OT: Colorado shooting

[barrysloate]

Whatever spin you want to put on this, the bottom line is it is very easy for someone to buy a gun in this country. And 99% of the people who do buy them are responsible and would never use them against another person unless they were in a life and death situation. But there is a tiny percentage of gun buyers who are unstable and shouldn't be allowed to buy them. In the case of Mr. Holmes, I don't think there were any red flags, as there was nothing in his past that suggested he was insane. But in the case of someone like Jared Loughner, who committed the murders in Arizona, there were any number of red flags. And yet nothing stopped him from buying his weapons.

Somewhere along the line some of these guys could be stopped in their tracks by a simple background check. Not saying all can, but even if one or two could be caught it would save countless lives. But when this idea is brought up the NRA goes ballistic (pun intended) and nothing ever really changes.

Nobody is hurt by making it just a little more difficult for citizens to purchase guns. If you have a clean record it shouldn't matter in the least, maybe no more than filling out some paperwork. But if just one idiot is stopped because of a background check, some lives can be saved. These are small concessions but the NRA makes no concessions whatsoever. It's their extreme approach to this issue that gets a lot of people riled. There is always a middle ground that can be achieved with a little effort.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Somewhere along the line some of these guys could be stopped in their tracks by a simple background check. Not saying all can, but even if one or two could be caught it would save countless lives. But when this idea is brought up the NRA goes ballistic (pun intended) and nothing ever really changes.

Barry, with all due respect, you have your facts wrong. When one purchases a gun (any kind) in the USA from a licensed dealer, they must fill out a form from the ATF (Form 4473) and undergo a background check. The shooter in this case purchased his guns legally and did undergo a background check.

[zljones]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Whatever spin you want to put on this, the bottom line is it is very easy for someone to buy a gun in this country. And 99% of the people who do buy them are responsible and would never use them against another person unless they were in a life and death situation. But there is a tiny percentage of gun buyers who are unstable and shouldn't be allowed to buy them. In the case of Mr. Holmes, I don't think there were any red flags, as there was nothing in his past that suggested he was insane. But in the case of someone like Jared Loughner, who committed the murders in Arizona, there were any number of red flags. And yet nothing stopped him from buying his weapons.

Somewhere along the line some of these guys could be stopped in their tracks by a simple background check. Not saying all can, but even if one or two could be caught it would save countless lives. But when this idea is brought up the NRA goes ballistic (pun intended) and nothing ever really changes.

Nobody is hurt by making it just a little more difficult for citizens to purchase guns. If you have a clean record it shouldn't matter in the least, maybe no more than filling out some paperwork. But if just one idiot is stopped because of a background check, some lives can be saved. These are small concessions but the NRA makes no concessions whatsoever. It's their extreme approach to this issue that gets a lot of people riled. There is always a middle ground that can be achieved with a little effort.

I also agree here. There does need to be more background checks. The problem with Chicago is since it is such a greedy city, they charge citizens tons of money to own a gun and make them pay tons of fees, take courses that cost hundreds. The regular citizen can't afford the cost of the weapon and headache of getting certified and fees associated.
But cheap, and careful registration should be a must. I do agree with you there. And I am also glad no one ever talks about that Jerrod kid in the media anymore, he does not deserve any more attention. I almost forgot his name til you mentioned it LOL.

[barrysloate]

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?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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.

[Wite3]

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

Joshua

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

But what about someone like Loughner? Are you telling me that he was properly vetted and nothing came up?

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.

[bmarlowe1]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

[barrysloate]

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.