If a person chooses to buy a gun from an online retailer, it has to go through a FFL dealer in the state the purchaser resides in and the FFL dealer will run a NICS check

This is sloppy reporting, implying that the shooter did not go through a NICS check when he purchased those firearms.

The article is indeed misleading on that point.

The tiresome refrain from the NRA is that we need to enforce the laws already on the books. Yet for all those doubtlessly tough laws on the books, Abdulazeez was still able to get three weapons very effective at blowing people away in a drive-by. That looks like a problem to me.

and nothing prevents "troubled" people from buying all they want. The article points out that the father was angry about his son having guns, but Abdulazeez insisted he was old enough to be "responsible."

Not everyone who is depressed uses guns in violent situations, whether killing others or suicides, but it cannot be denied that guns and depression or any other mental illness is a dangerous situation.

and the list of things that disqualifies a person from buying a gun:

https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

I won't bother to engage you in a long, tiresome exchange regarding gun control, neither of us is going to change our minds and I'm sure we both have more productive things to do. I will point out that the AK-74 allegedly used, is in this case, a semi-automatic derivative of the AK-47, which is a design that goes all the way back to WWII. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47

The tragic shooting could have been carried out by many of the weapons our fathers and grandfathers carried during WWII.

I'll be glad that a fully-training military is handling the weapons to defeat the enemy. The only "enemies" we're defeating with these wholly unnecessary weapons are American citizens.

But you're right; I'm not interested in engaging with people who are more in love with instruments of death than they are with their fellow human beings in a metaphorical debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

you can't actually debate the relevant law.

"I'm not interested in engaging with people who are more in love with instruments of death than they are with their fellow human beings"

The human race has been killing each other since the dawn of recorded time, the only thing that ever changes is the tools we use.

And I did observe that the facility with which young Abdulazeez was able to get his murderous hands on three very deadly weapons looked like a problem to me. It apparently doesn't look problematical at all to you, which led to my conclusion. I'm sorry you thought it was a cheap personal attack. Perhaps if someone alerted on my post as such, we could let the folks at DU decide whether it was a cheap personal attack or a well-supported conclusion based on the evidence available in the thread.

I would be confident of vindication.

"I'm not interested in engaging with people who are more in love with instruments of death than they are with their fellow human beings"

I don't love my guns, they are objects. I also recognize that nothing that has any reasonable chance of passing Congress will ever stop us from murdering each other.

I also recognize the hypocrisy of the gun control side's view that only gun murders are important to them. Going by the posts here on DU none of them ever seem to care about the other roughly 30% of murders committed with something other then a gun and they never seem to care when it's people in the inner cities and other troubled urban areas dying.

Here is another troublesome fact. The US murder rate is 111th out 218 countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

Jamaica, with some of the toughest gun laws in the world is 7th

If and only if the following applies to you, then it was a personal attack: Are you more in love instruments of death than you are with your fellow human beings? Only you know whether your love for your guns outweighs any regard you have for other human beings. But from your shrill protestations, redirections to irrelevancies, and rationalizations, I think most folks could draw a fair conclusion.

I decline to play your tiresome, callous game that leaves a trail of corpses in its wake.

Typical and not at all surprising, when the real, documented facts don't support what the gun control side wants, they play "online shrink", make personal attacks and then run away.

And you're right in one respect, this interchange has become tiresome as well as boring.

I note they and others have added "assault-style weapons" into the mix over the last few years, but the dishonesty must be maintained. That was the intent from the beginning.

sad journalism these days

Better that, than allowing you pro-gun types control of the vocabulary and thus the argument.

Last edited Mon Jul 20, 2015, 09:31 AM - Edit history (1)

The pro-gun militancy movement has been using terminology as a weapon of intimidation for years, now. Enough is enough---Ted Nugent and his acolytes don't get to tell me how to use language.

They have made no move whatsoever to reclassify the rifles the TN shooter
posessed as "assault rifles", otherwise known to the intellectually honest as machine guns.

They legally remain merely rifles, not "assault rifles"

Perhaps you could be so kind as to explain just how Nugent, LaPierre, et al, managed
to arrange this...

Get back to me, the next time a mass murderer uses a Winchester Model 70, rather than a military-styled semi-auto with a 30-round magazine (i.e., an assault rifle) to stack up the bodies with. Your side doesn't get exclusive control over the definitions or the vocabulary, any more.

Spew all the insults you want, it's nothing I haven't heard from your side, before.

Cheap, factually incorrect appeals to emotion ought to be challenged whenever and wherever
they appear.

It is the gun controllers who invariably turn to personal attacks because the conversations so rarely go the way they want.

The gun controllers don't like that we gun owners can cite facts from legitimate sources showing that crime is going down,

The gun controllers don't like that they are continually losing in the courts and the legislatures.

I recognize the hypocrisy of the gun control side's view that only gun murders are important to them. Going by the posts here on DU none of them ever seem to care about the other roughly 30% of murders committed with something other then a gun and they never seem to care when it's people in the inner cities and other troubled urban areas dying.

And there are plenty of gun owners who are Democrats and who support controls on guns. I happen to be one of them. The term "gun owner" is not available for you and your movement to co-opt and hide behind. Once again, I won't stand for your side's controlling the terminology of the debate. That's gone on for way too long.

In other words you and your fellow gun controllers want to use vague, emotion laden words to push your agenda instead of discussing things and using facts from legitimate sources.

Pretty much the same approach the gun controllers have tried for the last 20+ years and you may have noticed, the gun control hasn't had very many victories in the past 20 years.

I'd like to thank you and your fellow gun controllers, all of you are have been very successful in pointing out the flaws of the gun control ideology for the rest of the country to see.

You and your movement are fronting for the bad guys---you're ensuring that this country is awash in firearms which are easily available to untold numbers of individuals who shouldn't be trusted with anything more lethal than a cupcake. And the last thing in the world you want is a constructive discussion of the situation---any time such a thing is attempted, you do a quick swivel into esoteric gun terminology, in an effort to shame those who oppose you into silence. But that sort of bullshit doesn't work with somebody like me: I've owned and used guns for more than 50 years, I know a lot about them, and I know that calling a "magazine" a "clip" is no basis for shutting down a meaningful discussion on gun policy. But that's the sort of cheap, brain-dead tactics you people use, over and over, to stymie talk of what's really important. You won't get away with it forever.

The laws governing who can actually BUY a firearm have actually gotten stricter since 1968, not loosened.

It's the gun controllers that can't handle a constructive discussion. It's the gun controllers who resort to personal attacks, changing the goal posts and avoiding answering questions or responding to posts that either don't fit their agenda or their unrealistic outlook.

It's the gun controllers here who need their precious safe haven, with it's mere handful of regular posters, most of whom have repeatedly shown that they are unable to have a civil discussion with anyone who disagrees with them.

The FBI Agent-In-Charge of the Chattanooga investigation. On a nationally-broadcast news conference.

Well, don't just sit there, DU Gun Enthusiasts: correct this guy!

Or the AIC might have simply misspoken.

Correct or not, this incident would still in no way justify the hoplophobic hyperventilation
this incident has triggered (pun intended) in certain posters. The FBI's own Uniform Crime Reports
indicate otherwise

The only check mentioned in the report is the background check for employment at the nuclear plant.

I can't see anything 'sloppy' there. What are the phrases that led you to infer what you did?

If one is unfamiliar with the Federal and state laws regarding firearms, one might think that the shooter bought the gun without any background check. I have certainly see people here, other forums and in letters to the editor think that buying a gun online somehow avoids a background check.

.... totally irrelevant in any discussion than to prove they don't know the first thing about it.

Buying a firearm online requires the same background check as purchasing it in person.

The seller of the firearm cannot even ship it to the buyer, it gets shipped to a registered firearms dealer, who performs the background check before completing sale.

This is basic stuff anyone can find out on the net in about 5 minutes.

I have had to have several weapons of mine shipped to an FFL, even my stripped lower receiver had to have that done. Could not ship that piece of metal to me.

They have websites like craigslist that puts buyers and sellers together instate so they can bypass the need of the FFL. One of the sites is armslist which allows you to find private sellers in your city.

for the last 100 or so years

Some states require background checks for private sales and some don't.

In this case, when all the details finally come out, we'll almost certainly find that it was an online gun dealer and that the murderer went through a NICS check.

Background checks for all private sales and Washington has the same law which is a good start but it was a long hard fight against the NRA to pass it.

nothing would have happened. If we were all armed 24/7 we wouldn't have these problems.The only way to solve our gun problem is
more guns.

More.

Some might think the shooter circumvented background checks by buying through an "online weapons site".

They don't identify the "online weapons site". Was it a Federal Firearm Licencee or was it an online classified ad site (like Gunbroker.com).

Either way, if the seller was an FFL holder or a private citizen was not in Tennessee, they would have had to ship the firearms to a FFL in Tennessee who would have been required to conduct the NICS background check before transferring the firearms. And its not permissible for the shooter to have driven to seller in another state to pick it up without a NICS check.

If the online seller was an FFL holder within the state of TN, then the sale would have been preceded by a NICS background check.

If the online seller was a private citizen in TN, then a NICS check would not be required, but the seller cannot have direct knowledge that he is a prohibited person. In this case the sale would be no different than a private person to private person sale through a newspaper ad, flea market, or gunshow.

Which of these was it? WaPo lets you use your imagination instead of reporting the facts. The reporting is NRA-like in its insidiousness.

the database regulating gun sales. Let the Doctor and the regulators ok the gun sale.

People with depression rarely commit murders and we should be encouraging people to seek help and treatment. By imposing a "punishment" for seeking help, people will instead go without treatment.

This just enhances that stigma and is quite sickening to see on a political left website. Depression didn't cause this kid to kill anybody.

This suggestion is also illegal, violating medical privacy rights and fifth amendment due process rights.

All these medications are new to this generation and millions of people take them for life.

They have listed serious side effects, like 'thoughts of suicide' or 'acting out violent thoughts. skipping doses can cause side effects too.

An extra layer of clearance is needed on NEW gun sales. Let the Doctor clear the person on prescription drugs to make sure they aren't having a side effect.

A doctor can advise a patient to not have a gun for self harm risk , but they cannot legally/Constitutionally/Morally prevent them by reporting that they take a medication to the state.

Doctors speak with their patients about side effects and the danger of accessible guns in the home anyway.

I bet a lot of families who are responsible for a teen under a Doctors care and on medications would want this extra layer of protection. Make a new gun buy not so easy. Probably some adult patients too.

People will avoid treatment COMPLETELY if they think it will negatively impact something they want to do.

A person under treatment is less dangerous than a person not being treated.

Having a "professiinal" yea or nay someone's 2A right is little different than a "professional" doing the same for a voter literacy test. This, to say nothing about a yea or nay based on someone's judgment as to whether one can obtain a license to carry (like some Hollywood celebs have, despite their support of gun control laws).

If you have a plan on how a mental health professional can inform a court that subject B is a potential danger with a gun, and said court can then afford timely due process to hear this information, please let us know. As it stands, your plan may violate the rightsn of those who are mentally ill.

With only the limited knowledge available through the media--knowledge that is usually grossly inadequate for specific understanding--it's important to remember that depression is a very common mental disorder amd a symptom in multiple disorders, often co-occurring within/along side of other psycho-social problems.

Based on statistics of occurrence, rather than specific knowledge, there exists a real possibility that the depression was a consequence of factors that led to the shooting, rather than being the specific cause of the shooting.

As we seek answers, we should be open to multiple causations until the preponderance of the evidence points to a specific.

As just one alternative consider...

The shooting was an apparent act of aggression. It may or may not have been facilitated by a mental illnes,s but aggression can be a vengeful act that arises out of embitterment. People can be encouraged and cajoled to act on their embitterment; exploitation of feelings of embitterment is a feature of recruiting into rebellious and terrorist causes.

it's hard to blame any parent who can't control his adult son. I feel sorry for his family.

We see gun sales along the side of the road here...set up like a yard sale, with guns the only item for sale.

before receiving. This is one of the things that the prop control side is trying to confuse people on. ALL online sales from dealers or that go across state lines must go through an FFL and have a federal background check performed. If it is within the state, it is up to the state. Same as with a newspaper ad.

and walked out with a couple of so-called "assault weapons." If wanted, he could then go to the internet and watch how to convert it to full auto.

Unfortunately, this particular gun terrorist could have just gone to a legitimate lethal weapons dealer/promoter and purchased it with our current lax background check controls.

Or, he could have bought it from any private gun fancier -- including those Gungeoneers who have admitted to hoarding more semi-autos than anyone can legitimately use/need -- face-to-face without a background check.

That ain't right.

How many "full auto" guns have been used in crimes lately? Also curious what you propose we do to so make sure background checks aren't "lax"? And why do you get to determine how many "semi-automatic" firearms someone needs? What difference does it make if a gun-owner has 100 guns or 1? So long as he isn't committing a crime I see no problem.

or just don't care enough to own a gun.

Zimmerman wasn't committing any crimes either, right before he murdered an unarmed teenager.

The Chattanooga terrorist wasn't committing any crimes before he killed 5 people. Heck, Michael Dunn, Loughner, Stawicki, Holmes, Roof, on and on, weren't committing a crime just before they murdered people.

Every yahoo that buys more than a gun or two, for home defense and hunting, is contributing to the problem by adding to the number of gunz we will have to deal with at some point and promoting more gunz in more places. Every person that argues on behalf of more gunz and easy access, is contributing to the problem. I think if one can't understand that, they should be deemed to obtuse to own a gun.

Anyone who straps on a gun to go out, is obviously suffering from some issues.

Just about everyone of these crimes is committed with a semi-auto, the weapon of choice for paranoid yahoos who need a gun to walk down the street or fall asleep at night. Semi-autos are plenty deadly.

A depraved want to be killer even though in 35 years of gun ownership I have never killed a living thing? Ok

Nothing like insulting people to make them think you are actually sincere in fixing the problem and compromising.

you are polluting society and showing disregard for the vast majority who do not need a bunch of gunz to live.

Maybe you should do your part, and rethink your so-called hobby.

Sounds like a lie you think you will not be called out on. Well I will call you out.

Yep I own firearms and occasionally shoot paper plates at the range. Very zen like in the concentration required. Guess what, it is a fully legal activity.

Of U.S. law abiding citizens to have a legal item. I never defend guns. I also am for heavy penalties for those that are prohibited by law for those found with them. So no I do not promote guns. I can even spell the word guns correctly.

Tobacco kills 480,000 people a year... An order of magnitude more than firearms.

Your avatar is promoting tobacco!!

own a single firearm. I take it that is ok? Or am I polluting society too?

as a Hummer owner is contributing to environmental pollution and displaying a disregard for society. Sorry, you asked and I posted my opinion.

Driving that hummer causes environmental harm. Shooting those guns harms no one.

But at least you are honest. Most controllers hide both their contempt and their intentions.

In 35 years of gun ownership I have not killed a living thing.

Relax - you are trying too hard.

Have you ever sold or given a gun to someone. Have you every introduced someone to the "sport." . . . . .

Competitive target shooting. I introduced my entire family to the sport - we shoot as a family.

Have never killed anything but paper plates as far as I know. My two Mosin rifles were more than likely used during the war and may have for all I know. I have many friends that go to the range with me.

Without people like you, we would have done something meaningful about guns, and those who covet them, long ago.

Heck, we know lead bullets kill people, and pollute the ground. But, that is minor compared to directly contributing to more guns in our society, armed militia groups, george zimmermans, and worse.

Then perhaps you could accomplish something. Have you ever looked in the mirror and wondered why you have been so spectacularly incompetent in furthering your goals?

are still trying to get yahoos to stop flying confederate flags and acting like bigots. Takes awhile to convince people they don't need guns to live.

She is my kind of gun owner.

thinks it will help advance gun control, by having gun owners calling for restrictions. I'm not convinced. But if you shot with Gabby, you'd probably have to help her hold the gun.

I would be honored to help her.

Is every gun owner potentially a criminal in your mind? What about every knife owner?

I agree that open carry should be banned -- it makes folks uncomfortable and serves no purpose. Concealed carry licenses should be shall issue.

Yep, many criminals use a semi-auto when committing their crime. The Washington Post posted a video last week that showed a criminal shooting and killing someone with a semi-auto. Those criminals should be sent to prison and not released.

By "paranoid yahoos" I assume you mean the individuals on the street who are killing others.

If the system worked, Roof wouldn't have been able to purchase the gun he used. And Zimmerman was found not guilty (though that verdict seems as legitimate as O.J. being found not guilty).

Like I said, gun fanciers are polluting society with the dang things, and have no regard for the impact of their sick hobby on society.

If he could not get a gun he would've just used a bomb. So in a way he accomplished 2 things. Attack on America and now backlash on firearms.
How internet sales work is I can go to several websites ( armslist, facebook, gun owners club, ect ect) and advertise any of my guns for sale. When a person comes to purchase he has to be in state that I am in, 18+ years old, and not give me any reason to suspect he \ she couldn't own a gun. Nothing like " I m a felon or I can pass a background so I am buying from a person " I have to use reasonable judgment before I sale and it is perfectly fine without a background check.
Like I said he could've used a bomb. All gun laws do anymore is make it harder for the average person to purchase one. Criminals will still get them regardless. It accomplishes nothing for a law abiding civilian except dis-arms them. Too bad there wasn't a carry permit citizen in that theater in Colorado.

I am 30 minutes north of Chattanooga and we had malls lockdown and cleared with s.w.a.t. teams. Several places shutdown.

Please know the laws before you debate them on anything or it makes you look dumb. Thats what I hate about Repubs they run with a lie like its set in stone

gives any comfort to those of us who find it too easy for people to obtain weapons.

small town! I saw a DU bumper sticker on a car in Athens a few years ago, but never thought I'd see a fellow Meigs County resident on here. Glad to know that I'm not alone here!

Peace,

Ghost

given away like swag.

We obviously need more guns.

and the drugs but not saying a word about the fact that he bought these weapons on line

that early reports stated that some of the weapons were bought legally, then pretty much dropped that part of the issue. I don't watch TV, but this WAPO article is the only one I have seen that even mentioned the on line purchase.

By the way today is the third anniversary of the Colorado cinema Holmes slaughter.
Access to these weapons is a major problem.

Sound like this guy was having personal issues like James Holmes or Dylan Kleibold, neither of whom were labeled "terrorists" by the FBI.

mostly because of the slaughter at Mother Emanuel

To hunt rabbits? To eliminate a horde of zombies? Are they more effective for self defense or hunting.... than a handgun or a hunting rifle, respectively?

First off, they do make excellent hunting rifles. You are limited in the number of bullets you can use (5 is a typical number) but they are accurate; reliable; their plastic furniture handles bad weather and rough handling well; they are easy to adjust for different body sizes and the light recoil is ideal for small framed shooters (that is why my wife and daughter use them.)

They are extremely accurate, which is why they are the gold standard for competitive target shooting (which is what me and my family use them for)

While all of what you stated as reasons are good ones, I rather think a certain proportion
of owners *also* buy/bought them just to give a big FU to the moral panic-mongers who
have have made (and are still making, as see upthread) a big noise about the overblown
'dangers' posed by these rifles...

You can't just buy a gun online. The sale has to go through a Federal Firearms License holder and the buyer is run through NCIS. However gun sales in the US only check criminal history and not mental health history. (In the UK and I think Canada? if you want to buy a gun you'll be questioned about any history of mental health issues, substance abuse and addiction, and domestic violence.

However you are incorrect, NICS sales DO check mental health history.

The exact language is "Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage you own affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?"

Question 11f at the link: https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

On page 4, right hand column it goes into further detail

in Canada or the UK? A history of treatment for depression and failure to maintain a prescribed treatment regimen combined with the concerns of family and friends would've kept him from getting a firearms licence.

regardless of whether I agree with the right or the person expressing or exercising it.

The United States isn't Canada or the UK and I'm happy it isn't.

It is hard to have one's civil rights restricted.

Then you've gotta complete the background check and all.

I'd love to know the name of an online dealer that lets you order online, puts a gun in a box and ships it to you direct with no paperwork or background checks.