David- the shooter in this case had a clean record. What is so mystifying at this stage is that Holmes was a solid citizen who was working towards a PhD in neuroscience and showed virtually no antisocial tendencies at all. People who knew him had nothing bad to say about him except that he was quiet and a little standoffish. Hey, that's a pretty good description of me too.

But what about someone like Loughner? Are you telling me that he was properly vetted and nothing came up? Because that guy makes Charles Manson look like a solid citizen. He was an absolute psychopath. Exactly what does this form 4473 check out in a person's past?

The Form itself asks for basic information about yourself. Then you answer a series of yes or no questions. Then the dealer calls it in to the ATF where a background check is ran. I do not know how extensive the bacground check is. This is the first page. Then you sign and date the back page. I believe the other 2 pages are instructions on how to fill it out.

Edited to add: Although gun laws are different from state the state, this form still has to be completed by anyone purchasing a gun from a licensed dealer in the USA.

http://cdn.stripersonline.com/8/82/8...tach426370.jpg

Unfortunately, yes. Loughner also purchased his gun legally as well. Filled out the same form, went through the same background check.

I believe he used a single Glock 9mm and killed 6 people. That's what I meant earlier by saying that Holmes could have done the same thing even without the assault rifle.

That's a useful form. I am sure people purchasing guns with bad intent are careful to be truthful.

I guess it's easier to complain than offer solutions. How do you think it could be improved?

Here's some of my ideas:
Ban assault rifles
Ban high capacity clips
Waiting period
Serial numbers on ammunition that could be traced back to the purchaser

Also, forgot to mention there is a place on the back of the form that describes the gun(s) you are purchasing - brand, model, caliber, action, serial number, etc.

David, I agree with all those suggestions, I think those would be helpful. Although I don't know the facts here, I am also guessing background checks probably could be more rigorous than they are. I know the counterargument is that anyone who wants to kill someone will find a way to do it, but in America that seems to happen, with guns mostly purchased lawfully, with alarming frequency. It is at least worth the experiment to see if tightening the process helps.

The contemporary debate over what the second amendment really means notwithstanding (the latest interpretation with respect to private ownership unrelated to a "militia" being the result of a 5-4 SC decision that could very well change at some point), I have always wondered what the drafters would think it should mean now that firearms are no longer muzzle-loaded with a rate of fire of 1-3 shots per minute. Guns now are so relatively inexpensive (compared to 18thC cost) and produce a rate a fire (even if they are only semi-automatic) far beyond what those 18thC men ever envisioned.

As to the comments about the ineffectiveness of Chicago gun laws, of course they are ineffective - there aren't border guards at every entry point into the city. Any gun laws, if they are to be effective (and I admit that is a big "if") have to be national.

I am a so sorry for those who were harmed in Colorado...

Joshua

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

How there is an unfettered right to own guns, unconnected to a militia that is now obsolete, eludes me.

Thanks David for posting that form. Bottom line is if somebody like Loughner can buy guns legally then we have to accept the fact that these crimes are not preventable. I guess it's not a matter of if, but when and where the next massacre will occur. And I don't have a solution either.

Peter, it's just a sad, senseless tragedy. But people try to make it into a gun issue and in my opinion it's not. It's a mental sickness that makes someone want to kill another person out of cold blood and they'll find any means to do it.

I don't know the numbers, but I bet more innocent people will be killed this weekend by drunk drivers than were killed in Aurora. So, do we ban alcohol? I really don't drink, I could care less. Maybe it's worth the experiment to see if it reduces the number of alcohol related fatalities.

I just don't understand that when a drunk driver kills someone, we don't blame the alcohol or the vehicle, we blame the person for not having the responsibility to control themselves. The situation in Auroroa should be no different. Let's quit focusing on how he did and and focus on why he did it and maybe we can prevent things like this from happening again.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving would certainly agree with making it more difficult for people to drive drunk, as would I. I believe some states have enacted some fairly tough dram shop laws in an effort to make this more than an issue about personal responsibility.

edited - wasted my keystrokes

David,
I find it difficult to equate vehicles with guns. Travel in vehicles is a necessity for many obvious reasons. It is hard to imagine modern civilization and economies without it (including private ownership of vehicles). Private ownership of weapons that produce a high rate of fire is not analogous to vehicle ownership.

As to DWI - there are very strict laws against it everywhere. The high number of deaths can be attributed to the fact that nearly everyone drives. In any case, banning alcohol did not work. As to whether much stricter gun laws would work, some countries surely do have them. It doesn't always prevent mass tragedies, but I would still consider that at least an open and very important relevant question.

My point is this. Yes, there are very strict laws against drinking and driving. Does that reduce the number of DWI fatalities? Nope. Same thing could be said about tougher gun laws. The criminals will ignore the laws and find ways to get guns, just like people who choose to drink and drive ignore the DWI laws. Criminals don't obey the laws. That's why they're criminals.

Edited to add: Just a question. If Holmes instead would have driven his vehicle through the movie theater at a high rate of speed with the intent to cause as much death and destruction as possible and in the process killing 12 people, would we be talking about vehicles instead of guns? If so, you prove your point and I lose my argument. If not, then I just won my argument.

I would imagine the strict drinking and driving laws does lower dui deaths. I suspect it lowers the number of people drinking and driving.

Vital statistics from the U.S. were compared to those from 22 other high-income countries with populations over 1 million people that reported causes of mortality to WHO for 2003. Researchers relied on The World Bank’s definition of a high income nation, which included countries that had a gross national income per capita of $12,276 or more for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011.

In addition to the U.S., the study included Australia, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom (England and Wales), United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) and United Kingdom (Scotland).

Researchers determined that the rate of homicides with guns in the U.S. was 4.1 per 100,000 people; the same rate combining the 22 other countries was 0.2 per 100,000 in 2003. The rate of homicides using guns in the U.S. was 19.5 times the rate of the other countries.

Peter, let's be fair. What was the homicide rate as a whole (gun, knife, other weapon) for all countries compared to the United States?

In other words, are the homicide rates about the same from country to country? If so, that just shows that people are finding other ways to kill people.

I'll await your response.

Good question, I was wondering the same thing. I will see if I can find any information.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/murd...2000-2004.html

From lowest to highest, US ranks 78th out of 121, substantially higher rate than most Western European countries.

edited - wasted my breath on this topic

David:My point is this. Yes, there are very strict laws against drinking and driving. Does that reduce the number of DWI fatalities? Nope.

Me: In fact, the DWI fatalities are very much down since the advent of stricter laws and much more serious enforcement. (you can find this both nationally and for individual states all over the web - this has been in decline for a long time)

David: Just a question. If Holmes instead would have driven his vehicle through the movie theater at a high rate of speed with the intent to cause as much death and destruction as possible and in the process killing 12 people, would we be talking about vehicles instead of guns?

Me: No, because modern civilization cannot continue without vehicles. I think it could very well continue without private ownership of guns that have a large magazine capacity and a high rate of fire.

Mark, civilization could not continue, because as someone pointed out earlier, there is a segment of the population that enjoy firing military-style weapons, and we couldn't possibly deprive them of that pleasure.

How great is this, the Aurora guy bought 6000 rounds of ammunition online, and he had to go through the rigorous process of certifying that he was 18 or older, or perhaps 21 or older, depending on weapon.

To Purchase Ammunition Online:
Federal law requires that you must be at least 18 years old to purchase shotgun ammunition and 21 years or older to purchase handgun and rifle ammunition.

You do not need an FFL to purchase ammunition online.
We can ship ammunition to your door via UPS ground or air.
Ammunition may be shipped air with a hazardous material classification; otherwise it can only be shipped ground.
Ammunition shipments to Alaska and Hawaii must be by air.
Ammunition and firearms must be purchased separately.
For safety reasons, we do not accept returns on ammunition.
Always make sure you use the correct ammunition for your specific firearm.
Check your local laws for any other regulations before ordering.

After looking into the matter further, I do agree that gun control is very lax. There should be a lot more hoops to jump through before being able to purchase a powerful rifle for whatever recreational purpose it may serve.

Could ideas such as this be implemented?

• Mandatory psychological exam and waiver.
• Training and certification requirement.
• Longer waiting period.
• Requiring a license to own a military style rifle and make that license REALLY expensive.
• Make guns in general more expensive by taxing them.

I like the making guns more expensive to own idea because the Colorado shooter wouldn't have been able to afford a hypothetical $10,000 "assault rifle license fee." Perhaps take it a step further and issue the licenses like liquor licenses. Only a certain quota allowed per 100,000 citizens. That, plus long waiting lists should deter a mass murderer.

There I solved the problem. :D

edited - wasting my breath

Just some thoughts
 

Quite a few different issues here, and all seemingly related: second amendment, NRA, right to bear arms, etc. I'd just like to add another wrinkle to the thread.

I live in Wisconsin, and the elections last year put conservatives in the governor's mansion, and majorities in both state houses. One of the first things they did was enact an "open carry" law for the state. While there is a training session for those who want to take advantage of open carry, you have to show up with your gun to take it, which means you bought it legally through methods already described in this thread. Once you pass the training, you can legally carry your weapon in public. Most proponents of the bill insist it was passed in order to provide citizens with the right to protect themselves from gun-toting bad guys.

Can you imagine what might have happened if, say, a half-dozen other people in that full theater who were legally. openly carrying handguns that night decided to open fire in the direction of the shooter to defend themselves and others from the bad guy?

Open carry is now legal in almost all 50 states. Wisconsin was one of the last hold-outs, but the NRA spent a lot of cash in Madison (our capital city) and sadly, got its way.

So many layers to this problem we could debate it forever, but reading the comments here one gets a pretty clear understanding as to why they never get solved. Physical or emotional, turf is turf, and we all fight to the finish to defend our own.

First, I'd like express my deepest sympathies for those in Aurora, Colorado.

Now, as far as gun laws. C'mon. The people responsible for these acts aren't gonna be stopped because of harsher gun laws. Criminals and Psychopaths are known for "Breaking the law". Even if guns were outlawed, incidents like these aren't going to stop. If anything, it would only force them to change their methods. Maybe we should outlaw forks for making people fat.(no offense intended towards people of the larger variety)..

And while I agree that certain items should require a psychological examination, overall, I think the gun laws are fine. BUT certain purchases should be a perfect "tip off" as to when things like this could occur, and probably should require a bit of monitoring afterwards. Rather than a simple, "here ya go, enjoy your WMD's, and thank you for your business."

There are billions of guns (weapons) in the USA. There is no possible way that any gun restrictions in this country could ever work. I own guns and would never give them up. I carry all the time unless I am going into a building or state where it is not legal. I have never seen a theater that allowed guns. The people there had no chance at all. Thank god this guy was an awful shot. With the amount of ammo this guy used it could have been much much worse. They call the AR15 he had an asault rifle. Only because of the size of the clip. It was a Semi-Automatic rifle. In no way the same as our military use. There have been semi auto rifles made for the last 100 years buy many makers. Nothing new here. He bought the ammo on line. No big deal. He could have bought it in any store. I know many people hate guns and that is their right, but most gun owners have respect for them. I hate to see these things happen, but there are a lot of nut cases out there and you never know when one will pop up. The bigger problem here is that this guy will spend years of time draging this through the court system when they should just take him out to the nearest tree and HANG him in publick. Frank

That's about the process to legally own an actual "assault weapon" - IE, an actual AK47 or M16 capable of fully automatic fire. Those have been very tightly regulated since 1938. Last I checked there had been 0 crimes comitted with legally held machine guns since then. Very stringent background check, $500 tax to transfer(Maybe $1000? haven't checked in a while) on top of the price and sales tax. Very difficult license to get. And I think the background check is redone for renewal.

One of the problems with attempting to regulate what are currently called assault weapons is that they are functionally no different from many if not most hunting rifles. The only difference is cosmetics -they're built to look like the military guns.
Banning them by function means banning every semi automatic gun, which includes a vast array of legitimate rifles for hunting and target use as well as many shotguns used for legitimate sports like trap shooting. And while that might seem reasonable in urban areas it's totally unreasonable in rural areas where some people actually do hunt for food rather than for sport.

-------------
I don't own a gun, having ADD means I'd be the guy leaving it out on the coffe table, NOT the way to properly care for it or the people around you.
But I have done very occasional sport shooting.
I'm in favor of a higher bar to initial ownership, but less restriction as you prove yourself. Maybe bolt action for 5-10 years then semi auto. Some graduated system like with a drivers license. (But we have that here in Mass for pistol permits, and uneven application makes it a problem.)

I like the idea of easily traceable ammunition. It should be a trivial thing to number the cartridges during manufacture. There would be complications for a few circumstances like people who reload their own shells, and clubs that buy in bulk for events.


California bans them, initially by a list of models, then by a list of models and adding language about "or similar to" or something like that.

Interesting articles on guns and politics.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/20/po...ics/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/23/world/...ann/index.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/20/po...ate/index.html

The articles are depressing...but the comments in response are a hoot. Not a lot of tolerance for people who don't agree with the person posting. It's pretty much, If you disagree with me you're a f***ing idiot.

It's getting to the point I don't even read entire articles anymore, I just go straight to the comments section.

BTW, Should this thread be moved to the Watercooler section?

This thread shouldn't even be, and I apologize if any of my posts overstepped our "no politics" rule. If Leon wants to lock it that's fine.

Judgement call and no, imo. Major US and world events are fair game off topics. This thread started out as remembrance and prayers for people that lost their lives then devolved into the gun debate. At this late stage I don't think moving it is the best thing. "Everything in moderation."

i.e- "the internet"

I think most gun owners would agree that there should be stricter laws regarding gun control. There have been plenty of good suggestions made in this thread, I even mentioned a few. One more idea that I haven't seen mentioned (or overlooked it if it was) is mandatory drug testing for gun owners, testing for illegal and certain over-the-counter medications.

Did anybody see the perpetrator in his first courtroom appearance today? He looked like he was nodding out on narcotics. He barely seemed to know where he was.

Why would we drug test for gun purchases? We do not even do that for food stamps? If a massive gun control measure is passed and tried to be implemented there will be bloodshed on levels we have only read about.

You (meant in general) want to come take away my ability to protect my family? Well I will fight to my death to keep that ability. So you better be ready to meet your maker because I have no problem introducing you to him.

I have 0 problem with guns
 

I do have a problem with certain clip/magazine/drum sizes as well as certain types of available ammunition. I am far from wanting to take away the right to own a gun but that doesn't mean I feel it should have any type of capacity or its projectile should be enhanced with armor piercing or chemicals, etc. That is why Idont join the NRA they fight for the extreme in my beliefs and rational gun control/ gun laws are not a bad thing and neither is discussing it contrary to what a political action committee would have you think.

Well said man, well said.

At my company, I had to pass a drug test as a condition for employment and I'm subject to random drug tests at any given time. In my opinion, anyone on food stamps (or any government assistance) should be subject to the same. But that's a whole other topic.

agreed. The bastard doesn't deserve to breathe another breath of fresh air considering what he's done.

may the Colorado victims RIP.

I don't own a gun, but I don't blame this on the gun. I blame this on the shooter. Like a previous poster said, the shooter could've done this with a single 9mm Glock and 4 loaded clips. Hell he could've had a samurai sword and started hacking people up like he was swiping at vines in a jungle.

Hanging would be too quick and easy. This is a prime example of when "cruel and unusual punishment" should be used.

I think they should put him in a room with the victims' families, and let the families mete out the just punishment.

And where do you draw the line between where you would let frontier justice prevail and where you would give defendants due process?

That wasn't meant to be taken literally. It's what I would like to see, not what in any way I would expect to happen.

I could never understand why Chris Rock's proposal never received more serious consideration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZrFVtmRXrw

Right, that's how I understood you, but in your ideal world where would you draw the line?

Anyone see the car crash that killed 14 people in texas. Guess trucks should be banned next.