Oregon CC shooting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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/ima...-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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

I say enough that response time of 5 min MAX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

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...tcmp=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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

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

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/30...tcmp=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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

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

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/30...tcmp=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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrassowFan

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

None :)