But I’m not proposing a ban on ammunition purchases. Or even a limit to them. Buy all you want - but unless you get pre-cleared, expect someone to check up to see why.
Kind of like getting large amounts of cash. Legal, but it gets reported. Why is cash more dangerous than bullets?
Good question. I guess they can check his credit card receipts. But I doubt he bought it 20 rounds at a time.
Ditto with all the guns.
When I get a permit for house work, I have to certify that I have CO detectors. But not that 50 runs are secured.
OK, lets apply your premise. The mass shooter in my city had all the things you mentioned plus a protective vest. He shot a lot of people in a very short period of time. It’s everything we want to avoid.
If you take away all of his guns he still drove up in a car that would have killed more people running them down. He could then drive down the road and repeat the process.
So what could have prevented the purchase of his guns? He had a history of violence in HS. due to the laws on the books those records were sealed because of his age.
Why would we have such laws? To protect adults from the stupid things they did in their youth. A good idea if you’re trying to prevent someone from not getting a job for smoking pot.
A bad idea if you’re trying to prevent the purchase of weapons by violent people.
Change the law to reflect it’s purpose to help adults lead a normal life.
OK, lets apply your premise. The mass shooter in my city had all the things you mentioned plus a protective vest. He shot a lot of people in a very short period of time. It’s everything we want to avoid.
If you take away all of his guns he still drove up in a car that would have killed more people running them down. He could then drive down the road and repeat the process.
So what could have prevented the purchase of his guns? He had a history of violence in HS. due to the laws on the books those records were sealed because of his age.
Why would we have such laws? To protect adults from the stupid things they did in their youth. A good idea if you’re trying to prevent someone from not getting a job for smoking pot.
A bad idea if you’re trying to prevent the purchase of weapons by violent people.
Change the law to reflect it’s purpose to help adults lead a normal life.
This is a pretty convincing post. On top of additional scrutiny for people who buy lots of weapons and ammo, we should also consider scrutinizing people who steal truck and stab the driver dead. That’s a red flag for sure.
Stabbing the driver dead is definitely a clue.
The Vegas shooter killed himself. It was a suicide mission from the start.
So, your “lacked the guts” scenario is wrong.
Choose your poison. Do you want to die from gun shot wounds or be incinerated in a fiery blaze of glory? Same person, different method. Take away the gun and the intent to kill is still there unless you believe it’s “guns or nothing”.
Define the problem. If the problem is crazy then fix crazy.
Bullshit
Why do you keep insisting on this idiotic argument? At least ‘cars kill more people than guns’ has a shred of deliberately misused data to back it up. This one is just comical.
For the record, if comedy isn’t your goal, if we are taking a homicidal maniac, and choosing whether to arm him with an arsenal of semi automatic rifles or a Camry… I’m taking the Camry, and not believing for an instant that I’ve made him more dangerous to society.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So, really, it’s *better *to let the mass murderers have guns. That way, the victims will suffer less as they die.
OK, then.
Depends what what qualifies as “mass.” Murders of this sort are either the result of gang warfare - garbage on garbage - pr terrorism. Given the restrictrions on guns, both groups have to get creative. Not having guns makes it much harder for them to kill.
BTW, the Dunblane shooting was perpetrated by someone who had a firearms license, but IMHO he would have been stopped if he had been required to keep his ammunition at a shooing range. Self defense in NOT an issue in the UK, hence you do not need to shoot intruders or whatever you consider a valid target.
As for the OP’s question, why not require that ammunition is kept at a shooting range unless you need a weapon for self defense? In that case you can keep with you a suitable amount of ammunition, and 'll leave it to you to define “suitable.”
He fucking lacked the guts to look his victims in the eye. He lacked the guts to be a decent human fucking being living in society. He lacked the guts to live without the need for guns.
Well I would think it better to fix the person intent on the crime instead of trying to remove an infinite number of methods of killing.
In the case of the mass-murderer in my city there were plenty of red flags to indicate he was violent. But for some stupid reason our laws deliberately hide this in a blanket law that hides youthful crimes. It doesn’t matter if it was theft or violent threats.
If you want a solution to mass killings then addressing such laws would be a start. let me repeat that, It’s not a solution but it’s a start. If you fix a mass shooter then you fix mass bomber or driver or whatever other method available for killing.
How can we deny a gun purchase if a violent record is kept out of the screening process?
Yes, he wasn’t a decent human being. But your logic that he needed a gun to do the killing is not a factual statement. Since he killed himself with a gun he could have just as easily have killed more people with a plane full of gas traveling 150 mph and die in a literal blaze of glory.
We’re still talking about the vegas shooter, right? He was hundreds of yards away. Damn right he needed guns to do it. That’s what guns are designed to do. Put holes in things at a distance.
this statement makes no sense at all. Self defense is an issue on every square meter of space on this planet unless you have a police officer standing next to you.
If it’s already illegal to kill people what makes you think a mass-murderer will subscribe to a suitable amount of amunition?
That’s nice. It’s helpful that your local mass murderer was obviously someone who was going to go off violently. And I’m all in favor of “red flag” laws. But I’ve observed that the NRA, and gun rights fundamentalists in general, will fight them tooth and nail. Domestic violence? Hey, no problem, right?
But in the case of (for example) Stephen Paddock, the red flag *should *have been, but wasn’t, that he purchased 55 guns in the year before his mass killing. That’s one a week, more or less. And that’s in addition to the dozens of guns he already owned. And he purchased uncounted rounds of ammunition. Not to mention the bump stock device that played a large part in the killing of 59 and the wounding of more than 400.
Yeah, I know. Guns don’t kill people, people do. Yes, people kill people. With guns.
This gun thing is a disease. And I’m sick of hearing that other people’s lives are just the price to be paid for our “freedom” to own unlimited killing tools.
So, yes, the purchase of many guns should be a red flag. And prohibited. And yes, that would require a central registry of gun purchases.
No, it’s not.
I’ve lived 60 years without ever needing a gun. I grew up in New York City, in a deteriorating neighborhood, and lived through the worst years of the city’s violent history, in one of the worst neighborhoods.
I’ve traveled all over the word, including in troubled countries where violence is endemic.
Never have I been in a situation where having a gun would have improved things.
The belief that one must always be prepared to defend oneself with a gun is a psychological issue, not a realistic observation.
If you live somewhere where self-defense, with a gun, is an issue every minute of the day, you really should think about moving.
You’re not making sense. He could have just as easily flown a plane into the crowd. That he used a gun instead of a plane doesn’t change his intent.
His intent was to shoot people. With guns. From a distance.
Ah yes, crime free New York City. OK then. We’re done.