Idiots please post in here

Bobcougarzillameister said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

YES, it is the same. It is illegal to sell a firearm to a non-legal person in every state. It's a federal crime. Even in a person to person sale, it is the responsibility of the seller to ensure that the purchaser is not a non-legal person. We typically do that with a drivers license and a license to carry in that state that is valid. 

That seems to conflict directly with this:

Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks on buyers, whether at a gun show or other venue. They also are not required to record the sale, or ask for identification. This requirement is in contrast to sales by gun stores and other Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders who are required to record all sales and perform background checks on almost all buyers, regardless of whether the venue is their business location or a gun show.

If you're right and Wikipedia is wrong though, then it sounds like there is an enforcement problem with this law since the shooter was still able to buy a gun. If the seller of this gun is found, what charges will he face? What impediments could there be to finding the seller?

Duke said:

GameboyRMH said:

When the US is ready to deal with this problem, the rest of the world will be waiting by the photocopier with their gun laws.

What the rest of the world refuses to understand is that guns are the symptom, NOT the cause.  The cause is complex and multifaceted.  You guys haven't solved the problem either... you've just changed the tools available to those who want to use them.  I'm not arguing whether that is good or bad, I'm just making the point.

Yes, we've changed the tools to much less effective ones and thus saved lives, which was the goal. Like I said on the previous page, even having more spree killings and less victims would be an improvement.

Depends on the state. If it was a private transaction, the seller may never be found now that the guy is dead. 

Thats the problem with almost all of the laws they have now. A.) there's no enforcement and b.) in many cases there's no way TO enforce it. Illegal transactions are illegal. Written laws don't affect them in that regard. Adding more of these laws do nothing to curb or stop the actual problem at hand. 

Donning tinfoil hat here for a moment, I wonder if this was one of the 1o's lf thousands of guns the BATF ran across the border in their F&F debacle? untraceable guns sold intentionally to illegal cartels then "forgotten" about. 

In reply to GameboyRMH :

next problem, how do you round up 300+ million firearms owned legally by 30 million people?

The Artist Formerly Known as Giant Purple Snorklewacker said:

STM317 said:

Haven't humans always been violent? Haven't we always wanted what others have, or sought more of what we already have? The difference is that some people draw a line that won't be crossed, while others are willing to harm other humans for having what they want, or being a threat to what they already have. Gun laws, or TV, or socioeconomic themes can certainly play a role here, but the desire to do harm to another human is as old as we are.

I'm not trying to excuse any of this as being "natural", or beyond improvement. But it's important to understand what we're actually fighting here is an evil part of human nature, and compulsiveness. As long as there has been good in the world, there has been evil.

The choice of a firearm says something too - there are plenty of ways to off a crowd of people with household chemicals but that is never the choice. It is an attempt to satisfy a rage - the violence of shooting is a draw I think. Poison or fire would never do for some reason despite it's greater capacity for carnage. We never have mustard gas attacks even though any high school chem student could pull it off as easily as collecting a berkeley ton of ammo. Hell, a couple of high school kids with different a motive profile showed us how hard it would be to hurt a bunch of people in Boston with cookware. Answer: Not very.

So, why the guns? Either the symbol of power that wielding a weapon has to the killer - or the actual satisfaction of dealing out the doom personally is a trait in all of these.  Since I'm not a psychiatrist I can't really say to the why much more than observing it as a choice they make but as a user of logic I can see that limiting the access to the types of tools they prefer does seem like it would limit the infliction rate. If they couldn't get a high powered semi-auto rifle they wouldn't necessarily turn to other means of destruction. They would go to some other type of firearm they could get. Shotgun, revolver, etc. 

I don't much care for the idea of the government disarming citizens but I can see where limiting the type of arms available is going to have to be part of the conversation certainly.

Gun = manhood  right? That's what we're presented with.

In reply to STM317 :

I've been told repeatedly that owning firearms mean you are lacking in hte manhood dept. Just because it may be true in my case doesn't mean it's true for all.

IBTL? 

Recommended reading: https://www.amazon.com/Wild-Heart-Discovering-Secret-Mans/dp/0785268839

Bobcougarzillameister said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

next problem, how do you round up 300+ million firearms owned legally by 30 million people?

I was going to point out to Duke that firearms are not a symptom, but an enabler.  But since you've just posted that the horses have been let wild a long time ago, doing anything is going to be pointless.

So we should just get used to more and more of this happening.  yay.

Mods are watching. Discussion is ok, personal attacks are not. If you're getting riled up then there may be better places on the internet to blow off steam that here. Just sayin'. 

In reply to mazdeuce - Seth :

There's no attacking- it's being pointed out that nothing can be done.  So we should just get used to these events.  

That is what most people are posting.

Woody said:

The Artist Formerly Known as Giant Purple Snorklewacker said:

I know right? Weird that it was a 16yr old girl, Brenda Spencer, that started it all.

 

 

From Brenda Spencer's Wiki Page:

After her parents separated, she lived with her father, Wallace Spencer, in virtual poverty; they slept on a single mattress on the living room floor, with empty alcohol bottles throughout the house.

Possibly interesting sidenote:

At every fatal house fire that I have been to, there was a mattress on the living room floor.

Every?

Really? That's wild! What's the implied causation? Bad decision making skills?

alfadriver said:

Bobcougarzillameister said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

next problem, how do you round up 300+ million firearms owned legally by 30 million people?

I was going to point out to Duke that firearms are not a symptom, but an enabler.  But since you've just posted that the horses have been let wild a long time ago, doing anything is going to be pointless.

So we should just get used to more and more of this happening.  yay.

Strawman. No one ever has said doing nothing is the only correct solution. Although, the mayor of London did say that terror attacks are something we should just expect. I also think he's an idiot...

Doing something for the sake of doing something is not the same as doing the right thing or even attempting to tackle the whole problem. We come right back to the same problem: It's easier to blame the tool than to fix the mental health issue that caused the tool to be used.  Is it the constant negativity the media espouses? Is it the "me first" mentality coming of age? Is it the destruction of the core family values? Is it the degradation of our mental health services? Is it all of them? None? We're (all) not discussing these issues because they're hard. They're not as easy as saying "THAT EVIL BLACK RIFLE KILLED ALL THOSE PEOPLE!" We as a society can't even have an intelligent conversation on anything anymore without the need to create "safe spaces" and name calling. How the hell are we going to tackle mental health?

alfadriver said:

Bobcougarzillameister said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

next problem, how do you round up 300+ million firearms owned legally by 30 million people?

I was going to point out to Duke that firearms are not a symptom, but an enabler.  But since you've just posted that the horses have been let wild a long time ago, doing anything is going to be pointless.

So we should just get used to more and more of this happening.  yay.

Well there are at least a half dozen armed members of my congregation. I mean, it would not be pretty, but it would stop pretty quickly.

alfadriver said:

In reply to mazdeuce - Seth :

There's no attacking- it's being pointed out that nothing can be done.  So we should just get used to these events.  

That is what most people are posting.

Sadly you're not reading what's being posted. Please, if you can't discuss this topic with a degree of honesty than do hte rest of us a favor and stay away. 

tuna55 said:

alfadriver said:

Bobcougarzillameister said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

next problem, how do you round up 300+ million firearms owned legally by 30 million people?

I was going to point out to Duke that firearms are not a symptom, but an enabler.  But since you've just posted that the horses have been let wild a long time ago, doing anything is going to be pointless.

So we should just get used to more and more of this happening.  yay.

Well there are at least a half dozen armed members of my congregation. I mean, it would not be pretty, but it would stop pretty quickly.

In Texas, that's not allowed. The person that DID stop it was a bystander across the street at the gas station. That man and the man that stopped his truck and followed the pile of feces that did this atrocious act are the real heroes. 

tuna55 said:

alfadriver said:

Bobcougarzillameister said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

next problem, how do you round up 300+ million firearms owned legally by 30 million people?

I was going to point out to Duke that firearms are not a symptom, but an enabler.  But since you've just posted that the horses have been let wild a long time ago, doing anything is going to be pointless.

So we should just get used to more and more of this happening.  yay.

Well there are at least a half dozen armed members of my congregation. I mean, it would not be pretty, but it would stop pretty quickly.

Mine too.  An effective solution to stopping church spree killings would be consistent and overwhelming resistance.  Shooters will start picking easier targets, which is what they're always looking for.

Bobcougarzillameister said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

YES, it is the same. It is illegal to sell a firearm to a non-legal person in every state. It's a federal crime. Even in a person to person sale, it is the responsibility of the seller to ensure that the purchaser is not a non-legal person. We typically do that with a drivers license and a license to carry in that state that is valid. 

It's illegal to sell a firearm to someone you KNOW is a non-legal person. However, there is no requirement for a background check and that is where the failing is. I've bought guns used before, and it's kind of scary how easy it was. Here's some money, here's your gun. The seller had no idea who I was or what my legal gun ownership status was. They didn't ask. They're not required to, that I know of.

THAT is what Gameboy is saying. The gunshow loophole means anyone can buy a gun with no background check.

Bobcougarzillameister said:

alfadriver said:

In reply to mazdeuce - Seth :

There's no attacking- it's being pointed out that nothing can be done.  So we should just get used to these events.  

That is what most people are posting.

Sadly you're not reading what's being posted. Please, if you can't discuss this topic with a degree of honesty than do hte rest of us a favor and stay away. 

So what are you saying, then?  

I'm being honest, here.  Everyone has all the reasons to not do anything about firearms.  And there isn't a realsitic way that we can ever stop people from getting firearms, unless we go full Minority Report, which is even farther from legal.  Bad people will always have access to arms.  Always.

Therefore we should just get used to it.  That is an honest conclusion.

Bobcougarzillameister said:

alfadriver said:

Bobcougarzillameister said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

next problem, how do you round up 300+ million firearms owned legally by 30 million people?

I was going to point out to Duke that firearms are not a symptom, but an enabler.  But since you've just posted that the horses have been let wild a long time ago, doing anything is going to be pointless.

So we should just get used to more and more of this happening.  yay.

Strawman. No one ever has said doing nothing is the only correct solution. Although, the mayor of London did say that terror attacks are something we should just expect. I also think he's an idiot...

Doing something for the sake of doing something is not the same as doing the right thing or even attempting to tackle the whole problem. We come right back to the same problem: It's easier to blame the tool than to fix the mental health issue that caused the tool to be used.  Is it the constant negativity the media espouses? Is it the "me first" mentality coming of age? Is it the destruction of the core family values? Is it the degradation of our mental health services? Is it all of them? None? We're (all) not discussing these issues because they're hard. They're not as easy as saying "THAT EVIL BLACK RIFLE KILLED ALL THOSE PEOPLE!" We as a society can't even have an intelligent conversation on anything anymore without the need to create "safe spaces" and name calling. How the hell are we going to tackle mental health?

I think the knee jerk happens on all sides of this. I am a big advocate of shooting sports and a CC holder. But if I'm not able to discuss seriously restricting access to high powered semi-automatic weapons as a potential part of a solution along side mental health and other types of approaches then I'm being intellectually dishonest. It's a difficult problem. But, the idea that because no one can guarantee a successful outcome at the onset means that we shouldn't try to do anything at all is lazy. Restricting access in a way that does not criminalize current law abiding owners or violate the constitution is hideously expensive in buy outs and legal fees,  and very hard to sell in a "Corps are Peeps" campaign finance landscape but that doesn't mean we can't discuss it without losing our goddamn minds. It's only slightly less disturbing than having the government conducting mental health surveys to work it from the other end   

Bobcougarzillameister said:

Depends on the state. If it was a private transaction, the seller may never be found now that the guy is dead. 

Thats the problem with almost all of the laws they have now. A.) there's no enforcement and b.) in many cases there's no way TO enforce it. Illegal transactions are illegal. Written laws don't affect them in that regard. Adding more of these laws do nothing to curb or stop the actual problem at hand.

Those problems could be easily solved with a gun registry. In the current situation it sounds like the seller had nothing to fear legally from the sale unless the buyer turned him in (thus also incriminating himself).

Bobcougarzillameister said:

alfadriver said:

Bobcougarzillameister said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

next problem, how do you round up 300+ million firearms owned legally by 30 million people?

I was going to point out to Duke that firearms are not a symptom, but an enabler.  But since you've just posted that the horses have been let wild a long time ago, doing anything is going to be pointless.

So we should just get used to more and more of this happening.  yay.

Strawman. No one ever has said doing nothing is the only correct solution. Although, the mayor of London did say that terror attacks are something we should just expect. I also think he's an idiot...

Doing something for the sake of doing something is not the same as doing the right thing or even attempting to tackle the whole problem. We come right back to the same problem: It's easier to blame the tool than to fix the mental health issue that caused the tool to be used.  Is it the constant negativity the media espouses? Is it the "me first" mentality coming of age? Is it the destruction of the core family values? Is it the degradation of our mental health services? Is it all of them? None? We're (all) not discussing these issues because they're hard. They're not as easy as saying "THAT EVIL BLACK RIFLE KILLED ALL THOSE PEOPLE!" We as a society can't even have an intelligent conversation on anything anymore without the need to create "safe spaces" and name calling. How the hell are we going to tackle mental health?

The only reason that you think people are suggeting doing things for the sake of doing things is that you disagree with them.  (and by "you" I'm not singling you out, Bob- eveyrone one else is genreally saying the same thing)

Yes, the person killed people, with a gun.  But it's not that hard to come up with ideas that will lower the severity of those events. 

It's equally unrealsitic that we can find and supress all people who have mental health issues as it is to eliminate all guns.  But we can't at all address the tools of the incident- it's not hard to fault why magazines need to be so large; it's not hard to fault why we need autos that can fire that fast.

It's not the "black gun" that's the problem- it's that it has the potential of shooting many people in a very short time frame.   And we can't ever address those issues.

And since we can't address the tools of these events, and we can't find all the bad people, then we should just get used to it.

General comment. The thing that bothers me the most is that we, the whole damn country, can’t discuss things without everyone people attacking those who have dissenting views.  Someone who disagrees with you isn’t your enemy. Maybe you should take some time to understand the issue from all sides. 

dculberson said:

Bobcougarzillameister said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

YES, it is the same. It is illegal to sell a firearm to a non-legal person in every state. It's a federal crime. Even in a person to person sale, it is the responsibility of the seller to ensure that the purchaser is not a non-legal person. We typically do that with a drivers license and a license to carry in that state that is valid. 

It's illegal to sell a firearm to someone you KNOW is a non-legal person. However, there is no requirement for a background check and that is where the failing is. I've bought guns used before, and it's kind of scary how easy it was. Here's some money, here's your gun. The seller had no idea who I was or what my legal gun ownership status was. They didn't ask. They're not required to, that I know of.

THAT is what Gameboy is saying. The gunshow loophole means anyone can buy a gun with no background check.

There will always be those people that ignore laws and rules. I won't sell or purchase from someone without the appropriate "papers" present and valid. I mean, Illinois requires an FFL for all purchases yet they have rampant gun crime with illegal guns. 

Fueled by Caffeine said:

General comment. The thing that bothers me the most is that we, the whole damn country, can’t discuss things without everyone people attacking those who have dissenting views.  Someone who disagrees with you isn’t your enemy. Maybe you should take some time to understand the issue from all sides. 

amen. It's not just this but everything. Anti-fa? They're the worst at this point. They are using actual facism techinques to promote their anti-facism message? Hypocrisy much?

I wonder if "now is the time," to discuss this yet? It's sad how many times people in power try to put off serious discussion, claiming we need "time," yet there's no time when mass shootings happen continuously in our country. Now is the time, we need to make progress on this issue now. What that progress is needs to be a result of serious and respectful discussion. I'm not sure how to get that started in the right places.

Every time this comes up someone claims "you can't do anything about the 300 million guns in the country," but never a reason why you can't do anything about them. Because it's hard? "Because it's hard" isn't a reason to not try something. I'm not saying take them away - I'm saying that's a facile argument. We can do something about them and we can make progress, we just have to try.