Random acts of violence and guns

[Daryl]

Crooks are crooks. They don't go into a gunshop and buy their weapons, they steal them or buy them from another thief. They would not procure their ammunition legally, even if there was a law that said they had too. The cops would be tracking this ammo back in circles if there was a database to even use.

[Hellrazor]

Then why stoke the fire?

1. I am not the one preaching to everyone.

2. I would have closed this thread by now.



Now I am preaching -> NOTE: This site is about woodworking, tools, etc. It is not about pro or anti gun agendas, pro or anti abortion issues, etc. DROP IT.

[JimD]

I agree with Daryl but want to expand that thought a bit. Anyone who committs a felony looses their right to legally possess a gun. Not buy one, but possess one. It doesn't matter how they get it, they cannot legally have it. Not all crimes are repeat offenses but too many are.

One life lost to senseless violence is one too many.

The gun was not the cause of the young ladies death, the person who pulled the trigger was. If the criminal did not have a gun, if they had the intent to kill they could do so with a different tool.

Taking guns away from criminals is a noble purpose but their is no sure way to do it. What tends to happen is law abiding citizens loose their guns but criminals still find some. When criminals know that the people they want to attack are unarmed, it helps them decide to attack - witness the shootings at schools where even conceiled carry with a license is illegal.

Figuring out what gun caused a crime doesn't solve it unless you can also determine who pulled the trigger and where they are. Since a lot of crimes are committed by people who have already committed a felony, they did not get their gun legally so no legitamate database will track their possesion.

There are a lot of facts and there are a lot of opinions but as long as there are criminals who want to take other peoples life, there will be killings.

One lost innocent life is one too many.

Jim

[Alex Franke]

I did not want to (and I still do not want to) get into a political or gun-control debate here. Not only do I not know enough about the issues to be able to debate them, but also I respect the rules of this forum. Clearly the tone and content of my posts did not come across the way I expected them to for some people. os1kne's reply was just what I wanted to hear.

Black wallnut, I feel like you think I'm picking a fight with you or wanting to change your rights, and I feel like you're bludgeoning me because of it. For the record, I have no desire to get into an argument with anyone, and although this may surprise you, I value and support my constitutional bill of rights (including the 2nd), and my right to defend myself or another innocent person with deadly force.

You took the time to respond in detail to my posts, so I'll take the time to respond to yours in the same manner.

So who pays for this database? Sounds like you are advocating new legislation.

I don't know who pays -- it's just an idea that jumped into my head. No, I'm not advocating legislation. If I were advocating new legislation, I would have said "gun makers should be required to" or "there should be a law about" or something like that.

Who is going to finance the R&D that would be needed to insure that these RFID tags do not effect bullet performance? Who is going to pay for the tooling necessary to install these RFID tags? What makes you think it will be reasonable? Perhaps the cost matters little to you since you are not the one buying ammo for legal purposes. Shooters will not pay this additional cost out of the goodness of their hearts since it clearly has no direct benefit to them. For this new technology to happen I think you would need new legislation and the costs would be passed on to the consumer!

Again I would say I don't know who finances R&D or pays for tooling, and I don't know if it's even reasonable. You're assuming that I'm not a gun or ammo buyer -- you're wrong. I often pay more for things even though it has no direct benefit to me (US made products, sustainably harvested wood, etc).

The idea came from my understanding that RFID tags are rather inexpensive (maybe 5 cents or less) compared the the cost of a round of ammo. I don't think that legislation is necessarily required for technology like this to come into common use.

This assumes record keeping and a database not currently existing... Who pays for it?

You're correct. That whole post was based on the hypothetical I laid out in the first couple of paragraphs.

Really???

Yes, really. If someone's trying to kill me or a member of my family, and I can kill them first, then I will. And if I do, I'd be happy to let the cops know that the bullet I used came from my gun.

You are assuming gun registration and tracking. In most states and cities this is simply not current law. Are you advocating that we make it law? Law enforcement already has plenty to go on in most cases. Adding a huge database that only covers current manufacture will not help. What about all the millions of guns that are currently legally owned that are not in the database, many likely to never be in a database without significant cost and legislation. Who is going to pay for this? The lawful gun owner when there is not direct benefit to them?

Yes, you're right. I am assuming those things. (The post was based on a hypothetical.) No, I'm not advocating that we make it a law -- I'm trying to keep "law" out of it. Law enforcement may have plenty to go on in most cases, but they don't in this case. Regarding the millions of guns/bullets already out there, I would say that you have to start somewhere. If the hypothetical became real, then eventually most guns and ammo would be covered. (e.g. It's getting harder and harder to find a car without seatbelts that takes regular gas.)

Probably!?? Are you kidding me, probably? Criminals who murder other citizen ARE not responsible! Citizens who lawfully own firearms for the most part are very responsible. In some locals citizens must already prove their responsibility to their local or state government prior to purchasing, owning, transporting or using guns. Cars cost more because of safety devices mandated by law but you are not advocating(see below) that guns also cost more so as to be cataloged in a giant database, along with ammo and buyers? It sure seems like you are advocating it to me!

If I were actually speaking that, it would have been clear that my tone was tongue-in-cheek. (I probably should have used an emoticon there.) It's obvious to me that murders are irresponsible (but that they must be held responsible for their actions). I thought that the "probably" comment was clearly sarcastic, but clearly I was wrong.

I can't change how you interpret my posts, but I can tell you that I have no interest in taking or arguing any political positions on this site (and quite frankly in most other places, either).

People do not enforce laws Law enforcement officers do! When people enforce laws it is called vigilante justice.

The "people" I was referring to here were those whose job it is to enforce the laws. And, maybe a little more generally in this case, all the "people" in the CHPD, town government, other area PD's, the university and its students, the media, etc who are trying to help get this case solved. I'm not suggesting that I consider everyone a vigilante.

I think you are trying to dream up new laws that surely will trample on my rights. Your ideas if implemented will cost me money or reduce my ability to consume ammo.

I'm probably not going to change your mind here, but there's a reason why my comments weren't littered with "must's" and "required to's" and "prohibited's" and "laws about's". And I assure you I didn't carefully craft my posts to skirt those phrases while trying to advocate some hidden agenda.

Yes, if my ideas were implemented, it probably would cost us more $ for ammo or guns, but I wouldn't think it would be prohibitively expensive. But maybe it would be -- I don't know. The ideas came to me as I was typing the posts and feeling sick about what had happened. That's all.

You opened this can of worms in your OP! You asked why not gun, projectile and purchaser database that would be available to LEA's.

I really did not think it would lead to this. And yes, that is essentially what I asked.

If this is the main point of your post you could have, perhaps should have edited your OP to exclude that which seems to be advocating certain elements of gun control!

I really don't see my OP as advocating certain elements of gun control. I'd be happy to go back and edit it to remove any mention of "gun" or "bullet" (though I don't think I can change the title) and replace it with "weapon" -- the sentiment is still the same: "With science and technology today, shouldn't there be an easier way to find out whodunnit?"

Your wishes may indeed come true! As you have read through my lengthly reply please consider this as coming from just another fellow forum member. My opinions in this case are my own and may not be the opinion of the ownership of this site. I as Admin see that this topic could be steered back on track.

That would be fine with me. I was trying to give mods an easy out to lock the thread without fear of offending anyone because I already saw it getting out of control.

Lets keep the politics of gun control out of this discussion! Both sides are unlikely to sway the other sides thoughts or feelings! The only sure outcome is frustration and anger, and the locking of a topic! Lets rather focus on the terrible loss of a persons life! I would much rather remember Eve Carson for the person she was rather than reduced to a footnote in the gun control debate! I pray her family and friends, and I bet she has many, find comfort and support in this sorrow filled time!

I totally agree.

[crokett]

A request didn't work so...