BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 01:30 PM

Bruce... you continuously nit-pic about minute details and slight errors of omission in others' posts and thereby ignore the basic point being made.

Stating over & over that "fully automatic" guns are not allowed is disingenuous when the point Donuel and other have been making is that ...VERY POWERFUL guns, many capable of RAPID FIRE, even if only semi-auto, and many which are easily modified....are being sold openly with little control, and then transported to other states.

It is not a defense to robotically repeat the minutae of those weak laws...as if showing that someone slightly exaggerated the actual types of guns allowed & sold somehow makes their point irrelevant!

(It begins to sound like the Bush administration's defense of torture by 'defining' words to mean anything they wish, and then getting tame lawyers to issue opinion memos supporting the definitions.)

You are playing games with language and circular reasoning...
   "We have laws on the books. It is illegal to sell guns which violate those laws. Therefore, there is no problem if the laws are enforced....and what's the use of new laws, when the old one is good enough if enforced?"

You ignore the various reasons the law is hard to enforce, and the fact that it is an inadequate law, even IF enforced.

The FACT is, Virgina is a hotbed of rampant sales of dangerous weapons, and it takes about an hour or two to get guns from the Dulles Expo Center to 'interesting' places in Montgomery County, where the 'rules' are so careful.

YOU are not addressing the problem...you are trying to avoid doing anything about the real problems, or even admitting directly what the real problems are.

Obfuscation through quoting 'facts' is a hallowed technique.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 12:49 PM

It is propaganda, just as it would be one to state

"The person was charged with murder, rape, and jay-walking: He was convicted after a jury trial."


Of course, the conviction was ONLY for jay-walking, but the deliberate inclusion of the other charges is what makes this propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 12:42 PM

More likely, Bruce, it is not a lie, but an error. A lie is a deliberate effort to decieve. An error is simply an error, and we all make errors.

What I am suggesting here is that if people on both sides of this interminable bla-bla would tone down their rhetoric a tad, and show a little more respect for people with a differing opinion, well...you might end up with a more useful and productive discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 12:12 PM

"Gun trade shows and conventions in Virginia succesfully bypass the sale of assualt guns and semi automatics without any background checks or stinkin forms.
"


False statement.

Assault guns, as defined in both law and common practice, have the capability of fully automatic fire, and are prohibited from private ownership without a Class three permit- So the above statement is a LIE.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 12:03 PM

Joe Offer,

No objection at all, AS LONG AS the approval process is NOT used to prevent people who have NO negative information from getting those guns.

In Montgomery County, MD, the law is that anyone who meets certain criteria is allowed to apply for a permit to carry concealed. They take your application, have you pay the fee and get fingerprints. Then they do NOT issue the permit, since only police and former police are actually issued the permits ( The police are the ones who decide who gets the permits), regardless of your justification.

As I said, the system has to be such that the default is to issue the permission to buy if there is no reason to prevent it, since otherwise it can be used to control who gets guns for political or racial reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 11:53 AM

Gun trade shows and conventions in Virginia succesfully bypass the sale of assualt guns and semi automatics without any background checks or stinkin forms.
The only check is from your checkbook or credit check if you use VISA. But actually you will find that cash is the legal tender of choice.

And that ain't no lie pardner.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 11:42 AM

"So why keep demanding that someone on the other side of the argument come up with one? "

Not 'perfect', LH....better. *I* can easily describe (and have)what would improve the situation, but certain parties don't like my ideas. They are being asked to do better. "Enforce the laws we already have." is like suggesting a band-aid for a ... a... a gunshot wound ...when the patient is refusing to even hold still and let you stick it on.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 07:59 AM

As for drivers??? We ***do*** license them, don't we???

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 12:46 AM

Hey, folks...there IS no perfect solution that any of you can come up with regarding ending gun violence in society. There just isn't. There never will be. So why keep demanding that someone on the other side of the argument come up with one?

You're just asking them to do the impossible when you make that demand, and you don't like it when someone asks you to do the impossible.

Accept the fact that life is not totally controllable, people are not totally controllable, they never will be, and that compromises must be found between 2 sets of extreme opinions.

Partial remedies can certainly be found to lessen gun violence. Many are already in place. More cam be found. A perfect solution cannot and will not be found...and that's life.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 12:02 AM

OK, Bruce -
So, if you would prohibit "Criminals and those who are not mentally stable, and those with restraining orders" from owning firearms, then certainly you wouldn't object to a pre-purchase background check to ascertain that the buyer has no such problems.
Now we're making progress.

-Joe, former background checker(and one of those people who didn't need a gun to enforce the law)

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 10:41 PM

So, if the laws are adequate, but not enforced, whose fault is that?
Are the police lazy?
Are judges out to lunch?
This argument baffles me.

Please give explicit answer, then we can have intelligent discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 10:10 PM

...well, as a matter of fact, I have some opinions about who should be allowed to drive, also.

But that is not the issue. No matter how many bad drivers there are, society need transportation, and the inherent purpose of cars is not to kill or injure.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 09:10 PM

I have far more friends who die at the hands of drivers who should not have been allowed on the road.

You have my condolances about your godson.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 09:05 PM

So, lets lock everyone up unless they get government certification- they might make some poor judgement and hurt someone.


Start with all the minorities, and the poor- Only bankers and lawyers can be trusted, you know. Oh, Politicians too, I guess. But the rest of us need to be controlled and put in our place.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: frogprince
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 09:00 PM

"So, will you take away their right to vote? How about their driver's licence?"

Why, of course I would. Who knows how many people's throats they might slice with a paper ballot? And how many people do you know who own cars, who don't use them to kill at least something deliberately now and then?

Will you forgive me if that isn't a very civil reply? Our godson was always a decent young man, never in trouble with the law, never in any question as to "sanity". But there was always just an element of immaturity there. No one expected him to blow his wife's head off, then his own, with his late uncle's old 12 gauge. But no one who knew him close really said "no, no him, that's impossible".

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 08:51 PM

The way you describe it Bobert, it baffles me that Chongo hasn't given up on living in Chicago and moved to Virginia...it sounds like a place that he would love.

Does the NRA give memberships to chimps?

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 08:47 PM

Folks who have worked in the court system, the mental health system and social workers all know the folks who shouldn't have access to guns... I worked in social work for almost 15 years... I worker closely with mental health workers... We all knew the folks who didn't need to have guns... After a while in that kinda work, it's like second nature...

The tutor who tutored the kid who did the Virginia Teck killings tried very hard to get the college to intervene in this young man's life and get him some help... He even told the tutor about wanting to see people hurt... But Virginia Teck did nothing... That is why they are in the midst of law suits... But even if they had intervened, the killer could have still done everything he did because Virginia, the home of the NRA, couldn't care less who has guns...

Virginia might as well have not one single law on it's books about guns as long as it cowties to the NRA on letting anyone buy them without one question asked...

This the the real deal, folks...

Wanta a semi automatic with a big banana clip that will kill ahundred people in less than two minutes then Virginia is yer state to get it... Why??? Becausde the NRA's thugs camp out every year in Richmomnd in case some liberal commie leftest tries to stop those sales...

It's all about sales... Not safety...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 08:44 PM

Naw...get really tough with them. Take away their right to post on Mudcat! The ultimate threat.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 08:36 PM

So, will you take away their right to vote? How about their driver's licence?

IF they are declared sane and competant, they havce the right. Even felons can petition for the right topossess weapons ( thought few courts have granted it- they have the right to request it.)

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: frogprince
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 08:30 PM

"Criminals and those who are not mentally stable, and those with restraining orders are prohibited from possessing firearms. ANY other citizen over the age of 18 can get guns, as they wish."

"UNTIL the person is recognized by a court or medical evalution as mentally impaired or deficient, they are presumed sane- right????"

What about a person who has been treated for mental problems and then released? Isn't that person legally sane?
Can you honestly say that you have never known a person who has never been clinically diagnosed as "unstable", but to whom you would be uncomfortable selling or loaning a gun because of what you know about them? Would the problem that you know about be obvious to a gun dealer who met him briefly?

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 08:11 PM

There are courts and such.

Will you say that someone could not vote if they MIGHT vote in an irresponsible manner?

UNTIL the person is recognized by a court or medical evalution as mentally impaired or deficient, they are presumed sane- right????

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: frogprince
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 08:02 PM

How would you even begin to define or enforce a classification of
"mental instability", apart from individuals with a record of institutionalization, or someone who exhibits blatant symptoms at the actual time they attempt to purchase a gun?

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 07:54 PM

Convicted, and those under restraining orders.

Making a rifle illegal because it has a bayonet stud does not make much sense- unless you want to inclde kitchen knives....

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 07:53 PM

The problem, bb, with yer proposal is that is simplistic and unrealistic... Enforcing the laws ain't all that easy when criminal and nuballs can purchase guns without any IDs, background checks or registartions...How exactly are you going to enforce laws without those tools??? When the sicko kills 30 of his classmates???

Back in Loudoun County, Virginia we had a sitution where a large housing project, which now has it's own post office, Ashburn was being built... Problem is that it was built where folks used to hunt... The hunters knew the houses were there but hunted anyway... There were several incidents where bullets came crashing thru walls of these houses... The Ashburn folks tried to get the County Board of Supervisors to inact laws that would make the hunters have to hunt a certain distance form the residential communtiy...

The the NRA became involved and fough back against these proposals and what was finally decided, afetr the NRA thugs were done, is that a bullet is allowed to pass over other folks private property and wasn't trespassing until it hit something??? Like a house or a kid... In other words, the NRA thought it was perfectly okay for hunters to be shooting in a residential area ***until*** the hunter killed a person of shot up someones new kitchen???

See, this is the kind of backwards thinking that I've been talking about when it comes to the NRA... The NRA will defend crimnals, nutballs, careless hunters and just about anyone else in the universe who wnats a gun at the expense of common sense and the safety of the community...

This is why we have a the gun show loophole in Virginia... This is why the Congress is afraid of the NRA... This si why we can't even have a logical discussion on the subject...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 07:34 PM

Is that convicted criminals or just anyone off the street whom you decide is "a criminal?"

Also, do you mean there have been no new laws since 1968 regarding gun ownership?

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 07:15 PM

I would enforce the present laws.

Criminals and those who are not mentally stable, and those with restraining orders are prohibited from possessing firearms. ANY other citizen over the age of 18 can get guns, as they wish.

No-one but police and military can have fully automatic weapons.

This was the state as of 1968.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 06:58 PM

So, Bruce, what would you and other gun owners propose in the way of gun control legislation? What do you think would be reasonable controls?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 06:36 PM

Yeah, Bill, I'm with you... bb seems to have his own check list of things that have to be accomplished before adding a laws that make sense... Maybe the reason that lots of the other laws are not being enforced is because they were poorly written because of the pressures that the NRA had had over our political system for tyhe last 30 years... Yeah, there are probably a bunch of very watered down laws... There sho nuff are in Virginia, which BTW, is the state in which the national NRA headquarters is located...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 05:40 PM

Bobert, you'd think any reasonable person would get behind that in a heartbeat and make it so....sounds good to me.

BillD, keep at it...you are really making it clear...how about an op/ed in the NYTs or somewhere?

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 05:28 PM

C'mon, bruce... I asked rhetorically. I was trying to get YOU to specify exactly what you DO want or would do. I didn't seem to accomplish that, even when you make a clear statement.

"I would consider the need for additional laws AFTER the present laws are enforced-"

Do you have a clear notion of what level of 'enforcement' qualifies?

The real flaw in your assertion is the implication that there can be only one law UNTIL we get compliance with a current one.
This situation needs several laws on different levels and with different goals. EVEN IF laws are haphazardly enforced, we need to specifically define the rules our society needs to operate safely and sanely. Then, when 'X' does 'Y', we can, if we have the will (easier in some states then others), arrest him and state: "there's a law against that."
Making laws is not like testing of colors for cars...we don't need a large vote to determine whether something is a good idea or not. What if 78% of the populace refused to 'like' anti-racist laws? People are getting robbed & KILLED because too many guns of the wrong types are available to almost anyone who takes a notion. I, and many, many others thing this is a bad situation, and that restrictions SHOULD supersede any supposed 'individual rights'. Which restrictions? That's the issue....the current ones are not working, and the laws, besides not being enforced seriously, are not WRITTEN strongly enough.

Somehow, I doubt that you really wish to see stronger laws, whether or not current ones are well-enforced.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 05:03 PM

Well, one law that would work right out of the box is closing the gun show loophole... That would cut the number of guns going directly to criminals and sickos... I mean, let's get real... If someone is law abiding with no violent criminal past they should be able to own a gun... I have no problem with that at all... But what we have is a loophole that ciminals and nutballs know all about... I mean, you go to a gun show in Richmond, Virginia and check out the license plates from other states... This is an insane policy...

The NRA used to be all for gun safety when I was a member and in shoot clubs... Today's NRA couldn't care less about safety or they would get behing closing the Virginia loophole... And you can take it to the bank that this law will work Day 1... Very enforceable...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 03:46 PM

"Are you seriously asserting that we shouldn't TRY to enforce the law those guys are breaking? Or that there shouldn't be laws unless they are easy to enforce?"


No, I did not assert anything of the kind, as you well know.

You are presenting a Straw man argument- I said

"Which happens to be against current law- SO WHY MAKE ANOTHER LAW THAT DOES NOT WORK???? "


It is pointless to make a new law when the old law is NOT enforced. I would consider the need for additional laws AFTER the present laws are enforced- WHICH THEY ARE NOT.

My assertion is NOT that we should not enforce the law that is being broken, NOR that only laws that are easy to enforce should be created- Where do you get that, if not from a desire to warp what I said into something you ca argue with????

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 03:37 PM

"SO WHY MAKE ANOTHER LAW THAT DOES NOT WORK???? "

Why, just to make you yell louder, of course.

Are you seriously asserting that we shouldn't TRY to enforce the law those guys are breaking? Or that there shouldn't be laws unless they are easy to enforce?

What I want is a few laws that DO work! And I want the NRA to stop interfering and help make laws that are reasonable and enforceable, so that reasonable people can have reasonable weapons for reasonable purposes, rather than demand that anyone not (yet) convicted of a crime or judged (yet) mentally ill can buy almost any weapon they wish!

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 12:40 PM

I agree, Bill, that it's better to err on the side of caution than to be reckless.

In Canada you have to take and pass a firearms safety course before you can purchase, own, or use a long gun (rifle). The course itself is quite extensive and requires careful study and application to pass it. It's well supervised too. You then get a license qualifying you to purchase long guns and ammunition if you pass the course. There are also some pretty strict requirements about how to store the guns at home or when traveling.

Now, handguns....well that requires passing an even stricter course before you are qualified to purchase those, and the conditions of use are stricter, because they're clearly not "hunting weapons".

So obviously, steps are being taken here. I don't know the details of what's being done in the USA, but I gather it varies quite a bit from state to state.

There has been a national gun registry established and ongoing in Canada for some years, but it seems to have become a procedural nightmare and a bit of a joke for whatever reason. I suspect there are a great many guns out there in ordinary people's homes that have never been registered...those mostly being guns that people owned long before the registry came into effect, and they're not bothering to declare them. Nothing can really be done about that, short of the government sending a new breed of SS troopers into everyone's house in the entire country and searching it from top to bottom...and that ain't gonna happen, needless to say. ;-)

I think that the gun violence in a society is directly tied to a great number of contributing factors, such as:

poverty
unemployment
drug trade and drug use
broken homes
gangs and organized crime
alienation
entertainment media that glorify violence
video games that glorify violence
frustrated, alienated young people growing up in single parent homes or just without much supervision (because the TV is now the babysitter?)

That's why it's a tremendously complex situation, as I said before, and why many different approaches must be taken in many different areas of life to deal with it.

What we have witnessed since the Second World War ended is the increasing urbanization of our society, the tremendous effects of television on changing the way people live, and the steady erosion and breakdown of the traditional values that once held our society together reasonably well. When people don't really know any longer who they are or what the heck they are living for (other than instant material gratification)...things tend to go a bit haywire and a few people lose it and do something totally insane.

That's what I think we're seeing. The mass shootings you see happening nowadays are one of many symptoms of a general societal breakdown that is occurring all around us. It wasn't caused by the presence of guns (which have always been around in North America since White people arrived here)...but one of its more noticeable symptoms emerges in the violent use of those guns.

To merely jump on the pro-gun (NRA) or anti-gun bandwagon is to become narrowly obsessed with a single issue in lieu of attempting to understand a much larger overall problem in society.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 12:00 PM

"They STATED they were selling multiple guns to Mexicans who were buying with no ID."

Which happens to be against current law- SO WHY MAKE ANOTHER LAW THAT DOES NOT WORK????

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 11:37 AM

"The only thing you said that I truly disagree with...or you implied it...is that just because something is not needed it is therefore okay to legally deny it to people.."

I didn't type long enough to do all the qualifications & disclaimers needed. It should, though, be obvious that a "reasonable" person like me would differentiate between 'things that are not necessarily needed, but are of general value & usefulness to almost everyone - (like kitchen knives and automobiles and ropes) - and things which, by their very design are 'special' items whose main use is to inflict injury or death from a distance with lessened danger to ones self. (You see how thinking like that allows bows or certain types of hunting rifles?)

Yes, I am quite aware of how long human society has had firearms and how the history of this country is tied to weapons....but most of us no longer need to fight Injuns or defend ourselves in saloons against drunken gamblers ...or even go out and shoot a deer for supper.
As Janie points out, even in situations where one 'feels' in danger, it is seldom easy to get to a weapon conveniently.

   You, Little Hawk, point out that many people simply LIKE guns...fascinated by the mystique and potential power, many of them. Yes, many folks go hunting and use sane weapons in a reasonable manner. Have I said anything that would suggest I want to deprive them of that ability?
You make several suggestions about basic firearm safety and the 'betterment of society' in general. Fine...nothing to argue with there....those ideas should be practiced no matter what we do about guns, but it is pure wishful thinking to imagine that those practices will make any serious impact on gun violence very soon.

So, what would *I* do? It ain't easy, but your suggestion that passing a gun safety course before being allowed to use one is at the top of my list. (Notice I said "use", not "own"..) What about "owning" being restricted to certain types of hunting/sport items, and very strict registration and vetting require to get a permit?
How about restricting 'possession' of a hand gun or fast-firing (semi OR full auto) weapon to law enforcement or security personnel who undergo VERY careful scrutiny?
   What about not even allowing such weapons to be **owned** by private individuals, but treated like military weapons and issued to screened individuals for defined periods with records kept?
How about extremely tight restrictions on ammunition... of types available and of amounts and of whom sold to?

Now, those are just off-the-cuff ideas, and yes, I CAN already see the objections 'some' (you know who you are) would raise. And I realize that even if all my ideas were suddenly law, that incidents would still occur. Guns would be stolen...people would be careless...accidents would happen. But I'd bet there'd be far fewer!

At this point 'some' are puffing about 'rights' and "free societies" and 'trusting the government' and 'slippery slope'. I just do-not-believe that it is impossible to reduce violence by saner laws without endangering the basics of a 'free society'.

   I DO believe that if nothing is done, there will be more & more 'incidents'...enough so that BB's question about "number of shootings per capita" will be a moot point. What is the use of such statistics if you are less safe every day? What about the day when bandits and drug dealer, both here & from Mexico, get strong enough with guns imported from the USA to decide to treat THIS country like Mexico or Columbia? If things continue as they are going, you will almost REQUIRE that everyone go armed to have any chance of defense.
   Those who say they 'need' guns for defense, and advocate that guns be freely available, are creating a self-fulfilling hypothesis. Who will suffer most?...Those who are not competent or willing to use firearms...the elderly, the timid, the weak...etc.

(Yeah...I hear you saying, "Awww.. c'mon, Bill! Scare tactics!") Don't mean it to be...I just think that, in some issues, erring on the side of caution is a better idea.

(and no...I still don't see much hope in the current climate and with the NRA spending millions, of getting many of my ideas accepted. But I am still allowed to have an opinion, huh?)

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 11:14 AM

But I saw the videos of a Virginia gun show and the statements of gun dealers that **almost anything goes**! They STATED they were selling multiple guns to Mexicans who were buying with no ID....and to others who were almost certainly going to re-sell them in another state....probably illegally. It was all about $$$$$....

Most of the sellers probably consider themselves to be righteous patriots, too. AND< if THAT is a stereotype, they have only themselves to blame.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Midchuck
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 10:47 AM

IMO: A rational society would look something like this.

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 10:22 AM

I agree that "not needed" is, in general, a poor criterion on which to base prohibition. However, even forgetting criminal behaviour, in all of this Americans need to consider the balance between enjoyment of the thing (gun onwership), and the danger of the thing.

Surely nobody "needs" a backyard swimming pool with a built-in life-size blender mechanism, and maybe someone would actually enjoy having one. But we do need to consider the danger that this attractive nusiance might pose to the neighborhood kiddies.

When life-size blenders are outlawed, only outlaws will have life-size blenders.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 08:20 AM

Once again bruce thnks that if he SCREAMs loud enough that will make make his opinions more correct than others... Bruce's SCREAMING is indicative of the NRA's meathod of SHOUTING DOWN any meaningfull discussion... I underatnd it with the NRA because of the mega-bucks they collect from arms dealers and their members for the purpode og browbeating Congress with lobbiests but I don't undertand why someone here in Mudville continually gets a pass for trying to SCREAM down folks wgho do not agree with him... People with those kinds of anger management issues are exactly the kinds of people that reasonable people don't want having guns...

I mean, if bb is this quick to SCREAM and threaten, I wonder how he woul.d do in a road rage situation with a loaded gun in the glove box...

That's part of what we are talking about here...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: gnu
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 05:08 AM

Sorry for that rant. Uncalled for. Goodbye.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 04:12 AM

Little Hawks's last paragraph is quite accurate to how I feel, and not only that, I live in an area that there is reasonable 'good will' between the people here, and law enforcement. There is also a "Make my Day' law, which has it, that you can use lethal force, if some one is your home, that is an intruder. Burglaries are not a problem here...and not everybody is armed...but, in the past, people have helped law enforcement hold someone, till they arrived, so on and so forth...all without much incident at all...because of that co-operation. As I said, in another post, about trusting, and the government, the people could and would be more co-operative, with someone they trust, than not.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 02:27 AM

I might better add that I am not accusing you yourself, Bill, of being dogmatic, absolutist, or any other stuff like that. I know you are a reasonable and thoughtful person. I am simply talking about the gun debate in general because it so frequently veers toward absolutist rhetoric, and on both sides.

The only thing you said that I truly disagree with...or you implied it...is that just because something is not needed it is therefore okay to legally deny it to people. Not in a free society it isn't! No sir. Hell, we don't need about 95% of the things we have in this affluent society, but that doesn't provide any justification for someone making them illegal, because life is not just about what a person needs. It's about many other things as well. It's also about what we like, love, have fun with, enjoy, and find interesting. My uncle liked, loved, had fun with, and enjoyed his guns. He found them interesting. He was not a criminal or a dangerous person in any way.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 02:13 AM

There is no one simple solution to mass shootings, Bill, that is also a workable and feasible solution.

That may be hard to accept, but I think it is so.

There are (theoretical) unworkable and unfeasible solutions which can occur to a purely logical mind, a mind that is, however, totally devoid of common sense, such as:

confiscating all the guns everywhere: both practically and culturally impossible to do.

killing all the people who want guns or have them and starting over at square 1: ditto

outlawing all guns: ditto

There is, I repeat, no one single feasible solution that is going to stop mass killings with guns in America (or elsewhere). Mass killings arise when a single person loses it, and people can do that for a great variety of reasons. You would have to address ALL those reasons and ALL those unstable people prior to the violent act to stop mass killings with guns. Now, how would you do that?

There are, however, any number of more subtle things that can be done to lessen the number of such incidents, and I think a more useful discussion might be to focus on what those things are that can be done, rather than adopting a zealous attitude which implies that "anyone who doesn't agree with my viewpoint of it is an idiot and out of touch with reality".

I can think of any number of things which could be done to lessen the frequency of such violent incidents, but I don't want to get carpal tunnel typing them all out tonight. I bet you can think of some too.

Instead of people here accusing each other and going into emotionally overwrought attacks on one another over points of inflexible personal doctrine, why not focus on something reasonable like that? Society is very complex, and a complex situation requires a number and variety of smaller responses (legal and otherwise) on many different levels, NOT a dogmatic assertion of some absolutist philosophy.

You say that guns are not "needed" by most people. True. Neither are TVs, pizzas, jetskis, model airplanes, weedless lawns, bras, baseball caps, or any number of other things that people happen to like for one reason or another. We could do without ALL of those things...if we were being run by a fanatical, dictatorial order that decided we couldn't have them.

But.....wouldn't that defeat the entire notion of having a "free" society and a free exchange of goods and services?

It would. So why are you suggesting that just because most people don't "need" guns, they therefore should not be allowed to have them?

Guns have come to us out of a very long tradition, and that's one of the reasons people like them. My uncle had guns. Several of them. He loved guns, and he used them to hunt and to target shoot. He didn't NEED to do that, but he enjoyed it for its own sake and he enjoyed guns for their own sake. He never shot at anyone (human) in his life, he lived a peaceful and productive existence, he was a kindly and excellent man, and did no harm to society.

He didn't NEED guns, Bill, but he lived in a free society, and in a free society people can have not just what they NEED, but also many other things that they simply happen to like for some reason. That is what "pursuit of happiness" implies: you can have not just what you need, but also some other things that you simply want for their own sake even if you don't necessarily need them.

Do you follow me on that? Guns have been a part of human history for a very long time. So have knives, swords, bows and arrows, ropes, and other such things which CAN very easily be used to kill people. That doesn't mean that all those things should be totally done away with, does it?

Or does it? Well, you will never run out of things to ban in this world if you want to make people's lives totally safe. Never. You would have to finally ban life itself...it would be the only way to completely eliminate all the existing risks it entails, seems to me.

Am I in favor of restricting the ownership of assault weapons? Yes. Am I in favor of people having to pass a firearms safety course before being allowed to purchase a gun? Yes. Am I in favor of improving some people's economic lot so they don't fall into despair and go out one day and kill a bunch of strangers? Yes. Am I in favor of providing some help to lonely and unstable people or people in failed marriages who may need psychiatric aid or counseling? Yes.

As I say, Bill, there are a great many useful things that can be done to improve the situation and to lessen these violent incidents we've been seeing in the news. That's where we might better focus...on many partial solutions.

There is no one "magic bullet" overwhelming solution or law that is going to solve the problem, and there is NO solution at all that can completely solve the problem. There are simply a great many things that can be done to partially correct the problem.

So let's be reasonable and find reasonable things that can be done. It works far better than adherence to some dogmatic form of absolutism.

As in Buddhism: find the middle path (between the extremes).

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the bla
From: Janie
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 01:53 AM

I'm not gonna wade in here too deep, and probably would have not posted at all except for the number of references to guns and "mentally ill."

First let me say that I have yet to hear an argument or read a statistic that suggests there is any real justification for handguns and semi-automatic weapons to be generally legal for most of us in the genral population to own. (Not that I have read a bunch of statistics about this issue.) Severely restrict the legal market for these types of guns, and the illegal availability will also be more restricted. I also am not aware of any information that suggests owning these types of guns makes most legal carriers of these guns safer. I don't think there is any evidence to suggest one is less likely to be assaulted or to have one's home broken into in the middle of the night because the aggressor believes the victim may be armed with a handgun or semi-automatic pistol or rifle.   I think it likely that an armed burglar or assailant is much more likely to shoot if s/he thinks there is some chance the potential victim might be armed with a handgun.

So, I have waded in long - but not deep at all:>)

I have no problem with hunting rifles and shotguns. And if protection is obviously needed, they are adequate deterents. If the protection is not obviously needed, then chances are a handgun is not going to be of much protective value anyway to someone suddenly accosted.

There are a very few people who are both obviously and chronically mentally ill and who also have a higher than normal potential to be dangerous to themselves or others if they have a gun of any type. That fact is, however, that the vast majority of deaths and injuries caused by gunshots, were not from guns, regardless of the kind of gun, in the hand of a person whose reality testing is so poor that they should not be held criminally accountable for their actions. Severely restrict legal access to handguns and semi-automatic rifles for everyone, and the "exceptional" restriction for that nebulous term "mental illness" that ought also be applied to single action hunting rifles can be much more clearly determined and defined.

Four antecdotes that shape my views follow:

1. In my early 20's I was living in the upstairs of a 2 unit apartment when I heard some one on the porch roof of the lower apartment, obviously intent on breaking into my abode. I did not have a gun. However, I yelled out that I had a rifle and if they did not jump off the roof and run immediately, I would shoot them. They lept for ground and ran as I was calling 911.

2. One year at the Coconut Grove Art Festival in Miami, we had problems with a drunk or high man who was harrassing a young woman we had hired to help in the booth who lived on a boat in the marina, and was acquainted with him. At one point he flashed a knife and threatened to return later with his friends when we were tearing down the booth. We notified security but they weren't much interested. When the show ended that night, I stood with a thirty-thirty hunting rifle cradled in my arms while my husband took down the booth and packed us up. The fellow and some friends did approach from a distance, I moved under the streetlight where the rifle could clearly be seen and stared at them. They left. They would not have seen a handgun until they themselves were close enough to have probably shot me if they were carrying pistols, but the hunting rifle was fully sufficient. No semi-automatic weapon was needed.

3. I was robbed at gunpoint in Durham, NC. If I had been carrying a pistol, or had made any move that would have given the robber reason to think I was reaching for a gun, I have no doubt I would have been shot.

4. In my very early 20's, I was on a camping trip with a fairly new boyfriend. He became extremely and irrationally angry, extremely verbally aggressive, and I greatly feared I was about to be assaulted. We were way up an isolated hollow, miles from human habitation. When he started running at me, I turned and ran for the truck, scrambling for the rifle he kept there. I was very frightened, but was headed for the gun thinking it would give me an element of control and power. I was not thinking my life was in danger. He was right behind me. He wrested the rifle from me, hit me, shoved me into the cab of the truck, and then drove around on dirt roads for hours, the gun pointed at my head, screaming at me. Don't get me wrong, I am in no way accountable for his behavior, but if I had not gone for the gun, the situation would not have esculated to the point it did. I was unprepared to handle or to use the gun, and made a very foolish decision in the midst of the drama.

5. Late one night, I was awakened when the light in my bedroom flashed on, and then off. From the night-light in the hall, I could see the outline of a male standing right beside my bed. He turned the light on again and I could see it was a teenager, and he looked somewhat shocked to see me. I yelled at him to get out and he turned and ran. I did not have a gun, but it would have done no good if I had. If he had come at me, there would have been no time to reach for it. He was literally inches from my head.

6. Ex-hubby always carried an unregistered handgun. It drove me nuts and was the cause of many arguments. He was adamant that he needed it as "insurance" if we were threatened. What it did, however, was cause a mad scramble anytime he got pulled over for a traffic violation.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:59 PM

and Bruce... what does ".. the number of shootings per capita, now and earlier..." have to do with total number of shootings? If you are reminding me that, no matter how many they shoot, statistics prove some will survive!, I am not impressed. Do you think all those families in Colorado or southern Virgina are comforted by the knowledge that we are breeding faster than crazy people can shoot?

then:
"Criminals and the mentally ill are prohibited by the 1968 gun law from owning or posessing firearms of any kind"
Yeah...and fully auto AK-47s are illegal...wow.. laws! And Bobert just made the point about how fast SEMI-autos could fire. (and, gee...didn't I read about how easy it is for 'criminals' to modify them?)
Think about it... they are CRIMINALS. And some of the recent horror stories are ABOUT folks who we discovered were mentally ill after they killed a bunch of people! Being 'mentally ill' doesn't mean they are not clever enough to hide their intent until they are headlines....... **Mentally ill** is often a very subjective thing, and it can even just amount to 'temporary insanity', where a guy with a gun gets emotionally distraught - just long enough to discover he shouldn't have had a gun!

As to "...my right to defend myself and my home and my family..." ... against what? Are you gonna answer the door with a loaded gun? Most criminal gun offenses are not telegraphed... they are surprises. That's how being a criminal usually works. Owning a gun, safely locked up and unloaded, does little good against a home invasion, and carrying one in your coat while on the street does little good if the criminal surprises you. It is rare to read of Mr. Average Joe getting the best of a robber or mugger with his .38! It is more common to read of a shopkeeper being shot TRYING to stop a thief.

   Now, I make 'some' exception for rural dwellers who have special situations and little quick access to law enforcement. But even then, they have odds against them if someone really wants to rob or do harm.

The real issue is: Guns are not 'needed' by most people. The argument is that "criminal have some, so we need some for defense" ...doesn't that sound a lot like "THEY have a big bomb, so WE need a big bomb"? Now we are worried that criminals or 'mentally ill unstable' regimes might get a 'big bomb'. The danger is ALWAYS that criminals or unstable types will act first. Being able to shoot back is usually unsatisfactory when you can't predict when you will need to. (We don't even have the luxury of clearly defined 'enemy countries' any longer...and fellow students in school are pretty hard to screen for 'likely to shoot others' as against just 'not sociable types'.
I have SEEN all this play out for so many years. I KNOW people who carried guns, and I know of only a very few cases where owning anything other than a couple of hunting of sporting rifles was reasonable.

I have said many times here that I do NOT expect or advocate banning firearms. It is, frankly, too late for that. But I saw the videos of a Virginia gun show and the statements of gun dealers that **almost anything goes**! They STATED they were selling multiple guns to Mexicans who were buying with no ID....and to others who were almost certainly going to re-sell them in another state....probably illegally. It was all about $$$$$....

So...chant "2nd amendment" all you like, and tell yourselves you need 'defense', and fly a flag that says "guns don't kill people"..... none of this shows me that you offer any solutions to the increasing spate of tragedies.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:56 PM

Jeez..I hate to be the one who sets this straight. Both the SKS and the AK-47, which are both available to the public, comes in SEMI-automatic versions...the military version of the AK-47, has a selector switch on it, and can be made to fire FULLY automatic. Those are not available, to the public, without a special permit...Don't argue..I'm right!

P.S. Some SKS's can be made to fire fully auto, as well, but not not the ones that are legally available.

P.P.S. Who NEEDS them anyway??....Still, I don't feel threatened if other people own them, and if I knew of someone who did, (which I don't), I doubt strongly that they would be irresponsible....but then, my friends and acquaintances aren't crazies. We should pick our friends, at least as careful as we pick our noses!

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:26 PM

Excuse me:

If you keep saying that AK-47s can be bought ***legally*** ( WITHOUT a Class Three permit) I WILL HAVE TO CALL YOU A DAMN LIAR.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:24 PM

One more time, and then it becomes Bobert Fact:

AK-47s are fully automatic, and already prohibited (EXCEPT TO POLICE FORCES). The semi-automatic version (SKS) has a clip with limited capacity ( by previous law) and fires as fast as one can pull the trigger- just like many hunting rifles.

If you keep saying that AK-47s can be bought ( WITHOUT a Class Three permit) I WILL HAVE TO CALL YOU A DAMN LIAR.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:18 PM

last was mine


No.

So maybe the present laws should be enforced before making more- including the ones against pot. If the law is not wanted, get rid of the law, don't just ignore it.

Present laws prohibit killing, with or without guns. Since the criminals are already breaking the law, any additional laws serve ONLY ( yes, I am yelling since that is what it takes to get you to bother reading) to disarm the citizens from defending themselves.

Should eveyone have guns? Again, NO.

But those who wish to have them ( legally) should be able to, unlike the present situation, where minorities can be disarmed and made victims of both the police and the criminals.