My main point is, though, IMO you shouldn't be able to just go on the internet and buy an AR-15.

_________________
"Counting all the assholes in the room, I'm definitely not alone!" ~ Michael Poulsen, Volbeat, Still Standing.

assault rifles and handguns require waiting periods and background checks.

But as we saw here and in the Va. Tech shooting, that doesn't matter.

Anyone else see this?
Gun purchases up by 43% since Friday in Colorado.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012 ... gan-holmes

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Unless bought from 'private sellers' at gun shows.

*I know that didn't apply in the CO shooting.

Here in NC, 'assault rifles' are just classified as rifles, and you dont even need a permit or anything to get one. It's the same as buying a shotgun, or any hunting rifle. The only restriction is on handguns, you have to apply for permits to buy a handgun, get cleared by the sheriff, then you give the seller the permit at time of purchase. Rifles require nothing but I.D. and some form you fill out (but you're taking the gun with you at this point).

Well, the strong and free south is a sort of experiment in progress.
See Florida.

But to my point, the vast majority of firearms fatalities are handguns which get special scrutiny, even in NC.
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/0 ... apon-used/

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

I don't think that's true for pistol sales...only rifles, and the seller of the rifle, IIRC, has to know who they sold it to. This is based on a very brief conversation with my stepdad, so I'm not 100% sure. I'm still at work, so don't sue me for not trying to look it up right now.

_________________

If it's a private dealer they don't have to wait for those background checks. And you can leave with a handgun that day. I think my dad got his Pistol from a gun show and came home with it that day and didn't have to wait. They do a quick call in background check or something.

In NC, I know in order to transfer ownership of a pistol you need to get a transfer permit to do so if someone doesn't buy it but it was given as a gift.

Also, this gunman did not buy his AR-15 online, he bought it from a gun shop, he just got the ammo online.


Sure you can buy an AR-15 online, but it will not get shipped to your house, it will get shipped to a licensed dealer that will do all the background checks before they give you the weapon.

_________________

South is also by far the most violent part of the country. Read the Post article.

Seems totally counter-intuitive to me, but makes sense when you read this thread. Everyone is living in fear to begin with, which is why so many Americans feel a need to have a gun to begin with. Now something random happens and people get more scared and try some desparate tack to "take the power back".

Doesn't anyone besides me or BlueandYellow find it just a little bit crazy that after an event like this what I hear people debating in the main is whether or not guns should be EASIER to get, and whether adding more guns to the situation would make people safer?

Nope, just you two hippies.

_________________

To be fair, Squanto is advocating more controls, and CC, in his typical way, is saying our system is "good enough" (of course only when pressed and directly confronted with the question) while mainly shooting down arguments for tougher laws.

I said we need to look at the laws around online purchases (specifically ammo). Tougher regulation would be good there.

Both this guy and the Va. Tech shooter passed criminal / psych background checks...the guns they used are already under government control and supervision. Please describe a law that would have prevented them from doing what they did.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

I can't, but we've been over this a hundred times. You all (for the most) are taking one or two incidents that couldn't have been stopped by laws and extrapolating from that that those laws won't protect you AT ALL. No you're not saying that directly, but that's the clear implication from that line of thinking. "Can't prevent Columbine, so gun control is ineffective". I call BS over and over on that.

If we want to obsess about what could have stopped the Aurora shooting, that's a natural reaction. Unfortunately, I'm inclined to think there might not have been a way. That's scary to think there's nothing you can do, I get that. But I also think we're deluding ourselves to think a gun, law, or anything else could possibly protect us from all the chaos in the world.

So what is it you want?
Stricter gun control laws in the hope that some lives may be saved while admitting they will be pointless in the most egregious situations?

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Well, yes. No reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater and ignore the good that strict gun control laws can do just because there are also some things they can't do. That just seems like the most sensible reaction to me.

This sums it up, because NOBODY can. Reducing the supply and acces to firearms and ammo might be a worthy cause, but it won't prevent someone from killing if they really want to. Take any murder committed with a firearm, and I'll show you how they could've or would've done it with a knife/bomb/poison/bare hands. There are certainly incidents that occur "in the heat of the moment" where if only the gun weren't right there it wouldn't have happened. I know that but again, you have to look at those individual scenarios and see how a law might have prevented it.

With mass shooters, if they can't get the firearms they want (which I highly doubt no matter what laws are passed) they'll resort to explosives, and that would be even worse. The only real answer in a free society is to have a population that values and respects each other. People need to look in the mirror instead of hoping the law or the gov't will make everything right. It just doesn't work that way. If the drama and division and mass killings keep up, maybe we need to realize that this great notion of "the free and the brave" and "united we stand" and so on isn't very accurate anymore.

Since the majority of homicides when a gun is used are drug and or gang related, I'm not losing much sleep over it.
To that point I'd argue ending the war on drugs would have a bigger impact when it comes to saving lives than restricting access to firearms would.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

I'm not advocating a ton more controls, and certainly nothing new that I've thought of in the past. The gun show thing I've mentioned is a long standing problem. (One of the problems with it is that private sellers are not supposed to sell you a gun if they think you would fail a background check, but multiple investigations has shown most sellers do it anyway.)

What would have stopped this? I dunno. It would make sense to have something tracking online ammo purchases, but even that's destined to fail. The law would have tracking limits if you bought more than a certain amount from one place, and anyone with half a brain would just buy under that limit from multiple retailers.

The best form of gun control would be the NRA stop promoting the idea that everyone in the US should be packing heat from the age of 5, and start making safe, responsible gun ownership their primary mission. It would also help if the Glen Beckians would stop yelling and screaming about the imminent collapse of civilization and convincing people that they NEED massive arsenals to protect their safe houses and shacks.

You're missing an awful lot of my point by selectively quoting two words. I say very clearly later that nobody can. You're still not addressing the actual effectiveness of gun laws on a more global thought pattern and you're focusing on what they can't do. Doing, in short, exactly what I describe as throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I am trying to look in the mirror man. I don't want to see someone afraid of their own shadow putting out "don't fuck with me, I'm strapped" vibes.