No Assault Rifle needed for this massacre...

[Ikari]

The problem is proving it. How do you tell the difference between "weird" and "crazy"? Personally, I think my sister is bats**t crazy, but I'd have a hard time proving it in court.

Is she a woman? Then you've proven it.

hahahah

 

[Goshin]

The problem is proving it. How do you tell the difference between "weird" and "crazy"? Personally, I think my sister is bats**t crazy, but I'd have a hard time proving it in court. Also, where do we draw the line between cautious and overzealous?

I agree with background checks and minimum wait periods, generally don't think anyone needs a full-auto, and generally don't feel I have to have a gun on me 24/7 in order to be safe. I think the "assault-rifle" furor is ridiculous, because what it looks like has zero to do with lethality. All that being said, any effort to control legal ownership of guns is a potential infringement on constitutional rights. Just like telling someone they can't burn a flag is.

I noted in at least one of my posts that this issue was a big can of worms, and that one of the many difficult sticking points was deciding where to draw the line, and how to deal with issues of privacy vs public safety, as well as the concern of scaring people away from therapy with the threat of losing their rights. I would in no way minimize the difficulty of these hurdles in accomplishing the task of trying to keep crazies from doing things like this as often. And there's the question of whether the quantitative and qualitative effect would be worth the potential infringements on privacy and other rights for those with severe mental issues.

I'd never take a veteran's gun rights away or lock him up just because he has a little PTSD. I'm talking about people who are REALLY dangerous... and I've got a couple of personal/anecdotal examples in mind... people you don't want living next to you because they're clearly bat**** crazy.

 

[mac]

I noted in at least one of my posts that this issue was a big can of worms, and that one of the many difficult sticking points was deciding where to draw the line, and how to deal with issues of privacy vs public safety, as well as the concern of scaring people away from therapy with the threat of losing their rights. I would in no way minimize the difficulty of these hurdles in accomplishing the task of trying to keep crazies from doing things like this as often. And there's the question of whether the quantitative and qualitative effect would be worth the potential infringements on privacy and other rights for those with severe mental issues.

I'd never take a veteran's gun rights away or lock him up just because he has a little PTSD. I'm talking about people who are REALLY dangerous... and I've got a couple of personal/anecdotal examples in mind... people you don't want living next to you because they're clearly bat**** crazy.

I get what you're saying, and I pretty much agree. The problem is the "increments". Have far can we etch away rights before it's infringement?

 

[ttwtt78640]

I get what you're saying, and I pretty much agree. The problem is the "increments". Have far can we etch away rights before it's infringement?

To me, it is clear that charging very high fees for CCW permits is infringement, as many see ANY cost to procure a state issued photo ID to keep the right to vote is "infringement" (discriminatory burden?) while CCW permits, in Texas, are 12x that amount and NON-REFUNDABLE simply to apply for a CCW permit (yet not to buy that handgun). I have no objection to the rational idea of having SOME restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, but they should be based on their real costs, not simply used to generate "bonus" revenue for the state (and AFTER the gun was legally purchased). The state sees no problem with publishing a FREE driver's handbook, and supplying a written and performance test based on that material for a modest cost ($20 with NO costly private prerequisites). The current CCW permit scam is based on taking a private, "NRA" 10 hour CCW permit class, for $100, and then using that "NRA certificate" plus an additional $140 state fee to APPLY for a state CCW permit using essentially the SAME "background" check that was ALREADY used to allow the purchase of a handgun in the state initially. To make the law VASTLY different for the right to BUY a handgun than to actually CARRY a handgun is insane, as it seems to seek to limit only to separate the right to keep and the right to bear the SAME firearm. It seems that handgun "safety" is not the REAL concern, as one may buy the handgun and keep it in a home/car full of children but needs special permission ONLY to carry it "on their person".

 

[Goshin]

I get what you're saying, and I pretty much agree. The problem is the "increments". Have far can we etch away rights before it's infringement?

That's one of the tricky bits, and one of the things that concerns me as well.

We already have a law that prohibits those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institute from buying a firearm legally. Thing is, apparently this doesn't show up on NICS so all the dude has to do is lie on his federal purchase form... maybe that ought to be changed. It wouldn't catch all or even nearly all of these nuts before they kill, but it might impede some and it wouldn't interfere with the rights of lawful gun owners.

Another thing is how hard it is to get an involuntary committment order since the 80s... mental hospitals are underfunded and it is hard to find beds for people that need one. We had this girl one time, 19 or thereabouts, who was bat**** crazy threatening to burn down her family's house with them in it. We could not get an involuntary committment order so I arrested her myself... and it was hard to do, she had the mind of an 8 year old and wanted to know if she could bring her teddy bear to jail with her. Her family was in tears but they didn't know how to cope because while it wasn't her fault she was dangerous.

 

[mac]

That's one of the tricky bits, and one of the things that concerns me as well.

We already have a law that prohibits those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institute from buying a firearm legally. Thing is, apparently this doesn't show up on NICS so all the dude has to do is lie on his federal purchase form... maybe that ought to be changed. It wouldn't catch all or even nearly all of these nuts before they kill, but it might impede some and it wouldn't interfere with the rights of lawful gun owners.

Another thing is how hard it is to get an involuntary committment order since the 80s... mental hospitals are underfunded and it is hard to find beds for people that need one. We had this girl one time, 19 or thereabouts, who was bat**** crazy threatening to burn down her family's house with them in it. We could not get an involuntary committment order so I arrested her myself... and it was hard to do, she had the mind of an 8 year old and wanted to know if she could bring her teddy bear to jail with her. Her family was in tears but they didn't know how to cope because while it wasn't her fault she was dangerous.

Now, don't get me wrong...any violent death is bad, but.....how many of these incidents do we get? Sure, a guy going into a movie theater/mall/arena and killing a bunch of people is horrific, but how often does it happen? What difference does it make, you ask? Well, if we restrict the ability to purchase weapons, aren't we really just restricting the greater majority of stable, law abiding people from getting them? Now, I'm no shrink, but it stands to reason that someone unbalanced enough to do what we saw in Aurora is probably just going to find a different way to do it if we take guns away. Obviously, we bar people who have proven themselves likely to commit a crime (previous crime, previous incarceration, etc) but trying to pre-empt through gun control is a particularly slippery slope. I mean, yeah guns in that guys hand are a bad idea....but wouldn't have restricting his exposure to tv and movies have done the same thing?

 

[Mustachio]

In Colorado, a dozen were killed and over 50 seriously injured. And that was in a situation where the gun jammed. You mock the idea of trying to prevent mass killing by limiting or restriction the sale of "assault" rifles? How many tears will you shed the next time something horrible like this happens and the gun doesn't get jammed? It's just the logic is so appalling. We shouldn't restrict these guns because some people use them for competitions? Those people could easily receive a special permit that entails they follow a specific safety protocol and pass a mental health screening. And you want to own these types of guns in case somebody enters your house in the country that nobody will ever break in to, and even if they did you would need nothing more than a small handgun. There's just no reason for this type of madness.

Knives are fairly easy to make and cheap to buy. And despite what you've said in this post, they aren't capable of killing hundreds of people in the matter of a minute or two.

 

[mac]

In Colorado, a dozen were killed and over 50 seriously injured. And that was in a situation where the gun jammed. You mock the idea of trying to prevent mass killing by limiting or restriction the sale of "assault" rifles? How many tears will you shed the next time something horrible like this happens and the gun doesn't get jammed? It's just the logic is so appalling. We shouldn't restrict these guns because some people use them for competitions? Those people could easily receive a special permit that entails they follow a specific safety protocol and pass a mental health screening. And you want to own these types of guns in case somebody enters your house in the country that nobody will ever break in to, and even if they did you would need nothing more than a small handgun. There's just no reason for this type of madness.

Knives are fairly easy to make and cheap to buy. And despite what you've said in this post, they aren't capable of killing hundreds of people in the matter of a minute or two.

A civilian purchased assault rifle just looks a little different than any other rifle. Looks don't mean anything. What that guy did was a horrible thing, but it's the person that should be sparking outrage, not the tools he used. Someone determined to kill a lot of people will find a way to do it. People should have the capability to defend themselves, the cops can't be everywhere.

 

[Bodi]

A teenager has killed eight people and wounded five others in a knife attack in China's Liaoning province, state media says.


BBC News - Chinese teenager 'kills eight in knife attack'


He got two-thirds as many kills as the "Joker" with just a knife.


I suppose we'd better outlaw "assault knives" now...

I'll put that on the agenda... thanks.

 

[joko104]

I noted in at least one of my posts that this issue was a big can of worms, and that one of the many difficult sticking points was deciding where to draw the line, and how to deal with issues of privacy vs public safety, as well as the concern of scaring people away from therapy with the threat of losing their rights. I would in no way minimize the difficulty of these hurdles in accomplishing the task of trying to keep crazies from doing things like this as often. And there's the question of whether the quantitative and qualitative effect would be worth the potential infringements on privacy and other rights for those with severe mental issues.

I'd never take a veteran's gun rights away or lock him up just because he has a little PTSD. I'm talking about people who are REALLY dangerous... and I've got a couple of personal/anecdotal examples in mind... people you don't want living next to you because they're clearly bat**** crazy.

Due to all the seniors here in "God's waiting room" (Florida), there is a real problem with firearms in relation to dementia and Alzheimers. Sometimes these old folks do go truly nuts or paranoid and is armed - shooting their neighbors.

 

[joko104]

In Colorado, a dozen were killed and over 50 seriously injured. And that was in a situation where the gun jammed. You mock the idea of trying to prevent mass killing by limiting or restriction the sale of "assault" rifles? How many tears will you shed the next time something horrible like this happens and the gun doesn't get jammed? It's just the logic is so appalling. We shouldn't restrict these guns because some people use them for competitions? Those people could easily receive a special permit that entails they follow a specific safety protocol and pass a mental health screening. And you want to own these types of guns in case somebody enters your house in the country that nobody will ever break in to, and even if they did you would need nothing more than a small handgun. There's just no reason for this type of madness.

Knives are fairly easy to make and cheap to buy. And despite what you've said in this post, they aren't capable of killing hundreds of people in the matter of a minute or two.

For home invasion prospects have a shotgun. An old stagecoach style shorter barrel 12 gauge should cover it.

"A small handgun" isn't going to protect most people. They'll miss. It doesn't have stopping power.

 

[Mason66]

I'm lost - how does someone manage to kill 8 people with a knife without being subdued? I'm lost as to how the public didn't act. . . the entire event is baffling.

This happened in China. People are packed tight and I am sure a man with a knife can hurt or kill many people in a crowd without much commotion and without anybody knowing who did it. It is not that fat fetched.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

All I can envision is some sort of Underworld hall-knifing scene. . . I'm struggling to see how it could have played out physically without special effects and stage hands.

 

[mac]

For home invasion prospects have a shotgun. An old stagecoach style shorter barrel 12 gauge should cover it.

"A small handgun" isn't going to protect most people. They'll miss. It doesn't have stopping power.

A .357 or even .38 revolver would stop most any normal person. A .22 would at least change his mind.

 

[LaMidRighter]

A teenager has killed eight people and wounded five others in a knife attack in China's Liaoning province, state media says.


BBC News - Chinese teenager 'kills eight in knife attack'


He got two-thirds as many kills as the "Joker" with just a knife.


I suppose we'd better outlaw "assault knives" now...

Be careful G. the U.K. had already talked about just that.

 

[LaMidRighter]

On drugs? :shrug: Still - seems inhumanely possible to pull off

The people around could have panicked and frozen up, or he could have had them cornered. It doesn't seem likely that those things would happen but panic is one of the most dangerous conditions in an emergency and it almost always leads to people making critical and often fatal mistakes. Mistakes like not running when they should, not fighting, running when they should fight, etc.

 

[Goshin]

In Colorado, a dozen were killed and over 50 seriously injured. And that was in a situation where the gun jammed. You mock the idea of trying to prevent mass killing by limiting or restriction the sale of "assault" rifles? How many tears will you shed the next time something horrible like this happens and the gun doesn't get jammed? It's just the logic is so appalling. We shouldn't restrict these guns because some people use them for competitions? Those people could easily receive a special permit that entails they follow a specific safety protocol and pass a mental health screening. And you want to own these types of guns in case somebody enters your house in the country that nobody will ever break in to, and even if they did you would need nothing more than a small handgun. There's just no reason for this type of madness.

Knives are fairly easy to make and cheap to buy. And despite what you've said in this post, they aren't capable of killing hundreds of people in the matter of a minute or two.

A man with moderately decent skill could arm himself with a couple of lever-action Winchesters and a couple of six-shot revolvers and kill as many people as the "batman killer"... and then there will be Certain People agitating to ban Winchesters and revolvers, predictably.

I'm trying to point out that there are other issues that pertain just as strongly, if not more strongly, to the incidence of violent nutjobs that his choice of weapon... and getting static for it. No surprise, since the other issues are complex and require a lot of thought and work to deal with, whereas the simplistic "ban the weapon!" mantra appeals to those who haven't thought things through.

 

[mac]

A man with moderately decent skill could arm himself with a couple of lever-action Winchesters and a couple of six-shot revolvers and kill as many people as the "batman killer"... and then there will be Certain People agitating to ban Winchesters and revolvers, predictably.

I'm trying to point out that there are other issues that pertain just as strongly, if not more strongly, to the incidence of violent nutjobs that his choice of weapon... and getting static for it. No surprise, since the other issues are complex and require a lot of thought and work to deal with, whereas the simplistic "ban the weapon!" mantra appeals to those who haven't thought things through.

And neither one of them would have likely jammed...

 

[TurtleDude]

And how many more innocent people do you think he would have killed if he had been able to obtain a semi-automatic rifle, body armor and 100 round magazines ?

that is not a relevant question in the USA-no matter what the laws are from now on, one can obtain such stuff.