***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (1 Viewer)

[Andy Dufresne]

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/i-hurt-my-dad-the-tragic-moment-a-2-year-old-127173047597.html

guns don't kill people. Two year olds kill people.

And..?

 

[Johnnymac]

Would those steps have prevented today's events? Or are you just talking in general now?

i don't know. We'll never know will we? But I believe these sorts of awful crimes would be more rare, yes.

But how much MORE less likely are you hoping for?I would argue that these events are already exceedingly rare.

Shootings? Define rare.

well, per the CDC, in 2013, there were 84,000 non fatal gun injuries (this includes self inflicted, accidental, and intentional), a rate of 26.65 per 100k people. Homicides by gun for that year were 11,208. That's a mere 3.5 per 100k people. In fact suicide by gun (21,175) nearly double the homicide rate by gun. There were 505 accidental deaths by gun, and 281 that were undertermined intent.

So all matters of shooting in which a person is injured or killed is around 117,500. That works out to about 37 people per 100,000 or point 0.037% Now, supposedly 1/3 of americans either own a gun or live with someone who does. Let's assume out of that 1/3, it works out to 1 gun owner and one non gun owner living with that person, or 1/6 of the US population. If each of the above listed shootings were done by a seperate gun owner (which we know is certainly not the case.) that would mean only 2% of gun owners are responsible for all the various gun shootings.

Even with stacking all the odds in favor of the anti-gun crowd, it still turns out that most gun owners are responsible with their guns.

I think it's important to try and reduce these numbers. Are we supposed to be ok with that?

 

[ATC1]

The Virginia shooting this morning. I'm sick of these stories. There's too many guns out there. This issue makes me feel helpless and frustrated.

Hold on. This event occurred because of "too many" guns?If the amount of guns had dropped below some threshold level it wouldn't have happened?

This is the classic argument, and if we were talking about gang violence or a drug deal home bad i would clearly side with the "if guns were outlawed only outlaws would have guns" stance.But when we're talking about a "normal" person getting a gun and shooting someone they know, then yes, easy access to guns helped to facilitate the death.

Could another armed person have stopped this specific crime? It doesn't sound like it, and in fact it rarely seems to work out that someone nearby is armed and stops these shootings. Even an armed, trained shooter would have a hard time taking action in time to stop an apparent crime while shooting a gun in a public place, and even then if you saw someone getting shot on camera would you have the split second reaction to say this isn't a movie this is really happening I should definitely shoot? Arming more people would not have solved this problem or cases like this one.

Does that mean we throw the baby or with the bath water? Not necessarily. But I can't believe you think that this guy still would have killed multiple people and injured an apparently innocent and unrelated person doing a tv interview if only more people had guns. It hurts the pro gun argument to imply that.

I will wait to talk specifically about the shooting this morning later when more details come out, but BF is correct. Someone else carrying a gun would not have prevented this. Now if this pysco decided he wanted to go on a shooting rampage to go out in a blaze at the airport or other public area, then a citizen carrying concealed could certainly reduce the number of victims IMO.

I wonder if this was another person that killed two co-workers not in the media or did not record it and post it on social media himself, would there have been much media coverage if any at all?

 

[timschochet]

Of course the vast majority of gun owners are responsible with their guns. Who has implied anything different?

 

[whoknew]

Of course the vast majority of gun owners are responsible with their guns. Who has implied anything different?

That's the issue, though, right? What plan allows law abiding, responsible citizens to have guns while keeping guns away from those who are irresponsible - criminals, the mentally ill, cops, etc? How do you do that?

I don't know the answer.

 

[kface]

Of course the vast majority of gun owners are responsible with their guns. Who has implied anything different?

That's the issue, though, right? What plan allows law abiding, responsible citizens to have guns while keeping guns away from those who are irresponsible - criminals, the mentally ill, cops, etc? How do you do that?

I don't know the answer.

Not going to debate because there is no mind changing in this debate but I can't believe anyone can sit here and say this is fine. These are people that are loved, these are children, these are people that matter. If you put guns in the hands of everyone people are going to die and I can't believe people think this is just 'collateral damage' for their hobby. The answer is, and its the only answer, make sure people who don't deserve guns have no access to them.

 

[whoknew]

Of course the vast majority of gun owners are responsible with their guns. Who has implied anything different?

That's the issue, though, right? What plan allows law abiding, responsible citizens to have guns while keeping guns away from those who are irresponsible - criminals, the mentally ill, cops, etc? How do you do that?

I don't know the answer.

Not going to debate because there is no mind changing in this debate but I can't believe anyone can sit here and say this is fine. These are people that are loved, these are children, these are people that matter. If you put guns in the hands of everyone people are going to die and I can't believe people think this is just 'collateral damage' for their hobby. The answer is, and its the only answer, make sure people who don't deserve guns have no access to them.

Right. I don't think many people would disagree with that.

But the question is how?

 

[kface]

Of course the vast majority of gun owners are responsible with their guns. Who has implied anything different?

That's the issue, though, right? What plan allows law abiding, responsible citizens to have guns while keeping guns away from those who are irresponsible - criminals, the mentally ill, cops, etc? How do you do that?

I don't know the answer.

Not going to debate because there is no mind changing in this debate but I can't believe anyone can sit here and say this is fine. These are people that are loved, these are children, these are people that matter. If you put guns in the hands of everyone people are going to die and I can't believe people think this is just 'collateral damage' for their hobby. The answer is, and its the only answer, make sure people who don't deserve guns have no access to them.

Right. I don't think many people would disagree with that.

But the question is how?

the line from the NRA seems to mostly be if only that reporter was armed, or the teachers were armed, or the dorm students were armed...that's not a solution. That is chaos

 

[Andy Dufresne]

He didn't ask how not.

 

[ATC1]

Of course the vast majority of gun owners are responsible with their guns. Who has implied anything different?

That's the issue, though, right? What plan allows law abiding, responsible citizens to have guns while keeping guns away from those who are irresponsible - criminals, the mentally ill, cops, etc? How do you do that?

I don't know the answer.

Of course the vast majority of gun owners are responsible with their guns. Who has implied anything different?

That's the issue, though, right? What plan allows law abiding, responsible citizens to have guns while keeping guns away from those who are irresponsible - criminals, the mentally ill, cops, etc? How do you do that?

I don't know the answer.

Not going to debate because there is no mind changing in this debate but I can't believe anyone can sit here and say this is fine. These are people that are loved, these are children, these are people that matter. If you put guns in the hands of everyone people are going to die and I can't believe people think this is just 'collateral damage' for their hobby. The answer is, and its the only answer, make sure people who don't deserve guns have no access to them.

Right. I don't think many people would disagree with that.

But the question is how?

the line from the NRA seems to mostly be if only that reporter was armed, or the teachers were armed, or the dorm students were armed...that's not a solution. That is chaos

I think there should be more hoops to jump through, more mental evaluation, and more training neccessary to leagally own a gun, but at the same time once that person has shown he/she is willing to go through all the correct channels to own and carry a gun, you don't restrict that person's right to bear arms.

 

[timschochet]

Are background checks without exception and universal gun registration restricting anyone's rights?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Are background checks without exception and universal gun registration restricting anyone's rights?

I don't think so personally.

Of course, such policies would have done absolutely nothing whatsoever to inhibit today's shooting.

 

[Bogeys]

Are background checks without exception and universal gun registration restricting anyone's rights?

Even for the illegal aliens?

 

[kface]

Of course the vast majority of gun owners are responsible with their guns. Who has implied anything different?

That's the issue, though, right? What plan allows law abiding, responsible citizens to have guns while keeping guns away from those who are irresponsible - criminals, the mentally ill, cops, etc? How do you do that?

I don't know the answer.

Of course the vast majority of gun owners are responsible with their guns. Who has implied anything different?

That's the issue, though, right? What plan allows law abiding, responsible citizens to have guns while keeping guns away from those who are irresponsible - criminals, the mentally ill, cops, etc? How do you do that?

I don't know the answer.

Not going to debate because there is no mind changing in this debate but I can't believe anyone can sit here and say this is fine. These are people that are loved, these are children, these are people that matter. If you put guns in the hands of everyone people are going to die and I can't believe people think this is just 'collateral damage' for their hobby. The answer is, and its the only answer, make sure people who don't deserve guns have no access to them.

Right. I don't think many people would disagree with that.

But the question is how?

the line from the NRA seems to mostly be if only that reporter was armed, or the teachers were armed, or the dorm students were armed...that's not a solution. That is chaos

I think there should be more hoops to jump through, more mental evaluation, and more training neccessary to leagally own a gun, but at the same time once that person has shown he/she is willing to go through all the correct channels to own and carry a gun, you don't restrict that person's right to bear arms.

I would agree with this. It should be really hard to get and keep a gun, but if you are mentally stable and responsible you should be able to own as many as you like

 

[kface]

Are background checks without exception and universal gun registration restricting anyone's rights?

I don't think so personally.

Of course, such policies would have done absolutely nothing whatsoever to inhibit today's shooting.

Wouldn't they of? He was clearly mentally unstable and many people, it seemed, would attest to that.

 

[timschochet]

Are background checks without exception and universal gun registration restricting anyone's rights?

I don't think so personally.

Of course, such policies would have done absolutely nothing whatsoever to inhibit today's shooting.

How can you be sure of this?

 

[ATC1]

Are background checks without exception and universal gun registration restricting anyone's rights?

I don't think gun registration will be worth the effort or money. What would be an idea would be to issue a liscense to gun owners much like driving a car. If you get your license revoked you better not be caught with a gun or harsher penalties would be given.

 

[whoknew]

I think there should be more hoops to jump through, more mental evaluation, and more training neccessary to leagally own a gun, but at the same time once that person has shown he/she is willing to go through all the correct channels to own and carry a gun, you don't restrict that person's right to bear arms.

That seems very reasonable. I'd support your platform.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Are background checks without exception and universal gun registration restricting anyone's rights?

I don't think so personally.

Of course, such policies would have done absolutely nothing whatsoever to inhibit today's shooting.

How can you be sure of this?

From what it sounds like, he purchased a gun from a dealer after the Charleston shootings. If that's true, it means that he underwent a background check and passed it.

 

[ATC1]

Of course the vast majority of gun owners are responsible with their guns. Who has implied anything different?

That's the issue, though, right? What plan allows law abiding, responsible citizens to have guns while keeping guns away from those who are irresponsible - criminals, the mentally ill, cops, etc? How do you do that?

I don't know the answer.

Of course the vast majority of gun owners are responsible with their guns. Who has implied anything different?

That's the issue, though, right? What plan allows law abiding, responsible citizens to have guns while keeping guns away from those who are irresponsible - criminals, the mentally ill, cops, etc? How do you do that?

I don't know the answer.

Not going to debate because there is no mind changing in this debate but I can't believe anyone can sit here and say this is fine. These are people that are loved, these are children, these are people that matter. If you put guns in the hands of everyone people are going to die and I can't believe people think this is just 'collateral damage' for their hobby. The answer is, and its the only answer, make sure people who don't deserve guns have no access to them.

Right. I don't think many people would disagree with that.

But the question is how?

the line from the NRA seems to mostly be if only that reporter was armed, or the teachers were armed, or the dorm students were armed...that's not a solution. That is chaos

I think there should be more hoops to jump through, more mental evaluation, and more training neccessary to leagally own a gun, but at the same time once that person has shown he/she is willing to go through all the correct channels to own and carry a gun, you don't restrict that person's right to bear arms.

I would agree with this. It should be really hard to get and keep a gun, but if you are mentally stable and responsible you should be able to own as many as you like

Not only owning as many as you like, but the ability to carry everywhere you go. If there is the threat that someone might be in the movie theater carrying a gun, the number of theater shootings would theoretically decrease.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Are background checks without exception and universal gun registration restricting anyone's rights?

I don't think so personally.

Of course, such policies would have done absolutely nothing whatsoever to inhibit today's shooting.

Wouldn't they of? He was clearly mentally unstable and many people, it seemed, would attest to that.

Sure, but nobody goes around doing interviews with former coworkers when you go to buy a gun. They're just checking (I think) to see if you have a record.

 

[Chaka]

Thank you, Rayderr.

You may do a microphone drop if you wish.

He may want to hold off on that for a second.

Another way of looking at his data is that there are 322 instances of people being injured or killed with a gun every day.

Which means that it is really not very rare. It's rare when it makes the national news.

 

[whoknew]

Are background checks without exception and universal gun registration restricting anyone's rights?

I don't think so personally.

Of course, such policies would have done absolutely nothing whatsoever to inhibit today's shooting.

How can you be sure of this?

From what it sounds like, he purchased a gun from a dealer after the Charleston shootings. If that's true, it means that he underwent a background check and passed it.

But if he had to undergo mental evaluations as ATC1 suggests, he may not have gotten a gun.

 

[kface]

Are background checks without exception and universal gun registration restricting anyone's rights?

I don't think so personally.

Of course, such policies would have done absolutely nothing whatsoever to inhibit today's shooting.

Wouldn't they of? He was clearly mentally unstable and many people, it seemed, would attest to that.

Sure, but nobody goes around doing interviews with former coworkers when you go to buy a gun. They're just checking (I think) to see if you have a record.

That's true. I was thinking that a new background check would be more rigorous than the current ones and take more time. Like if you are applying for a job or an apartment they check references, credit history, employment etc....

 

[ATC1]

I think there should be more hoops to jump through, more mental evaluation, and more training neccessary to leagally own a gun, but at the same time once that person has shown he/she is willing to go through all the correct channels to own and carry a gun, you don't restrict that person's right to bear arms.

That seems very reasonable. I'd support your platform.

If you don't feel what is neccessary to own a gun is worth the effort, you probably are someone that shouldn't be owning them anyway.

 

[kface]

Of course the vast majority of gun owners are responsible with their guns. Who has implied anything different?

That's the issue, though, right? What plan allows law abiding, responsible citizens to have guns while keeping guns away from those who are irresponsible - criminals, the mentally ill, cops, etc? How do you do that?

I don't know the answer.

Of course the vast majority of gun owners are responsible with their guns. Who has implied anything different?

That's the issue, though, right? What plan allows law abiding, responsible citizens to have guns while keeping guns away from those who are irresponsible - criminals, the mentally ill, cops, etc? How do you do that?

I don't know the answer.

Not going to debate because there is no mind changing in this debate but I can't believe anyone can sit here and say this is fine. These are people that are loved, these are children, these are people that matter. If you put guns in the hands of everyone people are going to die and I can't believe people think this is just 'collateral damage' for their hobby. The answer is, and its the only answer, make sure people who don't deserve guns have no access to them.

Right. I don't think many people would disagree with that.

But the question is how?

the line from the NRA seems to mostly be if only that reporter was armed, or the teachers were armed, or the dorm students were armed...that's not a solution. That is chaos

I think there should be more hoops to jump through, more mental evaluation, and more training neccessary to leagally own a gun, but at the same time once that person has shown he/she is willing to go through all the correct channels to own and carry a gun, you don't restrict that person's right to bear arms.

I would agree with this. It should be really hard to get and keep a gun, but if you are mentally stable and responsible you should be able to own as many as you like

Not only owning as many as you like, but the ability to carry everywhere you go. If there is the threat that someone might be in the movie theater carrying a gun, the number of theater shootings would theoretically decrease.

The only reason I don't like open carry everywhere is that how do you know the person is a good person or a bad person. If a guy walks into a movie theatre with an ak-47 is he going to pull the trigger and kill 10 people before someone else shoots him or is he just a law abiding citizen?

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Why do we need guns that are so efficient at killing? Think back when we were instilled with the right to bear arms. Those words were written when all we had were very inefficient muskets if I'm not mistaken. The evolution of guns shouldn't have gone any further than the hunting rifle if you ask me. Anything more advanced seems to be geared towards killing humans. Think of how much different all of these well publicized mass killings would be if it weren't so easy to both rapid fire and conceal the weapon. Things would have been quite different today if the Virginia shooter only had access to a hunting rifle.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Are background checks without exception and universal gun registration restricting anyone's rights?

I don't think so personally.

Of course, such policies would have done absolutely nothing whatsoever to inhibit today's shooting.

How can you be sure of this?

From what it sounds like, he purchased a gun from a dealer after the Charleston shootings. If that's true, it means that he underwent a background check and passed it.

But if he had to undergo mental evaluations as ATC1 suggests, he may not have gotten a gun.

Yeah, but I'm not going to support anything that extreme. Checking to see if you've been convicted of a felony or violent misdemeanor is one thing. Sending every single potential buyer to a shrink is a massive overreaction and would qualify as a clear infringement on one's second amendment rights IMO.

 

[timschochet]

So far as I am aware, right now the background checks do not include mental illness and aren't accurate in terms of criminal activity either. Every attempt to spend more monies on even existing background checks has been blocked by NRA supporters in government. So in not at all surprised that this guy would be able do buy a gun under those limitations. But if we were willing to expand background checks to a large national database, and include mental illness, perhaps it would have been more difficult.

 

[Chaka]

Two simple steps:

1) Go after the FFL holders (I have spoken on this extensively, and accurately, and don't feel like rehashing)

2) Mandate a system where every gun is documented from manufacture to original purchaser and all subsequent purchasers.

Course none of that would ever happen because "Big bad gubbment gonna getcha!" and all that silliness. But those would be good places to start addressing the issue.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Why do we need guns that are so efficient at killing? Think back when we were instilled with the right to bear arms. Those words were written when all we had were very inefficient muskets if I'm not mistaken. The evolution of guns shouldn't have gone any further than the hunting rifle if you ask me. Anything more advanced seems to be geared towards killing humans. Think of how much different all of these well publicized mass killings would be if it weren't so easy to both rapid fire and conceal the weapon. Things would have been quite different today if the Virginia shooter only had access to a hunting rifle.

Give this guy a hunting rifle or a shotgun. You think the results would have been different?

 

[ATC1]

Are background checks without exception and universal gun registration restricting anyone's rights?

I don't think so personally.

Of course, such policies would have done absolutely nothing whatsoever to inhibit today's shooting.

Wouldn't they of? He was clearly mentally unstable and many people, it seemed, would attest to that.

Sure, but nobody goes around doing interviews with former coworkers when you go to buy a gun. They're just checking (I think) to see if you have a record.

That's why I think having the license would come in handy. You want to buy a gun? Sure can I see some I.D. that you had to go through XYZ to get.

 

[kface]

Are background checks without exception and universal gun registration restricting anyone's rights?

I don't think so personally.

Of course, such policies would have done absolutely nothing whatsoever to inhibit today's shooting.

How can you be sure of this?

From what it sounds like, he purchased a gun from a dealer after the Charleston shootings. If that's true, it means that he underwent a background check and passed it.

But if he had to undergo mental evaluations as ATC1 suggests, he may not have gotten a gun.

Yeah, but I'm not going to support anything that extreme. Checking to see if you've been convicted of a felony or violent misdemeanor is one thing. Sending every single potential buyer to a shrink is a massive overreaction and would qualify as a clear infringement on one's second amendment rights IMO.

While that might be true. I just got a new job and as part of the interview process I went through a psychological evaluation. That's just for a job that i could be fired at at any time. Seems to me that wouldn't be that onerous

 

[Bucky86]

Two simple steps:

1) Go after the FFL holders (I have spoken on this extensively, and accurately, and don't feel like rehashing)

2) Mandate a system where every gun is documented from manufacture to original purchaser and all subsequent purchasers.

Course none of that would ever happen because "Big bad gubbment gonna getcha!" and all that silliness. But those would be good places to start addressing the issue.

And maybe a mandatory re-examination every 5 years or so?

 

[kface]

Why do we need guns that are so efficient at killing? Think back when we were instilled with the right to bear arms. Those words were written when all we had were very inefficient muskets if I'm not mistaken. The evolution of guns shouldn't have gone any further than the hunting rifle if you ask me. Anything more advanced seems to be geared towards killing humans. Think of how much different all of these well publicized mass killings would be if it weren't so easy to both rapid fire and conceal the weapon. Things would have been quite different today if the Virginia shooter only had access to a hunting rifle.

Give this guy a hunting rifle or a shotgun. You think the results would have been different?

I think sandy hook would have been different.

 

[kface]

Two simple steps:

1) Go after the FFL holders (I have spoken on this extensively, and accurately, and don't feel like rehashing)

2) Mandate a system where every gun is documented from manufacture to original purchaser and all subsequent purchasers.

Course none of that would ever happen because "Big bad gubbment gonna getcha!" and all that silliness. But those would be good places to start addressing the issue.

And maybe a mandatory re-examination every 5 years or so?

I agree

 

[IvanKaramazov]

So far as I am aware, right now the background checks do not include mental illness and aren't accurate in terms of criminal activity either. Every attempt to spend more monies on even existing background checks has been blocked by NRA supporters in government. So in not at all surprised that this guy would be able do buy a gun under those limitations. But if we were willing to expand background checks to a large national database, and include mental illness, perhaps it would have been more difficult.

How is the government supposed to magically know that this guy was crazy? There's no way to have "Crazy -- Do Not Sell To This Person" show up on a background check when nobody in government is privy to the shooter's ex ante mental state.

 

[kface]

So far as I am aware, right now the background checks do not include mental illness and aren't accurate in terms of criminal activity either. Every attempt to spend more monies on even existing background checks has been blocked by NRA supporters in government. So in not at all surprised that this guy would be able do buy a gun under those limitations. But if we were willing to expand background checks to a large national database, and include mental illness, perhaps it would have been more difficult.

How is the government supposed to magically know that this guy was crazy? There's no way to have "Crazy -- Do Not Sell To This Person" show up on a background check when nobody in government is privy to the shooter's ex ante mental state.

Seems like a quick google search would have id'd most of these people as crazy before hand. You're right though, its not perfect and the fact of the matter is no solution is perfect and the NRA and gun nuts have used that to create a situation of pure impotence

 

[ATC1]

Of course the vast majority of gun owners are responsible with their guns. Who has implied anything different?

That's the issue, though, right? What plan allows law abiding, responsible citizens to have guns while keeping guns away from those who are irresponsible - criminals, the mentally ill, cops, etc? How do you do that?

I don't know the answer.

Not going to debate because there is no mind changing in this debate but I can't believe anyone can sit here and say this is fine. These are people that are loved, these are children, these are people that matter. If you put guns in the hands of everyone people are going to die and I can't believe people think this is just 'collateral damage' for their hobby. The answer is, and its the only answer, make sure people who don't deserve guns have no access to them.

Right. I don't think many people would disagree with that.

But the question is how?

the line from the NRA seems to mostly be if only that reporter was armed, or the teachers were armed, or the dorm students were armed...that's not a solution. That is chaos

I would agree with this. It should be really hard to get and keep a gun, but if you are mentally stable and responsible you should be able to own as many as you like

Not only owning as many as you like, but the ability to carry everywhere you go. If there is the threat that someone might be in the movie theater carrying a gun, the number of theater shootings would theoretically decrease.

The only reason I don't like open carry everywhere is that how do you know the person is a good person or a bad person. If a guy walks into a movie theatre with an ak-47 is he going to pull the trigger and kill 10 people before someone else shoots him or is he just a law abiding citizen?

People open carrying a AK-47 in public to prove a point is part of the problem. There is no point.

 

[timschochet]

So far as I am aware, right now the background checks do not include mental illness and aren't accurate in terms of criminal activity either. Every attempt to spend more monies on even existing background checks has been blocked by NRA supporters in government. So in not at all surprised that this guy would be able do buy a gun under those limitations. But if we were willing to expand background checks to a large national database, and include mental illness, perhaps it would have been more difficult.

How is the government supposed to magically know that this guy was crazy? There's no way to have "Crazy -- Do Not Sell To This Person" show up on a background check when nobody in government is privy to the shooter's ex ante mental state.

Yeah. That part I haven't figured out yet.

 

[kface]

So far as I am aware, right now the background checks do not include mental illness and aren't accurate in terms of criminal activity either. Every attempt to spend more monies on even existing background checks has been blocked by NRA supporters in government. So in not at all surprised that this guy would be able do buy a gun under those limitations. But if we were willing to expand background checks to a large national database, and include mental illness, perhaps it would have been more difficult.

How is the government supposed to magically know that this guy was crazy? There's no way to have "Crazy -- Do Not Sell To This Person" show up on a background check when nobody in government is privy to the shooter's ex ante mental state.

Yeah. That part I haven't figured out yet.

Start with reference checks from employers, from family, from friends, from anything. Do a quick google search...none of it is perfect but it's something.

 

[Leviathan]

Are background checks without exception and universal gun registration restricting anyone's rights?

I don't think so personally.

Of course, such policies would have done absolutely nothing whatsoever to inhibit today's shooting.

How can you be sure of this?

Tim, you and I live in California. California requires background checks, registration, etc. The strictest gun laws on the books. Have you seen what's going on in Oakland? I have a good friend who is on the Oakland PD. He tells me that certain parts of the city are shooting galleries.

 

[ATC1]

Why do we need guns that are so efficient at killing? Think back when we were instilled with the right to bear arms. Those words were written when all we had were very inefficient muskets if I'm not mistaken. The evolution of guns shouldn't have gone any further than the hunting rifle if you ask me. Anything more advanced seems to be geared towards killing humans. Think of how much different all of these well publicized mass killings would be if it weren't so easy to both rapid fire and conceal the weapon. Things would have been quite different today if the Virginia shooter only had access to a hunting rifle.

Preach on brother. Of course we cann't erase what has been done and I don't think all guns will simply vanish even after decades of them being prohibited.

 

[kface]

Are background checks without exception and universal gun registration restricting anyone's rights?

I don't think so personally.

Of course, such policies would have done absolutely nothing whatsoever to inhibit today's shooting.

How can you be sure of this?

Tim, you and I live in California. California requires background checks, registration, etc. The strictest gun laws on the books. Have you seen what's going on in Oakland?I have a good friend who is on the Oakland PD. He tells me that certain parts of the city are shooting galleries.

Using states is a joke because i can buy 3000 guns in nevada and drive 2 hours and be in california. It has to be across the board. Guns have to be difficult to get

 

[whoknew]

So far as I am aware, right now the background checks do not include mental illness and aren't accurate in terms of criminal activity either. Every attempt to spend more monies on even existing background checks has been blocked by NRA supporters in government. So in not at all surprised that this guy would be able do buy a gun under those limitations. But if we were willing to expand background checks to a large national database, and include mental illness, perhaps it would have been more difficult.

How is the government supposed to magically know that this guy was crazy? There's no way to have "Crazy -- Do Not Sell To This Person" show up on a background check when nobody in government is privy to the shooter's ex ante mental state.

Yeah. That part I haven't figured out yet.

There's enough data out there (or at least enough subjects to compile the data) that you would think a social scientist would be able to develop a relatively short test that at least narrows down the field. And then if you fail that test, you have to go to additional screening.

 

[kface]

So far as I am aware, right now the background checks do not include mental illness and aren't accurate in terms of criminal activity either. Every attempt to spend more monies on even existing background checks has been blocked by NRA supporters in government. So in not at all surprised that this guy would be able do buy a gun under those limitations. But if we were willing to expand background checks to a large national database, and include mental illness, perhaps it would have been more difficult.

How is the government supposed to magically know that this guy was crazy? There's no way to have "Crazy -- Do Not Sell To This Person" show up on a background check when nobody in government is privy to the shooter's ex ante mental state.

Yeah. That part I haven't figured out yet.

There's enough data out there (or at least enough subjects to compile the data) that you would think a social scientist would be able to develop a relatively short test that at least narrows down the field. And then if you fail that test, you have to go to additional screening.

This is a perfect example. Mostly reasonable people having this discussion and there is no perfect solution so let's just not do anything. Start somewhere, start with a test, start with references etc...quick picking it apart and do something positive for once

 

[whoknew]

Are background checks without exception and universal gun registration restricting anyone's rights?

I don't think so personally.

Of course, such policies would have done absolutely nothing whatsoever to inhibit today's shooting.

How can you be sure of this?

From what it sounds like, he purchased a gun from a dealer after the Charleston shootings. If that's true, it means that he underwent a background check and passed it.

But if he had to undergo mental evaluations as ATC1 suggests, he may not have gotten a gun.

Yeah, but I'm not going to support anything that extreme. Checking to see if you've been convicted of a felony or violent misdemeanor is one thing. Sending every single potential buyer to a shrink is a massive overreaction and would qualify as a clear infringement on one's second amendment rights IMO.

Yes many of these suggestions are likely to run afoul of the 2nd Amendment. And the NRA (and their politicians) are going to object to anything. So basically nothing is likely to happen in the US.

I guess I'm just thinking of the ideal for when I found Whoknewslavia.

 

[Bucky86]

So far as I am aware, right now the background checks do not include mental illness and aren't accurate in terms of criminal activity either. Every attempt to spend more monies on even existing background checks has been blocked by NRA supporters in government. So in not at all surprised that this guy would be able do buy a gun under those limitations. But if we were willing to expand background checks to a large national database, and include mental illness, perhaps it would have been more difficult.

How is the government supposed to magically know that this guy was crazy? There's no way to have "Crazy -- Do Not Sell To This Person" show up on a background check when nobody in government is privy to the shooter's ex ante mental state.

Yeah. That part I haven't figured out yet.

There's enough data out there (or at least enough subjects to compile the data) that you would think a social scientist would be able to develop a relatively short test that at least narrows down the field. And then if you fail that test, you have to go to additional screening.

This is a perfect example. Mostly reasonable people having this discussion and there is no perfect solution so let's just not do anything. Start somewhere, start with a test, start with references etc...quick picking it apart and do something positive for once

I think it's perfectly reasonable to apply for a permit and require references.

 

[ATC1]

So far as I am aware, right now the background checks do not include mental illness and aren't accurate in terms of criminal activity either. Every attempt to spend more monies on even existing background checks has been blocked by NRA supporters in government. So in not at all surprised that this guy would be able do buy a gun under those limitations. But if we were willing to expand background checks to a large national database, and include mental illness, perhaps it would have been more difficult.

How is the government supposed to magically know that this guy was crazy? There's no way to have "Crazy -- Do Not Sell To This Person" show up on a background check when nobody in government is privy to the shooter's ex ante mental state.

Yeah. That part I haven't figured out yet.

Start with reference checks from employers, from family, from friends, from anything. Do a quick google search...none of it is perfect but it's something.

OR what about a mental screening to get a license to purchase a gun? That initial screening may involve reference checks, but to have this process everytime the same person wants to buy a gun would be excessive.

 

[kface]

So far as I am aware, right now the background checks do not include mental illness and aren't accurate in terms of criminal activity either. Every attempt to spend more monies on even existing background checks has been blocked by NRA supporters in government. So in not at all surprised that this guy would be able do buy a gun under those limitations. But if we were willing to expand background checks to a large national database, and include mental illness, perhaps it would have been more difficult.

How is the government supposed to magically know that this guy was crazy? There's no way to have "Crazy -- Do Not Sell To This Person" show up on a background check when nobody in government is privy to the shooter's ex ante mental state.

Yeah. That part I haven't figured out yet.

Start with reference checks from employers, from family, from friends, from anything. Do a quick google search...none of it is perfect but it's something.

OR what about a mental screening to get a license to purchase a gun? That initial screening may involve reference checks, but to have this process everytime the same person wants to buy a gun would be excessive.

I agree with you, once you were screened you would get a pass for sure. Maybe a renewal every 5 years or so but otherwise go nuts once you have been screened