At Least 4 People Were Killed In A Tulsa, Oklahoma, Hospital Campus Shooting, Police Say

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yeah, I'm wondering what "proper" is, as well.

a reply to: CptGreenTea

Oh, trolling now, are we??

How about you come up with a solution. Of course, I can take a guess at what your "solution" would be.

Blame the tool. That's all you got.

a reply to: seagull

I'm wondering if some people even know what a "background check" is. Besides, of course, something that magically makes sure that future criminals don't get to buy a gun.

Maybe "proper" includes a crystal ball?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Too true.

Apparently, all too many folks don't realize just how many laws there are that concern firearms in this blasted country...Federal, State, and Local--There are northwards of several hundred, IIRC it's around 700 or so.

But, hey, just one more law will fix allllll the issues, right??

All too many are too stupid to realize that more laws, and regulations won't solve the problem.

a reply to: seagull

I just think its silly on both sides. Right is incapable of blaming guns at all. And left wants to ban guns.

Whats the point of spending time thinking of a rational solution if no one will listen?

a reply to: CptGreenTea

Do you not see that it's nonsensical to blame the tool?? It's totally incapable of doing anything on its own. That's the person on the trigger.

Now, if you can come up with a way to keep insane people from getting their paws on a gun to do harm, without attempting to turn me into a criminal--hey, I'll give you all the attention that a good idea deserves.

But I've yet to hear one. More background checks--how much more is there to check, I ask you. 21 years old to buy--I bought a shotgun for the first time at 16, with paper-route money. A sweet little 20 gauge, that I somehow actually did lose off a boat while duck hunting. I'm still pissed about that one!!

I'm no danger to anyone not a danger to myself, or my family...so this nonsense of confiscation that some are foaming at the3 mouth to implement is going to get short shrift from me. I will not compromise my rights, and safety because someone else, or many someone elses, can't come up with an equitable solution to the problem.

a reply to: CptGreenTea

I also owe you an apology for that comment you replied to...

I was outta line.

So, here it is. I do apologize.

a reply to: seagull

Actually, there is a way to keep guns out of the hands of some of the criminals that also meets your qualifications. I suggested this in a different thread, but the more I think about it, the more I think it just might work... not for all cases, of course (no law or regulation will stop everyone) but for a lot of the problem surrounding the schools.

At present, a minor is not as liable for laws broken as an adult. That is how it should be; kids do things, and doing the wrong thing should be a lesson earned, not a lifetime of punishment for childish actions. One aspect of that lax liability is that when a kid turns 18, the age at which the law says one is an adult, any law enforcement records are wiped clean... again, as it should be. New adult, new start.

However, I propose that these records do not need to be completely expunged. Sealed, yes, irrelevant in criminal cases, yes, but when it comes to a background check perhaps they should be considered. What I propose is that, for firearm background checks only, a minimum of ten years of records should be available even if that means records from before the person turned 18.

At age 18, the background check would consider all records from age 8. At age 28, it would include all records from the age of 18. At age 50, it would still include all records from the age of 18, as it does now. That would possibly have prevented Ramos from killing 21 people (including 19 kids) in Texas.

We all know (or at least should know; science has long accepted what insurance companies knew decades ago) that the sections of the brain which control forethought and impulse control don't fully mature until around age 25. The body is fully grown, but the mind is still settling into adulthood. It is ridiculous to have a background check a couple of years, a few weeks, or even the same day one's records are wiped clean. That's a loophole, and while I am not a big fan of background checks (change the Constitution first to allow it), it is no more intrusive than what we have right this very second.

At the same time, require, under penalty of law, that any violent offenses be reported. There have been too many cases where previous episodes that would have indicated a potential problem went unreported and never seen. And if there are extenuating circumstances, fine... allow a person turned down over pre-age 18 records to appear before a judge and explain themselves. Then, if the judge agrees, require as a minimum a two-week course in firearm safety to allow future purchase.

I'll bet someone will have a problem with that, however... it solves part of the problem, but it doesn't grab guns.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Used for nothing but background checks--maybe not just for firearms, either...

Not a bad notion. Most adult behaviors begin as children, after all. Criminal, and/or psychological.

It's worth exploring, anyway.

a reply to: seagull

Exactly.

And, unlike all of the other ideas I hear oozing out of Congress, it actually fixes something.

I wonder how many of those on here who are calling for gun control would even consider it. Might be a fun social experiment.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: andy06shake
Don't you think it's odd that they say:
"Authorities believe the shooter's gunshot wound was self-inflicted,"?

Don't they know?

they must have shot him up pretty good.

a reply to: seagull

How about limiting 18-21 to low capacity pistols, then needing a higher tier gun liscense that requires ore background checks and training or something for assault rifles.

Then greatly limiting private gun sales that could avoid registration and liscense requirements.

Therefore, no bans and much harder for young adults to get powerful guns to mass shoot with.

Or something along those lines.

a reply to: CptGreenTea

How about limiting 18-21 to low capacity pistols, then needing a higher tier gun liscense that requires ore background checks and training or something for assault rifles.

Low capacity pistols? You do realize that a typical pistol can hold a dozen rounds, and a new magazine can be inserted in less than a second? Plus, the fact that long guns were used probably means less people were actually hit than would be with a pistol... pistols are designed for close range and fast fire. They're light and easy to swing.

Even a revolver, with a little practice and some speed-loaders, can be reloaded in about 2-3 seconds. That's about the time it took you to read those red letters. And you can't effectively ban speed-loaders; I can make as many as I need on a 3D printer.

The fact that so many of these kids use long arms is itself evidence of what I have been saying all along... this is an education issue. If someone wanted to shoot up a school or a hospital or even a Walmart, the best decision would be to buy a 9mm pistol. It has little kick for its size, it uses magazines which are easily and quickly replaced, it's easily concealed, ammunition is readily available, it's lightweight, and it can be aimed very quickly. And some are pretty cheap to buy.

That AR-15 is big, slow to aim, heavy, bundlesome, and still fires at the rate of a 9mm... once per trigger pull. But it looks scary and it looks impressive. It's also expensive. The advantage to using a long gun is accuracy at a distance, which is why few hunters use pistols for hunting. Hunting requires accuracy.

When I hunted, I usually carried at least three different guns with me. My hunting gun was one of two guns: a Thompson Contender 30-30... easy to aim, easy to carry, and if I have a rest (like a limb) to lay that 16" barrel across, it is damn accurate; or a Mini-14 .223... also accurate and lightweight for a hunting rifle, but the .223 is a mean little round. Then I carried a .444 lever-action Marlin rifle for anything unexpected I might come across (say a black bear or mountain lion; that caliber was developed by Marlin for the US Parks and Recreation Service specifically for one thing: to drop a rogue grizzly in its tracks). Then there's the pistol... that's a snake and critter gun. I can have it out and pointed in under a second, and at close quarters (like walking up on a snake or an angry coon) it does the job.

The right tool for the right job. These shooters are using the wrong tool for the job. That in itself is pretty telling.

Then greatly limiting private gun sales that could avoid registration and liscense requirements.

If you limit gun transfers between individuals, you have also stopped inheritance of guns. A great many people leave their guns to their children, and some carry great sentimental value. I have Dad's old .410, his pump 12-gauge, his .22 rife, and his .22 revolver (or did have until DBCowboy stole them). They're in the gun rack, and they mean the world to me. I learned to shoot with that .22 rifle and .410.

Plus, what about someone selling a gun to someone, exchanging money under the table, and then if anyone questions it the gun was stolen? Or lost? That's a loophole big enough to drive a semi through.

I had an idea a few posts back. What do you think of it?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm thinking allowing the guns to remain in the hands of your children and the mentally insane to be the bigger "mistake".

just today i think, an 11 yo got her moms hand gun and killed the lady that was arguing with her.

sloppy gun safety.

a reply to: sarahvital

10 year old.
www.nbcnews.com...

a reply to: JIMC5499

Oh, man... from your link:

The victim's boyfriend told police that he and Rodgers were grilling at their apartment complex late on May 30 when Lakrisha Isaac, the child’s mother, confronted her over a past dispute, according to an arrest affidavit for Isaac.

He said Isaac approached Rodgers, started arguing and threw the first punch, the document stated. The victim responded with a strike of her own, according to his account.

The man said he grabbed his girlfriend and started to walk away when she turned around to “re-engage” Isaac, at which point the girl fired one or two shots, striking Rodgers, the document stated.

There are so many things wrong here I don't know where to start.

• Did the girl think it was OK for Momma to start a fight?
  
  
• Why was the girl carrying a gun at age 10?
  
  
• Why did Momma decide to start a fight?

And that's just off the top of my head!

I'm sorry; I see this one as nothing short of a sad evolutionary turn. There was so much wrong it boogles the mind how they survived this long. We don't need less guns; we less Lakrisha Isaacs!

TheRedneck

a reply to: CptGreenTea

You're still, in essence, punishing people who've done no wrong by limiting them for no other reason than the actions of other people.

Now, for kids, it'd be another thing entirely. Under 18? Parent, or guardian would be/should be required. That, I have no problem with.

Training? Of course. As with any tool, you need to know how to use it, and use it safely.

I like private sales--as I've no interest in the govt. knowing any more about my business than is absolutely unavoidable. Most of my more recent purchases have been private. I see where you are coming from, it's a gray area.

Low capacity? I owned, at one time, a Smith and Wesson revolver, in .38spl, with 3 speed loaders. It took me about two seconds to dump spent rounds and place 6 new in the chambers. In about, call it less than 30 seconds, I could put 18 rounds down range, that's 18 aimed shots. Not a great deal more time than a higher capacity magazine fed hand gun.

There are answers out there, not sure where to be honest, but limiting access for people who've done nothing wrong, just because they might isn't one of 'em.

TheRedneck had an idea that should be explored, though--and maybe might be of some use in curtailing this sort of thing.

As you know, juvenile records are sealed, but in the case of handgun/rifle purchases, perhaps access to these records might expose problems before they become tragedy. Something to consider, anyway...

The shooter killed 4 persons on a 1st of June. Ion Antonescu, the fascist dictator of Romania, was executed alongside his three co-defendants on 1 June 1946.

The seal of Tulsa has a 18 on it. 18 = AH = Adolf Hitler. This seal also has 46 stars on it (Ion Antonescu died in 1946) and, in the lower right corner, a succession of waves that look like 3s, a reference to 33 = 1933, the year the nazis took power in Germany. Oklahoma was the 46th state admitted to the Union, hence the stars on this seal, and the current presidency is the 46th one.

The shooting took place on a building part of the St. Francis Hospital. The HMCS St. Francis was a destroyer from WW2 which sank on 14 July 1945. The killer was 45 years of age.

Five persons died (including the perpetrator), the shooting happened five days before the 78th anniversary of the Normandy landings that took place on 6 June 1944. Antonescu ceased to be the leader of Romania in 1944.