|
|
Post by red75bronco on Jan 19, 2015 9:33:38 GMT -5
Kind of like talking about inner-city crime and Muslim terrorists. If they would self-help the problems of violence and hatred in their communities then we can all stop talking about profiling. Right? The analogy doesn't fit. Gun owners have direct control over their own guns. They control how they are stored, who has access to them and how they are sold. People do not exercise that kind of control over other people in their community. Red75bronco even disputes that such self-help can occur. He, like many gun advocates, asserts that there are just bad people out there and you can't control them. i say don't take my right away to defend myself. I could care less if you want to defend yourself with a spoon or a bazooka. Does not affect me. You tell me what laws would have prevented Columbine, Va Tech, Sandy Hook, the Aurora Theatre Shooting? What laws do you want to put on the books to stop this? Columbine was done with pipe bombs and shot guns. Remember , there was a federal AR ban and 10 round magazine law. Va Tech bought his guns legally, what would you like changed so he could not buy his gun? Although reported incorrectly, sandy hook did not involve ARs. James Holmes bought his weapons legally. A counsellor reported he was mentally unstable to authorities. They did nothing. He also chose the only "gun free" theatre in his area. There were closer ones to his apartment, he passed those by. He also boobie trapped his apartment with homemade bombs. You claim aim I don't answere your question, ihave no clue what your question is. All I hear is we need reasonable gun control laws. Common sense laws. What the hell does that mean? All the laws I have seen suggested would do nothing to stop the above. The real issue is mental health, not an inanimate object. |
|
|
|
Post by red75bronco on Jan 19, 2015 9:43:20 GMT -5
Tell me what AR stands for and why these guns are so bad. Why are they worse than any other rifle. What makes them the boogie man? Background checks at stores and gun dealers is fine. The check should be do you have a felony or not. I might be ok with denying if you take anti depressants, but that is a slippery slope. I am not ok with a government agent determining if people are mentally stable for a gun. If I was the agent most liberals couldn't own guns because they are obviously crazy?  . If a liberal was the agent, they would obviously think I was crazy because I don't care for our dear leader. We can establish reasonable rules for background checks. You seem to agree that there is a reasonable standard that can be applied when you agree that felons should not be allowed to purchase guns (although felons can purchase guns in many states). There are other reasonable standards that can be applied. For example, we also limit gun ownership to those who have been convicted of domestic violence and it would be equally as reasonable to procure a background check for that purpose as it would be to check for felony convictions. We don't need to go down the path of testing ridiculous standards like testing for political affiliation. If guns present a deterrent effect, why would the government absolutely knowing who owns guns not deter the government from attacking those people? Actually, wouldn't it reduce the probability of use of deadly force if the government knew you did not own a gun? More importantly, however, there would not have to be a gun registry, just a registry of owners and those who are prohibited by law from owning or purchasing guns. This is hardly different from the government having records of CHL holders who presumably also are all gun owners. People don't seem to mind the government knowing that they can conceal-carry by obtaining a government license to that effect.I will agree with you that criminals would not conduct background checks on each other but requiring the checks and prosecuting the sellers for failing to perform the check and decline sales to those prohibited from purchase would prevent guns from moving out of the legal marketplace into the black market where criminals can buy and sell them. You sort of pay the price. If you use your gun to kill somebody or your gun is used in an accidental shooting then your jail time is of little use to that person. Even if you had the money to adequately compensate a family for the killing it still does not do much for the person who died. The person who died is the person who really paid the price. And this is one of the key problems that people have with the "pro gun advocates". You all focus on your rights and how gun control laws affect you without any regard for how your gun ownership affects other people. Nobody cares if you own a gun any more than they care whether you own a coffeemaker. If you "pro gun advocates" can self-help the problems of accidental shootings and guns moving into the black market then we can all promptly stop talking about gun control. So you want to make it harder for criminals to get guns, which I agree with of course. But you there to be a list of gun owners. Maybe you trust authorities more than i, but wasn't the list of ccw holders released just last year in New York? So criminals want guns and you are going to provide them a list of where these guns exist. Do you not put te gun owners at risk for simply exercising there 2nd amendment rights? Honest question. There are also many gun owners that do not get a ccw exactly because of the list. I know you you will not understand this because you have a completely different view of the government. I believe there are good and bad people in all ways of society, that includes LEO and the government. They are humans just like the general population and make good and bad decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by red75bronco on Jan 19, 2015 9:48:45 GMT -5
We can establish reasonable rules for background checks. You seem to agree that there is a reasonable standard that can be applied when you agree that felons should not be allowed to purchase guns (although felons can purchase guns in many states). There are other reasonable standards that can be applied. For example, we also limit gun ownership to those who have been convicted of domestic violence and it would be equally as reasonable to procure a background check for that purpose as it would be to check for felony convictions. We don't need to go down the path of testing ridiculous standards like testing for political affiliation. If guns present a deterrent effect, why would the government absolutely knowing who owns guns not deter the government from attacking those people? Actually, wouldn't it reduce the probability of use of deadly force if the government knew you did not own a gun? More importantly, however, there would not have to be a gun registry, just a registry of owners and those who are prohibited by law from owning or purchasing guns. This is hardly different from the government having records of CHL holders who presumably also are all gun owners. People don't seem to mind the government knowing that they can conceal-carry by obtaining a government license to that effect.I will agree with you that criminals would not conduct background checks on each other but requiring the checks and prosecuting the sellers for failing to perform the check and decline sales to those prohibited from purchase would prevent guns from moving out of the legal marketplace into the black market where criminals can buy and sell them. You sort of pay the price. If you use your gun to kill somebody or your gun is used in an accidental shooting then your jail time is of little use to that person. Even if you had the money to adequately compensate a family for the killing it still does not do much for the person who died. The person who died is the person who really paid the price. And this is one of the key problems that people have with the "pro gun advocates". You all focus on your rights and how gun control laws affect you without any regard for how your gun ownership affects other people. Nobody cares if you own a gun any more than they care whether you own a coffeemaker. If you "pro gun advocates" can self-help the problems of accidental shootings and guns moving into the black market then we can all promptly stop talking about gun control. So you want to make it harder for criminals to get guns, which I agree with of course. But you there to be a list of gun owners. Maybe you trust authorities more than i, but wasn't the list of ccw holders released just last year in New York? So criminals want guns and you are going to provide them a list of where these guns exist. Do you not put te gun owners at risk for simply exercising there 2nd amendment rights? Honest question. There are also many gun owners that do not get a ccw exactly because of the list. I know you you will not understand this because you have a completely different view of the government. I believe there are good and bad people in all ways of society, that includes LEO and the government. They are humans just like the general population and make good and bad decisions. And and to your paragraph above the bold, 1) do you really think all citizens are going to go on that list freely and 2) do you think everyone who is not on that list will not have a weapon? LEO is going to assume just like they do today that everyone is armed regardless of some list. As they should. LEO understands that the majority of lea gal owning gun owners are much more responsible and less of a threat than the balance of society. Ever wonder why the majority of ex military are gun owners? They have seen the other side. |
|
|
|
Post by red75bronco on Jan 19, 2015 9:51:28 GMT -5
But wait, China has lots of knives. Why didn't all that knife ownership deter the perpetrators? Would you be more or less willing to attack a 100lb woman yielding a knife or a gun? To defend herself, she must engage in hand to hand combat with a knife. With a gun, you know become equals and your size and strength don't matter. |
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on Jan 19, 2015 13:15:08 GMT -5
Instead of throwing out strawman attacks and asking me to make arguments for you, why don't you try making an argument with some substance. colorado passed a law requiring background checks on private sales. Please tell me how tHis is enforced? This is always a tough issue, and one that most people touting background checks haven't thought through. It would be very hard to enforce this on secondary or tertiary sales I would think. |
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on Jan 19, 2015 13:21:12 GMT -5
We can establish reasonable rules for background checks. You seem to agree that there is a reasonable standard that can be applied when you agree that felons should not be allowed to purchase guns (although felons can purchase guns in many states). There are other reasonable standards that can be applied. For example, we also limit gun ownership to those who have been convicted of domestic violence and it would be equally as reasonable to procure a background check for that purpose as it would be to check for felony convictions. We don't need to go down the path of testing ridiculous standards like testing for political affiliation. If guns present a deterrent effect, why would the government absolutely knowing who owns guns not deter the government from attacking those people? Actually, wouldn't it reduce the probability of use of deadly force if the government knew you did not own a gun? More importantly, however, there would not have to be a gun registry, just a registry of owners and those who are prohibited by law from owning or purchasing guns. This is hardly different from the government having records of CHL holders who presumably also are all gun owners. People don't seem to mind the government knowing that they can conceal-carry by obtaining a government license to that effect.I will agree with you that criminals would not conduct background checks on each other but requiring the checks and prosecuting the sellers for failing to perform the check and decline sales to those prohibited from purchase would prevent guns from moving out of the legal marketplace into the black market where criminals can buy and sell them. You sort of pay the price. If you use your gun to kill somebody or your gun is used in an accidental shooting then your jail time is of little use to that person. Even if you had the money to adequately compensate a family for the killing it still does not do much for the person who died. The person who died is the person who really paid the price. And this is one of the key problems that people have with the "pro gun advocates". You all focus on your rights and how gun control laws affect you without any regard for how your gun ownership affects other people. Nobody cares if you own a gun any more than they care whether you own a coffeemaker. If you "pro gun advocates" can self-help the problems of accidental shootings and guns moving into the black market then we can all promptly stop talking about gun control. So you want to make it harder for criminals to get guns, which I agree with of course. But you there to be a list of gun owners. Maybe you trust authorities more than i, but wasn't the list of ccw holders released just last year in New York? So criminals want guns and you are going to provide them a list of where these guns exist. Do you not put te gun owners at risk for simply exercising there 2nd amendment rights? Honest question. There are also many gun owners that do not get a ccw exactly because of the list. I know you you will not understand this because you have a completely different view of the government. I believe there are good and bad people in all ways of society, that includes LEO and the government. They are humans just like the general population and make good and bad decisions. Even worse, I think the list that was released in NY last year was ALL gun owners, and the info was obtained by the local paper through an open records request. Before there's any negotiation to find a middle ground on a gun registry, I think that has to be addressed. |
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on Jan 19, 2015 13:24:44 GMT -5
A lot of average Joe gun owners that I know have no problem with reasonable background checks. But its easier I guess to say all gun owners are against them. Responsible potential Gun Owner: "I want a gun to protect my family." Anti-Gun lefty: "Nope." Background check complete. Fixed your post  |
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on Jan 19, 2015 13:27:24 GMT -5
A lot of average Joe gun owners that I know have no problem with reasonable background checks. But its easier I guess to say all gun owners are against them. Read my question again. Then let me know what your definition of reasonable is when it comes to background checks. Your question was "Are all gun guys here still against background checks?" The answer seems to be a resounding no. |
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on Jan 19, 2015 13:31:58 GMT -5
I'd agree these dont seem too bad. I think its telling that addressing mental health issues is the very last bullet...  Id point out a couple of potential issues: "This would include removing barriers under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act so that states may more freely share information about mental health issues involving potential gun purchasers. " How are you going to do the above? Details? "Bans military-style assault weapons" I'd like to see these types of proposals have more descriptive language and detail. Tell us EXACTLY what you want to ban. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2015 13:32:46 GMT -5
Read my question again. Then let me know what your definition of reasonable is when it comes to background checks. Your question was "Are all gun guys here still against background checks?" The answer seems to be a resounding no. Yea as long as nothing changes from the shitty checks we now use. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2015 13:33:58 GMT -5
I'd agree these dont seem too bad. I think its telling that addressing mental health issues is the very last bullet... Id point out a couple of potential issues: "This would include removing barriers under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act so that states may more freely share information about mental health issues involving potential gun purchasers. " How are you going to do the above? Details? "Bans military-style assault weapons" I'd like to see these types of proposals have more descriptive language and detail. Tell us EXACTLY what you want to ban. That's reasonable |
|
|
|
Post by red75bronco on Jan 19, 2015 17:32:53 GMT -5
Your question was "Are all gun guys here still against background checks?" The answer seems to be a resounding no. Yea as long as nothing changes from the shitty checks we now use. What would you like to see in a background check? I dont one even have to show id to vote. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2015 20:31:18 GMT -5
Yea as long as nothing changes from the shitty checks we now use. What would you like to see in a background check? I dont one even have to show id to vote. But you do have to register. Mental health and mandatory safety training. |
|
|
|
Post by red75bronco on Jan 20, 2015 8:54:05 GMT -5
Mental health how? That is the big question. Felony is easy were you convicted of a felony? Black or white and easily verified. You have to be specific on mental health. There are a lot of privacy issues. Also remember, James Holmes was reported by his therapist.
I am not against training, but it has to be specified. The one issue I don't like, and there are documented cases, is it will cause some type of waiting period. The issue is with domestic violence. The victim is usually a woman and weaker. She has no way to protect herself. If she decides to standup for herself and get a gun to defend herself there is a waiting period if she has never owned one before. What should she do during that period? She obviously feels her life is in danger enough to want a gun to defend herself. I believe there was several documented cases in California due to the waiting period and the victim being injured badly or killed. I think it would be better if everyone was trained about guns in the education system. It would take out the curiosity and fear of firearms. The libs would never allow it. It might take precious time away from the 10 year old that they are teaching oral and anal sex to. Teaching them how to get birth control without their parents. Mandatory class in Colorado and I believe all common core curiculim. One of the thousand reasons my kids are in private school.
Just so you know, the Dems made it in Colorado that I can register the same day as I vote with only a utility bill with my address. Would you be ok with this for guns? Not trying to piss you off, just curious if this would no ok for you to buy a gun?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Jan 20, 2015 10:05:58 GMT -5
If someone can figure out a way to stop morons from leaving guys where 5 year olds can use them Id feel alot better about guns. www.cnn.com/2015/01/20/us/missouri-boy-shoots-baby-brother/index.html5-year-old boy finds gun, shoots baby brother in head
(CNN)The mother called 911 to say her 5-year-old boy shot his baby brother with a paintball gun. But it wasn't a paintball gun. It was a .22-caliber Magnum revolver. And the 9-month-old boy didn't survive. Missouri authorities are trying to figure out what led up to the shooting Monday in Elmo, in the northwest corner of Missouri. "At this point foul play is not suspected, and it appears at this time that the shooting was accidental," the Nodaway County Sheriff's Office said. Sheriff Darren White told CNN affiliate KCTV that the baby was in a playpen when his brother found the gun lying on a bed. Authorities say the gun belongs to a relative, but not the mother. The sheriff said guns are rampant in the rural community. "We are big supporters of firearms around here," White told CNN affiliate KETV. "We have a lot of people that own weapons. They hunt. They target shoot. ... Most people are very safe with them, and this is one of those cases where everything went together in the wrong way." Authorities have not determined whether charges will be filed against any adult in the case. |
|
