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.