More Gun Nut Shenanigans: Man Kills Two Innocent Neighbors On Their Own Property

[Melchior]

Exactly, you are proving my point that it's not a gun issue, it's a society issue. Still have not heard of a connection on that 19 year old singling out those two kids.

Everything's not black and white. I know it better fits your narrative that gun deaths are just a foregone conclusion because we're a violent society, but there are sensible steps that could be taken to help curb this problem.

It seems that most people that advocate for gun rights see any effort to control gun violence to be a step on the path to prohibition and a threat to their cause.

I'd imagine people would probably like to have access to some sort of registry or list so they can take every step not to put their community in jeopardy.

Let's not kid ourselves; most of the guys who commit these mass shootings are completely socially isolated. The more checks you have in order to legally purchase a gun, the less likely someone like that slips through the cracks. Again, no legislation is perfect, but that seems to be the requirement nowadays, at least on this issue.

Sometimes something is just a good idea and not some nefarious plot to strip you of your rights. I'm so tired of people equating guns to knives, tire irons or any other close-range weapon. A gun provides an extremely convenient way to kill people with little risk to your own safety, while requiring very little training to operate. So wouldn't it make sense to try to make acquiring a gun harder than, say, a pack of cigarettes?

No one policy is going to eliminate the problem, but if you can actually pass some reasonable legislation, eventually there will be a cumulative effect.

I mean, if the idea is that this is a societal issue and not a gun issue, then wouldn't you want to push to keep your product out of the hands of maniacs and criminals? Isn't that just smart marketing?

[Riccardo]

No it's not

Nor was it in 1994 when Clinton attempted a ban

[Melchior]

I really wish anti-gun-nuts would stop bringing up "assault weapons." Fully automatic weapons are not legal. Period. The rifles they keep harping about are semi-automatic, just like most handguns and are actually HARDER to conceal.

[Riccardo]

Exactly

5 times more people are killed with knives than with rifles - of all sorts (semi-auto or bolt action). hence the red herring status

[AnnapolisEagle]

Just make the death penalty/life the mandatory sentence for any crime committed with a firearm and guys like Window-Sniper won't want to roll the dice in court.

Then institute a gun modification program, letting licensed dealers perform the upgrade and start requiring that all guns be micro-chipped. Set an insanely harsh penalty for illegal modification of a firearm. The chips could be GPS-capable and could send a heart-beat response to a server that flags the weapon if it doesn't respond.

It wouldn't be perfect, but it'd also help address some issues like stolen weapons being used in crimes, etc... There would still be ways around it, but at least there might be somewhat of a paper trail for investigators.

I've always felt anybody who is in favor of allowing law-abiding citizens to possess guns should be in favor of a couple things:

Mandatory gun safety training and certification in order to buy a gun, strict criminal/mental health background checks for transfer of weapons and INSANELY HARSH penalties for a prohibited weapon (if you're a felon or otherwise not allowed to possess a firearm), possession of a gun that is not yours or possession of a gun with an obliterated serial number.

Would it be perfect? No. Someone who legally purchased a gun can go crazy at any time. Someone can steal a gun and immediately commit a crime. As Newtown showed, a kid with behavioral issues can use guns purchased legally by a parent (who, let's be clear here, should've been WAY more responsible about keeping weapons in the house). But these rules would go a long way to reducing the more garden-variety gun crimes we see.

It's interesting to me that people on both sides of the weapons ban issue will use the same argument: even a perfect system can't prevent criminal or crazy-ass people from doing something bad. If Adam Lanza wanted to kill a bunch of kids, he'd have found a way no matter what -- use a gun, run a car into the playground at recess, build a bomb, run a school bus off a road and down a hill. To some, that means we shouldn't infringe on the rights of others to have Bushmaster .223s. To others, it means that we should not allow any civilians to have a gun that allows someone to go to a crowded place and kill more than two-dozen people in 10 minutes.

I agree with the gun-control side, but I don't know that there's any way to convince either side to see opposing point of view. I do wish that gun-rights folks paid closer attention to the "well-regulated militia" part of the Second Amendment, though.

-AE, gun owner.

[Riccardo]

well said

I've always felt anybody who is in favor of allowing law-abiding citizens to possess guns should be in favor of a couple things:

Mandatory gun safety training and certification in order to buy a gun, strict criminal/mental health background checks for transfer of weapons and INSANELY HARSH penalties for a prohibited weapon (if you're a felon or otherwise not allowed to possess a firearm), possession of a gun that is not yours or possession of a gun with an obliterated serial number.

Would it be perfect? No. Someone who legally purchased a gun can go crazy at any time. Someone can steal a gun and immediately commit a crime. As Newtown showed, a kid with behavioral issues can use guns purchased legally by a parent (who, let's be clear here, should've been WAY more responsible about keeping weapons in the house). But these rules would go a long way to reducing the more garden-variety gun crimes we see.

Agree 100%

[TerpEagle]

http://www.wsaz.com/home/headlines/U...241973841.html

According to the criminal complaint, Black told detectives in his statement that he saw two men “shaking the door on his tool shed in his backyard.” He said he then “reached and got his .243 and loaded the gun and pointed the gun out of his window and the shot the first male and then pulled the bolt action back and fired another shot and hit the other male.”

Black also told deputies in his statement that the “did not warn them nor did he call 911 when saw them.”

He also advised that “no first aid was given after the incident.”

Sheriff McComas said in a release on Sunday that murder victim Garrick Hopkins had recently purchased the lot adjacent to #12 Lane Drive.

McComas says he took his brother to the property Saturday to show him where he and his family were planning to build their new home in the coming weeks.

The Sheriff says the outbuilding in question was on the Hopkins property and contained no belonging of Mr. Black’s.

Inside Black's home, McComas says detectives seized a large number of weapons and ammunition.

Stop overreacting to a single event.

[harls]

INSANELY HARSH penalties for a prohibited weapon (if you're a felon or otherwise not allowed to possess a firearm), possession of a gun that is not yours or possession of a gun with an obliterated serial number.

Add in Harsh penalties for giving your gun to someone else or not reporting your gun stolen in the event that it happens and If your gun is used in a crime and you have not reported it stolen you are found an accomplice to the crime (Barring the it was stolen and immediately used to commit the crime.

[Raptor]

Agreed

I've always felt anybody who is in favor of allowing law-abiding citizens to possess guns should be in favor of a couple things:

Mandatory gun safety training and certification in order to buy a gun, strict criminal/mental health background checks for transfer of weapons and INSANELY HARSH penalties for a prohibited weapon (if you're a felon or otherwise not allowed to possess a firearm), possession of a gun that is not yours or possession of a gun with an obliterated serial number.

Would it be perfect? No. Someone who legally purchased a gun can go crazy at any time. Someone can steal a gun and immediately commit a crime. As Newtown showed, a kid with behavioral issues can use guns purchased legally by a parent (who, let's be clear here, should've been WAY more responsible about keeping weapons in the house). But these rules would go a long way to reducing the more garden-variety gun crimes we see.

It's interesting to me that people on both sides of the weapons ban issue will use the same argument: even a perfect system can't prevent criminal or crazy-ass people from doing something bad. If Adam Lanza wanted to kill a bunch of kids, he'd have found a way no matter what -- use a gun, run a car into the playground at recess, build a bomb, run a school bus off a road and down a hill. To some, that means we shouldn't infringe on the rights of others to have Bushmaster .223s. To others, it means that we should not allow any civilians to have a gun that allows someone to go to a crowded place and kill more than two-dozen people in 10 minutes.

I agree with the gun-control side, but I don't know that there's any way to convince either side to see opposing point of view. I do wish that gun-rights folks paid closer attention to the "well-regulated militia" part of the Second Amendment, though.

-AE, gun owner.

I would only add periodic license renewals, much like a drivers license, as maintenance and to make adjustments if the person's info has changed, etc etc

[nor'easter]

Voice of Reason

I've always felt anybody who is in favor of allowing law-abiding citizens to possess guns should be in favor of a couple things:

Mandatory gun safety training and certification in order to buy a gun, strict criminal/mental health background checks for transfer of weapons and INSANELY HARSH penalties for a prohibited weapon (if you're a felon or otherwise not allowed to possess a firearm), possession of a gun that is not yours or possession of a gun with an obliterated serial number.

Would it be perfect? No. Someone who legally purchased a gun can go crazy at any time. Someone can steal a gun and immediately commit a crime. As Newtown showed, a kid with behavioral issues can use guns purchased legally by a parent (who, let's be clear here, should've been WAY more responsible about keeping weapons in the house). But these rules would go a long way to reducing the more garden-variety gun crimes we see.

It's interesting to me that people on both sides of the weapons ban issue will use the same argument: even a perfect system can't prevent criminal or crazy-ass people from doing something bad. If Adam Lanza wanted to kill a bunch of kids, he'd have found a way no matter what -- use a gun, run a car into the playground at recess, build a bomb, run a school bus off a road and down a hill. To some, that means we shouldn't infringe on the rights of others to have Bushmaster .223s. To others, it means that we should not allow any civilians to have a gun that allows someone to go to a crowded place and kill more than two-dozen people in 10 minutes.

I agree with the gun-control side, but I don't know that there's any way to convince either side to see opposing point of view. I do wish that gun-rights folks paid closer attention to the "well-regulated militia" part of the Second Amendment, though.

-AE, gun owner.

AE, I am not a gun owner and I think you're spot on. (I am a n00b though so I know that counts against me). Unfortunately moderation on this issue and a lot of other political pissing matches doesn't seem to get it done anymore due to the entrenchments on each wing. And all that does is put people like you and me in the crossfire (pun intended).

[Big Little]

I don't think that is an overreaction what took place was completely insane

And AE I agree 100% with what you said above, so does 90% of Americans but still no regulation, wonder why that is?

[Melchior]

I don't think that is an overreaction what took place was completely insane

And AE I agree 100% with what you said above, so does 90% of Americans but still no regulation, wonder why that is?

I think he was being facetious.

[FuriousXGeorge]

Nor was it in 1994 when Clinton attempted a ban

Those are semi-auto weapons that can fall under the nebulous "assault weapons" label. They are not assault rifles because they do not have fully automatic capabilities. It's hilarious that the pro-gun side can sometimes be so ignorant about guns.

[Riccardo]

Just assumed you used the usual anti-gun nut definition of an assault rifle

As semi-auto. Using that definition then assault rifles are even less of an issue

[Riccardo]

Isn't murder always insane?

I would say this one is even more insane. Why do you only point out the ones carried out with guns?

http://www.toledoblade.com/Courts/20...y-s-death.html