Multiple People dead in Santa Monica Shooting

dudeman

I'm afraid that you're right, Godfather. I'm not out to change anyone's mind about guns, just trying to understand why some people will acknowledge that violent acts are inherent to human behavior, yet are of the opinion that any form of legislation will miraculously change that tendency toward violence.

Godfather. wrote:

dudeman wrote:

Referring to the incidents listed in mickeyrats posts, many are accounts of gang violence, some are domestic violence and some are accidental........all of them are horrible. Many of them also occurred in California, New York, Chicago and Washington D.C., locations with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the United States. How is it possible that people are still being killed in these locations? If restrictive gun legislation really worked, these places should be immune to these types of incidents. Thoughts?

here on the AMT that does not matter nor does it matter that gun related crimes have droped 49% sense 1999..
there are people on the AMT that are just anti-gun folks all together and this is their place to vent their feeling and dislike for guns of any type but back to your question,guns are not the problem people are the problem and everybody knows but they think removing guns from the people will fix the problem..not so.

Godfather.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

dudeman wrote:

So if we outlaw gun ownership in every state, people will stop killing each other? Won't people just get guns from other neighboring states, such as Mexico?

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

dudeman wrote:

Referring to the incidents listed in mickeyrats posts, many are accounts of gang violence, some are domestic violence and some are accidental........all of them are horrible. Many of them also occurred in California, New York, Chicago and Washington D.C., locations with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the United States. How is it possible that people are still being killed in these locations? If restrictive gun legislation really worked, these places should be immune to these types of incidents. Thoughts?

How can such legislation possibly work when neighbouring states are not adhering to the same rigidity? Weapons are introduced with relative ease elsewhere and find their way into the states trying to be restrictive.

It won't be as easy as you think there, Dudeman. We don't allow assault rifles in Canada. As widespread and rampant as they are in the US (remember you can buy one for 25% off at the Big 5 Sporting Goods in Washington- which borders my province)... we don't have the problem you speak of.

And for that matter... if they are no longer selling ammunition to guns that are not legal... then loading weapons will be more difficult as well.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

dudeman wrote:

I'm afraid that you're right, Godfather. I'm not out to change anyone's mind about guns, just trying to understand why some people will acknowledge that violent acts are inherent to human behavior, yet are of the opinion that any form of legislation will miraculously change that tendency toward violence.

Godfather. wrote:

dudeman wrote:

Referring to the incidents listed in mickeyrats posts, many are accounts of gang violence, some are domestic violence and some are accidental........all of them are horrible. Many of them also occurred in California, New York, Chicago and Washington D.C., locations with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the United States. How is it possible that people are still being killed in these locations? If restrictive gun legislation really worked, these places should be immune to these types of incidents. Thoughts?

here on the AMT that does not matter nor does it matter that gun related crimes have droped 49% sense 1999..
there are people on the AMT that are just anti-gun folks all together and this is their place to vent their feeling and dislike for guns of any type but back to your question,guns are not the problem people are the problem and everybody knows but they think removing guns from the people will fix the problem..not so.

Godfather.

No. No... you are both woefully wrong again.

Bottom line: your country is the most armed country in the world (by far)... and... your country has the most gun homicides every year (by far).

Is that simple enough for you to digest? Are you capable of understanding a correlation? Can you just accept that there is a problem with the fact you have so many guns or are you going to insist on lame rationalizations to try and explain the simple correlation I, and many others, have afforded you?

Godfather.

thirtybillsunpaid;the lame rationalizations you speak of are those of the anti gun folks who seem angry because they can't change the minds of gun owners across America or take their gun away from them and that is a truth that has been afforded to you and many others.
that waste of breathing space in the white house seems to be of the same opinion on guns but he also has no problem sending 100's of thousands of troops (with guns) to the middle east or arming his security to the hilt
(which I have no problem with) and then say "we don't need assult rifles"...who were the fools that voted that idiot in in the first place ?

bottom line you and other anti gun folks can whine and scream for stricter gun laws and and the elemition of guns all together...but (you ready for this ?) IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN Americans will NEVER give up their guns
and especially not at the request of non Americans, you see, American gun owners don't give a rats ass what non Americans think or believe about their/our "right to keep and bare arms"

here in America we still have the right to freedom of speach so the anti gun folks can say what they want about gun ownership but with that same right we can tell them "they're barking up the wrong tree"

Godfather.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Godfather. wrote:

that waste of breathing space in the white house seems to be of the same opinion on guns but he also has no problem sending 100's of thousands of troops (with guns) to the middle east or arming his security to the hilt
(which I have no problem with) and then say "we don't need assult rifles"...who were the fools that voted that idiot in in the first place ?

bottom line you and other anti gun folks can whine and scream for stricter gun laws and and the elemition of guns all together...but (you ready for this ?) IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN Americans will NEVER give up their guns
and especially not at the request of non Americans, you see, American gun owners don't give a rats ass what non Americans think or believe about their/our "right to keep and bare arms"

here in America we still have the right to freedom of speach so the anti gun folks can say what they want about gun ownership but with that same right we can tell them "they're barking up the wrong tree"

Godfather.

Fools that voted for Obama? Can you seriously tell me that the Romney would have been better? Can you seriously tell me that the Bush was better? The fools you speak of opted for the best choice- they are actually the wise ones and the entire world knows it. I know he's not kicking out all the Muslims and this likely has you angry... but come on, man. Stop painting yourself the idiot and exercise better judgement before just puking out words that reflect your short sighted lines of thinking.

I reckon yur right that the good ol' USA will never give up their guns. So a 'Yee Haw' and 'Hyuk Hyuk' to you my friend. Enjoy your guns and moonshine and rusty ol' Fargo pickups with your dawgs and couches in the back of them. Heaven forbid you might wish to advance your society with such simple pleasures at hand.

For the record... I don't really have a pony in this race. If your country cannot get its shit together... then I guess that's the way it'll have to be. But I will say this: the yokels on this forum will likely have their way (as you have pleasantly boasted)... but the most well-written Americans on this forum deserve much better. Come to Canada Brian, Mickeyrat, Gimme, Johnny, Jimmy, Moonpig, Hedonist, Jose, guitar92, and all the others (need to stop somewhere) that are tired of their children being gunned down outside of their homes and in theaters and at schools.

Godfather.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

that waste of breathing space in the white house seems to be of the same opinion on guns but he also has no problem sending 100's of thousands of troops (with guns) to the middle east or arming his security to the hilt
(which I have no problem with) and then say "we don't need assult rifles"...who were the fools that voted that idiot in in the first place ?

bottom line you and other anti gun folks can whine and scream for stricter gun laws and and the elemition of guns all together...but (you ready for this ?) IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN Americans will NEVER give up their guns
and especially not at the request of non Americans, you see, American gun owners don't give a rats ass what non Americans think or believe about their/our "right to keep and bare arms"

here in America we still have the right to freedom of speach so the anti gun folks can say what they want about gun ownership but with that same right we can tell them "they're barking up the wrong tree"

Godfather.

Fools that voted for Obama? Can you seriously tell me that the Romney would have been better? Can you seriously tell me that the Bush was better? The fools you speak of opted for the best choice- they are actually the wise ones and the entire world knows it. I know he's not kicking out all the Muslims and this likely has you angry... but come on, man. Stop painting yourself the idiot and exercise better judgement before just puking out words that reflect your short sighted lines of thinking.

I reckon yur right that the good ol' USA will never give up their guns. So a 'Yee Haw' and 'Hyuk Hyuk' to you my friend. Enjoy your guns and moonshine and rusty ol' Fargo pickups with your dawgs and couches in the back of them. Heaven forbid you might wish to advance your society with such simple pleasures at hand.

For the record... I don't really have a pony in this race. If your country cannot get its shit together... then I guess that's the way it'll have to be. But I will say this: the yokels on this forum will likely have their way (as you have pleasantly boasted)... but the most well-written Americans on this forum deserve much better. Come to Canada Brian, Mickeyrat, Gimme, Johnny, Jimmy, Moonpig, Hedonist, Jose, guitar92, and all the others (need to stop somewhere) that are tired of their children being gunned down outside of their homes and in theaters and at schools.

I think you understand my post well enough so I just leave it at that.

Godfather.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Godfather. wrote:

I think you understand my post well enough so I just leave it at that.

Godfather.

I probably should have done the same. Well done.

JonnyPistachio

I think you'd be a foolish if you dont acknowledge the possibility that the sheer number of guns (more guns than people in the US) and the ease of availability and ease of purchase MUST contribute to our problem (shooting deaths/accidents) to some degree.

Something is not right. And YES, it is the people, but I believe its a combination of the people and those underlined factors above ^^^.

mickeyrat

hmm, I may just have to subscribe to the times so I can continue post Nocera's blog. Apparently you only get so many "free" viewings.


In the meantime, if you care to see it, use one of the links I already posted to get to the daily gun report.

Guitar92player

Godfather. wrote:

thirtybillsunpaid;the lame rationalizations you speak of are those of the anti gun folks who seem angry because they can't change the minds of gun owners across America or take their gun away from them and that is a truth that has been afforded to you and many others.
that waste of breathing space in the white house seems to be of the same opinion on guns but he also has no problem sending 100's of thousands of troops (with guns) to the middle east or arming his security to the hilt
(which I have no problem with) and then say "we don't need assult rifles"...who were the fools that voted that idiot in in the first place ?

bottom line you and other anti gun folks can whine and scream for stricter gun laws and and the elemition of guns all together...but (you ready for this ?) IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN Americans will NEVER give up their guns
and especially not at the request of non Americans, you see, American gun owners don't give a rats ass what non Americans think or believe about their/our "right to keep and bare arms"

here in America we still have the right to freedom of speach so the anti gun folks can say what they want about gun ownership but with that same right we can tell them "they're barking up the wrong tree"

Godfather.

I agree with your last statement.

However, i don't know who you voted for in your life, but all I am saying is that if you voted for Bush you better not say anything about who is a fool when it comes to voting. :roll:

You need to stop saying all anti-gun folks are the same. You can't just say all want guns taken away and stricter laws. You and I talked already and I found out we have the same view and hopes.

Godfather.

Guitar92player wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

thirtybillsunpaid;the lame rationalizations you speak of are those of the anti gun folks who seem angry because they can't change the minds of gun owners across America or take their gun away from them and that is a truth that has been afforded to you and many others.
that waste of breathing space in the white house seems to be of the same opinion on guns but he also has no problem sending 100's of thousands of troops (with guns) to the middle east or arming his security to the hilt
(which I have no problem with) and then say "we don't need assult rifles"...who were the fools that voted that idiot in in the first place ?

bottom line you and other anti gun folks can whine and scream for stricter gun laws and and the elemition of guns all together...but (you ready for this ?) IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN Americans will NEVER give up their guns
and especially not at the request of non Americans, you see, American gun owners don't give a rats ass what non Americans think or believe about their/our "right to keep and bare arms"

here in America we still have the right to freedom of speach so the anti gun folks can say what they want about gun ownership but with that same right we can tell them "they're barking up the wrong tree"

Godfather.

I agree with your last statement.

However, i don't know who you voted for in your life, but all I am saying is that if you voted for Bush you better not say anything about who is a fool when it comes to voting. :roll:

You need to stop saying all anti-gun folks are the same. You can't just say all want guns taken away and stricter laws. You and I talked already and I found out we have the same view and hopes.

I have never voted according to party,I voted for Clinton and I've voted for Regan and last time around I voted for a Bush or two then Romney and back in the day I supported Parot..but I personally have never seen a bigger disapointment than obama but in due time we may get another disapointment in office and his/her time will come to pass also and we'll all move on once again.

Godfather.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Godfather. wrote:

I have never voted according to party,I voted for Clinton and I've voted for Regan and last time around I voted for a Bush or two then Romney and back in the day I supported Parot..but I personally have never seen a bigger disapointment than obama but in due time we may get another disapointment in office and his/her time will come to pass also and we'll all move on once again.

Godfather.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjmjqlOPd6A

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

I have never voted according to party,I voted for Clinton and I've voted for Regan and last time around I voted for a Bush or two then Romney and back in the day I supported Parot..but I personally have never seen a bigger disapointment than obama but in due time we may get another disapointment in office and his/her time will come to pass also and we'll all move on once again.

Godfather.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjmjqlOPd6A

Just a classic- yet typical- mumbling bumbling blunder from one of the world's most prolific fools.

"He's an absolute moron... but iiiiimmmm votin' for 'em!" :fp:

Guitar92player

Godfather. wrote:

I have never voted according to party,I voted for Clinton and I've voted for Regan and last time around I voted for a Bush or two then Romney and back in the day I supported Parot..but I personally have never seen a bigger disapointment than obama but in due time we may get another disapointment in office and his/her time will come to pass also and we'll all move on once again.

Godfather.

You basically made my point though. You voted for Bush, so if you are calling Obama-voters fools than raise your right hand and say, "My name is Godfather and I am a fool who voted for Bush."

I guess we're all fools. But so are the politicians.

JimmyV

It's like the old adage goes...

I'll say this for insert politician name here, he is smarter than anyone who voted for him.

ajedigecko

If we take out the following cities: dc - new orleans - detroit - chicago, from the stats

I wonder where the United States ranks among safe places to live?

mickeyrat

So very fucking proud to be an Ohioan ......

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories ... -guns.html

Federal data released this week show once again that Ohio is a top source for guns involved in crimes in other states. And the state remains among the weakest when it comes to gun laws.

Criminals know that, law-enforcement officials say, so it’s no surprise to them that Ohio guns show up in so many criminal acts in other states.

“People know they can come to Ohio, get a gun, and take it someplace where there are tougher restrictions,” said Columbus Deputy Police Chief Jeffrey Blackwell. “It happens at gun shows in the sticks and through underground schemes on city streets.”

Sometimes, it’s a lot of guns, such as the 183 that ended up involved in New York crimes, or just one, such as the Ohio gun linked to a crime in Vermont.

In all, 1,601 guns were first legally purchased in Ohio last year and then linked to crimes such as robbery and homicide in 36 other states. An additional 5,375 guns stayed in Ohio and were linked to crimes in 2012, according to a Dispatch analysis of data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

In 2011, the number of guns traced back to Ohio from other states was closer to 1,700, with 5,225 staying in the state. Ohio was a top contributor of guns used in crimes in 38 states.

Though not all those guns are linked to trafficking operations, Laura Cutilletta, senior staff attorney for the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, says that the trace data illustrate how easy it is to get guns in Ohio. She said the state has too many loopholes for gun ownership that serve as a “beacon” for a gun-trafficking market.

By law, background checks are not required for all gun sales — including some online and gun-show sellers. The state doesn’t keep track of who buys guns. Violent misdemeanors, such as domestic violence, don’t disqualify someone from making a firearm purchase.

But gun lobbies argue that there will always be criminals who break the law, no matter how tight the law is.

Now that those lobbies have seemingly halted Congress’ push for tighter gun restrictions, some argue that lawmakers in states across the country could have some effect on gun trafficking in America. But others argue that any more restrictions on gun ownership will affect a constitutional right to bear arms.

Movement of guns

It’s hard to end gun trafficking because it’s tough to track the movement of guns. There’s no national register the federal government can use to show who owns a firearm at any given time. The ATF each year uses information supplied voluntarily by local law-enforcement agencies around the country to trace guns used in crimes back to a legal purchase. From there, they can discover whether someone illegally bought guns for other people.

First, the agency traces guns involved in crimes to the manufacturer. From there, they find the shop that first sold it, and the first buyer. Then comes the tricky part: ATF agents have to ask around to figure out how a gun moved from hand to hand.

The data that comes from those investigations is compiled in state-by-state annual reports known as “trace data” that show everything from which types of guns were used in crimes to where they came from.

While there are several limitations to the trace information, it’s the only information of its kind, said Dave Coulson, the Columbus ATF spokesman, adding that it’s “a powerful tool” that provides the bureau with information.

What are the loopholes?

Ohio lawmakers have taken few steps to expand state law further than required by federal law when it comes to guns — a move many other states have taken over the years, according to information from the Denver-based National Conference of State Legislatures, a bipartisan research group.

The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a nonprofit advocacy group founded by attorneys who deem themselves experts on America’s gun laws, gives Ohio’s current law a “D” grade.

“In a lot of states, there are a few violent misdemeanors that would prevent someone from getting a gun,” Cutilletta said. “In Ohio, being disqualified for a previously committed crime relies on what the federal government already has. ... You’d essentially have to be a felon to be disqualified from owning a gun.”

Other examples of requirements not found in Ohio law:

• Licenses for gun-owners who want to sell their guns.

• Regulation of the number of guns someone can buy in a given timeframe.

• Restrictions on buying a gun in one day’s time. At least two states prohibit same-day purchases.

• Tracking of firearm sales. Gun shops are required to report sales only to the federal government.

• Background checks for all sales.

“When you make it easy to get a gun in a state, I mean, it’s just common sense that people will go there to get a gun, especially in frequent and large amounts,” Cutilletta said.

The law center used trace data to show that Ohio has been the top “interstate supplier” in the past of guns used in crimes in Michigan, where the laws are ranked better than Ohio’s with a “C” grade by the law center.

Home-grown trafficker

Former Columbus police officer Mark Andrew Nelson made thousands of dollars by illegally selling 500 guns at gun shows and from the trunk of his car in 2005.

One gun from his operation was linked to a triple homicide in Baltimore.

A student put another gun linked to Nelson to a student’s head at a high school in Maryland. A third was found next to a dead body in the backseat of a car in New Jersey.

Nelson was, by definition, a gun trafficker. He ran an operation that provided guns to people who otherwise wouldn’t be able to get them because they might not pass a background check.

Nelson will likely walk out of prison a free man before 2017, and many of the guns he illegally sold will still be on the streets when he does.

Could state laws have stopped Nelson and his affiliates?

“If Ohio had regulations on how many guns someone can buy in a year and kept track of firearm sales, gun traffickers who don’t have misdemeanors might get caught a bit earlier,” Cutilleta said, adding that if the state kept track of firearm sales, it might be able to step in before the federal government got around to it.

No law to address problem

Nelson didn’t go to prison for “gun trafficking.” He pleaded guilty to one count of lying on a government document about his intent for purchasing a firearm and was sentenced to 10 years in prison and a $2,000 fine.

The government uses that part of federal law to put away people involved in gun trafficking because there is no federal statute — or Ohio law — that makes it a crime to participate in gun-trafficking schemes.

“Right now, it’s more about the falsification of forms,” said Coulson, the ATF Columbus spokesman. “If you had knowledge that a gun was going to a felon, that charge could be tacked on, too.”

Some gun-control advocates argue that since law-enforcement officers have a working definition for gun trafficking, there should be a law making it a crime.

“A direct statute would give the federal government some powerful prosecuting tools,” said Cutilletta, the attorney for the law center. “At the state level ... if law enforcement knew they had a possible charge against someone that they could use to have someone be prosecuted, they could have more incentive to investigate. If the focus on an investigation has to be whether someone broke a procedural rule, it might be a harder time. It’s nicer to have a direct violation that they can look for.”

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine declined to comment on gun trafficking and the state’s gun laws. A spokesman for Gov. John Kasich said the governor’s office was looking at the new ATF report.

Jim Irvine, chairman of the Buckeye State Firearms Association, said he’s against a statute directly outlining gun trafficking or straw purchasing as a crime, suggesting that the government could piece together existing statutes to put a trafficker or straw buyer away — as was done in Nelson’s case.

“If you’ve got A, B, C and D, I don’t think there’s a need for a thing that covers all of them,” Irvine said.

But regardless of what the gun-rights and gun-control lobbies say, the trace data show a trend with regard to Ohio gun ownership, Coulson said.

“Statistics are statistics. These are the down and dirty facts,” he said. “There are other people that need to take them to the next step.”

Joshua Jamerson is a fellow in Ohio University’s Statehouse News Bureau.

dudeman

So let me see if I understand this correctly:

People that can't buy a gun in their own state because of strict gun laws go to another state to illegally purchase guns that they aren't allowed to have, bring them to their home-state and commit acts that are illegal with those illegal guns.

The guy in the state that is selling the guns illegally isn't supposed to be selling them in the first place, especially to people that aren't residents of that state and are know to be felons.

Both the buyers of these guns and the sellers know that they are breaking the law.

When they are caught, current legislation is sufficient to send the guilty parties to prison.

If I understand that correctly, is there anything short of an outright ban on individual gun ownership and subsequent confiscation that that will change any of this?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

dudeman wrote:

So let me see if I understand this correctly:

People that can't buy a gun in their own state because of strict gun laws go to another state to illegally purchase guns that they aren't allowed to have, bring them to their home-state and commit acts that are illegal with those illegal guns.

The guy in the state that is selling the guns illegally isn't supposed to be selling them in the first place, especially to people that aren't residents of that state and are know to be felons.

Both the buyers of these guns and the sellers know that they are breaking the law.

When they are caught, current legislation is sufficient to send the guilty parties to prison.

If I understand that correctly, is there anything short of an outright ban on individual gun ownership and subsequent confiscation that that will change any of this?

You talk a lot, but don't really listen. Read the following carefully so that you know what you are arguing against:

The most sensible people are advocating for tighter background checks, and a ban of assault rifles (with handguns limited to those with squeaky clean backgrounds). Shotguns and other hunting rifles can be attained with a clean background check. So, if you are not a felon... you can purchase one of these- although I would prefer some basic training course before allowing some idiot the opportunity to stare down his barrel to see if anything fell down it while he's got his thumb on the trigger.

When you saturate your society with countless handguns that are traded freely, easy to attain, and bullets a dime a dozen... there's no reason to not understand the need to change current practices.

When psychopathic idiots are allowed to purchase assault rifles... there's no reason to not understand the need to change current practices.

dudeman

Who the hell are these "most sensible people" and who is deciding that they are "sensible" in the first place? Diane Feinstein?

I don't imagine that you have ever tried to legally purchase a gun, but these conditions already exist. "Assault rifles" or "machine guns" are already illegal. (An AR-15 is not an "assault rifle" as it fires one round per trigger press.) A felon cannot legally purchase a firearm and it is illegal to sell any firearm to a felon. Handguns are not "traded freely or easy to attain" unless you either purchase one legally and are subject to a background check, or purchase one illegally, which is illegal.

Yes, there are many guns on the streets in our cities. Many of those are in the hands of felons and mentally unstable people. The problem is that these people are already in violation of current gun-ownership laws. What makes you think that "tighter background checks" (which these people fail the ones already in place) or an "assault weapons ban" (which already exists) is suddenly going to make these people realize that they're on the wrong side of the law? Do you honestly believe that these new laws will uproot the black market and turn violent, gun-toting criminals into upstanding citizens?

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

dudeman wrote:

So let me see if I understand this correctly:

People that can't buy a gun in their own state because of strict gun laws go to another state to illegally purchase guns that they aren't allowed to have, bring them to their home-state and commit acts that are illegal with those illegal guns.

The guy in the state that is selling the guns illegally isn't supposed to be selling them in the first place, especially to people that aren't residents of that state and are know to be felons.

Both the buyers of these guns and the sellers know that they are breaking the law.

When they are caught, current legislation is sufficient to send the guilty parties to prison.

If I understand that correctly, is there anything short of an outright ban on individual gun ownership and subsequent confiscation that that will change any of this?

You talk a lot, but don't really listen. Read the following carefully so that you know what you are arguing against:

The most sensible people are advocating for tighter background checks, and a ban of assault rifles (with handguns limited to those with squeaky clean backgrounds). Shotguns and other hunting rifles can be attained with a clean background check. So, if you are not a felon... you can purchase one of these- although I would prefer some basic training course before allowing some idiot the opportunity to stare down his barrel to see if anything fell down it while he's got his thumb on the trigger.

When you saturate your society with countless handguns that are traded freely, easy to attain, and bullets a dime a dozen... there's no reason to not understand the need to change current practices.

When psychopathic idiots are allowed to purchase assault rifles... there's no reason to not understand the need to change current practices.