Another Christmas shooting.....

[TNovak]

Originally Posted by MrYac

i'm not against fingerptinitng, buti've got to ask the obvious question, what good would it have possibly done in either of these situations? the whacko's that go on these shooting sprees usually don't want to make it out anyway, so they aren't too concerned about leaving any prints behind

none. The point is not to do anything constructive to stop these incidents, just to make it more difficult for people to own guns. We hear a lot of bleating about the "gun show" loop hole that avoids back ground checks but don't think any of the guns in these shootings were bought illegally or at gun shows.

Suppose we ban "assault weapons" (and I bet nearly everyone in favor of it doesn't even know what they are and how they are classified) and loons start using Glocks or other semi automatic pistols (mine have 18 round clips) then it will be "surely nobody needs those" and eventually it gets to a ban and confiscation, that is the goal and don't kid yourself otherwise.

[Tetragrammaton]

I think that there does have to be a better system in place to screen people buying the guns. There are still too many people legally getting access to firearms that simply should not.

I remember having to have a couple of references including a neighbor when I first applied for my acquisition and possession license.

All this talk about gun control had me going to several online sites. Amazes me what is available, even in Canada, over the internet given that you have the correct documentation. If I didn't give up the gun collection when I did, I would absolutely have a few less statues today.

[Argonus]

I'm for whatever cuts down on these deaths... gun control's not the answer? So be it. It is the answer? I'm on-board with this as well.

I don't give a sh!t about the left/right politics involved in this bull----. Much like the rest of you, I'm just sick of the deaths.

[Underdog07]

Originally Posted by MrYac

i'm not against fingerptinitng, buti've got to ask the obvious question, what good would it have possibly done in either of these situations? the whacko's that go on these shooting sprees usually don't want to make it out anyway, so they aren't too concerned about leaving any prints behind

I imagine these fingerprinting requirements are envisioned as more of a screen for who gets/doesn't get a gun and not for catching criminals.


And I am surprised that people do not realize how many feel giving fingerprints is an invasion of privacy both here and in the EU. Teachers unions fought them when these rules started to be instituted for sexual predators. People are against fingerprints or other biometrics for drivers licenses. Or for any use re voting. And the EU's highest court is considering whether its permissible to requiring biometric info such as fingerprints for passports.

Re guns, To me, requiring fingerprints for something someone bought a week, year or decade ago is wrong. It's changing the rules mid game. Rules of this type should always be applied going forward.

[Tetragrammaton]

Originally Posted by TNovak

But still why get rid of them? It costs nothing to keep them, right?

It was costing me about $400 a year for membership at a range, that had to be maintained even if I was not shooting in order to keep the guns plus a small amount for renewal of the possession license.

The timing of my last renewal hit when I was going through some major life changes and it seemed like a good time to lose the guns. Do I regret my decision? Some days, but for the most part I do not regret getting rid of them.

[ratchet]

Originally Posted by Argonus

If fingerprinting everyone means we get gun owners fingerprinted, then so be it.. as I said, I'm fingerprinted anyways, when I'm teaching. My fingerprints are in the system of three states, they're just not "current", as I haven't taught since 2008. I am required to update them when/if I return to teaching, and have no problem with doing so.

Teachers put up NO stink at all about being finger-printed, as it protects them, the schools, the students, and everyone from any number of situations.. I find it amusing that some gun enthusiasts are so adamantly opposed to the notion.


You own something that could end the life of several people; the responsible thing to do would be to make sure every fail-safe is in place in the eventuality that you "lose your sh!t" psychologically so that you can be stopped and/or prosecuted.

I would have no problem giving my fingerprints - my hands are clean - and if they are ever not... then I should get caught.

[TNovak]

Originally Posted by ratchet

I would have no problem giving my fingerprints - my hands are clean - and if they are ever not... then I should get caught.

I think it's a good idea for you too. I'm not sure but I bet if you wanted to (maybe you would have to pay a fee but you are always in favor of people paying fees and more taxes) you could go down to the FBI and tell them you voluntarily want your fingerprints and DNA included in their database in case there are any unsolved crimes in the future that occur where you had been at some point in time.

You never know, right?

[TNovak]

Originally Posted by Argonus

I'm for whatever cuts down on these deaths... gun control's not the answer? So be it. It is the answer? I'm on-board with this as well.

I don't give a sh!t about the left/right politics involved in this bull----. Much like the rest of you, I'm just sick of the deaths.

In case you missed this post earlier, here are just a few examples of armed citizenry preventing these things (or reducing their scope)

-- Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, a couple weeks ago: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.

-- Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)

-- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

-- Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

-- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

-- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.


There was also the Portland incident recently where I don't know how many died but apparently a gunman stopped and killed himself when a civilian pointed a gun at him. And come to think of it, all of these are stopped when somebody shows up with a gun. Usually its the cops but they don't stop and shoot themselves because of their respect for the law, but because the cops have guns

You are from Oregon right Argonus? You must know about the Portland one. What happened on that one? Am I right?

[Argonus]

Originally Posted by TNovak

You are from Oregon right Argonus? You must know about the Portland one. What happened on that one? Am I right?

I lived up in the Northwest for about 8 years; back in Calfornia now.

Miss it quite a bit... I posted an article regarding that shooting, though... a citizen drew down on the shooter, while he was reloading, and the gunman apparently noticed this.. which "helped" hasten his effort to kill himself.

[joefixit2]

Originally Posted by TNovak

Actually there are quite a few. Mother Jones recently did a "study" saying there aren't by using the unusual parameter of there having to be at least 4 dead. This is unusual because when an armed civilian is there and stops him it is often before he kills more than 4. Is he to wait until a lot are killed before he does anything? here are a few

-- Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, a couple weeks ago: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.

-- Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)

-- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

-- Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

-- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

-- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.


There was also the Portland incident recently where I don't know how many died but apparently a gunman stopped and killed himself when a civilian pointed a gun at him. And come to think of it, all of these are stopped when somebody shows up with a gun. Usually its the cops but they don't stop and shoot themselves because of their respect for the law, but because the cops have guns.

So "your" study trumps my "study"

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-investigation

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...shootings-myth

Here some facts for your incidents: Attempts by armed citizens to stop shooters are rare. At least two such attempts in recent years ended badly, with the would-be good guys gravely wounded or killed. Meanwhile, the five cases most commonly cited as instances of regular folks stopping massacres fall apart under scrutiny: Either they didn't involve ordinary citizens taking action—those who intervened were actually cops, trained security officers, or military personnel—or the citizens took action after the shooting rampages appeared to have already ended. (Or in some cases, both.)

Even if you want to talk about these "examples" how many of the killers had assault type weapons and how many of the "civilians" who "stopped" them had standard handguns.

No one is saying that gun control is the only answer, the problem is large and one single thing will not fix it, it will take a large effort over many areas, gun control being one of them. No one is saying that all guns should be banned but yet again in stead of having a conversation about what we can do, all I hear is that the end game is about the big bad government taking everyone's guns. No, it's about saving lives.

As opposed to probably everyone on this forum, I actually know someone who was involved with a shooting. He was present at an incident in 2006 and saw his friends shot and killed in front of him and watched them bleed to death. To this day, he still wakes up screaming many nights from PTSD. The killer used assault style weapons.