Welcome to NewsTalkers



Speak Your Mind!

The NewsTalkers is the best place online to find high-quality, news, politics, and social issue content and debate from across the web. We also promote original commentary for in-depth discussions. The NewsTalkers provides this within a community setting, that is fully moderated and member-centric. What makes us unique is that the membership has a voice in all aspects of NewsTalkers. Come join and "Speak your mind".

Laws about who can buy guns work, laws about which guns you can buy don't

  
Via:  it-is-me  •  4 weeks ago  •  57 comments

Laws about who can buy guns work, laws about which guns you can buy don't
As a Harvard-educated, politically liberal researcher giving my first talks on firearm violence prevention, I was afraid the gun owners in the audiences would boo me. But the only backlash I faced was from a gun control advocate when I told her I was against assault weapon bans.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


As a Harvard-educated, politically liberal researcher giving my first talks on firearm violence prevention, I was afraid the gun owners in the audiences would boo me. But the only backlash I faced was from a gun control advocate when I told her I was against assault weapon bans.

---------------------------------------

Our main argument is that laws regulating what firearms can be bought are ineffective, but policies controlling who can purchase them tend to work.

There are many reasons for this finding. First, most people do not understand how arbitrary the definition of "assault weapon" really is. With the definition from the 1994 ban, you can turn a regular rifle into an assault weapon by adding two cosmetic or historic features such as a flash hider, a bayonet mount, or a grenade launcher. I would definitely push this policy forward if the goal were to reduce homicide by grenade and bayonet, but most mass-shooting killers could legally obtain firearms that are just as lethal, but not considered assault weapons.

Second, the single most effective predictor of violence is past violence. So ironically, the National Rifle Association’s rhetoric is accurate about how guns don't kill people, people do. As a result, preventing anyone with a history of violence from acquiring guns reduces homicide rates by 36%. Along the same lines, preventing domestic abusers from possessing firearms dramatically decreases firearm deaths. And if you think this does not apply to the 0.1% of total gun deaths caused by mass shootings, think again. A report reveals that the majority of mass shootings in the United States between 2007 and 2017 were related to domestic or family violence.

The Dayton, Ohio, shooting could have been prevented in a may-issue law state such as Massachusetts, where police chiefs have the discretion to refuse a possession permit. Although the Dayton shooter did not have a criminal record, the police had been aware of his “hit list” and “rape list.”

-----------------------------------------

The perceived division created by the NRA between gun owners and non-gun owners does not exist. We all want to save lives and do what’s best for the country. We even agree on how to do it. However, if evidence from state law implementation and a 97% public support for universal background check are not enough to convince you, listen to the other 3% in the person of NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesh: “This individual was nuts, and I — nor the millions of people that I represent as a part of this organization that I'm here speaking for — none of us support people who are crazy, who are a danger to themselves, who are a danger to others, getting their hands on a firearm.”
If we all agree, then what are we waiting for?

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
It Is ME
1  seeder  It Is ME    4 weeks ago

Yes..… It IS all about "People (Insane Nutty People)  Killing People". Not the Inanimate Object !

Don't blame the "Object", Blame the Person.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  It Is ME @1    4 weeks ago

Yesterday a plan was thwarted thanks to an informant.  A disgruntled employee of a hotel had disclosed to this co worker his plans to shoot the employees and anyone at the hotel.  He had a massive arsenal and enough ammo to create a real horror show.  I blame the person with the object.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.1  seeder  It Is ME  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.1    4 weeks ago

Existing Laws do work, if implemented, and Implemented correctly and expediently !

 
 
 
squiggy
2  squiggy    4 weeks ago

Serious overhaul of laws should include ‘34, ‘68, and the resultant may-issue mess.

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1  seeder  It Is ME  replied to  squiggy @2    4 weeks ago
‘34, ‘68, and the resultant may-issue mess

I Need Help. Can you be a bit more specific ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_16_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
squiggy
2.1.1  squiggy  replied to  It Is ME @2.1    4 weeks ago

Pistols were going away with the National Firearms Act of 1934. With them was the regulation of suppressors and short-barreled rifles. The states were left in charge and the result has hardly been a level field for all entitled to the same second ammendment. The Gun Control Act of 1968 went on to deepen the mess and further inhibit interstate activity. 

I don’t need a free-for-all but I’m not going to budge on common-sense until it is.

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.2  seeder  It Is ME  replied to  squiggy @2.1.1    4 weeks ago

Thanks ! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

Wasn't sure what you were talking about. 

Had to go thru the NFA to make sure it was okay to fire my 1918 C96 Mauser at the gun range. It has a slide on stock, which could make it a short barreled carbine rifle, but due to it's age, the NFA gave me the green light thru a letter. It's only a 7.63mm (.32) Caliber, but in a military round.

Neither the National Firearms Act of 1934 nor The Gun Control Act of 1968, stop much. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
3  seeder  It Is ME    4 weeks ago

There is no law that says you have to "Shut your mouth", if you actually know someone isn't right in the head !

 
 
 
Nerm_L
4  Nerm_L    4 weeks ago

Yes, central planning always requires enforcement.  And, as we have witnessed, the power of enforcement can be abused for political purposes.

There really does need to be more than controls on buying.  Someone may have the ability to buy a freight truck or airplane but that doesn't mean they are competent to drive or fly.

IMO a system of licensing based on competence would be appropriate.  A licensing system would eliminate the need for applying for permits and make background checks far more efficient by only needing to check the validity of the license.  A license holder can buy, carry, and use firearms.  A licensing system would also make registering firearms easier.  That also makes private sales more secure; the seller only needs to check the buyers license.  A licensing system for firearms wouldn't be any more odious than the licensing system for operating vehicles.

A person applying for a firearms license only has to go through the process once (unless the license is revoked).  The current system requires a background check on every purchase.  Licensing works pretty well for automobiles, there isn't any reason a licensing system for firearms wouldn't work just as well.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1  Sparty On  replied to  Nerm_L @4    4 weeks ago
Licensing works pretty well for automobiles

One little problem with that.  

Our right to drive an automobile is not constitutionally guaranteed.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
4.1.1  r.t..b...  replied to  Sparty On @4.1    4 weeks ago
Our right to drive an automobile is not constitutionally guaranteed.

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the constant use of this argument. As a constitutionally guaranteed right, are there not limits placed on that right? The courts have adjudicated certain limits, for the good of society, amended after the Bill of Right were originally penned. Yelling 'fire' in a crowd, owning a bazooka, granting Miranda rights, etc, etc., etc.  Is the 2nd Amendment sacrosanct or should it be subject to the same thoughtful review and consideration as any other...again, for the betterment of society as a whole. Respectfully submitted.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
4.1.2  Nerm_L  replied to  Sparty On @4.1    4 weeks ago
One little problem with that.   Our right to drive an automobile is not constitutionally guaranteed.

The unregulated use of firearms isn't guaranteed by the Constitution, either.  Bearing arms to threaten the security of a free state is not a protected right.  The Constitution does not provide protections for insurrection against a free state.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  r.t..b... @4.1.1    4 weeks ago

It's pretty simple really.   Show me where anything in the constitution that specifically gives one a "right" to drive an automobile.   There is NOTHING there.   So it is not a good analogy to the 2nd Amendment on that alone.

As to limits, one persons limit is another persons perceived right.   I got into it here the other day with another member who felt it was okay to own an semi automatic handgun that has a 13 round capacity but felt no one should own an AR type weapon.   Now we all all know handguns are used in the majority of gun violence.   Homicide or otherwise.   The numbers dwarf people injured or killed with AR type weapons.   So why is okay to own one and not the other?   Does that sound reasonable to you?   It sounds hypocritical as hell to me.

The problem with gun control is that people are too emotional and not logical about it.   I'll be for anything that doesn't unjustly impinge on legal, responsible gun owners rights.   If i could wave a magic wand today, that would enforce all the gun laws already on the books, insuring no one else dies in relation to unlawful gun use, it would decrease the lions-share of the problem.  

Presto chango ..... problem largely fixed and no new laws enacted.

 
 
 
GregTx
4.1.4  GregTx  replied to  Sparty On @4.1    4 weeks ago

384

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  Nerm_L @4.1.2    4 weeks ago
The unregulated use of firearms isn't guaranteed by the Constitution, either.

They are regulated already.   Heavily.   Well, for legal owners anyway ....

  Bearing arms to threaten the security of a free state is not a protected right.

Most aren't used in that manner and never will be.

  The Constitution does not provide protections for insurrection against a free state.

Most aren't used in that manner and never will be.

Look, you can try to rationalize your position on this until the cows come home.   The reality is most weapons in this country are owned responsibly and will never be involved in anything remotely illegal.   Just like most cars are, and most knives are and most blunt instruments are since all of those things traditionally kill more people in the US each year than all AR type weapons.

Regulating black guns heavier or banning them all together is not going to change much except to help give some folks a false sense of security.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
4.1.6  r.t..b...  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.3    4 weeks ago
As to limits, one persons limit is another persons perceived right. 

May have to disagree on this one. Just as the rights guaranteed in any amendment apply to every citizen, the limits imposed in any amendment must apply to everyone as well. You can't yell 'fire' in a theater but I can because I perceive it to be my right? I'm off to face a judge, regardless what I perceive is my right under the 1st Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment will always be a sticky one for as you note, emotions run hot on both sides. The all-or-nothing bunker mentality deployed from both camps hamstrings any reasonable debate. Off for the day, Sparty...peace.

 
 
 
Snuffy
4.1.7  Snuffy  replied to  r.t..b... @4.1.6    4 weeks ago

Actually you can yell 'fire' in a theater. And if there is an actual fire you are in good standing. If there is not a fire then you can be held responsible for any damages or injuries that may occur from your action. So you could be taken off to a judge based on your actions. But with guns people want to preemptively stop any illegal action with a gun. That to use your first amendment analogy would be doing something like gluing your mouth shut or sewing up your lips so that you don't have a mouth before you walk into a theater, to actively prevent  you from shouting fire inside a theater regardless of the situation.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.8  Sparty On  replied to  r.t..b... @4.1.6    4 weeks ago
You can't yell 'fire' in a theater

Again, do you have a "specifically mentioned" constitutional right to yell "fire" in a theater?

No you do not.   It's the same thing as the previous example.

I can see we are not going to agree as i absolutely disagree with the direction you are taking this.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
4.1.9  Nerm_L  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.5    4 weeks ago
They are regulated already.   Heavily.   Well, for legal owners anyway ....

The firearms are regulated.  The users are not.  That's the problem.

Most aren't used in that manner and never will be.

And how are we supposed to know?  The current situation doesn't provide any assurance that someone with a firearm is competent to use that firearm for peaceful purposes.  Anyone with a firearm must be considered a threat and dealt with as a threat.  

It's not possible to identify a good guy just by looking at them.  A legal, regulated firearm is no assurance that the guy with a gun is a good guy.  So, safety requires assuming everyone with a firearm as a bad guy and treating them accordingly.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.10  Sparty On  replied to  Nerm_L @4.1.9    4 weeks ago
The firearms are regulated.  The users are not.  That's the problem.

Good to know.   I guess since i'm not regulated i can for example legally carry concealed in an establishment that serves alcohol or carry concealed to the HS Football game this fall.

Can i get your name and number to tell the cops when i get arrested for not being regulated?

Most aren't used in that manner and never will be.

And how are we supposed to know?  The current situation doesn't provide any assurance that someone with a firearm is competent to use that firearm for peaceful purposes.  Anyone with a firearm must be considered a threat and dealt with as a threat.  

It's not possible to identify a good guy just by looking at them.  A legal, regulated firearm is no assurance that the guy with a gun is a good guy.  So, safety requires assuming everyone with a firearm as a bad guy and treating them accordingly.

Do you lay awake at night worrying about things you can never know?   I don't.   Or at least i try not to.   Life is not a 100% secure and trouble free proposition.   YMMV but I tend to chose liberty over security any day.   When looking to restrict liberties, careful what you ask for.   Sooner or later they may come for something you hold near and dear to your heart.

The founders knew that, they lived it.   The constitutions and bill of rights are no mistake.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
4.1.11  Nerm_L  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.10    4 weeks ago
Good to know.   I guess since i'm not regulated i can for example legally carry concealed in an establishment that serves alcohol or carry concealed to the HS Football game this fall. Can i get your name and number to tell the cops when i get arrested for not being regulated?

That's a regulation on the firearm.  The presence of the firearm is a threat because there's no way to know if you are a good guy or a bad guy.  Safety requires assuming that you are a bad guy and banning the firearm.

Do you lay awake at night worrying about things you can never know?   I don't.   Or at least i try not to.   Life is not a 100% secure and trouble free proposition.   YMMV but I tend to chose liberty over security any day.   When looking to restrict liberties, careful what you ask for.   Sooner or later they may come for something you hold near and dear to your heart.

Bad guys without guns are safer than bad guys with guns.  Without any demonstration of competence its necessary to assume everyone with a gun is a bad guy. 

If everyone with a gun had been required to demonstrate competence to carry and use firearms for peaceful purposes then it wouldn't be necessary to assume everyone with a gun is a bad guy.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.12  Sparty On  replied to  Nerm_L @4.1.11    4 weeks ago
That's a regulation on the firearm.

No it's not and you missed that one completely.   You said users were not regulated when they clearly are as i pointed out.   Is the gun going to walk into the ballgame by itself?   No it is not, it's a an inanimate object and can't.    Therefore that regulation is on the users.   Like many other regulations on users for gun use.   Like not being to legally own a gun if you are a felon or in some states if you have a PPO against you.   Etc, etc, so yes, you missed that one badly.

Bad guys without guns are safer than bad guys with guns.

Bad guys with guns already own them illegally.   What regulation do you think is going to change that?

  Without any demonstration of competence its necessary to assume everyone with a gun is a bad guy.

Wrong ..... and i'm getting shades of 1984 here .......

If everyone with a gun had been required to demonstrate competence to carry and use firearms for peaceful purposes then it wouldn't be necessary to assume everyone with a gun is a bad guy.

No need to respond to that since your premise is erroneous.   That is, assuming everyone with a gun is a bad guy.   If that were remotely true/needed of all the guns owners today people would be getting shot at a much greater pace than they are today.   Your premise is the opposite of what it should be.   The truth is most gun owners are good guys or at minimum responsible gun gun owners.

Yours is one more case of trying to throw the baby out with the bath water.

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.13  seeder  It Is ME  replied to  Nerm_L @4.1.11    4 weeks ago
Safety requires assuming that you are a bad guy

Now, Now ……. you know what "Assume" Means. jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

Not a good thing for sure !

Laws based on "ASS"umptions aren't a good thing for the populace.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.14  Sparty On  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.13    4 weeks ago

Some folks prefer faux security over liberty.

I'm not one of them ..... 

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.15  Heartland American  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.14    3 weeks ago

People who are willing to give up their or others rights for perceived security are deserving of neither

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
4.1.16  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.15    3 weeks ago
People who are willing to give up their or others rights for perceived security are deserving of neither

but they do deserve a swift kick in the butt...

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.2  seeder  It Is ME  replied to  Nerm_L @4    4 weeks ago
A licensing system would eliminate the need for applying for permits and make background checks far more efficient by only needing to check the validity of the license

Background checks are only as good as the personal information on file !

 
 
 
Nerm_L
4.2.1  Nerm_L  replied to  It Is ME @4.2    4 weeks ago
Background checks are only as good as the personal information on file !

Yes, that's a flaw in the background check system.  By adopting a licensing system the only information needed would be whether or not the license is valid.  Since licensing systems are already in place, it would be possible to add a firearms endorsement just as is done for motorcycles.  A drivers license can indicate whether or not an individual is competent to use firearms.

 
 
 
Snuffy
4.2.2  Snuffy  replied to  Nerm_L @4.2.1    4 weeks ago

I'm a little confused by your statement. Are you separating the license from the background check?  And by extension you want the licensing system to validate if the person is trained and competent to use firearms?

Interesting approach. However if  you are going to use a licensing system to indicate if an individual is competent to use a firearm, then that license should be valid in any and all states so you are removing the ability for states to regulate guns on their own. Secondly if  you are pushing to license a person before they can possess a gun then you really need to license people before they use other rights. Can't speak on the street corner unless you've been licensed and we know you won't start a riot. Can't go to church without being licensed before you walk in the doors. Can't walk into that voting booth without first showing your license.  after all, what's fair for the goose is fair for the gander.

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.2.3  seeder  It Is ME  replied to  Nerm_L @4.2.1    4 weeks ago
Since licensing systems are already in place, it would be possible to add a firearms endorsement just as is done for motorcycles.

Our state doesn't require an endorsement in order to ride a motorcycle. Just have to do like you would to get your first drivers lisc., an actual driving test.

Even Lisc.'s are limited in "What/How" a person is like in everyday life. Just because you straighten up for the driving test, doesn't mean you're not a nut the rest of the time.

You can only regulate and dictate to folks so much. It's usually the honest good guy that gets stung anyway. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
4.2.4  Nerm_L  replied to  Snuffy @4.2.2    4 weeks ago
I'm a little confused by your statement. Are you separating the license from the background check?  And by extension you want the licensing system to validate if the person is trained and competent to use firearms?

A licensing system would eliminate the need for the current background check system.  

Interesting approach. However if  you are going to use a licensing system to indicate if an individual is competent to use a firearm, then that license should be valid in any and all states so you are removing the ability for states to regulate guns on their own. Secondly if  you are pushing to license a person before they can possess a gun then you really need to license people before they use other rights. Can't speak on the street corner unless you've been licensed and we know you won't start a riot. Can't go to church without being licensed before you walk in the doors. Can't walk into that voting booth without first showing your license.  after all, what's fair for the goose is fair for the gander.

The 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee an unregulated right to bear arms.  The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to ensure the security of a free state.  Regulating a militia would entail a requirement that individuals are competent to bear arms for that purpose.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
4.2.5  Nerm_L  replied to  It Is ME @4.2.3    4 weeks ago
Our state doesn't require an endorsement in order to ride a motorcycle. Just have to do like you would to get your first drivers lisc., an actual driving test.

That's called an endorsement that is added to the drivers license instead of issuing a separate license for motorcycles.  For someone who only obtains a license to operate a motorcycle, the license will indicate they are not licensed to operate other vehicles.

Even Lisc.'s are limited in "What/How" a person is like in everyday life. Just because you straighten up for the driving test, doesn't mean you're not a nut the rest of the time.

And the license can be revoked when they are a nut the rest of the time. 

You can only regulate and dictate to folks so much. It's usually the honest good guy that gets stung anyway. 

If the idea is to create a perfect system then the United States will need to be set up like a prison; no firearms (including the guards), strict controls over movement, curfews, and absolutely closed borders.  Without absolute, total control then any system will have flaws.  A perfect system would require everyone be treated as a bad guy whether they own guns or not.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  Nerm_L @4.2.1    4 weeks ago

Gee, what about those folks without IDs ?

Haven't some folks claimed that showing ID violates their rights?

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.2.7  seeder  It Is ME  replied to  Nerm_L @4.2.5    4 weeks ago
And the license can be revoked when they are a nut the rest of the time. 

And that would stop the Nut/criminal from getting a gun…. how ?

Don't forget….Nutz/criminal types, more often than not, get things "Illegally", if they aren't allowed to get something "Legally" anymore.

Even When/If Nutz/Crimnal Types can buy guns "Legally" at first, Background Checks and wait periods don't seem to stop Nutz/Crimnal Types from completing what they set out to do in the first place. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
4.2.8  Nerm_L  replied to  It Is ME @4.2.7    4 weeks ago
Don't forget….Nutz/criminal types, more often than not, get things "Illegally", if they aren't allowed to get something "Legally" anymore. Even When/If Nutz/Crimnal Types can buy guns "Legally" at first, Background Checks and wait periods don't seem to stop Nutz/Crimnal Types from completing what they set out to do in the first place. 

So, which of the terrorist type mass shootings were perpetrated with illegally acquired firearms?  Over 80 pct of the firearms used in all the mass shootings since 1982 (not just the media hyped shootings) were obtained legally.  Even the firearms used by Lanza for the Sandy Hook shooting were legally obtained firearms.  

Most mass shootings are perpetrated with legally acquire handguns.  The terrorist type mass shootings hyped by the press have involved legally acquired rifles.  The bad guys are obtaining firearms legally.  We've been hood winked by a biased, ignorant press that doesn't do its job any longer.

When bad guys can obtain firearms legally then it's necessary to assume everyone with a firearm is a bad guy.  There aren't any safeguards to prevent incompetents and bad guys from obtaining firearms legally.  We've seen how incompetent the police are in use of firearms and they've received training.  And we're supposed to assume that Bozo Bob with the kalashnikov is a good guy?

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.2.9  seeder  It Is ME  replied to  Nerm_L @4.2.8    4 weeks ago
So, which of the terrorist type mass shootings were perpetrated with illegally acquired firearms?

I NEVER lumped together the "Mass Shootings" and "Illegal". I just made a couple statements.
Which makes the Licensing idea a moot point anyway ….by the way ……  as it wouldn't have changed a thing even if it were in place even now !

Did you miss this part ? :

"Even When/If Nutz/Crimnal Types can buy guns "Legally" at first, Background Checks and wait periods don't seem to stop Nutz/Crimnal Types from completing what they set out to do in the first place."

 
 
 
Snuffy
4.2.10  Snuffy  replied to  Nerm_L @4.2.8    4 weeks ago
Even the firearms used by Lanza for the Sandy Hook shooting were legally obtained firearms.  

You should rethink your example as it's incorrect. Lanza killed his mother and stole the weapons from her gun safe, they were not legally obtained by him. Several others got their guns by straw purchase which is also illegal. Many of the recent were purchased legally but only because the information that could have prevented the sale was not forwarded to the NICS system so the background check relied on non-complete data. There are some that were legally obtained and there was nothing in the background to indicate any issues (vegas).

 
 
 
Nerm_L
4.2.11  Nerm_L  replied to  Snuffy @4.2.10    4 weeks ago
You should rethink your example as it's incorrect. Lanza killed his mother and stole the weapons from her gun safe, they were not legally obtained by him.

That's a bullshit argument.  The rifle had been purchased legally for Adam Lanza's use; Lanza used is own legally obtained rifle.  Adam Lanza was familiar with the rifle because he had used it often. 

Sandy Hook was the direct result of what Adam Lanza had been taught about firearms.

Several others got their guns by straw purchase which is also illegal.

That's simply not true.  The facts are that 80 pct of mass shootings are perpetrated with legally obtained firearms.  And the majority of mass shootings are perpetrated with legally obtained handguns.

Many of the recent were purchased legally but only because the information that could have prevented the sale was not forwarded to the NICS system so the background check relied on non-complete data. There are some that were legally obtained and there was nothing in the background to indicate any issues (vegas).

And a licensing system would have avoided that problem.  By licensing the user and requiring a license to purchase firearms then what would be the need for a background check?  Police already use the license database to run background checks.  Why not include firearms in that system?

People already have to buy hunting permits.  At one time, some states required proof of gun safety training to buy a permit, too.

 
 
 
Snuffy
4.2.12  Snuffy  replied to  Nerm_L @4.2.11    4 weeks ago
That's a bullshit argument.  The rifle had been purchased legally for Adam Lanza's use; Lanza used is own legally obtained rifle.  Adam Lanza was familiar with the rifle because he had used it often. 

No, not a bullshit argument. Adam could not legally purchase those guns himself. Yes his mother legally purchased those guns and we can argue after the fact that they should not been allowed in the home but they were. But Adam did not legally purchase that rifle, he stole it. Had she lived his mother would have been prosecuted for it. And his mother trying to use guns to communicate with her son so he was familiar with guns is only one part of why Sandy Hook happened. There were a lot of pieces that all came together to cause that horrendous incident. Had any one of them not been present it's possible it would never have happened and those children would be alive today, it's also possible that had those guns not been available Adam could have found a different way. But the argument that Adam got his weapon legally is just bullshit.

That's simply not true.  The facts are that 80 pct of mass shootings are perpetrated with legally obtained firearms.  And the majority of mass shootings are perpetrated with legally obtained handguns.

I never said all,  didn't even say most got their guns illegally. I said some of the incidents were with guns purchased by other people which is a straw purchase. If you don't understand what a firearm straw purchase is, perhaps this link from the NRA will help. It quite clearly defines the issue.

https://www.nrablog.com/articles/2016/7/buying-and-selling-firearms-part-6-straw-purchases/

And a licensing system would have avoided that problem.  By licensing the user and requiring a license to purchase firearms then what would be the need for a background check?  Police already use the license database to run background checks.  Why not include firearms in that system?

A licensing system would only be good at the point in time you obtain the license. What if you get your license and six months later you are convicted of domestic abuse? That's not a person who I would like to see have a firearm but they already have their license so without a background check at the point of sale there's no way to stop it.  Yes the same issue can happen if a person has a clean background, purchases a gun and then six months after is convicted of domestic abuse. No system is going to be perfect but I think you try to do the best you can and to me that means the background check is done as close to the purchase of the weapon as it can be. Any way you look at it, if you don't have complete information in the system used for the background check you will never have a complete check before someone takes possession of their gun.

As far as including firearms in the police system, you will need to change federal law as federal law prohibits the use of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to create any system of registration of firearms or firearm owners.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
4.2.13  Nerm_L  replied to  Snuffy @4.2.12    4 weeks ago
No, not a bullshit argument. Adam could not legally purchase those guns himself. Yes his mother legally purchased those guns and we can argue after the fact that they should not been allowed in the home but they were. But Adam did not legally purchase that rifle, he stole it. Had she lived his mother would have been prosecuted for it. And his mother trying to use guns to communicate with her son so he was familiar with guns is only one part of why Sandy Hook happened. There were a lot of pieces that all came together to cause that horrendous incident. Had any one of them not been present it's possible it would never have happened and those children would be alive today, it's also possible that had those guns not been available Adam could have found a different way. But the argument that Adam got his weapon legally is just bullshit.

That's an argument for denying firearms if an individual knows someone with a mental disability.  What an obtuse, ludicrous argument.  The reality is that Adam Lanza used his own rifle that had been legally purchased for his use.

I never said all,  didn't even say most got their guns illegally. I said some of the incidents were with guns purchased by other people which is a straw purchase. If you don't understand what a firearm straw purchase is, perhaps this link from the NRA will help. It quite clearly defines the issue.

The exception doesn't make the rule.  

A licensing system would only be good at the point in time you obtain the license. What if you get your license and six months later you are convicted of domestic abuse? That's not a person who I would like to see have a firearm but they already have their license so without a background check at the point of sale there's no way to stop it.  Yes the same issue can happen if a person has a clean background, purchases a gun and then six months after is convicted of domestic abuse. No system is going to be perfect but I think you try to do the best you can and to me that means the background check is done as close to the purchase of the weapon as it can be. Any way you look at it, if you don't have complete information in the system used for the background check you will never have a complete check before someone takes possession of their gun.

Someone with a history of violence should not be allowed to purchase, carry, or use firearms.  Someone with a history of irresponsible behavior should not be allowed to purchase, carry, or use firearms.  With a licensing system a background check can be run anytime, anyplace and not only when someone tries to purchase a firearm.  Cops run licenses to check criminal history.  If that license check turns up red flags then the person shouldn't have a firearm.

As far as including firearms in the police system, you will need to change federal law as federal law prohibits the use of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to create any system of registration of firearms or firearm owners.

The problem is Federal law is not being changed according to current circumstances.  So, yes, the laws need changed.  The current laws aren't working.  And there are already databases for firearms registration; the argument is bogus.

 
 
 
JumpDrive
5  JumpDrive    4 weeks ago

I am a gun owner, in fact, I've been shooting for more than 50 years. I can really only explain the arguments here against licensing people for proficiency as ignorance. Do any gun owners actually go to ranges? I have seen all manner of dangerous stupidity. I have seen range wardens wide-eyed and moving at high velocity because people simply have no comprehension of just how dangerous these devices are. People should have to qualify like cops; I would allow longer intervals between qualifications.

My dad took me to Police Athletic League for gun use training when I was 11 or 12. He wasn't a hunter, so he didn't own guns, but guns were everywhere and he wanted his kids to have the knowledge that conservatives seem to think is unnecessary. Conservatives are espousing the belief that owning a gun is a constitutional right, and any idiot should be allowed to own one. The "well regulated" part of the sentence is simply ignored as inconvenient.

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.1  seeder  It Is ME  replied to  JumpDrive @5    4 weeks ago
People should have to qualify like cops;

Cops are required to subdue, contain, STOP, and or/take someone into custody.

Regular Folks just want the asshole to go away (break in contact). if it takes a "Big Bang" shot in the sky to do it, that's what it takes.

Regular Folks are being trained WRONG !

 
 
 
JumpDrive
5.1.1  JumpDrive  replied to  It Is ME @5.1    4 weeks ago
Regular Folks just want the asshole to go away (break in contact). if it takes a "Big Bang" shot in the sky to do it, that's what it takes.

This is exactly the kind of stupidity I am talking about. Espousing putting something as dangerous as a gun in the hands of an idiot who's going to fire it at the sky. You're likely to shoot yourself or a family member.

This is probably why the ceilings of the ranges are all shot up. I mean really, how hard is it to hit a 15' high by 40' wide wall at 50'? You should be able to hit it 100 out of 100 times blindfolded.

I went through the police handgun qualifying test to see what was involved. It's not hard at all, in fact, if you can't pass something this easy, you shouldn't have a gun.

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.1.2  seeder  It Is ME  replied to  JumpDrive @5.1.1    4 weeks ago
This is exactly the kind of stupidity I am talking about. Espousing putting something as dangerous as a gun in the hands of an idiot who's going to fire it at the sky.

And how many folks have died from a falling bullet in this country, compared to those that die because of head on confrontations ?

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.2  Tacos!  replied to  JumpDrive @5    4 weeks ago
People should have to qualify like cops; I would allow longer intervals between qualifications.

I would be in favor of some level of training for gun owners. I don't know that cop-level is required, though.

Be that as it may, lack of training isn't why we have murder problem.

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.2.1  seeder  It Is ME  replied to  Tacos! @5.2    4 weeks ago
Be that as it may, lack of training isn't why we have murder problem.

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JumpDrive
5.2.2  JumpDrive  replied to  Tacos! @5.2    4 weeks ago
Be that as it may, lack of training isn't why we have murder problem.

It's part of the reason; it's an additional impediment to gun acquisition, and it protects us from idiots (we have a lot of accidental gun shot wounds/deaths). We need stricter, country-wide acquisition laws; these are extremely effective in keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals. And, we shouldn't allow the purchase of assault weapons by civilians; no one I know who owns one views it as anything other than a neat toy; these rifles are just as dangerous as machine guns.

We need to be able to tackle the gun problem in exactly the same way we tackled automobile deaths. We looked at how we could change cars, how we could change people, and how we could change the environment. And, we made the necessary changes in each of those areas. We were extraordinarily successful. With guns, pretty much any real action is verboten. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.3  Sparty On  replied to  JumpDrive @5    4 weeks ago

The Constitution purposely doesn't attempt to discern between what's an "idiot" as you call it and what is not.   The second amendment doesn't say, "right to bear arms but not for idiots."

The founders knew better.   That's the type of tyrannical thinking that caused them to write the constitution and Bill of Rights in the first.

Any idiot eh?   Isn't it nice that you've decided all by yourself that you aren't one of those idiots.   Very convenient.

 
 
 
JumpDrive
5.3.1  JumpDrive  replied to  Sparty On @5.3    4 weeks ago
"right to bear arms but not for idiots."

But the sentence does contain the phrase "well regulated". It's not even a slight stretch for that to include keeping guns out of the hands of people who cannot demonstrate minimal competence. This is common sense.

you've decided all by yourself that you aren't one of those idiots

Where have I written anything to support that statement. I include myself in the group that should be tested, in the group that should be (and living in NJ am) subject to stringent acquisition laws, and in the group that shouldn't own assault rifles.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
5.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JumpDrive @5    4 weeks ago
Do any gun owners actually go to ranges?

All the time.  Take my kids as well.  Taught them how to handle handle the firearms and ammunition of ALL caliber to include REAL assault rifles (not the bullshit ones that everybody is so up in arms about).  

 
 
 
JumpDrive
5.4.1  JumpDrive  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.4    4 weeks ago
All the time.  Take my kids as well.  Taught them how to handle handle the firearms and ammunition of ALL caliber to include REAL assault rifles (not the bullshit ones that everybody is so up in arms about).  

Irrelevant. The follow up of my question is that these ranges should represent the best of us gun owners, but you still see a fair amount of stupidity. I shudder to imagine how competent the majority are.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
5.4.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JumpDrive @5.4.1    3 weeks ago
The follow up of my question is that these ranges should represent the best of us gun owners, but you still see a fair amount of stupidity.

At the ranges I utilize, everyone of them are professionals.  And the weapon type is relevant.  What people are freaking out about are NOT assault weapons (let alone NOT the problem).

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
6  Jeremy Retired in NC    4 weeks ago

The laws about how can and can't buy a weapon isn't the problem.  Several of the mass shootings were carried out by somebody who legally obtained.  Much to the dismay of all these anti-gun knuckle draggers, if somebody wants to get a gun, they will get one.  Regardless of how many laws are passed over and over again.

To add to the dismay, the gun really isn't the problem.  It's the jackhole that doesn't have the coping skills to deal with the harsh reality of life holding that gun that needs to be handled.  And that is where everybody else comes in.  We need to pull our heads out of our asses and pay attention to what is going on around us.  

 
 
 
JumpDrive
6.1  JumpDrive  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6    4 weeks ago

You're confining yourself to one aspect of gun violence, mass shootings. It's not even close to the top in terms of numbers killed/maimed, as you indicated by stating 'several'. But, it is a problem that we could definitely solve if not for people like you that won't even consider any action, or even studying the problem.

if somebody wants to get a gun, they will get one. 

This is nonsense, in NJ, 80% of the guns recovered from crime scenes come from out of state. In neighboring Pa, nearly 100% come from in-state. Tougher acquisition laws work, and need to be universal.

To add to the dismay, the gun really isn't the problem.

If this were the case, then every country with tougher gun laws would have the same problems. But they don't, and it's not even close. Our lax gun acquisition laws result in 200,000 to 250,000 illegal guns being shipped into Mexico yearly. Our selfishness with respect to guns continues to arm the drug cartels with military grade weapons, and has killed tens of thousands of innocent Mexicans. But I guess that's OK by you, nothing we can or should do about that, might inconvenience you.

We need to pull our heads out of our asses and pay attention to what is going on around us.

In El Paso you had a store full of Texans, didn't slow the shooter down. Should have been a best case for good guy with a gun.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
6.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JumpDrive @6.1    3 weeks ago
But, it is a problem that we could definitely solve if not for people like you that won't even consider any action, or even studying the problem.

Not if your focus is the inanimate object.

This is nonsense, in NJ, 80% of the guns recovered from crime scenes come from out of state.

Sounds more like NJ's enforcement is a joke.  They should look at their enforcement problem before adding more laws that will just fall by the wayside.

If this were the case, then every country with tougher gun laws would have the same problems.

That would probably be because the gun isn't the problem.  A gun will not fire without outside manipulation.   To break it down to a Barney level for you - somebody has to handle or mishandle it for it to go off.  

Our selfishness with respect to guns continues to arm the drug cartels with military grade weapons,

You mean like Fast and Furious?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
7  1stwarrior    3 weeks ago

384

 
 
 
1stwarrior
8  1stwarrior    3 weeks ago

Just before WWII, Greece had everyone register their firearms with the local police department. When Germany came in, they knew this and took those records. Went to every house looking to take those firearms. Many people were killed because they refused to give them up

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


lib50


25 visitors