Makes sense to me. The NRA lobby probably has an objection to every point. Personally, I think #5 is problematic. Individual states still have rights in other areas, why not this one?

We can only address this issue at the national level through a consistent approach. Any differences create a situation where the weakest approach becomes the standard for all.

What really needs to happen with the mass shooting is we need to pass laws that make it illegal to shoot or kill people. Just a simple change in the law to make it illegal to commit murder will stop it all. If only we had some laws against killing people.

They are one and the same. I use the broad "NRA" moniker for those of you whose only knowledge of the organization is through the mass media. None of you have ever heard of the ILA. I will put a finer point on it with more knowledgeable audiences, but try not to with you folks. Even with this new knowledge, would you ever bother to seek out information from the ILA? I doubt it. It's just easier to hold onto ignorant positions like this:

I think you meant #4...

The NRA was actually instrumental in setting up the framework for NICS, the National Instant Check System through which today's background checks are carried out. We do not object to background checks, but we do object to waiting periods. They are not one and the same. What sense does it make to hold a gun buyer to a waiting period (otherwise known as a "cooling off" period) if they already own several guns? Why make them wait when the background check database is up to date, and the check can be performed instantly?

The NRA (excuse me, ILA...) has been very vocal about including mental health histories in background checks. It's actually been liberals (sympathetic to the many popular liberal afflictions, like HIV) that have worked the hardest to block the inclusion of this information through the passage of HIPAA.

As far as a universal, "federal" CCW, why not? Your drivers' license is recognized in every state. Your marriage license is recognized in every state, and liberals have fought tooth and nail for "marriage equality", one factor of which is reciprocity with states that provide marriage licenses to gays to states that do not. Why the hypocrisy?

you know, if you had to avoid mood drugs to be able to own a gun I think it might be a good thing. heck waaaaaay too many people are walking around in medicated states these days. would be a good thing if more people avoided the quick fix and lived their lives experiencing all that is life.

Unfortunately, stereotyping or asserting a blanket assessment of everyone taking psych drugs is just as bad as stereotyping or asserting a blanket assessment of everyone who owns a gun.

Even though, as mentioned earlier, I'm no fan of psych drugs and personally, (selfishly) think they are much more responsible than the gun.

That and our culture's fascination with the idea that everyone deserves to be happy "just because".

And now Brady is calling for the sheriff to resign? They have no authority of course but their delusion is psychotic! Luckily the sheriff has broad support.
Troy

This article makes some excellent points. The 300,000+ figure of gun deaths over the last 10 years is useless, because it includes accidents and suicides. If 2011 is representative, fully 2/3 of that # is due to suicide.

But back that # down to 1/3, or about 100,000, and terrorism still only accounts for only 3% of deaths. I don't know the actual figures, but I'll bet gov't spending on anti-terrorism measures is many, many times that spent on fixing the issues that lead to murders, gun-related or otherwise. That, IMO, is a colossal failure.

You can't have a pilot's license when under prescription for many drugs. Why? Because you could kill someone. I don't see why guns are any different. I'm very pro-second amendment but don't see the wisdom in selling to people with tangible reasons for concern.

Btw, I totally agree with your societal opinions. Everybody is a winner....but they aren't. Everybody is equal.....but they aren't. Everybody DESERVES happiness/stuff/money/love/success.....but they don't. There's a huge disconnect between many of the messages that our PC society conveys and the true reality of life, particularly when it comes to the last several generations of kids.

Pilot thing is interesting.

How do you deal with a guy with a big collection who is diagnosed one day?

A pilots licence is a Privilege, gun ownership is a Right. http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1444090536.jpg

Guns aren't the only thing used in mass killing.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1444090564.jpg


And it isn't new:eek:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1444090803.jpg

This Officer gets ithttp://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1444090863.jpg
And this is so true..http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1444090935.jpg
And remember who was against Drug Testing for Welfare, this overlaps.
CCW saves lives. The right person died in this video.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NXhfJ4LNgIs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1444091637.jpg
This says it best about GC.http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1444091734.jpg

+1 You are wise beyond your years.

For me........I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.:D

People who own Turbos are communists.

Ronnie = No essence.

Check Peter Sellers at the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY

More info. The killer had bought many guns, and so had his mother, who was something of a gun nut herself. Multiple ARs and AKs, pistols, etc.

He had been admitted to a psych hospital, was intermittently on psych meds, sometimes wouldn't take them, the mother knew all of this - they lived together - and she was a nurse and well informed on mental illness issues.

She seems to have been somewhat in denial, told people her son was doing great, in college, etc. In reality he was a loner who was apparently seldom at school and was a gun nut.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/us/mother-of-oregon-gunman-wrote-of-keeping-firearms.html?_r=0&referer=http://news.google.com/news/m/more?ncl=d7WxxCg7QajH4BMn_dpJagEzd2TiM&authuser=0& ned=us&topic=n

Explains everything, ties it all together.

Yes, yes it does.

God bless Stanley Kubrick. (RIP)

Bingo.

Doesn't the above sound a lot like the situation with Adam Lanza and his mother?

That is the most complete background article I've read so far.

That's what I was thinking.

If we outlaw moms, only the outlaws will have moms.

And what about inlaws?

Local (state level) controls will work.

Mass shooters usually do their deed in the community where they live. Often at their schools or workplace. In other cases, at local theatres or churches or malls. The Roseburg shooter did it at his school (Umpqua Community College).

When you buy a gun, you have to show ID showing you live in that state, and then pass the background checks of that state. (There are loopholes, which could be closed.)

So if a state's controls prevent a mass shooter living in that state from buying guns, those controls will effectively prevent him from legally the guns to use in his massacre.

And if the state's controls do allow the mass shooter to buy guns, most likely he'll do his killing in that state.

So I have no doubt that controls can be effective even if they are local.

Yes, there will be the situation where someone buys guns while living in one state and then moves to another state, or where someone lives right on the border between two states, but those are the exception.

The harder issue is: what controls will work?

I don't want a general ban on gun ownership. I've plenty of guns myself.

Maybe we don't need to go there.

How about a tight, strict system of background checks?

First, you have to have a background check at all. 40% of gun sales are done with no background check at all. That statistic is old (1994) but is the best we have, because federal funding for gun violence research was banned for two decades. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/04/mark-kelly/out-date-gun-background-check-statistic-gets-new-l/

(In Oregon, for example, there is no background check for gun sales between private parties, including at gun shows and online sales. A couple months ago this loophole was closed by a state law, but enforcement is up to local police/sheriff agencies and many have stated they will not enforce it. Oregon gun-sale background checks law gets off to rough start | Local | Eugene, Oregon I think the sheriff in Roseburg has said he won't enforce it.)

Second, the background check has to actually restrict the sale. At present, if a check is not processed within the days, the sale may go through. In other words, the local police or other agency doing the check has to "deny" within three days, or the sale is allowed by default. DELAYED OR DENIED FOR A FIREARM’S PURCHASE? | Oregon Firearms Federation The Charleston killer got his gun this way - his application was flagged, but the negative information wasn't confirmed in time so he got his gun by default.

Third, the background check and the underlying data reporting has to be effective. The NICS background check uses databases that, in theory, show if someone is a felon, has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, is subject to a restraining order, or has been adjudicated to be a danger (that would be due to mental illness). I believe there are major "holes" in this system. Some states refuse to submit data to the databases, others don't fund the effort, others simply don't do a good job. The Virginia Tech shooter got his gun this way - he was involuntarily committed, then ordered to undergo outpatient treatment, yet he was never placed on the state's database. And it wouldn't flag someone who was voluntarily committed to a psych hospital, or was a psych outpatient, or had a criminal record not amounting to felony, etc. I suspect the Roseburg shooter will be found to have gotten his guns this way - his various psych treatments, including the inpatient treatment in another state, never rose to a reportable level.

What to do?
- Well, as stated, I'm not in favour of a general ban on gun ownership or on particular types of guns.
- I'd like to see the restrictions on gun purchases tightened to exclude persons who are receiving outpatient mental health treatment involving prescription medication or who have voluntarily received inpatient mental health treatment (including treatment within the last several years), as well as persons who have committed certain misdemeanor crimes.
- I'd like to see medical privacy rules (HIPAA) modified to permit the necessary reporting, and for that reporting to be mandatory by doctors, family members, social care organizations, police.
- I'd like to see these background checks applied to all gun transfers, no exceptions, with no "pass by default after 3 days" (I do think a check should be passed by default if it isn't denied after some longer period, like a few weeks. FYI, most checks are passed in minutes.)
- I'd like to see my state strictly enforcing those requirements, and forcing local police and sheriffs to do so, with the necessary funding provided. If you don't want your state to do so, that's your call.
- I'd like to see CCW permitted in colleges, and by teachers in all schools. (I think private businesses should be able to prohibit CCW, because no-one has to patronize a particular restaurant or theatre or work at a specific job. But you don't have so much choice about attending school.)
- I'd like to see body armor banned, other than for law enforcement/military.

I don't disagree with much of what you propose, Jyl, except for the body armor. Banning body armor will do absolutely zero to stem these situations. The vast majority of these shooters aren't wearing body armor. It's wholly irrelevant, in my opinion. And if I wanna walk around with my ballistic vest on under my shirt (it's a good way to burn a few extra calories), who are you to say I can't?

In case anyone is interested, here are

A list of well known mass shootings. http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/
It looks like they are becoming more frequent. From one every few years to one every few months.

A site tracking all mass shootings in 2015 year to date. This site includes shootings where "only" a few people are killed or wounded. Mass Shootings in 2015 - Mass Shooting Tracker

Maybe mass shootings will continue getting even more frequent. Every few months - how about every couple months - then every month - then . . .

If that happens, there WILL be gun control. Will it be sensible, like the measures I listed, or not?

I am going to report u as being a danger to society.

U people are hopeless and are doomed to keep repeating the same behavior over and over again always thinking something different will happen

U are clueless about the internal dynamics of people's personality. I have written about this sort of stuff before and once again you all are dumbfounded when it happens again
For all your technology you all still remain ignorant little tree dwelling creatures with I phones.

You assume we read everything you write.

JYL, people who want guns will travel and will return home with their purchase. Human nature is a powerful motivator.

This reads like a post in a beta forum.

The best way to thwart future incidents is better awareness of those who would do these acts.

There were plenty of warning signs here.

No one said anything.

I agree with Tabs....too many "ignorant little tree dwelling creatures with I phones" trying to solve the problem.

If they become even more prevalent I will get a concealed carry permit and start to carry for personal protection. I will buy a new nice carry piece. Right now deaths in car crashes are orders of magnitude more deaths per 1,000 people and I will still drive as well.