Multiple casualties at Pittsburgh synagogue - Shooter says "All these Jews need to die"

[Worldtraveller]

Instead of just assuming and spreading bullshit accusations, why don't you propose a middle ground solution so we can discuss it?

Smart guns. Mental health checks for purchases and continued ownership. A sunset clause on building or bequeathing dumb guns. This would address the issue of stolen guns without taking guns away from responsible owners.

This would take decades, but I think it's worth it.

Mandatory licensing and insurance for all guns.

But an outright ban is the best.

An outright ban is pretty much impossible at this point. Getting rid of most guns would a good start, but I think people should be allowed to own them for hunting (although I'd favor making hunters use bows or x-bows).

Mandatory insurance and licensing with thorough background checks are a minimum. I think guns should be required to be stored at a location like a gun range in a secure locker, and if someone wants a gun in their house, they need additional training, and two separate safes should be required; one for the gun, and one for the ammo. The police or designated agency should be allowed to perform random audits to verify this, and licensing should be required every 2-3 years.

 

[Worldtraveller]

2) Translation: make it illegal for a father to buy his 12 year old child a .22 rifle for Christmas without traipsing them down to the local LW anti-gun bureau for fingerprinting and a background check. Same goes for a father letting their kid shooting the father's .22 single-shot rifle. In California this is considered an "illegal transfer of weapon".

It's a machine of death, capable of killing any human on the other end. I think it's fair that society have some assurance that such a machine is not wielded by someone suffering mental-health issues which could result in a violent break (psychopathy, sociopathy, that sort of thing).

Yep. If that father had to buy insurance along with the gun, they might think twice about allowing a 12 year old to own one. If anyone is caught using one without a license (and sure, let the kids get a license, but they have to pass the same training, and have insurance, etc.) they simply get their guns/ammo confiscated.

I also think that if we really wanted to get around the 2nd amendment in a realistic way, we would let people buy all the guns they want.

...but we drastically restrict ammo. You can only buy, say, 10 rounds/month. You can buy as much as you want at a shooting range, but you can't take it out with you. The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything at all about ammo. You can still buy all the blackpowder and shot you want for things like muzzle loaders (which is what the founding fathers had in mind).

 

[phands]

Yep. If that father had to buy insurance along with the gun, they might think twice about allowing a 12 year old to own one.

Yep! I still shudder at the cost of car insurance when my daughters turned 16 and wanted to start driving. Guns should be at least that painful to insure.

 

[Opoponax]

Mandatory licensing and insurance for all guns.

But an outright ban is the best.

An outright ban is pretty much impossible at this point. Getting rid of most guns would a good start, but I think people should be allowed to own them for hunting (although I'd favor making hunters use bows or x-bows).

There are too many guns to get rid of. It's not going to happen.

I don't see anything wrong with general European gun restrictions. In general, they can have bolt actions, lever actions, and shotguns. All are effective for self-defense purposes in the home (although a shotgun is the best of those by far) and all are excellent hunting rifles.

... if someone wants a gun in their house, they need additional training, and two separate safes should be required; one for the gun, and one for the ammo. The police or designated agency should be allowed to perform random audits to verify this, and licensing should be required every 2-3 years.

1. That discriminates against those who can't afford multiple gun safes or even a single gun safe. Seriously. Exercising a constitutional right would then become something available to the few. I don't see a lot of difference between that and requiring a fee to vote or having to pay before one can exercise any other right. There are gun safes, and then there are Gun Safes. The former, which you can get a for a couple hundred dollars can literally be picked up and carried off, or lacking that kind of enterprise, a hammer and/or a crow bar can beat one open in short order. You have to spend upwards of ~$800 or so (and a whole lot more) to get a safe that's worth storing something in. Not only that, the home in which you live has to be able to accommodate such a safe. This would effectively shut out a huge number of people who e.g., live in apartments.

As for bow hunting, whatever. I suppose if one only hunts from a stand that'll work, but... bah, different topic.

2. Random audits by the cops? FUCK that. You may as well just get rid of the 4th Amendment altogether. The cops have to have a warrant, which requires probable cause to search, or there has to be a clear emergency before they can enter your home to perform a search.

Further, if something like that were to be allowed, it would constitute discrimination against an identifiable class of persons. If I'm not suspected of wrongdoing, how on earth should the cops be able to just waltz into my home? That's simply... No.

3. Licensing up front? I agree with that, with exceptions made for veterans because every single vet has had to qualify with a rifle (same for cops, etc.). Outside of that though, licensing and some kind of basic training course is needed.

Once, when I was picking up a new rifle I'd purchased, a woman was there at the same time waiting to pick up a .45 caliber pistol. We got to talking and long story short, she'd never fired a gun and didn't know how to operate the gun she'd bought. She said, "I'm gonna keep it in my purse just in case." The phrase "accident waiting to happen" was coined for this person.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's what I don't understand.

Terrorists hijack planes and commit mass murder once, and airplane travel in and around the US changes overnight with security measures that would have seemed excessive only months prior.
A kid falls off an overpass bridge and safety fences are erected all over the place immediately.
Some fuckwit was being an idiot with fireworks and suddenly, they're harder to purchase than a gun.
A lawsuit that should have been thrown out now requires Rowenta to add the disclaimer "Never iron clothes while they are being worn".

Americans are notorious for having the stigma of excessive restrictions when something occurs not involving firearms. But mass shootings are now more frequent than a monthly occurence and yet nothing can be done. You need those shooters that make you look like an extra for Black Hawk Down because, well, reasons.

Unbelievable.

We do tend to overreact but we are far from alone in this. However, what you are missing is banning guns comes with a substantial non-monetary cost that the other things do not. The left eternally tries to pretend guns have no redeeming value and that's false.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's a wide middle ground when it comes to regulation of firearms. Wide enough to fly a gyro copter over, actually. We already have restrictions on firearms. Automatic weapons aren't fully banned, but obtaining one is expensive and carries heavy restrictions. We could expand those rules to other types of firearms. Or (as many have suggested and it makes sense) we could treat guns like automobiles. Require a minimum level of training, licensing, and insurance along with restrictions on capacity (speed limits, if you will) and making sure that each gun sale and each gun is tracked. Violating any of these restrictions could lead to fines or even jail time.

Restrictions on capacity are one of those feel-good measures.

And the big problem with tracking sales is that the gun-grabbers have made it clear they want that list for future confiscation. In practice the vast majority of crime guns are stolen and thus the list does little good.

Insurance is another red herring--once again, an attempt to get a list of guns. Insurance normally excludes criminal acts, thus it's only going to apply to accidental shootings--and those are usually family members.

I have my usual objection to training requirements--it should be knowledge requirements. Look at the DMV--you pass a theory and practical test, they say nothing about how you learn. That's how it should be done. You get your license and you can use that to buy guns, ammunition and reloading supplies. As with driving, if you have your gun you need to have your license also, no private property exemption other than your own property. Non-licensed people can possess guns only under the direct supervision of licensed people. (I would also have a collectors license, theory, no practical, applies to guns but not ammunition. The main reason being a collector who develops health issues that preclude the practical doesn't have to dispose of their collection.)

I would also make NFA items a license upgrade rather than stuff that requires individual permitting.

Would this lead to banning guns? Well ask yourself this...have all these restrictions on cars led to a wasteland where roaming gangs of thugs terrorize the civilian population and lay siege to small refineries? No. Cars are ubiquitous, and requiring licensing and insurance is not an undue burden. The requirements to buy and operate a car aren't at all like a school bus used as a gate behind which a prize is waiting...no, they're just part of life.

We don't need another hero, we just need sensible firearms restrictions.

There's no insurance requirement for owning a car. Only for operating one in public.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

...none of the anti-gun LWers want to discuss the true problem which is a lack of mental health care and the legislation to back it up

I'd be happy to discuss it. Let's start here:

Trump's one piece of gun-related legislation undid restrictions aimed at mental illness

As far as I'm concerned a stopped-clock case--one of the few things he got right.

The problem was Obama way overreached, it should have been smacked down.

The vast majority of mental illness poses no problem for someone to own a gun. Only those whose mental illness poses a problem for guns should be banned, the left insists on using a broad brush here.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He had 21 guns registered in his name and carried out the massacre with an AR-15-style assault rifle and three handguns, the authorities have said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/28/us/pittsburgh-shooting-robert-bowers.html

This should be a red flag unless the person has a Federal Firearms License to act as a dealer or gunsmith

US Attorney Scott Brady made a brief statement after the synagogue shooting suspect's court appearance today.

Brady said suspect Robert Bowers will remain in custody without bond. His next court appearance is set for Thursday.

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting-suspect/index.html

21 guns is well within the range of many collectors.

Not long ago I was in a safe store looking for a data safe. (Their primary purpose is to protect electronic media from disaster, not items from theft.) I was amazed at the size of some of the gun safes they sold--the clerk told me he knew multiple people that had more than one of the big safes they sell. In other words, probably 100+ firearms.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

All right, some specific middle ground solutions.

1) bring back the assault weapons ban
2) background checks required for ALL gun sales. Online, gun shows, private sales, no exceptions
3) ban on bump-stocks, and any other gun modification product that works as a loophole to automatic weapons restrictions
3) increase funding and access for mental health
4) anyone on the no-fly list should also be barred from gun purchases

Can probably come up with more, but this is a good start.

1) A feel-good measure. "Assault weapons" are evil-looking guns, no functional difference from others that were legal.

2) Do it right and I have no problem. The left won't do it right, though, they're determined to make it too wide. Hence the recent ballot measure locally that passed something like 30 points below public support for background checks. (And then was shot down by the Attorney General because it demanded the impossible.)

3) So you're going to ban rubber bands and foam? I don't know if they're still up but there were You-Tube videos of both being used as improvised bump stocks. Even a commercial bump stock is basically just a spring in a housing.

4) Agreed.

5) The no-fly list is so riddled with errors it should be thrown in the trash. The vast majority of those "on" it (it's not even precise enough to accurately identify the people listed) have done nothing whatsoever wrong. Denying guns to people on it is about as accurate as deciding that a classmate in high school was a liar because her last name was "Fox".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

All right, some specific middle ground solutions.

1) bring back the assault weapons ban
2) background checks required for ALL gun sales. Online, gun shows, private sales, no exceptions
3) ban on bump-stocks, and any other gun modification product that works as a loophole to automatic weapons restrictions
3) increase funding and access for mental health
4) anyone on the no-fly list should also be barred from gun purchases

Can probably come up with more, but this is a good start.

5) A national standard preventing convicted domestic abusers & stalkers from having/obtaining any firearms, including those convicted of misdemeanors.
6) Required and continuing gun training
7) Requirements for storage with heavy penalties for breaches.
8) Required casualty insurance for registered gun owners for anything that happens with their gun (unless they have a previous police report showing it was stolen and that they had it properly secured at the time)

5) Convicted, yes. However, the usual overreach is restraining orders, many of which are just divorce tactics and in any case do not need anything like the level of proof that a conviction does.

6) See above--I don't like training requirements, period. I have no problem with testing that you know how. I see no reason for it to be continuing, do it like the DMV, you're rested if there's a reason to suspect an issue but not otherwise.

7) Once again, a frequent source of overreach. Heavy safes are simply not an option for many people. A lock box with a cable that feeds around something not practical to carry (say, a bedframe) is fine.

8) This is a backdoor attempt to get the holy grail of the left, a list of all guns. You're assuming people would always be aware of a theft--inside job thefts can easily go unnoticed for some time and in general thieves like to hit houses of people on vacation--and they're going to detect the theft before they come home??? The actual benefit is minimal, it's akin to the TRAP laws. I suppose you're ok with requiring admitting privileges for any doctor performing abortion?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But statistically, this is backwards. Statistically, you're much more likely (in the US) to have a gun, and have something bad happen to you that is either caused by the gun, an accident of your own making, or the gun is useless because you're not quick draw McGraw with body armor.

Beware of misused data here. It doesn't say what you think it says.

1) 90% of the risk of owning a gun is suicide. How many people will simply give up if they don't have a gun? Those who are willing to use a gun are going to do other things like jump. The ones that can't do the other things are medical suicides and I don't think society should be trying to prevent those. (They should be trying to avoid the need for them, though.)

2) Of the remaining risk more than 80% isn't from your gun. Rather, it's from a gun in the household being wielded by someone else. The real answer here is dealing with domestic violence better and people understanding that they should get out at the first sign of violence.

3) You're also only counting the effect of the gun when it's used to kill a bad guy. Consider: Some years back there were several burglaries around us. There was a pattern I saw but it wouldn't be obvious in generic statistics: Every house that was hit had nobody living there that I would evaluate as either a physical threat to an intruder nor someone with much of a chance of owning a gun. The burglar was obviously local (probably a teenager) and evaluating the risk of his targets. The mere possibility of an armed homeowner was obviously a deterrent.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No one is saying that. I bought my daughter a Ruger 10-22 awhile back and I had to give two thumbprints and get a background check done (again), just like for all my other guns. It's a pain in the ass, but it's not an actual impediment to buying a .22 of any kind. And yes, we live in California.

Goalpost alert!

He was talking about allowing your daughter to shoot your gun, not about buying your daughter a gun.

And note that in not too many years it looks like it's going to be impossible to buy a handgun in California. The state is not approving any new guns for it's list of models for sale and the old ones are dropping off. Soon the list will be empty.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Instead of just assuming and spreading bullshit accusations, why don't you propose a middle ground solution so we can discuss it?

Smart guns. Mental health checks for purchases and continued ownership. A sunset clause on building or bequeathing dumb guns. This would address the issue of stolen guns without taking guns away from responsible owners.

This would take decades, but I think it's worth it.

1) You can't determine that someone is sane without an examination that would be very costly indeed. All you can do is check if they got treatment--which will have the primary effect of ensuring that those with mental health issues don't get treatment.

2) Smart guns aren't ready yet, we shouldn't mandate them. There are systems on the market but none have adequate reliability for a self defense weapon, especially if the defender is already injured.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

...but we drastically restrict ammo. You can only buy, say, 10 rounds/month. You can buy as much as you want at a shooting range, but you can't take it out with you. The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything at all about ammo. You can still buy all the blackpowder and shot you want for things like muzzle loaders (which is what the founding fathers had in mind).

That's actually what Israel does--severe limits on how much ammo you can have, but it doesn't apply to what you do at the range. It works for them because the country is so small and urban that you can't legally shoot (other than in a self defense situation) anywhere else. It wouldn't work in the US because of hunting and varmint control, not to mention plenty of people out west (farmers, ranchers) have land big enough they can shoot on it without a problem.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

...but we drastically restrict ammo. You can only buy, say, 10 rounds/month. You can buy as much as you want at a shooting range, but you can't take it out with you. The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything at all about ammo. You can still buy all the blackpowder and shot you want for things like muzzle loaders (which is what the founding fathers had in mind).

That's actually what Israel does--severe limits on how much ammo you can have, but it doesn't apply to what you do at the range. It works for them because the country is so small and urban that you can't legally shoot (other than in a self defense situation) anywhere else. It wouldn't work in the US because of hunting and varmint control, not to mention plenty of people out west (farmers, ranchers) have land big enough they can shoot on it without a problem.

Not to mention that, once again, the anti-gun left is trying to push the false idea that the Constitution gives us our rights instead of restricting government.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As a reminder, the OP is about a bunch of people getting massacred at a quiet religious service in Pittsburgh, a heinous hate crime...

...not about the paranoid delusions of people that fear their deadly toys will be taken from them.

 

[RavenSky]

self-edit because Jimmy is right... though I think that ship has long sailed for this thread.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

As a reminder, the OP is about a bunch of people getting massacred at a quiet religious service in Pittsburgh, a heinous hate crime...

...not about the paranoid delusions of people that fear their deadly toys will be taken from them.

A slight disagreement. While the heinous hate crime murders are certainly the jumping off point, the OP clearly is an anti-gun thread due to these comments: "He was reportedly armed with an AR-15 style weapon, along with at least 2 handguns. Another "good guy with a gun"". WTF is an "AR-15 style weapon"? A semi-automatic rifle?

Additionally, your comment "the paranoid delusions of people that fear their deadly toys will be taken from them" adds to the fact it's not about saving lives or lamenting the murder of 11 innocent people, but that it's to spread hate against those who seek to protect the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As a reminder, the OP is about a bunch of people getting massacred at a quiet religious service in Pittsburgh, a heinous hate crime...

...not about the paranoid delusions of people that fear their deadly toys will be taken from them.

A slight disagreement. While the heinous hate crime murders are certainly the jumping off point, the OP clearly is an anti-gun thread due to these comments: "He was reportedly armed with an AR-15 style weapon, along with at least 2 handguns. Another "good guy with a gun"". WTF is an "AR-15 style weapon"? A semi-automatic rifle?

Yeah, and every time a whole lot of people get shot, the people that fear gun repossession start shouting, "No, my guns!" Almost as if, the blood can't be allowed to dry on the floor before the wailing begins. Much like Bill Murray in the SNL sketch when he cries out "Why me?" when his wife is diagnosed with breast cancer.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

As a reminder, the OP is about a bunch of people getting massacred at a quiet religious service in Pittsburgh, a heinous hate crime...

...not about the paranoid delusions of people that fear their deadly toys will be taken from them.

A slight disagreement. While the heinous hate crime murders are certainly the jumping off point, the OP clearly is an anti-gun thread due to these comments: "He was reportedly armed with an AR-15 style weapon, along with at least 2 handguns. Another "good guy with a gun"". WTF is an "AR-15 style weapon"? A semi-automatic rifle?

Yeah, and every time a whole lot of people get shot, the people that fear gun repossession start shouting, "No, my guns!" Almost as if, the blood can't be allowed to dry on the floor before the wailing begins. Much like Bill Murray in the SNL sketch when he cries out "Why me?" when his wife is diagnosed with breast cancer.

Thank you for agreeing the thread is more than simply about "a bunch of people getting massacred at a quiet religious service in Pittsburgh". The sad fact remains that it only takes one sick fuck like Bowers to hurt a lot of people and they don't need a gun to do it as proved by the 86 murdered at the 2016 Bastille Day truck attack in Nice or those murdered and maimed in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings.