Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

[nbdy]

Re: Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

Honestly, I have grown quite weary of trying figure out the "why" of each incident, as if one form of murder is somehow different from another. It is premeditated murder, and the reason is irrelevant. The ultimate cause is that the murderers are, essentially, a-holes. End of story. Sorry for the grumpiness, but let's change the script. This story line is tired.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

Honestly, I have grown quite weary of trying figure out the "why" of each incident, as if one form of murder is somehow different from another. It is premeditated murder, and the reason is irrelevant. The ultimate cause is that the murderers are, essentially, a-holes. End of story. Sorry for the grumpiness, but let's change the script. This story line is tired.

I feel that you are right. The ultimate cause of all murder - and human suffering - is human ass-holiness. When a person believes he/she deserves or should have more than he/she actually has, badness results, in one form or another...

[Marradin]

Re: Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

By Odin's missing eye - Why don't Americans at least INSIST on Mental health checks before guns get sold to someone? - I'm not gonna pretend that I know your culture really - but we have one incident and we get terror warning in our travel advisories - You have mass shootings every week and we still don't give you a 'This place is far more dangerous than home' warning. So how about putting a few controls in place to keep them out of the obviously insane?

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

By Odin's missing eye - Why don't Americans at least INSIST on Mental health checks before guns get sold to someone? - I'm not gonna pretend that I know your culture really - but we have one incident and we get terror warning in our travel advisories - You have mass shootings every week and we still don't give you a 'This place is far more dangerous than home' warning. So how about putting a few controls in place to keep them out of the obviously insane?

It's largely political. Politicos gain power by painting things in black and white - any precaution regarding who can buy a gun and who can't is exploited by some factions.

Most people, IRL, who enjoy shooting sports (in whatever form - hunting, target shooting - whatever) are in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of known criminals, or those who suffer mental illnesses that would make possession of a gun a danger to themselves or others.

We, who shoot, are not insane. We want a safe world for ourselves and our families as much as everybody else. We find ourselves grossly misrepresented in the political forums, though, and we are beginning to get sick of it.

[Marradin]

Re: Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

I wasn't saying everyone who owned a gun was insane- nor is everyone who commits a mass shooting - but ALOT of those who do would surely be screened out by a mental health exam. I would love to go back to shooting but down here it's really hard and expensive to get a license to shoot - let alone own a gun (Too hard IMHO) but in the US it seems to be too easy. Surely there could be a happy medium.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

...Surely there could be a happy medium.

Yes - that is the point I was trying to make - there is a happy medium. Previously, politically, that "happy medium" was denied by those with a vested interest.

I predict that the "happy medium" will become increasingly mainstream in the near future, even - especially - amongst gun enthusiasts. The NRA will either go with the flow, or will become increasingly marginalized as a radical fringe group.

[monsno_leedra]

Re: Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

I think getting the gun is not as cut and dried as the media tries to paint. My son waited a month for checks and such plus going through various classes to get his permit for a handgun. Yet that was because the particular gun dealer and their insistence on adhering to the established rules. Yet I've known other's who got a gun in nothing flat because the dealer was more interested in selling a gun. Then factor in how "Official" each individual seller or business is in following the rules. That doesn't even touch who is responsible for establishing the legality of selling a private weapon to another person which also comes into play.

None of that touching upon the fact many medical and legal records are not available for general search. Especially medical records that pertain to mental health and impose upon a persons rights and confidentiality with their doctor. Nor does it truly touch upon the idea of a national data base when we have issues at time of providing police records to other counties in the same state much less other states or territories. Police records, profiling, medical are all impasses that are not as easily removed as the media would like to make people think regarding guns.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

A lot of this depends on which state, and which specific district you are in. I, personally, would like to see federal minimums on things like background checks.

[monsno_leedra]

Re: Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

A lot of this depends on which state, and which specific district you are in. I, personally, would like to see federal minimums on things like background checks.

I don't disagree at all. Bad part is any time something like that is mentioned we get the same old profiling arguments. Not even considering today criminal records are feed into a national data base and still many things are missed due to clerical errors, false identities, inconsistent definitions of crimes and convictions, man power needed to update and maintain. Look at how corrupt and unreliable the sex offenders data base is and how there is no difference between an 18 year old with a 17 year old girl friend or a 40 something man who rapes a child. An initial search simply shows both as relatively being sex offenders and nothing more. Lets not even consider accuracy of the data entry process, heck I still fight my credit stuff because wrong entries or people with similar names and close ssn's.

[Medusa]

Re: Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

This is why we can't have nice things. This is utter wtfery in action.

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

I can go buy any kind of gun I want at a yard sale, auction, etc. for cash - no paper trail, no background check, nothing. The state I used to live in was completely different. I'm sure people from there take road trips here and stock up. Guns get around just like drugs do.

[Hickory67]

Re: Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

I've owned guns all my life and worked in professions (military, gov civilian) that require me to maintain proficiency in a number of firearms. My personal collection looks a lot like the ones I deploy with - because I need to be as sharp out there as I hope I don't have to be here.

The spate of mass shootings by whack-jobs is horrendous, but I can attest that the vast majority of thse with such intent will not go the legal route to get their guns. With a few exceptions, those that buy guns legally mostly use them legally. By exceptions, I can point to the occasional domestic violence, crime of passion, etc where a guy goes off the deep end and kills his spouse and himself. These are horrible tragedies, but do not constitute an existential threat to society.

The background check for purchasing a firearm does address mental health - the threshold being if a person was ever in residential treatment for mental health disorders, which is a disqualifier for purchase. It's easy to simply check "no", so if there is no follow up on that particular question by the checking agency (which is ultimately FBI), the gun will go out the door. So that is one area that can be tightened up. Domestic violence history is another disqualifier which usually gets caught, as does history of felony convictions.

The fallacy the media would have people believe is that guns shows bypass those background checks. That is not true at all. The same criteria applies to firearms purchases at gun shows as at gun shops. Handguns and now rifles other than the hunting brands have 30 day waiting periods while the checks are being done (at least in my state), and the vendor ships the firearm to the purchaser's local gun dealer. Shotguns of any type can be carried out the door with the initial, cursory check.

Shootings of the type in San Bernardino will not stop, I'm afraid. This is only the beginning. This is the existential threat. I've dealt with it all my adult life overseas, in hopes of keeping it over there and not here where my family is. Too late for that.

Which is why my personal collection looks so much like my deployed issue. I'm obligated to fight and defend, so I need the right tools for the job.

All that being said, I am NOT a raging conservative. I lean right in this area specifically because it's been my life.

[Spiny Norman]

Re: Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

I can go buy any kind of gun I want at a yard sale, auction, etc. for cash - no paper trail, no background check, nothing. The state I used to live in was completely different. I'm sure people from there take road trips here and stock up. Guns get around just like drugs do.

Quite worrying, though it doesn't surprise me there is a black market for guns.

[ThePaganMafia]

Re: Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

I've owned guns all my life and worked in professions (military, gov civilian) that require me to maintain proficiency in a number of firearms. My personal collection looks a lot like the ones I deploy with - because I need to be as sharp out there as I hope I don't have to be here.

The spate of mass shootings by whack-jobs is horrendous, but I can attest that the vast majority of thse with such intent will not go the legal route to get their guns. With a few exceptions, those that buy guns legally mostly use them legally. By exceptions, I can point to the occasional domestic violence, crime of passion, etc where a guy goes off the deep end and kills his spouse and himself. These are horrible tragedies, but do not constitute an existential threat to society.

The background check for purchasing a firearm does address mental health - the threshold being if a person was ever in residential treatment for mental health disorders, which is a disqualifier for purchase. It's easy to simply check "no", so if there is no follow up on that particular question by the checking agency (which is ultimately FBI), the gun will go out the door. So that is one area that can be tightened up. Domestic violence history is another disqualifier which usually gets caught, as does history of felony convictions.

The fallacy the media would have people believe is that guns shows bypass those background checks. That is not true at all. The same criteria applies to firearms purchases at gun shows as at gun shops. Handguns and now rifles other than the hunting brands have 30 day waiting periods while the checks are being done (at least in my state), and the vendor ships the firearm to the purchaser's local gun dealer. Shotguns of any type can be carried out the door with the initial, cursory check.

Shootings of the type in San Bernardino will not stop, I'm afraid. This is only the beginning. This is the existential threat. I've dealt with it all my adult life overseas, in hopes of keeping it over there and not here where my family is. Too late for that.

Which is why my personal collection looks so much like my deployed issue. I'm obligated to fight and defend, so I need the right tools for the job.

All that being said, I am NOT a raging conservative. I lean right in this area specifically because it's been my life.

Actually this is not an existential threat as the vast, vast majority of mass shootings are done by people with no terrorist ties.Quite the defeatist attitude though that we are better off stockpiling weapons than trying to bring down the rate of mass shootings.

[DragonsFriend]

Re: Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

There is supposed to be a mental check done before guns are purchased. There is a criminal history check done for any purchase. In order to be unqualified to buy a gun you must have been adjudicated mentally disturbed or have committed a violent crime or a felony. If you have never been in court but you have been seeing a psychiatrist for the last twenty years then you are OK to buy a gun. In the USA, doctors and mental health officials are "mandatory reporters" which mean if they believe that you are a danger to yourself or others they are legally obliged to report you to the police. The same is true of most clergy. If you have never been reported then you are legally able to buy a gun.

We have the background check but like any other bureaucratic system there are loopholes. One of the democratic presidential candidates has a past felon as an armed guard. (how is that possible?)
If, after serving your sentence for a felony, you are a "good citizen" for ten years you can ask that your record be expunged and your rights restored. If the court believes it is in the best interest of society they can have the record expunged and restore your rights. Then you can buy guns legally again.

The right to defend one's self and the state in which they live is also a responsibility. The police can't be everywhere and they are not required to protect individual citizens. They are there to take the statements and try to catch the bad guy after the crime has been committed. You are the only one who can prevent yourself from being a crime victim. Unfortunately defending yourself can also be a life threatening act for you. You are open to criminal and civil prosecution when using force to defend your own life or the lives of others.

Even at that there are (by the surgeon generals findings ordered by Obama) 1.5 to 3 million times every year when people use guns to prevent a crime, most often never even firing a shot. That means that every day (on an average) there are more crimes stopped by good people with guns than murders in a year. Those places in the USA with the strictest gun controls are where most "gun crime" occurs. Typically the areas with the least controls on concealed carry of firearms are the places with the lowest violent crime rates. why is it that most of the "mass shootings" occur in "gun free zones"? (a "mass shooting" is where three or more people are shot in a single event) Could it be that if others have guns the shooters don't get to shoot the third time? It happens!