The stupidity about banning guns never ends...

[chrlswltrs]

I agree, I think that giving out permits for concealed carry is ridiculous without some kind of a background check. I have a concealed carry permit, and own several guns, but I do not think that we can go blatantly crazy in the other direction and just give anybody the right to carry a gun.

I understand that point of view and it is valid, but remember criminals are going to carry guns concealed without a permit no matter what.

There are states like California and New York where it is next to impossible to get a permit (not to mention Illinois where there is no permit). Those are extremes in the opposite direction, where the same is true, criminals are still armed. The difference there is that criminals have a much safer job. Chicago, New York City, and Los Angeles have some of the highest violent crime and murder rates in the country... I wonder why?

The best solution is a national, "shall issue" CPL. If you are legally allowed to purchase a handgun you should be issued a CPL if you want one. And driving to another state for a vacation or business should not interfere with your right to protection. For example, I can drive to Idaho and take a vacation but I can not go to Oregon (if I want to take my gun, which I always carry)

 

[lightsleeper23]

What kind of crimes would registration and/or background checks prevent? Please understand I'm not saying either of these things are bad, just that they're not good preventatives to crime.

Coupled with mental health. Nearly %40 of gun sales occur with no background check at all. That needs to stop. A gun sale with no background check, where the gun is not registered, may technically be legal even when the individual should never have been in possession of a gun at all. Therapists should be able to enter someone into a data base when they don't think a person is fit to have a gun. Then, assuming there is universal background checks which check this database, unstable individual doesn't get a gun. If a person already has a gun, which is registered, then later is deemed unfit to have one, database can be checked to see he or she in fact does have a gun, in case they denied it, and it can be confiscated. Also if a person is found unfit to be in a position where they have access to a gun, database can be checked to see if family members in same home have a registered gun. At which time measures can be taken to assure they can not gain access to it.

These are just a couple random scenarios off the top of my head to prevent mentally unstable people gaining access to guns, and criminals with priors from buying a gun "legally" at a gun show or a private sale when they are not supposed to have guns. There surely could be more. And of course I don't think a person should necessarily lose the right to own a gun forever based on the opinion of one therapist, there could be a process of getting second opinions and what not.

 

[chrlswltrs]

Coupled with mental health. Nearly %40 of gun sales occur with no background check at all. That needs to stop. A gun sale with no background check, where the gun is not registered, may technically be legal even when the individual should never have been in possession of a gun at all. Therapists should be able to enter someone into a data base when they don't think a person is fit to have a gun. Then, assuming there is universal background checks which check this database, unstable individual doesn't get a gun. If a person already has a gun, which is registered, then later is deemed unfit to have one, database can be checked to see he or she in fact does have a gun, in case they denied it, and it can be confiscated. Also if a person is found unfit to be in a position where they have access to a gun, database can be checked to see if family members in same home have a registered gun. At which time measures can be taken to assure they can not gain access to it.

These are just a couple random scenarios off the top of my head to prevent mentally unstable people gaining access to guns, and criminals with priors from buying a gun "legally" at a gun show or a private sale when they are not supposed to have guns. There surely could be more. And of course I don't think a person should necessarily lose the right to own a gun forever based on the opinion of one therapist, there could be a process of getting second opinions and what not.

Read this, the 40% number is from a very old and extremely limited survey, it is actually around 15%: Gun Sales and Background Checks: Obama’s Bogus 40 Percent Stat - By John Fund - The Corner - National Review Online

Plus the biggest problem with requiring more background checks and including the extremely flawed mental health system is that many people that are perfectly safe to own firearms would lose their rights. Once someone loses that right, they can request the right back, but the BATFE has not processed a single application to restore anyone's rights in almost 7 years. Many people, especially veterans (since they are already a big target of the disarming agenda) will just skip getting the care they need because of the potential of losing their right to protect themselves and their family.

 

[lightsleeper23]

Read this, the 40% number is from a very old and extremely limited survey, it is actually around 15%: Gun Sales and Background Checks: Obama’s Bogus 40 Percent Stat - By John Fund - The Corner - National Review Online

Plus the biggest problem with requiring more background checks and including the extremely flawed mental health system is that many people that are perfectly safe to own firearms would lose their rights. Once someone loses that right, they can request the right back, but the BATFE has not processed a single application to restore anyone's rights in almost 7 years. Many people, especially veterans (since they are already a big target of the disarming agenda) will just skip getting the care they need because of the potential of losing their right to protect themselves and their family.

This is an article from a low credibility right wing news site. The author, John Fund, is a known conservative gun rights advocate and is very biased. Not to mention that he has credibility issues. He bases his article almost entirely on the research of John Lott, a man who has lost all credibility on the subject due to his flawed and skewed study results, and the fact he is one of the biggest "more guns equals less crimes" people. A theory that has been discredited many times over.

I take no stock in an article referencing him and, laughably, Breitbart news. Those numbers might not be from the most current study, but there's no credible evidence to disprove them. Especially not down to 15%. Hell even Fox news' Chris Wallace accepts the 40% number.

 

[Gmash]

The numbers ARE bad. Obama did nothing to create jobs. his leadership (yes, I am laughing too) has been a bust. Many of these jobs are government work and that, my friend, is not the kind of jobs we need.

Flat out not true. Public sector jobs are way down, all of the job growth has been in the private sector. You can see this every month when the job numbers are released.

Comparing Private and Public Sector Job Growth

 

[A.Nonymous]

Coupled with mental health. Nearly %40 of gun sales occur with no background check at all. That needs to stop. A gun sale with no background check, where the gun is not registered, may technically be legal even when the individual should never have been in possession of a gun at all. Therapists should be able to enter someone into a data base when they don't think a person is fit to have a gun. Then, assuming there is universal background checks which check this database, unstable individual doesn't get a gun. If a person already has a gun, which is registered, then later is deemed unfit to have one, database can be checked to see he or she in fact does have a gun, in case they denied it, and it can be confiscated. Also if a person is found unfit to be in a position where they have access to a gun, database can be checked to see if family members in same home have a registered gun. At which time measures can be taken to assure they can not gain access to it.

These are just a couple random scenarios off the top of my head to prevent mentally unstable people gaining access to guns, and criminals with priors from buying a gun "legally" at a gun show or a private sale when they are not supposed to have guns. There surely could be more. And of course I don't think a person should necessarily lose the right to own a gun forever based on the opinion of one therapist, there could be a process of getting second opinions and what not.

Well, I've quoted the post below of several examples where someone passed a background check and had legally registered guns. Also, in all of these scenarios I'm aware of where the shooter was actually apprehended (i.e. not killed by cops/himself on site) the shooter was found to be mentally competent to stand trial so they passed a mental health screening after the fact. Feel free to respond to any of them.

background checks were performed for every gun that Holmes purchased before shooting up a theater in CO........ all the guns in Newtown were registered..... how would your new laws have stopped either of those shootings?

the guns used in columbine were obtained illegally...... no new law will stop that

the guns used at Virginia Tech were obtained legally after he passed a Federal background check...... your new law wouldnt have stopped him

so please tell me...... exactly who are you going to stop with universal registration?

all of these weapons were either illegally purchased (you think those will be registered?) or they were purchased legally after passing Federal background checks ...... and in 1 case (newtown) the weapons WERE registered........ yet these incidents still occurred

 

[Bob Maxey]

Oh you know very well what I'm talking about. The freaks that LOVE guns on an almost sexual level. The bigger, the badder, the better. Makes them feel powerful. Got to make up for what is lacking somehow. Some of us don't need to go out and fire off a cannon to feel like a man.

I do not know anyone that is a gun nut then. I bet what you describe is a tiny fraction of the whole. Perhaps you never met one either, just listen to too much left sided radio.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Therapists should be able to enter someone into a data base when they don't think a person is fit to have a gun. Then, assuming there is universal background checks which check this database, unstable individual doesn't get a gun.

Oh please . . . I am not sure the therapist could or would enter info into a database. There is patient/therapist confidentiality issues to consider.

 

[lightsleeper23]

Well, I've quoted the post below of several examples where someone passed a background check and had legally registered guns. Also, in all of these scenarios I'm aware of where the shooter was actually apprehended (i.e. not killed by cops/himself on site) the shooter was found to be mentally competent to stand trial so they passed a mental health screening after the fact. Feel free to respond to any of them.

Thats meaningless. I could also state cases where shooters DID have a history of mental illness and had therapists and others who worried about them committing violent acts, yet nothing was ever done and they were able to get a gun.
But again, all you want to do is focus on crimes that couldn't be stopped, while ignoring the ones that could. The fact we can't stop ALL gun crimes does not mean we shouldn't try to stop ANY.

 

[lightsleeper23]

I do not know anyone that is a gun nut then. I bet what you describe is a tiny fraction of the whole. Perhaps you never met one either, just listen to too much left sided radio.

You live in a fantasy world. I don't need to listen to "left sided radio" to know anything about nutty conservatives, I only have to listen to conservatives. Sometimes they're plastered all over the T.V. and embraced by your nutty party. Like crazy ass Ted Nugent. Nuff said.

 

[chrlswltrs]

Thats meaningless. I could also state cases where shooters DID have a history of mental illness and had therapists and others who worried about them committing violent acts, yet nothing was ever done and they were able to get a gun.
But again, all you want to do is focus on crimes that couldn't be stopped, while ignoring the ones that could. The fact we can't stop ALL gun crimes does not mean we shouldn't try to stop ANY.

Like when Lanza was denied the purchase of a gun several times before his killing spree in a defenseless victim zone? He wanted a gun and couldn't legally purchase on so he just murdered someone and took theirs. Universal background checks will do nothing but turn law abiding citizens into felons. Examples of perfectly legal, safe things that would be felonies under proposed universal background check laws:

1. A parent giving their child a gun as a gift.
2. Someone going on a business trip for more than 7 days and their family still living in the house where guns are stored.
3. Letting a friend shoot one of your guns outside of a gun range.

Those are just a few examples of the ridiculousness of universal background checks.

 

[chrlswltrs]

You live in a fantasy world. I don't need to listen to "left sided radio" to know anything about nutty conservatives, I only have to listen to conservatives. Sometimes they're plastered all over the T.V. and embraced by your nutty party. Like crazy ass Ted Nugent. Nuff said.

There are also nutty liberals, and more of those. The ones that want to ban guns, have drones in our skies spying on everyone 24/7, the ones that want to redistribute money and remove all incentive to better ones life.

There are extremes on both sides. Most conservatives are nothing like the small amount of extremes that you seem to think everyone is that doesn't like socialism.

 

[lightsleeper23]

Like when Lanza was denied the purchase of a gun several times before his killing spree in a defenseless victim zone? He wanted a gun and couldn't legally purchase on so he just murdered someone and took theirs. Universal background checks will do nothing but turn law abiding citizens into felons. Examples of perfectly legal, safe things that would be felonies under proposed universal background check laws:

1. A parent giving their child a gun as a gift.
2. Someone going on a business trip for more than 7 days and their family still living in the house where guns are stored.
3. Letting a friend shoot one of your guns outside of a gun range.

Those are just a few examples of the ridiculousness of universal background checks.

If you want to give your child a gun as a gift, make sure its legal. Make sure they're old enough to own one, and run the check, even if you know they already pass, just to make it legal. So what if it costs you a few bucks, how much did the gun you're giving already cost? A few bucks more won't hurt you.

If someone is going to go on a business trip, they should obviously be leaving an adult in charge at the house. This adult should already be legally allowed to own guns since they live with them all the time anyways. At the most extreme case, you will have to put them in a storage unit at your own expense. Spending a few bucks here and there to legally own deadly weapons is not a big deal.

Don't let your friends shoot your deadly weapon outside the range. I have no sympathy for these minor inconveniences if it can save a few lives, and you shouldn't either!

 

[lightsleeper23]

There are also nutty liberals, and more of those. The ones that want to ban guns, have drones in our skies spying on everyone 24/7, the ones that want to redistribute money and remove all incentive to better ones life.

There are extremes on both sides. Most conservatives are nothing like the small amount of extremes that you seem to think everyone is that doesn't like socialism.

More nutty liberals? That's obviously a matter of opinion. I would of course say there are far more nutty conservatives. And they're no longer a fringe in your party, they have fully taken over and are the ones in charge in government right now. There must be a lot of nutty voters too in order for them to get in power.

"The ones that want to redistribute money and remove all incentive to better ones life."

This statement alone shows how put of touch you are. The tax system in general is, TECHNICALLY, a redistribution of money. If you think that the rich paying THE SAME AMOUNT as their secretaries is removing all incentive to better themselves, you're out of touch. There has been no tax plan proposed by any democrat that would stop the rich from still being much, much richer than their workers. There is in fact no tax plan proposed that would even bring the income gap back close to what it used to be in the past. This is still a capitalist country and the rich will remain much richer than in socialist countries, no matter how much socialism Limbaugh and Beck tell you is invading our country.

 

[chrlswltrs]

If you want to give your child a gun as a gift, make sure its legal. Make sure they're old enough to own one, and run the check, even if you know they already pass, just to make it legal. So what if it costs you a few bucks, how much did the gun you're giving already cost? A few bucks more won't hurt you.

If someone is going to go on a business trip, they should obviously be leaving an adult in charge at the house. This adult should already be legally allowed to own guns since they live with them all the time anyways. At the most extreme case, you will have to put them in a storage unit at your own expense. Spending a few bucks here and there to legally own deadly weapons is not a big deal.

Don't let your friends shoot your deadly weapon outside the range. I have no sympathy for these minor inconveniences if it can save a few lives, and you shouldn't either!

I disagree with your first point, but I can accept your view on that. I wouldn't expect a parent to give their child a gun if they weren't legally allowed to own one. BTW, that is already a crime. You can not legally give or sell a gun to someone that you know is not legally allowed to own one. Making this a violation of 2 laws instead of one won't change anything, again it will only affect law abiding citizens by costing them more money and inconvenience.

It doesn't matter if there is an adult allowed to own a gun in the house, even if they are in a safe. They would have to legally purchase the guns from the owner that is leaving for a few days. That is rediculous. Why should I have to sell all of guns if I have to go on a trip for 7 or more days???

Ever heard of hunting? The one thing the gun grabbers say that we have guns for. I've never heard of hunting occurring at a gun range. Maybe I want to go Elk hunting with my buddy, but I don't have a rifle suited for that game type, but my buddy has a few rifles. Why should I have to spend $1000 just for a rifle to use to go hunting once when I could just borrow one of his. Also there are thousands of shooting pits around the country. Here in the state of Washington there are areas specifically designated as such by the state. These are safe areas to go shooting but are not considered a range. Maybe me and a group of friends want to go there and shoot so that we don't have to pay for a range and we prefer shooting outdoors (which I do).

 

[lightsleeper23]

I find it very hard to believe that the background check would effect letting a friend shoot your gun while hunting anyways. And I don't know where you got the 7 day figure, I have not heard that particular point, but I don't see how it would effect leaving guns at home in a safe. Its your property, you can leave them in your safe for however long you want. Maybe just don't leave them a key to it? Unless you want them to be able to use them for defense, in which case they should have their own gun maybe.

Either way, the law isn't meant to effect these particular situations (accept maybe the giving one to a family member) and I don't see them attempting to enforce these on someone using their buddies gun while hunting.

But I'm not even sure you're right about that being technically illegal, since you're not transferring permanent ownership of a gun.

 

[chrlswltrs]

I find it very hard to believe that the background check would effect letting a friend shoot your gun while hunting anyways. And I don't know where you got the 7 day figure, I have not heard that particular point, but I don't see how it would effect leaving guns at home in a safe. Its your property, you can leave them in your safe for however long you want. Maybe just don't leave them a key to it? Unless you want them to be able to use them for defense, in which case they should have their own gun maybe.

Either way, the law isn't meant to effect these particular situations (accept maybe the giving one to a family member) and I don't see them attempting to enforce these on someone using their buddies gun while hunting.

But I'm not even sure you're right about that being technically illegal, since you're not transferring permanent ownership of a gun.

Maybe you should do more research then. This legislation directly effects my rights, my hobbies, and my way of life so it is very important to me. Just because you haven't heard anything about it doesn't mean it isn't true.

Were all the negative aspects of Obamacare widely reported? Was it reported before it happened that criminals would be released from jail, Tuition assistance for the military would be cancelled, and children would not be allowed to tour the White House to intentionally make the sequester painful on the people? Was it widely reported that an AR15 was never used at Sandy Hook? Those are just the first few examples that pop into my head. The only things that are made readily available with no effort made to research is what the administration thinks people will like, not what they won't.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Quit trying to argue that we shouldn't have that right either just because you are jealous of our RIGHTS.

Yeah, I am so jealous of the right to be shot at if I leave my greened suburbs.

If we want to play with guns we can just play video games.

 

[lightsleeper23]

This legislation directly effects my rights, my hobbies, and my way of life so it is very important to me.

Well I'm so sorry your hobby is being inconvenienced. I guess we should just never try to save lives if it inconveniences peoples hobbies. Or maybe if you want to base your life around such a deadly hobby, for some strange reason, you should be inconvenienced in order to save some lives.

 

[chrlswltrs]

Well I'm so sorry your hobby is being inconvenienced. I guess we should just never try to save lives if it inconveniences peoples hobbies. Or maybe if you want to base your life around such a deadly hobby, for some strange reason, you should be inconvenienced in order to save some lives.

It is not a deadly hobby, well no more so than any other hobby when you mix in stupidity. Going out and shooting a gun is no more dangerous than carpentry with power tools. Both require common sense and proper safety. In fact, according to the FBI more people are murdered every year with hammers than rifles... There goes that argument for you.

Also, non of the proposed legislation will save a single life. More background checks will only affect law abiding citizens. The people that can buy a gun with a background check will still be able to buy them, and those that can't will still steal them or buy them off the black market like they do now. That's the problem I have with the proposed legislation, it does nothing to address any problems, it only tries to turn the 100,000,000 law abiding gun owners in America into felons.

 

[lightsleeper23]

It is not a deadly hobby, well no more so than any other hobby when you mix in stupidity. Going out and shooting a gun is no more dangerous than carpentry with power tools. Both require common sense and proper safety. In fact, according to the FBI more people are murdered every year with hammers than rifles... There goes that argument for you.

Also, non of the proposed legislation will save a single life. More background checks will only affect law abiding citizens. The people that can buy a gun with a background check will still be able to buy them, and those that can't will still steal them or buy them off the black market like they do now. That's the problem I have with the proposed legislation, it does nothing to address any problems, it only tries to turn the 100,000,000 law abiding gun owners in America into felons.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree about that. All of it. I disagree with the entire notion of guns being nothing but tools. They are instruments of death, created for one sole purpose: death. At least hunting for food used to be a necessity. Its not anymore. Yeah, people eat what they hunt, but its not a necessity. They kill and skin and butcher animals because they like it. And I'm not even saying we should stop them. But the fact remains a tool is something that helps achieve a task. Something that benefits, like building a house. Guns are only good for one thing, killing. There's only one thing you CAN do with a gun that doesn't involve death and that's target shooting. But you sure don't need an AR 15 for that. And it doesn't accomplish any task or benefit anybody. No, guns are instruments of death, not tools. Unless youre counting a tool for murder.

 

[chrlswltrs]

Well we'll have to agree to disagree about that. All of it. I disagree with the entire notion of guns being nothing but tools. They are instruments of death, created for one sole purpose: death. At least hunting for food used to be a necessity. Its not anymore. Yeah, people eat what they hunt, but its not a necessity. They kill and skin and butcher animals because they like it. And I'm not even saying we should stop them. But the fact remains a tool is something that helps achieve a task. Something that benefits, like building a house. Guns are only good for one thing, killing. There's only one thing you CAN do with a gun that doesn't involve death and that's target shooting. But you sure don't need an AR 15 for that. And it doesn't accomplish any task or benefit anybody. No, guns are instruments of death, not tools. Unless youre counting a tool for murder.

You don't need a tablet, laptop, or smartphone to browse the web do you? A desktop would be fine. Those things are more enjoyable though.

I enjoy shooting my AR15. It will never kill anyone unless someone breaks into my house and that is the gun I grab. I enjoy shooting it though. And because of all of its features like being lightweight, adjustable stock, and pistol grip it can also be easily used by my wife or daughter. The same can not be said for my .357 handgun or my 12ga shotgun.

And last time I checked it is titled the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs. I enjoy my guns, I am safe with my guns, and they will never kill a person unless they break into my house or I am protecting my life or someone else's life outside my house as a last resort.

If you don't want one fine. I do. Me having one has absolutely zero effect on your life.

 

[lightsleeper23]

You don't need a tablet, laptop, or smartphone to browse the web do you? A desktop would be fine. Those things are more enjoyable though.

I enjoy shooting my AR15. It will never kill anyone unless someone breaks into my house and that is the gun I grab. I enjoy shooting it though. And because of all of its features like being lightweight, adjustable stock, and pistol grip it can also be easily used by my wife or daughter. The same can not be said for my .357 handgun or my 12ga shotgun.

And last time I checked it is titled the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs. I enjoy my guns, I am safe with my guns, and they will never kill a person unless they break into my house or I am protecting my life or someone else's life outside my house as a last resort.

If you don't want one fine. I do. Me having one has absolutely zero effect on your life.

You never know, anything can happen... They're called accidents. And I never said people shouldn't be allowed to have things that aren't necessary to live. But unlike an assault rifle, a tablet is not created to kill, is never used to kill, and probably never will be, so there's no reason to scrutinize them. Your personal assault rifle will likely never effect my life, if not just for the reason you don't live by me. But others absolutely can. We had a mass shooting at the trolley square mall by my house a while back. Luckily I was not there that day, but many others were. He should never have gotten access to those guns in the first place, but through a private sale he did. 5 people were killed that day, and I'd hate to think how many more it would have been if he'd had a fully automatic assault rifle.

 

[chrlswltrs]

You never know, anything can happen... They're called accidents. And I never said people shouldn't be allowed to have things that aren't necessary to live. But unlike an assault rifle, a tablet is not created to kill, is never used to kill, and probably never will be, so there's no reason to scrutinize them. Your personal assault rifle will likely never effect my life, if not just for the reason you don't live by me. But others absolutely can. We had a mass shooting at the trolley square mall by my house a while back. Luckily I was not there that day, but many others were. He should never have gotten access to those guns in the first place, but through a private sale he did. 5 people were killed that day, and I'd hate to think how many more it would have been if he'd had a fully automatic assault rifle.

Do you know where I can legally purchase an assult rifle, because I would love to have one! They have been extremely regulated and next to impossible to purchase or own since the 30's.

Let me enlighten you since you, like so many others don't know what an AR15 is. It is NOT an automatic assult rifle. It is a semi automatic, the same as any other hunting rifle or handgun. It fires 1 bullet each time the trigger is pulled. It has other features which make it easier to use and control like a pistol grip and different fore grips can be added for personal preference. It has an adjustable stock so different sized people can comfortably use it. It functions 100% identically to any other "hunting" rifle. The only people that think an AR15 should be banned and not other hunting rifles are ignorant about rifles. THEY ARE THE SAME GUN, they just look a little different!!!

There are 100,000,000 gun owners in America that will never commit a crime. Why should we all be punished because of an extremely small amount of criminals?? It would be no different than banning all Lamborghinis because drunk drivers kill people. No one Needs a Lamborghini, but some people enjoy them and will never hurt anyone with one. I have no desire to ever buy one, even if money wasn't a consideration, but that doesn't mean I am going to argue and say no one should be allowed to have one. There is a much better chance that someone will be killed by a drunk driver than killed by a gun. Let's ban all the scary looking cars that function exactly the same as other cars!!

 

[lightsleeper23]

We're going back in circles here though because a Lamborghini is not designed to kill, a gun is and has no other really useful purpose. I know an AR15 is only semi auto. But you can convert them into fully auto, or even pick up the slide fire and make it shoot as if it were fully automatic.