At 8/1/12 06:19 PM, PMMurphy wrote:

Two questions sir:

1) In what ways does the government need to make the laws more strict?

2) What training/awareness programs would you see implemented...that are not already in existance?

Programs like D.A.R.E where they go to school by school and talk about guns. Growing up i never was told anything about guns from anyone. I learned everything on my own. Or more indepth programs that kids at young ages (middle school) HAVE to attend and go to.

When I was growing up in rural Missouri we had a week of instruction by my science teacher on hunter's education and took the Missouri hunter's education safety test. So I think that program should be expanded to every public school student.

Furthermore, while I am not (to some people's surprise) a big supporter of the NRA...I do like their educational programs such as Eddie the Eagle for younger students and Friends of the NRA which tackles the original intent of the NRA of furthering the shooting sports...in this case specifically teenagers.

Now am I NOT advocating bringing the NRA into our schools to indocrinate our kids. Rather, some of their curriculum that focuses on firearm training and safety should be.

As for other types of training for adults; the vast majority of states that allow the concealed carry of guns for self-defense already have these programs in place and are a requirement if you're going to carry.

As for making laws more strict. I am not qualified to answer that question as i am not an expert on the subject. I would have to study it and come up with an appropriate answer. All i know is, whatever they are doing is simply not working. If we cant develop a proper system around technology to help people use it properly, then what is the point in furthering technology.

I think this statement shows what's wrong with the gun debate. Something horrific like Aurora or Columbine happens and people who do not know the first thing about the issue start 'tweeting' as if they are experts on the subject. For example I've heard about Jason Alexander's (George from Seinfeld) rants about assault rifles and that they are tools of war designed to maximize death. This then filters down to the average joe who doesn't follow the issue and it is now sensationalized so there is a sense that "...whatever they are doing is simply not working."

I've studied this issue from the point of view of a military member, sportsman and political scientist. The current level of gun laws in this country are adequate, appropriate and working. At this point in time the prime reason we have a problem with gun violence is not too easy access to guns but:

* Institutions that are inadequate to deal with other crimes such as drugs or prostitution that encourage criminals to carry firearms (most often they carry illegal firearms in illegal manners).

* Poor economic performance.

* Poor educational performance.

* Systems that promote disfunction between ethno-linguistic factions in society.

Fixing these problems will do far more to reduce gun violence than making gun laws any more strict.

At 8/1/12 06:40 PM, TheMason wrote:

:some good points. But.

The fact people are ignorant to the laws of guns and various other things and the fact i am not an expert on the subject. Says its not working.

At 8/1/12 06:45 PM, PMMurphy wrote:

At 8/1/12 06:40 PM, TheMason wrote: some good points. But.

The fact people are ignorant to the laws of guns and various other things and the fact i am not an expert on the subject. Says its not working.

Then let me sharpen my point on the ignorance:

Once it is sensationalized people who are not educated on the topic (and it's not just guns) have this reflex to cry out for government to do something/make a law or making existing law more strict. And this is not a good thing since that's how bad public policy is made.

BUT that people are ignorant of the law/topic is NOT a sign that it's not working. If you're not interested in firearms...why worry about getting informed (unless you're going to become politically active)? What is important is:
* what is the cause for violent crime?
* since we started keeping safety stats in 1904 gun accidents have declined 94%.
* is a false sense of security/safety worth trading in civil liberties?

They dont have to make new laws that specifically say "EVERYONE MUST STUDY GUNS". That would be reckless and stupid. All they would have to do is find clever ways to incorporate that into every day society in a fashion people really wont notice.

Such as adding a technology subject in the education system. Simply for the one and only purpose of improving knowledge on technology and advancements in technology.

Its getting to that point of society where things get more advanced and our educational system needs to adjust and improve accordingly. If we make "expert knowledge" into common knowledge. Then we wont need those experts to continually banter there ways.

The fact that a store clerk doesn't know proper protocal or ways to distinguish someone who may or may not be mentally capable to buy a guy. Says a lot. People like the aurora shooting guy who (if he had a mentall illness or not) come into a store and buy a gun. Should be asked questions on the spot and studied as he answers for any indication of nervousness or lieing, then depending on the discretion of the store clerk, he should be allowed a gun or not. Right now he can just walk in get a gun and leave do his day.

But its not the system?

Oh no its never the system. its just people are idiots right?

With that type of logic we will never have a good system and this problem will never be resolved. Actually with that logic your saying their is no problem.

Gun awareness isn't the only subject to incorporate there are many more. But it is at least a good start.

At 8/1/12 07:43 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote:

:ok i will clarify more since it obviously wasnt written correctly.

There are a good majority of people who simply don't know what they are doing with a gun and all the severity and consequences that can come of it. Our current education system and current common knowledge isn't sufficient in preventing alot of things that can be prevented.

As for your talk about that problem, that is not a common problem that is widespread and happening in everyday life. It depends on the severity of the problem and whether or not we REALLY need it to be common knowledge. C'mon common sense here.

At 8/1/12 07:54 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: Chemistry and physics. Who doesn't know which end of a firearm is the business one? Very, very basic education about the proper use and care for guns eliminates the excuse of "I didn't know that could happen" -type incidents.

This is where you are wrong. It is not chemistry and physics people need to learn. It is the psychology behind everything.

At 8/1/12 07:54 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: You can't prevent everything, and improvements can always be made. You need to ask: at what cost?

Ok, I'll ask. What's the cost of gun regulation?

Not everyone needs to know the inner workings of a gun and how things fire. That is not common knowledge and will never be common knowledge. it is not important and is only important to people developing or creating guns.

now people need to know things like. "within the first 5 seconds of someone holding a gun it is likely they will decide mentally on if they are prepared to fire the pistol. If the person has not fired in this amount of time, chances are they will not fire".

They need to know things like. What are the chances given certain situations that usually provoke gun fire? When is gun fire and death most common? What are the typical conditions that help provoke someone to fire a gun? Why should someone fire a gun and when is it ok to fire a gun? Why do people use gun's and what are bad ways to use a gun, literally and in a symbolic way.

What were guns designed to do and what purpose were they designed for? How do people who cause problems with guns use a gun and why does it cause a problem? Why do guns provoke fear in us when they are used in a threatening way? What are common tell tales of an individual who can cause problems when holding a gun?

Why and how do mental illness's affect someone's capabilities in wielding a gun? What is the difference between someone without a mental illness and someone with a mental illness using a gun? How do guns inpeed a sense of power and actually what does power even represent?

Need i go on?

All the questions that i asked you didnt answer appropriately and you didnt presents statistical proof to the claims. They should be easily answered questions by everyone and anyone and they shouldnt be given vauge answers. It is important knowledge to know how or when situations can be provoked that way you can avoid them. It may seem like easy knowledge to you, but you would be surprised how many people don't know this stuff. If we teach these things in an educational system at kids in early ages before they really learn anything. Then we can direct their awareness and hopefully spark an interest to further understand the concepts of what might go on during the course of gun fire.

Those are just basic concepts that can be answered through simple observation but you can take things farther. Down to what are the thought processes that provoke someone to lead into buying a gun and what are ways to stop people from doing it if they are not qualified. What are signs of someone who is not mentally fit to wield a gun? How do you tell the difference between a normal person and someone who is mentally ill without knowing about their illness? What are the effects of gun fire on the enviroment around you (people who witness gun fire)?

All these questions should be answered using technical information and stats to further prove its importance and put a staple on how serious the issue really is. By just lightly explaining things people don't think it to be as severe as it really is so they overlook things.

If they make you take a 100+ question quiz to get a driver's license. They should make you take a 100+ question quiz to get permission to use a gun.

At 8/1/12 07:27 PM, PMMurphy wrote: They dont have to make new laws that specifically say "EVERYONE MUST STUDY GUNS". That would be reckless and stupid. All they would have to do is find clever ways to incorporate that into every day society in a fashion people really wont notice.

Such as adding a technology subject in the education system. Simply for the one and only purpose of improving knowledge on technology and advancements in technology.

I'm not arguing for classes on gun technology. Rather what I'm saying is a few safety courses somewhere between K-2 would be a good idea (but not entirely necessary) and hunter's ed in middle school. It would not reduce accidents to zero...but would probably minimize the risk.

The fact that a store clerk doesn't know proper protocal or ways to distinguish someone who may or may not be mentally capable to buy a guy. Says a lot. People like the aurora shooting guy who (if he had a mentall illness or not) come into a store and buy a gun. Should be asked questions on the spot and studied as he answers for any indication of nervousness or lieing, then depending on the discretion of the store clerk, he should be allowed a gun or not. Right now he can just walk in get a gun and leave do his day.

Guess what? Those safe measures are already in place. There are forms that a person has to fill out and then for the criminal side their answers are verified with a FBI background check.

Now for the on-the-spot-psycho-analysis...most gun dealers do that already. If they get a feeling about someone...they refuse the sale. Afterall, there is no law that a retailer has to sell to everybody who passes the background check.

What you are saying sounds 'reasonable' or like 'common sense' but the reality is it is just a fantasy. Some people who are mentally unstable are very capable of putting on an act of normalacy. Look at this Holmes guy...none of his friends or family saw any sign of him going over the edge. So why do you think a store clerk with maybe an hour of interaction with the guy would be able to spot a very, very rare psychosis?

But its not the system?

Oh no its never the system. its just people are idiots right?

With that type of logic we will never have a good system and this problem will never be resolved. Actually with that logic your saying their is no problem.

My logic is to look at the system and see what works and what are reasonable expectations. To think that the problem of gun violence will ever be resolved is pure fantasy and social science fiction. Systems can be fooled and manipulated. Systems also have limitations...some of which cannot be overcome.

So looking at our current system of laws and gun regulation...I don't think there is much more we can do to make any significant impact on the issue of gun violence.

In the aurora case, the criminal bought ammunition online. They are passsing a bill to stop that.

Thats an improvement.

Maybe we can make guns capable of being bought, but make ammunition very difficult.

but you make good points i wont argue any of it.

At 8/2/12 02:34 PM, PMMurphy wrote: In the aurora case, the criminal bought ammunition online. They are passsing a bill to stop that.

Thats an improvement.

Improvement...or step in the wrong direction?

Within an hour of this guy committing his crime police were able to trace the ammo to who/when/where he bought the ammo. Furthermore, if there is an on-going investigation of terrorists/madmen who are plotting something...and police can get a warrant...being able to track their purchases on-line may actually save lives because how easy it is to track.

On the other hand, if they go to gun shops or Walmart and buy ammo...they can pay in cash and there is no record kept of the transaction.

In the end there is NO benefit to stopping the sale of ammo on-line. It is just another thing a ratings driven media sensationalized while trying to keep viewers during a highly-watched but low-information event.

Maybe we can make guns capable of being bought, but make ammunition very difficult.

Why is this a good thing?

Secondly it is not practical because ammo is something people can produce on their own through re-loading.

but you make good points i wont argue any of it.

Even though sometimes things may not be ideal in a particular situation. The question is where and when do you draw the line? Sooner or later you need to sacrifice other benefits to help improve other negatives. It is about ataining an equal balanced solution. Not a solution with loose ends and lop-sided logic.

This is why people who specialize in mathematics and computer science make such great problem solvers. We understand how to balance things out and come up with the best solution based on expert information and solid advice. That is also why research teams usually consist of varying specialists. For a problem like this, you would usually have a math guy, a gun expert, a psychology expert and a computer guy (and anything else i am missing). They would all come together and come up with plans and solutions. The gun expert and psychology expert would present their points of view, then the mathematician would proof the logic behind things. Then they would go at it for a while until they came up with a logical solution to the problem. Then the computer scientist would create the applications to test the logical solution to see if it is indeed theoretically possible.

Alteast, thats how it should be done.

The only thing that stopping the sale of ammunition online is going to affect is legal gun owners.

Where am i to find uncommon ammo? Ammo in the store is 5x as expensive and worse in quality. How does this stop people from buying mass quantities in the store?

The 1k limit report thing is dumb as well. Tons of people buy more than 1k rounds. .22lr is so cheap and buying in bulk is even cheaper.

Plus people can just go to multiple stores....... They could get 10k rounds of ammo and never get on the lists discussed online and i believe in the same bill.

At 8/2/12 08:34 PM, thegarbear14 wrote: The only thing that stopping the sale of ammunition online is going to affect is legal gun owners.

You can't accurately judge someone's mental stability over the internet. But in person you can. So that will give those individuals less of a chance to attain ammo. It wont prevent it though.

At 8/2/12 02:34 PM, PMMurphy wrote: In the aurora case, the criminal bought ammunition online. They are passsing a bill to stop that.

Thats an improvement.

Maybe we can make guns capable of being bought, but make ammunition very difficult.

but you make good points i wont argue any of it.

Look if he didn't buy ammo online he would have gotten it else where.

At 8/2/12 10:08 PM, CaptainCornhole wrote: Look if he didn't buy ammo online he would have gotten it else where.

Thats a subjective statement, that isn't exactly 100% true. If he tries to buy ammo elsewhere there is a probabilty of the following cases being possible to happen. 1) he takes so long he causes a public disturbance due to irrational behavior and cops intervene (no ammo). 2) all the stores he go to screen him and do not allow him to have ammo because they notice signs of irrational behavior. 3) his family notices signs of irrational behavior and get the cops to make sure he is put in a mental ward and examined (no ammo) and 4) he tries to get ammo from other people but they are skeptical on his rationality and don't want to be apart of any mass killing.

That is atleast 4 possibly and probable cases that might happen. By giving him the option to buying ammo online it voids all those possibilities and strengthens the probability of attaining ammo.

Holmes wasn't suspected of anything when he bought his firearms why would he be denied ammo as well. If he just walked into a gun shop and bought a few thousand rounds of .223 or 12gauge for his ar-15 and shotgun that wouldn't be enough for him to be deemed unable to buy ammunition. Purchasing a large amount of ammunition is not unusual and Holmes didn't act weird.

If you get denied one place you can just go to another place.....

It also takes a while to have ammunition delivered. It takes me at least a week.

People buy kids beer knowing it's wrong, why wouldn't people buy a guy ammunition. He could just buy it off people selling illegal weapons as well. I doubt they give a crap about what is done with what they sell.

If Holmes would be unable to get ammo in the store then he would have been unable to get firearms. (i am aware he planned this massacre for months and got his weapons during his planning but he was already mentally unstable when he was gathering supplies)

How would stopping people from buying ammunition online totally prevent them from killing people. This is just stupidity.

A law requiring the ammunition to be delivered to an FFL (licensed firearms dealer) would have been way more acceptable and just as effective as banning online sales ( i doubt it would have any affect whatsoever)

Ammunition is expensive and even paying $30 shipping and a $20 fee it is still cheaper to buy ammo online than in the store. ALOT CHEAPER. (well for me it is about $300 cheaper)

The law is ridiculous and there are alternatives that would be just as effective. The law would still be pretty ineffective but it would be slightly more reasonable the way i suggested...

At 8/2/12 10:45 PM, thegarbear14 wrote: Holmes wasn't suspected of anything when he bought his firearms why would he be denied ammo as well.

This is where educating people comes into play. There are plenty of ways of screening someone to detect signs of psychosis. This is coming from a psychotic.

Instead of making up excuses to validate a system, try to think of possible ways it is flawed. By not testing the structure of a system there is no possible route for improvement.

At 8/2/12 10:19 PM, PMMurphy wrote:

At 8/2/12 10:08 PM, CaptainCornhole wrote: Look if he didn't buy ammo online he would have gotten it else where.

Thats a subjective statement, that isn't exactly 100% true. If he tries to buy ammo elsewhere there is a probabilty of the following cases being possible to happen. 1) he takes so long he causes a public disturbance due to irrational behavior and cops intervene (no ammo). 2) all the stores he go to screen him and do not allow him to have ammo because they notice signs of irrational behavior. 3) his family notices signs of irrational behavior and get the cops to make sure he is put in a mental ward and examined (no ammo) and 4) he tries to get ammo from other people but they are skeptical on his rationality and don't want to be apart of any mass killing.

That is atleast 4 possibly and probable cases that might happen. By giving him the option to buying ammo online it voids all those possibilities and strengthens the probability of attaining ammo.

Or 5) he gets killed in a car accident enroute to the gun store because he forgot to wear a seatbelt. We can go on all day about "probable cases". My point was that if someone is intent on harming another person it is likely that they will find a way to do it no matter what laws or restrictions on weapons we have. There are other ways to kill groups of people that don't involve bullets.

So if someone is intent on driving a vehicle home after drinking. It is ok to abolish all laws regarding drinking and driving simply because they will do it anyway regardless of the laws and restrictions?

All because someone has a mental illness and mentall illness's have many complications doesn't mean we should ignore protecting people from it.

The current system is fine it doesn't need any more control on either guns or ammo.

At 8/2/12 11:36 PM, PMMurphy wrote: So if someone is intent on driving a vehicle home after drinking. It is ok to abolish all laws regarding drinking and driving simply because they will do it anyway regardless of the laws and restrictions?

If all you need is one singular example, or maybe even just a handful of examples, of how legally barred persons break existing laws to drive drunk in order to ban all driving from bars because they serve alcohol, then your logic adds up.

Banning online ammo sales as a knee-jerk reaction to feel safer is like basking in your mother's smile when she tells you everything is going to be okay. You feel better, but it's still just you and your mother coddling eachother.

Government is not your mother.

All because someone has a mental illness and mentall illness's have many complications doesn't mean we should ignore protecting people from it.

Elaborate.

At 8/3/12 08:28 AM, i-hope-you-die wrote: Elaborate.

Rational and irrational behavior is not only present in individuals with mental illness's but also without. A lot of criminals who are in jail are in because of those reasons. When someone is present with high amounts of rage, they begin to lose a grip of reality. Even if they aren't mentally unstable. There is no current system that takes this into consideration.

So basically your telling me, that its fine for government to ignore preventable murders simply because they are not someone's mother? Then why do we stop racism? Or anything else for that matter. If the government isn't supposed to help keep an orderly safe manner for society, why does it even exist? What is the point?

I see no logic behind this.

At 8/2/12 10:52 PM, PMMurphy wrote:

At 8/2/12 10:45 PM, thegarbear14 wrote: Holmes wasn't suspected of anything when he bought his firearms why would he be denied ammo as well.

This is where educating people comes into play. There are plenty of ways of screening someone to detect signs of psychosis. This is coming from a psychotic.

Here's the problem with your idea: very few people with acute mental illnesses present in a manner where a store clerk could make any kind of informed conclusion on someone's worthiness to purchase ammo or a gun. It's not like Holmes or Cho before him walked around in body armor everywhere they went asking for the best ammo to kill people. Furthermore, it's not like even trained psychologists are incapable of being fooled by some of these individuals who appear to be extremely highly functional individuals capable of concealing the storms inside their heads.

Instead of making up excuses to validate a system, try to think of possible ways it is flawed. By not testing the structure of a system there is no possible route for improvement.

The other day I walked into Walmart to buy ammo for my sportorized AK-47. I was wearing my Batman button-up shirt and kahki shorts since I was on the way to the movies. The guy helping me tried to stop me from buying the ammo I selected since it was steel cased Russian manufacture ammo. Now if I was shooting an AR-15 that would be a bad purchase because it is not good on such a wussy gun, but my rugged AK could handle it easily. Had I been in uniform the guy most likely would've assumed (correctly) that I knew what I was doing buying the ammo and would not have been persistant in 'helping' me.

Now you may be wondering what the hell this has to do with buying ammo on-line.

On-line you don't get that expert help you get in a face-to-face purchase. Holmes most likely saw 'military surplus' and made the mistake that anti-assault rifle politicians/lobbyists, celebrities and lay people make: it's military so it MUST be the best when it comes to killing people! He may have even decided to buy some 'armor piercing' rounds in the erroneous thought that he was maximizing his killing power. When in fact he was MINIMIZING his lethality!

Now had he gone into a store and was feeding the clerk some BS about hunting or self-defense...he would've probably walked out of the store with much more lethal ammo and we'd have more people dead with more serious wounds.

And...he may have spent a little more to get better 5.56/.223 ammo for his AR-15 which would've meant it probably wouldn't have jammed. (Which may actually have been better for him to keep firing it instead of switching to his pistols...but would've meant more people injured.)

I don't think the system is flawed RE: online ammo purchasing. We've had it for well over a decade now, I just think it's being sensationalized by a ratings driven media and used by politicians and activists dipping their shirts in the blood of innocent victims.

People like Bloomberg who push these notions sicken me with their crass depravity to make baseless political hay following tragedy.

That makes a great point. But my take is this, the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again expecting different results. If we simply don't change anything, we are going to get the same results.

Even if its a difficult process and isn't perfect, research and improvements in psychology will increase the awareness and ability for these store clerks to examine people. Also, the military uses a psychology test to screen for mental illness's even though its not perfect. It is in fact something. When i went to MEPS to join the air force i got flagged (before i ever had a true diagnosis or even was aware of my illness).

I think if we had something like a psychological survey you had to fill out to determine your ability to think between rational and irrational behavior also right and wrong. Would atleast be SOME protection from the issue. Even if it lowers the probability by a few %.

also someone said (TheMason I think) that wounds from assault rifle bullets are less likely to kill than some shotguns or pistols but I can find countless documentaries of either British or Amercan soldiers getting shot like once and dieing despite having a lot of medical attention nearby.

And these soldiers are wearing body armour so they are being hit in places that are less vulnrerable. Although I dont know if all of the taliban use AK47 klashnikov assault rifles as some may use powerful large calibred guns that probably neglect the body armour and can still fuck you up even if it doesnt pierce your body.

At 6/11/07 06:47 PM, dodo-man-1 wrote: If you entered this thread because you read the title and want to unleash a rapid-fire barrage of insults, then leave now. I don't want to deal with you, just those that respect my opinion, whether they agree with it or not.

Now, on to my point. Why do gun stores sell semiautomatic weaponry without having to fill out some kind of form or going through a screening process or something? If you're a deer hunter, or a duck hunter, or any kind of hunter, you don't need semiautomatic fire to kill one deer. If you collect guns, you should be willing to fill out a form of some kind to get a gun you probably won't use. The fact that there is no control on these guns in most places leads to things like... oh, I don't know, the V-Tech rampage?

Don't you think?

I usually try to be polite when discussing opposing viewpoints, but when an uneducated twit like yourself throws fallacies left and right it's a little hard to. First of all, no matter what kind of gun you buy there is a required FBI background check. As a matter of fact I bought a 12 gauge H&R pump action yesterday at Academy and I DID have to fill out a form and have my background checked out before I was allowed to leave with it. As for the mass shooter things that seem to happen all too often now, do you really think a mentally unstable person willing to kill dozens of innocent pedestrians will abide by any gun regulations? Restricting guns only restricts the law abiding citizens who are responsible and know that the world is a dangerous place. A killer will find a gun legally or not.

</rant>

*understanding you were saying a rant*

I agree completely. A psychotic killer would never abide by conventional laws. Thats why we need unconventional laws.

At 8/4/12 12:54 AM, PMMurphy wrote: Thats why we need unconventional laws.

tried that they wanted to do psych tests put in a bill died in on the floor, they wanted to add a chemical to gun powder so it has a shelf life of two years regardless of how you store it guess what? bill went to congress died on the floor. passed the Assault Rifle Bill the NRA ousted 40 some democrats who supported it and replaced it with republicans then in 2004 Bush let it expire without it being renewed.

see the pattern?