quade 3 #76 April 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteDo you propose these as laws or business practices? Business practices--not new laws. If there is one thing we should know by now is that unregulated businesses do NOT, as a whole, regulate themselves. Money is almost always the primary concern of any business.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #77 April 9, 2009 Quote I've been through the FBI check probably a dozen times. It's never taken more than about 3 minutes. I've done this as late as 11pm Eastern, and on Sundays. How is waiting 3 minutes the first time you go the range (or even every time) going to make things impossible? The check takes *10 DAYS* in California. And costs more than the range fee. No, this isn't an answer. Any change that would entail making someone go through the same process they would to buy a gun isn't going to decrease these sort of shootings, as now they can as easily buy that gun, and have it on them 7x24, as opposed to renting it at the range for an hour. And we already know that more than 10,000 people a year do that. This isn't a problem to be solved via rules. And I'm shocked that no one else seems to want to blame the family rather than the range. They took reasonable precaution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #78 April 9, 2009 Quote If there is one thing we should know by now is that unregulated businesses do NOT, as a whole, regulate themselves. Money is almost always the primary concern of any business. Ranges have great incentive to discourage suicides. It's bad for business, and bad for the employees. There's nothing gained with reckless disregard for the problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #79 April 9, 2009 Quote Quote Quote your analogy is really bad. So what do you suggest we do? I prefer an answer beyond "something" or "anything." thanks in advance. My analogy? You brought up driving the wrong way on the highway, not me. Link, because your memory is so short. You brought up licensing which doesn't exist in the firearm world Just because you don't like the direction YOUR analogy took, doesn't mean it was a bad analogy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pbwing 0 #80 April 9, 2009 Quote...And I'm shocked that no one else seems to want to blame the family rather than the range. They took reasonable precaution. Realistically, you're just blaming the son. Can't really blame the family as they weren't there and probably not aware of her intentions. Maybe the family had the expectation that the range would take 'reasonable precautions' by doing a background check on her first before giving her a loaded handgun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #81 April 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteDo you propose these as laws or business practices? Business practices--not new laws. If there is one thing we should know by now is that unregulated businesses do NOT, as a whole, regulate themselves. Money is almost always the primary concern of any business. I disagree. The problems that (I think) you are referring to are, in my opinion, the result of back-door relationships between government and business. If the government doesn't provide incentives for businesses to do silly things, the businesses themselves are unlikely to do so, and if they do, then they are unlikely to stay in business long (absent a government bail out).-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #82 April 9, 2009 Quote Quote Just because you can't "completely eliminate" all negative outcomes doesn't mean you shouldn't try to eliminate a negative outcome. I never said that you shouldn't try. I was just responding to your saying that you wouldn't have a range if you couldn't "completely eliminate" the chance of one person killing another. That wasn't me. That was pbwing.There is a strong signal from the gun enthusiasts that because there's no perfect solution there's nothing to be done. That is simply not true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #83 April 9, 2009 QuoteQuote Unless of course she did the background check prior to actually being involuntarily commited. Shall we have to submit to background checks every year? That being said I think it's an excellent suggestion IF this were a rampant problem. As of right now it isn't. So because it's not a rampant problem, it's best to do nothing? Do you regulate it to make it safer? No. As a business owner, do you look at ways of preventing something like this from happening again? Absolutely. Somewhere between the two extremes of "Ban guns" and "Do Nothing", there has to be something.... Yes. That's right. Do nothing other than discuss solutions for when it does become a problem.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #84 April 9, 2009 Quote Quote I've been through the FBI check probably a dozen times. It's never taken more than about 3 minutes. I've done this as late as 11pm Eastern, and on Sundays. How is waiting 3 minutes the first time you go the range (or even every time) going to make things impossible? The check takes *10 DAYS* in California. And costs more than the range fee. Dude, are you serious? Who the heck would want to live in that place? Seriously, the idea was to use the federal NICS system, not whatever system is used to process local firearm purchases. You could even have California ranges using it--although that might advertise the fact that the bloated and useless 10 day wait you have to suffer through is, in fact, bloated and useless. The NICS checks, as I mentioned, take less than 5 minutes and cost nothing.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #85 April 9, 2009 QuoteThere is a strong signal from the gun enthusiasts that because there's no perfect solution there's nothing to be done. That is simply not true. Not true at all. I'm a gun enthusiast. I own enough weapons, and of politically incorrect types, that I'm unlikely to ever be allowed to re-settle in my place of birth. I'd suggest you read through my posts in this thread and modify your blanket generalizations a bit.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #86 April 9, 2009 QuoteThe NICS checks, as I mentioned, take less than 5 minutes and cost nothing. And yet, in the case in question, this appears not to have taken place. Again, self regulation of businesses doesn't generally work.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #87 April 9, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote your analogy is really bad. So what do you suggest we do? I prefer an answer beyond "something" or "anything." thanks in advance. My analogy? You brought up driving the wrong way on the highway, not me. Link, because your memory is so short. You brought up licensing which doesn't exist in the firearm world Just because you don't like the direction YOUR analogy took, doesn't mean it was a bad analogy. Good point. My wording was horrible so let's focus on that rather than my actual point.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pbwing 0 #88 April 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteThere is a strong signal from the gun enthusiasts that because there's no perfect solution there's nothing to be done. That is simply not true. Not true at all. I'm a gun enthusiast. I own enough weapons, and of politically incorrect types, that I'm unlikely to ever be allowed to re-settle in my place of birth. I'd suggest you read through my posts in this thread and modify your blanket generalizations a bit. +1. I think there are plenty of people who are gun enthusiasts (myself included) who still believe there something that can be done to try and prevent this tragic situation from happening. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #89 April 9, 2009 Quote Quote Quote your analogy is really bad. So what do you suggest we do? I prefer an answer beyond "something" or "anything." thanks in advance. My analogy? You brought up driving the wrong way on the highway, not me. Link, because your memory is so short. You brought up licensing which doesn't exist in the firearm world You wanted to compare guns with cars - so deal with it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,155 #90 April 9, 2009 If there's something to be done, doing it at the gun range level probably isn't right. A single event like this is generally not worth passing laws over (hear that, TSA?). Really. It's sad, and shocking, but it's not indicative of a systemic practice in the conduct of gun ranges. The problem as a whole is closer to the tension between the right to own firearms, and firearms' ability to inflict damage on uninvolved people, in a manner that's generally easier and more efficient than using knives, baseball bats, or really big rocks. Which makes them, while a right, a dangerous one, in the hands of people who don't control their anger or desire. So how to balance rights against future human nature? I really, really don't like the thought that any asshole out there who's pissed can (not should, can) go get a gun as long as they're not a felon or a registered lunatic. I also don't like the thought that the only reasonable defense is for me to arm myself. But I also don't like the thought that the only way around this is to ban weapons. It IS in the constitution, after all. Now -- it might be a Pandora's box that the writers of the constitution didn't see coming out this way, but that's our problem, and not theirs. I do honestly think that the easy access to, and sometimes importance-magnification of, guns in the US contributes to the seemingly high rate of gun violence here. But I'm not at all convinced that simply banning them is the way around it. We put more limits on voting sometimes than on owning a gun. You have to register longer in advance. And, while enough people banded together can mess up the voting enough to affect others, it only takes one person with a gun. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pbwing 0 #91 April 9, 2009 Quote Yes. That's right. Do nothing other than discuss solutions for when it does become a problem. Don't mistake my 'do something' comments with laws or regulations... So NOTHING can be learned from this? If you were a range owner, would you not look at this event and TRY and see how you could reduce the chance of this happening at your business? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #92 April 9, 2009 QuoteIf you were a range owner, would you not look at this event and TRY and see how you could reduce the chance of this happening at your business? Sure you would. And (Quade's opinions to the contrary) I think that many range owners are thinking about those things. In fact, despite his public comments (necessitated by the litigious nature of our society), I bet that the owner of this particular range is (a) trying to find a way to avoid a recurrence, and (b) feeling pretty awful about this situation.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #93 April 9, 2009 Quote We put more limits on voting sometimes than on owning a gun. You have to register longer in advance. And, while enough people banded together can mess up the voting enough to affect others, it only takes one person with a gun. Wendy W. Good points. It seems to be the same people who are most vocal in wanting positive voter ID check on eligibility before the right to vote can be exercised, who are against any form of eligibility check before the right to shoot a gun is exercised. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #94 April 9, 2009 Quote That wasn't me. That was pbwing. Oops! Sorry about that. Quote There is a strong signal from the gun enthusiasts that because there's no perfect solution there's nothing to be done. That is simply not true. Yeah, I've noticed that from some people. I'm not exactly a gun enthusiast though, and I'm not saying that we should do nothing. However, I do think that we should be very careful about what we do. I tend to like the idea of some sort of licensing or at least background checks being required to rent or buy a gun. I don't think it would cut the firearm-related fatality rate by much, but it might save a few lives each year. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #95 April 9, 2009 Quote >Many ranges discourage suicides by only renting to those that bring >another gun, or bring another person. Is this another in the chorus of stupid suggestions? It's not a suggestion, it's typical practice. Someone who already has a gun can already kill themself, so renting them another doesn't change this. And short of these murder/suicides, people who have others around don't want to kill themselves, they want to be stopped. The vast majority of gun range suicides, as well as suicides in general, are people that are alone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #96 April 9, 2009 QuoteThe check takes *10 DAYS* in California. And costs more than the range fee. Random aside: Since my last post in this thread I went out and purchased a couple of these. It took a lot less than 10 days. Neener, neener! Now I just need to move to Canada so I can get a Tavor.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #97 April 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe check takes *10 DAYS* in California. And costs more than the range fee. Random aside: Since my last post in this thread I went out and purchased a couple of these. It took a lot less than 10 days. Neener, neener! Now I just need to move to Canada so I can get a Tavor. Oh yeah? Well we can skydive year round here! So there!www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #98 April 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe NICS checks, as I mentioned, take less than 5 minutes and cost nothing. And yet, in the case in question, this appears not to have taken place. Again, self regulation of businesses doesn't generally work. Uh, no, as mentioned rather clearly, NICS is used for purchases, cannot be used for rentals. And it wouldn't be free to any range in CA that would have to implement it. (iow, all of them). OTOH, if California dropped the 10 day waiting period for NICs, I might listen more to this suggestion, but it's still going to put a burden on ranges that are not also FFLs. For insignificant gain. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #99 April 9, 2009 QuoteQuote...And I'm shocked that no one else seems to want to blame the family rather than the range. They took reasonable precaution. Realistically, you're just blaming the son. Can't really blame the family as they weren't there and probably not aware of her intentions. Maybe the family had the expectation that the range would take 'reasonable precautions' by doing a background check on her first before giving her a loaded handgun. I find it hard to imagine the woman fooled the whole family and they believed she was perfectly happy and normal. No one else was in a good position to know her state of being. We have to be very reluctant to brand people for life based on their past illnesses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #100 April 9, 2009 If the focus of this 4 pages of discussion is to save people from untimely death, then I suggest the effort is wasted compared to the lives that could be saved through more focus on drunken driving.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
