All we want are background checks!!

[NeverTrump]

He did not say "only reason". He gave his reason. Here's the list of mass shooters: US Mass Shootings, 1982-2017: Data From Mother Jones’ Investigation – Mother Jones

How many of them used more than say, three guns? Surely someone could own three guns, right?

OK then maybe you'd like to answer my question. What other reasons other than the ones already mentioned is there to have 50+ guns?

 

[TaterTots]

If we're looking at the Vegas terrorist attack and trying to figure out how we could of made that more difficult. There are a few things. First of all, I am aware he passed a background check, so I won't entertain that for now.

1. Obviously, the bump stocks he used. Thanks to an accessory, he was able to take a lot more shots in a shorter amount of time than he could of without it. There could of been less deaths and injuries. Yes, I am aware he could of modified the firearms himself, but he didn't have to do that. We made it easier for him by being able to purchase it legally.

2. Seeing the firearms in the hotel room, he had high capacity magazines. Again, this allowed him to take more shots in less time without having to reload. Also, all obtained legally.

As far as some of you speaking about hunting with a semi automatic; I've been hunting off and on for 15 years. I've never seen anyone in the field with a semi automatic firearm with a high capacity magazine.

 

[Rucker61]

OK then maybe you'd like to answer my question. What other reasons other than the ones already mentioned is there to have 50+ guns?

Simply wanting to. There's no reason to be concerned about the reasons someone wants 50 guns.

Can I think of fifty guns I'd want off the top of my head? Not likely, by why is "50" the magic number? What if "20" is the number that starts to scare people about "arsenals"? I can certainly think of 20 guns I'd own if I were a millionaire.

 

[Rucker61]

If we're looking at the Vegas terrorist attack and trying to figure out how we could of made that more difficult. There are a few things. First of all, I am aware he passed a background check, so I won't entertain that for now.

1. Obviously, the bump stocks he used. Thanks to an accessory, he was able to take a lot more shots in a shorter amount of time than he could of without it. There could of been less deaths and injuries. Yes, I am aware he could of modified the firearms himself, but he didn't have to do that. We made it easier for him by being able to purchase it legally.

Not "we". The Obama Administration.

2. Seeing the firearms in the hotel room, he had high capacity magazines. Again, this allowed him to take more shots in less time without having to reload. Also, all obtained legally.

Legal, yes. Whether the short time spent reloading would have had any measurable effect is unknown. Are "high capacity" magazines useful for a militia?

As far as some of you speaking about hunting with a semi automatic; I've been hunting off and on for 15 years. I've never seen anyone in the field with a semi automatic firearm with a high capacity magazine.

Then you've never been prairie dog hunting in the West. In most places that allow semi-autos for hunting big game, you are limited to a 5 round magazine for hunting purposes. For any other use, standard capacity magazines are fine. That's one bonus for the AR platform: with a single lower (the actual firearm), I can swap out the uppers for specific tasks - one in .22-250 for prairie dogs, in 5.56mm for 3 gun, in 6.8 SPC for deer hunting and in .300 Blackout for home defense.

 

[TurtleDude]

Simply wanting to. There's no reason to be concerned about the reasons someone wants 50 guns.

Can I think of fifty guns I'd want off the top of my head? Not likely, by why is "50" the magic number? What if "20" is the number that starts to scare people about "arsenals"? I can certainly think of 20 guns I'd own if I were a millionaire.

I am one and I own lots of guns. end of story. the idiots who want to ban stuff are a good reason to buy more

 

[NeverTrump]

Simply wanting to. There's no reason to be concerned about the reasons someone wants 50 guns.

Can I think of fifty guns I'd want off the top of my head? Not likely, by why is "50" the magic number? What if "20" is the number that starts to scare people about "arsenals"? I can certainly think of 20 guns I'd own if I were a millionaire.

I am one and I own lots of guns. end of story. the idiots who want to ban stuff are a good reason to buy more

Thanks for finally answering the question. I guess I just think it should be harder to buy a gun than it is to get on an airplane or apply for a job in the government.
I really don't get the gun fetish, and I've been in ROTC. So I know the basics. Just not my thing.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

You didn't answer my question. As someone who is TRYING to understand, why do you want to own 50 guns? What is the purpose of having 50 guns. I collect coins. I like collecting coins. Some people don't get it and that's fine by me. So I think it's just a weird fetish some people have. If I am wrong, then tell me why. Don't just refuse to debate someone because you think you know more than them on the subject.

Most of my guns were passed down to me from father and grandfather. Anther source of my guns were bought for my by my brother, brother-in-law, uncles, cousins, and good friends I used to shoot with. Then there are the 15 guns I bought for myself. A lot of them were real good deals from friends who purchased nice guns and then lost interest. All of a sudden I had close to 50 guns. Most I haven't shot in 30 years now. Today I do not even have a gun.

Of course everyone I live with or are around has plenty of guns and I am more than welcome to use them any time I wish. I have given all my guns to my brother who is an avid firearms collector the same as I am a coin collector. They are kept in better condition than when I gave them to him. He enjoys target shooting and does so an regular basis. Plus he is required to carry a concealed gun for his job in DC. Of course nobody can know what that is. I think he works on weather satellites.

The house I am currently living in has several guns but they are owned by my mother who does have a conceal carry permit. Of course she most likely hand it to me to shoot if something happened. I don't miss.

 

[Rucker61]

Thanks for finally answering the question. I guess I just think it should be harder to buy a gun than it is to get on an airplane or apply for a job in the government.
I really don't get the gun fetish, and I've been in ROTC. So I know the basics. Just not my thing.

If you refer to "gun fetish", you're not here to debate.

 

[NeverTrump]

If you refer to "gun fetish", you're not here to debate.

How is it not a fetish?

 

[Rucker61]

How is it not a fetish?

How are owning and using guns a fetish?

 

[Moon]

NO! Stop lying! We just don't give a damn if shootings happen every day! We're all horrible people!

You're right, I stand corrected. Must follow the narrative.

 

[Moon]

You just said the only reason someone would need 50 guns other than being a collector (who I think should be registered as one) is because they are competitive shooters. Otherwise gun limits should be fine

So you're back to citizens having to argue need in order to exercise a constitutionally protected right? You okay with applying the same type of requirement in order to exercise your 1st amendment rights, or maybe your 4th or 5th amendment rights?

 

[NeverTrump]

So you're back to citizens having to argue need in order to exercise a constitutionally protected right? You okay with applying the same type of requirement in order to exercise your 1st amendment rights, or maybe your 4th or 5th amendment rights?

Before we do that, the amendment should at the least be updated

 

[NeverTrump]

How are owning and using guns a fetish?

A fetish is considered an excessive and irrational devotion or commitment to a particular thing or object. That describes everybody obsessed with guns who isn't using them for self defense.

 

[Manc Skipper]

All we want is for fewer people to die unnecessarily. Bump-stocks are a devices for maximising deaths. Large capacity magazines, likewise. Ban those. Simple practical steps to reduce the death toll.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I support background checks to ensure the buyer isn't on probation/parole or has any warrants or restraining orders. Those are all things that required due process.

 

[TurtleDude]

I should clarify my 2nd point. I was talking about semi-auto rifles or 'assault weapons' such as AK47s or M16s.

Point 3: by shop sell, I mean you wouldn't be able to by them in Walmart, etc.

OMG another great bit of ignorance

M16s are fully automatic weapons and haven't been able to be sold to anyone but government operatives if they were made after may 19, 1986

 

[Japle]

RE: “Universal Background Checks.”
Most people who buy guns already own at least one. If they intend to commit a crime, they’re already armed.
The overwhelming majority of gun buyers are law-abiding. They’ll never use their guns for criminal purposes. Running background checks on them is a waste of time, money and resources.
Example:
I bought a 1943 Enfield rifle from a buddy last year. I own several guns, have a Concealed Carry permit and am a retired military officer with no criminal history. But under a UBC law, I’d have had to take the gun to a dealer and have him run a background check. Under the failed 2015 Senate bill, the dealer could charge up to a $125 fee, plus the $5 background check fee. That’s not pocket change, especially since the gun is only worth $200.

Does anyone out there think criminals will go through a dealer? Personally, I sorta doubt it. Law abiding citizens would be stuck with the expense and inconvenience of a UBC law, but criminals would ignore the law, just as they ignore all laws. It wouldn’t reduce gun crime in the slightest. Criminals would get their guns the same way they get their cocaine and heroin. Those drugs are illegal everywhere, but available and easy to buy everywhere.

The real purpose of a UBC law is to discourage people from buying guns by making it more difficult and expensive. No one actually thinks it would reduce crime. Of the untold thousands of people who committed a Federal crime by lying on the Federal form when trying to buy a gun from a dealer and were rejected, only a few have been charged. For a criminal, it’s a no-lose proposition. If he doesn’t pass the BC, it’s no big deal. He can just go buy his gun on the street.

Oh, and one more thing: A Universal Background Check law would work only – and I can’t stress this enough – only if it’s combined with total gun registration.
If I buy a gun in a private sale and don’t go to a dealer for a BC, who’s to know? There’s no gun registration in Florida and it’s the same in most states. There’s no way for the cops to know the sale ever happened if they don’t know who owned the gun in the first place.
“Honestly, Officer, I’ve had this gun for years!”

Without total gun registration, a Universal Background Check law would be unenforceable.
Given the present lack of enthusiasm for Federal gun control and the recent Supreme Court decisions, there’s not a chance in hell that any of this will pass.

 

[Slyfox696]

on another thread or perhaps this one I clearly noted that the multiple sales report only applies to handguns.

Thank you for confirming that.

the ATF and the other law enforcement agencies almost never prosecute FELONS who LIE on the form 4473 and have thus committed perjury.

So you would like to see stricter enforcement on this issue?

Yet we hear people saying the federal government should investigate people who DO PASS that check but buy lots of guns.

In an ideal world, do you have a problem with that?

If the government doesn't have the resources to go and arrest FELONS who are trying to buy guns where are they going to get the resources (and the statutory power) to interrogate people who have clean records?

I find it hard to believe the government doesn't have the resources, more that they just don't have the desire. Perhaps this is another place where we can beef up gun control and set up stricter enforcement procedures?

there is NOTHING in terms of additional laws that would have stopped this guy.

Again, it's not about stopping this guy, it's about stopping future guys, would you not agree?

 

[VanceMack]

Yes...this is just how stupid they are.

 

[Lursa]

I support commercial sales background checks that look for convicted felons and certain standards for mental illness. ID should verify age to prevent minors from purchasing.

 

[TurtleDude]

I support commercial sales background checks that look for convicted felons and certain standards for mental illness. ID should include age to prevent minors from purchasing.

the brady bill is a waste of time according to several studies and a correct interpretation of the tenth amendment would prevent it but its not a real issue to me as long as those wrongly denied can seek compensation and damages

 

[TaterTots]

Not "we". The Obama Administration.



Legal, yes. Whether the short time spent reloading would have had any measurable effect is unknown. Are "high capacity" magazines useful for a militia?




Then you've never been prairie dog hunting in the West. In most places that allow semi-autos for hunting big game, you are limited to a 5 round magazine for hunting purposes. For any other use, standard capacity magazines are fine. That's one bonus for the AR platform: with a single lower (the actual firearm), I can swap out the uppers for specific tasks - one in .22-250 for prairie dogs, in 5.56mm for 3 gun, in 6.8 SPC for deer hunting and in .300 Blackout for home defense.

If you want to point fingers at the Obama administration, then why not be heroes and ban that accessory again? Ya know, "thanks to Obamas admin, but we're here to fix it!"

He had more rounds to fire at once without having to slow down too much. If he was reloading more, then that would of gave extra time for people to seek cover. Basic idea really. Isn't the standard issued rifle in the military a M16? That has a 30 cartridge capacity. The shooter had 100 cartridge magazines in his room. What are you saying?

 

[Moon]

Before we do that, the amendment should at the least be updated

Update it how?

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

I find it hard to believe the government doesn't have the resources, more that they just don't have the desire

We can't secure our border. We can't deport criminals from other countries being released from our prisons. We cannot afford to keep the people in prison we know are still dangerous.

Instead we release them back on the street and hope that they don't commit more crimes.:lamo

Again, it's not about stopping this guy, it's about stopping future guys, would you not agree?

Background checks clearly were of absolutely no use in stopping this man. They will not stop the next person that goes nuts and decides to kill a bunch of people. You want to stop the killings then we need to address the root cause of most killings. That is the mental status of the person. When we start checking on the mental health of our people as much as we check their blood pressure we will start to fix the problem.