DC is Now the One Lone Area of the Country ....

[NCRAVEN]

I think storing guns is part of being responsible gun owner, which is why I dont think even some that are good gun owners by all other definitions still arent being responsible gun owners. I know of too many houses where ive walked in and just seen a gun lying around, or worse a fully functioning gun safe thats left wide open. If proper storing enforcement is something even gun owners are for, id jump on board with that in a heartbeat. Problem is how do you enforce it? Random house inspections?
.

Fortunately and unfortunately you have to make a law that punishes after the fact.

I say fortunately because you can't just start allowing people in other peoples house because they own a gun. If you did that, where do you stop? You might as well throw out the constitution if that was allowed (and I know you weren't pushing that, simply asking).

And I say unfortunately because, well I think it's pretty clear, you don't know if someone didn't properly secure their gun until it's too late. It may not always result in someone being shot but you'd find out when someone who shouldn't have the gun until they do.

So you'd have to make a law that says, if you have a handgun that was possessed or used by a person under age you're liable for whatever in hopes it serves as a deterrent, kinda like the speed limit

[wickedsolo]

Interesting. I'd like to know why (not that it makes a difference now) she didn't secure her guns when she knew and was worried about her son...

Has that been proven that she did not secure her weapons?

I legitimately don't know...that's why I am asking...

[NCRAVEN]

Has that been proven that she did not secure her weapons?

I legitimately don't know...that's why I am asking...

I don't know either. But either she didn't or she didn't secure them well enough.

[JAB1985]

I routinely buy ammo in bulk. I do it for the same reason Mrs. HR and I shop at Costco -- it's cheaper.

Ammo at the gun range, at Wal-Mart, etc is marked up sometimes double the bulk price. Last month, I'd estimate I purchased 500 rounds of 9mm, 500 rounds of .45 and a crate of 1,000 rounds of .223 (yes, that's the same round that may have been used in CT). It will take me about 6 months or so to go through that allotment. My wife and I joke is the press ever looked inside my gun safe, it would be described as "an arsenal". I'd estimate I have about 2,500 rounds of ammo currently in my safe. Every shooter / hunter I know buys in bulk.

So again, checks on folks who buy ammo in bulk will be nothing more than a burden to legit, folks all the while doing nothing on the prevention side.

And thats fine, but purchasing multiple "flags" like guns themselves, large quantities of ammo and Body Armor and other items should trigger something. You should be able to see a pattern in your case, and others, under that scenario. One visit from a cop or a more in depth background check at that point is viewed as a "burden" by you but again, its your right to own a gun, but that doesnt mean its without burdens. I drive a car, i still have to go through check points now and then. I dont drive drunk and its a "burden" but its part of having the right, imo.

[NCRAVEN]

And thats fine, but purchasing multiple "flags" like guns themselves, large quantities of ammo and Body Armor and other items should trigger something. You should be able to see a pattern in your case, and others, under that scenario. One visit from a cop or a more in depth background check at that point is viewed as a "burden" by you but again, its your right to own a gun, but that doesnt mean its without burdens. I drive a car, i still have to go through check points now and then. I dont drive drunk and its a "burden" but its part of having the right, imo.

Driving is a privilege not a right. Privileges come with clauses, right are a lot less strict.

What about the right to privacy?

I am not suggesting no compromise what so ever. But at some point JAB you have to realize you can't prevent everything - especially in a free society.

Even if we weren't a free society, you still can't prevent things from happening, free will is a bitch.

[HoustonRaven]

And thats fine, but purchasing multiple "flags" like guns themselves, large quantities of ammo and Body Armor and other items should trigger something. You should be able to see a pattern in your case, and others, under that scenario. One visit from a cop or a more in depth background check at that point is viewed as a "burden" by you but again, its your right to own a gun, but that doesnt mean its without burdens. I drive a car, i still have to go through check points now and then. I dont drive drunk and its a "burden" but its part of having the right, imo.

A few points here ....

I never claimed that the background check I have to go through is a burden. In fact, I am in favor of background checks on all gun purchases.

Not to keep touting Texas, but the system here works. When you purchase a firearm in Texas, a call is placed to the Texas DPS and they run your background on the spot. It's a nationwide background check, not just a state one. Bulk purchases of firearms (anything over 3 in a 24 hour period) and you get flagged and will most likely get a visit from a cop. If you pass, you get your weapon.

The Columbine shooters obtained their weapons illegally as they were underage (by the way, the assault weapons ban and high capacity mag ban were both in effect that day; did nothing to stop them). No gun limit would have stopped them. The guy in Aurura bought his legally, but it was over several months. Again, no gun limit ban would have stopped him. In CT, the mother legally owned her firearms. Yet again, a gun limit ban is useless.

[JAB1985]

I am not suggesting no compromise what so ever. But at some point JAB you have to realize you can't prevent everything - especially in a free society.

Even if we weren't a free society, you still can't prevent things from happening, free will is a bitch.

Thats what I keep hearing though. "Its my right, I dont want to be burdened" (thats a generalization). well, thats not really compromising. Keeping your guns but being burdened by this or that is just that, a compromise. you keep your right and your gun. I think to help out police in a very difficult job, something has to give.

I agree bad things will happen regardless, but i dont think saying theres nothing we can do about it, is the best mindset, when some measures certainly have the potential to lessen the frequency in which they do.

Not to keep touting Texas, but the system here works. When you purchase a firearm in Texas, a call is placed to the Texas DPS and they run your background on the spot. It's a nationwide background check, not just a state one. Bulk purchases of firearms (anything over 3 in a 24 hour period) and you get flagged and will most likely get a visit from a cop. If you pass, you get your weapon.

The Columbine shooters obtained their weapons illegally as they were underage (by the way, the assault weapons ban and high capacity mag ban were both in effect that day; did nothing to stop them). No gun limit would have stopped them. The guy in Aurura bought his legally, but it was over several months. Again, no gun limit ban would have stopped him. In CT, the mother legally owned her firearms. Yet again, a gun limit ban is useless.

stealing guns, should go back on who they were stolen from (back to our convo of properly storing them), or in Columbines case, a bunch of felony gun sales. Aurora, VT, etc all bought their guns, in particular Aurora, who bought multiple guns, large quantities of ammo and body armor and clip holders in a short time of 2 months (guess you can call that several) which should trigger something when all together. VT, was actually court ordered to psychiatric assessment but still legally purchased guns because he just didnt fill out the mental health area, which should have been enough to not sell him a gun. I think i remember hearing Aurora was also under some psychiatric monitoring. To me thats just a failure to actually follow through with laws we do have, at least in some states.

From Wiki, about Aurora shooter:

On May 22, 2012, Holmes purchased a Glock 22 pistol at a Gander Mountain shop in Aurora, and six days later bought a Remington Model 870 shotgun at a Bass Pro Shops in Denver. On June 7, just hours after failing his oral exam at the university, he purchased a Smith & Wesson M&P15 semi-automatic rifle, with a second Glock 22 pistol following on July 6. All the weapons were bought legally.[49] In the four months prior to the shooting, Holmes also bought 3000 rounds of ammunition for the pistols, 3000 rounds for the M&P15, and 350 shells for the shotgun over the Internet.[50][51] On July 2, he placed an order for a Blackhawk Urban Assault Vest, two magazine holders and a knife at an online retailer.

when looking at the incidents as one thing, a massacre, sure youre not going to be able to blanket it all with one action. Breaking it down into those who stole guns and those who purchased you can come to some results. Stolen guns = storing laws, Buying = more psychological testing or more strict enforcement. I would actually be for getting rid of the limit ban so guys like VT, who followed the 30 day law, stand out more. Cops need as much help as they can get.

I hope my intentions of not limiting guns but holding owners responsible is coming through. may not agree on how best to do that, but i do think we agree in principle.

[NCRAVEN]

Thats what I keep hearing though. "Its my right, I dont want to be burdened" (thats a generalization). well, thats not really compromising. Keeping your guns but being burdened by this or that is just that, a compromise. you keep your right and your gun. I think to help out police in a very difficult job, something has to give.

I agree bad things will happen regardless, but i dont think saying theres nothing we can do about it, is the best mindset, when some measures certainly have the potential to lessen the frequency in which they do.

I support instant background checks like Houston has said, there is nothing burdensome about that.

I was referring to the right to privacy. You said what about him purchasing all that ammo online, his credit card should have thrown up a red flag. If I own one gun and by ammo in bulk you're saying my credit card company should alert the government? I am saying what about privacy? IF you bought 500 condoms online should you're credit card company alert the government because you might be a serial rapist?

[HoustonRaven]

An armed citizenry does exactly what you want JAB. It helps the police.

Cops are not equiped or trained for protecting the individual (or a classroom full of kids). If someone is trying to break into your home, rob you on the street, trying to assult / hurt a loved one, the crime is going to be done and the attacker will be miles away by the time the police get to the scene.

I see nothing but an advantage if someone, should they so choose and with the commensurate training, to arm themselves. 99% of the cops I know, both friends and family members here in conservative Texas and in liberal Maryland, feel the exact same way. It's the political entities such as the Chiefs of Police Association that skew the perception.

"When seconds matter, the police are minutes away" isn't just some quaint saying. It's the truth.

[NCRAVEN]

An armed citizenry does exactly what you want JAB. It helps the police.

Exactly. And lets not forget, police carry guns to protect themselves, not you.

[JAB1985]

I support instant background checks like Houston has said, there is nothing burdensome about that.

I was referring to the right to privacy. You said what about him purchasing all that ammo online, his credit card should have thrown up a red flag. If I own one gun and by ammo in bulk you're saying my credit card company should alert my the government? I am saying what about privacy? IF you bought 500 condoms online should you're credit card company alert the government because you might be a serial rapist?

valid point, but again just saying "nothing we can do" doesnt help at all. Tracing ammo sales would certainly be a broad spectrum tactic that would uncover the criminal aspect as well. Kind of depends on your definition of "reasonable cause".

[JAB1985]

An armed citizenry does exactly what you want JAB. It helps the police.

Cops are not equiped or trained for protecting the individual (or a classroom full of kids). If someone is trying to break into your home, rob you on the street, trying to assult / hurt a loved one, the crime is going to be done and the attacker will be miles away by the time the police get to the scene.

I see nothing but an advantage if someone, should they so choose and with the commensurate training, to arm themselves. 99% of the cops I know, both friends and family members here in conservative Texas and in liberal Maryland, feel the exact same way. It's the political entities such as the Chiefs of Police Association that skew the perception.

"When seconds matter, the police are minutes away" isn't just some quaint saying. It's the truth.

which is why im not for keeping guns out of responsible owners hands, but telling those that arent or choose not to, youre shit out of luck isnt helping either. Im not trying to take anyones gun, but i dont want to forced one into mine either. theres common ground somewhere.

[NCRAVEN]

valid point, but again just saying "nothing we can do" doesnt help at all. Tracing ammo sales would certainly be a broad spectrum tactic that would uncover the criminal aspect as well. Kind of depends on your definition of "reasonable cause".

I am not say "nothing we can do". I am saying two things, 1) I am not sure other than background checks (and in the case of the VT shooter his background check failed IMO) I don't know what you can do. And 2) People have rights, and the moment you start trading any rights for what some call security (ostensibly anyway), you won't stop.

There are two quotes I think apply here.

"It is better to let 100 guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent man"
(You can try all you want to stop the people who will/may commit crimes, but more often than not you're going to affect the people who won't/aren't)

and

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both"
(Like I said, if you're willing to trade you're rights, liberties and freedom for a little security, you won't stop)

[JAB1985]

I am not say "nothing we can do". I am saying two things, 1) I am not sure other than background checks (and in the case of the VT shooter his background check failed IMO) I don't know what you can do. And 2) People have rights, and the moment you start trading any rights for what some call security (ostensibly anyway), you won't stop.

I think VT and Aurora both were failures since they had psychological histories but legally purchased guns anyway. I think the Arizona dude also had issues and its coming to light that so did CT but obviously those guns were/or were not given to him by his mother which is another issue and pretty crazy if she willingly gave guns to somebody with mental illness.

Guns are a tricky issue. I dont necessarily disagree with everything said in this discussion as far as liberty and freedom goes, but to me personally guns are an exception. You can say well thats means youll allow it in other ways, but to me guns are made for killing (we can argue it being a tool like a car, but the intent is what matters) and even though its a right, its a right that should be monitored and enforced when necessary. I know plenty of gun owners that agree its simply too easy to get a gun, the question is how to improve it without removing the right. somewhere in the middle lies the answer.

[HoustonRaven]

valid point, but again just saying "nothing we can do" doesnt help at all. Tracing ammo sales would certainly be a broad spectrum tactic that would uncover the criminal aspect as well. Kind of depends on your definition of "reasonable cause".

How will tracking ammo uncover the criminal aspect? Even if ammo is tracked, it's not going to be known said purchase was used in the commission of a crime until after the fact.

And criminals will just do a straw purchase anyway -- send in someone who can legally buy the ammo with a clean name.

[HoustonRaven]

One element that's lost in this debate (and it's one of the more reasoned debates I've had in a long time -- Kudos), is the enforcement of current laws and to make the penalties more strict.

That, more than anything, would speak to the criminal aspect of this debate while leaving the law abiding folks alone.

[NCRAVEN]

Guns are a tricky issue. I dont necessarily disagree with everything said in this discussion as far as liberty and freedom goes, but to me personally guns are an exception. You can say well thats means youll allow it in other ways, but to me guns are made for killing (we can argue it being a tool like a car, but the intent is what matters) and even though its a right, its a right that should be monitored and enforced when necessary. I know plenty of gun owners that agree its simply too easy to get a gun, the question is how to improve it without removing the right. somewhere in the middle lies the answer.

This isn't a shot at you, it's just reality. Most people find exceptions in things that don't affect them.

It's like with the "fiscal cliff" you've got all these people saying "just raise the millionaires taxes" I'm thinking who the F are you to empower the government to take more of someone else's money/time.

So proposing suggestions is easier for you than it is people who would feel the affects.

I agree with how HR said Texas does it, instant background checks for all weapons, an AR/AK type rifle go ahead and make it a more comprehensive one/ (in NC you have to go to the Sheriffs department apply for a handgun permit wait 5 days and go back and pick it up).

I could also see some sort of compromise on instant background checks for multiple additional (after the purchase of the weapon) high capacity magazines, but not a 100% sure I'd be okay with that, I'd have to think about it more.

Make the penalties for the laws already in place harsher and make laws for safe storage and people who do not are liable (to what degree can be debated) who do not properly store their weapon. Those along with armed guards (real ones not rent-a-cops) or cops at schools and loosing the restrictions on concealed carry I think wold do a lot and most would agree with.

[JAB1985]

Make the penalties for the laws already in place harsher and make laws for safe storage and people who do not are liable (to what degree can be debated) who do not properly store their weapon. Those along with armed guards (real ones not rent-a-cops) or cops at schools and loosing the restrictions on concealed carry I think wold do a lot and most would agree with.

I wont take offense to your first part because everyone is guilty of it in some aspect, however thats not my intent. Although I'm not a gun owner, I do shoot occasionally and have numerous friends and family who are law abiding responsible gun owners (at least the majority) that id wish to protect their rights as well.

The quoted part is something we do all agree on. Besides stricter background for psychological disorders because i dont think what they do is enough, im pretty much on board with everything.

[NCRAVEN]

The quoted part is something we do all agree on. Besides stricter background for psychological disorders because i dont think what they do is enough, im pretty much on board with everything.

I think any psychological question marks in your history should show (like the Vt shooter). But I can agree with a pre-screening pysch eval. I think that would be too far.

[jonboy79]

Ok, I'm behind on this one, and wll speak(type) on several subjects at once.

Like HR, I agree with background checks on all firearms. I'm even not opposed to a reasonable waitng period on all guns. I like the federal process for handgun, and could even be persuaded that all guns be sold that way.

Gun storage is of utmost importance. I think it should be law that gunsafes are required in all homes with children under 18.

I think, if they so choose,and are thusly trained, that Teachers should have the option to have a firearm in school. In addition to armed guards at all schools, willing and competent teachers should have wall mounted biometric(fingerprint ID) safes in their classroom. As HR mentions, it takes some of the delay out of the situation. Again, this should not be forced in any manner, fully voluntary, with qualified individuals that need to test for the privelege yearly.

Re: targeting gun-free zones. Well, it's only obvious from where I sit. Even desperate people seek out low hanging fruit. The Reisterstown Road Corridor in Owings Mills/resiterstown had a serial armed robber this fall. Did he rob jewelry stores? Nope(seperate,very proffessional and potentially inside job hit Antony's). Did he hit liquor stores? Nope. He hit a diner, a pizza hut(twice), a VET( for the cash, not drugs), Popeye's, and other like businesses. He very clearly was targeting places with very little chance of firearm presence. Most businesses had nearly exclusively older female employees. He didn't want to get SHOT. Duh....


I'm not aware of why a civilian should be allowed to purchase a bullet proof vest. Law Enforcement agencies and security companies, yeah. Private citizen? Nope. A non-police security agent should be allowed to take their company issued vest home, but that's about as far as I go on that matter.


But what I take from this whole incident? Guidance Counselors need to be move vocal, and recommend further exploration of troubled kids. They should have the athority to require a psych eval for a kid to return to school. Quarterly meetings and sit-downs with all students should be standard protocol at all schools nationwide.

To me, this isn't a gun control issue as much as it's a mental health issue. Increase school security and counseling budgets.