Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

[iceberg]

Vegas shooter, 2 AR-15 rifles firing from a concealed, fortified, elevated position into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people....58 murdered.

A muslim terrorist in Nice, France using a rental truck murdered 86 and injured 435.

Trucks are deadler than rifles, even when the rifle is fired into a crowd of 22,000 people...

Trucks can be stopped with cement curbs. Bullets can't.

not any truck worth a shit. i've got an 01 dodge. i previously had an 01 dodge 4x4. i promise you i proved time and again curbs were pointless. NOT to run over people but just in general to get where i wanted to go.

Yeah...but still....to run over people....maybe left wingers?

not going to run over anyone regardless of their beliefs. unless of course their belief is i need to die and i'm simply defending myself.

besides, doing the body work and paint on my rebuilt dodge would be pretty expensive.

But......is it tempting even a teeny, tiny little bit?

nope. now if some asshole cuts me off in traffic i may rage on them but no idea bout their politics.

 

[2aguy]

You have been shown over and over again that background checks, and registration do nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters....

That's why handguns and assault style rifles need to be taken out of circulation in order to reduce the firearms homicides and mass shootings rates.

5 shot, pump action shotgun.....20 killed 70 wounded..

Kerch Polytechnic College massacre - Wikipedia
==================
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

I.

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
========
In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.
==========
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.
LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.
In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----


-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

---

 

[Blues Man]

Shaking my head here. Police departments need to coordinate here as there, and the expense per capita is not substantially different. Have the same number of law enforcement officers per 100,000 of the population, and you're pretty much there. Really, that argument doesn't hold water at all.

I'd rather accept your "culture" argument (at least with respect to a substantial number of gun nuts), along with an unwarranted (and often hypocritical) subservience to the Founders and their 18th century concept of a well-regulated society.

No.....criminals get past current, Federally mandated background checks by using straw buyers, people who have clean records who can pass the background check....usually relatives or friends, most likely girlfriends, baby mommas, grandmothers, mothers, and a lot of the time they are under threat of physical violence....and as actual research shows, criminals don't like private sales for guns because they don't know if the stranger they are buying the gun from is an undercover police officer.....

Mass shooter's first crime is the mass shooting, so they have clean records which is why they can pass any background check either current or universal.

The only reason to have universal background checks, since they wouldn't do anything to stop either criminals or mass shooters....is to come back later and demand universal gun registration....that is the real goal. The anti-gunners demand universal background checks knowing they won't stop criminals or mass shooters. Then, when criminals and mass shooters keep getting guns because of the reasons above, they come back and say....see, in order for UBCs to work, we need to register all the guns, otherwise we can't know who originally owned the guns in the first place.

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps. How do we know this? Because of Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, various states in the U.S. who first registered rifles and then banned them.....New York, and other cities......

Then, Universal Background checks are also aimed at normal gun owners...how?

Gun Control Won't Stop Crime

“Universal” Background Checks
Part of the genius of the Bloomberg gun control system is how it creates prohibitions indirectly. Bloomberg’s so-called “universal” background check scheme is a prime example. These bills are never just about having background checks on the private sales of firearms. That aspect is the part that the public is told about. Yet when you read the Bloomberg laws, you find that checks on private sales are the tip of a very large iceberg of gun prohibition.

First, the bills criminalize a vast amount of innocent activity. Suppose you are an nra Certified Instructor teaching an introductory safety class. Under your supervision, students will handle a variety of unloaded firearms. They will learn how different guns have different safeties, and they will learn the safe way to hand a firearm to another person. But thanks to Bloomberg, these classroom firearm lessons are now illegal in Washington state, unless the class takes place at a shooting range.

It’s now also illegal to lend a gun to your friend, so that you can shoot together at a range on your own property. Or to lend a firearm for a week to your neighbor who is being stalked.

Under the Bloomberg system, gun loans are generally forbidden, unless the gun owner and the borrower both go to a gun store first. The store must process the loan as if the store were selling the gun out of its inventory.

Then, when your friend wants to return your gun to you, both of you must go to the gun store again. This time, the store will process that transaction as if you were buying the gun from the store’s inventory. For both the loan and the return of the gun, you will have to pay whatever fees the store charges, and whatever fees the government might charge.

The gun store will have to keep a permanent record of you, your friend and the gun, including the gun’s serial number. Depending on the state or city, the government might also keep a permanent record.

In other words, the “background check” law is really a law to expand gun registration—and registration lists are used for confiscation.

Consider New York City. In 1967, violent crime in the city was out of control. So the City Council and Mayor John Lindsay required registration of all long guns. The criminals, obviously, did not comply. Thanks to the 1911 Sullivan Act, New York City already had established registration lists for handgun owners.

Then, in 1991, the City Council decided that many lawfully registered firearms were now illegal “assault weapons.” The New York Police Department used the registration lists to ensure that the guns were either surrendered to the government or moved out of the city. When he was mayor of New York City, Bloomberg did the same, after the “assault weapon” law was expanded to cover any rifle or shotgun with an ammunition capacity greater than five rounds.

In Australia and Great Britain—which are often cited as models for the U.S. to follow—registration lists were used for gun confiscation. In Great Britain, this included all handguns; in Australia, handguns over .38 caliber. Both countries banned all semi-automatic or pump-action long guns.

Most American jurisdictions don’t have a comprehensive gun registration system. But even if your state legislature has outlawed gun registration, firearm stores must keep records. Those records could be harvested for future confiscations.

Under the Bloomberg system, the store’s list would include not just the guns that the store actually sold, but all the guns (and their owners) that the store processed, for friends or relatives borrowing guns.

So if those people ca

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps

This is where your arguments go total fruitcake. This is not why guns should be registered. The government has no intention of taking lawfully owned guns from lawful owners. This argument is complete and total fear mongering and 100% totally untrue, unfounded and deeply Dale-ish.

They don't take them.......New York, Washington State, Colorado simply state it is now illegal to own them......you then have to sell them, hand them over, or you will be a felon.....they know who has the guns from the registration...

Then....whenever you have an interaction with the police...."your neighbor called about your loud music....and, by the way, you are in our records as having a rifle that is banned that you didn't turn in....we are placing you under arrest for felony possession of a banned rifle." You are stopped for running a red light..."License and registration please.....Ma'am, step out of the car, we are placing you under arrest because you are in our records as having a gun that is banned, that you haven't turned in..."

That is how they will do it.....

I said "lawfully." Sounds like the people you used as an examples did not follow the law, did they?
And NO state will completely outlaw guns. If it is done properly, gun laws will be on a national, not state, level so that people can't "state shop" for the set of rules that allows them to buy a gun outlawed for good reason by their state.

what would you propose to put at a national level vs state?

you'd be hard pressed to tell someone from CA they now have the same gun laws as Texas or Montana or something. i don't see it as a possibility for states to give up the control of guns or things of that nature. in the end, that also just puts more power to the national gov and they have far too much of it as it is today.

All laws regarding sale and background checks and registration of guns should apply to every purchase in the country. The database that is checked needs much improvement before it will be accurate and comprehensive. That also needs to be a nation-wide effort because not all states are contributing, and not all Courts are, either.
Obviously, what guns are allowed and which are not MUST be nationwide.

Even the illegal purchases?

LAw abiding people do not have to register guns so the police can take illegally possessed guns from criminals

 

[iceberg]

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps

This is where your arguments go total fruitcake. This is not why guns should be registered. The government has no intention of taking lawfully owned guns from lawful owners. This argument is complete and total fear mongering and 100% totally untrue, unfounded and deeply Dale-ish.

They don't take them.......New York, Washington State, Colorado simply state it is now illegal to own them......you then have to sell them, hand them over, or you will be a felon.....they know who has the guns from the registration...

Then....whenever you have an interaction with the police...."your neighbor called about your loud music....and, by the way, you are in our records as having a rifle that is banned that you didn't turn in....we are placing you under arrest for felony possession of a banned rifle." You are stopped for running a red light..."License and registration please.....Ma'am, step out of the car, we are placing you under arrest because you are in our records as having a gun that is banned, that you haven't turned in..."

That is how they will do it.....

I said "lawfully." Sounds like the people you used as an examples did not follow the law, did they?
And NO state will completely outlaw guns. If it is done properly, gun laws will be on a national, not state, level so that people can't "state shop" for the set of rules that allows them to buy a gun outlawed for good reason by their state.

what would you propose to put at a national level vs state?

you'd be hard pressed to tell someone from CA they now have the same gun laws as Texas or Montana or something. i don't see it as a possibility for states to give up the control of guns or things of that nature. in the end, that also just puts more power to the national gov and they have far too much of it as it is today.

All laws regarding sale and background checks and registration of guns should apply to every purchase in the country. The database that is checked needs much improvement before it will be accurate and comprehensive. That also needs to be a nation-wide effort because not all states are contributing, and not all Courts are, either.
Obviously, what guns are allowed and which are not MUST be nationwide.

You have been shown over and over again that background checks, and registration do nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters....

Do you understand that criminals cannot be prosecuted for not registering their illegal guns? Do you understand that? Haynes v United States....Supreme Court ruling...

Registration does nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters, and only sets up future confiscation....

do you understand that?

Criminals use straw buyers who can pass any background check, or they steal the gun.

Mass shooters can pass any background check, the Pulse Night Club shooter passed a background check for his job, one for each gun he purchased, he had a year long detailed FBI investigation, and FBI undercover approach and was interviewed by the FBI 2 times.....and passed all of that with flying colors...

criminals will always find a way to get a gun. that is a given. but since we have seen people pass a background check who should not have, i would think looking here would be something of value much moreso than attacking guns you can't define and demanding people register them.

 

[2aguy]

Trucks can be stopped with cement curbs. Bullets can't.

not any truck worth a shit. i've got an 01 dodge. i previously had an 01 dodge 4x4. i promise you i proved time and again curbs were pointless. NOT to run over people but just in general to get where i wanted to go.

Yeah...but still....to run over people....maybe left wingers?

not going to run over anyone regardless of their beliefs. unless of course their belief is i need to die and i'm simply defending myself.

besides, doing the body work and paint on my rebuilt dodge would be pretty expensive.

But......is it tempting even a teeny, tiny little bit?

nope. now if some asshole cuts me off in traffic i may rage on them but no idea bout their politics.

See...that is what makes us different from them....... their way always ends in mass graves.......it may take a while...but mass graves are always the end point...

 

[Blues Man]

You have been shown over and over again that background checks, and registration do nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters....

That's why handguns and assault style rifles need to be taken out of circulation in order to reduce the firearms homicides and mass shootings rates.

yes because getting killed by a gun is so much worse than getting beaten to death with a wrench

 

[iceberg]

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps

This is where your arguments go total fruitcake. This is not why guns should be registered. The government has no intention of taking lawfully owned guns from lawful owners. This argument is complete and total fear mongering and 100% totally untrue, unfounded and deeply Dale-ish.

They don't take them.......New York, Washington State, Colorado simply state it is now illegal to own them......you then have to sell them, hand them over, or you will be a felon.....they know who has the guns from the registration...

Then....whenever you have an interaction with the police...."your neighbor called about your loud music....and, by the way, you are in our records as having a rifle that is banned that you didn't turn in....we are placing you under arrest for felony possession of a banned rifle." You are stopped for running a red light..."License and registration please.....Ma'am, step out of the car, we are placing you under arrest because you are in our records as having a gun that is banned, that you haven't turned in..."

That is how they will do it.....

I said "lawfully." Sounds like the people you used as an examples did not follow the law, did they?
And NO state will completely outlaw guns. If it is done properly, gun laws will be on a national, not state, level so that people can't "state shop" for the set of rules that allows them to buy a gun outlawed for good reason by their state.

what would you propose to put at a national level vs state?

you'd be hard pressed to tell someone from CA they now have the same gun laws as Texas or Montana or something. i don't see it as a possibility for states to give up the control of guns or things of that nature. in the end, that also just puts more power to the national gov and they have far too much of it as it is today.

All laws regarding sale and background checks and registration of guns should apply to every purchase in the country. The database that is checked needs much improvement before it will be accurate and comprehensive. That also needs to be a nation-wide effort because not all states are contributing, and not all Courts are, either.
Obviously, what guns are allowed and which are not MUST be nationwide.

Even the illegal purchases?

LAw abiding people do not have to register guns so the police can take illegally possessed guns from criminals

and a criminal isn't going to register their gun. hence that argument is a feel good do nothing argument to me.

improving the background checks i would be for.

 

[Blues Man]

They don't take them.......New York, Washington State, Colorado simply state it is now illegal to own them......you then have to sell them, hand them over, or you will be a felon.....they know who has the guns from the registration...

Then....whenever you have an interaction with the police...."your neighbor called about your loud music....and, by the way, you are in our records as having a rifle that is banned that you didn't turn in....we are placing you under arrest for felony possession of a banned rifle." You are stopped for running a red light..."License and registration please.....Ma'am, step out of the car, we are placing you under arrest because you are in our records as having a gun that is banned, that you haven't turned in..."

That is how they will do it.....

I said "lawfully." Sounds like the people you used as an examples did not follow the law, did they?
And NO state will completely outlaw guns. If it is done properly, gun laws will be on a national, not state, level so that people can't "state shop" for the set of rules that allows them to buy a gun outlawed for good reason by their state.

what would you propose to put at a national level vs state?

you'd be hard pressed to tell someone from CA they now have the same gun laws as Texas or Montana or something. i don't see it as a possibility for states to give up the control of guns or things of that nature. in the end, that also just puts more power to the national gov and they have far too much of it as it is today.

All laws regarding sale and background checks and registration of guns should apply to every purchase in the country. The database that is checked needs much improvement before it will be accurate and comprehensive. That also needs to be a nation-wide effort because not all states are contributing, and not all Courts are, either.
Obviously, what guns are allowed and which are not MUST be nationwide.

Even the illegal purchases?

LAw abiding people do not have to register guns so the police can take illegally possessed guns from criminals

and a criminal isn't going to register their gun. hence that argument is a feel good do nothing argument to me.

improving the background checks i would be for.

And even those can be gotten around.

 

[iceberg]

not any truck worth a shit. i've got an 01 dodge. i previously had an 01 dodge 4x4. i promise you i proved time and again curbs were pointless. NOT to run over people but just in general to get where i wanted to go.

Yeah...but still....to run over people....maybe left wingers?

not going to run over anyone regardless of their beliefs. unless of course their belief is i need to die and i'm simply defending myself.

besides, doing the body work and paint on my rebuilt dodge would be pretty expensive.

But......is it tempting even a teeny, tiny little bit?

nope. now if some asshole cuts me off in traffic i may rage on them but no idea bout their politics.

See...that is what makes us different from them....... their way always ends in mass graves.......it may take a while...but mass graves are always the end point...

i think we have a lot more in common with "the other side" than we want to admit.

i also don't think OldLady wants mass graves - just gun violence to stop. since stopping the violence is a huge varied topic, i don't think it's fair to go from wanting the violence and killings to stop = wanting mass graves.

 

[2aguy]

They don't take them.......New York, Washington State, Colorado simply state it is now illegal to own them......you then have to sell them, hand them over, or you will be a felon.....they know who has the guns from the registration...

Then....whenever you have an interaction with the police...."your neighbor called about your loud music....and, by the way, you are in our records as having a rifle that is banned that you didn't turn in....we are placing you under arrest for felony possession of a banned rifle." You are stopped for running a red light..."License and registration please.....Ma'am, step out of the car, we are placing you under arrest because you are in our records as having a gun that is banned, that you haven't turned in..."

That is how they will do it.....

I said "lawfully." Sounds like the people you used as an examples did not follow the law, did they?
And NO state will completely outlaw guns. If it is done properly, gun laws will be on a national, not state, level so that people can't "state shop" for the set of rules that allows them to buy a gun outlawed for good reason by their state.

what would you propose to put at a national level vs state?

you'd be hard pressed to tell someone from CA they now have the same gun laws as Texas or Montana or something. i don't see it as a possibility for states to give up the control of guns or things of that nature. in the end, that also just puts more power to the national gov and they have far too much of it as it is today.

All laws regarding sale and background checks and registration of guns should apply to every purchase in the country. The database that is checked needs much improvement before it will be accurate and comprehensive. That also needs to be a nation-wide effort because not all states are contributing, and not all Courts are, either.
Obviously, what guns are allowed and which are not MUST be nationwide.

Even the illegal purchases?

LAw abiding people do not have to register guns so the police can take illegally possessed guns from criminals

and a criminal isn't going to register their gun. hence that argument is a feel good do nothing argument to me.

improving the background checks i would be for.

And if the criminal is caught with an unregistered gun, they can't be prosecuted for non registration.......violation of their 5th Amendment protection....

Meanwhile, John, Jane Citizen......caught with an unregistered gun.....felons....lose their job, future decent employment, lawyers fees, likely their homes....

 

[2aguy]

Yeah...but still....to run over people....maybe left wingers?

not going to run over anyone regardless of their beliefs. unless of course their belief is i need to die and i'm simply defending myself.

besides, doing the body work and paint on my rebuilt dodge would be pretty expensive.

But......is it tempting even a teeny, tiny little bit?

nope. now if some asshole cuts me off in traffic i may rage on them but no idea bout their politics.

See...that is what makes us different from them....... their way always ends in mass graves.......it may take a while...but mass graves are always the end point...

i think we have a lot more in common with "the other side" than we want to admit.

i also don't think OldLady wants mass graves - just gun violence to stop. since stopping the violence is a huge varied topic, i don't think it's fair to go from wanting the violence and killings to stop = wanting mass graves.

Yes....she just wants gun violence to stop.....but she gives power to the other kind of left winger....Friedrich Hayek discussed this in his book "Road to Serfdom" where he talked about why socialist countries alway end up with totalitarians in power.....

 

[iceberg]

I said "lawfully." Sounds like the people you used as an examples did not follow the law, did they?
And NO state will completely outlaw guns. If it is done properly, gun laws will be on a national, not state, level so that people can't "state shop" for the set of rules that allows them to buy a gun outlawed for good reason by their state.

what would you propose to put at a national level vs state?

you'd be hard pressed to tell someone from CA they now have the same gun laws as Texas or Montana or something. i don't see it as a possibility for states to give up the control of guns or things of that nature. in the end, that also just puts more power to the national gov and they have far too much of it as it is today.

All laws regarding sale and background checks and registration of guns should apply to every purchase in the country. The database that is checked needs much improvement before it will be accurate and comprehensive. That also needs to be a nation-wide effort because not all states are contributing, and not all Courts are, either.
Obviously, what guns are allowed and which are not MUST be nationwide.

Even the illegal purchases?

LAw abiding people do not have to register guns so the police can take illegally possessed guns from criminals

and a criminal isn't going to register their gun. hence that argument is a feel good do nothing argument to me.

improving the background checks i would be for.

And even those can be gotten around.

so can walls but people still want them enough to "go to war" so to speak.

again the orlando shooter should not have passed his background check. we found that out later about a few of the mass shooters. it won't stop all but it would do a better job at flagging those who go that route. i find this something to be more useful than banning weapons you can't define.

 

[2aguy]

what would you propose to put at a national level vs state?

you'd be hard pressed to tell someone from CA they now have the same gun laws as Texas or Montana or something. i don't see it as a possibility for states to give up the control of guns or things of that nature. in the end, that also just puts more power to the national gov and they have far too much of it as it is today.

All laws regarding sale and background checks and registration of guns should apply to every purchase in the country. The database that is checked needs much improvement before it will be accurate and comprehensive. That also needs to be a nation-wide effort because not all states are contributing, and not all Courts are, either.
Obviously, what guns are allowed and which are not MUST be nationwide.

Even the illegal purchases?

LAw abiding people do not have to register guns so the police can take illegally possessed guns from criminals

and a criminal isn't going to register their gun. hence that argument is a feel good do nothing argument to me.

improving the background checks i would be for.

And even those can be gotten around.

so can walls but people still want them enough to "go to war" so to speak.

again the orlando shooter should not have passed his background check. we found that out later about a few of the mass shooters. it won't stop all but it would do a better job at flagging those who go that route. i find this something to be more useful than banning weapons you can't define.

Registering criminals.....and keeping actual gun criminals locked up..... we already register criminals but the democrats keep letting the repeat gun offenders out of prison...that is the real problem...not guns.

 

[OldLady]

The list of things that can be used to kill is literally endless

Swimming pools!

Vegas shooter, 2 AR-15 rifles firing from a concealed, fortified, elevated position into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people....58 murdered.

A muslim terrorist in Nice, France using a rental truck murdered 86 and injured 435.

Trucks are deadler than rifles, even when the rifle is fired into a crowd of 22,000 people...

Trucks can be stopped with cement curbs. Bullets can't.

not any truck worth a shit. i've got an 01 dodge. i previously had an 01 dodge 4x4. i promise you i proved time and again curbs were pointless. NOT to run over people but just in general to get where i wanted to go.

Curb was the wrong word.

I guess they call them "bollards," and don't waste your breath trying to convince me that your truck will run over that.

 

[iceberg]

not going to run over anyone regardless of their beliefs. unless of course their belief is i need to die and i'm simply defending myself.

besides, doing the body work and paint on my rebuilt dodge would be pretty expensive.

But......is it tempting even a teeny, tiny little bit?

nope. now if some asshole cuts me off in traffic i may rage on them but no idea bout their politics.

See...that is what makes us different from them....... their way always ends in mass graves.......it may take a while...but mass graves are always the end point...

i think we have a lot more in common with "the other side" than we want to admit.

i also don't think OldLady wants mass graves - just gun violence to stop. since stopping the violence is a huge varied topic, i don't think it's fair to go from wanting the violence and killings to stop = wanting mass graves.

Yes....she just wants gun violence to stop.....but she gives power to the other kind of left winger....Friedrich Hayek discussed this in his book "Road to Serfdom" where he talked about why socialist countries alway end up with totalitarians in power.....

well i won't speak for her but i don't think she is one who will take one step in order to get another later. so i see this as taking a generalization and applying it to her. but as a starting point, you'll start with people after what you are after and go from there. but that doesn't mean you can or would take the entire trip with that person.

we all find our stopping points along the way.

 

[Blues Man]

what would you propose to put at a national level vs state?

you'd be hard pressed to tell someone from CA they now have the same gun laws as Texas or Montana or something. i don't see it as a possibility for states to give up the control of guns or things of that nature. in the end, that also just puts more power to the national gov and they have far too much of it as it is today.

All laws regarding sale and background checks and registration of guns should apply to every purchase in the country. The database that is checked needs much improvement before it will be accurate and comprehensive. That also needs to be a nation-wide effort because not all states are contributing, and not all Courts are, either.
Obviously, what guns are allowed and which are not MUST be nationwide.

Even the illegal purchases?

LAw abiding people do not have to register guns so the police can take illegally possessed guns from criminals

and a criminal isn't going to register their gun. hence that argument is a feel good do nothing argument to me.

improving the background checks i would be for.

And even those can be gotten around.

so can walls but people still want them enough to "go to war" so to speak.

again the orlando shooter should not have passed his background check. we found that out later about a few of the mass shooters. it won't stop all but it would do a better job at flagging those who go that route. i find this something to be more useful than banning weapons you can't define.

Background checks will never be a predictive tool.

 

[2aguy]

The list of things that can be used to kill is literally endless

Swimming pools!

Vegas shooter, 2 AR-15 rifles firing from a concealed, fortified, elevated position into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people....58 murdered.

A muslim terrorist in Nice, France using a rental truck murdered 86 and injured 435.

Trucks are deadler than rifles, even when the rifle is fired into a crowd of 22,000 people...

Trucks can be stopped with cement curbs. Bullets can't.

not any truck worth a shit. i've got an 01 dodge. i previously had an 01 dodge 4x4. i promise you i proved time and again curbs were pointless. NOT to run over people but just in general to get where i wanted to go.

Curb was the wrong word.

I guess they call them "bollards," and don't waste your breath trying to convince me that your truck will run over that.

I wouldn't have to....you run the bike guy over in the street....

 

[Defiant1]

Shaking my head here. Police departments need to coordinate here as there, and the expense per capita is not substantially different. Have the same number of law enforcement officers per 100,000 of the population, and you're pretty much there. Really, that argument doesn't hold water at all.

I'd rather accept your "culture" argument (at least with respect to a substantial number of gun nuts), along with an unwarranted (and often hypocritical) subservience to the Founders and their 18th century concept of a well-regulated society.

No.....criminals get past current, Federally mandated background checks by using straw buyers, people who have clean records who can pass the background check....usually relatives or friends, most likely girlfriends, baby mommas, grandmothers, mothers, and a lot of the time they are under threat of physical violence....and as actual research shows, criminals don't like private sales for guns because they don't know if the stranger they are buying the gun from is an undercover police officer.....

Mass shooter's first crime is the mass shooting, so they have clean records which is why they can pass any background check either current or universal.

The only reason to have universal background checks, since they wouldn't do anything to stop either criminals or mass shooters....is to come back later and demand universal gun registration....that is the real goal. The anti-gunners demand universal background checks knowing they won't stop criminals or mass shooters. Then, when criminals and mass shooters keep getting guns because of the reasons above, they come back and say....see, in order for UBCs to work, we need to register all the guns, otherwise we can't know who originally owned the guns in the first place.

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps. How do we know this? Because of Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, various states in the U.S. who first registered rifles and then banned them.....New York, and other cities......

Then, Universal Background checks are also aimed at normal gun owners...how?

Gun Control Won't Stop Crime

“Universal” Background Checks
Part of the genius of the Bloomberg gun control system is how it creates prohibitions indirectly. Bloomberg’s so-called “universal” background check scheme is a prime example. These bills are never just about having background checks on the private sales of firearms. That aspect is the part that the public is told about. Yet when you read the Bloomberg laws, you find that checks on private sales are the tip of a very large iceberg of gun prohibition.

First, the bills criminalize a vast amount of innocent activity. Suppose you are an nra Certified Instructor teaching an introductory safety class. Under your supervision, students will handle a variety of unloaded firearms. They will learn how different guns have different safeties, and they will learn the safe way to hand a firearm to another person. But thanks to Bloomberg, these classroom firearm lessons are now illegal in Washington state, unless the class takes place at a shooting range.

It’s now also illegal to lend a gun to your friend, so that you can shoot together at a range on your own property. Or to lend a firearm for a week to your neighbor who is being stalked.

Under the Bloomberg system, gun loans are generally forbidden, unless the gun owner and the borrower both go to a gun store first. The store must process the loan as if the store were selling the gun out of its inventory.

Then, when your friend wants to return your gun to you, both of you must go to the gun store again. This time, the store will process that transaction as if you were buying the gun from the store’s inventory. For both the loan and the return of the gun, you will have to pay whatever fees the store charges, and whatever fees the government might charge.

The gun store will have to keep a permanent record of you, your friend and the gun, including the gun’s serial number. Depending on the state or city, the government might also keep a permanent record.

In other words, the “background check” law is really a law to expand gun registration—and registration lists are used for confiscation.

Consider New York City. In 1967, violent crime in the city was out of control. So the City Council and Mayor John Lindsay required registration of all long guns. The criminals, obviously, did not comply. Thanks to the 1911 Sullivan Act, New York City already had established registration lists for handgun owners.

Then, in 1991, the City Council decided that many lawfully registered firearms were now illegal “assault weapons.” The New York Police Department used the registration lists to ensure that the guns were either surrendered to the government or moved out of the city. When he was mayor of New York City, Bloomberg did the same, after the “assault weapon” law was expanded to cover any rifle or shotgun with an ammunition capacity greater than five rounds.

In Australia and Great Britain—which are often cited as models for the U.S. to follow—registration lists were used for gun confiscation. In Great Britain, this included all handguns; in Australia, handguns over .38 caliber. Both countries banned all semi-automatic or pump-action long guns.

Most American jurisdictions don’t have a comprehensive gun registration system. But even if your state legislature has outlawed gun registration, firearm stores must keep records. Those records could be harvested for future confiscations.

Under the Bloomberg system, the store’s list would include not just the guns that the store actually sold, but all the guns (and their owners) that the store processed, for friends or relatives borrowing guns.

So if those people ca

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps

This is where your arguments go total fruitcake. This is not why guns should be registered. The government has no intention of taking lawfully owned guns from lawful owners. This argument is complete and total fear mongering and 100% totally untrue, unfounded and deeply Dale-ish.

They don't take them.......New York, Washington State, Colorado simply state it is now illegal to own them......you then have to sell them, hand them over, or you will be a felon.....they know who has the guns from the registration...

Then....whenever you have an interaction with the police...."your neighbor called about your loud music....and, by the way, you are in our records as having a rifle that is banned that you didn't turn in....we are placing you under arrest for felony possession of a banned rifle." You are stopped for running a red light..."License and registration please.....Ma'am, step out of the car, we are placing you under arrest because you are in our records as having a gun that is banned, that you haven't turned in..."

That is how they will do it.....

I said "lawfully." Sounds like the people you used as an examples did not follow the law, did they?
And NO state will completely outlaw guns. If it is done properly, gun laws will be on a national, not state, level so that people can't "state shop" for the set of rules that allows them to buy a gun outlawed for good reason by their state.

what would you propose to put at a national level vs state?

you'd be hard pressed to tell someone from CA they now have the same gun laws as Texas or Montana or something. i don't see it as a possibility for states to give up the control of guns or things of that nature. in the end, that also just puts more power to the national gov and they have far too much of it as it is today.

All laws regarding sale and background checks and registration of guns should apply to every purchase in the country. The database that is checked needs much improvement before it will be accurate and comprehensive. That also needs to be a nation-wide effort because not all states are contributing, and not all Courts are, either.
Obviously, what guns are allowed and which are not MUST be nationwide.

And if you could ban the guns you wanted, how about the millions that we already have?
And the millions upon millions of magazines we already have?

 

[iceberg]

The list of things that can be used to kill is literally endless

Swimming pools!

Vegas shooter, 2 AR-15 rifles firing from a concealed, fortified, elevated position into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people....58 murdered.

A muslim terrorist in Nice, France using a rental truck murdered 86 and injured 435.

Trucks are deadler than rifles, even when the rifle is fired into a crowd of 22,000 people...

Trucks can be stopped with cement curbs. Bullets can't.

not any truck worth a shit. i've got an 01 dodge. i previously had an 01 dodge 4x4. i promise you i proved time and again curbs were pointless. NOT to run over people but just in general to get where i wanted to go.

Curb was the wrong word.

I guess they call them "bollards," and don't waste your breath trying to convince me that your truck will run over that.

HUGE LEGOS!!!

ok - that would have jacked up my truck. but those are not something you can put everywhere and in this pic you can see a truck would be able to go to either side of them. these are used for huge events where the barrier is necessary and removed when done. killer would just need to wait a few days or choose a crowded street that can't afford street legos.

 

[Blues Man]

The list of things that can be used to kill is literally endless

Swimming pools!

Vegas shooter, 2 AR-15 rifles firing from a concealed, fortified, elevated position into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people....58 murdered.

A muslim terrorist in Nice, France using a rental truck murdered 86 and injured 435.

Trucks are deadler than rifles, even when the rifle is fired into a crowd of 22,000 people...

Trucks can be stopped with cement curbs. Bullets can't.

not any truck worth a shit. i've got an 01 dodge. i previously had an 01 dodge 4x4. i promise you i proved time and again curbs were pointless. NOT to run over people but just in general to get where i wanted to go.

Curb was the wrong word.

I guess they call them "bollards," and don't waste your breath trying to convince me that your truck will run over that.

so are you going to pay for putting those things everywhere?

 

[2aguy]

All laws regarding sale and background checks and registration of guns should apply to every purchase in the country. The database that is checked needs much improvement before it will be accurate and comprehensive. That also needs to be a nation-wide effort because not all states are contributing, and not all Courts are, either.
Obviously, what guns are allowed and which are not MUST be nationwide.

Even the illegal purchases?

LAw abiding people do not have to register guns so the police can take illegally possessed guns from criminals

and a criminal isn't going to register their gun. hence that argument is a feel good do nothing argument to me.

improving the background checks i would be for.

And even those can be gotten around.

so can walls but people still want them enough to "go to war" so to speak.

again the orlando shooter should not have passed his background check. we found that out later about a few of the mass shooters. it won't stop all but it would do a better job at flagging those who go that route. i find this something to be more useful than banning weapons you can't define.

Background checks will never be a predictive tool.

The actual predictive tool is the first, second, third arrest when the criminal is caught over and over again with an illegal gun.......that guy will end up killing someone......and they keep being released by the democrats over and over again...