BF2S Forums Gun politics, firearms ownership, and US 2nd amendment discussion

Dilbert_X wrote:

A man legally acquired a selection of weapons and managed to shoot 71 people in a matter of minutes.

Lets hear some lateral thinking ideas on how to prevent or mitigate this in the future.

I suggest we exclude for now the old chestnuts:

Make the death sentence deathier - It doesn't currently seem to bother them, they expect to die in a hail of bullets anyway. Inventing new and more unpleasant ways to execute people - see above.

Give more people more guns - There's not exactly a shortage of either right now, it doesn't seem very effective

Take guns away from everyone - Not very realistic, it would take a century to eliminate them all, in the meantime it would create a criminals paradise.

Not a single idea from anyone.

If they guy had used a 7.62 with 100 rnd drum mags and killed 83 or more people instead of 12 would that change the argument much with respect to legal ownership of military weapons?

How about if he'd gone to the trouble of a full-auto license - which are obtainable - and blown off a few belts from an M60 into the cinema?

As it is he killed twelve and severely injured a good number more with a 'low power bunny rifle', I bet the next guy will do a bit more planning and up his calibres.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Inventing new and more unpleasant ways to execute people - see above.

I actually don't agree with that. As long as the state is allowed to kill people, it should be as sterile and efficient as possible, and making things too gruesome would simply drive suspects into fighting the cops with even more ferocity and desperation.

Dilbert_X wrote:

'low power bunny rifle'

...

AussieReaper wrote:

Concealed carry should be illegal in all states, unless you're a police officer or law enforcement official.

People already ignore off-limits areas to concealed weapons unless there's metal detectors. I don't know about you, but I don't want to walk through an x-ray just to go see Batman or buy a Twinkie. Heavy-handed legislation against weapons like that could turn the entire country into something like a TSA fortress.

Ty wrote:

Also for someone not to bat an eyelid at a civilian buying 6000 rounds of pistol and .223 calibre ammunition and combat gear just reflects how messed up the attitudes toward firearms are in the US and how incidents like this one will keep being too frequent.

Whereas I would say that this EVER happened is TOO frequent, I would also like to reiterate that mass murders similar to this one happen much more frequently in countries with anti-gun laws than they do here. They don't even become discussions when the news comes out of some countries because it is almost expected.

I know I am repeated a couple of my points here, but we have a couple different threads going and I get mixed up with what I said where:

Everytime this debate comes up, the anti-gun people like to avoid the fact that all the other laws in place did nothing to help. Example: Bombs. This guy was loaded up with them. He could have blown up his whole apartment complex... The anti-bomb laws did not stop that. If you mention this, the anti-gun people ALWAYS say "So by your logic we should just legalize xyz then."

No... That is asinine. The primary defense against people with guns is people with guns. That is why everyone HERE thinks it is fine for cops to have guns.

It *IS* already legal to kill people in certain situations. That doesn't make it widespread... Just like have someone go bat-shit crazy and murder a ton of people is also not widespread.

Lets look at violence globally. Look at the countries with and without guns. The countries without guns are not utopias. This discussion turned to Russia the other day, where one crazy serial killer over there killed 62 people. 62! He got them drunk, then SHOT THEM IN THE HEAD with a HOMEMADE gun. The gun law didn't help. Each victim was drunk at the time, but they aren't outlawing vodka, now are they?

This guy was a loon. He was nuts. He was going to kill people. Illegally. Be it bombs, hand guns, hunting rifles, assault rifles, or picture frames, murder was going to take place. No laws could have stopped that.

The U.S. government couldn't even keep alcohol outlawed without facing a full scale civil war of police versus gang bosses, with wondering alcoholics in the middle. How do you think a law taking all of our gun rights away would be received? Do you think everyone would just hand them all over and walk away happy? No, you are talking about something that would tear this country apart. For you not to realize that and to keep recommending it is just pure ignorance on your part.

I don't know what to recommend, as Dilbert asked for. Right now, gun laws are actually loosening up nationwide, not tightening down. As I, and others have said several times, I don't think the issue is so much about adding NEW laws, but stricter enforcement of the ones we already have. I think there should be harsher penalties on repeat offenders... And twice is a repeat. Not this 3 strikes crap. You rob a store, go to jail, do your time, get out, and rob a store, you are done. You have shown the first X number of years did not help you. You didn't get it. You can't function in society.

Actually, I do have a few ideas on things to recommend. Registration without restriction. I think that should be the catchy slogan. I like it. Instead of restricting guns more, I would have no issue registering mine. That is something that you don't have to do in Oklahoma. I don't see a problem with it.

So:
1) You have to register your guns.
Now here is the catch. The conspiracy theorists can't complain about the government targeting them because they have guns, AND the government can't use this registration as any sort of cause to look into someone. Just because Joe Blow has 10 guns does NOT mean you can raid his house, or bug his phones, or put him on a watch list. It just means those guns are registered to him. If something happens, and one of those guns are involved, you know who to go talk to.

2) Background checks and registration need to be done when guns are sold, and the ownership needs to be officially transferred. Similar to a car title. I realize most people think that background checks already always happen. Well, when you buy from a brick and mortar dealer, yes. When you buy from a gun show, no. When you buy from your buddy down the street, no. I think this would serve two functions a) force more guns out of the back alley market, and into legal channels, and b) make gun owners more responsible with their guns and ownerships. The reason is this: If a gun were registered in my name, and I sold it, I would want it out of my name. Otherwise, if the person I sold it to (or the person he sold it to, etc) goes out and kills someone, that gun could be traced back to me. I would not want that. Just like I make sure my cars get officially taken out of my name when I sell them. I don't want someone performing my namesake, and running over some poor slob, and leaving. Then a witness sees the tag, and the tag is still registered to me because the buyer never bothered to fill out the paperwork... Then the police want to talk to me about it and I have to prove I sold that car, and when, and to who. I have seen this happen. I would not want to go through it with a gun. So this would create a paper trail for the guns. Also, back to background checks, this would enforce those... You wouldn't want to be the guy with a gun in your name and it look like YOU were the one that sold it to that felon with 18 warrants. Get it officially transferred and you don't have to worry about it.

Now here is the bitching part about those ideas: How do you pay for it? I think small registration fees would be acceptable. The thing is, you would have to regulate it to keep everyone happy. You would probably add this function into a sheriff's office, but maybe could use a tag agency... But the big trick is regulating, or capping, the fees. Otherwise, states that don't want you to have guns, could end up raising that fee so high as to block you.

Another pro/anti argument I would foresee:
Person A: It is just like registering your car, and you do that without complaint.
Person B: Having a car is a privilege, having a gun is a protected right! You can't regulate that.

Anyway... I think those would be steps in the right direction that ultimately would be an agreeable area on both sides.

However, in the case of this Joker... None of this would have helped.

As for preventing stuff like this happening again, I tend to agree with most of the rest of your post. It's not going to happen. You can legislate against psychopathy all you like but it's never going to go away, any more than legislation against down syndrome or cancer is going to prevent it.

The fact remains that 99.999% of the population is more or less not actually out to murder people. Those that are will find the means whether you remove all the guns in the world or not.

What I feel legislation should be doing in the US is to make it harder for people who are deemed a higher risk from owning/accessing firearms, such as children, the mentally ill, felons and rednecks named Cletus
Pandora's Box has been open since forever and it's far too late to close it now.

Last edited by Jaekus (2012-07-25 06:45:01)

Jaekus wrote:

HITNRUNXX wrote:

Ty wrote:

Also for someone not to bat an eyelid at a civilian buying 6000 rounds of pistol and .223 calibre ammunition and combat gear just reflects how messed up the attitudes toward firearms are in the US and how incidents like this one will keep being too frequent.

Whereas I would say that this EVER happened is TOO frequent, I would also like to reiterate that mass murders similar to this one happen much more frequently in countries with anti-gun laws than they do here. They don't even become discussions when the news comes out of some countries because it is almost expected.

wat

I'm sorry, I respect you as a poster, I really do, but I doubt even War Man could come up with a statement so retarded.

Australia has some pretty controlling gun laws and our last gun massacre was in 1996.

Re: Balkans, Middle East, etc.

If you wanted to make a point on the other side of the logic in the argument, Japan has pretty loose gun laws and some of the lowest instances of gun crime in the world.

It's not really in context though, because the way your presenting you're argument is to say that places with tighter gun laws = more mass killings than the US. Which is simply not the case. Most of the places on the list are war zones or have a long history of civil and political unrest, guerilla groups and the like.

Anyway like I said, the rest of it I tend to agree with you, as stated in the post following the one you quoted. The only other point I'd like to make that is a bit like playing Devil's Advocate is that is much easier to go on a mass killing when armed to the teeth with firearms than it is with anything else.

Last edited by Jaekus (2012-07-25 07:05:45)

RTHKI wrote:

if you dont wanna use bombs sure

or fire.

I hate to bring it up again, but America does have a population of 311 million. It may seem like we have a lot of these shooting sprees, but as a proportion to population size I'll bet we're on the low side.

So, for argument sake,
if firearms ownership were restricted to people that had at least 6 years of military or 12 years of law enforcement experience,
and a recent passing personality profile (MMPI-2 or similar),
and a security clearance of Secret or above,
and no criminal record worse than minor traffic violations ( no violent or reckless behavior, no DUI, no theft, no drugs, etc),
would that be reasonable?

Nidal Hassan passed all of the above criteria (Ft Hood shooter, more dead than the recent Colorado shooting)

Timothy McVeigh would've passed all, except perhaps the MMPI (he failed the Special Forces personality test, he may have passed a less thorough testing)

Yet quite  few people on BF2S would fail one or more of the above hypothetical criteria, though they'll never try to become mass murderers.

My point is, where do you draw the line between reasonable restrictions, and hysterical paranoia?

Last edited by rdx-fx (2012-07-25 07:14:51)

Jaekus wrote:

Jay wrote:

I hate to bring it up again, but America does have a population of 311 million. It may seem like we have a lot of these shooting sprees, but as a proportion to population size I'll bet we're on the low side.

I think it has less to do with shooting sprees per capita and more about psychopaths per capita.

Wouldn't you expect that to be roughly equal across cultures?

Some people push for increased socialization of children in order to counteract what they see as anti-social behavior, but in my opinion, that usually makes stuff worse. If you don't absolutely conform to the group you face ridicule and are turned into an outcast... which leads to anti-social outbursts... I'm not saying that socializing is bad by any means, but I think forcing children to socialize past their comfort zone is probably harmful. I'm not a psychologist or anything though, it's just based on my own observations.

rdx-fx wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Jay wrote:

I hate to bring it up again, but America does have a population of 311 million. It may seem like we have a lot of these shooting sprees, but as a proportion to population size I'll bet we're on the low side.

I think it has less to do with shooting sprees per capita and more about psychopaths per capita.

As mentioned in a post earlier, once you get to a level of national psychosis where "honor killings" and suicide bombers are seen as heroes, nobody pays any attention to a few people getting shot up. Or, for our Spanish speaking friends, when the Narco thugs have more power, money, and firearms than the government - a few civilian deaths are just a "lesson".

True, but I thought the discussion is more to do with shooting sprees like the one in Colorado by one person for what appears to be psychopathy than political/religious (on a large scale) killings that are accepted/endorsed by particular groups for their own ends.

Though it was actually you, Jaekus, who misunderstood the point in that other post above, accused the poster of being 'dumber than Warman'.
(it looked like two points. One about countries with anti-gun laws, and the next sentence about countries where killing is expected)

If I had misunderstood it then I'm not sure why HITRUN said he concedes?

Last edited by Jaekus (2012-07-25 07:40:40)