What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[Joe Miner]

What's the difference between a background check and a tougher background check?

[Nanker]

1 hour ago, Joe Miner said:

What's the difference between a background check and a tougher background check?

Obviously, one's tougher than the other, obviously.

 

NJ requires one to reveal if they have ever had any mental issues and sought professional help. They'll did into your medical records.

The police interview at least two of your non-related references. It can take MONTHS after applying to actually receive your firearms purchase ID.

 

[BeginnersMind]

3 minutes ago, Nanker said:

Obviously, one's tougher than the other, obviously.

 

NJ requires one to reveal if they have ever had any mental issues and sought professional help. They'll did into your medical records.

The police interview at least two of your non-related references. It can take MONTHS after applying to actually receive your firearms purchase ID.

 

 

I only know the NJ process but yes that's it. 

 

Owning certain kinds of weapons should require a higher standard and renewals. This is only one piece of any solution but if you want a firearm that has no hunting purpose, the standard for getting it should be a lot higher than what it is for buying a pump action shotgun or bolt action rifle. The levels of differentiation can be debated in some legislature but certain weapons should not be so easy to get your hands on.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

15 hours ago, ALF said:

 

So how would you solve this problem ?

Hey Alf-

 

Don't want to hound you, but about an hour before you replied here I replied to one of your earlier posts. 

 

I really am interested in your reply, mostly because I think my perspective is very reasonable. I mean, truly the way many non-gun-loving-ok--with-reasonable-legislation-but-interested-in-protecting-the-family Americans look at this issue. 

 

100 times out of 100, a guy with Task's perspective doesn't concern me. I know many guys like him, and if the $h$t hits the fan at the local mall I'm hoping he's the next game over at Dave and Busters. 

 

See, at the end of the day, I think a guy like me is as big an impediment to what folks like you are suggesting, and I really have never gotten a reply that makes me want to move into your voting column on gun control. I try, I just usually get some vague shoulder shrug or the conversation ends. And, to repeat, I've never owned a gun nor had a major desire to own one. 

 

If you get a moment, let me know your thoughts. If you prefer not to, well, that's fine as well. 

 

I am perplexed, btw, that at this stage of my life, I had to start a post with the words "Hey Alf", and I will never forgive you for that.

[dpberr]

4 hours ago, ALF said:

Trump had phone call with NRA’s LaPierre in wake of massacres

 

President Trump had a phone conversation with the National Rifle Association Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre on Tuesday,  just days after two mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton,  Ohio.

 

The Washington Post, citing unnamed sources, reported that LaPierre told Trump that endorsing tougher background checks -- which the president has reportedly done in private since the February 2018 massacre in Parkland, Fla., that left 17 dead, would not be popular with his voter base.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-had-phone-call-with-nras-lapierre-in-wake-of-massacres

 

If I were Trump, I wouldn't care whatsoever what LaPierre or the NRA thinks.  Besides being a corrupt organization that doesn't serve its membership well, the leadership has been on the wrong side of the gun debate for a long time.  (opinion of a former long time member)

 

 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2019 by dpberr

[DC Tom]

11 hours ago, GaryPinC said:

But they can be regulated as necessary.  As interpreted by the SCOTUS, allowed under article 3 of the Constitution.

 

The militia, the people, or guns?

 

You can read the 2nd either of those three ways.  Furthermore, it doesn't say who does the regulating...federal or state?  As the "militia" is invariably state-based, there's a cogent argument that the federal government is specifically prohibited from regulating arms.

9 hours ago, Hedge said:

 

 

 

Incoming: the suspect identified as a white supremacist.

 

 

And owned an assault knife.

[B-Man]

 

 

CHRIS BUSKIRK: Everything They’re Telling You About Mass Shootings Is Wrong. 

 

“Allow me to propose a radical thought: Rushing important legislation that affects people’s most fundamental rights based on what’s trending on Twitter is not the best way to run a serious country.”

 

 

Glenn Reynolds: A cave on gun-rights could make Trump a one-termer, the way caving on taxes did for George H.W. Bush. Democrats and the media know this, which is why they’re trying to get him to cave.

 

 

 

.

[DC Tom]

12 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

CHRIS BUSKIRK: Everything They’re Telling You About Mass Shootings Is Wrong. 

 

“Allow me to propose a radical thought: Rushing important legislation that affects people’s most fundamental rights based on what’s trending on Twitter is not the best way to run a serious country.”

 

.

 

We're not a serious country.

[ALF]

49 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Hey Alf-

 

Don't want to hound you, but about an hour before you replied here I replied to one of your earlier posts. 

 

I really am interested in your reply, mostly because I think my perspective is very reasonable. I mean, truly the way many non-gun-loving-ok--with-reasonable-legislation-but-interested-in-protecting-the-family Americans look at this issue. 

 

100 times out of 100, a guy with Task's perspective doesn't concern me. I know many guys like him, and if the $h$t hits the fan at the local mall I'm hoping he's the next game over at Dave and Busters. 

 

See, at the end of the day, I think a guy like me is as big an impediment to what folks like you are suggesting, and I really have never gotten a reply that makes me want to move into your voting column on gun control. I try, I just usually get some vague shoulder shrug or the conversation ends. And, to repeat, I've never owned a gun nor had a major desire to own one. 

 

If you get a moment, let me know your thoughts. If you prefer not to, well, that's fine as well. 

 

I am perplexed, btw, that at this stage of my life, I had to start a post with the words "Hey Alf", and I will never forgive you for that.

 

I don't have a problem with responsible gun owners. I was in the military but never owned a gun.  It's a real dilemma that makes me over react after a tragedy. The following article about see something , say something does not work is very frustrating. 

 

Exclusive: El Paso suspect's mother called police concerned about gun

 

 

The mother contacted police because she was worried about her son owning the weapon given his age, maturity level and lack of experience handling such a firearm, attorneys Chris Ayres and R. Jack Ayres said.

During the call, the mother was transferred to a public safety officer who told her that -- based on her description of the situation -- her son, 21, was legally allowed to purchase the weapon, the attorneys said. The mother did not provide her name or her son's name, and police did not seek any additional information from her before the call concluded, they added.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/07/us/el-paso-crusius-gun-warning/index.html

Edited August 8, 2019 by ALF

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, ALF said:

 

I don't have a problem with responsible gun owners. I was in the military but never owned a gun.  It's a real dilemma that makes me over react after a tragedy. The following article about see something , say something does not work is very frustrating. 

 

 

Plus there's the whole "see something, say something, get called a white supremacist if you're wrong" thing.

 

I'll never report anything suspicious again.  

[plenzmd1]

21 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

CHRIS BUSKIRK: Everything They’re Telling You About Mass Shootings Is Wrong. 

 

“Allow me to propose a radical thought: Rushing important legislation that affects people’s most fundamental rights based on what’s trending on Twitter is not the best way to run a serious country.”

 

 

Glenn Reynolds: A cave on gun-rights could make Trump a one-termer, the way caving on taxes did for George H.W. Bush. Democrats and the media know this, which is why they’re trying to get him to cave.

 

 

 

.

so the last 10 mass shootings , or the shootings over the last 10 years..is reacting to Twitter? Might be the dumbest statement statement i have ever heard. At what should the conversation be had? 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

9 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

I don't have a problem with responsible gun owners. I was in the military but never owned a gun.  It's a real dilemma that makes me over react after a tragedy. The following article about see something , say something does not work is very frustrating. 

 

Exclusive: El Paso suspect's mother called police concerned about gun

 

 

The mother contacted police because she was worried about her son owning the weapon given his age, maturity level and lack of experience handling such a firearm, attorneys Chris Ayres and R. Jack Ayres said.

During the call, the mother was transferred to a public safety officer who told her that -- based on her description of the situation -- her son, 21, was legally allowed to purchase the weapon, the attorneys said. The mother did not provide her name or her son's name, and police did not seek any additional information from her before the call concluded, they added.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/07/us/el-paso-crusius-gun-warning/index.html

So, if I'm reading you correctly, in the calm light of day, you don't advocate the ban/involuntary surrender of firearms like the AR15 on a national level?

 

As for the mother of the suspect and law enforcement reply, well, that pushes me more in the direction of 'maybe I oughta get one because at the end of the day, there is no rhyme or reason to who is in the wrong place at the wrong time'. 

 

Thanks for the follow up.

[LB3]

8 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

so the last 10 mass shootings , or the shootings over the last 10 years..is reacting to Twitter? Might be the dumbest statement statement i have ever heard. At what should the conversation be had? 

Rushing legislation based on emotion is the dumbest thing you've ever heard? You must not have been here for Skelton for Mario or my crusade against anyone who didn't think Ryan Nassib () was a great QB.

Edited August 8, 2019 by LBSeeBallLBGetBall

[B-Man]

18 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

so the last 10 mass shootings , or the shootings over the last 10 years..is reacting to Twitter? Might be the dumbest statement statement i have ever heard. At what should the conversation be had? 

 

 

You read it incorrectly.

 

Rushing legislation (see NYS SafeAct) based on twitter's response to shootings  is a poor reaction .

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[plenzmd1]

1 hour ago, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said:

Rushing legislation based on emotion is the dumbest thing you've ever heard? You must not have been here for Skelton for Mario or my crusade against anyone who didn't think Ryan Nassib () was a great QB.

the shootings have been going on and increasing in occurrences for twenty years..to say people want to see changes because this one shooting occurred is dumb with a capital D. Is because they KEEP occurring

 

So is there a required time since the last mass shooting before changes should occur? Is that 6 months from last shooting? 12 months? 

 

 

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

You read it incorrectly.

 

Rushing legislation (see NYS SafeAct) based on twitter's response to shootings  is a poor reaction .

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

well, I agree doing anything based on Twitter response is dumb...but the conversation about guns,  gun control , background checks, gun shows etc has to occur sometime no? 

[Tiberius]

 

Mass Shootings in America

NRA warns Trump after he signals he is open to extensive background checks 

The NRA's chief executive told President Trump that such a move would not be popular among his supporters.

• By Josh Dawsey and Seung Min Kim

 

 

 

 

Im surprised the gun barons at the NRA took time away from counting their money to even bother. So corrupt

[LB3]

7 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

the shootings have been going on and increasing in occurrences for twenty years..to say people want to see changes because this one shooting occurred is dumb with a capital D. Is because they KEEP occurring

 

So is there a required time since the last mass shooting before changes should occur? Is that 6 months from last shooting? 12 months? 

 

 

well, I agree doing anything based on Twitter response is dumb...but the conversation about guns,  gun control , background checks, gun shows etc has to occur sometime no? 

The conversation occurs frequently. People who are running hot on emotions just don't accept any conversation that doesn't end with them getting exactly what they want.

[Figster]

19 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

Who decides which hands are the "wrong hands", or who is "intended" to get a firearm?

 

The same people who think that everyone who disagrees with them is a white supremacist, racist, actual literal super mecha-Nazi ?

 

 

What trigger?

By wrong hands I mean stolen. The FBI Database (in 2016) suggested over 2 million firearms were lost or stolen in the US over the last decade and a high number of them are used to commit more violent crimes. 

Edited August 8, 2019 by Figster

[keepthefaith]

Very complicated issue.  Constitutional rights, states rights, federal jurisdiction over some of it and very few facts in the public debate.  The issue or the challenge of reducing these incidents deserves a thorough look and if we can come up with some new rules that will help reduce gun crimes while not impeding the rights of citizens then those changes should be determined, supported by good data and implemented. 

[GaryPinC]

5 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

The militia, the people, or guns?

 

You can read the 2nd either of those three ways.  Furthermore, it doesn't say who does the regulating...federal or state?  As the "militia" is invariably state-based, there's a cogent argument that the federal government is specifically prohibited from regulating arms.

 

 

Considering separation of powers, and the fact that SCOTUS had ruled the 2nd amendment to be an individual right, I doubt the feds do much regulating of state national guards, considering the feds have banned automatic weapons and assault rifles at various times, plus prohibit felons from owning guns, I'd say it's both guns and people they can regulate.