Discussion: The Second Amendment V - Part 5

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]455633[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]451659[/split]

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Many People Are Killing With Rented Guns at Shooting Ranges

In 2009, Marie Moore, pictured above, took her son Mitchell to a Florida shooting range and rented some guns. While Mitchell lined up, Marie killed him with a single shot to the head, then shot herself. She'd had a history of mental illness. She's one of many such Americans who have killed with rented firearms.

A new video report by Fusion's Kimberly Brooks highlights the difficulties in preventing gun deaths at rental ranges, where shooters don't need criminal or mental health background checks to take a variety of loaded weapons to the firing line.

Brooks reports that the CDC has tracked about 50 suicides at gun ranges in recent years, but that's only from piecemeal stats in a handful of states—and it doesn't include freewheeling Florida, where there have been a rash of range deaths, including a handful in Tampa Bay and a whopping 11 with rented guns in the Orlando area alone since 2009, prompting some range owners to shut down their rental operations.

The risks weigh heavily on range operators, too, as Brooks' report shows. She interviewed Ralph DeMicco, a gun-seller who, racked with misgivings about suicides committed with his weapons, teamed up with Harvard's School of Public Health to launch the Gun Shop Project, which encourages sellers to exercise greater vigilance in their business and pass on suicide-prevention info to their customers.

"It's the only way to get people together to talk about the issue," DeMicco said, "because when you polarize it by bringing in the gun control concept, you immediately lock out people like me, you immediately lock out people who have valuable input and can very much add to the situation."

Gerald Delatour, the operator of a range where Brooks herself went through some cursory paperwork to rent a pistol, told her how he tries to spot problem customers before they get their hands on a weapon. But even then, there are no guarantees.

"It would be devastating," he told her as he thought about the possibility of a shooting on the range, shaking his head and pausing. "But... we would... have to change certain things around when it happens."

http://fusion.net/Culture/video/unfriendly-fire-suicide-gun-range-1053001

I'm all for a registry to keep anyone with mental illness away from guns, myself included since I have schizophrenia. There really needs to be checks at these rental gun ranges

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Here's Where Criminals Go to Buy Guns Online

You don't need Tor. You don't need super-secret encryption. And you definitely don't need a background check. Getting firearms online, fast, without any legal fuss, is pretty easy. In fact, a new report concludes plenty of domestic abusers and violent felons are getting guns that way.

Titled "Online and Off the Record," the report by Everytown—the Mike Bloomberg-affiliated pro-regulation gun group—suggests that hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of guns nationwide are now being sold online sans paperwork or background checks, and as many as 10 percent of them are going straight to convicted criminals who are legally barred from owning firearms.

The report focused on web-based gun sales in Washington state, where voters will decide in November whether to require background checks on all weapons purchases and where "more than forty thousand guns are posted for sale by unlicensed sellers on just five websites" each year, without a background check requirement, Everytown estimates.

Here are the five biggest sites buyers are using:

The most jarring stat in the report—it's also likely to be the most disputed—is Everytown's estimate that nearly 10 percent of those untracked online purchases went to felons or others who can't legally own the guns. Investigators focused on "guns wanted" ads from prospective buyers and focused on 81 that included identifying info. Through court records and personal interviews, Everytown found that 8 of the 81, or about 10 percent, "had been convicted of crimes that prohibited them from possessing firearms," particularly domestic abuse.

That may not seem like a large-enough or representative sample.* Still, finding eight convicts on a gun-selling website that easily is pretty alarming.

The report details the case of one man, from King County, who lost his gun rights after a felony car theft conviction in 1976. About a decade later, he was hit with a restraining order after an ex-wife said he'd threatened "to go buy a gun so he could knock me off." The following year, he pled guilt to domestic violence assault; in 1992, he allegedly assaulted two cops. And this May, he was on Armslist.com, trying to buy a Browning 9mm Hi-Power: "Cash in hand for the right deal," he wrote.

Not all of the online gun-sales ads are created equal. Many are for lever action Marlin rifles or cheap .30 caliber single-shot bolt-action long guns—types that are likelier to be used for target-plinking or varmint-hunting than mass-killing. But there are also 9mm Beretta handguns. Glocks with laser sights. Snub-nose revolvers, AK-47 reproductions, and Mini-14 rifles with tons of ammo and magazines. If someone wanted a quick killing weapon, no questions asked, this would seem like a good way to go about it.

This election day, Washington voters will make a decision on Amendment I-594, which would require across-the-board background checks. At a poll in April, voters were overwhelmingly in favor of the measure, 72 percent to 19 percent. The only problem is that a majority—55 percent—also favored I-591, a measure that would bar any new background checks.

Should the two contradictory amendments both pass, it's unclear which one, if any, would actually become state law. But online gun sales would likely spike while the legalities get decided.

Update: An Everytown researcher who read this post emailed to offer some context on their numbers methodology:

In addressing what are going to be inevitable questions about the sample size, you can refer people to footnote 21 in the report:

Based on the sample size of 81 examined buyers, the margin of error is 3.4 percent to 16.4 percent.

The confidence interval is calculated as P +/- 1.96*[(P*(1-P)/n) ^.5 = 9.9% +/- 1.96 (.099*.901/81)^.5 = 3.4% to 16.4%.

In English, this means that there is no way the sample we achieved could have occurred by chance alone. And even at the lowest bounds of the confidence interval, the share of criminal buyers is dramatically (5x) higher than the share of criminals trying to buy guns at Washington dealers — and online in unlicensed sales, there is no background check to stop them.

There's already a lively discussion in the comments about the methodology, so I'll leave this here for interested parties to parse as they see fit.

http://washington.everytown.org/

That is pretty scary

 

[wiegeabo]

Was there not a range official on duty?

Seems that that would be a rather simple and effective way to limit such situations.

 

[Anubis]

You mean besides not giving a gun to a f**king nutjob?

 

[wiegeabo]

I said simple and effective.

Unless they're outright acting crazy in front of you, realizing someone is like that isn't. Especially if it's a new customer you've never seen before.

But someone should be on duty to help customers, catch lapses of judgement (people not handling a weapon properly, prevent accidents, and prevent things like this.


But you stay classy with the "****ing nutjob" talk.

 

[Anubis]

Thank you I will.

 

[wiegeabo]

I am rather confused how I've seen gun control advocates call shooters things like nutjobs, yet say we need to reform the mental health system so these poor souls can get the help they need.

So which is it?

 

[Anubis]

I don't know.

I'm supposed to be an advocate?

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Doesn't saying someone is a nutjob sort of imply that they need the help of the mental health system at large?

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Man Shot House Because He Didn't Know How to Unload Gun

Police in Bucks County, Pennsylvania say a man accused of firing a gun at a neighbor's house, breaking a window, said the reason he fired the gun was because it was the only way he knew how to unload it.

According to the Bucks County Courier Times, 31-year-old George Byrd IV, who is prohibited from possessing a firearm after being found guilty of felony burglary when he was 17, at first denied firing multiple shots at his neighbor's house.

During his arraignment, however, Byrd reportedly admitted to shooting the gun because, according to the Courier Times, he is "unfamiliar with guns and didn't know how to unload ammunition."

A search warrant for Byrd's home was obtained and police reportedly found various handgun ammunition, a .357 revolver, a 12-gauge double barrel shotgun, and an M77 long rifle.

No one was injured in the shooting, and Byrd is being held on a $20,000 bail.

http://www.buckscountycouriertimes....cle_d77cf68a-a161-5ba8-8f30-2e6cc2601ca6.html

Funny how all these felons don't have a hard time getting access to weapons. We really need all sales private or otherwise to go through a licensed dealer as well as weapons that only fire when being used by the legal owner of the gun

 

[mrvlknight21]

Man Shot House Because He Didn't Know How to Unload Gun

http://www.buckscountycouriertimes....cle_d77cf68a-a161-5ba8-8f30-2e6cc2601ca6.html

Funny how all these felons don't have a hard time getting access to weapons. We really need all sales private or otherwise to go through a licensed dealer as well as weapons that only fire when being used by the legal owner of the gun

They never have a very hard time getting access, unfortunately.
They do acquire some of them through private sales, but they also get them through burglaries and car break-ins and such.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

They never have a very hard time getting access, unfortunately.
They do acquire some of them through private sales, but they also get them through burglaries and car break-ins and such.

Well if there is one thing I learned about guns from my dad is that even in your own home you need to keep them locked up. He has a quick access lock box right next to his bed for home defense and all the other guns locked up in a big safe. This problem would also be solved by the use of smart-guns that restrict access to the weapon unless used by the owner. The fact that gun nuts were threatening gun stores who were going to sell them as well as the companies themselves is insane. What rational gun owner doesn't think it's a good idea that their weapon couldn't be used by anyone but them?

 

[mrvlknight21]

Well if there is one thing I learned about guns from my dad is that even in your own home you need to keep them locked up. He has a quick access lock box right next to his bed for home defense and all the other guns locked up in a big safe. This problem would also be solved by the use of smart-guns that restrict access to the weapon unless used by the owner. The fact that gun nuts were threatening gun stores who were going to sell them as well as the companies themselves is insane. What rational gun owner doesn't think it's a good idea that their weapon couldn't be used by anyone but them?

Well, with a gun that only is able to be operated by the owner, it removes friends and family members being able to use it, for starters. That may not seem like a big deal, but I have taken dozens of my friends to the range to teach them some shooting and firearms basics, also to let them try a few guns to make a better decision on what gun they may want to buy for themselves.

Also, obviously, this prevents the owner from ever reselling the gun, which some people would agree with anyway. But, a gun owner should be able to resell their firearm..it could always be done through an FFL which requires a background check of the new buyer anyway.

Also, yes, any guns not on the gun owners person should always be locked up in a proper safe. That said, safes are not the end all prevention for guns being stolen in burglaries anyway, they are simply an extra line of defense.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Well, with a gun that only is able to be operated by the owner, it removes friends and family members being able to use it, for starters. That may not seem like a big deal, but I have taken dozens of my friends to the range to teach them some shooting and firearms basics, also to let them try a few guns to make a better decision on what gun they may want to buy for themselves.

Also, obviously, this prevents the owner from ever reselling the gun, which some people would agree with anyway. But, a gun owner should be able to resell their firearm..it could always be done through an FFL which requires a background check of the new buyer anyway.

Also, yes, any guns not on the gun owners person should always be locked up in a proper safe. That said, safes are not the end all prevention for guns being stolen in burglaries anyway, they are simply an extra line of defense.

It all depends on what type of smart gun you use. If it's like the current iteration requiring a bracelet that must be in close proximity with the weapon then there would be no problem teaching friends or family or with selling it. If they come up with some type of bio-metrics that go off of DNA or something similar than they should be able to register anyone who they wish access to the weapon. And with any of these measures selling of the firearm should be allowed only through a registered FFL so that the gun can be tracked and the new ownership can be registered to the new owner. Why would you assume this would mean nobody can sell their gun?

I'm also not sure what type of safes you are familiar with but the one my fathers use would take quite the able bodied thief to get into. I'm aware that not everyone can afford such a luxury but their are many options available in a wide variety of price ranges. I also think being required to lock your guns up should be a law.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Open-Carrying Guy Has His Brand-New Pistol Stolen at Gunpoint

An Oregon man taking advantage of the state's open carry laws had his new semiautomatic pistol stolen at gunpoint early Saturday morning, and apparently didn't put up a fight.

Gresham, Ore., police say former gun owner William Coleman III was talking to his cousin on the street around 2 a.m., openly displaying the Walther P22 he had purchased Friday.

According to the Oregonian, Coleman told cops a 20-something man walked up to the two and asked for a cigarette. When he noticed Coleman's gun, the stranger pulled his own pistol from the waistband of his sweatpants.

"I like your gun, give it to me," Coleman says the robber told him. He complied, and the man walked away with the gun.

Open carry is legal in Multnomah County with or without a concealed weapons license, but even gun rights advocates think Coleman made a huge mistake by flaunting his new firearm.

Vocativ points to the discussion over at Bearing Arms, where blogger Bob Owens wrote that Coleman had "the situational awareness of a pickle," and commenters overwhelmingly agreed Coleman needed more training before concealed-carrying—let alone displaying—a gun he'd never fired.

http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2014/10/gresham_man_robbed_of_pistol_a.html

The irony here is freaking hilarious. Just goes to show how stupid all these open carry morons are

 

[dnno1]

Well, with a gun that only is able to be operated by the owner, it removes friends and family members being able to use it, for starters. That may not seem like a big deal, but I have taken dozens of my friends to the range to teach them some shooting and firearms basics, also to let them try a few guns to make a better decision on what gun they may want to buy for themselves.

Also, obviously, this prevents the owner from ever reselling the gun, which some people would agree with anyway. But, a gun owner should be able to resell their firearm..it could always be done through an FFL which requires a background check of the new buyer anyway.

Also, yes, any guns not on the gun owners person should always be locked up in a proper safe. That said, safes are not the end all prevention for guns being stolen in burglaries anyway, they are simply an extra line of defense.

That would all depend on how they handle the lockout system. If it is just a matter of wearing a ring that is keyed to some type of RFID system, then you could just turn over the gun and the ring to the new owner. I don't see that as a problem.

 

[Destructus86]

So...how many more school shootings are we going to have before we get smart and actually start including metal detectors at schools?

 

[Kelly]

Metal detectors are not going to do it....would not have helped Sandy Hook....

There has to be adequate money spent to put in bullet proof glass, AT THE LEAST on all entrance doors, and would hope all windows on the lowest floors. Schools have to take this seriously, and still too many do not. For an example....my school. We have all of our outside doors locked, EXCEPT the front door. You have to do through the office, or be buzzed through to the main hall way. It is a stupid set up, because if anyone wanted to come into our school, all they would need to do is come through the front doors (unlocked) and go through the office doors (unlocked) to the door that leads to one of the hall ways (unlocked) or through the principals office to the main hall way, door (unlocked). As far as our Senior High, you walk through the unlocked front doors and you are in the rotunda immediately with access to anywhere in the school.

It is all just so stupid that it makes my head hurt. We train our teachers and students to cower in a corner together in hopes that they won't be heard by the gunmen...instead of training them to YES, stay quiet, but as soon as that door is breeched you throw everything you have at the gunmen and become a moving target.

It all just blows my mind....

And there are plenty of weapons out there that are not detected by a metal detector...so just not enough.

 

[Destructus86]

In MOST cases of school shootings it's someone who has a grudge against one or a few particular people using a gun they find at home. Metal detectors would cut down on a big chunk of them...not all, but a lot of them. Heavier gun restrictions would help a lot too.

The fact is...we're doing NOTHING to prevent it thanks to gun nuts who don't want anything to be done.

 

[Lilbaz]

Someone on another forum mentioned that the UK is more violent than the US.

Found some interesting articles that point out that this is a myth.

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.co...e-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/

http://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/

 

[Thundercrack85]

Considering you can't have any sort of weapon in the UK, you would hope so.

 

[Lilbaz]

Considering you can't have any sort of weapon in the UK, you would hope so.

There are plenty of punch ups in the pub on a Friday night. But the most you'd get is usually a busted nose for your trouble.

What surprises me is that we are less likely to be burgled in the UK than in the US.

 

[mrvlknight21]

So...how many more school shootings are we going to have before we get smart and actually start including metal detectors at schools?

Many schools in high crime areas have metal detectors.