http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... 6014.story (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-santa-monica-college-shooter-dead--20130607,0,5406014.story)
QuoteSeven people -- including the gunman -- are dead after a shooting rampage that ended at Santa Monica College, police said.
Santa Monica Police Chief Jacqueline Seabrooks described a violent shooting rampage that appears to have begun in the 2000 block of Yorkshire Avenue just before noon.
Two people were found dead on Yorkshire Avenue and a home was on fire, authorities said.
The gunman then moved west along Pico Boulevard, firing at cars, including a bus and a police vehicle.
One person died at Cloverfield and Pico boulevards; two died at 19th Street and Pico Boulevard. Another woman died at the hospital.
Seabrooks said the gunman may not have acted alone. A second "person of interest" is in custody.
"We are not convinced 100% that the suspect who was killed operated in solo or a lone capacity," Seabrooks said.
The suspect fled onto Santa Monica College, where he was pursued by police. He shot a woman on campus and ran into the library, where he continued to fire rounds from an assault rifle.
Authorities shot and killed the gunman on campus. He has not yet been identified, but police described him as being 25 to 30 years old.
They have detained a second man, who has not been identified. He is considered a person of interest.
Santa Monica College and all schools in the city were placed on lockdown.
The shooting rampage sent Santa Monica into chaos -- just as President Obama was attending a fundraiser a few miles away.
Many college students were on campus studying -- or taking finals.
Stephen Bell and his classmates were preparing for the final tap performance when two women ran into their Santa Monica College classroom, next to the campus library.
They just saw a woman get shot in the library, they said.
"When she said that word -- shot! -- we immediately shut the door, laid down on the floor and shut the lights," Bell said.
"I was thinking, 'Oh my god, Columbine High School," he said. "First thing that crossed my mind."
Joey Letteri, the tap instructor, was running a few minutes late and was walking to class from his office upstairs. When he got to class, the door was shut and the lights were off.
"I thought it was a surprise and that the class got a cake for me or something," he said, shaking his head at the innocent thought that had crossed his mind at the time.
Letteri led the class through a meditation and told them to stay quiet. They tried to calm the two female students down. One couldn't stop throwing up, Letteri said, and the other was crying and shaking.
Finally, a SWAT team arrived. Letteri told them to slide their badges under the door. Each person in the classroom had to come out individually with their hands up, he said, and they were searched before they were all escorted off campus. Officers took the two witnesses from the library aside.
Well it's easy enough to see what the problem is - our gun laws are way too restrictive.
When is this going to end exactly? :(
When we commit species suicide and cockroaches take over the world. Or when we invent a better personal weapon than a firearm.
Hey, if everybody had been strapped, this wouldn't have happened.
Quote from: "StupidWiz"When is this going to end exactly? :(
Quote from: "StupidWiz"When is this going to end exactly? :(
When ever we don't insist on having 90 guns for every 100 households, most likely.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Quote from: "StupidWiz"When is this going to end exactly? :(
Quote from: "StupidWiz"When is this going to end exactly? :(
When ever we don't insist on having 90 guns for every 100 households, most likely.
You haven't been to Utah. More like 100 guns for every 90 households.
It will all end after the third world war when Neanderthal thinking people like the ones we have now survive by having humongous children, and then they will be using sticks and stones like our ancestors did. :( Bill
Quote from: "Solitary"It will all end after the third world war when Neanderthal thinking people like the ones we have now survive by having humongous children, and then they will be using sticks and stones like our ancestors did. :( Bill
Firearms are old technology. I have known probably nine guys that could build a weapon in their garage. AK-47's are built in primitive conditions in shops all over the Middle East. I built a black powder rifle from a kit. You can buy-swap parts in "swap parties" where members build guns, full auto weapons, that are untraceable. The Genie has been out of the bottle for centuries. I even have a recipe for making gunpowder from chicken manure. You can get online and buy parts from different dealers and assemble a non-automatic weapon without much notice by the ATF, if you are careful. If you own a metal lathe and a drill press and a few other tools, you can build working revolvers. I knew a guy that did it.
(edit) oh, yeah; with some more tools you can also turn brass and make ammunition.
We would have to be literally at the level of morons to not have the ability to build or recreate firearms.
Quote from: "stromboli"If you own a metal lathe and a drill press and a few other tools, you can build working revolvers.
Then you can kill someone, retool the barrel, and they can never trace the murder to you. Diabolical, Strom.
1300 rounds of ammo ready to go..............
jesus
*shakes head*
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/0 ... 08305.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/08/santa-monica-gunman_n_3408305.html)
Rampage shooting is a social problem, exacerbated by easy access to firearms. Simply having more control over firearms will not make these events disappear. The underlying reasons behind people ending their lives just to kill people have to be addressed.
I live in a country with some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the world, and yet if I really, really wanted to, I could still legally obtain as many weapons as I wanted to and go on a rampage.
I'm not saying that having little or not gun control is a good thing, but it is absolutely not the root of the problem. If someone stuck a gun in your hand you wouldn't automatically go and kill as many people as possible. Shooting sprees occur because there is something wrong with the person.
Until policy-makers realise that firearm control can ease the situation, but that it can't go away and that something needs to actually be done about the cause of shooting sprees, they will continue to happen. Likewise with firearms-related homicides and crimes, yes, lower availability of guns might reduce firearms-related crime statistics, but these people don't automatically become model citizens and never hurt anyone. Something needs to be done to address the social and economic issues behind firearms crime as well.
In summary, yes the people who say guns need to be regulated are correct, but this won't solve anything, only help a bit. Some long, hard thinking has to be done about what causes people to use firearms in anger, seeing as how they are absolutely abundant and that isn't going to change in the forseeable future. Just my 2cents/euros/pennies from someone outside the country. The same goes for places the world over though.
Welcome to America where the only way to stave off random gun attacks is to give every American a gun to carry at all times.
*shakes head*
Yep---- see those gun laws working Soooo well.
We popped into a little country store up here in n.e. PA last week where I've never my whole life seen such a large array of guns for sale in one place. Sweet jesus. Just for kicks I eavesdropped on the conversation of a gun buying a rifle, an semi-automatic and a hand gun..... He filled out some paperwork which took him a few mins. The salesman behind the counter said "You can probably pick these up in about a week".
Guess those FBI background checks are easy-peasy and of course NObody ever LIES......... and there's still no Medical background check - aka - did you take your bipolar business today?
*sigh*
On the topic of gun laws...
Open carry is the worse. As a cashier, seeing someone walk in with a pistol on their waist never gets easy. I don't know if I am suppose to call the cops, but he hasn't committed a crime till he pulls it on me. So I get to stand up there wondering if this guy is about to hold me up or just an idiot who thinks he is a chingon just because he can show he is packing heat, and there isn't shit you can do about it.
But America, that's why.
I've been to quite a few gun shows in Texas, and as a general rule, the vast majority of the people there have no intention of killing anybody. Most are interested in using the guns for hunting, while others like having a personal weapon for scenarios that are unlikely to ever happen (home defense, etc), and the rest, simply like using the weapons for target practice as a favorite pastime. I was more interested in the weapons from the old wars (WWI, WWII, etc) from the perspective of a collector.
Most people can handle weaponry without having the slightest inclination to kill those around them. This idea that having the gun available will somehow encourage a person to do bad things is simpleminded at best. With that logic, stabbings should go up due to the vast availability of kitchen knives not to mention hit-and-run scenarios involving readily available cars.
No, it's the lack of funding for the mentally ill which causes these scenarios. Quite a few of the killing sprees involve people who are mentally unstable using weapons which aren't registered to them (a.k.a. stolen). In other words, it's unlikely anybody who knew them would've given them a weapon to begin with, and for good reason, obviously. I've had to deal with the mental health outpatient facilities here in Texas, and for the most part, they are a joke. I remember seeing particularly violent and deranged patients being released because insurance wouldn't cover the cost or the family members felt they could do a better job of caring for the individual. Many of these individuals would end up returning after having hurt themselves or others - as in the case of one woman with a schizoid disorder who tried to saw off her arm because it "annoyed" her.
It's individuals like this who have a skewed perspective on reality that need to be addressed. You can try to remove all the guns you want (unlikely proposition considering the black market and homemade technologies), but until you address the motivation behind those who even consider using guns on their peers, you're not going to get very far.
I am ashamed to say that this has become so commonplace that I barely register these incidents anymore.
I remember the shock, horror and outrage I felt when I heard the new about Columbine. Things are different now, and that is disturbing. Really, really disturbing.
Quote from: "Aletheia"It's individuals like this who have a skewed perspective on reality that need to be addressed. You can try to remove all the guns you want (unlikely proposition considering the black market and homemade technologies), but until you address the motivation behind those who even consider using guns on their peers, you're not going to get very far.
Agree very much. We have guns but I would rather saw off my own leg than use them on another person. I do admit that this cultural idea that we all NEED guns to defend ourselves makes me sick to my stomach. What the fuck is wrong with us that this even occurs to so many people? Should we all have that mindset that we need to kill or be killed?
What is it about our culture that cultivates such a disconnect from reality? To some of us, the value of the life of other human beings is somehow diminished.
I wonder if this is still the case AFTER someone commits a murder over a pack of cigarettes? Do they really grasp what they've done? Or do they think in terms of something like a video game where there's a reset button and you get more lives?
QuoteI wonder if this is still the case AFTER someone commits a murder over a pack of cigarettes? Do they really grasp what they've done? Or do they think in terms of something like a video game where there's a reset button and you get more lives?
More likely they think in terms of "I didn't kill another human being 'cause he was a nigger/mexican/faggot/liberal/republican/whatever". The easiest way to kill another person is to not consider them another person. And it happens a lot, and that's scary.
And yeah, these events don't register for me anymore either. It's like "the kind of thing that happens in the US".
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteI wonder if this is still the case AFTER someone commits a murder over a pack of cigarettes? Do they really grasp what they've done? Or do they think in terms of something like a video game where there's a reset button and you get more lives?
More likely they think in terms of "I didn't kill another human being 'cause he was a nigger/mexican/faggot/liberal/republican/whatever". The easiest way to kill another person is to not consider them another person. And it happens a lot, and that's scary.
And yeah, these events don't register for me anymore either. It's like "the kind of thing that happens in the US".
I guess it's my naive thought that once this person sees families and the consequences of what they have REALLY DONE, it may register.
Maybe that is stupid.
It might register, it might not. Regardless of whether it registers, someone will be dead.
For some reason, your post made me think of this:
http://zenpencils.com/comic/73-mark-twa ... l-journey/ (http://zenpencils.com/comic/73-mark-twain-an-educational-journey/)
I guess it's the one thing all these people who demonize others need.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Welcome to America where the only way to stave off random gun attacks is to give every American a gun to carry at all times.
*shakes head*
Yep---- see those gun laws working Soooo well.
WIth all due respect Bri, I don't think anyone with any credibility is saying that or advocating it. There are a handful of small towns where those sorts of laws exist and in some cases have existed for quite some time. But for the most part, no one is claiming we need to give everyone guns or force them to own one. Likewise I don't think anyone with any kind of credibility is claiming that having more armed people is the way to stop these sorts of mass shootings. There are anecdotal stories that often gets cited of a few mass shootings and attempted mass shooting in recent years which were stopped when the shooter was confronted by armed citizens. I don't really care enough to even verify those stories are true because true or not, they're not a solution and they prove nothing so pursuing them ends there for me as I suspect it does with most people.
The long and short of this issue has already been stated in this thread. Gun laws are necessary and need to be more restrictive. I'll say that again just for good measure. Gun laws are necessary and need to be more restrictive. But no gun law in the world is going to stop a whacko. If you want to stop the mass murder wackos, you have to address the issues that cause them to become wackos in the first place. That is the ONLY way these scenarios will end.
If you need further evidence of that you need only look at what happened in Boston. Those boys didn't need any guns to start off the chain of events that shut down the city and threw it into marshal law. Obviously they used guns during their attempted getaway. But no shots were fired and to my knowledge there is no evidence that either of them were even carrying a gun when the bombs went off. The point is taking away the guns is not how you stop the whackos from being wacko. It only changes their options. But they will ALWAYS come up with options. And just so no one (not you Bri, but others) tries to take my comments out of context, I say again that gun laws are necessary and need to be more restrictive.
QuoteHe filled out some paperwork which took him a few mins. The salesman behind the counter said "You can probably pick these up in about a week".
Well again with all due respect, I think the fact that it was going to take a week is a good thing. I guess you'd be shocked at how many states don't require that. In many states, you fill out some paperwork, they make a short phone call to verify the paperwork, and you're out the door with your purchase in under an hour. If a one-week waiting period isn't enough, I'm curious to know what you think would be better.
QuoteGuess those FBI background checks are easy-peasy and of course NObody ever LIES......... and there's still no Medical background check - aka - did you take your bipolar business today?
I'm still on fence about the medical background check thing. I don't deny that there seems to be a need for it. But its such a pandora's box that I don't know how such checks could be implemented with any kind of positive effect without being so open ended and far reaching that lots of people and agencies which currently don't have access to the fact that you take zoloft (like your boss or your auto insurance provider) would end up having access to that information. And that's not just for people who want to buy guns, that would end up being the case for everyone if we construct a medical background check for gun purchases that has any kind of real teeth.
And the reason for that is because as you've said above, people lie. Ask any pilot who has flown professionally and they will tell you that they either know someone who has routinely lied on their pilot medical form or they've done it themselves. The FAA is incredibly restrictive about what meds and what medical conditions are allowed. If you're feeling a little down in dumps and your doctor puts you wellburtrin, that's a career ender for a professional pilot. So far more often than not, when they get to the question of the form that asks whether they're on any meds, they just say no and nothing more comes of it. The FAA does have some means of checking if they suspect a lie. They can subpoena your insurance company records for instance. But that doesn't work when you have your doctor write your prescription in your spouses name or when you pay cash for it. The point is we already have places where we require medical background checks as a means for keeping certain people out of certain situations and they really only keep the honest people honest because so far, your medical records are largely private. Once we 'break that seal' and let other agencies in, we run the risk of letting lots of other people in. Like I said, its a pandora's box. There might be a way to do it effectively and securely, but there are so many ways the wheels could fall off, it makes me really nervous for all of us, not just the gun folks, if we really pursue this. Careful what you wish for is the phrase that comes to mind.
I just want to know where all of the condescending "look at how fucked up California is" posts are?
Quote from: "Shiranu"On the topic of gun laws...
Open carry is the worse. As a cashier, seeing someone walk in with a pistol on their waist never gets easy. I don't know if I am suppose to call the cops, but he hasn't committed a crime till he pulls it on me.
Not to pick on you but you're nervous about the open carry people because you don't know if they're going to rob you? Have you looked at any stats for cashier holdup situations where they perp was carrying open vs situations where the perp had the weapon concealed? I mean not for nothing but atheists tend to like evidence for their beliefs and all. I think if you looked that stats you'd realize you're worried about the wrong people. If someone is carrying open, their weapon is most likely registered and legal. Look at the stats for how often holdups take place with registered and legally owned weapons. Unless evidence means nothing to you. In which case, nevermind.
I don't think any kind of evidence and statistics can take away the feeling, though. There's a big difference between knowing it's unlikely to happen and the gut feeling that some guy just came into your store openly carrying a gun.
I know that the odds of anything happening are really small, but if some guys sitting next to me on the train pulls out a big knife and starts cleaning it, I'm still going to feel uncomfortable.
QuoteNot to pick on you but you're nervous about the open carry people because you don't know if they're going to rob you? Have you looked at any stats for cashier holdup situations where they perp was carrying open vs situations where the perp had the weapon concealed? I mean not for nothing but atheists tend to like evidence for their beliefs and all. I think if you looked that stats you'd realize you're worried about the wrong people. If someone is carrying open, their weapon is most likely registered and legal. Look at the stats for how often holdups take place with registered and legally owned weapons. Unless evidence means nothing to you. In which case, nevermind.
Nice underhand technique.
There is ZERO fucking need to bring a gun into a business. If you are carrying a gun, then I have to assume you feel the need to use it... and if you feel you need to use a gun at a place I work, that makes me nervous. I already said I realize the guy is just most likely being an open-carry douchebag, but that doesn't mean that when he gets to the counter he wouldn't decide to pull it out and rob me, or get bumped by another customer and flip out and start shooting. All I know is that there is a guy with a gun in my place of business, where there is zero need to have a gun, and that puts me on guard. I realize the statistics and evidence, and that's why I realize that if someone has a gun on them you HAVE to be aware of it instead of just saying, "Oh jolly gee, that guy has a gun! I feel safer already!"... because gun violence is not 0% non-existent.
QuoteI know that the odds of anything happening are really small, but if some guys sitting next to me on the train pulls out a big knife and starts cleaning it, I'm still going to feel uncomfortable.
This. Statistics or not, if someone has something that could potentially kill you, you have to be aware of it. We take caution with all sorts of things that are statistically low in harming us, guns don't get any sort of exception.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Nice underhand technique.
There is ZERO fucking need to bring a gun into a business. If you are carrying a gun, then I have to assume you feel the need to use it...
Who says there has to be a need? There is ZERO fucking need to bring a mullet into a place of business or anywhere else but people still do it. The law is what it is. People are allowed to do it. There is no requirement for a need. Question for you though since you claim that when you see someone with a gun you assume they intend to use it. When a person of middle eastern descent enters your store, do you assume they have a bomb? When a black person enters, do you assume they also intend to rob you? Now for an even better question. When a white elderly person enters your store, do you assume they're not going to shoplift? If so then again, I recommend you seek out the statistics for shoplifting by senior citizens.
QuoteI already said I realize the guy is just most likely being an open-carry douchebag, but that doesn't mean that when he gets to the counter he wouldn't decide to pull it out and rob me, or get bumped by another customer and flip out and start shooting.
There is so much ignorance in this statement it isn't even funny. And I don't say that to imply that you're being dumb. I'm saying ignorance in the true sense. The not really understanding the true facts of the situation sense. There is a cure for such ignorance but based on your comments in this thread and others, I'm going to assume you're not really interested in gaining the knowledge required so I'll drop it. Your loss. Shrug.
If you're coming into a store openly carrying a firearm, people going to be uncomfortable. There's a big difference between paranoia (the assumption that a middle eastern man is carrying something that might kill you) and someone actually carrying something into your store that can kill you, in plain sight.
I don't consider this to be strange at all; just realistic. He's probably not going to shoot you, but that doesn't mean you should just be completely immune to the fact that someone is openly carrying around a lethal weapon. There are a lot of reasons to carry one, but a lot of those are also reasons that would put me on edge
(including "I don't feel safe without a gun", "I feel powerful with a gun" and "I like to show off that I have a gun". Anyone carrying a gun for any of those reasons would make we uncomfortable.)
Oh, not to mention that your odds of getting shot in the case of an actual robbery are only going up with random citizens openly carrying guns in your store.
Quote from: "Plu"If you're coming into a store openly carrying a firearm, people going to be uncomfortable. There's a big difference between paranoia (the assumption that a middle eastern man is carrying something that might kill you) and someone actually carrying something into your store that can kill you, in plain sight.
Ok so by this I'm going to assume that in order for concern to be paranoia, one must assume bad things are going to happen as a result of certain circumstances even though the data clearly shows there is very little chance of such a thing happening i.e. most middle eastern people are not terrorists therefore its being paranoid to assume a middle eastern person is carrying a bomb.
So why then is it not being paranoid when the data clearly shows that people open carry are responsible for very little gun related violent crime? The stats are what they are. The facts are what they are. Seems an awful lot like a double standard to me. If you KNOW that most middle eastern people are not terrorists and therefore consider it to be irrational to be nervous that any random middle eastern person might be prepared to kill you if you look at them funny, then why is it not also irrational to be nervous about some random person whom statistically speaking is much less likely to harm you with a gun than a common criminal would?
Criminals generally don't commit crimes with weapons that can be traced back to them. Likewise criminals generally don't openly carry weapons they don't legally own. Now of course there is always the possibility of Johnny Open Carry just being some sort of ticking time bomb loose wing nut who has never committed a crime in his life but is willing to do so tonight if you look at him wrong. But just like the facts tell us that most middle eastern people do not turn out to be terrorists, the facts also tell us that most individuals who open carry do not turn out to be ticking time bombs. So why is being nervous about one considered paranoid but not the other?
Obligatory 'THANK GOD more people weren't killed, but fuck those who were, but pray for the survivors.'
I survived all the way from Columbus, Ohio. I'll be expecting your prayers by morning.
You know... This is ALL the result of gay people. :shock:
Quote from: "Mermaid"We have guns but I would rather saw off my own leg than use them on another person.
You are at a friend/acquaintance/family member's house who is a gun owner and you know where they keep the nearest gun, it is in the kitchen and on top of a cupboard.
A man breaks in wielding an axe. Instead of going for the gun, you immediately grab a breadknife and begin to saw off your own leg. The man wielding an axe stops in his tracks, wets himself and runs away wondering what the shit he's been smoking was laced with.
Could work.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Guess those FBI background checks are easy-peasy and of course NObody ever LIES......... and there's still no Medical background check - aka - did you take your bipolar business today?
I'm still on fence about the medical background check thing. I don't deny that there seems to be a need for it. But its such a pandora's box that I don't know how such checks could be implemented with any kind of positive effect without being so open ended and far reaching that lots of people and agencies which currently don't have access to the fact that you take zoloft (like your boss or your auto insurance provider) would end up having access to that information. And that's not just for people who want to buy guns, that would end up being the case for everyone if we construct a medical background check for gun purchases that has any kind of real teeth
In the UK all of our medical records are kept on a secure database accessible by any doctor or health professional. This was originally so that when you go to the doctor, they have all of your medical records to hand.
It also means that when you apply for a firearms license you sign a form consenting to the police having access to these records to see whether or not there's a reason why you shouldn't be granted a license ie. mental health problems.
Of course, this would be difficult to implement in America as hospitals are essentially businesses rather than a frontline government service like the police.
It might simply depend on where you live. If you live around people carrying guns all the time, you'll probably get some sort of immunity for it. Like people who constantly live near cars think they aren't dangerous and then drive like idiots or run across highways like morons.
Where I live people don't carry guns, so anyone who feels the need to carry a lethal weapon is immediately suspect. I simply cannot come up with a good reason to carry a gun that doesn't end up with the fact that someone of whom I have 0 clue on his level of training (but who statistically probably won't have any) might at some point decide to draw such a weapon, which statistically often doesn't end well.
(Also, any human carrying a gun is more dangerous than any human not carrying a gun. Statistically speaking, there's actually a reason as well. But the real reason is the first thing I mentioned; and probably why you don't feel it anymore. You get immune to the fact that people feel the need to walk around with lethal weapon at some point. I'm not there yet, and I don't hope to ever be.)
Quote from: "Johan"QuoteWIth all due respect Bri, I don't think anyone with any credibility is saying that or advocating it. There are a handful of small towns where those sorts of laws exist and in some cases have existed for quite some time. But for the most part, no one is claiming we need to give everyone guns or force them to own one. Likewise I don't think anyone with any kind of credibility is claiming that having more armed people is the way to stop these sorts of mass shootings. There are anecdotal stories that often gets cited of a few mass shootings and attempted mass shooting in recent years which were stopped when the shooter was confronted by armed citizens. I don't really care enough to even verify those stories are true because true or not, they're not a solution and they prove nothing so pursuing them ends there for me as I suspect it does with most people.
I really didn't think anyone was advocating it. I was being snarky and sarcastic as is my way. Always look for the sarcasm with me. Usually you can tell when I'm being more genuine and sincere.
Your points on gun laws are spot on as far as I'm concerned. We're in agreement totally.
QuoteThe long and short of this issue has already been stated in this thread. Gun laws are necessary and need to be more restrictive. I'll say that again just for good measure. Gun laws are necessary and need to be more restrictive. But no gun law in the world is going to stop a whacko. If you want to stop the mass murder wackos, you have to address the issues that cause them to become wackos in the first place. That is the ONLY way these scenarios will end.
If you need further evidence of that you need only look at what happened in Boston. Those boys didn't need any guns to start off the chain of events that shut down the city and threw it into marshal law. Obviously they used guns during their attempted getaway. But no shots were fired and to my knowledge there is no evidence that either of them were even carrying a gun when the bombs went off. The point is taking away the guns is not how you stop the whackos from being wacko. It only changes their options. But they will ALWAYS come up with options. And just so no one (not you Bri, but others) tries to take my comments out of context, I say again that gun laws are necessary and need to be more restrictive.
I agree. More restrictive is the only helpful solution that I can see. And I've spent quite a bit of time researching this up one side and down the other.
QuoteWell again with all due respect, I think the fact that it was going to take a week is a good thing. I guess you'd be shocked at how many states don't require that. In many states, you fill out some paperwork, they make a short phone call to verify the paperwork, and you're out the door with your purchase in under an hour. If a one-week waiting period isn't enough, I'm curious to know what you think would be better.
I actually think one week is far too quick. Just my opinion. If people who *might* commit crimes had to wait a long time for that semi-automatic OR had to pay Much Much more on black market perhaps the *zing* might go out of them before they can act on it(?) I really don't know but I think it's worth a try. I think people should have to wait for months and months - not a few days. But - again - just my opinion.
QuoteI'm still on fence about the medical background check thing. I don't deny that there seems to be a need for it. But its such a pandora's box that I don't know how such checks could be implemented with any kind of positive effect without being so open ended and far reaching that lots of people and agencies which currently don't have access to the fact that you take zoloft (like your boss or your auto insurance provider) would end up having access to that information. And that's not just for people who want to buy guns, that would end up being the case for everyone if we construct a medical background check for gun purchases that has any kind of real teeth.
And the reason for that is because as you've said above, people lie. Ask any pilot who has flown professionally and they will tell you that they either know someone who has routinely lied on their pilot medical form or they've done it themselves. The FAA is incredibly restrictive about what meds and what medical conditions are allowed. If you're feeling a little down in dumps and your doctor puts you wellburtrin, that's a career ender for a professional pilot. So far more often than not, when they get to the question of the form that asks whether they're on any meds, they just say no and nothing more comes of it. The FAA does have some means of checking if they suspect a lie. They can subpoena your insurance company records for instance. But that doesn't work when you have your doctor write your prescription in your spouses name or when you pay cash for it. The point is we already have places where we require medical background checks as a means for keeping certain people out of certain situations and they really only keep the honest people honest because so far, your medical records are largely private. Once we 'break that seal' and let other agencies in, we run the risk of letting lots of other people in. Like I said, its a pandora's box. There might be a way to do it effectively and securely, but there are so many ways the wheels could fall off, it makes me really nervous for all of us, not just the gun folks, if we really pursue this. Careful what you wish for is the phrase that comes to mind.
I know right? The medical testing is really a touchy possibility. I don't know how to proceed with that - but I wish we could. Seems like the last few killing sprees have been very unstable people who managed to get their hands on weapons.. ... How to keep that from happening is So hard to define.
I think you're under the impression that I disagreed. I'm in complete agreement - in fact I'd have things More strict when it comes to guns. Maybe you missed my sarcasm?
cheers
And I would add that I DO always realize that stricter gun controls will do two other things:
(1) Allow for MORE crime and black market gun purchases
(2) Somewhat penalize the reasonable and responsible gun owners.
There's no easy solution to this folks. None.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"There's no easy solution to this folks. None.
Truth.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"I agree. More restrictive is the only helpful solution that I can see. And I've spent quite a bit of time researching this up one side and down the other.
Which is a shame because more restrictive isn't a solution. Its a feel good band aid that completely fails to address the actual problem and will have very little impact on the problem IMO. Might help with a few other problems which is why I agree we need tighter restrictions, but the mass murder whacko problem? Tighter gun laws won't do squat for that one up to and until you go for the full ban. Which is a bad idea and and impractical solutions for reasons that already been discussed numerous times. And as Boston showed us, even a full ban isn't going to stop a whacko from getting himself in the news if he really wants to. Finding and stopping the whackos before they do their deeds is the only way to stop the whackos (and I haven't got a clue how we do that). Taking away their tools will only make them find other tools.
QuoteI actually think one week is far too quick. Just my opinion. If people who *might* commit crimes had to wait a long time for that semi-automatic OR had to pay Much Much more on black market perhaps the *zing* might go out of them before they can act on it(?) I really don't know but I think it's worth a try. I think people should have to wait for months and months - not a few days. But - again - just my opinion.
Great idea in theory. But highly unlikely to ever see the light of day in practice. My guess is that it might be more realistic to hit people in the wallet rather than the waiting period. Impose mandatory fees for all purchases that essentially quadruple the cost of the gun and more importantly the ammo and you will see a sharp drop in gun sales.
QuoteI know right? The medical testing is really a touchy possibility. I don't know how to proceed with that - but I wish we could. Seems like the last few killing sprees have been very unstable people who managed to get their hands on weapons.. ... How to keep that from happening is So hard to define.
This one has me really nervous for the reasons I mentioned in my post. I don't want to get to a place where regardless of whether I ever buy a gun or not, my car insurance goes up because I got a prescription of zanax after the death of a loved one. That is a real possibility with the types of mental health checks that are being proposed. And all of this really fails to address the endless loopholes that would need to be plugged up if mental health screening is going to have any measurable impact on keeping guns out of the hands of those who might be dangerous due to mental disorders.
I mean look at Sandy Hook. That kid wasn't using guns that he owned to do what he did. So what happens when someone gets diagnosed with a disqualifying disorder? We can blacklist them so they won't pass a background check. But will we also need to send the sheriff to search their residence and impound any guns that might be owned by others who live there? And then what about other relatives living close by? Will they have to forfeit their ability to own guns as well? Because the bottom line is if you we don't do all that, we're not solving the problem and what's the point of doing any of that if we're not solving the problem?
QuoteThere's no easy solution to this folks. None.
My fear is there is also no viable effective solution.
Quote from: "stromboli"Hey, if everybody had been strapped, this wouldn't have happened.
Or maybe, just maybe, if the guy doing the shooting had been given the medical attention he so obviously needed
before the incident took place, none of this would have happened.
Guns aren't the problem here, people are.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "WitchSabrina"I agree. More restrictive is the only helpful solution that I can see. And I've spent quite a bit of time researching this up one side and down the other.
Which is a shame because more restrictive isn't a solution. Its a feel good band aid that completely fails to address the actual problem and will have very little impact on the problem IMO. Might help with a few other problems which is why I agree we need tighter restrictions, but the mass murder whacko problem? Tighter gun laws won't do squat for that one up to and until you go for the full ban. Which is a bad idea and and impractical solutions for reasons that already been discussed numerous times. And as Boston showed us, even a full ban isn't going to stop a whacko from getting himself in the news if he really wants to. Finding and stopping the whackos before they do their deeds is the only way to stop the whackos (and I haven't got a clue how we do that). Taking away their tools will only make them find other tools.
QuoteI actually think one week is far too quick. Just my opinion. If people who *might* commit crimes had to wait a long time for that semi-automatic OR had to pay Much Much more on black market perhaps the *zing* might go out of them before they can act on it(?) I really don't know but I think it's worth a try. I think people should have to wait for months and months - not a few days. But - again - just my opinion.
Great idea in theory. But highly unlikely to ever see the light of day in practice. My guess is that it might be more realistic to hit people in the wallet rather than the waiting period. Impose mandatory fees for all purchases that essentially quadruple the cost of the gun and more importantly the ammo and you will see a sharp drop in gun sales.
QuoteI know right? The medical testing is really a touchy possibility. I don't know how to proceed with that - but I wish we could. Seems like the last few killing sprees have been very unstable people who managed to get their hands on weapons.. ... How to keep that from happening is So hard to define.
This one has me really nervous for the reasons I mentioned in my post. I don't want to get to a place where regardless of whether I ever buy a gun or not, my car insurance goes up because I got a prescription of zanax after the death of a loved one. That is a real possibility with the types of mental health checks that are being proposed. And all of this really fails to address the endless loopholes that would need to be plugged up if mental health screening is going to have any measurable impact on keeping guns out of the hands of those who might be dangerous due to mental disorders.
I mean look at Sandy Hook. That kid wasn't using guns that he owned to do what he did. So what happens when someone gets diagnosed with a disqualifying disorder? We can blacklist them so they won't pass a background check. But will we also need to send the sheriff to search their residence and impound any guns that might be owned by others who live there? And then what about other relatives living close by? Will they have to forfeit their ability to own guns as well? Because the bottom line is if you we don't do all that, we're not solving the problem and what's the point of doing any of that if we're not solving the problem?
QuoteThere's no easy solution to this folks. None.
My fear is there is also no viable effective solution.
Does not compute...
:shock:
In case it was unclear Mermaid, my response to you was a joke, it was just a funny scenario that popped into my head when reading your post.
There is no easy solution to this, which is certainly the truth. However, I do think it is absolutely very easy to work out what type of solution is needed: a multi-dimensional one, because this isn't a singularly-dimensioned problem with one, definite cause, and one bad outcome.
Anyone who says "do this, specifically this" is pushing an agenda.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "Plu"If you're coming into a store openly carrying a firearm, people going to be uncomfortable. There's a big difference between paranoia (the assumption that a middle eastern man is carrying something that might kill you) and someone actually carrying something into your store that can kill you, in plain sight.
Ok so by this I'm going to assume that in order for concern to be paranoia, one must assume bad things are going to happen as a result of certain circumstances even though the data clearly shows there is very little chance of such a thing happening i.e. most middle eastern people are not terrorists therefore its being paranoid to assume a middle eastern person is carrying a bomb.
So why then is it not being paranoid when the data clearly shows that people open carry are responsible for very little gun related violent crime? The stats are what they are. The facts are what they are. Seems an awful lot like a double standard to me. If you KNOW that most middle eastern people are not terrorists and therefore consider it to be irrational to be nervous that any random middle eastern person might be prepared to kill you if you look at them funny, then why is it not also irrational to be nervous about some random person whom statistically speaking is much less likely to harm you with a gun than a common criminal would?
Criminals generally don't commit crimes with weapons that can be traced back to them. Likewise criminals generally don't openly carry weapons they don't legally own. Now of course there is always the possibility of Johnny Open Carry just being some sort of ticking time bomb loose wing nut who has never committed a crime in his life but is willing to do so tonight if you look at him wrong. But just like the facts tell us that most middle eastern people do not turn out to be terrorists, the facts also tell us that most individuals who open carry do not turn out to be ticking time bombs. So why is being nervous about one considered paranoid but not the other?
Criminals hardly ever use a holster either FWIW. We ID'd a bank robber several years ago as a cop partly because of the way he carried and deployed his weapon on video of the robberies. Criminals will already have it in their hand or it will be stuffed in their waistband.
So, if a guy comes in with his pistol in a nicely tooled leather holster, you should be good.
Quote from: "billhilly"Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "Plu"If you're coming into a store openly carrying a firearm, people going to be uncomfortable. There's a big difference between paranoia (the assumption that a middle eastern man is carrying something that might kill you) and someone actually carrying something into your store that can kill you, in plain sight.
Ok so by this I'm going to assume that in order for concern to be paranoia, one must assume bad things are going to happen as a result of certain circumstances even though the data clearly shows there is very little chance of such a thing happening i.e. most middle eastern people are not terrorists therefore its being paranoid to assume a middle eastern person is carrying a bomb.
So why then is it not being paranoid when the data clearly shows that people open carry are responsible for very little gun related violent crime? The stats are what they are. The facts are what they are. Seems an awful lot like a double standard to me. If you KNOW that most middle eastern people are not terrorists and therefore consider it to be irrational to be nervous that any random middle eastern person might be prepared to kill you if you look at them funny, then why is it not also irrational to be nervous about some random person whom statistically speaking is much less likely to harm you with a gun than a common criminal would?
Criminals generally don't commit crimes with weapons that can be traced back to them. Likewise criminals generally don't openly carry weapons they don't legally own. Now of course there is always the possibility of Johnny Open Carry just being some sort of ticking time bomb loose wing nut who has never committed a crime in his life but is willing to do so tonight if you look at him wrong. But just like the facts tell us that most middle eastern people do not turn out to be terrorists, the facts also tell us that most individuals who open carry do not turn out to be ticking time bombs. So why is being nervous about one considered paranoid but not the other?
Criminals hardly ever use a holster either FWIW. We ID'd a bank robber several years ago as a cop partly because of the way he carried and deployed his weapon on video of the robberies. Criminals will already have it in their hand or it will be stuffed in their waistband.
So, if a guy comes in with his pistol in a nicely tooled leather holster, you should be good.
A guy at a service station my family owned was killed with an open carry pistol... it was a normal customer, one day walks in, roams the store then walked up to the cashier, put the gun to his head and blew his brains across the back wall. Several weeks later, my mum and dad had the place sold and gone.
So you are going to have to forgive me, but even if this was 34 years ago I don't think you can just assume, "Oh, this guy has a tool used to make killing people a piece of cake... but it is all okay, because he makes sure every one knows he is carrying it!".
I don't assume that because someone has a driver's license, they never break the law or drive recklessly. I don't assume because someone is 21 they consume alcohol responsibly and never do anything illegal while intoxicated. And I don't assume that because someone has a legal gun on their hip that they are therefore upstanding citizens who pose no threat to me. If someone feels the need to carry a gun, they must feel the need to use the gun, and that makes me uncomfortable, statistics or not.
And there is a huge difference between having brown skin and chosing to carrying a tool that is specifically designed to MAKE KILLING OTHER THINGS CHEAP, EASY AND EFFICIENT. To compare being nervous around people who make that choice and being bigoted towards someone because of their skin color... I just don't even...
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "WitchSabrina"I agree. More restrictive is the only helpful solution that I can see. And I've spent quite a bit of time researching this up one side and down the other.
Which is a shame because more restrictive isn't a solution. Its a feel good band aid that completely fails to address the actual problem and will have very little impact on the problem IMO. Might help with a few other problems which is why I agree we need tighter restrictions, but the mass murder whacko problem? Tighter gun laws won't do squat for that one up to and until you go for the full ban.
Does not compute...
:shock:
What doesn't compute about it? I think I explained myself pretty clearly in the quote. You need to read the parts that aren't in red, but its all there and its pretty straight forward.
Quote from: "Shiranu"and that makes me uncomfortable, statistics or not.
And now we have the answer I was looking for. You experienced an event which goes counter to the statistics. So you have a valid reason for being nervous. But that doesn't change reality. IOW think of it this way. Take a ten year old kid and put his Dad on an airliner. Now crash that airliner into a swamp killing everyone on board. It is entirely understandable for that kid to view airline travel as being inherently unsafe for the rest of his life. But that doesn't mean that it is.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "Shiranu"and that makes me uncomfortable, statistics or not.
And now we have the answer I was looking for. You experienced an event which goes counter to the statistics. So you have a valid reason for being nervous. But that doesn't change reality. IOW think of it this way. Take a ten year old kid and put his Dad on an airliner. Now crash that airliner into a swamp killing everyone on board. It is entirely understandable for that kid to view airline travel as being inherently unsafe for the rest of his life. But that doesn't mean that it is.
I don't view airline travel as inherently unsafe, and I fly quite a few times a year, but I still feel safer when my two feet are back on the ground.
Likewise, I don't view someone carrying a gun as inherently unsafe, but I still feel safer when nobody in the same room has one. This may be a result of living in countries where guns are rarely, if ever openly carried.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "Shiranu"and that makes me uncomfortable, statistics or not.
And now we have the answer I was looking for. You experienced an event which goes counter to the statistics. So you have a valid reason for being nervous. But that doesn't change reality. IOW think of it this way. Take a ten year old kid and put his Dad on an airliner. Now crash that airliner into a swamp killing everyone on board. It is entirely understandable for that kid to view airline travel as being inherently unsafe for the rest of his life. But that doesn't mean that it is.
I wanted to add, Johan, that I'm not in disagreement with your thoughts on gun control. In fact, I think we see the situation quite the same way.
cheers