Another shooting in San Antonio at a church :(

[EmseB]

4 or more shot and killed is my understanding of the criterion.

Most of them are domestic violence--horrible, huh? Crazy messed up stuff.

Ok, but conflating domestic violence (which is also horrible) with something like the Pulse shooting seems counterproductive? And if you're trying to compare mass casualty stats with gun violence vs non-gun you'd really skew anything meaningful by including domestic violence?

[Carol in Cal.]

Ok, but conflating domestic violence (which is also horrible) with something like the Pulse shooting seems counterproductive? And if you're trying to compare mass casualty stats with gun violence vs non-gun you'd really skew anything meaningful by including domestic violence?

 

I don't know that I would debate the terms, but I do think it is important to understand the assumptions behind the statistics.

[EmseB]

I don't know that I would debate the terms, but I do think it is important to understand the assumptions behind the statistics.

No, I suppose not a debate. I just had never seen the 350 number and I don't suspect many people think of DV and something like Las Vegas, Orlando, Newton in the same category. I suppose including DV incidents serves a certain purpose, but like I said it seems like it would really throw things off if you were trying to study/compare mass casualty events.

[Carol in Cal.]

No, I suppose not a debate. I just had never seen the 350 number and I don't suspect many people think of DV and something like Las Vegas, Orlando, Newton in the same category. I suppose including DV incidents serves a certain purpose, but like I said it seems like it would really throw things off if you were trying to study/compare mass casualty events.

I'm of two minds about it.

 

On the one hand, there is random public violence like the Sandy Hook thing for instance.

 

On the other, distinguishing domestic violence from other violence has disturbing policy implications.  It's too easy to say it's 'just' domestic violence, which was done for centuries, and that is a sickening and minimizing, untruthful practice.

[Carol in Cal.]

I feel like this sentiment has jumped miles ahead, tho. What percentage of Americans, what percentage of lawmakers, want to totally remove our right to own guns? Honestly. Stop going there. We want better laws, more strict enforcements, no loopholes, more (efficient) background checks, perhaps stuff like mandatory training and liability insurance.

Saying that gun legislation means taking away all your guns comes from the mouths of idiots like Rush Limbaugh. 

Can't stand him, and don't listen to him.

 

My own personal concern about slippery slopes comes from decades of experience and observation.  The Law of Unintended Consequences seems to always apply.  I do think it's important to at least try to predict where a change will take us.

[hornblower]

I'm of two minds about it.

 

On the one hand, there is random public violence like the Sandy Hook thing for instance.

 

On the other, distinguishing domestic violence from other violence has disturbing policy implications.  It's too easy to say it's 'just' domestic violence, which was done for centuries, and that is a sickening and minimizing, untruthful practice.

 

(sigh. Ok, it's really time for a board break because my posts keep coming up blank anyway.... )

 

 

What I originally posted is that I don't think these are 2 separate issues but rather  aspects of the same thing. 

 

Majority of mass shooters kill their partner or other family members. 

 

American women are 16 times more likely to be killed by a gun than women in other countries. 

 

http://fortune.com/2017/11/07/domestic-violence-shootings-statistics/

Edited November 10, 2017 by hornblower

[Bootsie]

I feel like this sentiment has jumped miles ahead, tho. What percentage of Americans, what percentage of lawmakers, want to totally remove our right to own guns? Honestly. People need to Stop going there. We want better laws, more strict enforcements, no loopholes, more (efficient) background checks, perhaps stuff like mandatory training and liability insurance.

One thing that concerns me is that I know a number of people who say I don't want to remove our right to own guns.  I just want better, more strict laws.  Then, when I hear some of those laws, they would apply to many people I know (or have some other significant impact on them).  For example, the majority of the people I know have a family member (who has lived with them at least at some point in their life) who has experienced something that could fall under the category of mental illness. I would not want, for example, a woman to have to make the choice of having a gun if she feels that is an appropriate way to provide for her safety (or if she is a hunter, or whatever reason), and have her daughter who has suffered from depression at some point return home to live with her while she is going through some transition in her life.  I have heard some, however, propose that a better law would bar anyone who lives with someone who has suffered from mental illness owning a gun.  

 

I see little evidence that shootings occur because of a lack of training (in fact many occur by highly trained individuals), so I have difficulty seeing how that is going to help address the underlying problem.

 

I also don't see how liability insurance would really address the issue either.  Is the idea that insurance companies will be better able to determine risk of who will misuse a weapon and refuse to insure those individuals?

[poppy]

I linked a source in a prior message. I meant not correlated to gun ownership, at the international comparison level.

 

 

Doesn’t make any sense to me. We have a similar level of violence to counties with a similar number of guns? There are no counties with a similar number of guns.

[OneStepAtATime]

This thread is long enough now that you can probably keep it going for the next mass shooting, which should be coming along pretty soon now. 

 

Honestly, don't y'all get tired of coming up with reasons not to do anything about guns ?!

Sadie, this comment is really kind of hurtful.  It makes it sound like no one in the U.S. wants to address the issues.   Like none of us care, we just sit around doing nothing because we'd rather just make excuses.  I think tons of us want to address the issues.  Tons of us care.  We really do.  And many times many lobby for change.  The problem is that there are so many different takes on what will actually help and so many politicians push and pull in different directions when they go in to vote on changes.  It isn't like this is a community of 5.  There are millions of us.  Trying to get a consensus on this and then something useful actually passed and then effectively implemented long term has been HARD.  That doesn't mean we don't want to or haven't been trying.  Many are trying.  

[Guest]

This thread is long enough now that you can probably keep it going for the next mass shooting, which should be coming along pretty soon now.

 

Honestly, don't y'all get tired of coming up with reasons not to do anything about guns ?!

Sadly, I thought the same thing when I saw today that this thread is still on the first page.

[Murphy101]

I don’t think DV cases where 4+ people die should be separated out. It’s not different. Just because they were able to quickly kill 4+ people they know well doesn’t make the issue any less tragic or urgent to deal with.

 

It might make some feel better bc then they can feel like it’s not an issue for them as long as they have healthy relationships. But I think that’s short sighted and ridiculous.

[Carol in Cal.]

That's fear. The USA's Second Amendment is not going anywhere, it's engrained in the soul of this country. Doing nothing, while letting a non stop flow of cash to our politicians, who then use the media to scare the crap out of its constituents about losing your God given rights is what we should be worried about and ashamed of.

 

Nope, it's not fear, it's the wisdom of experience.

And as is very common in this thread, you are assuming that if someone doesn't agree with you completely that that means they want us to do nothing, which is not actually the case. 

 

[Liz CA]

Nope, it's not fear, it's the wisdom of experience.

And as is very common in this thread, you are assuming that if someone doesn't agree with you completely that that means they want us to do nothing, which is not actually the case. 

 

 

Yes, there is a lot of common ground between those two points. Perhaps we should start to focus on that and what we can do with that rather than hammer around on the few differences. Like many of you have said: Some action is better than none.

[Ausmumof3]

Controversial post for the day from someone who doesn't know the American constitution well

 

If every person has the right to bear arms to prevent an overreaching government why doesn't every country have the right to run whatever weapons program they want to prevent another country from invading them?

[Ausmumof3]

Well, there is no world government that nations would be defending against, in terms of the specific question you asked. There's no world president/king/prime minister/etc. There is no world parliament/congress/whatever. No world military, no world police, FBI, etc.

 

BUT, in a more general sense....

 

The second amendment....the right to bear arms...is not unlimited and I am sure no one here believes it should be. Likewise, it only makes sense to make sure that super crazy fruitcake country dictators, who already commit massive dramatic human rights violations, not be allowed to have weapons that they can destroy the whole world with. In the VERY SAME manner that I believe that violent felons should not be able to get their hands on a gun, I do not believe that Kim Jong Un should be able to get his hands on H bombs.

 

IOW, the US Constitution doesn't actually mean that EVERY person has the right to bear arms.

Yeah your second point makes sense. The first one well - there is international law and organisations though they are kind of toothless and some would argue that there are individual nations that overreach the rights of others I guess.

[Murphy101]

Controversial post for the day from someone who doesn't know the American constitution well

 

If every person has the right to bear arms to prevent an overreaching government why doesn't every country have the right to run whatever weapons program they want to prevent another country from invading them?

Who says they don’t?

 

Tho possible needs to be another thread and I have no idea how it wouldn’t get political.

[Bootsie]

Plenty of people on this thread are busy making excuses. It's a simple fact that they will still be making excuses when the next mass shooting happens, and the one after that.

 

I am very sorry those who are trying are up against such attitidues. 

I do not see people who are busy making excuses.  I see people taking the time, energy, and effort to talk about an important, complex, multi-faceted  topic.  I appreciate hearing the opinions of those who have struggled with this issue; I appreciate hearing what others have learned, experienced, and discovered.  

 

I have been in situations to wrestle with these questions quite a bit in the past year--as my university struggled to handle the new open carry laws in Texas and, ironically, as a member of the board of trustees of a church in San Antonio, when an individual walked into the sanctuary openly carrying.  I ask how can I be merciful?  how can I be pure of heart? how can I be a peacemaker?  Because I am always learning and always growing, I will probably be, in fact, I hope I will be, continuing to ask these questions for some time to come.

[HeartString]

One thing that concerns me is that I know a number of people who say I don't want to remove our right to own guns. I just want better, more strict laws. Then, when I hear some of those laws, they would apply to many people I know (or have some other significant impact on them). For example, the majority of the people I know have a family member (who has lived with them at least at some point in their life) who has experienced something that could fall under the category of mental illness. I would not want, for example, a woman to have to make the choice of having a gun if she feels that is an appropriate way to provide for her safety (or if she is a hunter, or whatever reason), and have her daughter who has suffered from depression at some point return home to live with her while she is going through some transition in her life. I have heard some, however, propose that a better law would bar anyone who lives with someone who has suffered from mental illness owning a gun.

 

I see little evidence that shootings occur because of a lack of training (in fact many occur by highly trained individuals), so I have difficulty seeing how that is going to help address the underlying problem.

 

I also don't see how liability insurance would really address the issue either. Is the idea that insurance companies will be better able to determine risk of who will misuse a weapon and refuse to insure those individuals?

The liability insurance and training requirements would be to prevent some of thousands of accidental shootings that occur each year. A requirement to lock them up, or at least secure,them could also help prevent the thousands of children that shoot themselves or others every year. Mass shootings are a problem, but aren't the entire problem.

[Bootsie]

The liability insurance and training requirements would be to prevent some of thousands of accidental shootings that occur each year. A requirement to lock them up, or at least secure,them could also help prevent the thousands of children that shoot themselves or others every year. Mass shootings are a problem, but aren't the entire problem.

 

I can see training requirements to help prevent accidental shootings.  I really have no idea in how many cases of accidental shootings did the owner not have training (and I have not been able to find any good statistics that deal with that, my gut instinct tells me that varies a lot by state).  I am simply horrified at how many times I hear that items, including a gun, were stolen overnight from an unlocked car sitting in a driveway in my neighborhood. 

 

I don't see how liability insurance would help prevent these shootings, however.  Can you explain that link?    

[HeartString]

My thoughts are that "firearm insurance" could work as an inhibitor on high risk behavior. Like a high risk driver that can't get covered, or a falling down house, or how having a pit bull costs extra. The insurance companies, not the government, would be keeping up with training, back ground checks and what styles of weapons and accessories are allowed, based on their evaluation of risk.

 

If there was an insurance company paying out right now for 26 deaths and how ever many injuries in Texas, they would be looking into ways to prevent it from happening again. I bet getting coverage for a bump stock woukd have been impossible in the first place.

 

Having to get insurance before you purchased a weapon would act as a forced cool down period. I bet they would do a more thorough background check since they would be on the hook for a misjudgment. The cost of coverage would prevent someone from buying 47 like the Vegas shooter. And someone that was not the government would be seeing the red flags that should have been raised from a single person accumulating so many weapons so fast.

 

Antiques could be insured cheaply, the way we insure antique cars.

 

Excuse typos, I'm on my phone.

[Sandwalker]

The likelihood of the average person being able to successfully return fire after someone has started firing from behind them with a semi-automatic high capacity weapon is absurdly low. Most churches cannot afford armed security patrols during services, and we are well and truly ****ed as a nation if that is what it takes to be safe in church.

Well, the old guy who lived a block and a half away from the church in that tiny Texas town that Sunday morning heard the gunfire, went to his safe, took out his AR-15 and a handful of ammunition, ran barefoot towards the church, took cover behind a neighbor's pickup truck 20 yards away, and exchanged fire with the killer. The old hero is an NRA instructor. He saw that the body armor worn by the killer was the kind with gaps on the sides, so he shot through the gaps. When the wounded killer got in his vehicle and took off, the old neighbor jumped in a guy's car nearby and pursued the killer, updating police on his whereabouts along the way. He shot through the killer's rear window, aiming for his head. The killer wrecked and then shot himself.

 

There were other weapons and ammunition in the killer's vehicle. Another church a couple of blocks away was in the midst of Sunday services. The police would have had to engage the killer...

 

There are evil people in the world that commit evil acts. There is no way to get rid of 300 million guns. The evil people will find a gun or rent a truck or make a bomb or poison the water supply or throw a Molotov cocktail into a church. All the laws in the world aren't going to stop their evil. You can mock 'thoughts and prayers', but they do a lot more to help the families than more gun laws, when the existing laws are not even enforced.

 

http://nypost.com/2017/11/07/texas-church-killer-shot-babies-as-punishment-for-crying/

 

[Bootsie]

My thoughts are that "firearm insurance" could work as an inhibitor on high risk behavior. Like a high risk driver that can't get covered, or a falling down house, or how having a pit bull costs extra. The insurance companies, not the government, would be keeping up with training, back ground checks and what styles of weapons and accessories are allowed, based on their evaluation of risk.

 

If there was an insurance company paying out right now for 26 deaths and how ever many injuries in Texas, they would be looking into ways to prevent it from happening again. I bet getting coverage for a bump stock woukd have been impossible in the first place.

 

Having to get insurance before you purchased a weapon would act as a forced cool down period. I bet they would do a more thorough background check since they would be on the hook for a misjudgment. The cost of coverage would prevent someone from buying 47 like the Vegas shooter. And someone that was not the government would be seeing the red flags that should have been raised from a single person accumulating so many weapons so fast.

 

Antiques could be insured cheaply, the way we insure antique cars.

 

Excuse typos, I'm on my phone.

I don't know how an actuary would go about determining what risky behavior is for a gun owner and monitor that behavior.  For the most part, an insurance company knows that a driver is risky after a driver has done (and gotten caught) doing a number of risky things.  Or, we know that statistically, young males get into more auto accidents or people who live in certain cities have more auto accidents and robberies.  What would be the actuarial risk factors that an insurance company could use?

 

Many of the accidental deaths are things like mom leaves gun out where Child A plays with it and shoots Child B.  So, who does the insurance pay when Child B is dead?  The mom who did the risky behavior?  

 

The purpose of insurance is to return a person to whole when the person losses economic value when an uncertain event occurs.  I cannot think of any situation where insurance is used primarily as a behavior deterrent.  An insurance company is not necessarily going to try to reduce something from happening; it will simply price the insurance appropriately for the risk.  

 

Would the gun or the gun owner be insured?  What extra components (such as a bump stock) would need to be insured?  What if an individual creates a homemade bump stock?  Will the insurance company periodically exam all weapons?  (And I don't think a bump stock was used by the Texas shooter).

 

Some individuals would be able to pay to insure 47 guns (just like some individuals can afford to insure multiple homes or cars).  So, if the argument is that it would make it too costly to own too many guns if there was an added insurance cost, I worry that we will have guns disproportionately among the wealthy in society.  

 

In my area, there are many uninsured drivers driving cars down the street.  How could required gun insurance be better enforced than car insurance requirements are?  Insurance is generally regulated at the state level.  So, will each state government regulate this firearm insurance?  

[Ausmumof3]

Who says they don’t?

 

Tho possible needs to be another thread and I have no idea how it wouldn’t get political.

Yeah you are right. that probably is too political for the forum. It's just one of those questions that have been playing on my mind recently.

[Ausmumof3]

If the right to bear arms as per second amendment is limited who doesn't have the right?

 

I'm not making myself clear probably and I think it varies by state but what laws are actually in place that prevent people from buying guns?

 

Any criminal conviction or at risk mental illness? Only certain types of convictions and mental illnesses? I know some of your states have laws comparable to ours but not others?

[Sandwalker]

Thoughts and prayers.

Edited November 11, 2017 by Sandwalker

[Sandwalker]

I hope the survivors have a place to meet for Sunday services tomorrow. May they find peace, who can imagine such a thing. [emoji173]

Edited November 11, 2017 by Sandwalker

[Liz CA]

Of course, I do not know the details of this incident, but I do not see how you can conclude that someone made a bomb because they did not have access to a gun.  Yes using a gun may have required less work.  They would not have had to build it.  But, I am under the impression that learning to use guns requires a learning curve.  I think some young people think a bomb sounds more exotic and would "enjoy" the process of making it. 

 

Although a gun and a bomb can both be used for damage, I wonder if the mindset of someone who uses a gun and someone who uses a bomb is different.  Using a gun seems to take a lot less involvement on the front end (you don't have to make the gun) but the person is directly involved in aiming and firing the gun.  Using a bomb requires more involvement in making the bomb, but the actual attack is less targeted at a specific person.   

 

You may be right about the bomb seeming more "special" or "exotic." As far as your question: I cannot conclude they made it strictly because they found the guns locked up but it was mentioned by one of them that they had thought of using guns.

A very interesting point is how the differences of these weapons may come into play for some people. More control with a gun but you have to be there to pull the trigger - less control with the bomb but you be able to detonate without it being obvious who is "pulling the trigger." A branch off from the gun control issues but nevertheless something interesting to consider psychologically.

 

[poppy]

If the right to bear arms as per second amendment is limited who doesn't have the right?

 

I'm not making myself clear probably and I think it varies by state but what laws are actually in place that prevent people from buying guns?

 

Any criminal conviction or at risk mental illness? Only certain types of convictions and mental illnesses? I know some of your states have laws comparable to ours but not others?

 

In the case of the Texas shooter, he had to fill  out a form at the gun store. On that form there was a checkbox that asked if he had a criminal record that would prevent him from buying guns.  He should have checked it off, but he did not . So they sold him the gun.

 

Common sense reply (IMO) is that, self reporting is a completely inadequate means of enforcing the law against convicted felons getting guns.

 

The gun-lobby reply is: he broke the law by not checking that box, he's a criminal, gun control laws don't work because criminals don't care about the law.  Status quo is good for the vast majority of legal gun owners.  We don't need change.

Edited November 11, 2017 by poppy

[poppy]

Is there a single post in this thread where people have said they would support NO changes? 

 

I get kind of frustrated when arguing against a specific action is CONSTANTLY equated with not wanting to do anything.  I have said and have seen many others say.....

 

"I support A, I support B, I support C, but I don't support D or E."  I haven't seen a single post that says "I don't think we need to do anything."

 

I have seen several posts on this thread - I think a few from you - that imply any limits would increase the number of mass bombings.  People who don't have guns will all use bombs, which may lead to even MORE casualties.... do I have the argument right? Are there changes you are in favor of.

 

I've also seen at least 3 post that say any change will make no difference at all except possibly mass confiscation.  So I'd say, that is a position in support of no change.

 

Of course, those people would probably say, increased mental health is the key.  I am skeptical that any of those particular posters are in favor of universal free mental health coverage. But, hey, SOMETHING  should be done.  But not about guns.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Well, the old guy who lived a block and a half away from the church in that tiny Texas town that Sunday morning heard the gunfire, went to his safe, took out his AR-15 and a handful of ammunition, ran barefoot towards the church, took cover behind a neighbor's pickup truck 20 yards away, and exchanged fire with the killer. The old hero is an NRA instructor. He saw that the body armor worn by the killer was the kind with gaps on the sides, so he shot through the gaps. When the wounded killer got in his vehicle and took off, the old neighbor jumped in a guy's car nearby and pursued the killer, updating police on his whereabouts along the way. He shot through the killer's rear window, aiming for his head. The killer wrecked and then shot himself.

 

There were other weapons and ammunition in the killer's vehicle. Another church a couple of blocks away was in the midst of Sunday services. The police would have had to engage the killer...

 

There are evil people in the world that commit evil acts. There is no way to get rid of 300 million guns. The evil people will find a gun or rent a truck or make a bomb or poison the water supply or throw a Molotov cocktail into a church. All the laws in the world aren't going to stop their evil. You can mock 'thoughts and prayers', but they do a lot more to help the families than more gun laws, when the existing laws are not even enforced.

 

http://nypost.com/2017/11/07/texas-church-killer-shot-babies-as-punishment-for-crying/

 

https://youtu.be/B4HEchh0XD8

Was the old NRA instructor sitting in a pew at church when someone randomly started shooting at him? If not, my point stands.

 

Considering the number of mass shootings we have, some of y’all need to step up the thoughts and prayers since apparently nothing else will be done.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

what I said was it was my fear that bombs might be turned to. I did not say that means there shouldn’t be changes. I simply stated that was something I was concerned about as an unintended consequence.

 

Are there changes I am in favor of? Well I have stated several things in regards to that question, a few separate time. But it is a long thread so I understand not reading or remembering all the posts in it or wanting to dig back through it. I know I certainly don’t lol. I am in favor of improving our background checks. Clearly there are problems with the current background check system. I am in favor of research into better tech regarding firearms safety features. Maybe some sort of fingerprint system or something so that only the owner can fire the gun or something. I mean if apple has tech that keeps law enforcement from getting into this guys phone, surely we can come up with new firearm safety features. I could certainly support banning bump stocks (as I already said in a post you responded to) and probably magazine capacity limits. I am less sure about limits on the number of guns. I support requiring some sort of training or test before getting a permit, sort of like how we require people to pass a drivers test. There may very well be other ideas I would support.

 

 

ETA: if there actually are posts that have said they don’t support any changes then I apologize for saying there weren’t. I must have missed them. As I said, it’s a long thread.

New tech is actually a good idea, unfortunately the gun lobby is actively working to prevent it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertszczerba/2016/01/11/the-nras-next-battleground-smart-guns/#e339a1e4d7f2

Edited November 11, 2017 by ChocolateReignRemix

[TechWife]

I don't know how an actuary would go about determining what risky behavior is for a gun owner and monitor that behavior. For the most part, an insurance company knows that a driver is risky after a driver has done (and gotten caught) doing a number of risky things. Or, we know that statistically, young males get into more auto accidents or people who live in certain cities have more auto accidents and robberies. What would be the actuarial risk factors that an insurance company could use?

 

Many of the accidental deaths are things like mom leaves gun out where Child A plays with it and shoots Child B. So, who does the insurance pay when Child B is dead? The mom who did the risky behavior?

 

The purpose of insurance is to return a person to whole when the person losses economic value when an uncertain event occurs. I cannot think of any situation where insurance is used primarily as a behavior deterrent. An insurance company is not necessarily going to try to reduce something from happening; it will simply price the insurance appropriately for the risk.

 

Would the gun or the gun owner be insured? What extra components (such as a bump stock) would need to be insured? What if an individual creates a homemade bump stock? Will the insurance company periodically exam all weapons? (And I don't think a bump stock was used by the Texas shooter).

 

Some individuals would be able to pay to insure 47 guns (just like some individuals can afford to insure multiple homes or cars). So, if the argument is that it would make it too costly to own too many guns if there was an added insurance cost, I worry that we will have guns disproportionately among the wealthy in society.

 

In my area, there are many uninsured drivers driving cars down the street. How could required gun insurance be better enforced than car insurance requirements are? Insurance is generally regulated at the state level. So, will each state government regulate this firearm insurance?

If you go back and read my post #334 on p. 7, I tackle a lot of these questions.

 

In regards to one of your thoughts on insurance, increased insurance costs definitely impact the behavior of drivers. At some point, a driver can even become uninsurable. Just as I have no problem with a reckless driver losing their ability to drive, I have no problem with a reckless gun owner losing their ability to own a firearm. There are many scenarios when actions cause people to lose their rights, such as the penalty of prison time, or they have to give up their personal property in order to pay court ordered restitution. Losing the ability to own and fire a gun is no different in my opinion.

 

If a gun owner is stupid enough to leave a gun where a child can access it, then yes, when that child gets hurt, the gun owner’s insurance foots the bill. That’s a no brainer. The gun owner should never again be allowed to own a gun, either, IMO. Stupidity comes with a cost.

Edited November 11, 2017 by TechWife

[Word Nerd]

Regardless of what he checked on any paper form, the dealer would have still had to do a federal background check. That didn’t pull up anything on him because the Air Force failed to notify civilian law enforcement and the federal database was not updated.

[Bootsie]

In the case of the Texas shooter, he had to fill  out a form at the gun store. On that form there was a checkbox that asked if he had a criminal record that would prevent him from buying guns.  He should have checked it off, but he did not . So they sold him the gun.

 

Common sense reply (IMO) is that, self reporting is a completely inadequate means of enforcing the law against convicted felons getting guns.

 

The gun-lobby reply is: he broke the law by not checking that box, he's a criminal, gun control laws don't work because criminals don't care about the law.  Status quo is good for the vast majority of legal gun owners.  We don't need change.

I agree that self-reporting is inadequate.  However, in the Texas shooter case, the problem goes far beyond self-reporting.  The information the federal government had was NOT included in any database as it should have been.  Not only did the shooter fail to report his background, the government failed to report it.  

 

If this had been properly reported the shooter may not have been able to get the guns.  Local businesses did background checks before hiring him as a security guard, because he did not report his past AND the Air Force did not report his past.  The background checks cannot find information that is not reported.  

 

You never know how things would have turned out differently, but in this case, one of the major things that I see that may have made a difference is if the government had done what it was supposed to do.  

[poppy]

Regardless of what he checked on any paper form, the dealer would have still had to do a federal background check. That didn’t pull up anything on him because the Air Force failed to notify civilian law enforcement and the federal database was not updated.

The Air Force has never listed anyone in that database for any crime . It’s not ‘one clerk messed up’ . It’s much bigger. And it dies have to do with utter inadequacies in our gun control policies.

[Word Nerd]

The Air Force has never listed anyone in that database for any crime . It’s not ‘one clerk messed up’ . It’s much bigger. And it dies have to do with utter inadequacies in our gun control policies.

What does that have to do with what I said? You should stop reading so much into comments and try just reading them.

Edited November 11, 2017 by Word Nerd

[Bootsie]

If you go back and read my post #334 on p. 7, I tackle a lot of these questions.

 

In regards to one of your thoughts on insurance, increased insurance costs definitely impact the behavior of drivers. At some point, a driver can even become uninsurable. Just as I have no problem with a reckless driver losing their ability to drive, I have no problem with a reckless gun owner losing their ability to own a firearm. There are many scenarios when actions cause people to lose their rights, such as the penalty of prison time, or they have to give up their personal property in order to pay court ordered restitution. Losing the ability to own and fire a gun is no different in my opinion.

 

If a gun owner is stupid enough to leave a gun where a child can access it, then yes, when that child gets hurt, the gun owner’s insurance foots the bill. That’s a no brainer. The gun owner should never again be allowed to own a gun, either, IMO. Stupidity comes with a cost.

I have reread your post, I am still not sure how it really tackles issues of how insurance could be properly priced, exactly what it is compensating for, or how we would make sure that everyone is insured.

 

My FIL was hit by a driver on the highway in Houston--the driver had no license, no proof of insurance, and his name was not the name on the registration of the car.  FIL called the police at the scene of the accident and was asked if anyone was hurt, when he said no they said they would not come out for such a minor situation they had more important things to take care of.  Maybe there are no uninsured, unlicensed drivers in your area, but in my area that is not the case.  I am failing to see how gun insurance would be much different.

 

An insurance company says if you have 5 tickets for running stop signs you are more likely to get in a wreck, and charges appropriately.  Gun safety seems to be more of a binary condition.  I don't see how the insurance company could say, mom left her gun on the kitchen table five times rather than locked in the safe, she is more likely to have the gun misused.  I don't think there are many cases of "well the gun has shot five people in the foot, so wreckless behavior must be taken place" being observed before a serious event.  I don't see how the insurance company is going to be able to observe reckless behavior in this case of guns; which would be a requirement to correctly price the risk.  What would be the observable, wreckless behaviors that are statistically correlated to risk (which is necessary for accurately pricing insurance) for the insurance companies to use?

 

If a gun owner leaves a gun where a child can access the owner's insurance foots the bill??? What bill?  Medical bills?  What if the child dies and there are not medical bills?  Wouldn't this create what is known as moral hazard in the insurance company--where the insured is less likely to take prudent steps because the insured is not out the money, the insurance company is.  If A has a gun and his sister comes into his house and accidentally shoots and kills herself, who does the insurance company pay?  

 

 

[poppy]

What does that have to do with what I said? You should stop reading so much into comments and try just reading them.

?

 

You said the system of checks and balances didn’t work because the AF didn’t bother to comply with the gun control law.

 

I said yes and it’s even worse because it’s not a fluke but systematic.

[Bootsie]

?

 

You said the system of checks and balances didn’t work because the AF didn’t bother to comply with the gun control law.

 

I said yes and it’s even worse because it’s not a fluke but systematic.

When we talk about the problem being one of a culture of guns and violence and an attitude toward guns, I think this is probably where we need to start.  

[SKL]

I think the people who are saying existing laws need to be enforced were not talking about self-reporting.  They were talking about the people and organizations who are supposed to be reporting to the registry and other databases.  Also actually prosecuting crimes that are known to have been committed.  From all the things I've heard about this guy, I wonder why he was even on the street without any kind of monitoring.

 

In general, we're also talking about prosecuting domestic violence and other forms of violence that stop short of shooting people, taking protection orders and threats seriously, prosecuting people who possess or are trying to posses guns illegally, and also prosecuting people who are allowing others to illegally use guns, including those who don't bother to run a check before selling a gun or hiring a security guard.  Probably other things that don't immediately come to mind.

 

Add to this that I do believe there should be laws against private citizens owning guns that can shoot many bullets without reloading.

[Halftime Hope]

Quote from a poster upthread:

 

"There is no legitimate, healthful use for high capacity magazines either."

 

 

Several readers on this thread have been offended when others pointed out that their lack of subject-specific knowledge, and thus their proposed restrictions, may be based on an incorrect premise, they may be ineffective, or worst of all, they may have unintended consequences.

 

I picked the assertion above because is it a nice, clean cut, easily-explained example of incomplete knowledge or understanding leading to a statement that is not accurate.    (And please excuse the length of the post, but working our way through something nuanced isn't done well in two or three sentences.)

 

There are indeed legitimate, healthful uses for high cap mags in civil society, starting with the most sober reason: 

 

1) for home self-defense, with a carefully selected round, because chances are low that you will "know your backstop" in an interior gunfight.  Why would a homeowner choose a long gun that can take a high cap mag, if that will mean he has to be careful about the round he uses? Because they are stable and reliable, easy to shoot under pressure, are semi-auto (after a shot they chamber another round without having to be manually cocked, racked, levered, etc., between rounds), and because they are easily accessorized to solve self-defense needs:  if I were to use a long gun capable of receiving a high cap mag for self-defense, I'd fit it with a red-dot optic (easy to aim under pressure), a light (to identify what I'm aiming at), and, if I had one, a suppressor (to minimize auditory exclusion and keep me as functional as possible. Yes, suppressors can be legally obtained, and they have appropriate uses.)  The ergonomics of shooting a long gun, which affects its accuracy and usability, are much better than that of a hand-gun that is similarly accessorized, particularly for women. Finally, practice rounds are plentiful and relatively inexpensive, because when it comes to self-defense, my weapons-handling had better be part of my muscle memory. My brain had better be busy processing everything else, not trying to remember the function of the weapon. Generations have debated which kind of weapon is most well-suited to home self-defense--handgun, shotgun, or long rifle.  The reality is that different people have preferences according to what works best for them.

 

2) for hunting game that is aggressive, such as feral hogs and, to a lesser degree, javelina.  Please don't assume this is just for those who hunt hogs for sport. Hogs are a huge problem in several states, doing billions of $s of serious destruction. Many farmers have begun to hunt feral hogs out of desperation because it's such a widespread problem that government is not adequate to the task, as much as they try.  I'm not going to take sides on whether to hunt or not hunt hogs, I'm just saying that the high cap mag, and the rifles that take one, are well-suited for this legitimate purpose.  (As an example, three of the top 5 best hog-hunting guns listed on the Realtree hog hunting web-page are semi-autos.)

 

3) for multiple wide-spread, much-loved shooting sports.  There are a number of different games that fit this description, and woods are not part of the required equipment.  :smilielol5:

 

So I've just made a solid argument that, off the top of my head, I can think of at least three legitimate uses for high-cap mags and the long guns that accept them.  And I've laid out a plain example of how a lack of knowledge or understanding can lead inappropriate conclusions.

 

Even so, mag restrictions are something that I would consider, on the off chance that they would help.   But I doubt it would make a difference.  There is an analysis of mass shooting crimes by gun crime researcher/analyst Gary Cleck. (Yes, I know a poster who believes he is not credible. Moving right along...) Based on the data from actual shootings, he questions, like many of us do, how much difference a 2 second reload would make to someone who is likely to be both highly motivated, highly prepared, and armed to the teeth.  Ironically, and this is *really* important in the "unintended consequences" category, those same two seconds would make a difference to someone who is defending themselves in a home invasion, for example.  (Restated: not much difference for the bad guy, but a big difference to honest citizens.)

 

I'm really much more interested in our nation moving down a path that is effective, and I think that is going to center around changing how we as a society manage our thoughts and emotions, and how much we (generally) value life.  That's why I mentioned mentoring upthread, and why it is something in which I already have "skin in the game."

Edited November 11, 2017 by Halftime Hope

[Halftime Hope]

I think the people who are saying existing laws need to be enforced were not talking about self-reporting.  They were talking about the people and organizations who are supposed to be reporting to the registry and other databases.  Also actually prosecuting crimes that are known to have been committed.  From all the things I've heard about this guy, I wonder why he was even on the street without any kind of monitoring.

 

In general, we're also talking about prosecuting domestic violence and other forms of violence that stop short of shooting people, taking protection orders and threats seriously, prosecuting people who possess or are trying to posses guns illegally, and also prosecuting people who are allowing others to illegally use guns, including those who don't bother to run a check before selling a gun or hiring a security guard.  Probably other things that don't immediately come to mind.

 

Add to this that I do believe there should be laws against private citizens owning guns that can shoot many bullets without reloading.

 

Thank you.  

 

[TravelingChris]

Late getting to this discussion but a few points.  This creep was not trained for war by the USAF (he had a domestic desk assignment and USAF does very limited gun training and doesn't issue hardly anyone a gun), had no military reason to have PTSD, but he had lots of reasons to be on the do not buy list.  Including probably for involutary commitment to a mental facility.  As it is, only involuntary commitments to Mental hospitals are disqualifying and that is how it should be if we are serious about helping mentally ill.  Because all those people who go into a mental hospital voluntarily to get medication adjustments, etc. would stay away and refuse to go if more civil liberties were denied. Furthermore, mental illness as a whole has not a high risk for violence.  The types that are higher risk are usually committed involuntarily anyway. 

 

 I think an Aussie asked, what are the federal disqualifications?  I think others have questions too. Here it is-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_4473

 

One thing most people who aren't familiar know is that any marijuana or illegal or addictive drug use is a prohibition from getting a gun.

 

I am confused by what people are calling permitting here- are we talking about this form 4473 or some other way of permitting.  Because I have lived in many states (not in NY and some of the most strict states but yes in CA) and never did anything after we bought our first gun (my favorite- a revolver) and don't see really why we should have had to do anything.  All the few other guns we bought- shotgun, etc., we bought since we lived here and also didn't require permit for guns but at that time, required it to carry our guns to a range (because we did not own a vehicle with a separate trunk).  So we got concealed carry just to take our few guns to target shoot or try trap shooting.  So dh and I have CC permit but don't actually own a holster and my revolver, while it would fit in my very large purse I am using temporarily, is not a weapon I would want to carry around since it is heavy.  I am one of those who you do want to have it though when my RA, etc isn;t acting up because I was the one person in my class that got a perfect score on SHoot/Don't Shoot and I know from experiences as a preteen, I have very quick reflexes in times of danger. 

 

My main goal is to get all the states and federal agencies to actually report all the required date to the FBI for the proper functioning of the current gun buying form.  Other changes I would support are prohibitions against gun stocks (though I think it is almost useless since it is very easy to make), expansion of reportable crimes to be violent animal abuse (that is linked with criminal psychopath behavior and was a factor in the history of this guy), maybe better tracking of guns, maybe limits to how many guns you can buy in a limited period, maybe a somewhat longer wait period, maybe limits on magazine sizes, making gun show buys also have to comply with form 4473 rules and clearance check.  Some may help.  I am not for fingerprints on guns unless they let a lot of fingerprints at times or more fingerprints.  I do not want to not be able to use my dh's purchase or me not to use his.  We both have and can still buy guns but why should we have to have 2 of every kind?  I don't know what other states require but we bought a gun lock ourselves when we purchased the first gun over 20 years ago and the more recent purchases came with some kind of lock.  As to internet sales, I think we got one- maybe the shotgun- over the internet but it was from a reputable store that sold guns and it was delivered to the local store and then we had to fill out the form 4473 again.   We are law abiding people and I am not interested in getting dinged on looking up how to get guns illegally on the internet but I am sure you can do that just as you can order up children for child porn, any drug you want, and all kinds of other evil things you can also do on the internet.

 

As to the gun bozos or whatever the term was- yeah, parts of my family have had encounters with such people.  My dd has an inlaw non close relation that she thinks qualifies and my ds has met some very peculiar and scary people both through his work and his volunteer work and hobby.  But nope, as a family, we have no time or interest in going to harass people at rallies or run around in the woods joining some paramilitary group or anything like that.  I would be just as disturbed as many of you if I heard that a neighbor was suddenly stocking up guns, buying tons of ammo, etc.  I am really concerned about cases like I heard on Judge Judy last week- a young man owned two guns- legally and responsibly. His father, who he had no reason to believe was untrustworthy, asked to borrow the guns for self protection because he was going to travel to a dangerous area.  Dear old dad had a drug addicted girlfriend who had begged him to get the guns for a short term 400 dollar loan that would be paid back in a week.  It turned out that she owed 2k and the guns went to the drug dealer by the drug addicted girlfriend who then also disappeared. It wasn't clear if Dad knew she was drug addicted but he had lied to the son about the need for the guns.  Another 2 guns going into the city of Chicago to continue the carnage there.

That is how so many of the guns in the true horror areas of our country and as to comparing only gun rates of violence with so -called developed countries-  Brazil is a top economic power.  Many areas of our country resemble areas of countries to the south of us both in violence and in living conditions and one of the driving forces of the high rates of violence is drugs.  So yeah, maybe we should legalize them- Portugal has had great success with it.

 

 

[Maus]

I have a proposal.  Perhaps even a challenge.  The Hivemind could be a really powerful force for good here.  We have a lot of collective wisdom and a strong sense of community.

 

When these events happen, there is always a lot of discussion: here, on Facebook, in the comments for the news articles, etc.  We need that, as part of the healing and mourning process.  But there is an unfortunate pattern.  We always talk about what "we" should do, but when you look at what we suggest, it's disconnected and distant.  In fact, it is always about what we want the government to do about it for us.

 

Let's lean in and make it personal.

 

Let's start really far in.  Let's ask, "What can I do?"

 

Here's what I thought of, for me:  I can teach my children (biological, nieces and nephews, and my cub scouts) that they have intrinsic worth that does not hinge on being famous.  Then I can teach them that everyone around them has that same worth, and that it is absolutely not okay to try to control them by violence.  Nor is it okay to marginalize them, or walk over them, or kill them for our own benefit.

 

Then I can reach out to my neighbors and make connections with them that are meaningful enough that I am never that guy on the news saying, "So and so was my neighbor.  He seemed like a nice normal guy.  I'm shocked that he would do this." 

 

Then, zooming back out a little, what could we as a community (could apply to any community, but I'm thinking particularly of the Hive) do?

 

Here's some possible thoughts:  We are really good at "mourning with those that mourn", right?  We come on here for comfort all the time.  What if we leaned in and flooded the comments on the news articles with "I'm so sorry for your loss. My heart aches for you," and similar heartfelt sentiments?  It would help heal the affected communities, and it might just cause a little light to go on in the next wannabe that helps him (probably -- could be her) see that the victims are people.

 

We could also consistently ask the media for stories about the victims and maybe help shift them from focusing on the killers.

 

We also have mad research skills as a group.  I personally think we aren't asking the right questions when we compare ourselves to other countries.  I consider Switzerland quite a bit, because they are known for having fairly liberal gun laws, but somehow it's working for them.  Is it because they also control ammunition purchases, as someone on here has suggested?  Where are our laws similar and where are they dissimilar?  

 

Is it not about gun control at all?  Maybe there is a fundamental difference in how they train their militia, such that they have lower rates of PTSD and anger management issues?  I know our U.S. soldiers are trained to depersonalize their targets to make them more likely to shoot to kill.  Maybe the Swiss don't do that?

 

Maybe it is about mental health.  The rates of mental illness are pretty much identical: Either 1 in 5 Americans (NIMH)/or 1 in 4 (NAMI) Americans have mental health issues at a level that require help.  1 in 4 Europeans (WHO) do.  So what's the difference?  Do they have better access to mental health care?  Less stigma about seeking help?  (I have been really impressed with England's new campaign, Heads Together, championed by the young royals.)

 

Maybe it's a difference in their school systems, and they are more cooperative and less competitive, and they produce fewer bullies?

 

Can we, here at the HIVE, find these possible differences and start asking our senators/congressmen to investigate changes based on them?

 

Anyway, just my thoughts.

[Ausmumof3]

Quote from a poster upthread:

 

"There is no legitimate, healthful use for high capacity magazines either."

 

 

Several readers on this thread have been offended when others pointed out that their lack of subject-specific knowledge, and thus their proposed restrictions, may be based on an incorrect premise, they may be ineffective, or worst of all, they may have unintended consequences.

 

I picked the assertion above because is it a nice, clean cut, easily-explained example of incomplete knowledge or understanding leading to a statement that is not accurate. (And please excuse the length of the post, but working our way through something nuanced isn't done well in two or three sentences.)

 

There are indeed legitimate, healthful uses for high cap mags in civil society, starting with the most sober reason:

 

1) for home self-defense, with a carefully selected round, because chances are low that you will "know your backstop" in an interior gunfight. Why would a homeowner choose a long gun that can take a high cap mag, if that will mean he has to be careful about the round he uses? Because they are stable and reliable, easy to shoot under pressure, are semi-auto (after a shot they chamber another round without having to be manually cocked, racked, levered, etc., between rounds), and because they are easily accessorized to solve self-defense needs: if I were to use a long gun capable of receiving a high cap mag for self-defense, I'd fit it with a red-dot optic (easy to aim under pressure), a light (to identify what I'm aiming at), and, if I had one, a suppressor (to minimize auditory exclusion and keep me as functional as possible. Yes, suppressors can be legally obtained, and they have appropriate uses.) The ergonomics of shooting a long gun, which affects its accuracy and usability, are much better than that of a hand-gun that is similarly accessorized, particularly for women. Finally, practice rounds are plentiful and relatively inexpensive, because when it comes to self-defense, my weapons-handling had better be part of my muscle memory. My brain had better be busy processing everything else, not trying to remember the function of the weapon. Generations have debated which kind of weapon is most well-suited to home self-defense--handgun, shotgun, or long rifle. The reality is that different people have preferences according to what works best for them.

 

2) for hunting game that is aggressive, such as feral hogs and, to a lesser degree, javelina. Please don't assume this is just for those who hunt hogs for sport. Hogs are a huge problem in several states, doing billions of $s of serious destruction. Many farmers have begun to hunt feral hogs out of desperation because it's such a widespread problem that government is not adequate to the task, as much as they try. I'm not going to take sides on whether to hunt or not hunt hogs, I'm just saying that the high cap mag, and the rifles that take one, are well-suited for this legitimate purpose. (As an example, three of the top 5 best hog-hunting guns listed on the Realtree hog hunting web-page are semi-autos.)

 

3) for multiple wide-spread, much-loved shooting sports. There are a number of different games that fit this description, and woods are not part of the required equipment. :smilielol5:

 

So I've just made a solid argument that, off the top of my head, I can think of at least three legitimate uses for high-cap mags and the long guns that accept them. And I've laid out a plain example of how a lack of knowledge or understanding can lead inappropriate conclusions.

 

Even so, mag restrictions are something that I would consider, on the off chance that they would help. But I doubt it would make a difference. There is an analysis of mass shooting crimes by gun crime researcher/analyst Gary Cleck. (Yes, I know a poster who believes he is not credible. Moving right along...) Based on the data from actual shootings, he questions, like many of us do, how much difference a 2 second reload would make to someone who is likely to be both highly motivated, highly prepared, and armed to the teeth. Ironically, and this is *really* important in the "unintended consequences" category, those same two seconds would make a difference to someone who is defending themselves in a home invasion, for example. (Restated: not much difference for the bad guy, but a big difference to honest citizens.)

 

I'm really much more interested in our nation moving down a path that is effective, and I think that is going to center around changing how we as a society manage our thoughts and emotions, and how much we (generally) value life. That's why I mentioned mentoring upthread, and why it is something in which I already have "skin in the game."

I would counter argue that in a hunting scenario having a limited number of shots encourages hunters to hone and refine their skills and only take shots where they are confident they can kill. This means less potential for injured animals that escape into the bush.

 

Not a fan of the spray and pray method here. If you are going to hunt you better do your best to make sure you are a good shot and not leaving injured animals running around...

[Paige]

I'm of two minds about it.

 

On the one hand, there is random public violence like the Sandy Hook thing for instance.

 

On the other, distinguishing domestic violence from other violence has disturbing policy implications.  It's too easy to say it's 'just' domestic violence, which was done for centuries, and that is a sickening and minimizing, untruthful practice.

 

I think we could prevent *some* mass shootings if we took domestic violence more seriously. Just like animal abuse is a warning about possible future violence towards humans, simple domestic violence should be seen as a warning sign for potential mass casualty events. Violence against women and children needs to be taken much more seriously. I can't believe the TX shooter was able to crack an infant's skull and get off with a misdemeanor. If someone cracked my baby's skull I would want to rip his heart out with my teeth. A misdemeanor devalues the baby's life. 

 

Is there a single post in this thread where people have said they would support NO changes? 

 

I get kind of frustrated when arguing against a specific action is CONSTANTLY equated with not wanting to do anything.  I have said and have seen many others say.....

 

"I support A, I support B, I support C, but I don't support D or E."  I haven't seen a single post that says "I don't think we need to do anything."

Why do you suppose if so many people support reasonable changes (hypothetical A, B, and C) that nothing ever gets implemented? Are we too busy as a society talking about our differences to even see the common ground? Too fearful of letting the other side have a win? It's not that nobody wants to do anything, but that nothing gets done. 

 

Well, the old guy who lived a block and a half away from the church in that tiny Texas town that Sunday morning heard the gunfire, went to his safe, took out his AR-15 and a handful of ammunition, ran barefoot towards the church, took cover behind a neighbor's pickup truck 20 yards away, and exchanged fire with the killer. The old hero is an NRA instructor. He saw that the body armor worn by the killer was the kind with gaps on the sides, so he shot through the gaps. When the wounded killer got in his vehicle and took off, the old neighbor jumped in a guy's car nearby and pursued the killer, updating police on his whereabouts along the way. He shot through the killer's rear window, aiming for his head. The killer wrecked and then shot himself.

 

The NRA instructor was definitely a hero in my mind. He took a personal risk to try to help people. It doesn't matter if the shooter had already left the church. We don't know where he intended to go next. BUT- he's not your average NRA member with a gun. I don't think many individuals with guns in their homes would be able to rush out and have the skills to shoot the that guy's armor under pressure. I'm sure a lot would try- people want to help and do the right thing, but I don't think this man's actions necessarily support the argument that more armed good guys will stop armed bad guys. This man was special. 

[Halftime Hope]

I would counter argue that in a hunting scenario having a limited number of shots encourages hunters to hone and refine their skills and only take shots where they are confident they can kill. This means less potential for injured animals that escape into the bush.

 

Not a fan of the spray and pray method here. If you are going to hunt you better do your best to make sure you are a good shot and not leaving injured animals running around...

 

I agree, but you notice I'm talking about hogs, not deer.  (I'm not familiar with hunting outside my region, so I couldn't speak knowledgeably about any other large species.)

 

There is a vast difference in behavior between deer and feral hogs, in grouping, in patterns of movement (multiples with hogs), and when individuals are hit.  The chance of suffering for a hog is much higher without adequate firepower.

 

ETA: 

Edited November 11, 2017 by Halftime Hope

[Ausmumof3]

I agree, but you notice I'm talking about hogs, not deer. (I'm not familiar with hunting outside my region, so I couldn't speak knowledgeably about any other large species.)

 

There is a vast difference in behavior between deer and feral hogs, in grouping, in patterns of movement (multiples with hogs), and when individuals are hit. The chance of suffering for a hog is much higher without adequate firepower.

 

We do have feral pigs but not locally so I don't know how it works. The limit is a 10 shot although I believe professionals can get a different license that might qualify them differently. I know dogs and trapping methods are used as well.

[Bootsie]

I think the people who are saying existing laws need to be enforced were not talking about self-reporting.  They were talking about the people and organizations who are supposed to be reporting to the registry and other databases.  Also actually prosecuting crimes that are known to have been committed.  From all the things I've heard about this guy, I wonder why he was even on the street without any kind of monitoring.

 

 

It appears that all of the possible reporting, prosecuting, and monitoring that could have happened in this particular case would have been done by the federal government.  This makes me question whether passing more laws that would be enforced by this same government would really be an effective solution.  

[Halftime Hope]

For anyone wanting an interesting side trail, the Wikipedia page on gun restrictions in Washington, D.C. has a detailed history of the court cases over time, and among the story there are listings or references to restrictions and bannings, and how they've individually held up (i.e., been declared unconstitutional) in a court of law. 

 

Pretty fascinating stuff.

Edited November 12, 2017 by Halftime Hope