Columbine Anniversary And Media Still In Bed With Ant-Gun Lobby

[Armelius]

It was an onslaught of the senses with a revisit to a time when police officers weren't stationed in High Schools and the biggest problem schools had were drugs.

Plenty of people on hand to speak about the horrors of living through a gunfight and being trapped in a high school that resembles a prison.

Biggest question was could it be prevented today? The answer is that people are more paranoid than they ever have been without smoking one joint.

Sen. Feinstien's 60 minutes interview was brought up that now still wasn't the time to change gun laws and the economy was what mattered. But it's still on the back burner.

NBC barely mentioned Oklahoma City bombing where many more people died.

Waco wasn't mentioned at all. The overzealous police state rarely gets the press it deserves.

Oh, and to the governors, politicians and police out there who believe guns should be regulated out of existence...guns are here for self preservation and protection. They are also great equalizers making the frail and weak just as capable as someone more that capable of doing them great harm.

[Cold_Zero]

One minor correction, Waco was perpetrated by the BATF, FBI and later the National Guard (to provide assistance).

I watched NBC's coverage of the anniversary and I am still blown away that these kids attempted to build propane bombs and pipe bombs. No amount of Gun Control would have stopped the massacre. No, maybe good parenting could have stopped it?

There were already laws that were broken in the Columbine case. Those kids should have never had the weapons that they did, because it was against Federal and State law. So more laws on the books probably would have yielded the same results.

It really sucks that the students at Columbine had to die at the hands of these maniacs. They interviewed the Grandfather of the girl shot for her belief in Christ, he is a Pastor here in Central Indiana.

[OriginalWheelman]

Gun control won't stop the anger and hatred that made these kids shoot up the place. That's like saying that since criminals use crowbars to break open doors, crowbars should be banned, despite all their other uses. You can not blame the tool for the job it is used on. It would be like banning cars because they are used in getaways. The real problem has not been dealt with. The problem being the psychological health of those students. It is too late for that, no amount of laws will bring back the dead, and no new laws will prevent travesties like this. The problem was the kids that pulled the trigger, not the guns they used. You want to prevent the next school shooting? Get involved in these kids lives and give them someone to talk to other than their friends who are just as inexperienced / stupid. Be a positive role model.

[DJ Raijin]

Criminals are criminals because they don't follow the law.

Therefore, laws only affect those that follow them. Banning certain firearms would only affect the law abiding citizen and not the criminal.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Ant guns? Oh no!

I need sleep.

[telcoman]

Criminals are criminals because they don't follow the law.

Therefore, laws only affect those that follow them. Banning certain firearms would only affect the law abiding citizen and not the criminal.

I don't think so!

Too many guns in the hands of criminals and the mentally challenged.

Once all the republicans are gone that suck up to the NRA things are going to change. There are no more republicans in the northeast. They have all been voted out of office.

Second amendment yes!

A$$holes and misfits able to acquire guns NO

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/ne...story

Telcoman

[EazyBreazy]

I don't think so!

Too many guns in the hands of criminals and the mentally challenged.

Once all the republicans are gone that suck up to the NRA things are going to change. There are no more republicans in the northeast. They have all been voted out of office.

Second amendment yes!

A$$holes and misfits able to acquire guns NO

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/ne...story

Telcoman

New laws will not prevent someone whom is ineligible for buying a weapon from doing so. Especially not those whom know exactly who to speak with about getting a gun that is either, stolen, illegally imported, or untraceable by any other method.

Fact: A convicted felon is not eligible to purchase a weapon ever again by law.

Fact: Often times convicted felons on parole are caught with weapons obtained by some ILLEGAL means.

Fact: There's not a damned thing another law will do to stop this. All it will do is either outlaw certain guns for those of us whom follow the law or make it so difficult to purchase the guns that law abiding citizens want that it is too much of a hassle.

There's plenty of laws. The thing that needs to be done is to reduce the number of criminals. I have a few ideas for that, but, I'll keep them to myself as they're not shared by many.

[Mr1der]

I dig it.



here's a lovely video on the current state of the gun issue.

in my opinion, the anti gunners got served.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUHbU8gH5Rk

[Urabus GodofTraction]

in my opinion, the anti gunners got served.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUHbU8gH5Rk

Oh f***, b**** got served!

"I wonder who's fighting in Iraq right now?"SNAP!

She about choked on her stupid face.

[4cefed]

A couple years ago an anti-gun acquaintance of mine tried to throw one in my face. A school teacher was shot to death at the school (after the kids had gone home thankfully,) by her ex-boyfriend. I immediately replied

"No she didn't." (reading about the story I knew she was.)

The he gets red in the face and shouts: "YES SHE DID, I just read about it!!"

I replied "How could she be shot on school grounds when it's illegal to carry a gun there?"

...Silence

He then scowled and walked away.

[telcoman]

Here is another reason why

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/ne...story

Telcoman

[JustinStrife]

I don't think so!

Too many guns in the hands of criminals and the mentally challenged.

Once all the republicans are gone that suck up to the NRA things are going to change. There are no more republicans in the northeast. They have all been voted out of office.

Second amendment yes!

A$$holes and misfits able to acquire guns NO

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/ne...story

Telcoman

GMAFB

Why don't we go to downtown L.A., Chicago, New York City, etc and ask the thugs where they bought their guns and how they attained them legally. Oh wait, they didn't.

People with CCP are so far more unlikely to commit crimes than the average American, it's not even a comparison. Responsible Gun Owners are not the problem. You can't expect the Police to protect you. The Judicial system already has stated it's not their job.

[C-Kwik]

GMAFB

Why don't we go to downtown L.A., Chicago, New York City, etc and ask the thugs where they bought their guns and how they attained them legally. Oh wait, they didn't.

Nope, they didn't. But someone along the line did and made an illegal sale. I have a problem with this. I'd like to see a solution to it. I don't see the problem with gun registries. I don't see a problem in requiring notices of the transfer of registry of a gun in a private sale. The lack of such provisions and uniformity in sales procedures from state to state opens a lot of doors for the sale of guns to people who should not have it. Could criminals still get their hands on it? Sure. But it becomes harder and harder to do so, which means the black market price of said guns go up. When prices go up, demand goes down. The rules of economics don't change in the black market...

People with CCP are so far more unlikely to commit crimes than the average American, it's not even a comparison. Responsible Gun Owners are not the problem. You can't expect the Police to protect you. The Judicial system already has stated it's not their job.

Of course responsible gun owners are not a problem. If there were not responsible, then they would be a part of the problem. Personally, I have no problem with people owning guns in general. The problem I have is with the irresponsible people owning guns. I'd like to figure out a way to weed them out, or perhaps turn them into more responsible gun owners (this applies to naive/ignorant gun owners; obviously some people simply don't give a crap). I think both the pro and anti gun control groups can agree there is a problem with allowing irresponsible people and criminals to own guns. The problem I seem to see with most anti-gun control folks is they don't look for solutions to the problem. It just simply gets dismissed with excuses of "it infringes on my rights" or "it will make gun purchasing harder" etc, etc. While gun ownership is indeed a right, its is also a big responsibility. As such, if it requires a bit more work on your part to get a particular gun, then so be it. Doesn't mean you can't get it. Jumping through a few extra hoops is hardly a problem if the end result is that it can help reduce the number of guns sold illegally...

[Cold_Zero]

CwikI agree with you, as a gun owner I think that responsible gun owners do accept certain responsibilities in order to exercise their rights. It is really no different than voting in Indiana where I have to provide Government (federal or state) Identification when I go into my polling station. I provide ID and the precinct captains verify my identity. To be honest, I do the same thing when I purchase a firearm. I would even contend that I go through MUCH MORE hoops when trying to purchase a firearm. Not only do I have to provide a Government Identification, but I have to fill out a survey asking me all sorts of questions as to my Mental, Legal and National Origin status. Once I am done, I then have to submit to a Federal Background Check and wait until I am cleared through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and then I am free to pay for my purchase. In some states, thank God not Indiana, I am required to then register my firearm (or myself) with the local Law Enforcement Officials in order to lawfully own a handgun. But unlike providing Government Identification in order to vote, I also pay a high amount of taxes not only on Ammunition, but also on the Firearms themselves in order to exercise my rights.

The ironic thing is that I am a Conceal Carry License holder and I still have to go through the 'hoops' mentioned above. I have submitted to a State Level background check, been finger printed and paid @ $170, in order for the state that I live in to clear me to conceal carry. So not only have I got through a Tier 1 level of 'hoops' but I have gone through a Tier 2 level of 'hoops.'

All this in addition to being a member of the National Rifle Association, locking up my firearms so that young hands and criminals can not take them, being proficient with all the firearms and I know how to operate my firearms safely.

I resent the Anti Gun Lobby throwing out gimmicks that only penalize lawful gun owners. I would bet that these would be the same people that would cry bloody murder if the State came down require people to obtain licenses, submit to criminal background checks and submit DNA in order to have sexual intercourse. Because a few people (criminals) in society use sex as a weapon and other irresponsible people transmit sexually transmitted diseases, everyone has to suffer and jump through hoops in order to have sex. No I think we can all agree that the sensible thing to do is to prosecute to the fullest extent of the Law, people who violate the myriads of gun laws that are on the books at the Federal and State level.

We can legislate what if's all we want, but if we don't enforce the laws that we do have, new laws mean nothing. I would suggest that people get acquainted with the National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act if you think there are not enough gun laws on the books.

You mentioned that YOU would like responsible gun owners suggest methods for curing the problems that are related to firearms. Well, it is called the NRA-ILA. The NRA-ILA works with state and federal legislatures to craft good gun laws and advise legislators how the effects of certain changes in the laws will impact lawful gun owners. I get sick of people, who are uninformed, claim that responsible gun owners do nothing but shoot down (pun intended) and poo-poo gun laws.bud

[Repo Man]

I think both the pro and anti gun control groups can agree there is a problem with allowing irresponsible people and criminals to own guns.

Well first, as already stated, criminals are NOT allowed to own guns. Period. Whenever anyone goes to a gun store or buys a gun from a dealer at a gun show, he or she must submit to a NICS on the spot. If he or she is not cleared by the federal authorities, he or she does not get to buy a gun. Period. Not up for debate. These federal authorities can tell if you have been cited for something as trivial as a speeding ticket, much less having been arrested for domestic battery (for example).

Second, in order to not sell to "irresponsible people", one must first define "irresponsible people".

What would your definition be?

[C-Kwik]

You mentioned that YOU would like responsible gun owners suggest methods for curing the problems that are related to firearms. Well, it is called the NRA-ILA. The NRA-ILA works with state and federal legislatures to craft good gun laws and advise legislators how the effects of certain changes in the laws will impact lawful gun owners. I get sick of people, who are uninformed, claim that responsible gun owners do nothing but shoot down (pun intended) and poo-poo gun laws.bud

What have they done to proactively reduce gun related crime? As far as I can tell, they act purely reactively...

I will respond more generally to the rest of your post below.

Well first, as already stated, criminals are NOT allowed to own guns. Period. Whenever anyone goes to a gun store or buys a gun from a dealer at a gun show, he or she must submit to a NICS on the spot. If he or she is not cleared by the federal authorities, he or she does not get to buy a gun. Period. Not up for debate. These federal authorities can tell if you have been cited for something as trivial as a speeding ticket, much less having been arrested for domestic battery (for example).

Second, in order to not sell to "irresponsible people", one must first define "irresponsible people".

What would your definition be?

But, such people can use a middle man in a straw purchase. And while it is indeed illegal, we know that many criminals have guns in their possession. Forget about what the law says is legal or not. I'm all about real results. Saying something is illegal doesn't make the problem go away so simply. So the challenge is in enforcement. But the problem is that it will always be hard to enforce when the hands of our police are constantly tied by legal loopholes. I haven't heard of one NRA-ILA backed measure to try and plug up these loopholes. Thus, straw purchasing is still an easy solution for criminals. And so are FFL's who sell illegally. And so are private sales that require no background checks.

Personally, I think one way to go is to require registration of firearms and transfers of firearms. This allows better abilities for law enforcement to track where crime guns are coming from. A person making multiple straw purchases or a dealer with several reports of thefts could be scrutinized and in cases where it can be proven that illegal transactions took place, they can effectively prosecute. The side effect here is that it would help to create a level of responsibility in sellers.

If we can hold bartenders accountable for drunk driving then I don't see why gun dealers can't be held to similar ethics.

As for who I define as irresponsible: anyone who would shoot at another person with the intent to harm or kill mainly. This of course excludes self-defense and job-related. Would this be absolute? Nope. Its fairly broad as I'd relent initial thoughts to experts on this subject and it would likely be somewhat of a moving target anyways.

That said, I ran across a blog written by Jay Wachtel, a former ATF agent. I've referred to some information he provides about gun sales before in similar debates, but his blog spells out an opinion from someone who was in law enforcement and has seen how gun trafficking works and knows where these guns are ending up and how they are being used. He also puts forth some ideas and thoughts on what the key issues and potential solutions are.

Feel free to read around. He's conveniently organized his blogs by topic as well:

http://www.policeissues.com/html/gun_control.html

I will be surprised if any of the "righties" here can stomach reading all of it. Feel free to prove me wrong.

[Kalypso]

this thread is interesting... cant read the whole thing right this second... too tired but just a thought.

guns dont kill people... repressed humans beings do.

our right to bear arms is the only thing stopping the us from becominga fascists empire.

[HashiriyaS14]

our right to bear arms is the only thing stopping the us from becoming a fascists empire.

^^What's going to stop "the us" from incorrectly pluralizing words?

Sorry.....had to.

I thought we were blaming "DOOM" for Columbine, not guns. They need to decide what/who they're blaming and stick with it. This shxt is confusing.

Unfortunately, a certain tiny contingent of society will always be nuts, and even if they can't get firearms, then they'll flood subway cars with sarin gas or blow up government buildings with fertilizer. There isn't much we can do about it except have excellent law enforcement and try and catch it before it happens.

This doesn't mean that the logic is reversible to "everything should be legal", but it does mean that just because some crazy a$$hole uses a hi-point carbine to shoot people in the head, we can prevent future head-shootings by outlawing all hi-point carbines. That is toddler logic.

[Cold_Zero]

What have they done to proactively reduce gun related crime? As far as I can tell, they act purely reactively...

I have to ask though, because I think you are coming to this debate that it is incumbent of the NRA or lawful gun owners to proactively reduce gun related crime. Ultimately whose responsibility is it to fight crime and reduce gun related crime? I have to think that it is the Government, through Law Enforcement, Judges and Legislators. How silly would it be to require the SCCA or a car enthusiast lobby to work to reduce the amount of stolen cars? If they choose to work with authorities to preserve the rights while government craft laws that is their prerogative. Just because I vote and I cherish my voting rights does not mean that I necessarily have to be at the forefront of ever legislature trying to cut down on voter fraud.

But I have to think it is ultimately up to the government to reduce gun related crime. We get so wrapped up in prevention and fighting What If’s that are not the core of the problem instead of using sound methods that we as a society are not willing to fund.

Quote »So the challenge is in enforcement.[/quote]I totally agree and I would go as far to say that proper enforcement of the gun laws that we do have is KEY to reducing violent crimes related to firearms. The problem with our society is that Legislators pass new gun laws (on top of the existing laws that we do have), pat themselves on the back and say “We fought crime today.” While no money is allocated to put more Law Enforcement Officers on the streets, to fully fund and staff the Court Houses so that Judges can hear these increased cases, no new jails are built to house the increase in criminals. Not to mention that “Truth in Sentencing” is never passed, thus not holding criminals accountable for their entire sentence.

While I can’t speak to the Virginia State Code, I am sure a few here can speak to the mandatory additional sentences that are tacked on to crimes when a firearm is used in the course of the crime. I think this is a great example what State Legislatures and the Federal Government can do cut down on gun related violent crime. The only problem is that the people, the States and the Federal Government need to pony up money to pay for the increase in criminals through the system.

Saying something is illegal doesn't make the problem go away so simply.

And legislating more laws for something that is already illegal and not enforced wont fix the problem either.

Quote »Personally, I think one way to go is to require registration of firearms and transfers of firearms. This allows better abilities for law enforcement to track where crime guns are coming from. A person making multiple straw purchases or a dealer with several reports of thefts could be scrutinized and in cases where it can be proven that illegal transactions took place, they can effectively prosecute. The side effect here is that it would help to create a level of responsibility in sellers. [/quote]I would be willing to relent as a Lawful Responsible Gun owner to your idea, if we go back and repeal the gun laws that make hard to own fully automatic weapons. If you want to register firearms and transfers, fine. But then I should be allowed to own what ever the f*** weapon I want to. If I want an M-2 50cal machine gun, I should be able to walk into a store and purchase one with out BATF and local law enforcement approval.

As I always ask, because I deal with databases and data all day long, if you track information what are going to do with it? Data sitting on a DB somewhere does not fight crime. And unfunded mandates (like the Federal Government is so keen on doing) do not build, maintain, track and help State’s interface with these new databases. What I really think is the drive for the Anti Gun Lobby pushing these registration initiatives is to accumulate information so that they can launch lawsuits against Gun Makers, Dealers and States to make money.

[HashiriyaS14]

I would be willing to relent as a Lawful Responsible Gun owner to your idea, if we go back and repeal the gun laws that make hard to own fully automatic weapons. If you want to register firearms and transfers, fine. But then I should be allowed to own what ever the f*** weapon I want to. If I want an M-2 50cal machine gun, I should be able to walk into a store and purchase one with out BATF and local law enforcement approval.

^^I happen to agree wholeheartedly with this.

I heartily and regularly endorse registration on here, and I catch a lot of flak for it. What I should have clarified earlier is that with registration should come MUCH more lax regulations in regards to who can own what.

If someone with a spotless record wants to purchase a Minigun and have the government know about it, then they should be able to purchase a Minigun.

Obviously, if you have a heavily spotted record, you shouldn't be able to buy a Super Soaker. That's the whole game, it rewards those of us who follow the rules.

I know I, for one, would love to have an FN-P90 with 100rd mag in my case, and I see that freedom as my reward for following the rules and having nothing to hide from the government. My (fictional) neighbor the felon? Nope, he can settle for a Daisy BB gun.

Of course, the "registration is the first step towards confiscation" crowd won't buy this, and that's their opinion and this is mine (nothing more, nothing less).

[C-Kwik]

I have to ask though, because I think you are coming to this debate that it is incumbent of the NRA or lawful gun owners to proactively reduce gun related crime. Ultimately whose responsibility is it to fight crime and reduce gun related crime? I have to think that it is the Government, through Law Enforcement, Judges and Legislators. How silly would it be to require the SCCA or a car enthusiast lobby to work to reduce the amount of stolen cars? If they choose to work with authorities to preserve the rights while government craft laws that is their prerogative. Just because I vote and I cherish my voting rights does not mean that I necessarily have to be at the forefront of ever legislature trying to cut down on voter fraud.

Your analogy is pretty far off. SCCA's activities have little effect on the rate of thefts. But such groups that promote legal forms of racing tend to have a side effect of creating the type of excitement and desire for people to illegally race on the streets. So I would like to see such groups promote ways to curb illegal racing. This includes supporting legislation to do so.

As for the government's role, ultimately, it is the people who choose the government.

But I have to think it is ultimately up to the government to reduce gun related crime. We get so wrapped up in prevention and fighting What If’s that are not the core of the problem instead of using sound methods that we as a society are not willing to fund.

Sound methods are fine, but my thought is that we simply put the law on the book, but don't give the goverment the tools to enforce it. Many gun owners are against registration and methods of tracking guns and ammo that would help to effectively track illegal sales and straw purchases. Gun sales laws vary from state to state as well which makes it easy for guns to make it into stricter states without being able to proactively investigate interstate gun sales.

And legislating more laws for something that is already illegal and not enforced wont fix the problem either.

I'd agree with this except for what I mention above. Its not necessarily about more restrictions but rather things that can be done to assist in enforcement.

I would be willing to relent as a Lawful Responsible Gun owner to your idea, if we go back and repeal the gun laws that make hard to own fully automatic weapons. If you want to register firearms and transfers, fine. But then I should be allowed to own what ever the f*** weapon I want to. If I want an M-2 50cal machine gun, I should be able to walk into a store and purchase one with out BATF and local law enforcement approval.

Why are you seeking a compromise? You either see the benefits of registration and tracking or you don't. It seems as a responsible gun owner, registration and such would have no actual effect on you. Enough that you'ld concede to it. But rather than allow a solution to be implemented, you throw in an "I want" into it to benefit your own agenda. It would be one thing if what you wanted was a compromise that was directly affected by registration and tracking (perhaps in its implementation) but to ask for something that is entirely unrelated is the same type of BS we see in legislative branches already. I'd prefer to see the assualt gun issue be argued and resolved on its own merits. Not as a compromise to be able to enact a different law altogether....

As I always ask, because I deal with databases and data all day long, if you track information what are going to do with it? Data sitting on a DB somewhere does not fight crime. And unfunded mandates (like the Federal Government is so keen on doing) do not build, maintain, track and help State’s interface with these new databases. What I really think is the drive for the Anti Gun Lobby pushing these registration initiatives is to accumulate information so that they can launch lawsuits against Gun Makers, Dealers and States to make money.

How so? Unless the gun maker, dealer or state is committing some sort of tort how would such info be used against them? Please be specific as your statement tends to sound a bit like a consipracy theory...