All we want are background checks!!

So just because?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Polar Bum said:

Excellent...so We the people can now exercise ...oh, whats that word??

The one presidents use when they ignore or intentionally fail to enforce or nations laws?

Oh..yes, "prosecutorial discretion".

Click to expand...

I think that it may have more to do with the absolute stupidity of a "gun control" law that does not require ever having a gun (merely expressing the desire to buy one) to warrant up to a 5 year felony prison sentence and is based 100% on self incrimination - but I could be wrong.

Here is what gun nuts want. Nothing. They could care less if this happens every day

Aristaeus said:

Complete ban on semi-automatics as they no good for home defence or hunting.

Click to expand...

Why are "they no good for home defence or hunting"? Please be specific.

Aristaeus said:

Lifelong ban on owning guns if you have committed a violent crime or been diagnosed with a mental ilness.

Complete ban on semi-automatics as they no good for home defence or hunting.

Restrict shop sales to licensed gun stores only.

Click to expand...

What is "mental illness" How is it determined? Why are you intent on demonizing people who have medical problems that they've been cured of?

Why are semi automatics no good for hunting or defense? I know lots of hunters who use them and they are designed specifically for self-defense - or do you think police still carry revolvers?

Aristaeus said:

Lifelong ban on owning guns if you have committed a violent crime or been diagnosed with a mental ilness.

Complete ban on semi-automatics as they no good for home defence or hunting.

Restrict shop sales to licensed gun stores only.

Click to expand...

Some members have already addressed your points, and the fact that laws do exist, but allow me to ask additional questions.
a-Lets say we introduce much stricter laws. How do we enforce these laws adequately, when it seems that the ones we have can't prevent a deranged person, who by all accounts passed background checks and purchased his guns legally, from carrying out his intent?

b-To prevent anyone from purchasing semis, it would seem that we best confiscate all such weapons, or else they'd be purchase illegally in a back alley by those who want to commit a crime.

c-Restricting sales to gun stores is a great intent and may make it more difficult for millions of law abiding citizens to purchase their weapon of choice, but it won't prevent criminals and mass murderers from buying them in some back alley.
So let me ask you again, how do you see laws/stricter laws enforced, and why do you think that these laws will prevent a maniac from killing?
Putting a bandage on the deep gash that triggers a killer seems to be futile.

I don't have an issue with the idea of background checks - I had to go through a pretty extensive one to get my NYC handgun permit and getting a concealed carry where I now live in Suffolk isn't a whole lot easier. But the devil is in the details. I'd need to know specifics.

Which btw probably what most gun owners really mean when they say they support background checks. The idea is fine but the implementation is what really matters.

TurtleDude said:

OK-guess what? this killer in vegas bought lots of guns over several years

Click to expand...

He also bought 33 guns in the last 12 months, the majority of which were rifles. According to USA Today, apparently multiple rifle purchases do not have to be reported to the ATF, unlike multiple handgun purchases (you're more than welcome to fact check that for me). I find it interesting you kind of glossed over this point.

Perhaps if we had some way of knowing that a person was buying so many weapons, we could more closely monitor such an individual and discover they're also buying large amount of chemicals which are used in making explosives. And then maybe, maybe, we could have a better idea if this person plans to commit an evil act.

Would it have helped in this specific circumstance? Maybe, maybe not. I believe I read some place he paid cash for a large chunk of his expenditures...but maybe the next person wouldn't. Maybe we can stop the next person.

Would that be so bad?

and most if not all, involved a BACKGROUND CHECK-yep, he was checked and guess what, there was NO disqualifying features. He also had a pilots license too.

Click to expand...

Cool. So?

I'm pretty certain we're not trying to keep Stephen Paddock from killing any more people. I believe the goal is to minimize the ability of future persons to kill people.

Will we ever have a society where one person doesn't kill another with some weapon? Of course not. But, perhaps, in the meantime we can find a way to minimize the risk.

so what are you going to do-

Click to expand...

It depends what you do, I suppose. If you begin screeching and shilling like you are wont to do, then I'll probably either screech and shill about how you just want to see innocent people die and want to pray at the altar of the almighty gun, no matter how many children have to die for your religion. Or I'll leave the thread (most likely) and let you say all the stupid things you want to say.

If, however, you'd like to have a reasonable discussion about how increased gun control isn't about stopping or preventing any and all shootings, but rather to lessen the risk and minimize the damage of future shootings, if you'd like to provide the ways you think we could do a better job of keeping dangerous people from hurting innocents, then I'll be more than happy to have that conversation with you.

Which path would you like to take?

CLAX1911 said:

Somebody that is going to commit murder can simply lie and not say they wish to commit murder upon purchasing the gun, and of they habe no background a background check will prove nothing.

Also thru can simply purchase a gun from someone.

Click to expand...

Guns are as common as horse turds in the USA. Casual personal sales happen all the time. I don't think background checks are necessary or reliable. There is a flaw in the National Psyche that needs attention. Lack of respect for life? Citizens living in their imagination, instead of reality? A National War Policy that promotes "death and destruction" on a large scale with inadequate foundations in morality and glorified in the MSM? I grew up in a rural area and everybody has always had guns. Hundreds of millions of guns all over the USA and the problem manifests itself in our current reality suggesting the problem is not the guns, but psychological? Are background checks going to cure that????

Slyfox696 said:

He also bought 33 guns in the last 12 months the majority of which were rifles. I find it interesting you kind of glossed over this

Click to expand...

He only needed two. If we had processes in place to detect those, some just wouldn'tbuy enough to trigger a response. We do have rules that two or more handgun purchases in a short period must be reported to ATF.

If, however, you'd like to have a reasonable discussion about how increased gun control isn't about stopping or preventing any and all shootings, but rather to lessen the risk and minimize the damage of future shootings, if you'd like to provide the ways you think we could do a better job of keeping dangerous people from hurting innocents, then I'll be more than happy to have that conversation with you.

Click to expand...

Go for it. As a baseline, the Virginia Tech shooter used a pair of handguns with 10 round magazines to kill 32 adults, so thas the bar one what magazine capacity restrictions will allow. There's no reason to believe that either of the only two mass shootings with ore casualties would have been significantly affected by such a restriction or that either shooter would have not been able to acquire higher capacity magazines in spite of a restriction.

Somehow when something like this happens people who support the 2nd amendment get blamed for what a truly mad man has done.
The NRA is blamed, it seems everyone but the actual madman killer takes the blame.
Wonder why that is?

Common Sense 1 said:

Somehow when something like this happens people who support the 2nd amendment get blamed for what a truly mad man has done.
The NRA is blamed, it seems everyone but the actual madman killer takes the blame.
Wonder why that is?

Click to expand...

Narrative.

Rucker61 said:

He only needed two.

Click to expand...

My point is that perhaps 33 would be a tip to monitor him more closely. That's all I'm saying. Again, no one is arguing we're going to be able to stop everything. We may not have even been able to stop him, he obviously was very meticulous in his planning. But maybe we stop the next person and then it is worth it.

We do have rules that two or more handgun purchases in a short period must be reported to ATF.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the confirmation.

Would you support a similar requirement for all firearms? If not for two purchases, then at some other reasonably low number?

Go for it. As a baseline, the Virginia Tech shooter used a pair of handguns with 10 round magazines to kill 32 adults, so thas the bar one what magazine capacity restrictions will allow. There's no reason to believe that either of the only two mass shootings with ore casualties would have been significantly affected by such a restriction or that either shooter would have not been able to acquire higher capacity magazines in spite of a restriction.

Click to expand...

I think an important thing to remember since both Columbine and Virginia Tech is that the training to respond to these types of situations has drastically changed, not just among law enforcement, but also with the general populace. The conditions which allowed the Virginia Tech shooter to kill so many people MIGHT not happen again, depending on the potential victims involved.

What would you propose we do to mitigate the risk of firearm deaths, not just on a mass scale, but also on an individual basis?

countryboy said:

Why are "they no good for home defence or hunting"? Please be specific.

Click to expand...

You think an AK47 is a suitable gun for dealing with a burgler or hunting a deer? Perhaps I should have been more specific and said semi-auto rifles like AKs or M16s.

Aristaeus said:

You think an AK47 is a suitable gun for dealing with a burgler or hunting a deer? Perhaps I should have been more specific and said semi-auto rifles like AKs or M16s.

Click to expand...

You said semi-automatics, period. Judging by your post, I'm not sure you even know what a semi-automatic is. Describe to me what a semi-automatic weapon does.

TurtleDude said:

many of the anti gun posters and more than a few politicians who try to pretend they are pro second amendment while toeing the anti NRA line claim that all they really want is all firearms sales-private or the phony gun show nonsense-controlled by a background check

Some will claim that "its only a form" but many of these posters and politicians claim its not true that they want additional restrictions other than that background check requirement.

OK-guess what? this killer in vegas bought lots of guns over several years and most if not all, involved a BACKGROUND CHECK-yep, he was checked and guess what, there was NO disqualifying features. He also had a pilots license too.

so your beloved background checks didn't do anything and won't with someone like this

so what are you going to do-

stick with background checks

admit that you now want something else

post up

Click to expand...

Listening to Fox this morning. “You are never going to legislate away madmen with guns.” I was all for making bump stocks illegal. Until I learned that belt loops work. And 3D printers can make a bump stock in minutes.

It’s against the law to steal cars. Do people still steal cars? It’s against the law to write bad checks. Do people still write bad checks? “Laws against” give us a vehicle with which to punish people after the fact. Evil people, crazy people, don’t obey laws.

And when bumper stocks are made illegal and bad things still happen? Then what? And when background checks don’t stop bad things? Then what? I guess I’m coming around to thinking all of it is just the nose of a camel.

However.

I think Republicans in Congress had better start taking control of the narrative. Propose what WILL work.

Dateline Chicago: Almost 800 gun deaths and 14,000 gun injuries. (stats by memory.) EVERY YEAR. Makes LV look paultry in comparison.

Start there. Start with a tough law that anyone caught with an illegal guns gets five years in jail. Juvenile or not. No parole. No more gangs in prison. Gang activity in prison gets you 20 out of 24 hours in lockup. Start with stop and frisk laws in crime-infested neighborhoods, aka war zones. Blanket search warrants in these neighborhoods. Get illegal guns off the street. An illegal gun is found in your home? All public benefits stop. Your kids are put in foster care. Have foster kids? Find illegal guns in your home? Go to jail. Unless you yourself made the call to authorities. Take away these safe havens because that’s REALLY what it takes to reduce gun deaths and injuries.

Dems would NEVER EVER support these things. They aren’t interested in reducing gun deaths. They’re interested in PRETENDING that’s their agenda. All the while training their camels.

Rant off.

TurtleDude said:

many of the anti gun posters and more than a few politicians who try to pretend they are pro second amendment while toeing the anti NRA line claim that all they really want is all firearms sales-private or the phony gun show nonsense-controlled by a background check

Some will claim that "its only a form" but many of these posters and politicians claim its not true that they want additional restrictions other than that background check requirement.

OK-guess what? this killer in vegas bought lots of guns over several years and most if not all, involved a BACKGROUND CHECK-yep, he was checked and guess what, there was NO disqualifying features. He also had a pilots license too.

so your beloved background checks didn't do anything and won't with someone like this

so what are you going to do-

stick with background checks

admit that you now want something else

post up

Click to expand...

So instead of making an objective poll. You make a poll mocking everyone else who wants to talk about gun issues and who should or should not be allowed to buy one.

- I only want background checks on all sales- Why is this your first option when you said nobody really wants just background checks because they are all fake pro- 2nd amendment supporters?
- I want to ban those who pass checks from being able to own some guns- All the options in this poll are either mocking gun legislation or another way of saying "I want a gun ban."
- A ban on all firearms for private citizens- You say people are advocating for this when no one literally no one even the most liberal democrats in Congress say they want to infringe on the 2nd amendment and as long as you can own one single gun in this country. It isn't infringing on that right. Also you often equate that private citizens need what police officers and military personnel need.
- Other including I don't support background checks Can you tell me why someone (a non collector) should have 50 guns?

Aristaeus said:

Lifelong ban on owning guns if you have committed a violent crime or been diagnosed with a mental ilness.

Complete ban on semi-automatics as they no good for home defence or hunting.

Restrict shop sales to licensed gun stores only.

Click to expand...

More laws. Thatt'l fix it. Not a single one of those would have stopped the Vegas massacre.

Number 2 demonstrates your complete lack of knowledge of the subject. The vast majority of the firearms sold are semi autos.

Number 3 I have no idea what you are talking about.

Polar Bum said:

But, that would be....illegal.

Don't we have laws against that?

Click to expand...

The basic premise of all gun ban proposals is that criminals would all follow the laws if we just had more laws for them to follow.

Polar Bum said:

But, that would be....illegal.

Don't we have laws against that?

Click to expand...

Murder or lying about murder? Yes there are laws against that.

TurtleDude said:

what do you think of his claim that semi autos have no value for self defense or hunting?

Click to expand...

Mehinks he has no clue what a semi auto is.

Lots of that goes around banner circles. Saw a commentator on CNN a couple days ago launch into an explanation that full auto bullets were designed to explode on impact so as to cause more damage. Another Cali state Senator gave a speech that ghost guns used 30 caliber clip magazines. Just a couple that stood out for me.

DaveFagan said:

Guns are as common as horse turds in the USA. Casual personal sales happen all the time. I don't think background checks are necessary or reliable. There is a flaw in the National Psyche that needs attention. Lack of respect for life? Citizens living in their imagination, instead of reality? A National War Policy that promotes "death and destruction" on a large scale with inadequate foundations in morality and glorified in the MSM? I grew up in a rural area and everybody has always had guns. Hundreds of millions of guns all over the USA and the problem manifests itself in our current reality suggesting the problem is not the guns, but psychological? Are background checks going to cure that????

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with your sentiment. But violence has gone down per capita steadily over the past couple of decades. If what you were saying was true we should see increased violence per capita.

What this shooter in vagas and the dozens of others indicate is that 1 in every 22 million people are unpredictable to the point they might do something like this.

Background checks wouldn't help. Person to person sales don't require one and it isn't likely that they would be controlled.. that's only if potential mass murderers will only persue fire arms legally.

Most gun control laws I probably wouldn't support, but I would be fine with background checks.

A few years ago, someone floated an idea for universal background checks that I think could work.
Whenever anyone gets a drivers license or a government ID, a background check is run.
Their license or ID has an endorsement box, which if checked, means they have passed the universal background check.
So as not to burden people who are incapable of passing a background check with employers,
liberal may choose to not include the endorsement(even if they pass the check).
Each time the license or ID is renewed, another background check is run.
If you wish to purchase a gun, present your ID showing you have passed the universal background check.
If someones status changes, that change will be picked up within the life cycle of the license.

Aristaeus said:

1.) Lifelong ban on owning guns if you have committed a violent crime or been diagnosed with a mental ilness.

2.) Complete ban on semi-automatics as they no good for home defence or hunting.

3.) Restrict shop sales to licensed gun stores only.

Click to expand...

1.) first part is unconstitutional, the second part MAYBE but you cant use the broad term of mental illness. It would have to be very specific and supported by the medical community.
2.) Well you just proved you have no idea what a semi-automatic is. NONE. FYI they are just fine for both.
3.) ? what are you calling a "shop sell"