and if no he walked on. If this person had got lose in the white house reckon how many people would of been shot?

None :)