Gunman told investigators that his main concern was 'accuracy' when shooting at 8th graders.

[onehandle]

GOLDEN, Colo. – A man accused of shooting and wounding two Colorado eighth-graders just after the school day ended said he woke up feeling angry, violent and "transformed upon" before he went to their middle school, an investigator testified at a preliminary hearing Wednesday.

Bruco Strong Eagle Eastwood, 32, allegedly told investigators that his main concern was "accuracy" as he aimed a hunting rifle at students outside the school, sheriff's investigator Richard Gove testified.

Jefferson County Judge Thomas Vance found probable cause Wednesday to proceed with 15 counts including attempted first-degree murder against Eastwood. He is being held with bail set at $1 million and hasn't entered a plea. Public defender Thea Reiff said after the hearing that defense attorneys are investigating what role psychosis and mental illness played in the case.

snip...

He told investigators he approached a group of students and said, "Do you like going to this school," before shooting Reagan Webber in the arm, Gove said. He then aimed at a boy who was running away, Gove said. Matt Thieu suffered a chest wound the size of a saucer plate, a sheriff's deputy testified. Three of his ribs were exposed, and he had a collapsed lung and a couple of broken ribs, emergency room doctor Kevin Merrell testified.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100429/ap_on_re_us/us_colo_school_shooting_2

[sharesunited]

1. His gun gave him an immediate outlet for his anger and transformation to unlawful gun owner.

[jazzhound]

2. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!

"The problem is that it simply is not true that previously law abiding citizens commit most murders or many murders or virtually any murders. Thus, disarming them would not, and could not, eliminate most, many, or virtually any murders. Homicide studies show that murderers tend not to be ordinary law-abiding citizens, but rather extreme aberrants.<277> The great majority of murderers have life histories of violence, felony records, and substance abuse.<278> These facts are so firmly established that they even appear in medico-health discussions of violence,<279> yet they are never discussed in connection with the health (p.580)advocate sages' mythology about ordinary citizens murdering relatives and acquaintances with guns."

[sharesunited]

5. I await the posting of his rap sheet. Until then, he woke up armed on the wrong side of the bed.

[X_Digger]

6. Did you even read the law review article post I referenced yesterday?

Do you dispute the assertions (backed by hard data) that it makes?

Namely, that average joe's don't "just snap" and kill someone?

[shedevil69taz]

8. So basically

you don't want to look into it further on your own incase what you find might prove your assumptions incorrect?

[shedevil69taz]

9. Ok here you go

http://www.greeleytribune.com/article/20100224/NEWS/100229813

According to this article incase you cant be bothered to read the whole thing yourself:

The son has been arrested before, according to state records. Strong Eagle Eastwood has an arrest record in Colorado dating back to 1996 for menacing, assault, domestic violence and driving under the influence of alcohol, according to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.

The domestic violence charge alone would have disqualified him from legally owning a firearm.

[sharesunited]

10. Thanks, this is exactly what I need. To state that guns and ammo are too prevalent and available.

If an individual SO IMPAIRED can get what he needs to kill so efficiently, there is too much of his weaponry of choice on the market.

Make it scarce.

[shedevil69taz]

12. You can certainly try to argue in favor of that

but you won't find many people in the US that will go along with you. So you have any other idea's when that one you keep repeating like a broken record never comes to pass?

[sharesunited]

14. Don't give up too easily, and help me select the judiciary. They are the key.

[shedevil69taz]

16. I would be one of those that don't agree with you

so I won't be helping you further your agenda and will infact do everything I can within the law to make sure your idea's never get implemented.

[sharesunited]

17. You will answer for the killings like the Drill Baby Drill crowd are answering now.

It's all worth it. That is the beginning and end of that particular argument.

[shedevil69taz]

18. I truely feel sorry for you if you actually believe that. n/t

[jazzhound]

23. And exactly who would answer for the killing of innocent crime victims

if/when their only effective means of self-defense were to be taken away?

Unlike you, shares, we're not so sick as to say that it should be you.

Sounds like you're getting more and more desperate as state after state liberalizes it's gun laws.

[sharesunited]

24. When more and more states adopt the AZ model of stop and deport, where will you be?

[jazzhound]

28. What does the AZ situation have to do with gun rights or gun control?

Are you suggesting that simply because I support RKBA I also support the recent AZ decision? That's simply nuts.

Talk about obfuscation.

[sharesunited]

29. State after state liberalizes gun laws. Now THAT is a direct quote.

Liberalizes for gun laws equates to a statewide crackdown on undocumented.

Am I wrong?

[jazzhound]

30. That doesn't even dignify a response.

(And yes........I'm aware that I just responded!)

[sharesunited]

31. Don't defend your dignity too intensely. Just let it break down to argument.

[jazzhound]

36. With you, that would tantamount to arguing with a stone. n/t

[X_Digger]

32. Yes, you are wrong. n/t

[rrneck]

34. Yes.

[paulsby]

53. troll-o-meter

0-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10
hella weak----------weak--------------not bad--------------------kick ass-----------kick! ASS!---
---^---

hth

[GreenStormCloud]

54. Yes, you are wrong. The connection of those issues is only in your own mind. N/T

[AtheistCrusader]

64. Stop and identify laws at the state level will be torn apart by the supreme court

whereas, allowing CPL's, open carry, etc, are not an infringment of anything. It's impossible to equate the two.

[shadowrider]

46. Don't you know

According to many posters here, you simply can't be a liberal AND support 2A rights. You MUST be a closet conservative IF you support 2A.

[Pavulon]

39. I answer for it ALL. The blood of all the little children is on my hands

so get busy changing the constitution to reflect your views. Hey the prohibition people did it. Smashing success.

I dont care how many bodies you trot out none of it is relevant to my right to legally own a firearm.

[proteus_lives]

42. Sad.

You want to control other people so bad.

You should focus on fixing the problems in your life for that desired sense of control.

[jazzhound]

13. And let the record show that to date shares has yet to submit a cogent

plan on precisely how he would make guns & ammo scarce given the lack of public support for his brilliant idea.

[sharesunited]

15. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka teaches us you don't need public support for a sea change.

[X_Digger]

19. And again you fail at history..

Public support was behind the Brown I decision in most of the north and and central states, as well as most of the west coast. Brown II ruffled a few more feathers with its "all deliberate speed" ambiguity, but it was still generally supported.

eta: deliberate

[sharesunited]

22. All *deliberate* speed. Please pay attention!

[X_Digger]

25. You really have no clue, do you?

If you actually educated yourself about history, someone might actually take you seriously.

The unhappiness with Brown II was from the progressives.

*sigh* the stupid, it burns.

There was a hell of a lot more support for desegregation than there is for your dystopic view on no-gun nirvana.

[Pavulon]

38. Diesel and Fertilizer. Shit under your bathroom sink

all usable to make high explosives. You going to ban everything? Not going to happen. No matter how many bodies you stand on to shout this trash.

The law and policy of the US is actually moving away from gun control.

Oh, looks like his accuracy was not all that great. Drunk crazy fucker, not my problem.

[gorfle]

80. Why not just keep it out of the hands of criminals instead?

As was posted, this guy had an extensive prior criminal record, just like most people who commit crimes with firearms do.

Instead of making blanket propositions that affect everyone, why not propose solutions that affect the people most committing the crimes, namely criminals?

[paulsby]

52. not true

a CONVICTION would have disqualified.

an arrest, and either acquittal or dropped charges or plea to a non-dv charge?

nope.

note that if there was a DV protection order, which can (and usually does) happen PRE trial, he would be prohibited but given a year w/o any violations or a not guilty etc. those are often lifted.

you quoted ARREST not CONVICTION stats

hth

[jazzhound]

11. Sadly for you, policy decisions aren't made on the basis of isolated

cases, even if the criminal in question had no rap sheet prior to his crime.

[safeinOhio]

20. Just like the spill in the gulf

one isolated case has changed policy overnight. The same can happen with gun violence. Just one assassination or mass murder and public opinion can change over night. Before 1964 you could buy guns through the mail.

[X_Digger]

21. Policy != law

(And it was 1968.)

[sharesunited]

26. Through the mail. Never paid attention to that myself. Kudos.

[jazzhound]

27. There's a problem with your theory.

Just one assassination or mass murder and public opinion can change over night.

The problem is that you assume that public opinion will change in favor of control. This is just speculation on my part, but perhaps the reason that support for gun control has been sliding has been exactly because people are sick and tired of being left defenseless at the hands of maniacs in "gun free" zones. And by the way, is there anything more insane that the phrase "gun free zone"? As if criminals respect signs, and as if there was any credibilty to the argument that a significant number of citizens "snap" when in possession of a firearm.

The case of an assasination *might* be a somewhat different story -- but I doubt it, as I believe the public would more likely see the death of a high-profile person as the fault of their security team than the prevalence of guns. There's the thorny little problem of the vast number of guns that would be imported if we restricted our domestic supply. Empower the Russian mob? Great idea!!!!! Like we don't already have enough serious problems in our nation as it is.

[sharesunited]

37. Hope I can count on you for the Rope for Each Prisoner cause is put out there.

[Katya Mullethov]

48. Why would they wanna hang themselves

When the odds are so good that they are gonna walk soon anyway ?

What you must attempt to supply 'em with , is a conscience , or some means that they might register feelings of guilt or shame . Good luck with that .

[safeinOhio]

40. Oswald shoots the President with a mail order

rifle. Then you no longer have the right to buy a rifle thru the mail. Reagan gets shot and you get the Brady Bill and organization.
All I am saying is that none of you are coming up with any ways to keep guns out of the hands of those that commit crimes. You only seem to come up with why there are no ways to do that. Those of us gun owners that call for reasonable, constitutionally valid solutions are ridiculed.
I can guarantee you that as quick as new off shore drilling comes to a stop because of what happened, a major gun violence incident will bring new laws that you and I will not like. Just like when a few airplanes are crashed by terrorist in one day, flying has never been the same. The public will see an assassination, not as a fault of security, but as, despite the best security in the world. Buying a gun will never be the same. If the crazies that were arrested a few weeks ago in Michigan had carried out those alleged plans and killed hundreds of cops at a funeral, military type weapons would be looked at by the public as no longer needed by civilians.

[jazzhound]

43. I agree that the scenario that you describe is possible, but.........

All I am saying is that none of you are coming up with any ways to keep guns out of the hands of those that commit crimes.

Are you certain that this is an accurate statement? I recall a rather lengthy discussion wherein many of the regular pro RKBA members of this forum were offering up ideas regarding sensible gun laws and the means to enforce them. Items such as national databases for those with mental defects (for example) were proposed.

Edited to insert link to previous discussion:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x310479

Sociologists point out that w/regard to subjects where the public is poorly informed, public opinion is (predictably) quite malleable. The subject of gun control falls into this catagory, so perhaps your possible future scenario is realistic. I tend to believe the opposite, which is that the more dangerous the world is perceived to be by the public, the less willing they'll be to surrender protection responsibility to Big Brother. Just my opinion.

[safeinOhio]

45. 2 good ideas out of the whole post

asking for ideas.
mental health data base.


I would set a national standard for CCW. Legal instruction and training. 8 hour class, 200 round qualifier. Clean background. Wipe away local laws that interfere with legal carry. (NJ can no longer ban JHP rounds)


Then 20 reasons why nothing should be done or just crazy talk like.

1. No background checks, I shouldn't have to prove I'm not a criminal to exercise my rights.

2. No permits if you can legally own it you can legally carry it.

3. No "duty to inform" when interacting W/ the police.

4. Owners of PRIVATE establisments (not open to the public) have the right to forbid carry on their property anf that's it.

evil, perhaps those who are anti-RKBA will lead the charge to impose capital punishment upon anyone convicted of a a crime involving a firearm.


Yet no call for mandatory background checks on all private sales of handguns.

How about strict laws on reporting stolen and sold handguns and then random checks by police a few months after purchase. A good way to discourage straw sales. Of course the same people here that shoot off a box or two of 45s every month at the range will swear they can't afford a 20 dollar transfer fee.

I have no problem with registration of all handguns. Clearly falls within the 2nd. Handguns are the first choice of criminals and would be virtually useless in a war with an army. Like in states such as Michigan, you must carry a registration card with you while in possession of your handgun. This shows you can legally own the gun and it is your gun. When I lived there I had no problem with that law.

I'd like to see a more proactive role by the courts and police to take guns away from those that have been issued a PO or convicted of crime that makes gun owners ship and possession illegal.

[beevul]

47. Some inaccuracies...

"Yet no call for mandatory background checks on all private sales of handguns."

The federal government was never granted authority to do such a thing. On a state level, its potentially possible.

However, you'll get much resistance to such an idea.


"Of course the same people here that shoot off a box or two of 45s every month at the range will swear they can't afford a 20 dollar transfer fee."

The probem here, is trust. There is no guarantee, that someone with attitudes like our local sharesunited, or a bunch of those with such attitudes, wont decide at some point down the road whether all at once or more likely in baby steps to raise that "fee" to several hundreds of dollars.

No guarantee = no deal.


"I have no problem with registration of all handguns. Clearly falls within the 2nd. Handguns are the first choice of criminals and would be virtually useless in a war with an army."

I DO have a problem with it. Beyond that, " virtually useless in a war with an army" is not quite accurate.



I give you the The FP-45 Liberator pistol.

After production, the Army turned the Liberators over to the OSS. A crude and clumsy weapon, the Liberator was never intended for front line service. It was originally intended as an insurgency weapon to be mass dropped behind enemy lines to resistance fighters in occupied territory. A resistance fighter was to recover the weapon, sneak up on an Axis occupier, kill or incapacitate him, and retrieve his weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1942_Liberator

Regular modern handguns would be no less useful.


"I'd like to see a more proactive role by the courts and police to take guns away from those that have been issued a PO or convicted of crime that makes gun owners ship and possession illegal."

I'd like to see PO become more of an even handed thing, personally. They are a thing which is ripe for abuse, and horror stories of such things are common.

[safeinOhio]

49. Your inaccuracies

Many states require a "permit to purchase" that requires a FOID or going thru a FFD. A few are Michigan Connecticut, Illinois and Minnesota. I see no part of the 2nd Amendment that would stop that and no court has over ruled it. Just like that $20.00 I talked about, you got to pay it in those states that require a background check or IF PURCHASED IN ANY STATE from a FFL. What is the big deal?. There is no deal in those states, no guarantee and and no big deal. You have to pay in one way or another with a dealer already. It is either included in the price or there is an extra charge on the bill. Also I think full autos require a federal license and registration, so it would be Constitutional.

Sure a handgun can be used in war, just like a knife or a club. In a modern fire fight, not so much. Life is not like on TV. Almost 90% of all hand gun fights are at 10 feet or less.

In ever state that I know of, a court hearing is required for a PPO. If you don't go in with a lawyer, you are an idiot. Not a perfect system, but at least a safe guard in an ugly break up.

Truth is you'll "get much resistance" on any reasonable idea to keep guns out of the wrong hands from the ideologues. They don't want any responsibility when selling or buying a handgun. They don't want to spend a dime.

I have no problem with any of it if it may keep a handgun out of the wrong hands on just a few and stop a crime. I'd be glad to register all of my handguns, pay a FFL to check background on any private sale I do. I have bought handguns at garage sales in my state. Any criminal or crazy could do the same.

[Travis Coates]

56. No gun law

Has ever been shown to have any effect on crime


I have no problem with any of it if it may keep a handgun out of the wrong hands on just a few and stop a crime. I'd be glad to register all of my handguns, pay a FFL to check background on any private sale I do.

If you can guarantee me that no such registration list will ever( Ever meaning from now until the day this planet ceases to exist) be used to confiscate guns I'll back you. Until such time as you can do that I want no part of your registration.

While your here, please tell us how registration will keep handguns out of the hands of criminals.

[safeinOhio]

57. Fair enough

I can guarantee there will never, ever be any confiscation of guns in this country if you can guarantee no legal gun owner or CCW holder will ever commit a gun crime. If you get to ask for the improbable, I get to ask the probable.

As I said earlier, I legally purchase a handgun at a garage sale with no questions asked. Without a permit to purchase, background check or any kind of registration how can anyone assume I am not a serial killing, rapist, bank robber very insane person? Now if I would have purchased the gun thru any store or FFL there would have been a record of the sale and a back ground check on all of the above. Why is that ok when buying from a licensed dealer and so unreasonable when buying from an individual? There is no logic in one and not the other.

How does licensing drivers keep uninsured reckless drivers off of the road? It doesn't, but it does put a dent in it enough to make the roads reasonably safe enough for public travel.

To be reasonable I have stated that I would prefer only purchase permits and registration on handguns and not long guns to be in the spirit of the Second Amendment. I still believe that hand guns would be of very limited value against a trained, well armed army. What, you gonna shoot down drones with your 45? Pepper tanks and armored carriers with your 9mm? On the other hand, most, not all, but most gun crimes involve easily concealed hand guns.

[Travis Coates]

66. When

Did criminals start canvassing garage sails in search of guns? Criminals buy their guns from illegal sources overwhelmingly registration, background checks and licensing isn't going to change that at all. All "gun control" laws do is disarm the law abiding. But, you knew that

[safeinOhio]

59. As I recall

bank robberies and the killing of police went down after the laws on automatic weapons were changed. I don't recall anymore assassinations with mail order rifles after their sale was banned.

[X_Digger]

61. Actually, there weren't many crimes with automatics to begin with.

Thompsons were seen as 'gangster' / 'bank robber' guns. Not that they actually represented a large portion of guns used in crime (think 1930's version of 1994's "assault weapons" meme).

[Travis Coates]

50. Damn dude

if you're gonna talk ABOUT me you could at least address it TOO me.
Just sayin'



How about strict laws on reporting stolen and sold handguns and then random checks by police a few months after purchase. A good way to discourage straw sales. Of course the same people here that shoot off a box or two of 45s every month at the range will swear they can't afford a 20 dollar transfer fee.

Seriously? You'd allow the police free acces to your gunsafe every couple months? How do you intend to pay for the man hours involved in violating the 4th ammnedment rights of every gun owner in America?

[jazzhound]

51. My reaction exactly

Seriously? You'd allow the police free acces to your gunsafe every couple months? How do you intend to pay for the man hours involved in violating the 4th ammnedment rights of every gun owner in America?

[safeinOhio]

58. easy enouge dude

A request to bring the recently purchase hand gun to the station. Just like bringing a car to the DMV for a safety inspection. Any other questions about Constitutional law.?

[X_Digger]

62. I think he was referring to..

"then random checks by police a few months after purchase"

That's the part that scared the hell out of me.

[safeinOhio]

65. random checks can

be a call to bring in, prove you still have the gun, or prove you sold it to a legal buyer. Can you think of other ways to slow the straw purchase? Instead of fighting every idea improve gun transfers and keep them out of the hands of crooks and crazies, try to come up with some or improve on other ideas.

Like any other sport or hobby, it is up to us help make it acceptable to those who are not involved. Not everyone likes guns. There are pacifist in the world and they have a right to their view. No use pissing everyone else off when we can make our hobby and sport safer. Most violent gun crime is by folks that should not or illegally have handguns. To keep guns in our hands we need to make it harder for guns to get into their hands. I see the same checks done on handgun transfer at a FFL as no problem for private sales if it helps our cause. I'm sure many that can't pass a check will argue otherwise.

[Travis Coates]

67. Improved ideas

I really don't have any because they don't work (how's that 100% ban on cocaine working out for you?) Therefore I prefer the dangers attending too much liberty than not enough

[safeinOhio]

71. I thought I heard the same logic

at a Tea Party speech. There is 100% regulation of full autos. Not too many crimes committed with them these days. Must be working. Nitrogen fertilizer is highly regulated now and haven't been too many truck bombs since, must be working and I'm real sorry for your loss of liberty on fertilizer and full autos.

[Travis Coates]

75. I'm kinda new here so walk me through this

Any one who supports the idea of less gun regulation is a tea bagger. Is that how it works?

You want an idea, how about any crime committed W/ a weapon of any kind gets an automatic 10 years added to the sentence to be run congruently w/ no time for good behavior accrued.

Beyond that you quit making it harder for law abiding Americans ( Or would you prefer I say 'Murkans")to defend them selves.

BTW what were you doing at a Tea bag rally?

[GreenStormCloud]

96. Ammonium nitrate fertilizer is NOT highly regulated.

http://www.slate.com/id/2111955

Only two states, South Carolina and Nevada, require purchasers of ammonium nitrate fertilizer to produce identification. But the Fertilizer Institute, an industry trade group, has asked vendors to request ID voluntarily and to report any suspicious buyers to a hot line. TFI's pamphlet on the topic, titled "America's Security Begins With You," warns fertilizer salesmen to be wary of anyone paying with cash or who "avoids eye contact."

[jazzhound]

69. Agree with this:

There are pacifist in the world and they have a right to their view. No use pissing everyone else off when we can make our hobby and sport safer. Most violent gun crime is by folks that should not or illegally have handguns. To keep guns in our hands we need to make it harder for guns to get into their hands.

Where you lose me is the idea that there is a ghost of a chance that the populace will go for the idea of inspections by police. Never gonna happen.

[X_Digger]

70. "With friends like these, who needs enemies?"

That you're willing to hand the cops the ability to "prove" that you really sold or lost a handgun, and all that entails- scares the shit out of me.

[safeinOhio]

72. Not at all

With the background check on all sales, just like at a FFL dealer now there would be proof and you are fine unless you sold it illegally to someone that could not pass the background check.

A simple law, like already in many states, a requirement to report stolen guns.

I still don't see what you are scared off unless you are making a living on straw sales and buying or selling stolen guns.

[X_Digger]

73. Are you intentionally missing the point, or are you backing away from it?

How would the police enforce this:

How about strict laws on reporting stolen and sold handguns and then random checks by police a few months after purchase.

Hrmm? How would the police 'randomly check' that you had a firearm stolen or sold, eh? Random searches of your house?

eta: fat fingers

[safeinOhio]

74. It would not be such a problem as you make it.

It would call for records to be kept on all handguns sales, as they are now done when buying from a dealer. Any time with in a year a call is made to the purchaser to confirm they still have the gun or if it has been sold and to whom. A request can be made to bring the gun into the station to verify. This would discourage straw sales. How would you discourage straw sales?

[Travis Coates]

76. No

I don't want the government to have a record of what guns I own. period.

Before we worry about discouraging straw sales let's see some proof that they really are a problem

[safeinOhio]

77. move to somalia Dude

You'll fit right in. No gubbermint and lots of guns. Show me any other country with more guns, less laws and fewer crimes.

[Travis Coates]

78. What I'm hearing you say is

"Travis, since I can't refute your argument I'm going to resort to a personal attack.".

Is that what you meant to communicate?

[safeinOhio]

81. What I'm saying is there is no refuting you.

You are not looking for solutions, only making things fit your ideology. I find it hard to have discussions with those that only come to the Democratic Underground looking for people on the left to have endless arguments with. Once you donate and support the site, I'll be glad to have a discussion with you. Until then, I have no proof that you subscribe to any of the liberal views that this site is about. I've ask for suggestion on how to prevent those that should not, by law, own and possess handguns. You want no restriction as you are only concerned about YOUR liberty rather than society at large. For all I know you may not even be legally eligible to own and possess firearm and are just pissed about your lack of liberty. If you might point to me to some other non gun issue you have posted about in the past, I may change my mind and think you belong on this site. If you only post in the gun room and have no liberal views on anything else, I doubt that you'll be here long.
So, to continue our discussion point me to your other post, not in the gun room and if you really feel you are part of the liberal community cough up twenty dollar and get a star. This is not a personal attack as much as a reply to your endless attacks on my communications on a topic.

[Travis Coates]

82. So, I'm correct

When confronted W/ an argument you can't answer you immediately call your opponent a Tea bagger/troll and retreat.

Question my bonafides all you wish I will not play the game by your rules

[safeinOhio]

84. and I'm right

you can't come up with a post by you on any other subject. Of course you won't play by my rules, just as I won't play by yours. So you retreat by changing the subject because, as I have checked, you have not posted on any other subject, leaving open the possibility that you are a Tea bagger/troll. It would have been very easy to disprove my wild guess.

[jazzhound]

85. He's required to prove to you that he's not a "Tea bagger/troll?

What upside-down bizarro world do you live in?

[Travis Coates]

87. I support the progressive Idea

That your average American citizen (on either side of the fence) can be trusted make their own decisions regarding firearm ownership and that self defense is a basic human right. Ergo, I'm a tea bagger as you said, an incredibly liberal viewpoint.

[safeinOhio]

92. These quotes don't sound all that reasonable to me

1. No background checks, I shouldn't have to prove I'm not a criminal to exercise my rights.
3. No "duty to inform" when interacting W/ the police

I would guess, other than just to screw with you, there are no reasons for "duty to inform" like getting you self shot by the cop. No reason to not to sell to felons.

I never called you a tea bagger, only that you come off sounding like one. A little overly defensive on that one aren't we?

[Travis Coates]

99. Duty to inform

of the 48(?) states that have some sort of permit system in place only 9 require an armed citizen to inform the police in an official encounter and only 8 attach any penalty for failure to do so. I suppose the other 39 state legislatures get the common sense idea that law abiding citizens aren't a threat to the police and criminals (who are a threat) won't comply anyway.

As for the background checks they're no different than Bush's 700 miles of border fence the illegals just walk around it.

[safeinOhio]

94. I never require anything

only question my time spent is discussing an issue with him.

[Travis Coates]

86. Actually I have posted on other subjects

Most notablly AZ immigration issues ( about half of my inlaws are illegals and are directly effected by the new legislation) yup I'm a teabagging real 'murkan all right.

You might want to google AWB 94 and see where Clinton himself said that pushing gun control gave the GOP the house for 10 years

[jazzhound]

83. Does dodging questions reflect a position which "looks for solutions"?

You are not looking for solutions, only making things fit your ideology

There is a serious and honest question pending which you have not addressed --- specifically, how do you argue for registration when there is no evidence to date that firearm registration has accomplished anything in terms of reducing violence?

So, to continue our discussion point me to your other post, not in the gun room and if you really feel you are part of the liberal community cough up twenty dollar and get a star.

Cheap shots like these are always recognized as the flag of surrender ---- when you can't deal with the substance of a person's argument, challenge their loyalty......in this case "liberal bona-fides". And by the way -- this isn't LiberalUnderground.com. The fact that a person posts largely (or even exclusively) in the Guns forum says nothing about their "liberal" loyalty. Persons such as myself, for example, have limited time to devote to internet discussion and are compelled to limit the areas where they post. I personally feel that the unstudied position of the Democratic Party on gun "control" is the single-most damaging position of the party ---- hence my involvement in this particular forum. Nobody should be forced to answer to you or anyone else w/regard to their DU posting priorities. As has been observed countless times before ---- such a "progressive" attitude!

[safeinOhio]

88. There be many tombstones and

deleted post. Happens every day. Those who only come to disrupt and argue from an ideological point of view with no room for compromise or reason may find they become more and more unwelcome. I come from a moderate point of view on gun issues. I can find no Constitutional issue with registration. I support gun rights within the Constitution. I wish to maintain those rights and feel the unrelenting ideology of no laws at all, as recommended by the poster in question, do a disservice to reasonable gun owners that follow the law. Even though you and I disagree on the power of public opinion, I am fine with that and hope you are never proven wrong so that I never lose any of my rights. As of yet I have heard few suggestion from most to the questions I pose on how to keep guns out of the hands of felons. I seem to mostly, not always, get excuses as to why there is no way to do that. I would think it would behoove us all to come up with solutions to guns in the hands of criminals. While I legally carry a handgun, the last thing I ever want to do is have to shoot someone. Anything I can do politicly to lower that risk, I think is my responsibility to do as a gun owner. Other things I do and have argued here for, is to secure my home from any invasion, provide a safe room to retreat to in case my security fails. I also, being old and retired, try to avoid places that might increase my exposure to crime. I think a progressive attitude includes looking to improve society through change that provides a better and safer society. I can see no problem with background checks on handguns in private sales. No one has answered my question as to why it should be any different than a sale by a FFL, other than the feeble excuse that it may cost me a couple of bucks.

[safeinOhio]

89. From about DU

Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas.
We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals

Notice that this site is for Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives. I think anyone that supports those shared goals would find some time to express them in other places than just the gun forum. A new person that never does that leaves open the door as to whether or not they fit in to what this site is for as stated on the link on the home page. Not all can afford to donate, however if you own guns and shoot and own a computer, there ought to be some money left over to support the platform you use to support your ideas. If not, other liberal post can help with the causes DU is about.

[jazzhound]

91. A bit different than what you stated in post #81, no?

Until then, I have no proof that you subscribe to any of the liberal views that this site is about.

In terms of responding to your questions, is it possible that folks will more likely respond to your questions if you avoid questioning their "liberal" loyalty? And answer some of the question asked of you?

[safeinOhio]

93. Not at all

Every reply he had never answered my questions, only flip comments on them.

[jazzhound]

95. Missed my point

Your conciliatory post #89 acknowledges that we post at *Democratic* Underground, while your post #81 asks Travis to provide evidence of *liberal* views.

[safeinOhio]

97. I don't post on and donate to DU

to argue with non-liberals, republicans or any other right-wingers. If I have to argue against things like there should be no background checks on any gun purchase and then no rules on conceal carry, so that criminals can buy and carry concealed guns, I'm arguing with the wrong people. Once some one argues for libertarian anarchy on the gun issue, I'm done. I only ask to make sure that is not the case.

[Travis Coates]

100. Which brings us right back to our starting point

I'm for less restrictive gun laws, such as no permit ( like they do in that freeper enclave of Vermont) ergo I'm a freeper.

Lazy way out of an argument

[X_Digger]

79. Nothing will prevent straw sales.

And honestly, I've not seen evidence that they're the source of any large proportion of the firearms in crime circles.

~80% of crime guns come from other than retail sources. At most the intrusions on privacy that you're willing to tolerate will affect ~13% of guns used in crime, and that's being generous.

Piss away as many freedoms as you like in an effort to say you've "done something". Not me.

[safeinOhio]

90. first off, I see no loss of any freedoms.

As a legal purchaser of guns, what freedom have I pissed away?

Do you have a link to your stats on crime guns? If that 13% of crimes stopped included one of your family's life, it would be well worth it to me.

[X_Digger]

98. Privacy.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

[GreenStormCloud]

55. Not really.

The problem with that argument is that the policy on drilling hasn't really changed. People still drive gasoline powered cars. The demand for more oil will continue.

Assassinations and mass murders happen. The recent result of mass murders is to point out that they happen in gun-free zones. There is increasing demand to allow the protection of armed citizens in more places. When was the last time that you saw a mass murder at a firing range, or a police station, or a gun show?

[AtheistCrusader]

63. So mentally deranged and homicidal = wrong side of the bed, good to know Shares. Got any other

psychological insight for us?

[shedevil69taz]

3. You sure he was a lawful gun owner

before he decided to use it in an illegal manner? Regardless if his intent was to harm people there are many ways to go about it. The fact that he used a gun has no more bearing on his mental state than if he had used a knife, baseball bat, car, or golf club.

[X_Digger]

4. Speaking of 'or a knife..' 'or a hammer'

http://mystateline.com/fulltext-news/?nxd_id=157245

(Beijing) -- More horror in China, as a man attacks a class full of kindergarten students with a hammer before dousing himself in gasoline and burning to death.

It was the third attack on children in as many days.

On Wednesday, a knife-wielding teacher stabbed 16 students.

The bloodshed came just as the government was carrying out the execution of a man who fatally stabbed eight school children back in March.

Then on Thursday, a man with a knife stabbed 29 children.

[rrneck]

35. I should always read the thread first... nt

[TPaine7]

7. This proves that onehandle's policy preferences should be implemented immediately n/t

[rrneck]

33. How hard is it to get a gun in China?

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/34455/

""An unemployed insurance worker broke into a kindergarten in Taixing, a city in Jiangsu Province, stabbed the senior security guard, and slashed 31 people with a knife, including the 28 children in the classroom. Four students died at the scene.

The attack occurred at 9:40 a.m. on April 29. Information about the attack has been found primarily on the Internet.

A local resident put the number of deaths at four to six children, but the exact number is not yet known. The injured were taken to the Taixing Hospital, according to a staff worker at the kindergarten. The case is now under police investigation.

[Euromutt]

44. Legally, it's impossible

Private citizens (insofar as the inhabitant of a notionally communist country can be considered a private citizen) can at most own a .177-cal air rifle, and that requires a permit. Firearms are illegal to possess entirely.

In practice, organized crime can get hold of guns; they buy them directly from corrupt workers at arms manufacturing plants. Because of bad inventory-keeping, the guns officially don't even exist.

Cripes, that story makes the Dendermonde day care attack look positively mild by comparison.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

60. "Accuracy?" B.S. His concern was no victim should be armed. nt

[spin]

68. Accuracy goes down hill fast when the targets can shoot back. (n/t)

[jazzhound]

101. Wow.

You used this senseless tragedy to score points in your endless evangelism against gun ownership?!?!