3 killed, 28 hurt in shootings since Friday night

ballen0351

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
1,246
Most guns in the criminals hands are stolen in burglaries or traded for drugs by drug users. I've bought several guns illegally when I worked under cover almost all were traced back as stolen. Even bought a grenade once which is totally illegal for anyone to have but they are still out there proving gun laws don't prevent a criminal from getting a gun.
 

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
15,627
Reaction score
4,435
Location
Michigan
I'm not arguing for or against gun control, but people cite the second ammendment as the reason all guns are legal yet forget the part about the militia. Gun ownership in the constitution was specifically so men would have firearms while in the state militia. How many gun owners are part of thier state militia/

That argument is over. The Supreme Court stated that gun ownership is an individual right, not a militia right. So there is nothing to be argued there any more. It's over.

I do think there can be some common sense laws that responsible gun owners and non-gun owners alike can agree on. Such as closing loop holes allowing very easy purchase of guns in shows and flea markets. A lot of the weapons in criminals hands are from gun shows and flea markets.

Did the shooter in this case obtain his guns from an unlicensed individual at a gun show? I do not believe he did. In fact, I believe he obtained them from a gun shop, and underwent a federal background check for each purchase, which he passed, because he did not have a criminal record or a record of mental instability.

So what would closing the 'gun show loophole' have done in this case?

No one is really championing strict gun control laws, even those that believe in them. The NRA and gun lobbyist just have way too much influence for those type of laws to be discussed, much less passed.

One might also say that the people have too much influence. The most recent Gallop poll on gun control shows the overwhelming majority are against any ban on handguns, and a majority are against an 'assault weapons' ban. The NRA is certainly a huge and powerful lobby; but the citizens themselves have opinions, too.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/record-low-favor-handgun-ban.aspx

October 26, 2011
Record-Low 26% in U.S. Favor Handgun Ban
Support for stricter gun laws in general is lowest Gallup has measured
by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- A record-low 26% of Americans favor a legal ban on the possession of handguns in the United States other than by police and other authorized people. When Gallup first asked Americans this question in 1959, 60% favored banning handguns. But since 1975, the majority of Americans have opposed such a measure, with opposition around 70% in recent years.
...
For the first time, Gallup finds greater opposition to than support for a ban on semiautomatic guns or assault rifles, 53% to 43%. In the initial asking of this question in 1996, the numbers were nearly reversed, with 57% for and 42% against an assault rifle ban. Congress passed such a ban in 1994, but the law expired when Congress did not act to renew it in 2004. Around the time the law expired, Americans were about evenly divided in their views.

You can blame the NRA if you like, but the facts speak for themselves. Americans do not want gun control.
 

Bob Hubbard

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,245
Reaction score
771
Location
Land of the Free
The militia is everyone. Regardless of what the Feds reclassified as National Guard. But that's besides the point.

"The Right To Bear Arms". Doesn't say 'guns', 'pistols', or 'rifles', it says 'arms'.

That included field artillery 'back in the day', when everyone needed to know where the town cannon was, and how to load it. Arms = military weaponry.

Because the purpose was to ensure a first line of equipped and trained defense against threats 'domestic and foreign', while the Regular Army was organized and brought to field.

threats 'domestic and foreign' (back in the day) = indian uprising, invasion by the French, up to rabble mob descending on the court house, to civil war.

Well, today the Indians are busy selling cheap gas and cancer sticks or running their casinos, so they aren't a threat, and the idea of France invading anything beyond a desert cart today is just giggly. So that leaves us with rabble mobs, or gangs.

Cops are 6 minutes away. Mr. Remington is 30 seconds from draw, aim, boom.
If my front doors being kicked in, I'll let you guess who I call first.
 
OP
Big Don

Big Don

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
189
Location
Sanger CA
A cute little pink gun will kill someone just as fast as a "Scary black gun"
 
OP
Big Don

Big Don

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
189
Location
Sanger CA
Now that we know the killer in Colorado was wearing a ballistic cloth tactical vest and NOT a "Bullet proof" vest, as was widely (and wrongly) reported, should we ban "Scary Black" clothing as well?
 

Bob Hubbard

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,245
Reaction score
771
Location
Land of the Free
Now that we know the killer in Colorado was wearing a ballistic cloth tactical vest and NOT a "Bullet proof" vest, as was widely (and wrongly) reported, should we ban "Scary Black" clothing as well?

Well, they banned trenchcoats after Columbine....
 

Cryozombie

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 11, 2003
Messages
9,998
Reaction score
206
Since some of these questions have been raised in this thread: These are my thoughts on the issue of Aurora, Gun Violence, and the so-called need to ban "Semi Automatic Machine Guns" "Assault Rifles" and hi-cap mags. I wrote it for some friends on Facebook, but I will share here:

As a firearm owner, and advocate of the Second Amendment, I have been reluctant to speak since the Events in Colorado. It’s not that I feel my position has been shaken, or that I am reconsidering my beliefs; Rather I think that time for emotions to calm down and for people to think clearly needs to pass. I feel for the families of those who were killed in the theater, the same way I feel for the families of the 14 killed tonite in the truck crash in Texas. It’s all a waste of lives and it reminds us ours are fragile. That said, I have seen so much Pro/Anti propaganda in the past few days that I think misses the mark entirely that I can’t bring myself to stay silent. I’m truly sorry to anyone who feels that this is ill-timed or shouldn’t be said, but I cannot keep my peace anymore.
Firstly, I think it is a knee jerk reaction to say the guns used in this event are/were to blame or made it worse. My personal belief is that if someone wanted to kill off a theater full of patrons, or a mall, or a rally, or any other venue like this, lack of access to firearms is unlikely to stop them. It is very easy, almost too easy, to make an improvised explosive device. There is no doubt in my mind, given what was done to trap his home and computer etc, that if this maniac did not have access to firearms, it would not have stopped him. And as horrible as the event was, can you imagine how much more devastating it would have been had he simply tossed 3 or 4 “pipe bombs” into the theater and walked away? Likewise, I’m given to understand it’s a relatively simple task to manufacture some seriously deadly poison gases AT HOME that can, in theory, be deployed via Bottle bomb, and the worst part of that is, these are toxins that can be breathed over the course of a 2 hour movie, with no one the wiser and no one dies for 24 hours or longer… how many theaters could this guy poison, how many deaths could he facilitate, before they caught him? Especially given that he thinks he’s “The Joker” and poison gas was the Joker’s main “Gag”. What I am getting at is that the means exist, with or without firearms… and to say “well, firearms are the quick, easy way” is, to my way of thinking a cop out. Without them, the game changes, but not in any great way that “stacks the deck” in favor of a defender.
So then we hear, “Well, firearms are all well and good, but we don’t need people to have “Semi Automatic Machine Guns” or “Assault Rifles” or the ability to have a gazillion round magazine, etc. This is almost, in my mind, a commendable way of thinking, but at the same time I have to point out the fault in the logic presented here. First and Foremost, the largest majority of firearms produced today are “Semi Automatic”. They are not, however, “Machine Guns.” A semi-automatic rifle fires 1 bullet, every time you pull the trigger. Just like a Revolver, or a Lever Action rifle, or a Pump Shotgun. The difference is that they will then re-load the chamber for you. (A revolver will do this also, I would like to point out.) I am linking below an excellent video from a 25 year Law Enforcement Officer in California, who will explain and demonstrate the differences. I hope you will take time to watch it, as it is a VERY well presented piece, and I think SHOULD clear up some of the myth and Hype the media has created in response to the term “Semi-Automatic”. Secondly is the term “Assault Rifle”. Again, I do not believe that cosmetics make a rifle an “Assault Rifle”… which is the exact thing the government has based the previous (and on state and county levels, current) Assault Weapons ban on. Weapons with Pistol Grips, or Muzzle breaks, or forward hand guards, or “look like M-16 or AK-47s” etc tend to be the driving criteria. Please know that just because an AR-15 LOOKS like an M-16 does not make it FUNCTION like one: and that to my mind is the distinction between a “Dressy” sport rifle, and an actual Assault weapon: If it only fires ONE bullet every time you pull the trigger, it really should not be qualified to be an Assault rifle. Lastly, High Capacity Magazines. Now, here is one that I could understand… we don’t really NEED a rifle with a 75 round drum magazine, or a Shotgun that has 25 rounds in it, or a handgun that holds 15 or 30 bullets. However, there are legitimate Sporting uses for them, and no real reason to ban them. I know it is easy to say “Well, if the Maniac Mall Shooter only had 10 round magazines it would have limited his damage capacity” but that really is a false statement. Nothing would stop him from carrying 5 10 round mags instead of 2 25 round mags, and before you say “Well, he would have to stop and reload” I think you should watch the second video I am linking. Certainly the gentleman in that video is WELL practiced, but realistically someone who spends a couple hours repeating that motion can be almost as fast and accurate. There are plenty of ways to do this with rifles as well. I don’t see how a limit on Magazine capacity will have a large amount of impact on crazies like these.

Semi-Automatic vs Automatic explained:

http://youtu.be/ysf8x477c30

Quick Reload Demo:

http://youtu.be/Ls4Uq1aCiTA
 

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
One of my favorite authors responds to the issue...

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/fisking-a-gun-control-editorial/

Why do I want a weapon that holds more than 10 rounds? Well, first and foremost, why do I have a self defense gun? It is a tool in my tool box used to solve a certain specific sort of problem. In this case, it is to defend myself from serious bodily harm from assailants. Notice the s on the end of assailant. As in plural.
10 shots isn’t many if you have more than one attacker, or you miss, or most importantly, contrary to the movies, when a good guy shoots a bad guy, the bad guy doesn’t fly backwards through the wall, do a flip, and catch on fire. Most defensive weapons simply poke a hole in the bad guy, which then bleeds, which causes a drop in blood pressure, which makes him stop trying to hurt you. Here in the real world, sometimes you have to shoot somebody multiple times in order to make them stop trying to murder you.

The reason nobody wants to talk about your gun policy is because your gun policy is stupid. This is one of those debates where most of the country has looked at your stupid way of doing things and said that it doesn’t work and we don’t want to do it anymore.
Your inner-cities are hell holes, and you blame us for the crime. Crazy people shoot innocents and you blame people who had nothing to do with it. You declare places like schools and movie theaters to be gun free zones, and they you blame us when nobody is there to defend them.
In fact, your single most reliable defense against this sort of attack is an immediate violent response, and since the police need time to get there, that means the immediate response has to come from the victim pool or not at all. Yet your policy is to kick us and our guns out of those places, that way the bad guys can work unmolested until the cops arrive.

Remember the thing with bombs earlier? Yeah… You make it harder to get guns, that’s the next option. The only reason they don’t get used more is that bombs are scarier to make, and take up to half an hour on the internet and trip to Home Depot to make, but once you get over that hurdle, then you can really cause some destruction. See for example, the rest of the entire world.
And what was the biggest mass murder at a school in US history? Michigan, 1927. And the crazy guy used a bomb.
And we should consider how flaws in current gun policies contribute to this disparity.
But wait… are these statistics even true? How about how the United Kingdom, a tiny island, with some of the strictest gun and even knife control, has some of the worst crime in Europe? An island, with the most police surveillance in the world, can’t stop violent crime, and can’t stop weapons from coming in. You might be a lot less likely to get into a mass shooting there, but you are a whole lot more likely to get your skull smashed in with a bat. And since mass shootings are extremely rare, but *******s who want to rape you and take your stuff are common, that’s supposed to be a net positive trade?
And yet we, who have individual states with borders bigger than the entire UK, with a hundred million guns already in circulation, are going to ban everything and crime is going to magically stop? I don’t think so.
Because let’s say it again, criminals don’t give a ****.

But in most states, the gun dealer who stands to profit from a gun sale, rather than a law enforcement agency, determines the authenticity of purchasers’ identification cards.
False. In fact, that’s not true at all. You have to call the information in to a state audit agency that then checks their records to see if that person has anything on file which would bar purchase. This would include criminal charges, court orders, and convictions. I’m assuming the doctor knows this and is just pulling facts out of his ***.
Gun dealers face little consequence if they fail to account for dozens of guns upon inspection.
HA! That’s a good one… Little consequence is hilarious. Oh wait, you’re serious? Dude… The BATF will burn your house down. The BATF will destroy your business at the slightest hint that you’ve done something wrong. The BATF has no mercy, no kindness, and well and truly enjoy ruining gun dealer’s days.
FFLs keep a bound book, all guns in, all guns out. If your bound book doesn’t match your physical inventory, then you get shut down and everything gets confiscated while the BATF conducts an investigation.
So unless you consider going to prison a little consequence, then chalk up another lie.
Data indicating which gun dealers sell the most guns linked to crimes are kept from public view and cannot be used in decisions about the dealer’s license.
Nope. BATF can revoke your license if they’ve got any reason. They even tried to throw the dealers involved in Fast & Furious to the wolves, except those guys were smart enough to document that the BATF had ordered them to go against the law and good sense.

Indeed, calls for removing restrictions on carrying concealed firearms will not stop mass shootings.
Lie. Which is why we’ve all heard about Columbine, but not Paducah. That’s why we’ve all heard about Virginia Tech, but not Virginia Law School… Similar circumstances, yet one side of those coins had body counts that got the headlines and the other didn’t because there was somebody there with a gun to interfere with the bad guy’s plans.
In just my local area since I’ve been a professional gun guy, a crazy lady started shooting people at the KSL building in Salt Lake, stopped by a permit holder with a .45. Trolley Square, bad guy on a rampage was stopped by an off duty in normal clothing cop with just a pistol until the SLCPD got there and shot the dude to death. Couple of weeks ago, dude bought a butcher knife at a grocery store and started slashing the hell out of a bunch of people, until he got proned out by a permit holder coming in from the parking lot.
Oh, there’s more. Many, many, many more. And those are the rampages, which are statistical anomalies. You are way more likely to need your gun against a regular scumbag.
 
Last edited:

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
I believe someone here spoke too quickly about gun grabbing politicians...

What legislation has she proposed? It's noise, IMHO.

The only comment on the actual floor of the House or the Senate so far is this one:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/240657-cybersecurity-bill-includes-gun-control-measure

[FONT=Georgia !important]Democratic senators have offered an amendment to the cybersecurity bill that would limit the purchase of high capacity gun magazines for some consumers.
Shortly after the Cybersecurity Act gained Senate approval to proceed to filing proposed amendments and a vote next week, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a sponsor of the gun control amendment, came to the floor to defend the idea of implementing some “reasonable” gun control measures.
The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.The amendment is identical to a separate bill sponsored by Lautenberg. Feinstein was the sponsor of the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.
[/FONT]

Gun Grabbers will never stop, no matter what sounds come out when their lips are moving, they want all guns taken away from private citizens and will bide their time until they get the chance...
 

WC_lun

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
2,760
Reaction score
82
Location
Kansas City MO
Technically they aren't touching guns, but grabbing the high capacity magazines. Which we hear from the gun enthusiast are crap anyway for use. Even then, the amendment has to be approved and with the NRA's power in DC, that is definitley not a sure thing.

Not everyone who believes we should regulate guns and gun accesaries more closely are trying to take away your guns, Billi. You are making large assumptions in order to paint people in opposition to your views as extreme.
 

Cryozombie

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 11, 2003
Messages
9,998
Reaction score
206
Technically they aren't touching guns, but grabbing the high capacity magazines. Which we hear from the gun enthusiast are crap anyway for use.

Not EXACTLY true. While most of the 100 round mags are big, stupid and unreliable, they are going after anything that holds more than 10 rounds. Some of the more typical semi-auto rifles have mags that average 20-30 rounds standard, and they are pretty decent as far as reliability goes. And there are a number of handguns that hold 12-15 rounds as a standard, without extending the magazine capacity with an aftermarket magazine, which again, are fairly reliable.

So please don't be fooled that the mags they are trying to ban are only the crappy excessive sized ones... plenty of perfectly reliable "factory" magazines would be effected by this as well.
 

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
OP
Big Don

Big Don

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
189
Location
Sanger CA
Not EXACTLY true. While most of the 100 round mags are big, stupid and unreliable, they are going after anything that holds more than 10 rounds. Some of the more typical semi-auto rifles have mags that average 20-30 rounds standard, and they are pretty decent as far as reliability goes. And there are a number of handguns that hold 12-15 rounds as a standard, without extending the magazine capacity with an aftermarket magazine, which again, are fairly reliable.

So please don't be fooled that the mags they are trying to ban are only the crappy excessive sized ones... plenty of perfectly reliable "factory" magazines would be effected by this as well.
Glocks come standard with magazines with higher capacity as well as the Beretta 9mm the US Military uses...
 

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
It may not pass but if pistols can carry 14 rounds, will something as stupid as this legislation require pistol manufacturers to change their magazines as well? I wouldn't doubt that this would be the intended consequence of limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds. It is a back door way to stick it to the pistol makers who the grabbers really hate. I doubt this will go anywhere this term, but a second obama term could see this attempted or even an executive order that would have to be fought in court. Another reason to send obama back to Chicago.

S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.
Does anyone think it is a coincidence that the 10 round magazine capacity they are looking for eliminates the magazines for most 9mm pistols, especially the hated "Glock?"
 

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
Three things obama could do against the right to keep and bear arms if he is re-elected...

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/three-simple-steps-obama-can-take-on-gun-control-20120726

1. Allow law-enforcement agencies to confiscate more assault weapons like the AR-15 rifle used in the Aurora shootings by reinstituting a tighter definition of “sporting purposes” when inspecting assault weapons for import. President George H.W. Bush did this in 1989 to ban the import of assault weapons, using powers under the Gun Control Act of 1968, which stipulated that legal rifles had to be “suitable for sporting purposes.” Bush acted after a serial criminal killed five schoolchildren and wounded 29 others with an AK-47 assault rifle on Jan. 27, 1989, in Stockton, Calif.

2. Expand Obama’s new requirement issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives that gun shops in border states report customers who purchase two or more domestically made assault weapons within five business days. The courts have upheld the reporting requirement, and it could be expanded nationwide without congressional action. Gun-control advocates credit Obama for taking the initial step on tracking multiple sales in border states (where Mexican cartel violence has risen), but a national system could help make multiple assault-weapon purchases more visible and traceable.

3. Toughen licensing requirements on gun dealers to secure their inventories. Advocates say that Obama could easily take three basic steps: Require dealers to better secure firearms from possible theft, mandate background checks of gun-shop employees, and eliminate the “fire sale” loophole that allows gun dealers who have had their licenses revoked to sell off their inventory without compulsory background checks on those sales. Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., has written to Obama asking for this administrative-enforcement change. Obama already has used some executive power to expand the reach of criminal background checks for firearm purchases, which he touted in New Orleans, calling them “more thorough and complete.”

Obama is no stranger to dipping deep into the murky waters of executive powers and finding ways to achieve policy goals that Congress has thwarted. Proponents of gun control say that the president has crystal clear and uncontested powers—some used by an NRA card-carrying GOP president (Bush resigned from the group in 1995)—to deal with assault weapons.
 

Cryozombie

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 11, 2003
Messages
9,998
Reaction score
206
Define Assault weapon. When asked back during the Clinton administration, the best answer they could give was "I know what one looks like when I see it"

Sure, sure, and I know what a race car looks like too. Any old clunker with a Spoiler on it qualifies as a racecar right? Has nothing to do with speed or performance.

That's why the old Assault Weapon ban included single-shot hunting shotguns in the ban... cuz OOOOOOH they LOOK SCARY! People have no goddamn common sense anymore.
 

Latest Discussions

Top