BREAKING: Active Shooter Thousand Oaks

a reply to: notsure1

Usually, a lot more. My Ruger was one of the cheaper guns there, and it was north of 300 dollars, way north.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Wayfarer

Bull#!!

No, you can not.

I purchased a Ruger revolver this past summer at a gun show, and I had to jump through all the same hoops as I would at any store that sells firearms. Everyone of those people who sell firearms at those show have to be licensed to sell 'em.

I was at a gun show down in rural Kentucky 2 years ago and one of the 'sellers' (if you can even call them that as it was just about of townies with guns set out on folding tables), was selling a piece of junk 38 special for $110, and I watched what looked like a 17 year old kid walk up and buy it cash in hand, and walk off with little more than about 3 sentences spoken....

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: caterpillage
a reply to: Wayfarer

I have a 95 beretta I'll sell you for 100 bucks. It runs and drives fine, and will kill as many people as you can hit with it. It's kind of a death trap to the people in it too, and no background check required what so ever

Why are all these folks shooting up these places then if cars are way easier and more effective means of killing?

Because its easier to kill people with guns, particulaarly in a building.

I concede that.

So then you would just outlaw the tool that is easiest to kill people with.

So ok, lets say we get rid of guns.

Now 5 years from now we check again.

Now killers are using cars the most. So do we now ban cars?

Then five years later its knives.

The point is, once we start banning the tool most used, when do we stop?

I pripose we stop focuing on the tool, and focus more on the type of people that use the tool to kill, and how to help on that end.

I dunno man, sounds a bit like a defeatist attitude. It stops after we correct all the avenue's that make it easy for crazies to kill people. Barricades for cars, etc.

There is a solution to it all, just not the will. Surprisingly, on the whole most 2nd amendment supporters seem to change their tune when they or their own loved ones are the victims of gun violence.

No there is no solution.

There we go. This is what I was looking for. The solution is to actually make guns more prevalent, and more easily accessible. The only result that changes anything is if we are all killed in gun violence.

So you are saying baan guns or we all need to die?

Sounds reasonable.

No I'm saying the only solution that many of the 2nd amendment supporters here on ATS have is the only restriction to be levied is a complete anti-restriction. Somehow more guns will fix everything.......

well I didnt say that.

I do think that gun free zones seem to experince these mass shootings more often.

You didn't say it until you just did it seems; Implying that having guns be more prevalent as the solution.

No i didnt say more guns is the answer.

I said areas where guns are restricted seem to be targeted more.

There is a huge difference

Really? An area where guns are unrestricted logically would have more guns in it. Correlating areas with more guns as safer is directly implying that the quantity of guns is a direct factor in safety.

No it is not.

Lets say that I am a criminal.

In one small town, guns are illegal. However, unbeknownst to me the criminal, many [people there are breaking the law and have guns.

In the next twon, it is perfectly legal to own guns. However, unbeknownst to me the criminal, no one there owns guns.

where am I more likely to break in to a house?

Probably the town that is a gun free zone.

It is notbthe amount of guns that leads to more safety, it is the restrcition of guns that leads to more violence by allowing criminals know they can attack in relative safety.

originally posted by: roadgravel


There are people who cannot legal possess a gun but they do. The honor system.

I have seen numbers to suggest that only about 15% of guns used by criminals that are not legally able to have one actually got the gun though legal means.

As I said before, you sell and don't use an FFL you are rolling the dice as to whether you might be criminally label in the future, but hey there are always dumb people in EVERYTHING including guns...just like the person that leaves a loaded gun in a place where kids can find it.

a reply to: Wayfarer

in 9 million sq kilometers of country I am certain you can find somewhere in some far off corner where people don't follow the law... that makes them a criminal and like many folks have been saying criminals are not going to follow the law.


Every gun show I have gone to across Oklahoma, eastern texas, Louisiana , and Florida all had police on premises and background checks once that became law.

originally posted by: roadgravel
How about illegally possessing a firearm or using one in a crime is an automatic death sentence. Will that be acceptable.

The funny thing is that under Obama, they basically prosecuted no crimes involving illegal ownership of guns or attempts to purchase them.

In Chicago, the U.S. attorney filed only one gun prosecution for every 25 cases of gun violence, according to data from the Gun Violence Archive. The report found similar disparities in other major American cities, including St. Louis, Philadelphia, Detroit and Houston.

Prosecutors have told me gun laws are difficult cases to prosecute, without much jury appeal. Consequently, there aren’t many prosecutions. In 2015, only 6,000 convictions were won nationwide – a 15 percent drop from five years earlier.

Although anyone failing a background check to purchase a weapon can technically be prosecuted, they seldom are. During my service in Congress as chairman of the House Oversight Committee, I asked the Justice Department to provide specific numbers of gun prosecutions. I got delays, questions, and ultimately convoluted answers about how many gun crimes the department actually prosecuted.

www.foxnews.com...

So instead of enforcing the gun laaws already on the books, people want to make more laws that will only affect law abiding citizens

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Wayfarer

Bull#!!

No, you can not.

I purchased a Ruger revolver this past summer at a gun show, and I had to jump through all the same hoops as I would at any store that sells firearms. Everyone of those people who sell firearms at those show have to be licensed to sell 'em.

I was at a gun show down in rural Kentucky 2 years ago and one of the 'sellers' (if you can even call them that as it was just about of townies with guns set out on folding tables), was selling a piece of junk 38 special for $110, and I watched what looked like a 17 year old kid walk up and buy it cash in hand, and walk off with little more than about 3 sentences spoken....

Perhaps that dealer broke the law, I am not sure.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

I was at a gun show down in rural Kentucky 2 years ago and one of the 'sellers' (if you can even call them that as it was just about of townies with guns set out on folding tables), was selling a piece of junk 38 special for $110, and I watched what looked like a 17 year old kid walk up and buy it cash in hand, and walk off with little more than about 3 sentences spoken....

Who knows..The gun might have been stolen too... I have said if we ever outlawed a gun type I would suggest cheap hand guns...lol

100,000 people are arrested every year for driving without a license, so doing the smart thing is something that many people lack, and in this case for both the buyer and seller.

Odd thought... has there ever been a study about the effect of 24 hour news channels when it comes to mass shootings.

I remember hearing a bit about shootings pre 24 hr news, but anecdotally it seems like it was after 24hr news became big that shootings really took off.

It's probably been discussed already, but I saw a post in here with the typical "better ban cars too because people can kill each other with cars" and "more people die from cars than guns" nonsense.

That comparison needs to stop. It isn't even remotely in the same ball park.

First of all, you have to remove all of the ACCIDENTS from car death statistics. I'm not sure of the numbers that would be left over, but I'm pretty positive that less people are PURPOSELY killed by a vehicle than by a gun. Yes, it still happens, but nowhere near as often as murder with a gun.

Yes, you can use a car to kill someone. BUT, you have to go through months of classes and training in order to use one. Why can't the exact same thing be applied to guns? You'd still have the right (that some of you are so concerned about) to own one, you just have to prove that you're capable of using one. During those months, you should also be subject to background checks, mental health checks, etc. You still have the right to own one, if you can show that you're capable of it.
I'm definitely not anti-gun, or a "gun grabber", or anything like that. I have a safe full of guns. Including the dreaded AR-15. But, I see absolutely no problem with making it harder to qualify to get a gun. That wouldn't violate anybodies rights, and would most likely help the problem we have at hand.
It's the same argument I have for going green for climate change: even if it isn't actually a problem, why is it a bad thing to take relevant precautions? It wouldn't hurt anything, and could potentially help. So, why not?

Yes, mental health plays a huge role, and we also need to make access to mental health professionals much easier. For that matter, why are soldiers still getting PTSD at such a high rate? We aren't even technically at war with anyone! We need to stop playing world police and bring those folks home, there's no reason for people to have to go through that during these times.

Bottom line, you can use pretty much anything to kill someone. Pencils, fire extinguishers, bare hands, a rock, etc. HOWEVER, guns are used the vast majority of the time in America. Why not make it harder for that to happen?

a reply to: Grambler

And under mao, up to 100 million chinese may have be murdered by the government.

...and how did he come to power?? By using a gun, or many thousands of 'em. He learned his lesson well.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Grambler

And under mao, up to 100 million chinese may have be murdered by the government.

...and how did he come to power?? By using a gun, or many thousands of 'em. He learned his lesson well.

If only there was a law saying mao couldnt have a gun!

That would have solved it!

originally posted by: narrator
Bottom line, you can use pretty much anything to kill someone. Pencils, fire extinguishers, bare hands, a rock, etc. HOWEVER, guns are used the vast majority of the time in America. Why not make it harder for that to happen?

We stab each other to death in the UK...crazies will kill just find a different tool...illegal guns are well regulated by criminals here and only used against other criminals usually. It's a cultural thing and works, but we just stab each other instead.
I've stabbed a home intruder and I've been slashed by a knife in my life, just different tools is all.

a reply to: narrator

I was referring to a person saying people concerned with gun rights dont care at all if even millions of people die, they only care about their rights.

That is just as stupid as saying car owners dont care if millions die in cars, as long as they have their convenience.

Having people have to qualify to get a gun is takin g away rights.

That is what I refernced above, saying you have to earn the right. Who determines who has earned the right? Trump? Congress?

That is different than saying you can lose your right by being a criminal, etc.

Only about 1 in 25 gun crimes are actually prosecuted.

So what good is making more laws if we dont enforce the ones we have?

a reply to: Wayfarer

I was at a gun show down in rural Kentucky 2 years ago and one of the 'sellers' (if you can even call them that as it was just about of townies with guns set out on folding tables), was selling a piece of junk 38 special for $110, and I watched what looked like a 17 year old kid walk up and buy it cash in hand, and walk off with little more than about 3 sentences spoken....

Firstly, looking a certain age is not a requirement... being a certain age is.

Secondly, that's the way a gun transfer goes after the legal paperwork is done. How do you know the guy hadn't already filled out the required paperwork and passed his background check, and was just stopping by to pick up the gun? Do you think people wait patiently at the dealer's table for a few days while their background check is ran?

Thirdly, I don't know of anyone who buys a gun after speaking 3 sentences. I have more questions than that... what condition is it in? How old is it? What caliber? Does it still fire? I want to hold it to feel the balance. I want to consider if this is my best deal available. That apparently all went on before the background stuff, as is the norm. Every time I picked up a gun after the check, all I cared about was "You get the paperwork back?" "Yep. Here you go." Hand over money. "Thanks."

You really should be careful with those guns you own. As scared as you obviously are of them, you are a prime candidate to accidentally shoot yourself or someone close to you.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Wayfarer

Then he is in violation of several state and federal laws.

Did you do anything? Or just stare in outrage??

That was an outlier, I attend at least a dozen gunshows yearly, seldom purchase anything, other than the occasional knife (I have a sharp pointy thing problem, sometimes...), I mostly go to talk to people and people watch, and I've never seen that, ever.

Most of the loopholes have closed, or a good many of them, but if you're willing to break the law...well then, you'll probably get away with it, for a while. ATF has been known to pull stings of this nature.

The last show I went to, last weekend, there was a county sheriffs deputy parked right outside the exit. You were not going to walk in, buy a gun, and walk out with it.

I am sorry I don’t have time to look this up, but I am very curious, do countries with low rates of mass shootings also force the mentally unstable to be committed against their will?

I have to point out something here... like the vast majority of all mass shootings, the bar was a gun-free zone. So obviously the media is lying, because no one could have a gun in the bar. It's completely illegal! The law says no one can have a gun, the ultimate gun regulation!

Or... maybe, just maybe, the guy was a criminal and broke the law... nah, couldn't be that!

TheRedneck

a reply to: Irishhaf

Fame or infamy...does a delusional soul out to be remembered even care.

I think the 24/7 cycle does play a roll. How big a one, I don't know.

originally posted by: seagull
The last show I went to, last weekend, there was a county sheriffs deputy parked right outside the exit. You were not going to walk in, buy a gun, and walk out with it.

How would the deputy know if it was a side arm? I'd just hide it in a bag or whatever, did he/she search everyone on exit?
EDIT
It is really difficult to buy or rent firearms in the UK illegally, there are checks and balances by the actual criminals to ensure the gun doesn't get confiscated, psychos and Muslims are two groups who don't get a look in.
We stab each other to death instead, but way easier to defend against a crazy guy with a knife than a gun.