Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Judi Lynn

(160,593 posts)
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 06:34 PM Feb 2016

Man charged in Michigan attacks had no barriers to guns

Source: Associated Press

Man charged in Michigan attacks had no barriers to guns

David R. Martin and Ed White, Associated Press

Updated 4:21 pm, Tuesday, February 23, 2016



PLAINWELL, Mich. (AP) — A man accused of randomly killing six people in Michigan had a personal cache of weapons that included handguns and long guns, but there was nothing in his past that prevented him from owning as many guns as he could afford.

Authorities seized the gun collection after the weekend attacks around the Kalamazoo area. With no criminal history or record of mental illness, Michigan residents who follow requirements can legally acquire any number of firearms.

"He was a law-abiding citizen up until he pulled the trigger on the first victim," said Jonathan Southwick, owner of a gun store in Plainwell, 20 miles north of Kalamazoo. "There are no laws you could put into place to stop what had happened."

Southwick said Dalton bought a jacket with an inside pocket designed for a handgun Saturday, just hours before the rampage. He did not buy a gun.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Gun-shop-owner-Suspect-bought-jacket-before-6849243.php

28 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Man charged in Michigan attacks had no barriers to guns (Original Post) Judi Lynn Feb 2016 OP
"There are no laws you could put into place to stop what had happened." FailureToCommunicate Feb 2016 #1
What law would you propose? NickB79 Feb 2016 #3
"its WAAAAY too late for gun control in America" maxsolomon Feb 2016 #6
Restrict arms 'rights' to arms of 1791. onehandle Feb 2016 #10
Will the same rules apply to the First and Fourth Amendments? branford Feb 2016 #11
My unright to nuclear weapons clearly violates the Second Amendment. nt onehandle Feb 2016 #12
With such pithy and erudite commentary, branford Feb 2016 #14
Guns are so 1791. onehandle Feb 2016 #15
A nuclear weapon is not a personal weapon or small arm suitable for personal defense. NutmegYankee Feb 2016 #19
the 2nd doesn't specify small arms for personal defense maxsolomon Feb 2016 #23
Most of the US Bill of Rights is based on the 1689 English Bill of Rights. NutmegYankee Feb 2016 #25
Ever see the Louie Anderson routine on that? randys1 Feb 2016 #26
This was one of those times no law would have helped. Archae Feb 2016 #2
Every time I hear someone say they support a blanket ban on guns and confiscation by police NickB79 Feb 2016 #4
every time i hear it maxsolomon Feb 2016 #7
Right, because if you just HAVE a gun ... you can stop Office Friendly from searching your home ... brett_jv Feb 2016 #17
Right ... so CLEARLY, if there's ANY chance massacres would fail to be stopped by ... brett_jv Feb 2016 #18
the threat of random, unprovoked massacres, anywhere, at any time, by anyone. maxsolomon Feb 2016 #5
that'd be the exact opposite of freedom, had it not been redefined by centuries of artificial fear MisterP Feb 2016 #8
gun humping cowards won Skittles Feb 2016 #13
Those of us who don't WANT to own a gun, nor be threatened BY guns ... brett_jv Feb 2016 #16
since i was being facetious and think that reasoning is absurd; maxsolomon Feb 2016 #21
The proposed gun background check here would not have worked in this one case bluestateguy Feb 2016 #9
If it can reduce the number of massacres, then it works maxsolomon Feb 2016 #22
People Control, Not Gun Control Sancho Feb 2016 #20
Just wanted to be in the "well regulated militia." tabasco Feb 2016 #24
Yet another example of how more guns are making people safer. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #27
They're certainly not making people less safe: friendly_iconoclast Feb 2016 #28

onehandle

(51,122 posts)
10. Restrict arms 'rights' to arms of 1791.
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 09:59 PM
Feb 2016

Not just the kind, but the actual arms.

You cannot buy, sell, or own an arm built after 1791.

 

branford

(4,462 posts)
11. Will the same rules apply to the First and Fourth Amendments?
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:15 PM
Feb 2016

Courts have long ago dismissed such ridiculous legal arguments as a means of limiting constitutional rights, and trying to enact such an idea by statute clearly violates the Second Amendment.

NutmegYankee

(16,201 posts)
19. A nuclear weapon is not a personal weapon or small arm suitable for personal defense.
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 06:04 AM
Feb 2016

Which is what is referred to as armaments for a citizen.

maxsolomon

(33,360 posts)
23. the 2nd doesn't specify small arms for personal defense
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 03:10 PM
Feb 2016

does it?

is there another place in the Constitution where it's defined?

NutmegYankee

(16,201 posts)
25. Most of the US Bill of Rights is based on the 1689 English Bill of Rights.
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 06:27 PM
Feb 2016

Including the right to keep and bear arms. In courts, this common law concept would be the base to judge the intent of the 2nd.

randys1

(16,286 posts)
26. Ever see the Louie Anderson routine on that?
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 06:29 PM
Feb 2016



Not a funny topic, usually, but Louie is great.

I havent watched this clip, hope it is in there.

Archae

(46,340 posts)
2. This was one of those times no law would have helped.
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 06:54 PM
Feb 2016

Oh of course, "Ban all guns!"

Right, sure.
How would we enforce a law like that?

Have the ATF go around doing a search of everyone's homes, looking for any and every gun?
Oh that would go over REAL good...

We have to be realists here, not the "gun grabbers" the right-wing paints us as.

NickB79

(19,257 posts)
4. Every time I hear someone say they support a blanket ban on guns and confiscation by police
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 07:19 PM
Feb 2016

I wonder if they'd be OK with officers like Mr. Friendly and his friends here searching their homes:

maxsolomon

(33,360 posts)
7. every time i hear it
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 07:29 PM
Feb 2016

I hear the frustration and despair of people reacting to a tragedy, and who have no idea how to stop something that is plainly intolerable.

at this point, it's on gun owners to propose acceptable methods to REDUCE (not eliminate 100%) the occurrence of these massacres. you're the ones who know this issue from the inside.

no more gun-control clay pigeons for RKBA target practice.

brett_jv

(1,245 posts)
17. Right, because if you just HAVE a gun ... you can stop Office Friendly from searching your home ...
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 04:44 AM
Feb 2016

IOW, it's the GUNS ... not the courts, or the laws in general that protect us. Cops would all just barge in our homes and search them at will ... but they're afraid we might be armed, so they just, you know ... don't do it.

PFFFT.

brett_jv

(1,245 posts)
18. Right ... so CLEARLY, if there's ANY chance massacres would fail to be stopped by ...
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 04:48 AM
Feb 2016

reasonable gun control measures, it only makes SENSE to have NO reasonable gun control measures, on accounta ... you know ... can't stop 100% of these occurrences, so why bother trying to REDUCE them at all?!?

If this logic held sway in other areas of life, we'd have no traffic laws, no seatbelts, no airbags, no security at airports, no EPA/FDA/USDA checking our food, nor really ANY sort of protections for anyone. Because after all, we can't stop 100% of traffic fatalities, hijackings, food poisoning, contaminated water supplies, etc, etc, etc.

maxsolomon

(33,360 posts)
5. the threat of random, unprovoked massacres, anywhere, at any time, by anyone.
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 07:19 PM
Feb 2016

just think of it as a tax we pay for all the liberty the 2nd am gives us. freedom isn't free.


brett_jv

(1,245 posts)
16. Those of us who don't WANT to own a gun, nor be threatened BY guns ...
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 04:40 AM
Feb 2016

Have absolutely NO FUCKING LIBERTY that's being 'enhanced' in any way.

Ever think of THAT side of the 'argument'?

And many 100's of millions of people live FREE all over the world in places where ... almost nobody owns guns outside of hunters with rifles, military, and police.

maxsolomon

(33,360 posts)
21. since i was being facetious and think that reasoning is absurd;
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 03:03 PM
Feb 2016

yes, I've thought of that side of the argument.

bluestateguy

(44,173 posts)
9. The proposed gun background check here would not have worked in this one case
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 09:39 PM
Feb 2016

Mind you, I support that bill, but as Obama himself has said, a background check bill will not stop every massacre.

maxsolomon

(33,360 posts)
22. If it can reduce the number of massacres, then it works
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 03:06 PM
Feb 2016

given there's 300 million plus guns on the streets, no one expects absolutes.

Sancho

(9,070 posts)
20. People Control, Not Gun Control
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 07:57 AM
Feb 2016


This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.
 

tabasco

(22,974 posts)
24. Just wanted to be in the "well regulated militia."
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 03:27 PM
Feb 2016

All you have to do to join the "well regulated militia" is buy a gun. Pretty strict regulation, eh?

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
27. Yet another example of how more guns are making people safer.
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 06:31 PM
Feb 2016

And this is priceless:

"He was a law-abiding citizen up until he pulled the trigger on the first victim," said Jonathan Southwick, owner of a gun store in Plainwell, 20 miles north of Kalamazoo. "There are no laws you could put into place to stop what had happened."


So the gun store owner, a man who makes his living selling weapons to frightened citizens, cannot imagine how to prevent these things.
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Man charged in Michigan a...