***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (2 Viewers)

[timschochet]

Also in the news:

http://news.yahoo.com/gunman-kills-three-people-wounds-four-arkansas-shootings-043932589.html

(Reuters) - A gunman in Arkansas who killed three people, including a 12-year-old girl, and wounded four others before taking his own life had been released recently from a mental health treatment hospital, police said on Sunday.

The suspect in the shooting rampage on Saturday afternoon, identified as Porfirio Hernandez, 40, was acquainted with his victims, Jonesboro Police Chief Mike Yates said at a press conference.

Hernandez entered a home near Jonesboro, about 130 miles northeast of Little Rock, armed with a .357 magnum handgun and opened fire, killing a 38-year-old man and a 12-year-old girl, Yates said. The girl's age was originally thought to be 13.

Four other people in the home were wounded, including boys aged 10 and 8 and two adults aged 43 and 36. The 10-year-old victim was upgraded to stable condition on Sunday, while the other three remained critical, police said.

A short distance from the home, a 31-year-old man was found shot and killed at his place of employment by the same gun, Yates said.

Hernandez was found in the driver's seat of a vehicle on a highway, dead of a gunshot wound.

The motive for the shooting spree was not yet clear. Hernandez was released from a mental health facility just days beforehand, and police were trying to determine how he obtained the gun, Yates said.

In Arkansas, gun possession is illegal for anyone who has been convicted of a felony or committed involuntarily to a mental institution.

 

[timschochet]

and police were trying to determine how he obtained the gun

Very good chance he purchased it from a private seller, who was not required to run a background check, and so did not know that the buyer was mentally ill.

 

[Chaka]

and police were trying to determine how he obtained the gun

Very good chance he purchased it from a private seller, who was not required to run a background check, and so did not know that the buyer was mentally ill.

Why Tim? That kind of speculation is why people dismiss you so quickly in these threads.

Let the facts come to light first.

 

[timschochet]

and police were trying to determine how he obtained the gun

Very good chance he purchased it from a private seller, who was not required to run a background check, and so did not know that the buyer was mentally ill.

Why Tim? That kind of speculation is why people dismiss you so quickly in these threads.

Let the facts come to light first.

I'm just saying its a good possibility.

 

[StrikeS2k]

and police were trying to determine how he obtained the gun

Very good chance he purchased it from a private seller, who was not required to run a background check, and so did not know that the buyer was mentally ill.

Why Tim? That kind of speculation is why people dismiss you so quickly in these threads.

Let the facts come to light first.

I'm just saying its a good possibility.

How good? What percent and how much money are you willing to lay on it?

 

[timschochet]

and police were trying to determine how he obtained the gun

Very good chance he purchased it from a private seller, who was not required to run a background check, and so did not know that the buyer was mentally ill.

Why Tim? That kind of speculation is why people dismiss you so quickly in these threads.

Let the facts come to light first.

I'm just saying its a good possibility.

How good? What percent and how much money are you willing to lay on it?

About 25%. And no thanks.

 

[Chaka]

and police were trying to determine how he obtained the gun

Very good chance he purchased it from a private seller, who was not required to run a background check, and so did not know that the buyer was mentally ill.

Why Tim? That kind of speculation is why people dismiss you so quickly in these threads.

Let the facts come to light first.

I'm just saying its a good possibility.

How good? What percent and how much money are you willing to lay on it?

Seriously.

Which is more likely: He purchased it or he stole it from a gun owner? Mind you if it's the latter I would bet all the money in my wallet that the gun owner would swear up and down about how they are a responsible gun owner but that is another story.

 

[StrikeS2k]

and police were trying to determine how he obtained the gun

Very good chance he purchased it from a private seller, who was not required to run a background check, and so did not know that the buyer was mentally ill.

Why Tim? That kind of speculation is why people dismiss you so quickly in these threads.

Let the facts come to light first.

I'm just saying its a good possibility.

How good? What percent and how much money are you willing to lay on it?

About 25%. And no thanks.

I wasn't asking to bet. I just wanted to gauge your level of commitment. And in what world is 25% considered a good possibility?????

 

[timschochet]

It's enough of a possibility that we need to close this loophole. Frankly, even if the percentage were under 5%, it would still be enough to warrant closing this loophole. There should be background checks on ALL gun transactions. It won't solve these problems, but it would help.

Another thing that would help is spending more money on these mental hospitals, so that they're not forced to release patients prematurely.

 

[StrikeS2k]

and police were trying to determine how he obtained the gun

Very good chance he purchased it from a private seller, who was not required to run a background check, and so did not know that the buyer was mentally ill.

Why Tim? That kind of speculation is why people dismiss you so quickly in these threads.

Let the facts come to light first.

I'm just saying its a good possibility.

How good? What percent and how much money are you willing to lay on it?

Seriously.

Which is more likely: He purchased it or he stole it from a gun owner? Mind you if it's the latter I would bet all the money in my wallet that the gun owner would swear up and down about how they are a responsible gun owner but that is another story.

Or he owned it before he went in. I mean, there are so many possibilities. Him buying it from a private seller is pretty low on my list.

 

[StrikeS2k]

It's enough of a possibility that we need to close this loophole. Frankly, even if the percentage were under 5%, it would still be enough to warrant closing this loophole. There should be background checks on ALL gun transactions. It won't solve these problems, but it would help.

Another thing that would help is spending more money on these mental hospitals, so that they're not forced to release patients prematurely.

How do you know they released him prematurely? This is an unfortunate incident but do you have any actual proof that they released him prematurely due to budgetary reasons?

 

[timschochet]

It's enough of a possibility that we need to close this loophole. Frankly, even if the percentage were under 5%, it would still be enough to warrant closing this loophole. There should be background checks on ALL gun transactions. It won't solve these problems, but it would help.

Another thing that would help is spending more money on these mental hospitals, so that they're not forced to release patients prematurely.

How do you know they released him prematurely? This is an unfortunate incident but do you have any actual proof that they released him prematurely due to budgetary reasons?

It's pure speculation on my part regarding this case, but as a general rule too many patients are released for economic reasons.

 

[Rayderr]

It's enough of a possibility that we need to close this loophole. Frankly, even if the percentage were under 5%, it would still be enough to warrant closing this loophole. There should be background checks on ALL gun transactions. It won't solve these problems, but it would help.

Another thing that would help is spending more money on these mental hospitals, so that they're not forced to release patients prematurely.

How do you know they released him prematurely? This is an unfortunate incident but do you have any actual proof that they released him prematurely due to budgetary reasons?

It's pure speculation on my part

End of discussion.

 

[ATC1]

On Saturday afternoon, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled unconstitutional the District’s absolute prohibition on the carrying of handguns outside the home for lawful self-defense, in the case of Palmer v. District of Columbia.

The District Court did not issue a stay, but the D.C. Attorney General’s Office announced on Sunday that it would seek a stay. As reported by the Washington Post, D.C. Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier has approved an order which allows District residents to carry a handgun IF AND ONLY IF the handgun has been properly registered with the District Police, pursuant to the District’s handgun registration ordinance.

What about non-residents? According to the Post article, “Lanier’s instructions to police also said that residents of other jurisdictions without felony records would not be charged under the ban on carrying pistols.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/07/28/licensed-handgun-carry-now-legal-in-district-of-columbia-palmer-v-dc/

 

[Gary Coal Man]

Instant classic...

San Francisco Chronicle

Scared white guys spur Black Friday gun sales to record high

By Mark Morford on December 3, 2014


How to unpack the creepy, disquieting factoid that gun sales over the Thanksgiving weekend shot, as it were, to a record high?True. Upwards of 175,000 requests for background checks over Black Friday, the FBI says, which is about three requests per second, which is triple the norm but still just behind December 21, 2012, right after the Sandy Hook massacre, when gun sales freakishly skyrocketed. Because nothing says “We need to come together to stop all the gun deaths” than stocking up on bullets in case the scary black president comes to take away your Glock.

The scary black president! He’s part of the problem, no? He’s one of them, the real reason so many people bought a gun this holiday. According to at least one shop owner, a large percentage of gun buyers mentioned one singular event as a motivating factor for their purchase. Can you guess?

That’s right: Ferguson.

Ferguson? You mean the place where the white cop murdered that unarmed black kid, and wasn’t even indicted for it, and the police responded to the subsequent outrage/heartbreak from the local black community with even more brutality by way of a shocking assortment of military-grade weaponry: enormous tanks and tear gas and riot gear, all of sufficient scale and ruthlessness to outfit an army unit in Afghanistan, because that’s exactly what it was? That Ferguson? Yes indeed.

So. Want to try and unpack this creepy factoid? Break it down a little? It’s not difficult:

You’re a scared white person, almost certainly male. You do not live in a major city, or near a university or intellectual hub of any note, nor have you ever traveled very far from your home town, much less out of state or anywhere further than, say, Mexico. Once. And that was enough.

You do not read complicated books. You do not like new or weird things. You watch lots of TV, mostly Fox News, which rejoices in showing you endless images of angry foreigners and minorities in pain: tear gas explosions, fights in the streets, looting, this time involving sad, small-town black people in Ferguson, all of them protesting the acquittal of that murderous white cop.

“But it’s not only Missouri!” squeal a number of crudely pink-faced blondes on Fox News. “Angry black people – and white liberals too! – are protesting everywhere, from Oakland to Chicago to New York, perhaps even somewhere within, say, 200 miles of where you live!” Too close for comfort, that’s for sure.

While some part of you heard that the vast majority of protests were, of course, peaceful, and the injustice was, of course, heinous, that’s not what you see. You see only the nervous (and white, and male, like you) Missouri governor, Jay Nixon, do something really weird: declare a state of emergency – not because of a hurricane, or a flood. But because of… an imminent jury verdict.


Whoa! Even the possibility of black people protesting a brutal injustice is, you quickly surmise, worse than a deadly act of God. Who needs a tornado? Underserved minorities are despondent! Better get the tanks ready.

And so you think, “Well, now I have two reasons to buy a new gun: scary black people protesting within 200 miles of my home, and a dangerously out-of-control police force who might someday storm my house and confiscate my illegal taxidermy collection.” Ah, the perfect collusion.

Wait, make that three reasons: Toss in a Black Friday mega-sale at the local Gun Barn (30% off the AR-15, AKA “America’s gun,” the same semi-automatic rifle used in lots of massacres, and that killed a couple kids in Oregon just last year) and it’s off to the exhausted feds with your application.

There is, to date, no obvious fact, no impossible-to-deny piece of data that will convince the scared, paranoid gun fetishists of America that firearms are not merely dangerous, but also savage and cruel, tools of hate that invite not only more violence and suffering, but their own inevitable destruction.

We know guns do not make you safer. They do not prevent crime. They do not protect families. The NRA cannot trot out a single stat that proves guns improve society in any conceivable or measurable way; in fact, it’s just the opposite. Every piece of data we have proves guns are spiritual, moral and social poison.

The NRA can, however, trot out one epic, undeniable stat that trumps all the others. It’s the same stat that fuels the Republican party, Fox News, the Tea Party, homophobes, GamerGaters, racists and global warming deniers, et al.

That stat is about fear.

The matrix is simple enough: The more scared you are, the more isolated, the less educated and the less traveled and the less exposed to unfamiliar ideas, to different modes of life, to the Other, to the staggering and effervescent variety of human existence, the more you will see a gun as an obvious and necessary choice.

But here’s the surreal catch: it’s not for protection, per se. It’s not about the childish fantasy of how the gun defends against the rapist, or the drug dealer, or the Russian mafia kingpin who kidnapped your daughter for the second time, and this time it’s personal.

The gun is uncomplicated, primitive defense against something far more terrifying and murky: everything you do not know. Guns provide an illusion of security, a violent, make-believe defense against a world that’s too complex, with injustices too prodigious, rage too tempting and calm, peaceful acts of love far too difficult to locate. They make you feel, in short, like you might have a chance.


But as the Ferguson/Michael Brown tragedy proved (for the 10,000th time), despite all that savage promise, the gun fails. Like it always has. Like it always will. Every. Single. Time.

 

[tommyboy]

well, that's settled then. Time to go home

 

[johnnycakes]

well, that's settled then. Time to go home to the range.

fixed.

 

[Gr00vus]

San Francisco Chronicle

Scared white guys spur Black Friday gun sales to record high

By Mark Morford on December 3, 2014

...
The gun is uncomplicated, primitive defense against something far more terrifying and murky: everything you do not know. Guns provide an illusion of security, a violent, make-believe defense against a world that’s too complex, with injustices too prodigious, rage too tempting and calm, peaceful acts of love far too difficult to locate. They make you feel, in short, like you might have a chance.

O.k., now I want a gun. Maybe more than one.

 

[Dondante]

Instant classic...

San Francisco Chronicle

Scared white guys spur Black Friday gun sales to record high

By Mark Morford on December 3, 2014


How to unpack the creepy, disquieting factoid that gun sales over the Thanksgiving weekend shot, as it were, to a record high?True. Upwards of 175,000 requests for background checks over Black Friday, the FBI says, which is about three requests per second, which is triple the norm but still just behind December 21, 2012, right after the Sandy Hook massacre, when gun sales freakishly skyrocketed. Because nothing says “We need to come together to stop all the gun deaths” than stocking up on bullets in case the scary black president comes to take away your Glock.

The scary black president! He’s part of the problem, no? He’s one of them, the real reason so many people bought a gun this holiday. According to at least one shop owner, a large percentage of gun buyers mentioned one singular event as a motivating factor for their purchase. Can you guess?

That’s right: Ferguson.

Ferguson? You mean the place where the white cop murdered that unarmed black kid, and wasn’t even indicted for it, and the police responded to the subsequent outrage/heartbreak from the local black community with even more brutality by way of a shocking assortment of military-grade weaponry: enormous tanks and tear gas and riot gear, all of sufficient scale and ruthlessness to outfit an army unit in Afghanistan, because that’s exactly what it was? That Ferguson? Yes indeed.

So. Want to try and unpack this creepy factoid? Break it down a little? It’s not difficult:

You’re a scared white person, almost certainly male. You do not live in a major city, or near a university or intellectual hub of any note, nor have you ever traveled very far from your home town, much less out of state or anywhere further than, say, Mexico. Once. And that was enough.

You do not read complicated books. You do not like new or weird things. You watch lots of TV, mostly Fox News, which rejoices in showing you endless images of angry foreigners and minorities in pain: tear gas explosions, fights in the streets, looting, this time involving sad, small-town black people in Ferguson, all of them protesting the acquittal of that murderous white cop.

“But it’s not only Missouri!” squeal a number of crudely pink-faced blondes on Fox News. “Angry black people – and white liberals too! – are protesting everywhere, from Oakland to Chicago to New York, perhaps even somewhere within, say, 200 miles of where you live!” Too close for comfort, that’s for sure.

While some part of you heard that the vast majority of protests were, of course, peaceful, and the injustice was, of course, heinous, that’s not what you see. You see only the nervous (and white, and male, like you) Missouri governor, Jay Nixon, do something really weird: declare a state of emergency – not because of a hurricane, or a flood. But because of… an imminent jury verdict.


Whoa! Even the possibility of black people protesting a brutal injustice is, you quickly surmise, worse than a deadly act of God. Who needs a tornado? Underserved minorities are despondent! Better get the tanks ready.

And so you think, “Well, now I have two reasons to buy a new gun: scary black people protesting within 200 miles of my home, and a dangerously out-of-control police force who might someday storm my house and confiscate my illegal taxidermy collection.” Ah, the perfect collusion.

Wait, make that three reasons: Toss in a Black Friday mega-sale at the local Gun Barn (30% off the AR-15, AKA “America’s gun,” the same semi-automatic rifle used in lots of massacres, and that killed a couple kids in Oregon just last year) and it’s off to the exhausted feds with your application.

There is, to date, no obvious fact, no impossible-to-deny piece of data that will convince the scared, paranoid gun fetishists of America that firearms are not merely dangerous, but also savage and cruel, tools of hate that invite not only more violence and suffering, but their own inevitable destruction.

We know guns do not make you safer. They do not prevent crime. They do not protect families. The NRA cannot trot out a single stat that proves guns improve society in any conceivable or measurable way; in fact, it’s just the opposite. Every piece of data we have proves guns are spiritual, moral and social poison.

The NRA can, however, trot out one epic, undeniable stat that trumps all the others. It’s the same stat that fuels the Republican party, Fox News, the Tea Party, homophobes, GamerGaters, racists and global warming deniers, et al.

That stat is about fear.

The matrix is simple enough: The more scared you are, the more isolated, the less educated and the less traveled and the less exposed to unfamiliar ideas, to different modes of life, to the Other, to the staggering and effervescent variety of human existence, the more you will see a gun as an obvious and necessary choice.

But here’s the surreal catch: it’s not for protection, per se. It’s not about the childish fantasy of how the gun defends against the rapist, or the drug dealer, or the Russian mafia kingpin who kidnapped your daughter for the second time, and this time it’s personal.

The gun is uncomplicated, primitive defense against something far more terrifying and murky: everything you do not know. Guns provide an illusion of security, a violent, make-believe defense against a world that’s too complex, with injustices too prodigious, rage too tempting and calm, peaceful acts of love far too difficult to locate. They make you feel, in short, like you might have a chance.


But as the Ferguson/Michael Brown tragedy proved (for the 10,000th time), despite all that savage promise, the gun fails. Like it always has. Like it always will. Every. Single. Time.

[SIZE=10.5pt]When did the San Francisco Chronicle become Mad Magazine? [/SIZE]

 

[timschochet]

That article is obviously way too simplistic and one-sided. Still, it does have a few essentials truths contained within. Gun sales have apparently skyrocketed of late. Ferguson does appear to be a major reason for it- not the shooting, of course, but the rioting that followed. The fact that the rioting and looting were pretty minor compared to other similar incidents in our recent history makes no difference- on the night when the grand jury's decision was announced, all of the major news channels made it look as if the entire town of Ferguson was in flames. The hammer beating of the Bosnian man, which many believe is tied in to "black rage", hasn't helped either. I'm sure many of the white Americans who have bought guns in the last few days ARE scared.

Hopefully this will all blow over. In the meantime, the gun companies, as always, are making a killing off this stuff.

 

[[icon]]

I'm glad more people are choosing to be able to protect themselves against violent individuals. Now hopefully these people take responsible measures to safely store these firearms, and seek out proper training on how to safely use them.

 

[timschochet]

I'm glad more people are choosing to be able to protect themselves against violent individuals. Now hopefully these people take responsible measures to safely store these firearms, and seek out proper training on how to safely use them.

In your experience, will this be the case?

 

[[icon]]

I'm glad more people are choosing to be able to protect themselves against violent individuals. Now hopefully these people take responsible measures to safely store these firearms, and seek out proper training on how to safely use them.

In your experience, will this be the case?

In my experience? Yep!

 

[greenroom]

Found this posted by Thomas B on Yahoo. Where the familys of Sandy Hook are going after the manufactureres of the weapons used.

http://news.yahoo.com/families-newtown-victims-sue-gunmaker-seller-141435892.html

"The right to bear arms has been interpreted by the courts as an individual right. But, we have long used the court system to define responsibility within constitutional rights. The question is this case is if the manufacturer has a greater duty to see that these kinds of weapons are not in the hands of incompetent individuals than "normal" weapons. It is an interesting question. It has nothing to do with the right to bear arms, but it does have a lot to do with the responsibility of people in the gun trade. That is, you can't be stopped from buying or selling a gun like this, but you can be held accountable for its misuse.

The analogy of a car manufacturer doesn't really hold in this case. It would be more accurate to ask if a drivers license should be issued to an incompetent person. We actually do this kind of check. We have special licenses for vehicles that have special uses--trucks, buses, etc. You can't drive a high risk or high danger vehicle without a special license. This case would argue that the same is true with the guns. If the gun is high risk, then it should only be allowed in the hands of those who have been qualified to have it"

Makes some intersting points to what degree that those that make, promote the guns have. And if there should be different layers to gun ownership.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Found this posted by Thomas B on Yahoo. Where the familys of Sandy Hook are going after the manufactureres of the weapons used.

http://news.yahoo.com/families-newtown-victims-sue-gunmaker-seller-141435892.html

"The right to bear arms has been interpreted by the courts as an individual right. But, we have long used the court system to define responsibility within constitutional rights. The question is this case is if the manufacturer has a greater duty to see that these kinds of weapons are not in the hands of incompetent individuals than "normal" weapons. It is an interesting question. It has nothing to do with the right to bear arms, but it does have a lot to do with the responsibility of people in the gun trade. That is, you can't be stopped from buying or selling a gun like this, but you can be held accountable for its misuse.

The analogy of a car manufacturer doesn't really hold in this case. It would be more accurate to ask if a drivers license should be issued to an incompetent person. We actually do this kind of check. We have special licenses for vehicles that have special uses--trucks, buses, etc. You can't drive a high risk or high danger vehicle without a special license. This case would argue that the same is true with the guns. If the gun is high risk, then it should only be allowed in the hands of those who have been qualified to have it"

Makes some intersting points to what degree that those that make, promote the guns have. And if there should be different layers to gun ownership.

Their attempt to establish liability on the part of the manufacturer will fail, just as it always does in these types of suits.

 

[[icon]]

Dear Families of Sandy Hook.

 

[timschochet]

There is an excellent novel, Balance of Power, by Richard North Patterson, that makes a strong case for the liability of gun manufacturers. Patterson is a very good writer and within his tightly paced narrative he makes about as good an argument as anyone can- but ultimately I didn't buy it.

I don't like guns, I'm uncomfortable around them. I've made that pretty clear in this thread. But there are millions of honest, law-abiding people who buy guns and use them for personal protection, for collection purposes, for hunting. 99.99% of these people don't go on insane shooting sprees. I think some of these folks are a little paranoid of the government. I think many of them are a little bit too fervent about rejecting ANY sort of gun control no matter how reasonable (like ending the private sales loophole on background checks.) But they're not crazy.

By blaming the gun manufacturers for the very few crazy people out there, we do a disservice to all these millions of honest law abiding gun owners. We basically say to them, "You're collectively responsible for what these insane scum do; you can't be trusted not to do it yourselves, and therefore we have to punish those who sold you your weapons." It's wrong and unjust.

 

[timschochet]

Found this posted by Thomas B on Yahoo. Where the familys of Sandy Hook are going after the manufactureres of the weapons used.

http://news.yahoo.com/families-newtown-victims-sue-gunmaker-seller-141435892.html

"The right to bear arms has been interpreted by the courts as an individual right. But, we have long used the court system to define responsibility within constitutional rights. The question is this case is if the manufacturer has a greater duty to see that these kinds of weapons are not in the hands of incompetent individuals than "normal" weapons. It is an interesting question. It has nothing to do with the right to bear arms, but it does have a lot to do with the responsibility of people in the gun trade. That is, you can't be stopped from buying or selling a gun like this, but you can be held accountable for its misuse.

The analogy of a car manufacturer doesn't really hold in this case. It would be more accurate to ask if a drivers license should be issued to an incompetent person. We actually do this kind of check. We have special licenses for vehicles that have special uses--trucks, buses, etc. You can't drive a high risk or high danger vehicle without a special license. This case would argue that the same is true with the guns. If the gun is high risk, then it should only be allowed in the hands of those who have been qualified to have it"

Makes some intersting points to what degree that those that make, promote the guns have. And if there should be different layers to gun ownership.

How do we know what makes a gun a high risk? Any gun would be a high risk in my hands. Icon, who is quite familiar with guns, probably is very little risk with a gun.

 

[greenroom]

Found this posted by Thomas B on Yahoo. Where the familys of Sandy Hook are going after the manufactureres of the weapons used.

http://news.yahoo.com/families-newtown-victims-sue-gunmaker-seller-141435892.html

"The right to bear arms has been interpreted by the courts as an individual right. But, we have long used the court system to define responsibility within constitutional rights. The question is this case is if the manufacturer has a greater duty to see that these kinds of weapons are not in the hands of incompetent individuals than "normal" weapons. It is an interesting question. It has nothing to do with the right to bear arms, but it does have a lot to do with the responsibility of people in the gun trade. That is, you can't be stopped from buying or selling a gun like this, but you can be held accountable for its misuse.

The analogy of a car manufacturer doesn't really hold in this case. It would be more accurate to ask if a drivers license should be issued to an incompetent person. We actually do this kind of check. We have special licenses for vehicles that have special uses--trucks, buses, etc. You can't drive a high risk or high danger vehicle without a special license. This case would argue that the same is true with the guns. If the gun is high risk, then it should only be allowed in the hands of those who have been qualified to have it"

Makes some intersting points to what degree that those that make, promote the guns have. And if there should be different layers to gun ownership.

How do we know what makes a gun a high risk? Any gun would be a high risk in my hands. Icon, who is quite familiar with guns, probably is very little risk with a gun.

We know there are more powerful guns than others. As with vehicels, if you are driving a Semi you need additional training for it.

But I get your point, and for those that dont trust the GOVT, who are they to say which gun fits under what level, is a huge contention to me.

I just thought it was an interesting view, that the more powerful the weapon is the more training you should have.

 

[timschochet]

greenroom, in the past i relied on the "more powerful guns" notion in order to support the assault weapons ban we had in place several years ago, and which President Obama has proposed that we bring back. But Ditkaless Wonders in this forum, among others talked me out of it.

The problem, as DW pointed out, is this: you wrote, "We know that there are more powerful guns than others." Well, actually, that's not very clear at all. How to designate what is a "powerful gun" and what isn't? The assault weapons ban tried to do this, but since there isn't too much distinction between an AK-47 and a shotgun in terms of rate of fire, what ended up happening is that the "scarier looking" weapons were the ones that were banned. Which is really stupid. Also, in the hands of a marksman, nearly all of these guns can be considered as "powerful". Is a hunting rifle more or less powerful than an uzi? What exactly defines "powerful"?

DW's point, which I've come to agree with, is that since there is no clear distinction, all we're doing is punishing certain brands for no justifiable reason.

 

[3C's]

VA governor talking about new gun controls. As expected the wingnuts are going...nuts. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/mcauliffe-to-unveil-gun-control-measures-including-expanded-background-checks/2014/12/13/666f61f2-8146-11e4-8882-03cf08410beb_story.html

 

[MaxThreshold]

VA governor talking about new gun controls. As expected the wingnuts are going...nuts. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/mcauliffe-to-unveil-gun-control-measures-including-expanded-background-checks/2014/12/13/666f61f2-8146-11e4-8882-03cf08410beb_story.html

I hate guns and anyone who doesn't agree with me is a wingnut.

FYP.

 

[3C's]

VA governor talking about new gun controls. As expected the wingnuts are going...nuts. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/mcauliffe-to-unveil-gun-control-measures-including-expanded-background-checks/2014/12/13/666f61f2-8146-11e4-8882-03cf08410beb_story.html

I hate guns and anyone who doesn't agree with me is a wingnut.

FYP.

you're so funny when you're so wrong.

 

[timschochet]

OK, I want to post this here rather than in the South Carolina thread, because I don't want to derail the discussion there (I haven't read it for several pages, so it may already be derailed, for all I know...)

President Obama said today that he hoped last night's tragedy would cause Americans to rethink gun issues. Obviously he is frustrated that after Sandy Hook he could not get some modest gun control legislation passed, and perhaps he wants to try again.

I was in favor of much of Obama's proposed gun legislation after Sandy Hook, particularly the closure of the private sales loophole for background checks, which I continue to believe will reduce some gun violence in this country at low cost. But that being said, it wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook, and it wouldn't have prevented what happened last night.

In fact, I can think of no law that can be passed that would have any real effect on the mass shootings of Sandy Hook or last night. We live in a society with over 3 million guns in it. I would feel safer if we didn't. As I've mentioned before, I'm uncomfortable around guns, and I would feel safer in a society with NO guns. But a lot of people ARE comfortable with guns and I have no right to restrict them in order to give myself a greater illusion of safety.

So despite Obama's statement, which I truly believe came from the heart, I don't think what happened in Charleston changed anything about this debate. There is nothing we can do to stop these mass shootings. Thoughts?

 

[tommyboy]

I think it's more like 300 million guns

 

[Max Power]

There is nothing we can do to stop these mass shootings. Thoughts?

yep... people who want to do these things will get guns regardless.

 

[Rayderr]

I haven't heard how the SC shooter got the guns, but in the past, the anti-gun crowd has made numerous mistakes when trying to capitalize on shootings.

They propose gun laws that would not have prevented the actual shootings. "No Assault Weapons! Longer background checks! No private sales! Smaller cartridges!"

Columbine, the kids were sold the guns illegally by people who knew what they were doing illegally.

Sandy Hook, Shooter killed his mother for the gun, and he had plenty of non assault weapons with him as well.

Giffords shooter, had a clean background, and it was a handgun. None of the proposed laws would've stopped it (the police dept. actually doing something about his death threats against her on the other hand....)

Aurora shooter, Did have a weapon with an extended cartridge, but oddly that probably saved lives as it jammed (as aftermarket extended cartridges tend to do)

VT shooter, Clean background, handguns and backpack full of loaded clips. Here's a case where the anti-gun crowd could've done something and actually gotten even the pro-gun crowd to go along with them. If you are found to be a danger to yourself and others (as Cho was) that stops you from buying guns (legally)

Watching the anti-gun crowds reaction everytime something happens really makes me wonder if they are truly interested in saving lives or just imposing their wills onto others. I' really beginning to think it's the latter.

 

[KCitons]

I've said it before and the offer still stands. I will give up all of my guns, if they can guarantee that gun violence will stop.

 

[Stinger Ray]

OK, I want to post this here rather than in the South Carolina thread, because I don't want to derail the discussion there

That's a first for you.

 

[bagger]

There is nothing we can do to stop these mass shootings. Thoughts?

yep... people who want to do these things will get guns regardless.

this is why we shouldn't have any laws. People always break them.

 

[timschochet]

There is nothing we can do to stop these mass shootings. Thoughts?

yep... people who want to do these things will get guns regardless.

this is why we shouldn't have any laws. People always break them.

i agree that it's ironic. But since you obviously don't agree with me, please explain how you would prevent these sort of crimes through the use of law. Because I can't figure it.

 

[Leviathan]

I've said it before and the offer still stands. I will give up all of my guns, if they can guarantee that gun violence will stop.

#### that! I've been a hunter my entire life and I'm not willing to give that up due to a deranged society.

 

[General Tso]

This is the thread that got me so upset that I left the FFA for over 2 years.

I don't know what the answer is, but it seems clear that something needs to be done. This country has way too many weapons, and if it were helping in some way to keep our freedoms, or keep crime down, it would be more understandable. But I just can't see any positives to having so many guns. I lived in London for a year back in the 80's and it was amazing how safe it felt.

I gave up on gun control after Sandy Hook. If meaningful federal restrictions couldn't be achieved after that event then nothing will. I've never felt so hopeless on an issue. The NRA has this country by the balls, and I don't think it will ever change.

 

[KCitons]

I've said it before and the offer still stands. I will give up all of my guns, if they can guarantee that gun violence will stop.

#### that! I've been a hunter my entire life and I'm not willing to give that up due to a deranged society.

you could bow hunt

 

[timschochet]

I've said it before and the offer still stands. I will give up all of my guns, if they can guarantee that gun violence will stop.

Everybody would have to give up all their guns. And then the government would still have to step in and crack down on those who refused. 300 million guns! Do you see how impossible this is? There's no point in comparing is to nations with no guns because we can't ever go back there. We are what we are.

 

[Leviathan]

I've said it before and the offer still stands. I will give up all of my guns, if they can guarantee that gun violence will stop.

#### that! I've been a hunter my entire life and I'm not willing to give that up due to a deranged society.

you could bow hunt

Yeah...shooting ducks and geese with a bow equals disaster. As far as mammals go, yes I could do that.

And no, I'm not Rachel.

 

[KCitons]

I've said it before and the offer still stands. I will give up all of my guns, if they can guarantee that gun violence will stop.

Everybody would have to give up all their guns. And then the government would still have to step in and crack down on those who refused. 300 million guns! Do you see how impossible this is? There's no point in comparing is to nations with no guns because we can't ever go back there. We are what we are.

No more impossible than your request to end gun violence. Unfortunately, I don't think there's an answer.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

One could just say ''stay out of places and situations where you could get shot''....but that doesnt work anymore ...you should be safe in school...church...your home...but thats over ...its open season on our fellow man ...nobody is safe

 

[GrandpaRox]

San Francisco Chronicle

Scared white guys spur Black Friday gun sales to record high

By Mark Morford on December 3, 2014

...
The gun is uncomplicated, primitive defense against something far more terrifying and murky: everything you do not know. Guns provide an illusion of security, a violent, make-believe defense against a world that’s too complex, with injustices too prodigious, rage too tempting and calm, peaceful acts of love far too difficult to locate. They make you feel, in short, like you might have a chance.

O.k., now I want a gun. Maybe more than one.

Can never have enough guns or ammunition.

 

[GrandpaRox]

It's enough of a possibility that we need to close this loophole. Frankly, even if the percentage were under 5%, it would still be enough to warrant closing this loophole. There should be background checks on ALL gun transactions. It won't solve these problems, but it would help.

Another thing that would help is spending more money on these mental hospitals, so that they're not forced to release patients prematurely.

Good lord you are so uninformed. I have not bought any of my dozens of firearms without a background check. Well except for 3 and if checked I would have passed anyway. Why do you keep deluding yourself with this stupidity.

The dangerous people that want guns will get them without background checks.

It would do nothing but make you feel better.