Topic: Today's shooting - The Sandy Hook Memorial Thread - Thoughts and Prayers

[ChaChaMooMoo]

That is all completely irrelevant as soon as the gun is stolen.........

The fear of spending 6 months in jail for unsafe storage of weapons will force owners to safely store their weapons.
We have to start somewhere. Why not with safe storage and prosecute those who dont.

[rob1966]

The fear of spending 6 months in jail for unsafe storage of weapons will force owners to safely store their weapons.
We have to start somewhere. Why not with safe storage and prosecute those who dont.

That approach will immediately reduce the amount of incidents - children would no longer be finding guns in cars and bedrooms, kids won't be stealing Dads gun to go settle an argument or go rob a store and criminals will be having a source of obtaining one from burglary removed.

It wouldn't take a massive amount of development to update the current database with new columns in a table, one that would self generate a unique reference number and a blank one with a firearms dealer registration number. Each gun owner then logs into a database to get their unique id no, goes and buys a safe and at point of purchase, the seller of the safe cross checks the provided number with the number held on the database - this can be done over the phone, creating new jobs if needed - and then the database is updated to show a safe has been purchased. The Police can then go and make spot checks on those who have bought and those who haven't installed or bought a safe have their guns confiscated.

It creates jobs too as they can use good old American steel to build the safes out of and they will need welders etc to make them.

[Indomitable_Carp]

The fear of spending 6 months in jail for unsafe storage of weapons will force owners to safely store their weapons.
We have to start somewhere. Why not with safe storage and prosecute those who dont.

The question is, how would you enforce that?

It would involve the police going round to regularly check-up and search the house/gun-storage area of every registered gun owner in their area. Not only would it involve a lot of police time and resources, but I imagine that is the kind of snooping that many Americans, and especially gun-nuts, would hate. It could even turn potentially dangerous if the police attempted to confiscate un-safely stored weaponry.

Especially in areas with a very high proportion of gun-owners which are presumably also the most radically pro-gun areas, not only would it require an excessive amount of police time, but there is always the danger of at least one of the armed "this is my rights" gun-nuts not taking it too well.

There is also the whole Federal/State barrier. There are certain states that I am sure would vehmently oppose any such Federal attempts to enforce a nation-wide law on the matter.

[rob1966]

The question is, how would you enforce that?

It would involve the police going round to regularly check-up and search the house/gun-storage area of every registered gun owner in their area. Not only would it involve a lot of police time and resources, but I imagine that is the kind of snooping that many Americans, and especially gun-nuts, would hate. It could even turn potentially dangerous if the police attempted to confiscate un-safely stored weaponary. Especially in areas with a very high proportion of gun-owners, not only would it require an excessive amount of police time, but there is always the danger of at least one of the armed "this is my rights" gun-nuts not taking it too well.

There is also the whole Federal/State barrier. There are certain states that I am sure would vehmently oppose any such Federal attempts to enforce a nation-wide law on the matter.

They have to do something now though and this is at least the easiest method. There are plenty of biometric safes on the market now, where they can still fell able to protect themselves. I would have thought the majority of gun owners would prefer this approach to a wholesale ban - Texas will probably be a big problem though, from what I've seen on various TV shows.

In the UK, the Police check your security before issuing an FAC, at every renewal and also have authority to do a spot check. Its not a big deal to ask the USA to do the same.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

The question is, how would you enforce that?

Start with handing out serious bird when ''accidents'' happen,wouldn't take long before everyone started securing their guns.

[Brissyred]

The fear of spending 6 months in jail for unsafe storage of weapons will force owners to safely store their weapons.
We have to start somewhere. Why not with safe storage and prosecute those who dont.

Well that wasn't difficult was it? 

You've gone from ridiculing my post to using it as an example of how to reduce gun violence in two pages........

Quote from: Brissyred on November 21, 2018, 08:46:19 AM

    if you control the supply of legal guns you control the supply of illegal guns, it's as simple as that. Implement safe storage rules and you reduce the supply to criminals even more.

Wow. So many contradictions in your post.

1. You CAN control the supply of legal guns. You CANT control the supply of illegal guns. If illegal guns were controlled, they would become "legal".

2. Implementing safe storage only prevents the misuse of guns among the "good" people. Criminals dont give a shit about safe storage or illegal guns.

[Mumm-Ra]

It wouldn't take a massive amount of development to update the current database with new columns in a table

I hate to break it to you but there is no current database! Nothing even close, and the mere suggestion of one would cause uproar. The only way to know how many guns someone like Steven Paddock has is to wait for him to massacre dozens of people then use that for a warrant to raid his compound.

[ChaChaMooMoo]

Well that wasn't difficult was it? 

You've gone from ridiculing my post to using it as an example of how to reduce gun violence in two pages........

Quote from: Brissyred on November 21, 2018, 08:46:19 AM
snip

Actually this was the original (and first post).

One way to reduce this, is in my experience, accountability. The fear of spending 6 months in a jail will reduce the usage of guns in public areas.If a gun is fired, accidentally or otherwise, the police must be able to identify the owner from the fired bullet and/or weapon. Whether it is a stolen gun or not. Whether it is a second hand or third hand gun or not. Ownership history details all saved in a database ready to be accessed from the gun and/or bullet. Buy a bullet case? Buyer information saved in a database. Buy a pistol clip, information saved in a database.

And then again,

I'll type it slowly for you. Illegal guns start out as legal guns, a certain percentage of legal guns end up in the hands of criminals, reduce the supply of legal guns and the supply of illegal guns goes down proportionately.

The only part I agree is the part where you say regulations have to be in place to criminalize "non safe" storage for legally purchased weapons because that is the area where the government can exercise their control upon.Bring in accountability where all LEGAL guns are registered to an individual. All bullets sold is properly documented. So that at any point of time, the government (if they wish to) can look into how much weapons an individual currently holds. Which is why, I posted this..

Link to original post

My response was never to ridicule any post of yours. You were repeating what I said in my original post and went on to debate me on that. I assumed it was because you didnt read it fully. I clarified it once again. And you debated me again. Again I assumed that it was because you didnt read my post fully. Which is why, I isolated the post that both of us agree with.

My point still stands. Bring in accountability to gun ownership. And make it possible to trace gun purchases.

[ChaChaMooMoo]

The question is, how would you enforce that?

The thing is, I am not talking about a realistic scenario. It is idealistic. For a nation that has some people believing (and holding a grudge) that Obama didnt do anything after 9/11, no amount of education and/or legislation and/or awareness will do good. A legislation must be made to register the guns and its accessories. Not take them away. If 98% of the gun owners are law abiding citizens as the NRA claims to be, then there should be no problem. Its almost impossible.

[rob1966]

I hate to break it to you but there is no current database! Nothing even close, and the mere suggestion of one would cause uproar. The only way to know how many guns someone like Steven Paddock has is to wait for him to massacre dozens of people then use that for a warrant to raid his compound.

You are shitting me, I honestly thought Microsoft or someone would have got everything they could into databases, the amount of money a contract like that is worth. Fucking hell, people will quite happily put their entire life history, pictures of their kids and homes and every security question answer needed on social media, yet a database of firearms ownership would cause uproar?

[ChaChaMooMoo]

You are shitting me, I honestly thought Microsoft or someone would have got everything they could into databases, the amount of money a contract like that is worth. Fucking hell, people will quite happily put their entire life history, pictures of their kids and homes and every security question answer needed on social media, yet a database of firearms ownership would cause uproar?

Database collection? Ha.

The NRA bans any study or research or survey that may be used to advocate or promote gun control.

How The NRA Worked To Stifle Gun Violence Research
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/05/599773911/how-the-nra-worked-to-stifle-gun-violence-research?t=1543407125451

The growing momentum for tighter gun control after the deadly school shooting in Parkland, Fla., is highlighting the National Rifle Association's history of aggressively confronting challenges to what it regards as Second Amendment rights.

Federal limits on both research into gun violence and the release of data about guns used in crimes are powerful reminders of the lobbying group's advantages over gun control activists. For decades, the NRA pushed legislation that stifled the study and spread of information about the causes of gun violence.

Last month, Congress passed a spending bill that included language giving the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention the authority to resume gun-related studies, but some researchers are skeptical anything will change without funding. The Democrats wrote that part of the bill in order to reverse the Dickey Amendment of 1996, which many believe virtually halted all research on gun violence.

The legislation didn't explicitly ban gun research, but funding cuts reduced it by 90 percent, according to Dr. Mark Rosenberg, the former director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. The NRA was motivated to support the amendment after a landmark 1993 study that concluded that having a gun in the home was more dangerous than not having one.

"The NRA told everybody, 'You either can do research, or you can keep your guns. But if you let the research go forward, you will all lose all of your guns,' " Rosenberg tells Here & Now's Robin Young.

Instead of completely shutting down the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Rosenberg says Congress presented the Dickey Amendment as a compromise. But the center's budget was eventually cut by $2.5 million, and Rosenberg was fired in 1999.

Jay Dickey, the Republican congressman from Arkansas who spearheaded the legislation, told NPR in 2015 that he regretted his role in pushing through the provision.

"It wasn't necessary that all research stop," Dickey said. "It just couldn't be the collection of data so that they can advocate gun control. That's all we were talking about. But for some reason, it just stopped altogether."

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar told a congressional hearing in February that the 1996 law only prohibits the CDC from advocating for gun control and that it does not block research altogether. He told lawmakers that the CDC should resume that work.

"We're in the science business and the evidence-generating business," Azar said, "and so I will have our agency certainly working in this field, as they do across the broad spectrum of disease control and prevention."

The NRA challenges the idea that its efforts limited the study of the effect of guns on public health.

"Anyone who thinks there's a lack of researchers studying firearms has been ignoring the headlines," Lars Dalseide, an NRA spokesman, told The Boston Globe. "The fact is, a number of studies are released every year. While most are tainted with preconceived outcomes in search of supporting data, there is plenty of funding in that arena."

Private organizations, the National Institutes of Health and the Justice Department still conduct this research, but there are far fewer studies than in the past. The National Institute of Justice, the primary Justice Department research office, funded 32 gun-related studies from 1993 to 1999, but none from 2009 to 2012, according to Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

Another little-known legislative provision also impacts the study of gun-related deaths in the United States. The 2003 Tiahrt Amendment blocked the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from distributing information from its national database of guns used in crime.

When local police obtain a firearm at a crime scene, the ATF traces where the gun was first sold, when it was sold and to whom. According to a 1996 analysis of ATF data, about 1 percent of gun dealers in the nation sold nearly 60 percent of guns used in crimes in the 1990s.

"The only thing that the Tiahrt Amendment did was protect the bad gun dealers," says Daniel Webster, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. "It did nothing to help the good gun dealers because they didn't need help. The data suggests that, again, most comply with the laws and are quite responsible."

Advocates argue that efforts to suppress gun research have resulted in more lives lost. They say applying science to other public health issues like motor vehicle deaths and smoking saved lives without banning cars and cigarettes.

"We can do it for gun safety, and we can do it without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners," Rosenberg says. "What this language makes clear is that it's not either-or like the NRA told us 20 years ago. We can do both."

How the NRA Suppressed Gun Violence Research
https://www.ucsusa.org/suppressing-research-effects-gun-violence#.W_6GdUxFxQw

The National Rifle Association used its influence over a Congressman to codify language that prevents the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from funding research into gun violence, which kills and injures tens of thousands of people in the US each year.

Research on gun violence is not inherently political. However, its results can inform policy changes to protect public health, potentially including restrictions on gun access. And this has made gun violence research a target for the National Rifle Association (NRA), which is primarily funded by contributions, grants, royalty income, and advertising from the firearms industry.

During the 1990s, the NRA used its influence over NRA member and Arkansas Rep. Jay Dickey to insert an amendment into the federal spending bill that has effectively prevented the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from funding any research on gun violence.

In 1993, a CDC-funded study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that firearms kept at home increased the risk of homicide by someone in the household, rather than offering protection. Soon after this article was published, the NRA launched a targeted campaign to eliminate “anti-gun propaganda” within the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC. Study author Dr. Arthur Kellerman remembers receiving a note from the research coordinator for the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action: “It said something to the effect of, ‘Dear Art: With publication of your last study, you have graduated from the public health file to your own, named file at the NRA headquarters.’”

In 1996, Dickey, a lifelong NRA member and self-described “point man” for the NRA, inserted this provision into the federal spending bill that targeted the CDC’s $2.6 million in annual funding to study gun violence: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” As a result,the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, the research arm that had produced the 1993 study, was disbanded.

The NRA moved quickly to quash similar research at other agencies. In 2009, the NIH’s National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism funded a study that examined whether carrying a gun increases or decreases the risk of firearm assault. In 2012, Congress extended the CDC language to all Department of Health and Human Services agencies, including the NIH.

The NRA has taken credit for blocking government gun violence research. In 2011, the organization said, “These junk science studies and others like them are designed to provide ammunition for the gun control lobby by advancing the false notion that legal gun ownership is a danger to the public health instead of an inalienable right.”

But even as the NRA doubled down on its quest to stop research on the gun violence epidemic, the namesake of the Dickey amendment changed his mind about the policy decision he had helped create. In 2015, the former member of Congress told the Huffington Post, “I wish we had started the proper research and kept it going all this time. I have regrets.”

In the meantime, the NRA continues to spend over $3 million in lobbying and over $1 million in political contributions annually, pushing for policies that promote gun ownership while research into the public health consequences of that ownership is stalled. The suppression of all federal gun violence research has meant that, for over two decades, there has been very little scientific study of basic questions about gun violence, even as 93 Americans are killed by guns every day.

Congress Quashed Research Into Gun Violence. Since Then, 600,000 People Have Been Shot.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/health/gun-violence-research-cdc.html

Guns in the home protect families.

For decades, that has been an essential part of the National Rifle Association’s mantra in defending firearms ownership, repeated at congressional hearings, in advertisements and on T-shirts.

Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who once headed research on firearm violence at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, wondered if there was any evidence backing the N.R.A.’s assertion.

“So we looked at the question, does having a gun at home protect your family or not?” Dr. Rosenberg recalled.

He was amazed by the answer. The landmark study in 1993 showed that bringing a gun into the home puts everyone at much greater risk.

“They were saying if you want to keep your family safe, if you are a real man, you will have a gun at home,” Dr. Rosenberg said. “Bringing the gun not only didn’t protect you, it put you at much, much greater risk.”

To this day, gun rights advocates dispute the study’s findings. The N.R.A. pushed Congress in 1995 to stop the C.D.C. from spending taxpayer money on research that advocated gun control. Congress then passed the Dickey Amendment in 1996, and cut funding that effectively ended the C.D.C.’s study of gun violence as a public health issue.

The result is that 22 years and more than 600,000 gunshot victims later, much of the federal government has largely abandoned efforts to learn why people shoot one another, or themselves, and what can be done to prevent gun violence.

After the Parkland school massacre in Florida last month, lawmakers and gun control experts have demanded that the agency take up the issue of studying gun violence again, arguing that the federal law doesn’t ban such research altogether but prohibits advocacy of gun control.

Alex M. Azar II, the secretary for health and human services, said at a congressional hearing that he believed the C.D.C. should resume the work. “We’re in the science business and the evidence-generating business,” Mr. Azar said, ”and so I will have our agency certainly working in this field, as they do across the broad spectrum of disease control and prevention.’’

At a meeting with reporters last week, Mr. Azar said that other priorities, like fighting the flu and Ebola, also competed for funds. He did not specify which subjects would be a priority, how much money he might ask Congress to allocate to gun violence research, or whether he will transfer money from other health agency programs.

There is no shortage of ideas — or criticism of the time lost in studying gun violence.

“We have repeatedly and consciously turned our back on the problem,” said Garen Wintemute, a professor of emergency medicine who in July started the Firearm Violence Research Center at the University of California, Davis, with funding from the state. “How many thousands of people are dead today who might have been alive if that research effort had been put in place and we had answered critical questions and set prevention measures in motion?”

It’s a question that haunts researchers. In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shooting in 2012, President Obama directed the C.D.C. to reconsider gun violence research. The agency commissioned a report from the Institute of Medicine outlining priorities, but never followed up.

The most pressing questions cited by the institute, now known as the National Academy of Medicine, still have no answers. Who is most likely to use a gun in a crime, and where does the gun come from? How often are guns used in domestic violence cases? How often are the people who are arrested for gun crimes the same individuals who actually bought the weapons?

Then there is a separate set of questions about what kind of policy changes or prevention efforts actually reduce gun-related deaths and injuries.

Andrew R. Morral, a senior behavioral scientist at the RAND Corporation, directed a recent study that found moderate evidence that background checks do reduce both firearm suicides and homicides. The report also said there is moderate evidence that stand-your-ground laws, which allow people to use guns to defend themselves without first trying to retreat, may increase the murder rate.

“In many cases, we’ve been having arguments about factual matters for decades,” Mr. Morral said. As an example, he cited laws that seek to prevent children from killing themselves or others with guns.

“The N.R.A. has argued that such laws make it tough for people to defend themselves in a crisis,” Mr. Morral said. “But there’s no research on that. We’ve argued and argued and argued, and we have not invested in the research needed to answer the question: What is the trade-off between childhood deaths and self-defense?’’

The new set of proposals by President Trump calls for a commission to examine whether to raise the age to 21 from 18 for young people to buy certain firearms. Just after the Parkland killings, Mr. Trump repeatedly supported raising the age, but the latest proposals do not include such a measure — one that the N.R.A. opposes.

Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, who was director of the C.D.C. from 2009 to 2017, said in an email that he believed the study of firearms-related violence was important even though little was conducted during his tenure.

“That’s why year after year I asked Congress to fund C.D.C. to do research in this area,” Dr. Frieden said. ”We need to know which interventions are most effective and how they can best be implemented to save the most lives.”

But Congress refused to include funding for those proposals, he said. The National Institutes of Health has continued to fund some gun violence research, including violent crimes related to drug and alcohol consumption, and parental roles in preventing injury from firearms.

N.I.H. is also assessing ways to reduce suicides and accidental deaths among children and adolescents and war veterans. More than 60 percent of all gun deaths in the United States are suicides.

The Justice Department also studies gun violence, but the budget for that research is a small fraction of what the federal government spends on looking at other high-mortality hazards, like car accidents or smoking — money that has led to actions that greatly reduced deaths in both categories.

Private foundations have stepped up to fill the gap. But there is another congressional roadblock that private money cannot circumvent — the Tiahrt Amendments, which prevent the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from sharing its firearms-tracking database with anyone outside of law enforcement
.
Those records, Mr. Morral and other experts say, are crucial to analyze the flow of guns used in crimes over state borders, from places where guns are easy to buy to places where it is tougher.

The Dickey Amendment technically did not ban gun research, only advocacy. Its real goal — one it easily achieved, according to public health officials in place at the time — was to scare federal agencies into thinking twice about even collecting data that might reflect badly on gun ownership.

Since the Parkland murders, there have been signs of change. Several Republican lawmakers said they would support the C.D.C. taking on the issue.

“There’s a tremendous misunderstanding here and maybe an overabundance of caution on the part of C.D.C. and N.I.H.,” said Representative Tom Cole, of Oklahoma, chairman of a House appropriations subcommittee that oversees funding for the health and human services department.

In an interview, Mr. Cole also said he expected there would be money available for such work at both N.I.H. and C.D.C., but not until next year’s appropriations.

Some Democrats are pressing to take advantage of the new mood on Capitol Hill. Senator Patty Murray, of Washington, the ranking Democrat on the health committee, and Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, have both pressed Mr. Azar for details, but as of Friday neither had received a response.

“From fighting cancer to decreasing road traffic fatalities, public health research has played a critical role in saving lives,” Ms. Murray wrote to Mr. Azar. ‘‘It is immoral and unacceptable to treat gun violence any differently.”

In the House of Representatives, Democratic members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce have called for a hearing on the adequacy of federal research into gun violence.

Jennifer Baker, a spokeswoman for the N.R.A., said the group continues to support the Dickey Amendment. “We oppose taxpayer dollars being spent to advocate for gun control,” Ms. Baker said.

Asked if there is any type of research the group would support, she said the N.R.A. would like to see a study of how often firearms are used in self-defense.

The Institute of Medicine report, published with the National Research Council, is still considered a road map by the C.D.C. The report proposed research on issues like motivations for gun ownership and use; the relationship between poverty and gun use; risk factors that lead youths to carry guns; and dozens of other questions.

The C.D.C. did ask for and receive money to expand its National Violent Death Reporting System, which tracks homicides and suicides in 40 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The project aims to help state health departments develop strategies to reduce violent deaths, but some critics say the database lacks sufficient detail to be very useful.

Research proponents want to make sure that new studies don’t serve as an excuse for a lack of action on gun control.

“Although more gun research is needed,” Dr. Frieden said, “there are proven means to reduce gun violence, including better background checks, getting guns away from domestic abusers and people convicted of violent crimes, and safe storage. More research can help. But this is no excuse for inaction.”

Oh and this is the amendment thats the culprit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment

In United States politics, the Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 federal government omnibus spending bill which mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control.

[Giono]

The fear of spending 6 months in jail for unsafe storage of weapons will force owners to safely store their weapons.
We have to start somewhere. Why not with safe storage and prosecute those who dont.

Or a jail sentences for carrying in a non-hunting urban area. Carrying a gun in a city is in a way a degree of attempted murder. It is for killing people. Period.

Gun storage can be at gun clubs on the periphery of cities. For use at the gun club or can be pre arranged to be 'checked out' like a library book.

That takes hunters out of the equation and the BS hunting excuse. And gives urban cops an edge. The rural folks can happily go on killing each other and not feel they have to vote republican to protect that right to self-harm their communities.

[AndyInVA]

I'm sure already covered here but highlighted in my local paper this week.

Security guard at a bar detains a shooter with his own firearm, and another when a citizen pulled out a legal firearm in Alabama after a shooting started. Police roll up and shoot dead both 'good guys with guns', who also happen to be black males.

Just knocks another huge hole in the 'good guys with guns' argument as the Police have no idea who is who and will shoot any armed threat.

[Alan_X]

You are shitting me, I honestly thought Microsoft or someone would have got everything they could into databases, the amount of money a contract like that is worth. Fucking hell, people will quite happily put their entire life history, pictures of their kids and homes and every security question answer needed on social media, yet a database of firearms ownership would cause uproar?

The NRA have managed to insist that all records are kept on paper:

The ATF's record-keeping system lacks certain basic functionalities standard to every other database created in the modern age. Despite its vast size, and importance to crime fighters, it is less sophisticated than an online card catalog maintained by a small town public library.

To perform a search, ATF investigators must find the specific index number of a former dealer, then search records chronologically for records of the exact gun they seek. They may review thousands of images in a search before they find the weapon they are looking for. That's because dealer records are required to be "non-searchable" under federal law. Keyword searches, or sorting by date or any other field, are strictly prohibited.

The government takes making gun records difficult to search quite seriously. A Government Accountability Office report released last month concluded that in two data systems, the ATF did not always comply with "restrictions prohibiting consolidation or centralization" of records. The GAO, which is tasked with making sure federal agencies follow the law, was essentially chiding the ATF for making it a bit easier for its hundreds of investigators to do their jobs.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wdbd9y/the-atfs-nonsensical-non-searchable-gun-databases-explained-392

[BarryCrocker]

I'm sure already covered here but highlighted in my local paper this week.

Security guard at a bar detains a shooter with his own firearm, and another when a citizen pulled out a legal firearm in Alabama after a shooting started. Police roll up and shoot dead both 'good guys with guns', who also happen to be black males.

Just knocks another huge hole in the 'good guys with guns' argument as the Police have no idea who is who and will shoot any armed threat.

It's now 'better guys with guns'.

[rob1966]

The NRA have managed to insist that all records are kept on paper:

The ATF's record-keeping system lacks certain basic functionalities standard to every other database created in the modern age. Despite its vast size, and importance to crime fighters, it is less sophisticated than an online card catalog maintained by a small town public library.

To perform a search, ATF investigators must find the specific index number of a former dealer, then search records chronologically for records of the exact gun they seek. They may review thousands of images in a search before they find the weapon they are looking for. That's because dealer records are required to be "non-searchable" under federal law. Keyword searches, or sorting by date or any other field, are strictly prohibited.

The government takes making gun records difficult to search quite seriously. A Government Accountability Office report released last month concluded that in two data systems, the ATF did not always comply with "restrictions prohibiting consolidation or centralization" of records. The GAO, which is tasked with making sure federal agencies follow the law, was essentially chiding the ATF for making it a bit easier for its hundreds of investigators to do their jobs.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wdbd9y/the-atfs-nonsensical-non-searchable-gun-databases-explained-392

Words fail me.

[gazzalfc]

Words fail me.

That's not even the worst part of the whole system.

There is no set way of storing the files. There are literally thousands of box files stored in boxes stored in shipping container outside.

When Hurricane Katrina happend, all those files in the southern states were lost or damaged beyond recognition. Any that could be saved had to be placed outside in the sun or under a hair dryer. You can't transfer a damaged file to a fresh one.

[Red Beret]

It's now 'better guys with guns'.

It's "white guys with guns".

[soxfan]

Tragedy averted in Indiana this week. But imagine being this mother.
---------------------------

The mother of a teenage boy who brought a gun to an Indiana middle school called 911 to alert authorities and school officials "to the imminent danger," the Indiana State Police said Friday.

The tipster's actions "likely prevented a lot of lost lives," police said Thursday.

The 14-year-old died at Dennis Intermediate School in Richmond from a single self-inflicted gunshot wound, preliminary autopsy results found, according to police.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/mom-boy-brought-gun-middle-school-called-911/story?id=59820714

[CornerFlag]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46739175

Jazmine Barnes: Texas drive-by gunman kills girl, seven

A manhunt is under way in Houston, Texas, for a gunman who attacked a young family in a drive-by shooting, killing a seven-year-old girl.

Jazmine Barnes, her three sisters and mother, LaPorsha Washington, were driving when an unknown man pulled up alongside them and opened fire.

Jazmine and Ms Washington were shot, and the seven-year-old died in the backseat as a result of her wounds.

Police believe they were targeted at random and have not confirmed a motive.

Authorities say the unidentified gunman is a bearded white male in his 40s, wearing a red sweatshirt, according to Ms Washington's 15-year-old daughter, who got a glimpse of the man.

He reportedly pulled up beside the family's car in a red pickup truck on Sunday morning and began firing with no provocation, Harris County Police said.

"We're going to leave every motive out there as a possibility," Sheriff Ed Gonzalez said during a news conference on Monday, according to the Houston Chronicle.

Ms Washington, 30, was shot in the arm during the attack and her six-year-old daughter was injured by the broken glass.

From her hospital bed, Ms Washington tearfully told KHOU 11 News: "I replayed this moment in my head over a million times to see - did I cut this man off?

"Did I make a wrong turn in front of him?"

"Did I do anything wrong to cause this man to fire shots at my car? I didn't.

"I didn't do anything. He fired off at us for no reason."

At Monday's news conference, the sheriff urged anyone with information to come forward, asking locals to review security camera footage in their homes or businesses to help track down the gunman.

"Yes, we know we're in Texas. Yes, we know we have a lot of pickup trucks out there," Mr Gonzalez said.

"But when you put the pieces together, consider that we're looking for a bearded man, possibly in his 40s, driving a red pickup truck. This could be your neighbour. This could be your co-worker."

He also called on the gunman to turn himself in to avoid any further violence.

Jazmine's father, Christopher Cevilla, told reporters his daughter was a "loving, caring" young girl.

"What if that was your daughter?" he said. "Please step up at this point in time and help me and my family get justice for my baby girl."

The images of the pickup truck have been widely shared online as the manhunt continues.

Ava DuVernay, director of films Selma and A Wrinkle in Time, was one of the many voices on social media calling for the gunman's capture, sharing the family's story in a tweet.

Some social media users are suggesting the attack was a hate crime, although police did not say they are treating race as a factor in the shooting.

Civil rights attorney Lee Merritt and activist Shaun King have offered a $50,000 (£39,600) cash reward for anyone who can help capture the suspect.

Fucking seven, man.

[CornerFlag]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/05/california-shooting-multiple-victims-at-torrance-bowling-alley

California shooting: three people killed at bowling alley in Torrance

Four injured as witnesses describe ‘huge fight’
Resident: ‘As we were running, we heard 15 shots’

A fight at a bowling alley in California turned deadly on Friday night, police said. Three men were killed and four injured.

Shortly before midnight, police in Torrance, a coastal city about 20 miles from Los Angeles, responded to calls of “shots fired” at the Gable House Bowl. Multiple victims were found with gunshot wounds inside the building, which is described on its website as a gaming venue that offers bowling, laser tag and a full arcade.

Police said three men died at the scene and four male victims were injured, two of whom were transported to a local hospital for unknown injuries. The other two injured victims were struck by gunfire but “opted to seek their own medical attention”, police spokesman Sgt Ronald Harris said.

Authorities did not immediately release details about what caused the shooting, but witnesses said it stemmed from a fight between two large groups of people. Investigators were trying to “identify the suspects and whoever else was involved”, said Harris, adding: “Our hearts go out to the families who lost loved ones during this incident.”

Wes Hamad, a 29-year-old Torrance resident, was at the bowling alley with his 13-year-old niece and cousin when, he said, he saw a “huge fight” break out. Hamad said the brawl, which lasted about five minutes, blocked the entrance and devolved into “complete chaos”.

“I grabbed my niece and started running towards the far end of the bowling alley,” he said. “As we were running, we heard 15 shots.”

Hamad said he saw a woman weeping over a man who had multiple gunshot wounds in his head and neck.

Brandon Tyre, 31, told the Los Angeles Times he was celebrating a friend’s birthday when he heard fighting, then gunshots. He turned to find his brother had been shot in the chest. The brother’s condition was unknown.

Dwayne Edwards, 60, of Los Angeles, said he received a call from his nephew that his 28-year-old son was killed. His nephew, he said, told him his son was attempting to break up a fight when a gunman “just started unloading”.

“I’m thinking this is a dream and I’ll wake up,” Edwards told the Orange County Register. “He was a good kid. I don’t understand it.”

Damone Thomas was in the karaoke section of the venue when people ran in saying there was a shooting. The 30-year-old Los Angeles resident said a friend flipped over a table to shield them as they heard gunshots.

Thomas said he didn’t feel scared because he was “just trying to survive”. But when he was driving back home, he said he realized how traumatic the situation was. He had not been able to fall asleep, he said.

“Closing my eyes, all I can see is the women against the wall crying, not knowing what to do,” he said.

Dana Scott, whose bowling league was meeting on Friday night, told CNN: “A lot of people ran back into the bar area behind the seats and on to the floor, under the benches. People were crying. It was not comfortable.”

Both Thomas and Hamad said they had never seen any violence at the venue in the past, but Hamad said he had stopped going for a while because he heard someone with a gun was recently seen there.

“I definitely won’t be going back any more,” he said.

Just... yeah, sometimes I think the guns actually *might* be a teensy part of the problem, you know?  RIP those who lost their lives.

[surfer. Fuck you generator.]

^ That guy who 'just unloaded' is that hero who starts swinging randomly on your average weekend brawl and lands about a punch, kick or two before he gets brought down. In the US, the same hero can get a gun, stand at a little distance and shoot multiple people to make the news.

It's a failed state ultimately when you can't efficiently address the big issues.

[AndyInVA]

The current governor of Virginia is trying to get some gun control legislation limiting hand gun purchases to one a month.

Small steps America. Small steps ...

[CornerFlag]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/29/american-toddlers-are-still-shooting-people-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/

American toddlers are still shooting people on a weekly basis this year

On Wednesday two 3-year-old boys were shot by another toddler who found and inadvertently fired a gun at the home of their babysitter in Dearborn, Mich., according to the Detroit Free Press. The boys, one of whom was shot in the face and the other in the shoulder, are in stable condition at a hospital.

The Dearborn boys are at least the 42nd and 43rd people to get shot by a child under the age of 4 this year, according to a database of accidental child-involved shootings maintained by Everytown, a gun violence prevention group. On average, someone gets shot by an American toddler a little more frequently than once a week, similar to previous years.

These figures, which are compiled from media and police reports, are likely an undercount. If a child receives a relatively mild gunshot injury, such as a grazing, parents may try to keep the incident quiet and not seek medical care. It's also possible that an unknown number of small children find guns and fire them without hitting anyone, which would not necessarily result in a medical or police report.

In many of these shooting cases, a toddler finds a gun and accidentally shoots himself with it — 27 out of the 43 toddler shootings involved self-inflicted injuries. Earlier this month in Ohio, for instance, a 3-year-old boy found his father's loaded gun in the kitchen and fatally shot himself in the head with it.

But shootings of other people are common, as well. Last weekend in St. Louis, a 2-year-old found a loaded handgun and accidentally shot and killed his father, who was asleep at the time. The day before, in Pennsylvania, a 3-year-old riding in the back seat of a car found a loaded gun and shot his uncle in the shoulder.

Nearly all toddler shootings involve boys. So far this year there have been just two exceptions. In March, 3-year-old Yasha Ross from Pittsburgh found a loaded gun in the home of a man she was visiting with her mother and fatally shot herself in the chest. Another 3-year-old girl shot herself in the stomach in Georgia in June. She survived.

The youngest toddler involved in a shooting this year was an 18-month-old from Nashville, who police say found a loaded pistol on a bed and shot himself in the face. His injuries were not fatal. So far this year 17 toddler shootings have ended in a fatality, while 26 resulted in a non-life-threatening injury.

Gun violence researchers have found that child protection laws that mandate safe storage of guns at home are associated with reductions in accidental gun deaths among children.

“Storing guns responsibly — locked and unloaded, with ammunition stored separately — is a critical step that every gun owner can take to protect kids and adults alike from the life-threatening consequences of a curious toddler getting access to a gun,” Emily Durbin of Michigan Moms Demand Action, said in a statement Wednesday in response to the Dearborn shooting.

Beyond the immediate toll of death and injury, shootings involving small children have profound and often tragic effects on surviving family members. Earlier this month in South Carolina, for instance, 2-year-old Kyree Myers found a loaded gun at his home and fatally shot himself in the head.

Police arrived to find the boy's father, Keon Myers, despondent and threatening to kill himself. Despite officers' attempts to intervene, Myers then shot himself in the head, as well. Myers and his son were pronounced dead at a hospital.

My child's 2½.  I know the article itself is from 2017 but I just came across it and, just incomprehensible.

[Brissyred]

Because freedom 

Four-year-old shoots mother in face after finding gun under mattress https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/03/four-year-old-shoots-mother-face-gun-mattress

4-year-old had loaded Smith & Wesson at Pre-K – and was showing it off, NC cops say http://www.wbtv.com/2019/02/02/year-old-had-loaded-smith-wesson-pre-k-was-showing-it-off-nc-cops-say/

[Peabee]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/29/american-toddlers-are-still-shooting-people-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/

My child's 2½.  I know the article itself is from 2017 but I just came across it and, just incomprehensible.

Imagine the trauma these kids (the toddlers that shot someone fatally or caused life changing injuries) are going to go through for the rest of their lives.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Nothing will change until irresponsible gun owners are sent to jail when these young children get hold of loaded weapons,they should be charged as if they themselves were the ones who pulled the trigger & not only pulled the trigger but pulled it with malice.


So nothing will change.

[Mumm-Ra]

Aurora, IL (home of Waynes World): Guy gets fired, kills the HR guy and 4 others. Killed in a shootout with the police:

Six people died --- including the gunman --- in a workplace shooting at a manufacturing firm Friday afternoon, and five officers were struck by gunfire, officials said Friday. Aurora Police Chief Kristen Ziman confirmed the shooter, Gary Martin, 45, was killed in a shootout with police.

 

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Aurora, IL (home of Waynes World): Guy gets fired, kills the HR guy and 4 others. Killed in a shootout with the police:

 Only six 

We're at the stage where my edit is starting to be appropriate.

[rob1966]

Nothing will change until irresponsible gun owners are sent to jail when these young children get hold of loaded weapons,they should be charged as if they themselves were the ones who pulled the trigger & not only pulled the trigger but pulled it with malice.


So nothing will change.

I was watching a Chasing Classic Cars episode this week. Wayne Carrini goes to look at a car where the owner has passed away and his wife is selling, its in the barn. Wayne finds a small suitcase/briefcase hidden in the car, gives it to the wife who opens it - .38 Revolver and a few boxes of ammunition inside it. Oh that must have been his hiding place for the gun says wifey. 

[soxfan]

Here's a prime example of how tighter gun control measures - without taking every law-abiding citizen's firearm away - could have prevented 5 deaths. But the NRA fights even these measures.

Martin was not supposed to own a gun because of a 1995 aggravated assault conviction in Mississippi, she said.
But he obtained one in Illinois in 2014. In January of that year, he applied for a firearms owner identification card, she said.
In March 2014, he applied to buy a gun from a dealer in Aurora. After a waiting period and passing a background check that did not involve fingerprinting, he bought the gun, she said.
Later that month, he applied for a concealed carry permit, and a fingerprint check led authorities to discover the Mississippi conviction, Ziman said.
The permit was rejected, and Illinois State Police sent him a letter demanding he voluntarily surrender the weapon, but he did not, the chief said. Investigators are trying to determine why he didn't surrender the weapon and whether law enforcement followed up with him to confiscate the gun.
"He was not supposed to be in possession of a firearm," Ziman said.

And the typical description: 

"He seemed very friendly. He said hi to a lot of people who came and went. I'm kind of shocked, I guess," said McKnight, who said she moved into the complex over the summer. "I'm sad and shocked, and you kind of never know."
Another neighbor, Jennifer White, told CNN affiliate WBBM she knew of him in part because she'd see him outside flying drones.
"He seemed perfectly fine. I've seen him out there with his drones," she said. "He always kept to himself."

[GreatEx]

Nothing says perfectly fine like a 45 year old loner flying drones!

[stoa]

Investigators are trying to determine why he didn't surrender the weapon

I can't wait until they find out why some lunatic who killed five of his co-workers just didn't voluntarily give back the gun he wasn't supposed to own...

[rob1966]

Here's a prime example of how tighter gun control measures - without taking every law-abiding citizen's firearm away - could have prevented 5 deaths. But the NRA fights even these measures.And the typical description: 

Totally arse about face way of doing things. Carry out every check first, then allow the purchase. Is that really so difficult to grasp?

I can't wait until they find out why some lunatic who killed five of his co-workers just didn't voluntarily give back the gun he wasn't supposed to own...

This is why I always say they will never be able to ban guns over there. They need to get 300 million - at least - handed in and it just isn't going to happen. They do not have the money or the manpower to go recover them all and as this case proves, it becoming an illegal firearm isn't a deterrent.

[thejbs]

Nothing says perfectly fine like a 45 year old loner flying drones!

I think you're being unfair here.

[soxfan]

Totally arse about face way of doing things. Carry out every check first, then allow the purchase. Is that really so difficult to grasp?

"You're invadin' ma rights! This is 'Murica!"

[Barneylfc∗]

Nothing says perfectly fine like a 45 year old loner flying drones!

What has flying a drone got to do with anything. My dad flies them for something to do. Big huge field out his back. He used to fly model aeroplanes and helicopters years ago. Pretty sure he has never decided to pick up a gun and commit mass murder.

[rob1966]

What has flying a drone got to do with anything. My dad flies them for something to do. Big huge field out his back. He used to fly model aeroplanes and helicopters years ago. Pretty sure he has never decided to pick up a gun and commit mass murder.

It is that kind of pigeonholing and prejudiced views that do nothing but get peoples backs up and make them defensive. Don't know about the USA, but in the UK the massive majority of shooters own firearms, not to be a macho c*nt, but for the enjoyment of the sport and would never dream of taking a life.

Maybe if people were treated with respect, a dialogue could be started and then America can sort its issues out and make their country safer for its population.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Owning the Libs

Defiant US sheriffs push gun sanctuaries, imitating liberals on immigration


A rapidly growing number of counties in at least four states are declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries, refusing to enforce gun-control laws that they consider to be infringements on the U.S. constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Organizers of the pro-gun sanctuaries admit they took the idea from liberals who have created immigration sanctuaries across the United States where local officials defy the Trump administration’s efforts to enforce tougher immigration laws.

Now local conservatives are rebelling against majority Democratic rule in the states. Elected sheriffs and county commissioners say they might allow some people deemed to be threats under “red flag” laws to keep their firearms. In states where the legal age for gun ownership is raised to 21, authorities in some jurisdictions could refuse to confiscate guns from 18- to 20-year-olds.

Democrats took control of state governments or widened leads in legislative chambers last November, then followed through on promises to enact gun control in response to an epidemic of mass shootings in public spaces, religious sites and schools.

Resistance to those laws is complicating Democratic efforts to enact gun control in Washington, Oregon, New Mexico and Illinois, even though the party holds the governorship and both chambers of the state legislature in all four states.

The sanctuary movement is exposing the rift between rural and urban America as much as the one between the Republican and Democratic parties, as small, conservative counties push back against statewide edicts passed by big-city politicians.

“If they want to have their own laws, that’s fine. Don’t shove them on us down here,” said Dave Campbell, a member of the board of Effingham County, Illinois, about 215 miles (350 km) south of Chicago.

Backers of the sanctuary movement say they want to take it nationwide. Leaders in all four states where it has taken hold have formed a loose alliance, sometimes sharing strategies or texts of resolutions. They also say they are talking with like-minded activists in California, New York, Iowa and Idaho.

As it grows, the rebellion is setting up a potential clash between state and local officials.

In Washington, nearly 60 percent of the voters in November approved Initiative 1639, which raises the minimum age to purchase a semiautomatic rifle to 21, enhances background checks and increases the waiting period to buy such guns to 10 days.

The law is due to take effect in July, but sheriffs in more than half of Washington’s 39 counties have pledged not to enforce it, pro-gun activists say, and five counties have passed resolutions to the same effect.

Governor Jay Inslee has firmly backed I-1639 and Attorney General Bob Ferguson has advised sheriffs “they could be held liable” if they allow a dangerous person to acquire a firearm later used to do harm.

Sheriff Bob Songer of Klickitat County, population 22,000, called Ferguson’s warning a “bluff” and said he would not enforce I-1639 because he considered it unconstitutional.

“Unfortunately for the governor and the attorney general, they’re not my boss. My only boss is the people that elected me to office,” Songer said.



GAINING MOMENTUM


Support for Second Amendment sanctuaries has gained momentum in recent weeks, especially among county boards in New Mexico and Illinois.

Sixty-three counties or municipalities in Illinois have passed some form of a firearms sanctuary resolution and more are likely to, Campbell said.

Twenty-five of New Mexico’s 33 counties have passed resolutions to support sheriffs who refuse to enforce any firearms laws that they consider unconstitutional, according to the New Mexico Sheriffs Association. In some cases hundreds of pro-gun activists have packed county commissioner meetings.

In Oregon, voters in eight counties approved Second Amendment Preservation Ordinances last November that allow sheriffs to determine which state gun laws to enforce.

Organizers in Oregon plan to put even more defiant “sanctuary ordinance” measures on county ballots in 2020 that will direct their officials to resist state gun laws.

Such sanctuary resolutions could face legal challenges but backers say they have yet to face a lawsuit, in part because the Washington initiative has yet to take effect and the Illinois and New Mexico legislation has yet to pass.

The chief counsel for a leading U.S. gun-control group questioned the legality of the sanctuary movement, saying state legislatures make laws and courts interpret them, not sheriffs.

“It should not be up to individual sheriffs or police officers deciding which laws they personally like,” said Jonathan Lowy of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “This attitude shows a disrespect for the way our system of government is supposed to operate.”

In New Mexico, the legislature is moving forward with a slate of gun-control bills. One would enhance background checks and another would create a red-flag law keeping guns out of the hands of people deemed dangerous by a judge.

The New Mexico Sheriffs Association is leading the resistance, saying the red-flag law would violate due process rights and was unnecessary given current statutes.

Tony Mace, sheriff of Cibola County and chairman of the statewide group, said the background check law would impose regulations on hunting buddies or competitive shooters every time they share guns, and he refuses to spend resources investigating such cases.

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham accused the rebellious sheriffs of falsely promoting the idea that “someone is coming for their firearms,” saying none of the proposed laws infringe on Second Amendment rights.”It’s an exhausting charade,” Lujan Grisham said.

Reporting by Daniel Trotta in New York; editing by Dina Kyriakidou and Grant McCool

[rob1966]

^