Random Comments (RH)

[Bo D]

  I'm glad she didn't use a Les Paul.   

A Les Paul is a Gibson.

[me]

I wonder how many people will get that. 

You know I did...... 

[me]

A Les Paul is a Gibson.

Anxious to see Troll's reply to this... 

[Bo D]

Anxious to see Troll's reply to this... 

I'm sure it'll be a doozy!

[me]

 

I'm sure it'll be a doozy!

[Purplelady1040]

A Les Paul is a Gibson.

[Bo D]

We have another three-name killer - John Russel Houser.

Why is it that most mass killers are called by their full name?

[AbbyTC]

We have another three-name killer - John Russel Houser.

Why is it that most mass killers are called by their full name?

Maybe to make them seem more imposing.  Assassins, too:  John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, and James Earl Ray.

[Bo D]

Maybe to make them seem more imposing.  Assassins, too:  John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, and James Earl Ray.

Maybe so. I never thought of it that way. Or maybe even more sinister? Or ... you know how we sometimes get really angry at our kids and we call them by all three names?

[Bo D]

I say this as a gun owner. I have always owned guns. But the NRA could do itself and the rest of us a favor by changing the rhetoric on gun laws. They need to come out in favor of stronger methods/laws that prohibit ownership of guns to those people who don't pass certain standards (i.e., mental stability/capacity.) Thorough background checks are a MUST.

The killer in that LA theater (John Russel Houser) was a drifter whose OWN FAMILY had him committed and said in a petition that "he was a danger to himself and others."

I will anxiously await news on how he got that gun.

[Purplelady1040]

I say this as a gun owner. I have always owned guns. But the NRA could do itself and the rest of us a favor by changing the rhetoric on gun laws. They need to come out in favor of stronger methods/laws that prohibit ownership of guns to those people who don't pass certain standards (i.e., mental stability/capacity.) Thorough background checks are a MUST.

The killer in that LA theater (John Russel Houser) was a drifter whose OWN FAMILY had him committed and said in a petition that "he was a danger to himself and others."

I will anxiously await news on how he got that gun.

I agree!

[Palehorse]

I say this as a gun owner. I have always owned guns. But the NRA could do itself and the rest of us a favor by changing the rhetoric on gun laws. They need to come out in favor of stronger methods/laws that prohibit ownership of guns to those people who don't pass certain standards (i.e., mental stability/capacity.) Thorough background checks are a MUST.

The killer in that LA theater (John Russel Houser) was a drifter whose OWN FAMILY had him committed and said in a petition that "he was a danger to himself and others."

I will anxiously await news on how he got that gun.

I'll have to differ somewhat with you here, or perhaps clarify a bit. (We'll see).

Increasing restrictive laws upon that portion of citizens that already comply with the laws in place does nothing to restrict those who pay no attention to the laws in the first place.

That being said, we MUST ensure that the laws we have in place have the infrastructure to enable them to do what they are supposed to do. Each and every federally licensed firearms dealer MUST obtain the background check clearance before the sale of and handgun or long gun can legally take place; and when they do not then we must come down on them like 10 tons of bricks.

Swift and harsh punishment of those found guilty of committing offenses with a firearm must be consistently applied, and upheld.

And those caught in possession of firearms when they are legally precluded from owning them MUST be dealt with harshly!

Supposedly that is what the laws and system presently in place are supposed to do, but are they really? Are our court systems handing down sentences that are commensurate with the transgressions?

The reality is, firearms are readily available via an illegal black market in just about any city in this nation. They are stolen each and every day in the thousands of home and vehicular burglaries that take place. Even police officers are not immune from the break ins that result in the theft of their department issued equipment and firearms.

And until law abiding citizens that comply with the laws surrounding firearm ownership, are allowed to, or take advantage of concealed / open carry of firearms en mass, we will continue to see this scourge fill our nation with the blood and lives of the innocent. Until the fear of the average Jane and Joe likely being armed themselves becomes a reality for these criminals, there will be little else that can be done other than the usual tactic of increasing the gauntlet those who already abide by the law must endure in order to obtain firearms.

It is a maddening circle jerk of treating the wrong symptom that this country continues to pursue and has for decades.

Mental health is a major contributor to many of these mass killings; certainly the one in this case. And this country continues to allow weak legislation to perpetuate, and ignore the root cause of the problem for a large number of these events. And all because the nations insurance carriers want it that way so they can continue to increase their bottom line.

This current case is a prime example of what  I am talking about here. A man who was clearly a danger to himself and others due to mental illness, is allowed to run free coast-to-coast in this nation; without treatment, without monitoring, and without any restriction what-so-ever.

My guess is IF they are able to trace down where the firearm he used came from it will have been stolen; from a private owner and perhaps even a relative.

[Bo D]

I'll have to differ somewhat with you here, or perhaps clarify a bit. (We'll see).

Increasing restrictive laws upon that portion of citizens that already comply with the laws in place does nothing to restrict those who pay no attention to the laws in the first place.

That being said, we MUST ensure that the laws we have in place have the infrastructure to enable them to do what they are supposed to do. Each and every federally licensed firearms dealer MUST obtain the background check clearance before the sale of and handgun or long gun can legally take place; and when they do not then we must come down on them like 10 tons of bricks.

Swift and harsh punishment of those found guilty of committing offenses with a firearm must be consistently applied, and upheld.

And those caught in possession of firearms when they are legally precluded from owning them MUST be dealt with harshly!

Supposedly that is what the laws and system presently in place are supposed to do, but are they really? Are our court systems handing down sentences that are commensurate with the transgressions?

The reality is, firearms are readily available via an illegal black market in just about any city in this nation. They are stolen each and every day in the thousands of home and vehicular burglaries that take place. Even police officers are not immune from the break ins that result in the theft of their department issued equipment and firearms.

And until law abiding citizens that comply with the laws surrounding firearm ownership, are allowed to, or take advantage of concealed / open carry of firearms en mass, we will continue to see this scourge fill our nation with the blood and lives of the innocent. Until the fear of the average Jane and Joe likely being armed themselves becomes a reality for these criminals, there will be little else that can be done other than the usual tactic of increasing the gauntlet those who already abide by the law must endure in order to obtain firearms.

It is a maddening circle jerk of treating the wrong symptom that this country continues to pursue and has for decades.

Mental health is a major contributor to many of these mass killings; certainly the one in this case. And this country continues to allow weak wrested legislation to perpetuate, and ignore the root cause of the problem for a large number of these events. And all because the nations insurance carriers want it that way so they can continue to increase their bottom line.

This current case is a prime example of what  I am talking about here. A man who was clearly a danger to himself and others due to mental illness, is allowed to run free coast-to-coast in this nation; without treatment, without monitoring, and without any restriction what-so-ever.

My guess is IF they are able to race down where the firearm he used came from it will have been stolen; from a private owner and perhaps even a relative.

I really don't think we are very far apart at all on this issue. We have just expressed it in different terms. He may well have gotten the gun illegally, we shall see. We can't pass any laws to stop that. But a system that checks more thoroughly and allows accurate communications among all departments involved would go a long way to at least begin to cut back on these incidents. Dylann Roof's drug use admission never made it into the background check database - partially because of human error - partially because disparate systems don't communicate.

But it seems as if the NRA has taken a hardline stance against background checks and I think that is entirely wrong. They should push background checks as a means to protect the right of every law-abiding, responsible citizen to own a gun. What does a law-abiding, responsible citizen fear from a background check?

[Palehorse]

I really don't think we are very far apart at all on this issue. We have just expressed it in different terms. He may well have gotten the gun illegally, we shall see. We can't pass any laws to stop that. But a system that checks more thoroughly and allows accurate communications among all departments involved would go a long way to at least begin to cut back on these incidents. Dylann Roof's drug use admission never made it into the background check database - partially because of human error - partially because disparate systems don't communicate.

But it seems as if the NRA has taken a hardline stance against background checks and I think that is entirely wrong. They should push background checks as a means to protect the right of every law-abiding, responsible citizen to own a gun. What does a law-abiding, responsible citizen fear from a background check?

Correct. My issue is each and every time one of these events take place, it is the law abiding firearm owner that has a proctoscope shoved up their six, and NOT the damned infrastructure that is supposed to filter out the criminals. . . And some jack-hole politician gets all jiggy over increasing gun laws in order to secure his/her place by placating the anti-gunners, and at the same time increasing fees to fill the revenue streams on the law abiding citizens backs.

My position is that the laws are already sufficient, the infrastructure is the gap for the exact reasons you state; and others. . .

At this rate it will not be long before we have to have a monthly mental and physical examination, blood tests, drug tests, and a rectal examination just to own a shotgun to put a pheasant or two on the table or a deer in the freezer. And the insurance companies will not cover the required testing because it isn't medically necessary! 

[Palehorse]

Also, for the record, I detest the NRA and the draconian stance they have assumed through the years. There was a time when I was a card carrying member; but that was a very long time ago. Once they went Rogue I set them adrift. They very rarely represent my views and have not for decades.