[billethkid]

Originally Posted by MiaW1948

Although I don't truly understand owning a gun, I'm wondering if anyone could explain the need for a citizen to own a rapid fire weapon. Wouldn't you assume trouble was brewing if someone you knew bought one?

Sigh......continuing Education;
Rapid fire is not a type of weapon allowed to be purchased today.
Whether rifles or pistols or shot guns.....whether semi automatic, double action or single action.........they shoot one time with each pull of the trigger. And any one can be fired as fast as one can pull the trigger!

Automatics are no longer sold legally.

Rapid fire is not a type of gun!!

[DugCave]

Unfortunately, there have been enough guns of all types sold in the last 10-15 years that even if all gun sales were stoped today there would still be these senseless murders for decades to come. A gun will last 100+ years if cared for. Trying to confiscate guns will never happen in this country. Sadly, thanks to well meaning but ignorant gun rights activists, many more of these masacres will happen. Its too bad that even well meaning congressmen are afraid to go against the NRA. Even people who don't like having a gun are buying them because they are afraid. Wish I had an answer to this problem.

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by billethkid

Sigh......continuing Education;
Rapid fire is not a type of weapon allowed to be purchased today.
Whether rifles or pistols or shot guns.....whether semi automatic, double action or single action.........they shoot one time with each pull of the trigger. And any one can be fired as fast as one can pull the trigger!

Automatics are no longer sold legally.

Rapid fire is not a type of gun!!

I assume you were just keeping this simple, but I think one can buy a machine gun (automatic) legally with an NFA.

[dirtbanker]

Well I guess the people that bought guns decades ago are to blame...Just as the "no rapid fire" education falls on deaf ears here, so does the notion that more gun laws are not going to prevent nutjobs from taking other peoples lives. They will drive through a crowd of people at the mall to get the attention they desire, I guess then we will take everyone's car away to stop the few.

I believe these perpetrators care what others think of them. They have been outcasts or one offs for sometime, they are bitter that others do not accept them, and they want to "show them". The media currently portraits these nutjobs as villains instead of the cowards they really are (attacking unarmed defenseless people is the act of a coward). The media talk about the perpetrator over and over (giving the fame and recognition desired) demonstrating to other nutjobs watching how to "show them".

Be outraged that the media is giving these nutjobs what they want!

They should just announce the act as "another coward attacked unarmed defenseless people", never give the name or any background information on the nutjob, focus on telling us about the good in the people who lost their lives (those wrongfully killed would get recognition, not the nutjob coward that attacked unarmed defenseless people).

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by justjim

From the proposals to change the gun laws that I saw, they would not keep any good person from purchasing a gun. However, the NRA would make some to believe that. Honestly, I don't know what it will take to get gun laws to change so at the least background checks are taken and elimination of gun shows selling guns without any background check.

Would this eliminate all bad guys from buying a gun on the "street". No, but it likely would save some lives. It would be a start toward perhaps getting assault weapons eliminated from being sold to someone with a documented mental problem.

First of all. ALL licensed gun dealers MUST conduct a background check prior to selling a handgun, even at gun shows. Further, in Florida, the buyer must wait three days before taking possession of his gun. The only handguns sold without a background check at gun shows or through an ad are private sales between two individuals. And AR does not stand for assault weapon. It stands for Armalite, the company that designed the AR15/M16/M4. The AR15 is the non-automatic (civilian) version of the M/4. The AR15 is a one shot one trigger pull black scary rifle like thousands of other non-black rifles. Repeating the lies of the gun control activists does nothing to help resolve these tragedies.

[TVMayor]

If you could push a button and make all guns disappear today, the nuts with the guns would remain behind. It would then be apparent what was needed was a button to make the nuts disappear.

When I was a kid I lived 2 blocks from the Pontiac State Hospital (Nut House). It opened in 1878 with 222 patients, in the 1950s the patient population peaked at 3,100. In 1997 200 patients and the facility closed. It was demolished in 2000.

Closed, no longer needed? Hello!

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

ConSource,

Here is a better discussion of the Founding Fathers and their fears put into why they wrote and passed the 2nd Amendment like it read in 1791.

My reference to you completely covers every point in this reference you provided. All you have to do is read it. But never mind.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by TVMayor

If you could push a button and make all guns disappear today, the nuts with the guns would remain behind. It would then be apparent what was needed was a button to make the nuts disappear.

When I was a kid I lived 2 blocks from the Pontiac State Hospital (Nut House). It opened in 1878 with 222 patients, in the 1950s the patient population peaked at 3,100. In 1997 200 patients and the facility closed. It was demolished in 2000.

Closed, no longer needed? Hello!

Most nuts are rather mild and never harm anyone. Very angry lonesome young men radicalized by something they see on the Internet, the movies, and/or TV are another story.

[Miles42]

Laws are defined lines for honest people. They have never deterred a criminal. If it only took laws to stop crime then stands to reason there would not be any and our prisons would be empty.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by outlaw

My reference to you completely covers every point in this reference you provided. All you have to do is read it. But never mind.

You really should read that 1995 Law Review article again. It is outdated by the Supreme Court cases that came after it. A CRITICAL GUIDE TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by outlaw

Yes. Let's keep emotion at the forefront of discussing policy. Let's have victims determine their assailants' punishment. I have a feeling there would be a lot more executions of DUI manslaughter.

No two victims are the same in how they respond to what the defendant did to them especially at the sentencing stage . And they have a lot more say than they ever did.

Juries get emotional all the time when hearing witnesses and seeing evidence. The judge is supposed to keep them in line. Attorneys often make arguments meant to elicit many emotions.

I have been fighting since 1991 to get practical information into libraries of all kinds for survivors/victims of crimes so that they make decisions which are based less on emotions rather than on the law, ethics, religion, etc. I have been doing this with the help of many victim/witness assistance centers that I have been contacting since 1992 on-an-off and trying to get them to dialog with the law librarians, librarians, police departments, etc. This is my 224 613 Project based on my own experiences with the Michelle Mitchell murder investigation. This murder was of my then Earl Wooster High School English teacher's daughter on 2-24-1976. 2-24 is also my birthday. Many people were very emotional in this investigation of this murder which was covered very heavily in the Northern Nevada press. Most of the murders connected with the Michelle Mitchell case and the Gypsy Hill slayings were with knives and hammers. The wrong woman was in a mental health ward for around 35 years for a false confession to the murder of Michelle Mitchell. This is Cathy Woods who was released this summer of 2015. They now have a suspect in the 2-24-1976 murder of Michelle Mitchell in Rodney Halbower. Man Accused In Gypsy Hill Killings Has Spent Nearly 50 Years Jailed « CBS Sacramento

I worked with prisoners at Legal Assistance to Minnesota Prisoners at the University of Minnesota Law School first as a Student then as a Student Director at the Minnesota Correctional Facility--Stillwater from 1987-1989. I kept my cool dealing with probably 40 different cases. I did though think about the victims/survivors of these defendants but tried to help my clients to the best of my ability.

My point is that emotion plays a big part in law courts as well as in policies. Emotion plays a huge part in the gun control debate as well.

[Cedwards38]

Originally Posted by dirtbanker

Not sure why you felt the need to quote me if you just wanted to talk about yourself...?

Please present your source for "other countries in the world, gun regulation has resulted in the decrease of gun violence".

Love the line "This is not the fault of the Republicans, the Democrats, the Tea Party, Christians, Muslims, Jews, blacks, whites, Wall Street, immigrants, rednecks, or any other group". What about Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, or just Dramatized Idiots?

What do you want your government to do? Maybe they can find a cure for mental illness (the kind of mentally ill that want to take the lives of others for nothing more than the recognition, and they don't care if they have to shoot them or drive over them to kill)...

I quoted you because you suggested that the media was responsible for making Americans feel outraged at gun violence, and I wanted to make the point that it is the actual killing that outrages me and not the media reporting of the killing. Without the media reporting we wouldn't even know it happened. But thanks for asking. I'm glad I had the opportunity to explain myself.

As for sources, here are a few:

New Statistics Indicate Gun Control Works | The Institute of Politics at Harvard University

Hard Evidence: does gun control work?

Study: States with more gun laws have less gun violence

http://www.newsweek.com/gun-control-...untries-379105

I'm glad you love my line that suggests that the fault for gun violence does not lie with any one particular group, and I agree that it is also not the fault of Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, or even Dramatized Idiots, though clearly there are plenty of the last group involved in the debate. My point, as you well know, is that it is my fault, and yours, and everyone's for allowing gutless politicians to think that prayers and condolences instead of legislation is enough.

Maybe we can find a cure for mental illness, but in the meantime we need to provide for appropriate diagnosis and treatment of mental illness, and that might be a good start. Yep, it requires tax money, but if it saves lives would that expense be worth it? Isn't protecting us a primary function of our government?

What do I want my government to do? How about:

(1) Stop the indiscriminate sale of guns at gun shows to anyone with money, without even conducting a criminal background check?

(2) Unshackle the CDC to allow them to study gun violence and make recommendations? The CDC, the nation's public health agency, is now restricted from making recommendations on sensible ways to reduce gun violence.

(3) Ban high capacity magazines and assault weapons?

(4) Provide adequate funding for the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness?

(5) Conduct a nationwide gun buyback to reduce the number of weapons?

I'm certainly no expert. These are just off the top of my head, without any opportunity to have an open and honest discussion with others of good will on the solutions to this growing problem. I'm sure there are more, and you probably have some constructive ideas to share too.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Cedwards38

I quoted you because you suggested that the media was responsible for making Americans feel outraged at gun violence, and I wanted to make the point that it is the actual killing that outrages me and not the media reporting of the killing. Without the media reporting we wouldn't even know it happened. But thanks for asking. I'm glad I had the opportunity to explain myself.

As for sources, here are a few:

New Statistics Indicate Gun Control Works | The Institute of Politics at Harvard University

Hard Evidence: does gun control work?

Study: States with more gun laws have less gun violence

http://www.newsweek.com/gun-control-...untries-379105

I'm glad you love my line that suggests that the fault for gun violence does not lie with any one particular group, and I agree that it is also not the fault of Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, or even Dramatized Idiots, though clearly there are plenty of the last group involved in the debate. My point, as you well know, is that it is my fault, and yours, and everyone's for allowing gutless politicians to think that prayers and condolences instead of legislation is enough.

Maybe we can find a cure for mental illness, but in the meantime we need to provide for appropriate diagnosis and treatment of mental illness, and that might be a good start. Yep, it requires tax money, but if it saves lives would that expense be worth it? Isn't protecting us a primary function of our government?

What do I want my government to do? How about:

(1) Stop the indiscriminate sale of guns at gun shows to anyone with money, without even conducting a criminal background check?

(2) Unshackle the CDC to allow them to study gun violence and make recommendations? The CDC, the nation's public health agency, is now restricted from making recommendations on sensible ways to reduce gun violence.

(3) Ban high capacity magazines and assault weapons?

(4) Provide adequate funding for the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness?

(5) Conduct a nationwide gun buyback to reduce the number of weapons?

I'm certainly no expert. These are just off the top of my head, without any opportunity to have an open and honest discussion with others of good will on the solutions to this growing problem. I'm sure there are more, and you probably have some constructive ideas to share too.

Nice post.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by Jimturner

I am a gun owner and can't imagine not having them. But not making the ownership more controlled is irresponsible.
The good guy bad guy or the silly guns don't kill people argument is worthless.
People with mental problems buy weapons and make long term plans to carry out their craziness. Background checks would help. I would propose to own a gun, you would be required to meet or exceed the requirements for concealed carry. If you can't qualify for concealed carry you should not own one.

How many of these mass murders have been killed by people who obtained the guns legally? We already have more gun control laws than any other country and more gun laws than we've ever had in our history.

I think that it's safe to say that gun control laws don't work. They really only make it a hassle for good responsible gun owners like yourself to get guns. The criminals and mentally ill are going to procure guns through illegal channels.

Honduras bans it's citizens from owning guns. Yet it has the highest homicide rate in the world with 84% of those killings being committed with guns. How is this possible if guns are banned? Should they make more gun control laws? Will that lower the gun death rate?

Back in 1934 the first gun law was passed making it extremely difficult to get fully automatic weapons. The idea was to prevent gangsters from getting these weapons. A hefty fee was instituted for anyone wanting a machine gun making it all but impossible for 90% of Americans to buy one. The exception, of course, was organized crime who had no problem coming up with the money and circumventing the law. Does anyone think that gun control laws would have prevented Al Capone's gang from getting guns.

I'm not sure what the solution is. Some people say that the problem isn't as bad as it's made out to be. One study shows that the incidents of mass killings hasn't changed in 60 years. It's just that we have 24/7 news that reports it better. In other words this has been going on for a long time, it's just recently that we are made aware of it.

Gun control laws are basically political tool, so that members of congress can claim to have done something about the problem. It's all about getting re-elected. The president's words last week were only to get his based riled up and get more votes for democrats. He used the words "common sense" a lot, but never really talked about what is common sense. Making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to get guns doesn't seem like common sense to me. How is making laws that restrict good, law abiding citizens from carrying weapons in order to defend themselves common sense?

Sorry, I don't have a solution. But doing what we've been doing, making more and more gun control laws, is not working.

[AJ32162]

Originally Posted by outlaw

I assume you were just keeping this simple, but I think one can buy a machine gun (automatic) legally with an NFA.

While this is technically true, it is a very restrictive, time consuming and expensive process. You could buy a new luxury car or two for far less than the price of a machine gun.

And no, contrary to what some would have you believe, you cannot buy a machine gun over the internet.