Gun Control

`

How would tighter laws prevent a single determined individual from causing serious harm to a large group of people? And do you think that the shootings in both places show a need for individuals to take personal responsibility for their own safety? In both instances, an armed and trained individual could have made a difference. And to curb the inevitable training question, there are courses that any citizen can take that would have provided the training necessary.

https://www.warriorschool.com/courses/personal-defense/close-quarter-combat/
Just for example. a quick search provides many such opportunities.

I certainly agree that when someone gets ready to kill a bunch of people it goes without saying that he/she will hold in little regard the legality of the weaponry they intend to use. Even if the large ammunition drums were made illegal I hear the conversion from semi-automatic to fully is fairly easy to accomplish. So I guess for me the main question is would tightening gun laws actually lead to less availability of guns for criminals? I'm doubtful.

``

[quote="drainey"]

Jeremyshall wrote:How would tighter laws prevent a single determined individual from causing serious harm to a large group of people?

The aim is not to prevent, but to "make a difference. I have to sign for cold medicine with psuedoephedrine in it and present my driver's license, and get put on a database that tracks how much I buy. It's been very effective in reducing meth production. If the aim is to never do anything unless it prevents a crime, then we should have no laws for anything.

-

drainey wrote:Does the Copper Top and the Dark Knight shooting incident show that gun laws should be tightened to prevent similar episodes in the future?

drainey wrote:

Jeremyshall wrote:And do you think that the shootings in both places show a need for individuals to take personal responsibility for their own safety? In both instances, an armed and trained individual could have made a difference. And to curb the inevitable training question, there are courses that any citizen can take that would have provided the training necessary.

No, I don't, if by responsibility you mean having to carry a gun to see a movie. Get down and get out. There is no training that prepares you to prevent an armored individual with an MP5 sneak attacking you in a theater, with tear gas. Except never sit in the front row. If ever that was a no man's land, it is now.

Get down and get out is always going to the best answer if possible. The question isn't if it would be best, but what if it isn't an option? Do you think it would have been good to have a police officer in that theater? Could he have made a difference? How about a navy seal? Could he have done something? If the answer is yes, then what is the difference between them and you, except for training? And, you are personally responsible for your own safety regardless of whether you pass that off to a police officer or not. For me, I at least want the fighting chance that the right tools provide.

`

drainey wrote:The greatest difference in that theater would be for the shooter to not have been able to get his hands on an MP5 with a 100 round magazine. Or tear gas grenades. Ammo, the helmet, ballistic leggings. Purchase certain combinations of methamphetamine precursors and you get flagged.

"Police said Holmes, 24, dressed head-to-toe in protective tactical gear,
set off two devices of some kind before spraying the theater with
bullets from an AR-15 rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and at least one of two
.40-caliber handguns police recovered at the scene. -http://www.10news.com/news/31290679/detail.html"
An AR-15 is a semi-automatic gun that will only shoot one time for each trigger pull. This no different than any hunting rifle that has a magazine. Are you advocating laws that would limit all rifle purchases except for single or bolt action? As to the helmet and ballistic leggings, what level of law could have stopped him from buying these? Gas was used in the bombs in his house, so should there be laws that would limit or track the sale of gas? To me, this is comparable. Innocent items, used in an evil way, shouldn't automatically allow the government the right to limit those items.

drainey wrote:Does your argument of personal responsibility apply to the six year old that was killed?

Of course it does. A six year old would be responsible for what is appropriate for a six year old, and his parents are responsible for the stuff that is beyond his current level of maturity. That is part of the responsibility that I take when I have children. To completely pawn that off on to someone else, cops or otherwise, is a failure on my part. This in no way negates the horrendous tragedy that this is, but to use that as an argument to allow the government to take away my ability to protect myself and my family is a response based in emotions.

And because you brought up the Copper Top in the op, that situation could have been completely different had someone had the tool necessary to shoot back.

`

A kid who booby traps his apt. with sophistication will use the same sophistication in procuring his weapon of choice, red tape or not. This dude could have massacred people in any world that doesn't include padded rooms for everyone. My point is: if after we tighten gun laws, can it still be carried out?

Laws passed for the "exclusion of bad possibilities" almost always have a negative conquence for freedoms that I want. No version of freedom I desire for me or my family excludes the inescapable risks those freedoms birth.

Lots of laws pass that don't work, not a lot of laws that don't work come off the book. I'm scared my children will eventually live in a world that's used "read and react" legislation of every evil from here until there are only slivers of things they can do. Meanwhile, the James Holmes' of their generation is breaking 1,152 laws instead of 152.

`

Not one law passed or executed saved the dead in Aurora, and plenty were passed to do just that. Another law passed on the hill or regulation at the armory won't save the future work of murderers. I'm only trying to further convey that the murderous man is not bound by it's prohibition, and that makes all the nuances of weapon prohibition of any kind frivolous in comparison.

`

How could have that freedom outside of gun eradication?

`

`

Within current laws and regulations, I am willing to bet, as an American, that it would only take days/weeks for me to get a m249 (as well as other highly illegal weaponry) and shoot up a theater.

What then of the m249 regulations? They need stiffening don't they? So let's say the way I got my weapons gets deterred by regulation; any remaining way that a person can get a gun means that you don't have any freedom against him deciding to use it poorly or give it to someone else who will.

I'm not saying that laws aren't absolutely necessary and good for society, I'm saying we have corpes that say laws against murder don't always work.

I'd rather live in a word were you had to strip naked at movie theaters, than to only have a bbgun when tyranny came marching.

In a world with f-fighter jets and tanks, I want the absolute opposite of regulation on what I can buy to put it down in case I don't agree.

Good government encourages you to save it from itself. England would have been better off to have kept the guns away from the terrorist traitors in New England.

This means I don't want to be told what I can buy. Period. Buying something isn't a crime, and never should be. Murder always is a crime. Regulate murder all you want and make it severe enough punishment to tame the crime. But punishing a man who wants to buy all the nukes for righteous purposes would be wrong.

`

First, I want to clarify the laws concerning NFA weapons such as full auto firearms, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and those known as "any other weapons".

The weapons above are not currently banned in the US. There is simply an additional $200 tax placed on them. Simply fill out the paperwork, send it to the BATFE, and wait. That's it. If you can afford it you can buy it.

Of course, an individual state can choose to add further restrictions. For what it's worth, Alabama lifted its ban on short barreled rifles and shotguns about 3 years ago.

Copper Top Shooting: The criminal in this incident is a convicted felon. This means that it is illegal for him to possess guns and/or ammunition. Considering he violated the latter, I don't think that any other laws would have stopped him.

Aurora Colorado: The bad guy in this incident ignored numerous laws that make it illegal to assemble and/or possess explosives and incendiary devices without the proper permits. His determination to wreak havoc would not have been deterred by any law.

Laws only apply to those that wish to follow them. Criminals are only concerned with the level of punishment that they will receive if they are caught violating them. They don't obey the law because they don't want to serve time. They think more along the lines of I'll have to serve X amount of time if I'm caught.

The theater chain that the shooting occurred in has a policy of not allowing customers to possess weapons. This kept all guns out, except for the ones used in an illegal manner.

Would legally possessed firearms have made a difference? I say most likely yes.
In my experience, I've learned that most people that legally carry a gun with them most of the time carry the smallest and lightest available. Most of these types of guns are in the caliber or .380 ACP or smaller. I think being pelted with .380 ACP rounds from 2 or 3 different directions could have made a difference. Things change when bullets are flying back at you, even with body armor. If I'm ever in such a situation I only hope that I can send a couple of .45's downrange.

Training available to the public:

http://www.shootrite.org/

Shootrite Firearms Academy is well respected by the firearms training community.

Right here in the Heart of Dixie!

`

drainey wrote:

Spinks wrote:First, I want to clarify the laws concerning NFA weapons such as full auto firearms, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and those known as "any other weapons".
The weapons above are not currently banned in the US. There is simply an additional $200 tax placed on them. Simply fill out the paperwork, send it to the BATFE, and wait. That's it. If you can afford it you can buy it.

Per the 1986 National Firearms Act, for full auto firearms(machine guns), sale of those firearms not in circulation before May 19,1986 is banned to private citizens. Transfer of ownership of previously manufactured machine guns is subject to a $200 tax, plus pass an extensive FBI criminal background investigation. You must submit two photographs taken in the last year, two copies of fingerprints, and a copy of any state or local permit or license required to buy, possess or acquire machine guns.You may not own a machine gun if you are dishonorably discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces, or are adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution. Or convicted of misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.If approved, you must keep approved applications as evidence of registration of the firearms and make them available for inspection by ATF officers.
Because of this, violent crimes with machine guns are virtually unheard of. They are a shining example of how we can regulate a class of firearm without outlawing them entirely.

I'm sorry that my abbreviated version wasn't good enough. Maybe I should have said submit the paperwork instead of "fill out".
You are correct that machine guns made after 1986 are not currently available to the general public but that does not mean that all machine guns are banned, which was my point. All that one has to do is surf the web to find a machine gun for sale. If you are legally allowed to own a firearm and can afford a machine gun you can indeed buy it.

Why do we need to heavily regulate any kind of firearm? Criminals will be criminals. If a bad guy walks in with a machine gun and commits a crime because he could easily obtain one doesn't mean that he's not going to run into someone willing to defend themselves with a full auto weapon. A Glock 18 is easily concealed and can be quickly reloaded so, it's not beyond reason to believe that an average citizen would have one on him if it was easily obtainable.

Here is a link from the Chicago Tribune. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-shooting-violence-gun-chicago-gangs-august-3-august-4-20120803,0,4899036.story
Chicago has stringent gun regulations. Some of the toughest in the country. This article demonstrates what happens when only criminals have guns.

Spinks wrote:Copper Top Shooting: The criminal in this incident is a convicted felon. This means that it is illegal for him to possess guns and/or ammunition. Considering he violated the latter, I don't think that any other laws would have stopped him.

Aurora Colorado: The bad guy in this incident ignored numerous laws that make it illegal to assemble and/or possess explosives and incendiary devices without the proper permits. His determination to wreak havoc would not have been deterred by any law.

Laws only apply to those that wish to follow them. Criminals are only concerned with the level of punishment that they will receive if they are caught violating them. They don't obey the law because they don't want to serve time. They think more along the lines of I'll have to serve X amount of time if I'm caught.

The theater chain that the shooting occurred in has a policy of not allowing customers to possess weapons. This kept all guns out, except for the ones used in an illegal manner.

drainey wrote:
This argument isn't an argument about gun control, it is an argument against laws. If we shouldn't have a particular law because someone might break it, then we shouldn't have any laws. And I am for laws. Not because they prevent criminals, but because they hinder and incarcerate them. We can prevent people like James Eagan Holmes from getting an AR15 with a 100 round drum magazine. We can make it much, much harder for people like him to get that, and have to turn to just his pistol and shotgun. That last one would make a greater difference than taking a knife to a gunfight. And maybe, just maybe prevent the act from happening in the first place because he doesn't want to face a theater with several patrons with pistols without superior firepower.

This is an argument against new laws. In both examples the bad guys committed several felonies in order to carry out their actions. What difference would more laws on a piece of paper have made?
If you make it harder for "people like him" to get a certain item does that not put the same hinderance on the ordinary gun buyer?
By "AR15" do you imply all magazine fed semi-auto rifles? Or, are you more concerned with high capacity magazines?
How would Holmes only using a pistol or shotgun have been any better? That's what he did when the rifle malfunctioned. Even without the rifle a .50 caliber 12 gauge slug is capable of penetrating several people before it loses enough velocity to stop forward motion. That is superior firepower. I don't know if he had slugs in his shotgun or not. I know that I would have. He also had a Glock pistol. How many pistol magazines can someone carry? A lot of them. How fast can a Glock be reloaded? Before a shooter can be charged and taken down. Do you think that maybe Holmes knew that the theater chain did not allow weapons and that he would be the only one with a gun there? After all, this action was planned for weeks before it was enacted. I think that he would have attacked even if he was limited to a machete.