Another victim WITHOUT a gun.

[1969912 0]

I think he has an answer in mind, but is unwilling to present it here.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[Hooknswoop 19]

I was under the impression that you have a solution to nutters and criminal buying and/or owning guns. I would really like to hear your solution.

Derek V

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

I was under the impression that you have a solution to nutters and criminal buying and/or owning guns. I would really like to hear your solution.

Derek V

Previously asked and answered, several times.

A good start is enforce existing restrictions, eliminating loopholes so big you can drive a fleet of trucks through them.

According to BATF (2000), 47% of guns used in crimes were obtained by deliberate straw purchase. Straw purchase is illegal but enforcement is a joke.

Cho was clearly mentally ill, but the existing system didn't stop him from LEGALLY buying guns.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Quote

???

He doesn't 'really' have an answer, just vague platitudes about 'tightening things up'. In the meantime, he uses any incident to try to beat gun owners over the head with, while ignoring any mention of defensive uses.

What is yours? I am genuinely interested.

[kallend 2,106]

Just for the past month

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Nightingale 0]

I don't know about the laws in Washington, but under most circumstances, here in California, people under a protective order are not permitted to own or possess firearms. However, I'm not sure how much good that really does in some situations. Goes back to the whole "expecting criminals to obey the law" thing. Do I expect my insane stalker to obey the terms of a protective order? um...no. What it does accomplish is that if the guy is caught with the gun prior to actually shooting anyone, he goes to jail.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

I don't know about the laws in Washington, but under most circumstances, here in California, people under a protective order are not permitted to own or possess firearms. However, I'm not sure how much good that really does in some situations. Goes back to the whole "expecting criminals to obey the law" thing. Do I expect my insane stalker to obey the terms of a protective order? um...no. What it does accomplish is that if the guy is caught with the gun prior to actually shooting anyone, he goes to jail.

Decrying gun laws because "criminals don't obey laws" is a ridiculous argument. It could apply equally well to laws against rape (rapists don't obey laws against rape), murder (murderers don't obey laws against murder), kidnapping (kidnappers don't obey laws against kidnapping), fraud (con-men don't obey laws against fraud, ... the list goes on and on and on.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Quote

???

He doesn't 'really' have an answer, just vague platitudes about 'tightening things up'. In the meantime, he uses any incident to try to beat gun owners over the head with, while ignoring any mention of defensive uses.

What is yours? I am genuinely interested.

He doesn't "really" have an answer. He just thinks everyone should be armed so they can kill the nutter after he/she opens fire. The nutter's victims are just collateral damage, sacrifices to his convenience.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

What really bugs me though is the idea that everyone should be paranoid all the time. It's the subject of this thread. It's one of Amazon's driving motivators and I think it's unfounded. While SHE may have been a victim at one time and now is determined not to be one again, it's a little like hearing the newbie skydiver telling his office mates they also HAVE to go skydiving. No, they probably don't. In fact, most of them probably shouldn't.

I've been driving a car for fifteen years. I've never been in any kind of remotely severe car accident. Sure, someone bumped into me at a red light once. That was it. Is it paranoia that I put my seat belt on EVERY SINGLE TIME I get in a car? Even though not once in my whole life has it been needed?

The thing is, I'm not going to tell someone else to put their seat belt on. (Unless, of course, they're in my car, because it's the law here and I don't want a ticket). If they want to take the risk, it should be their choice and isn't my business.

I'm never going to tell someone to carry a firearm if they're not comfortable with it. However, I don't want anyone telling a law abiding, competent adult that they cannot carry one.

Part of the "protect yourself" attitude that you see from gun owners and martial artists comes from personal knowledge that the world is not safe. Like most people, we lived happily in our little bubbles until Something Happened. And if we'd just known then what we know now, that Something could've been avoided. The message isn't "you have to be paranoid". The message is "learn from what I've been through, because if it can happen to me, it really can happen to anyone...even you."

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Decrying gun laws because "criminals don't obey laws" is a ridiculous argument. It could apply equally well to laws against rape (rapists don't obey laws against rape), murder (murderers don't obey laws against murder), kidnapping (kidnappers don't obey laws against kidnapping), fraud (con-men don't obey laws against fraud, ... the list goes on and on and on.

I'm not decrying laws...heck, I'm a lawyer. That's the last thing I'm going to do. I'm criticizing people's expectation that the law is going to control people truly intent on causing harm. In those situations, the law does not control the behavior of the individual. It simply provides a legal means to deal with the individual AFTER the damage has been done.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Decrying gun laws because "criminals don't obey laws" is a ridiculous argument. It could apply equally well to laws against rape (rapists don't obey laws against rape), murder (murderers don't obey laws against murder), kidnapping (kidnappers don't obey laws against kidnapping), fraud (con-men don't obey laws against fraud, ... the list goes on and on and on.

I'm not decrying laws...heck, I'm a lawyer. That's the last thing I'm going to do. I'm criticizing people's expectation that the law is going to control people truly intent on causing harm. In those situations, the law does not control the behavior of the individual. It simply provides a legal means to deal with the individual AFTER the damage has been done.

Right, so saying there's already a law against straw purchase so we don't need to do anything more is absurd; enforcement of the law is pathetic. Yet the gun lobby continues to oppose any measures that will enable better enforcement of a law that already exists, all the while paying lip service to it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Right, so saying there's already a law against straw purchase so we don't need to do anything more is absurd; enforcement of the law is pathetic. Yet the gun lobby continues to oppose any measures that will enable better enforcement of a law that already exists, all the while paying lip service to it.

The NRA is fully in support of prosecuting those caught (by the Brady check) trying to purchase guns. The Clinton and Bush Administrations both failed to do so. If the hundreds of thousands of stopped assassins are worthy of prosecution, there's your clear improvement right off the bat.

Or would you rather just let them go find a gun via a straw purchase, something that is impossible to identify ahead of the actual crime?

[Amazon 7]

One thing I do wonder about.. and have never really asked.. is if I ever DID have to use my weapon... if shot placement has any bearing on self defense or not.

If I have a stalker and he has threatened my life and is currently threatening me with deadly force.. would blowing his fucking nuts off and letting him bleed to death really a bad thing?

[Nightingale 0]

Hehe... yeah... probably. Mainly because it could draw into question whether it was truly self defense, simply because it involves some higher thinking rather than "OMG, this guy's gonna kill me." I'm not giving legal advice here (ask an attorney in your state about the exact self-defense laws there), just saying that if I was on the jury in that one, I might have a tough time with it. It makes the issue less clear.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Right, so saying there's already a law against straw purchase so we don't need to do anything more is absurd; enforcement of the law is pathetic. Yet the gun lobby continues to oppose any measures that will enable better enforcement of a law that already exists, all the while paying lip service to it.

The NRA is fully in support of prosecuting those caught (by the Brady check) trying to purchase guns. The Clinton and Bush Administrations both failed to do so. If the hundreds of thousands of stopped assassins are worthy of prosecution, there's your clear improvement right off the bat.

Or would you rather just let them go find a gun via a straw purchase, something that is impossible to identify ahead of the actual crime?

More LIP SERVICE.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

One thing I do wonder about.. and have never really asked.. is if I ever DID have to use my weapon... if shot placement has any bearing on self defense or not.

If I have a stalker and he has threatened my life and is currently threatening me with deadly force.. would blowing his fucking nuts off and letting him bleed to death really a bad thing?

Safer to shoot again in the gut, say you missed. Unless you're in Texas, the crotch shot alone may get you in trouble.

That said - is it worse to let him die, or is it worse for him to live the rest of his life without his balls?

When I took a new range for the first time, I had to get used to the minimal siting on it (was a home defense style, no snag points). First shot hit the head on the target dead on, prompting a call of the PA ("no head shots"). I was aiming for the torso, I thought, didn't bother to correct them.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Previously asked and answered, several times.

I apologize, I missed it.

Quote

A good start is enforce existing restrictions, eliminating loopholes so big you can drive a fleet of trucks through them.

I always see those signs at the gun department with the guy in handcuffs and the slogan, "Don't go to jail for the other guy." or something along those lines.

I know that it is illegal to buy a firearm for someone else. I asked someone what happens if you do? They told me that if a gun you have purchased is involved in a crime and you have not reported it stolen, you can be charged with accessory. This is what I was told. I thought then why don't people buy a firearm and report it stolen the next day and then go sell it to their local gangbanger?

Quote

According to BATF (2000), 47% of guns used in crimes were obtained by deliberate straw purchase. Straw purchase is illegal but enforcement is a joke.

I take this to mean that in cases where a firearm used and was never reported stolen, prosecutors still do not go after the original purchaser? If yes, then I agree 100% that prosecutors should go after people for this. Seems like a simple fix. Why would that not be enforced?

Quote

Cho was clearly mentally ill, but the existing system didn't stop him from LEGALLY buying guns.

So he still passed a background check when he shouldn't have? If yes, then that system is broken. How can it be fixed?

My impression was you cannot buy a firearm if you cannot pass the background check. I also assumed that the risk of being charged as an accessory to a crime after buying a firearm for someone was enough of a deterrent to dissuade someone from a straw-man purchase. I know I would absolutely never risk it, even if there was profit involved.

If what you are saying is true, and I have nothing to cast doubt on it, then the system needs to be tightened up. How is that done? Why are current laws not being enforced?

Derek V

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

He doesn't "really" have an answer. He just thinks everyone should be armed so they can kill the nutter after he/she opens fire.

Seems a better answer than "let them pray the nutter doesn't kill them" like YOUR approach mandates.

Quote

The nutter's victims are just collateral damage, sacrifices to his convenience.

Why, yes, the unarmed victim zones and subsequent deaths ARE just collateral damage sacrificed for your convenience - glad you're finally realizing the fact.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Right, so saying there's already a law against straw purchase so we don't need to do anything more is absurd; enforcement of the law is pathetic. Yet the gun lobby continues to oppose any measures that will enable better enforcement of a law that already exists, all the while paying lip service to it.

Provide your cite - I don't believe you. Show where the NRA is blocking the hiring of police officers to enforce these existing laws that you support (once they're changed to suit you, that is).

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Some of you may have already seen this.

Watch, wallet, gun, knee, right foot, left foot, thank god for guns huh Jerry

yes I know it's not real.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Right, so saying there's already a law against straw purchase so we don't need to do anything more is absurd; enforcement of the law is pathetic. Yet the gun lobby continues to oppose any measures that will enable better enforcement of a law that already exists, all the while paying lip service to it.

Provide your cite - I don't believe you. Show where the NRA is blocking the hiring of police officers to enforce these existing laws that you support (once they're changed to suit you, that is).

First YOU show where I said the NRA is blocking the hiring of police officers.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Right, so saying there's already a law against straw purchase so we don't need to do anything more is absurd; enforcement of the law is pathetic. Yet the gun lobby continues to oppose any measures that will enable better enforcement of a law that already exists, all the while paying lip service to it.

Provide your cite - I don't believe you. Show where the NRA is blocking the hiring of police officers to enforce these existing laws that you support (once they're changed to suit you, that is).

First YOU show where I said the NRA is blocking the hiring of police officers.

how about you man up and instead of being so fucking nitpicky and specific, you support your argument by showing where "the gun lobby continues to oppose any measures that will enable better enforcement of a law that already exists".

--
Rob

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Right, so saying there's already a law against straw purchase so we don't need to do anything more is absurd; enforcement of the law is pathetic. Yet the gun lobby continues to oppose any measures that will enable better enforcement of a law that already exists, all the while paying lip service to it.

Provide your cite - I don't believe you. Show where the NRA is blocking the hiring of police officers to enforce these existing laws that you support (once they're changed to suit you, that is).

First YOU show where I said the NRA is blocking the hiring of police officers.

Who else would be enforcing those laws you claim to support, perfesser?

Prove your claim.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Right, so saying there's already a law against straw purchase so we don't need to do anything more is absurd; enforcement of the law is pathetic. Yet the gun lobby continues to oppose any measures that will enable better enforcement of a law that already exists, all the while paying lip service to it.

Provide your cite - I don't believe you. Show where the NRA is blocking the hiring of police officers to enforce these existing laws that you support (once they're changed to suit you, that is).

First YOU show where I said the NRA is blocking the hiring of police officers.

Who else would be enforcing those laws you claim to support, perfesser?

Prove your claim.

So you can't find anything. OK.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rhaig 0]

please support your argument by showing where "the gun lobby continues to oppose any measures that will enable better enforcement of a law that already exists".

--
Rob