Gunman Kills 4 in TN

SilverSeed

Not to start another guns thread, but this is just stupid. It's not that these continue to happen, it's the velocity at which they are happening now. It seems like a few a week is the norm.

http://www.tricities.com/tristate/tri/news.apx.-content-articles-TRI-2008-02-27-0021.html

Can people honestly sit back and think we don't need to change our gun laws? Please don't give the argument that if we were all armed this wouldn't happen. Obviously there are way too many people in this country that can't handle the responsibility of carrying a firearm. Encouraging all to do so would mean havoc.

Is this really what the 2nd amendment protects???

dunkman

unfortunately people's answer will be to give everyone a gun... quite how that will stop say a sniper or someone in a tower picking people off is beyond me... but thats a shame... so soon after the other ones... some fucked up retards in that country of yours. :(

dangerboy

bet he was "off his meds", or that psychotropics will come up within a day or two....

jeffbr

SilverSeed wrote:

Not to start another guns thread, but this is just stupid. It's not that these continue to happen, it's the velocity at which they are happening now. It seems like a few a week is the norm.

http://www.tricities.com/tristate/tri/news.apx.-content-articles-TRI-2008-02-27-0021.html

Can people honestly sit back and think we don't need to change our gun laws? Please don't give the argument that if we were all armed this wouldn't happen. Obviously there are way too many people in this country that can't handle the responsibility of carrying a firearm. Encouraging all to do so would mean havoc.

Is this really what the 2nd amendment protects???

What specific laws are you proposing that aren't already on the books?

dunkman

jeffbr wrote:

What specific laws are you proposing that aren't already on the books?

storage of the guns? mental aptitude tests? training by firearms officers? make it harder to buy a gun than it currently is... its harder to buy alcohol.

even flow?

Yawn!!! Just another daily occurance down there.

I can almost accept the concept of a gun killing in an armed robbery or self defense.

josevolution

dunkman wrote:

unfortunately people's answer will be to give everyone a gun... quite how that will stop say a sniper or someone in a tower picking people off is beyond me... but thats a shame... so soon after the other ones... some fucked up retards in that country of yours. :(

totally agree i live in this country and i can't for the life of me understand why we need so many god damm guns it's nuts ,i blame the john wayne mentality of the wild wild west ........

jeffbr

dunkman wrote:

storage of the guns? mental aptitude tests? training by firearms officers? make it harder to buy a gun than it currently is... its harder to buy alcohol.

Onsite or offsite storage? I'm a fan of trigger locks, so I have no problem with some tightening of storage requirements. Mental aptitude test is trickier. I would be in favor of an IQ test for guns and voting, but I'm an elitist. Training sound good. I've taken training and think anyone who has a loaded weapon should know how to use it.

BUT - would any of these laws have prevented this particular incident? I'm interested in SilverSteeds call for new measures in light of today's occurrence.

And there is no waiting period or background check for alcohol where I'm from, so I'll disagree with the last statement.

SilverSeed

jeffbr wrote:

What specific laws are you proposing that aren't already on the books?

To start, let's bring back that assault rifle ban (lapsed recently didn't it? I could be behind on this though...). Fortunately I'm not a lawmaker. I'm a concerned citizen.

I know where you're going with this. X number of laws already exist. It's too hard to further legislate gun use. Anyone that complies will be a law abiding citizen writing their own death warrant...

None of these are valid arguments. My inability to write legislation concerning gun control does not make it a non issue. Speculation on future anarchy is a slippery slope argument.

How about this. What do you like about these shootings that forces you to defend the aggressor's rights so adamantly? As in the OP, IS THIS REALLY WHAT THE 2ND AMENDMENT PROTECTS?

polaris

although i think the issue of gun laws are important ... i think we are all missing the point of these shootings ...

gun laws are complicated simply because the gun lobby is huge and policy is set by lobbyists and corporations ... everything favours industry ... but whether or not there is stricter restrictions for getting a gun - the reality is that these people most likely will find one - one way or another ...

why aren't we looking into the motivations for these shootings ... i don't know the specifics of all the cases but it seems to me that it would be an oversight to not look at what motivates someone to want to go on a rampage ...

jeffbr

SilverSeed wrote:

To start, let's bring back that assault rifle ban (lapsed recently didn't it? I could be behind on this though...). Fortunately I'm not a lawmaker. I'm a concerned citizen.

Did this incident involve an "assault rifle"? I didn't see mention made. Do you know what incredibly low percentage of shootings involve "assualt rifles"? It is mostly a media creation due to how scary they look.

SilverSeed wrote:

I know where you're going with this. X number of laws already exist. It's too hard to further legislate gun use. Anyone that complies will be a law abiding citizen writing their own death warrant...

None of these are valid arguments. My inability to write legislation concerning gun control does not make it a non issue. Speculation on future anarchy is a slippery slope argument.

I understand that you'd rather run around creating new laws against scary looking guns instead of enforcing existing gun laws, or looking at the root cause of the shooters issue. Clearly something drove him to this. But let's ignore that and focus on the gun.

SilverSeed wrote:

How about this. What do you like about these shootings that forces you to defend the aggressor's rights so adamantly? As in the OP, IS THIS REALLY WHAT THE 2ND AMENDMENT PROTECTS?

This is the dumbest fucking thing I've heard in a long time. I am not defending the perpetrator of this shooting. I'm quite glad he's dead, and am saddened that whatever troubles led up to this incident were ignored rather than addressed.

And since you are apparently confused I'll go ahead and answer your silly question - No, the 2nd ammendment doesn't protect the rights of an agressor committing homocide. There is nothing in the 2nd ammendment that could be construed to do so. In fact, there are many laws on the books outlawing all sorts of crimes against people, none of which violate the 2nd ammendment. Christ.

my2hands

Rusty Rumley




enough said...

Collin

jeffbr wrote:

Clearly something drove him to this. But let's ignore that and focus on the gun.

Besides mental problems, childhood traumas etc. the shooters have something else in common; they choose guns to kill.

Guns are part of the problem.

But you're right too, it's not the only problem.

soulsinging

jeffbr wrote:

Onsite or offsite storage? I'm a fan of trigger locks, so I have no problem with some tightening of storage requirements. Mental aptitude test is trickier. I would be in favor of an IQ test for guns and voting, but I'm an elitist. Training sound good. I've taken training and think anyone who has a loaded weapon should know how to use it.

BUT - would any of these laws have prevented this particular incident? I'm interested in SilverSteeds call for new measures in light of today's occurrence.

And there is no waiting period or background check for alcohol where I'm from, so I'll disagree with the last statement.

i say treat guns like cars. you need a license. to get a gun license you have to complete training and safety courses. you have to pass a psychological test similar to the eye test. you have to inform them of any psychiatric conditions (just like you have to tell them if your vision is no good) and prove you're treating them (wearing glasses).

would it stop all of them? no. but it might make it a bit more difficult for some angsty teen to get a legal gun in a hurry. force him to make a real effort to do this.

id also say guns should be registered. we register fucking cars, why not guns? but i know the paranoid gun owner would scream bloody murder about this. ironic how it's about the right to defend one's home initially, then it's about governmental resistance once registration is brought up, then it's about an abstract right to a gun when it is pointed out that 'arms' should/could mean a whole lot more than guns and shouldn't be restricted to guns.

lastly, strict liability for crimes committed with your gun. you lose it, you tell the cops and it gets top priority. you sell it to a kid on the street or fence it, you go to prison.

it's not about enforcing the laws on the books. the laws on the books are stupid patchwork reactions. we need to scrap the entire code and start over.

jeffbr

soulsinging wrote:

i say treat guns like cars. you need a license. to get a gun license you have to complete training and safety courses. you have to pass a psychological test similar to the eye test. you have to inform them of any psychiatric conditions (just like you have to tell them if your vision is no good) and prove you're treating them (wearing glasses).

would it stop all of them? no. but it might make it a bit more difficult for some angsty teen to get a legal gun in a hurry. force him to make a real effort to do this.

I'm not opposed to this conceptually. Depends entirely on implementation. I think training and safety are very important.

soulsinging wrote:

id also say guns should be registered. we register fucking cars, why not guns? but i know the paranoid gun owner would scream bloody murder about this. ironic how it's about the right to defend one's home initially, then it's about governmental resistance once registration is brought up, then it's about an abstract right to a gun when it is pointed out that 'arms' should/could mean a whole lot more than guns and shouldn't be restricted to guns.

I won't scream bloody murder, but I will oppose any government registration of guns. That wouldn't solve any of our current shootings and only law abiding citizens by definition would comply. The only thing it would do is create a database of gun owners who followed the law. And, as with the first suggestion, implementation would be important. Guns must be registered. Does the government have the ability to deny registration for any reason? For specific reasons? Do they have to inform you of those reasons? Do they have a time limit on how long it takes to review your registration application? Do they have privacy regulations in place to make your ownership of a firearm a private matter, or is it discoverable through the FOIA, gray metal file cabinets, or unsecured servers?

soulsinging wrote:

lastly, strict liability for crimes committed with your gun. you lose it, you tell the cops and it gets top priority. you sell it to a kid on the street or fence it, you go to prison.

it's not about enforcing the laws on the books. the laws on the books are stupid patchwork reactions. we need to scrap the entire code and start over.

100% agree with the strict liability. Not sure about the last paragraph. I don't think there is any area of the law on the books that we could entirely scrap and redo with any sort of consensus.

soulsinging

jeffbr wrote:

I won't scream bloody murder, but I will oppose any government registration of guns. That wouldn't solve any of our current shootings and only law abiding citizens by definition would comply. The only thing it would do is create a database of gun owners who followed the law. And, as with the first suggestion, implementation would be important. Guns must be registered. Does the government have the ability to deny registration for any reason? For specific reasons? Do they have to inform you of those reasons? Do they have a time limit on how long it takes to review your registration application? Do they have privacy regulations in place to make your ownership of a firearm a private matter, or is it discoverable through the FOIA, gray metal file cabinets, or unsecured servers?

its purpose would solely be to aid in tracking guns that are used in guns and would/should be strictly confidential. most people cooperate with car registration. this way you can hold people that sell guns off the books accountable. and if a gun turns up at a crime scene, you've got one more clue. even if the owner didn't do the crime, it gives you 2 angles... find out where people with motives/at the scene intersect with the path the gun took from that owner. it isn't perfect, but it's sensible. the government tracks your car and everything else in your life. best buy has a record of every purchase i ever made there with my credit card. of all things that ought to be tracked, the sale and possession of dangerous weapons should be at the top of the list. and your argument hurts itself. if all people who would register are such law-abiders, what do they have to worry about?

Cosmo

I've come to the realization that this is just something Americans have to become accoustomed to... like baseball and hot dogs.

josevolution

Cosmo wrote:

I've come to the realization that this is just something Americans have to become accoustomed to... like baseball and hot dogs.

there is truth in that thought process ...

Cosmo

josevolution wrote:

there is truth in that thought process ...

...
I'm serious. No one is going to do anything but say, "OH GOSH... Those poor people... I pray for them... pass the potatos".
Nothing will be done other than a bunch of hot air filled with empty words getting blown around for a while... til we forget... and move on to the next thing... til it happens again.
This is what America IS... and apparently, what America is willing to accept.

jeffbr

soulsinging wrote:

its purpose would solely be to aid in tracking guns that are used in guns and would/should be strictly confidential. most people cooperate with car registration. this way you can hold people that sell guns off the books accountable. and if a gun turns up at a crime scene, you've got one more clue. even if the owner didn't do the crime, it gives you 2 angles... find out where people with motives/at the scene intersect with the path the gun took from that owner. it isn't perfect, but it's sensible. the government tracks your car and everything else in your life. best buy has a record of every purchase i ever made there with my credit card. of all things that ought to be tracked, the sale and possession of dangerous weapons should be at the top of the list. and your argument hurts itself. if all people who would register are such law-abiders, what do they have to worry about?

BATFE already regulates sales with record keeping, so any new gun sales records exist. Just not in a formal "registration" database where all transfers are recorded. I don't want the government tracking my "car and everything else" in my life, so I try to be consistent. I oppose those things, too.

The last question you have goes back to the reason the 2nd ammendment was initially written. The answer is the government itself. With an ever growing list of erosion of liberties in the name of safety (patriot act, curtailing first ammendment rights, wire tapping, etc...) this is just one more to add that I'm not willing to concede.

soulsinging

jeffbr wrote:

BATFE already regulates sales with record keeping, so any new gun sales records exist. Just not in a formal "registration" database where all transfers are recorded. I don't want the government tracking my "car and everything else" in my life, so I try to be consistent. I oppose those things, too.

The last question you have goes back to the reason the 2nd ammendment was initially written. The answer is the government itself. With an ever growing list of erosion of liberties in the name of safety (patriot act, curtailing first ammendment rights, wire tapping, etc...) this is just one more to add that I'm not willing to concede.

like i said, i can bend on the registration becos i know the nutjobs won't accept it. the rest is the important stuff. if you oppose car registration and the like, that's cool. i just think it's insane that we track cars more carefully than guns. that's ridiculous.

as to the second paragraph, i don't buy it. becos the us military could still destroy you if it wanted. i don't buy that ideology unless it also demands the right to own mortars, tanks, anti-aircraft missiles, and fighter jets... a REAL militia to serve as a bulwark against the government. this isn't 1776. a few private citizens with handguns and rifles could not stop the us military.

i didnt know BAFTE was tracking gun sales now. that's interesting. i wonder how it works. but i also have to say i find it odd that on the one hand you talk about strict liability for crimes committed when you fence your weapon, but then think it should be perfectly legal to sell your handgun to anyone you want without any mechanism to review the legality of the sale. it leaves it wide open for abuse... like people who get prescriptions for painkillers and then farm them out to junkies.