Gun Control

So now you're saying that a knife attack would have been better? I'm sure the 1-3 people involved would disagree. Devil's advocate :)

Stop and think about it. WHO in their "right" mind could even think, let alone do something that heinous, whether with a gun, knife, box cutter or baseball bat.

The more difficult question is how do you tell beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is capable of committing such an act, before they commit it?

5 years ago I was employed by a county to provide healthcare to inmates. There were some inmates that I would not let the Deputies take off the shackles they were that scary in their demeanor and actions. But almost anyone could tell they were a couple of puppies short of a picnic. Many were prescribed multiple psych meds to keep them manageable.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rawhide said:
So now you're saying that a knife attack would have been better?
Click to expand...
Uhhhhh . . . yeah. It wouldn't be "good" but I would say that fewer dead would be better. You?

rawhide said:
I'm sure the 1-3 people involved would disagree. Devil's advocate :)
Click to expand...
So we'd have 23-25 grieving families instead of 26?

rawhide said:
Stop and think about it. WHO in their "right" mind could even think, let alone do something that heinous, whether with a gun, knife, box cutter or baseball bat.
Click to expand...
No one in their right mind would do this. Let's try to make sure that those people have the least deadly weapon possible, eh?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
carlfense said:
My thoughts:

No legal possession of firearms unless the owner has a complete, accurate, and up to date background check.

No legal possession allowed for anyone with a conviction for any crime of violence, felony, or a history of certain mental illnesses.

Background checks required for all sales/transfers of guns whether a private sale or a dealer.

Make the criminal possession of firearms in violation of the above proposals a SERIOUS offense. Class III Felony or higher.

Any legislation similar to the assault weapons ban in the 90s is (IMO) basically worthless. A pistol grip stock doesn't make a gun any more deadly than a gun with a thumbhole stock. Grandfathering in the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of high capacity magazines already in circulation makes a ban on new manufacturing virtually worthless. "Assault weapons" are too slippery of a target for legislation.
Click to expand...
Great post, agree with all of it.

As for the bold part, how do we make that happen for private trades/sales? How would one citizen run a background check on another? Call up local law enforcement? Carry a permit?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And now we get to the crux of the problem. Let's assume more stringent measures get adopted and/or some high capacity clips or weapons do get banned. Remember the regulations and checks will be administered by our government. Already I am sensing problems. And those banned items? I believe full autos are basically illegal now. Tell me what people still have full auto weapons? Thats right, the very people we wouldn't even trust with a baseball bat. It's a cliche that I don't much care for but it also happens to be true; if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. I don't know how we keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable and in the hands of responsible citizens but history would show that the government won't do an effective job of either and that making things illegal does not prevent bad things from happening. Seems to me that driving drunk is against the law yet many innocent people are killed annually by drunk drivers. Don't get a false sense of security simply because some law may be adopted. Bad people will still and always find a way to harm/ kill others.

 
The Dude said:
As for the bold part, how do we make that happen for private trades/sales? How would one citizen run a background check on another? Call up local law enforcement? Carry a permit?
Click to expand...
The private sales/trades would probably have to be conducted at a location that could do the check . . . like a police station or a licensed dealer. I'd imagine that local dealers would offer the service for a small fee. (Similar to the arrangement when you have a FFL holder purchase a gun online and have it shipped through the dealer.)

My main thought is that the owner of the firearm would bear the burden of proving that the weapon was lawfully purchased and is lawfully owned.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Least deadly weapon possible. Wow, with all the interzwebz info out there people can make fusion devices with MacGyver reruns. Information in the wrong hands is a bad thing.

My point carlfense is that 1 grieving family is too much. Will laws prevent it. Nope, well not anything that's been instituted so far. Even a ban on handguns in Chicago hasn't done much to keep kids from killing each other. They were on record pace in the Prez's homeland(ill.). And now the higher courts are overturning that ban.

Unless someone wants to try and change the Bill of Rights, What is simply amazing is the writings of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams and others still apply today. These guys are good.

I already stated in that previous post who I think the experts should be taking advice from. I know Piers Morgan would disagree with me. Ahhh, the 1st Amendment at work.

 
Junior said:
I don't have any idea what your 10/22 is.
Click to expand...
Are you sure you know what a semi-automatic weapon is?

It bothers me how quick gun activist are to exonerate themselves of any responsibility for our insane culture of gun violence in this country in the wake of a tragedy. I say gun activist because I am a gun owner, but not an activist. Most of the "activist" I know, the clowns who really think they need AR replicas and that anyone gives a **** about their opinion on facebook they day after a school is shot up, are not interested at all in responsible ownership, safety, or most of the time even hunting. It's sad and pathetic that not a week after this, we've already reasoned that nothing can really be done, legislation will actually make things worse, and anyone who wants to do something this horrifying will easily obtain guns somehow, somewhere...so basically screw it besides the mandatory obfuscated rhetoric.
Click to expand...
I don't know how you define "gun activist", but those people aren't the problem. I don't even own a gun, so I definitely don't fall into that category, but the people I know who might don't seem like the kind of people we need to be watching out for, at least as far as I can tell.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
navysker said:
BigRedBuster said:
navysker said:
I would agree with this statement but the kid did kill the right person behind the gun(his mom). So then what? Do you ban people from getting guns with mental challenged children? Doesn't seem fair to me.
Click to expand...

What????
Click to expand...
His mom didn't have any issues. She purchased everything legally. Kid was a nut job.
Click to expand...
So, you are saying that killing his mom was the right thing to do? I'm still confused on your statement.

 
rawhide said:
Least deadly weapon possible. Wow . . .
Click to expand...
I didn't realize that reducing the lethality of crazy people would be a controversial stance. In fact, I'm rather surprised if it is.

rawhide said:
My point carlfense is that 1 grieving family is too much.
Click to expand...
Agreed. My point is that one grieving family is better than a couple dozen grieving families.

rawhide said:
Will laws prevent it. Nope, well not anything that's been instituted so far. Even a ban on handguns in Chicago hasn't done much to keep kids from killing each other. They were on record pace in the Prez's homeland(ill.). And now the higher courts are overturning that ban.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that I've called for a ban. Perhaps you're thinking of someone else.

rawhide said:
Unless someone wants to try and change the Bill of Rights, What is simply amazing is the writings of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams and others still apply today. These guys are good.
Click to expand...
What?

 
BigRedBuster said:
navysker said:
BigRedBuster said:
navysker said:
I would agree with this statement but the kid did kill the right person behind the gun(his mom). So then what? Do you ban people from getting guns with mental challenged children? Doesn't seem fair to me.
Click to expand...

What????
Click to expand...
His mom didn't have any issues. She purchased everything legally. Kid was a nut job.
Click to expand...
So, you are saying that killing his mom was the right thing to do? I'm still confused on your statement.
Click to expand...
Damn, man. I disagree with a quite a bit of what rawhide is saying but try to follow along with the topic.

Someone said something to the effect of "we need to make sure only the right types of people are allowed to purchase guns." Rawhide is saying that the kid's mom was one of those "right" types.

 
Back
Top