was he eligible to own a firearm?
where did he get it?
was it purchased legally?
did he pass a background check?
did he have mental health issues that were not included in the NICS database?
did he use a scary black rifle?
did he use high capacity or standard capacity magazines?
how many magazines were used?
type of weapon?
what was the reason behind the shooting? Gangs, drugs, revenge or just random?

Would it not be better to know some of the answers to these questions before a knee jerk more gun control will fix it? What new laws as California already has very stiff gun control laws on the books.

While it is good that some states have strict gun control, all a lunatic on a killing mission has to do is cross the border to more lenient states to obtain a weapon.

unless he was resident of that state

Is this the kind of society you want? At any moment any of us, including enthusiastic gun owners, could be the victim of a madman with a gun.

there are already laws in place

IF this is what happened

We need extensive background checks, including mental health issues. Every gun purchase should be put into an FBI database. People who sell guns without doing background checks, or who sell to those who fail the background checks, along with adults who allow children access to guns, should be severely punished. I'm sure there are many other ideas about how to control the rampant gun violence in our country. Shrugging it all off, or deciding the situation is hopeless, are not responsible positions. But clearly gun lovers like you will fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo going.

Lets see I am for UBC, I am for severe penalties for someone trying to purchase a firearm and failing a background check. I am for including mental health records in the NICS system. I am for opening up the NICS system for private purchases. I am for reasonable magazine size restrictions. I am for a license to own a firearm by class type and some required safety training. I am for holding a firearms owner responsible for access and misuse by children. I am for enforcing and punishing firearms violations under existing law. I do not agree with banning weapons because of cosmetic features. I do not care for registration as it has been used before for confiscation in this country.

I own a few firearms and they are locked in my safe. I have passed federal, state and local background checks.

Yep, just a gun lover.

Please get your facts straight before resorting to broad based name calling.

If you are not a gun lover, I apologize for characterizing you as such.

You are one of the very few that would say that.

I own firearms and would like common sense laws that would actually help prevent these gun related issues.

Is a gun nut

As I have told you before the term Duckhunter is for my 20+ years as an Air Defense Artillery soldier.

Please apologize to me over your deliberate attempt to smear me

I guess you have forgotten my explanation to you in this post, It was only last week. So you are lying about my screen name now


What are you talking about.

I have several WWII bolt action rifles and a 1926 Mosin that I enjoy shooting paper targets. My username is Duckhuunter as I spent 20+ years in the Army as an Air Defense Artillery NCO. That's what a Duckhunter is. The mascot is the infamous Oozlefinch.


The birth and beginnings of this fabulous bird were humble, almost inconsequential, and extremely vague. But, in true Horatio Alger fashion, this ancient, ageless bit of improbability has risen to a position of high honor. The Oozlefinch has focused his benevolent gaze over the men of the guided missiles. He is at once the confidant of generals, the protector of Very Important Persons, and above all, the guardian, patron, and monstrous mentor of modern missilemen.

The first recorded history of the Oozlefinch came through the somewhat rambling mumblings of a Captain H. M. Merriam of Fort Monroe, Virginia. Presumably a raconteur of no mean talents, the captain must be given the credit for discovering the bird about 1905. He apparently was the only man who had seen the creature, and he was loathe to describe appearance, habits, or habitat. One physical characteristic he did emphasize, however:the great bird's eyes. These eyes, as vividly described by the captain, remain today as the outstanding physical mark of the Oozlefinch.

These eyes are large, all-seeing, unshaded by eyelids or eyebrows, and rather seriously blood-shot. just why the eyes are so prominent and red, no one seems sure. But being all-seeing, the bird can gather more information in a shorter period of time than mere mortals who have conventional sight. Because his eyes were unshaded by eyelids or eyebrows, the bird is forced to move tail foremost to protect his powers of observation, but also, he can turn them 180 degrees to gaze inwardly when he desires the maximum value from self-contemplation.

http://ed-thelen.org/oozlefinch.html
I do shoot cans or water bottles at times but normally just round targets or paper plates.

Are you going somewhere with this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4970633

So where do you get the 935 part of your name? Surely it could not be a reference to the Mossberg 935 magnum?

You also spend a lot of time defending the indefensible gun laws of the USA and somehow obtaining rapid access to deceptive counter propaganda - so gun lover pretty much describes you

so was duckhunter1 duckhunter2 so I just picked 3 numbers. I use that username on several boards like smart car forums, Harley forums.

I have explained my username about a dozen times over the years.

You were just caught lying about not knowing about it.

No apology I see, just more off the same attempting to smear me over my choice of screen name.

And I have also explained to you I know how to look things up on Google.

What "indefensible gun laws of the USA" am I defending?

What "deceptive counter propaganda" am I posting?

have that name on other boards. seems to only be hear that people with preconceived thoughts misinterpret it.

I guess I could abide by the purity police here and change it, but on second thought no I will not.

Plus a very interesting and informative post.

I selected that profession and I am glad I did it. I think it made me a better person.

As an enlisted soldier you build many strong bonds over the years.

I served stateside the entire time, first as an electronics instructor at Keesler AFB and then as a flight line airborne radio technician at Otis AFB.

It was a worthwhile experience that led to a career in the electronics industry. Like you I made a lot of good friends in the service and it made me a better person.

That was a very rough time. I always wanted to go Air Force but the Army could get me in quicker.

matter at hand, but as a bird-lover, I find this story about the Oozlefinch very interesting. Thank-you...I had no idea they didn't have eyelids. Ouch. Okay, sorry for the interruption...

On with the show...

you learn something new. I seem to do that a lot.

• Extensive background checks, including mental health issues. - Absolutely. The criminal part of the required checks is already extensive, but I think it's very possible to include comprehensive mental health data in the NICS system w/o compromising privacy. A big undertaking...but worth it.
  
• Every gun purchase should be put into an FBI database. - I'm not fond of ideas like this. I'm not sure what the actual benefit is.
  
• People who sell guns without doing background checks, or who sell to those who fail the background checks, along with adults who allow children access to guns, should be severely punished. - Again, absolutely. Straw purchasers should get prison time, as should sellers who fail to comply with the law.

So he can pursue his hobby and pet his pretty guns. Dead innocents be damned.

should this have been in the database so he could not have purchased a firearm?

I don't know what database you are talking about. Most of our mass shootings over the last few years, and they are too numerous to list, have been people with diagnosed mental illnesses. This did not stop them from obtaining weapons.

and is used to verify if a firearms purchaser is allowed to purchase.

mentally deranged people having access to guns. Taking the life of others. Life is our supreme right, not guns.

So, if making it harder for nuts to get guns, interferes with your second amendment rights, so frickin be it.

Until you NRAers can come up with a solution to prevent these events, then expect others to keep trying. It's an abomination that a right to own a gun is more important than peoples lives and freedom to be able to live without this threat.

lets not get the mentally ill people help, or do you think we should help them?

The recent ruling from the 'activist' Supreme Court actually REVERSED the long standing ruling of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." to the current 'interpretation'.

It's such a slippery slope we tred upon once changes to the Constitution are tried.

IMO

alcohol fueling drunk drivers, rapists, wife-beaters, brawlers, childhood poisonings, liver disease, pancreatic disease and general asshole-ishness. 4300 children a year die from alcohol. That's more than 4 Sandy Hooks -- A WEEK, every week of every year without end. More than 90% of sexual assaults involve alcohol. The overwhelming majority of the nation's MILLIONS of domestic violence incidences involve alcohol.

And there is no constitutional or human right to have a drink. But self-defense is always a right.

Constitional Amendment prohibiting the sale and/or consumption of alcohol. We could give it a snappy name, something like 'Prohibition".

Only those who revel in drunkenness, rape, violence and debauchery would oppose such a thing. What could possibly go wrong?

In fact, their deaths are doubtless their own fault, for simply not outdrawing him in "self-defense."

We law abiding citizens need to be ever vigilant for lunatics hunting us with their guns.

As I have been rear ended at a stop light by someone on a cell phone.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/83512111/

We need to address them, along with many more.

...since you didn't/wouldn't outgun your killer!

So don't expect any empathy for victims from us!

Plenty of misogynist killers operate for years without ever using a gun. Pretending violence stops with the absence of guns is disingenuous at best.

Since it doesn't bother you a whit, evidently, that misogynist killers can "leverage" the pain, death, and mayhem with the easy availability of the weapons you so dearly love to see flowing through society....

But you know that. The sophistry label is yours.

But you know that. The pretend empathy label is yours.

alcohol. Alcohol also leaves families grieving -- and terrorized -- and bankrupt -- by orders of magnitude more than guns; and yet, here you are with your fake empathy and sophistry. The selective outrage is what gives away the phoniness of it all.

...you are scarcely bothered that there are more ostensible restrictions on obtaining alcohol than these weapons of personalized mass destruction.

She was violently raped. Her attacker then raped and murdered another women a short time later.

I'm sure the victims will thank you later.

A woman that chooses to carry will be on equal terms with 3% to 5% of her would-be attacker. In the remaining 95%-plus of possible encounters she will have MORE power than her attacker.

In the end, you are just another enabler. Of massacres, of gun crimes against women, of all of it.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/24/the-nra-s-all-out-assault-on-accurate-information-about-gun-deaths.html

The DOJ collects plenty of crime statistics. Those with an agenda just don't like the data so they insist on recounting until the numbers show what they want.

But if this is your rhetorical choice then whenever someone wants to defend themselves or their family and you would interfere with that it makes you an enabler of rape, murder, home invasion, robbery and stalking. Along with your refusal to ban alcohol which also -- by your rules -- make you an enabler of domestic violence, child abuse, DUI, numerous pathologies and enough underage drinking deaths to equate to 4.5 Sandy Hooks a week.

Your rules.

Indeed.

and shifting arguments. You aren't concerned about helping the most people, you just want to thwart the evil totem.

I will wait for your list

I doubt you can as it is false

that your concerns don't have a huge, powerful lobby fighting against doing anything about them. Would that could say the same about guns.

He has the money, then he can shut it down. I think he needs an enemy to fund raise against.

nutcase with a gun kills people for the fuck of it.

Say hi to Phil.

I would just add: in addition 7 more seriously injured

And figured a silly comment like that would somehow invalidate your posts. I sit in awe of their posting prowess..

Never watched that stupid show

NOT!

for the NRA defenders

Sad.

I could get a gun today at age 55, even though I committed a felony at age 18...and no felonies in between?

what the felony was for. Violent or non violent?

I feel you are going somewhere with this, so what felony did you commit?

And I think weed should be legal anyway

He said he committed a felony at 18 and is now 55. Nothing hypothetical in his question.

No physical harm to anyone, but a violent crime according to our laws. Now let's say I'm 65 years old and no felonies since. Can I get a gun to protect my home and myself. Mind you, I'm a different person now.

owning a firearm

The court will look at your felony, the time that has passed and your record since then. The court will then make the decision.

Registration of all guns just like cars
No-one can transfer a gun to anyone else without registration forms being completed.
Regular testing of competence to use a gun, just like cars.
Get caught with even one unregistered gun, or commit any crime of violence, or make any threat to use the gun against a person and lose any and all weapons available to you (including those owned by/registered to family members at the same address, or any weapons at any address for which you have unlimited access).

Registered owner is the person responsible for any and all harm done by the weapon, unless a proof of theft from an appropriately strong safe can be furnished.

Anyone who shoots someone else in the dark without establishing their identity and the fact of their being armed is guilty of an offense (no more ridiculous stand your ground BS).

I'm sure others can come up with equally reasonable other suggestions

just like cars?

any registered car from one state is legal in all cities and states. No need to go through an FFL for a weapon as I do not have to go to a special dealer for a car.

No background check or waiting period for cars. Although I would prefer background checks.

cars are not required to be registered or licensed if only used on private land, many farm vehicles are not.

What kind of "Regular testing of competence to use a gun, just like cars." are you talking about. The only test for a car I took was when I was 16 and when I took a written test for my motorcycle endorsement. Never had to take a test in the last 30+ years. In a lot of states you can renew over the net. I assume you would approve of this for gun ownership as it is the same as a car license renewal.

I am for very stiff penalties for firearms miss use to include law enforcement officers.

Gun shows are sales. If you mean discounts on guns, I see guns discounted in my local newspaper regularly too.

As long as the seller is responsible for ensuring the buyer is properly registered I see no reason to prohibit gun shows.

We don't have to make it exactly like cars, the background check and waiting period are good ideas to prevent hot tempered idiots from doing something they'll later regret (if they don't judge themselves first).

I'm OK with no registration on private land, but my requirement for it to be registered the instant it comes off your private land stands (including transportation to/from the gun show, competition or any other public event).

There is a de facto waiting period for a car, until you get, or sign a legally binding promise to get, insurance and show a valid drivers licence.

More populous States have a requirement for re-testing every so often. I'll agree I have demonstrated my competence in many years though except by re-doing the multiple choice test every 12 years. However people who get points on their licence may be required to retake the practical (driving) test. We should have the same for guns. Make errors and gets points on your record. too many points have to retake the competency exam (and get a higher overall score each time you retake it).

"There is a de facto waiting period for a car, until you get, or sign a legally binding promise to get, insurance and show a valid drivers licence."

I just last year bought a new truck. Called in the information to my carrier from the dealers phone, have had a valid Texas DL for 40 years, called my Credit Union and authorized a draw from my account, signed the papers and received the keys. All in a total of 3 hours.

I can enter a firearms dealer, choose what I want, fill out the papers, show my Texas CHL, pay for my purchase and walk out the door. All in about 15min.

Your right, there is a "de facto" waiting period when buying a vehicle.

It proved to be an overly expensive program that delivered questionable results. Many gun owners simply refused to register their firearms.

If gun registration didn't work in Canada, why should we try it here?

Perhaps a better approach would be to require an individual to obtain a license that would prove they had firearms safety training and a background check before they could purchase a firearm or ammunition. Of course the cost of this license would have to be reasonable.

It would be somewhat similar to a concealed weapons permit in Florida which costs $112 and is good for seven years.

I would even state the class of weapon, bolt action, semi auto, revolver.

A good firearms safety class should teach the basics of handling all types of firearms and require range time for the student to prove proficiency. Of course this would probably increase the cost of the class.

On the other hand I believe that the basic security guard license in Florida allows a graduate to use a revolver but if he wishes to carry a semiautomatic pistol, he/she has to qualify on the range with one.

It is an interesting idea.

If you can't afford a car, you don't get one. Same for guns. Registration fees will pay for the registration requirement. If they happen to be $10,000 per gun, because of government ineptness, too bad.

I'd add a requirement for insurance too. Insurance to cover the number of lives that could be lost if you carry every clip you have with you assuming a 100% kill rate. Price a life nominally at $100,000,000. If you can't afford insurance for a high-powered car, you don't get to drive one of those either. That way the insurance companies have a vested interest in ensuring all the facts are known and that they are making a good risk decision (spreading the agencies receiving the "benefits" of the overall cost).

The average honest citizen would be prey for both.

"Registration of all guns just like cars"

In most places, a car is not required to be registered UNLESS it is to be used on public property. Registration is not required for simple ownership.

"No-one can transfer a gun to anyone else without registration forms being completed."

That isn't the case with cars.

"Regular testing of competence to use a gun, just like cars."

The only applies to public use, not ownership.

"Get caught with even one unregistered gun, or commit any crime of violence, or make any threat to use the gun against a person and lose any and all weapons available to you (including those owned by/registered to family members at the same address, or any weapons at any address for which you have unlimited access)."

Punish the family as well? We don't do that with cars. A person gets his nth drunk driving, and we don't take his/her spouses car.

"I'm sure others can come up with equally reasonable other suggestions"

Calling your suggestions "reasonable" does not make them so.

And quite obviously, your suggestions ask for a lot more than ""just like cars".

"Registered owner is the person responsible for any and all harm done by the weapon, unless a proof of theft from an appropriately strong safe can be furnished."

Your rule. define what, in your mind, is a " appropriately strong safe"?

Fuck them all sideways.

They're called cops.

assault rifles?

Don't disrupt the rant with facts or on-point questions.