A 63-year-old Vietnam War veteran in Vail, Colo., shot four people at a local bar, killing one, police allege.The Denver Post said Monday that Richard "Rossi" Moreau is accused of fatally shooting Gary Bruce Kitching, 70, last weekend and injuring three others during a shooting at the Sandbar Sports Grill in Vail.
Witness Chester Noel alleges Moreau drew a gun and began firing Saturday night when bar manager Jason Barber attempted to remove him from the bar.
"The bouncer said, 'Put the gun away,' then I saw flame shooting out in front of my face," alleges Noel, who said Barber, 29, was among those injured in the incident.
Police have not released the identities of those hurt in Saturday's shooting. Two of the gunshot victims, identified only as a 29-year-old and a 63-year-old, were still hospitalized as of Monday.
Vail Police Chief Dwight Henninger told the Post that Moreau had previously faced weapon charges and an unspecified number of weapons were found in his apartment following the shooting.
Wait, don't say it, I know the answer. He was already a criminal and no law could have prevented this. That's the pro-gun argument, isn't it?
What I say is it's too easy for guys like Mr. Moreau to get guns. Posting a sign at the bar entrance forbidding firearms or passing a state law banning guns in bars is not enough. The source of his guns needs to be dealt with. That's where gun control laws can and should make a difference.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
A while back, you had to submit to fingerprints and a waiting period to buy a handgun. Now, it's an instant check system: no fingerprints needed.
ReplyDeleteAnybody miss that ID theft was one of the most prevalent crimes????
Not too hard to get a clean licence in somebody else's name.
It's been over 30 years since Brenda Spencer ("I Don't Like Mondays") went postal, yet slayfests are becoming more common.
"A while back, you had to submit to fingerprints and a waiting period to buy a handgun. Now, it's an instant check system: no fingerprints needed."
ReplyDeleteOnce again, the antis show their complete ignorance of firearms law.
Not even the Brady Bunch has tried to float this lie.
Fingerprints(actually both thumbprints) are required when buying a gun from any licensed dealer.
We have the truth, you have lies.
Laci and mikeb, care to do some research and try to prove me wrong?
checkmate.
This doesn't have a thing to do with "guns in bars."
ReplyDeleteHe wasn't a CCW holder, he was a criminal who couldn't legally carry anywhere.
Funny Laci should say "went Postal"
ReplyDeleteCould it be coicidence that Post Offices are federal gun-free zones, and have a stigma of office shootings?
Nah!
Keep up the hard work, Laci, you're doing a marvelous job for our side.
I thank you!
BTW Laci, "limpdick" is 45Superman.
ReplyDeleteIf you're going to attack and insult people it helps to at least know who you're talking about.
kaveman, Are those two thumbprint required every time? I'm surprised I haven't heard a lot of complaining about that. Can you explain?
ReplyDeleteNot sure where Kaveman is, but this are does not require thumbprints. It could be a state law...however I could also find no record of Laci's claim either.
ReplyDeleteBut anyway, let's say we DO need to have better control over the source? I have yet to see an idea that would actually work, I simply see theoretical flailing about wanting to try things that would have no impact besides making life annoying for people who obey laws, sort of like having to sign 3 forms and scan my driver's license to buy some Sudafed...or the little old grandma in Indiana who's getting prosecuted for (GASP) buying two packs of Sudafed in a week.
Fingerprints(actually both thumbprints) are required when buying a gun from any licensed dealer.
ReplyDeleteWait. what?
Fingerprinting to purchase a gun? Where? What state? That's certainly not a Federal requirement.
I was fingerprinted by the State for my CCW, but there's no such requirement for purchase (though DE does have it's own separate background check in addition to the Federal NICS check)
"kaveman, Are those two thumbprint required every time? I'm surprised I haven't heard a lot of complaining about that. Can you explain?"
ReplyDeleteYes, left and right hand thumbprints are taken every time you make a firearm purchase from any dealer in the U.S. These are attached to federal form 4473 and kept by the dealer for, I believe it's 20 years or until the dealer discontinues selling firearms; retires, closes, whatnot.
Note that this is done for the transaction and not necessarily the gun(s) themselves.
Example is that I can buy multiple guns in a single transaction and therefore submit one set of thumbprints for the sale, not one set of prints for each gun.
I'm a bit surprised you didn't know this already since form 4473 and the thumbprints are the direct result of the Brady Bill signed into law by Clinton.
The NICS(National Instant Check System) replaced the once mandated waiting period because disqualifying records were computerized and an "instant" check was then possible. Usually takes less than 5 minutes from the time the dealer dials the number to the time I'm walking away with my new gun. Every sale must be approved by the FBI.
Feel free to ask if you have any further questions.
"Fingerprinting to purchase a gun? Where? What state? That's certainly not a Federal requirement."
ReplyDeleteMy bad, I could have sworn this was part of form 4473 at a federal level.
In Oregon, my home state, thumbprints aer required for every sale from a dealer.
Thanks for keeping me honest guys, I have a bit of egg on my face but will readily admit to being wrong.
Sometimes it's hard enough to keep up with my own States' laws to bother with being proficient in the other 49.
CJ - Laci has a penchant for not having a clue what she's talking about when it comes to guns and gun laws.
ReplyDeleteLaci is wrong again. Fingerprints have not now or have never ever ever ever ever ever ever EVER EVER been a Federal requirement to buy a handgun.
ReplyDeleteIs that some sick fantasy world where you heard that or do you just make stuff up for fun?
I've never been fingerprinted to buy a gun from a dealer nor have I ever had to register a purchased handgun any time.
Posting a sign at the bar entrance forbidding firearms or passing a state law banning guns in bars is not enough.
ReplyDeleteThe guy had previous weapons charges, which I'd bet money means he was
1. A person prohibited, so just owning the gun was a felony
2. Did not have a CCW permit and was not carrying legally. Another felony
3. Murder and Attempted murder are also felonies.
You really think a "no guns" sign outside stops guys like this and his fellow criminals from bringing guns in? The same goes for a state law banning guns in bars.
The source of his guns needs to be dealt with. That's where gun control laws can and should make a difference.
How? He's already a prohibited person. How are more restrictions on the legal market going to keep him from getting a gun? How are they going to keep him from murdering someone?
Laci: "A while back, you had to submit to fingerprints and a waiting period to buy a handgun. Now, it's an instant check system"
ReplyDeleteLaci has just decribed the ideal situation for the evaluation of a waiting period.
For years there was a national waiting period, but then it sunsetted -- no more national waiting period. If a national waiting period had significant benefit, then there should have been some significant detriment following its elimination.
Yet when advocating a return to a national waiting period, I have not seen gun control advocates point to some significant detriment that actually occurred following its elimination. Strange -- why is that?
Mike W., That old argument that criminals won't obey the laws doesn't work. Proper laws would disarm many of these guys by making it extremely difficult for them to get guns. Those proper laws would include background checks on all transactions, of course. That way, after the gun is removed from the licensed gun dealer by one or two transfers, the new owner would still have to exercise proper caution when selling or trading it away.
ReplyDeletekaveman, Thanks for admitting that. And now that you're in the mood, why don't you go back and look at this one.
ReplyDeleteProper laws would disarm many of these guys by making it extremely difficult for them to get guns.
ReplyDeleteHow? this guy was already prohibited by current laws. He broke them, yet you claim more laws (which he will also break) are going to make a difference.
Some logic there.
I could walk down to the street corner and get a gun (and drugs) from a drug dealer Mike. That's already illegal and more laws won't make a difference.
Mikeb: "Proper laws would disarm many of these guys by making it extremely difficult for them to get guns."
ReplyDeleteThat's the way it's supposed to work in theory -- but I have doubts as to how it works in practice. The demand by criminals in the US for guns is HUGE. And yes, the product is there -- so in the face of such huge demand, I suspect that the ingenuity of the black market will find ways to overcome gun control attempts in order to meet that demand.
I have not heard of many places that had many criminals with guns, which then passed gun control laws and subsequently saw significatly LESS criminals with guns as a result.
I have seen many news articles from Britain -- maybe by way of gunowner advocates, but from the British press. Some of them are similar to stories one sees in the US: Interviews with criminals (both in and out of jail) in which they claim great ease in obtaining a gun IF they desire one. I DON'T recall seeing stories in which criminals say that they want to carry or use a gun but darn, they just couldn't seem to find one.
But yes, far less criminals carry or use guns in Britain than in the US -- why? For a variety of reasons, criminals there do not seem to WANT to carry or use guns as much as in the US. As that changes, Britain's gun problem worsens.
I think that I have seen New Hampshire as an example in the US of some place with minimal gun control laws but also relatively low gun crime. Attributing that just to population density or such is probably an oversimplification -- the fact seems to be that perhaps for cultural reasons NH has far less criminals using guns than other places.
"kaveman, Thanks for admitting that. And now that you're in the mood, why don't you go back and look at this one.
ReplyDeleteSure thing mikeb...
When I clicked on the link, the word illegal was not there. This is posted at the top of the story. Probably just a matter of timing to when you posted and when I read it, no biggie.
POSTED: 10:22 am EST November 8, 2009
UPDATED: 11:16 pm EST November 9, 2009
From a Local, New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont have VERY minimal gun laws (Vermont is essentially Federal law, hunting laws, and a few commons sense laws like operating a firearm while intoxicated...I consider Vermont the MOST gun-friendly state in the Union. It certainly makes Texas look oppressive) and they have very low violent crime.
ReplyDeleteVermont has no restrictions on carry or conceal carry. If you can own your gun you can carry it however and almost wherever you want.
New Hampshire just requires $10 and a background check for a conceal carry permit. Open carry 100% legal with no permit (tho Open carry in a car is considered "concealed" dumb law!) Maine Open Carry is 100% legal no permit needed, conceal carry is $60 plus training an check.
All of New England has great carry laws. No restrictions on alcohol being served (you can even drink if you don't get drunk) no restrictions on sports events, public events, voting places ect ect.
No restrictions on guns you can buy. NFA OK, No handgun rosters or weapons bans, magazine bans.
Minimal crime.
Massachusetts I'm requried to have a $100 permit and training just to OWN a gun. I need to present the permit every time I buy a gun or ammo, or components. Permits can be denied for any reason. I have to scan my right index finger when I buy a gun. (The system usually fails), and we can't buy non-approved handguns, nor standard-capacity magazines, nor guns labeled as "Assault Weapons". All guns must be registered with the state. Also we're limited to 4 private sales per calender year, and the transaction must be reported to the state.
yet we have more violent crime than Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine COMBINED...also the guns that are confiscated from the criminals trace back to Mass, not neighboring states.
Hell a lot of the crime in Vermont and New Hampshire traces back to Massachusetts criminals!
But of course the gun-banners won't want to talk about this subject....or will MikeB surprise me?
Nope, Business as usual here at MikeB302000.
ReplyDeleteLet's ignore the facts, be dishonest, and push a bullshit agenda.
I'm so glad you don't have any support from rational people.
Weer'd, You can't compare Vermont to Mass. Vermont doesn't have anything to compare with Boston. This goes back to the old thing which we've all agreed on, that the gun availability is not the only factor.
ReplyDeleteIf Vermont had a city exactly like Boston, it would be much more violent with guns than the Boston we know. Only if every single other thing were identical could you made such a comparison. But they're not, so you're comparing apples and oranges, like you pro-gun guys so often do.