...but curious to know if true.

Will wait to hear and hope it is, but if it is true, it will bring on more questions.

Now about safe keeping of one's own guns....

to keep his/hers firearms in. And the entire safe is stolen, are the owners then responsible for the loss of the firearms?

...but based on that limited information...probably not... Unless they failed to report the theft.

there should be red flags for certain types of denials.
pa uses its own check system and maybe that was my problem. I once purchased a firearm then a month later tried to pick up a little .22 but was denied. I tried again the next week and was denied again. So i challenged the denial and got an apology letter and clearance. But for cases like this authorities should be notified.

If you try to buy a gun and you know you are a prohibitted person (and why wouldn't you?), that itself is a crime!

Hardly any of the prohibited people who try to buy guns are prosecuted.

Attempt to purchase a firearm should be a felony for a prohibited person.

and unconfirmed. conjecture. gossip even. Anyway, I am more interested in the fact that the guns in the home were not secured and why not.

His Mental Health and other questions that may never get answered.

Sad.

There are multiple paths to achieve this person's goal.


At least in this case.


If this is true, then this slaughter was contemplated for multiple days before it was implemented. So NICS didn't result in the criminal being able to get a gun, and a waiting period did not enable him to cool off and think clearly about what he was planning.



This kind of thing is the rarest, but most unstoppable kind of crime. Short notice, no confederates, does not associate with known criminal groups, and does not care if he lives or dies.

There is virtually nothing to pick up on beforehand, there is nobody to get cold feet and call the cops, he doesn't trip any law enforcement warnings, and simply becomes a killing machine.

All we can do is react quickly.

Or deprive him and anyone else so inclined to act of the implements used to carry out such actions.

We need to be PRO-active here, not RE-active. Being RE-active lets children and others die needlessly. PRO-active steps can be taken to prevent it in the first place.

Ban any weapon capable of firing more than eight rounds without manual re-loading. Ban clips/magazines capable of holding more than eight rounds.
Make it a crime to possess same. With major prison time.

All weapon sales must be through a registered firearms dealer who is requires to keep records and perform background checks before selling.

No reason he or his mom, or any private citizen for that matter, needs to own one of those.

Now, I'm not advocating a round-up of those weapons (that would just lead to the slaughter of law enforcement officials tasked with the job), but I don't think we need to manufacture, import or sell those anymore. And I think we should incentivize people turning them in for destruction (I posted an OP in GD about a refundable tax credit for their surrender). Let them phase out over time.

There is no department of needs, so your opinion of what "I need" really doesn't interest me. If you look up the 5A, it would also be pretty expensive as well. In order for it to work, you would have to at least offer what the person paid for it.

No reason he or anybody else "should" own such a weapon.

As for the tax credit, we'd just have to see. Lots of people give up things for less than what they're worth in order to get cash. This is particularly true if you criminalize the sale of the item to another individual. I was thinking up to $750. Certainly less than what was paid for it, but more than what one could legally sell it for ($0).

Just some thoughts.

all cars should have a governor to prevent it. I can think of better ways to spend the money. Besides, depending on your taxable income, any tax credit could be zero.

As for whether buyback programs can work, might I direct you to the following (it's short):

http://blogs.reuters.com/muniland/2012/07/24/australias-successful-gun-buyback-program/

and Australia isn't the US. Ask Canada how many people lined up to register their long guns.

At that link they discussed that areas with higher buyback rates had greater decreases in murder rates.

Listen, I'm suggesting a ban on the manufacture, import and sale of semi-auto rifles. Hence, there will be people stuck with weapons they will have difficulty getting rid of. I've proposed the refundable tax credit as a means for them to responsibly dispose of their weapons and as an incentive to do so. Some will choose to keep them and hand them down as heirlooms. I have no problem with that. Rather than making possession illegal, I'm suggesting a phase-out as a reasonable compromise to the problem we currently face (i.e. the use of these weapons in multiple mass murders).

named David Hemenway who is funded, and his dept is funded, by the same foundation that funds all of the gun control groups. I take anything they do with a grain of salt.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html

In fact I have met many some owners who have told me that they have already stored some firearms and ammo in caches underground.

Many "patriots" have predicted that the government had plans to disarm the American Public for years.

If you doubt me do a simple Google search for "hiding guns from the government."

Your idea of paying up to $750 per firearm in interesting but remember that there are 300 million weapons in our nation and many are semi-auto rifles. The cost of such a buy back plan would be prohibitive.

Even if you managed to buy back all semi-auto rifles in our nation, a shooter could use semi-auto pistols or even a pump or semi-auto shotgun to kill. If you took away ALL firearms the shooter could use explosives or gasoline.

Thanks.

Just to try to funnel the discussion in one sub-thread.

The phase out of weapons is an interesting idea but there is a risk that you could create a black market for firearms. If that happened far more lethal fully automatic weapons could be smuggled into our nation by the same gangs that bring in illegal drugs.

You didn't miss it. I just realized that I was about to post the same thing twice.

You know, I've thought of the black market thing too, and I agree it's a real possibility. That's why I was thinking against an outright ban. If you've got 'em, fine, you can still shoot them (and, obviously phase out of the high capacity magazines needs to happen too). I also would advocate for ranges to still be able to rent them out for use at the range. Hopefully, this limited availability would be enough to satisfy the needs of the curious without having to resort to the personal risk of a black market transaction.

You seem reasonable and appear interested in learning about the issue. I hope that you will be one of the few pro gun control posters who will not feel that all facts and statistics or pro gun rights arguments are NRA talking points.

Currently firearms and firearm owners are viewed in a bad light by many here on DU and considering the recent tragic events this is understandable. One poster gave me the impression that he felt gun owners and the NRA should be considered to be terrorists and treated as such.

One question that I wish to ask you is that do you realize that firearms are often used for legitimate self defense? It is impossible to know just how many times this happens but there is no doubt that it does. Usually on any given day you can find a number of reports in local newspapers where an armed home owner stopped a home invasion. Usually the articles in the newspaper involve the intruders being shot or killed. Incidents in which the home owner scares off the intruder because he has a firearm usually go unreported.

My point is that the criminal element will always have access to firearms and that disarming honest citizens could lead to a increase in violent crime. Admittedly this is old, tired but true argument, "If guns are banned only criminals will have guns."

And can we ever forgive ourselves if we don't try to find one?

I'm very glad to have been welcomed here.

I understand that some feel the need for guns for personal protection. It's a personal decision. That's why I haven't made mention of handguns or shotguns. Do people actually use semi-auto rifles for personal protection? I can't imagine that would be my first choice. In any case, I personally wouldn't advocate further restrictions against handguns or shotguns at this time, other than limitation of capacity. Honestly, I think addressing capacity of all weapons really should be the primary goal here.

I think it's ridiculous for anyone to propose banning firearms, unless they're willing to sign up to go door-to-door confiscating them. I doubt we'd have many takers.

We may be able to make some improvements in existing law. For example I can see the possibility that a requirement may become law that every firearm sale or transfer involves an NICS background check.

I feel that it is possible that we may see a ban on large capacity magazines in the future but unfortunately that is a "feel good" law. For some reason people that are unfamiliar with firearms believe that it takes some time to change a magazine. With just a little practice the task can be accomplished in a second or less. Also 10 round magazines are somewhat more reliable than hi-cap mags. If your magazine causes your firearm to jam it can take longer to clear the malfunction than to swap out an empty magazine. It also takes a higher level of skill to quickly clear a jam than to change a magazine.

People do use semi-automatic rifles for self defense but I fear they are a poor choice in an urban environment. A handgun or a shotgun is the better choice as the bullets or shot pellets are less likely to penetrate your neighbors house. A semi-auto rifle is a good choice for a defense weapon in a rural area but so are handguns or shotguns.

I agree that banning and confiscation of firearms is a fool's idea. It's politically impossible in this nation and if an attempt was made to confiscate firearms on a large scale it could lead to an insurrection or the beak up of our nation.

I also advocate armed security in gun free zones like schools that house a lot of people. This idea is unpopular here on DU but it should be obvious by now that our efforts so far have failed. Making the "No-Gun" signs larger will not stop the problem.

Hopefully we will have a better mental health care system under Obama care. Such a program could have prevented many of the recent massacres we have suffered through as a nation.

1) Cigarettes. You telling me cigarettes do something other than cause cancer?
2) Alcohol. People get in fights, and it kills your body.
3) Cars going faster than 55 mph. Speed kills.
4) Footballs and football equipment. More people die playing football a year than have ever played video games.
5) Fast food and soft drinks.

You see, it's a really long list.

Ridiculous.

You framed your argument in terms of things that people should or shouldn't own that are harmful.

Now you've moved the goalposts.

I think there's other forums for discussing health and health policy.

"Extremely dangerous" as in "can commit mass murder in seconds, before anyone can jump in to prevent the slaughter of innocents".

What else might fit into that category? Hmmm.

Nuclear weapons? nah, we aren't allowed to own those. Doesn't mean some terrorist somewhere doesn't try.

Other kinds of explosives? Yep, there are restrictions on those too, and on components that are commonly used to make 'em at home. Not that it's failsafe, but at least some attempt has been made.

And so forth.

Btw I'm no gun grabber, just pointing out that you seem to be deliberately obtuse in ignoring the obvious meaning of his post.

Quite possibly the reason I am replying to your post because my mother used a handgun to stop an attack.

Back in the 1920 time frame she left a bus at a bus stop and was walking home late at night. A man who had been hiding behind some bushes rushed her. She had a .22 caliber S&W Ladysmith revolver in her purse. She drew it and fired two shots over the attackers head. He ran.

Had he raped and killed my mother she would have never been born.

killing 27 in 10 weeks is ok, killing 27 in 10 minutes is bad?

Not about cigarette smoking or eating habits.

If people start killing others with cigarette burns, then I guess DU will have to create a new forum to address that.

that life leads to death,
so maybe we should just ban life.

Give me a break, and be reasonable.

Alcohol is good for you in small doses.

Fast food, and soft drinks are nourishment.

Cars going fast only kill people when in the hands of a person who is not properly trained, and not on a sanctioned race track.

I do not recall the last time someone was killed by a football. Was it thrown, kicked, or ejected in some other manner, at high speed.

> Still need to get that semi-auto rifle out of his hands.

While everyone agrees with the statement as a whole, some folks want to emphasize the "rifle" part while others key in the the "his" part.