Gun control debate (merged)

#29,126
#29,126
hog88 said:
It’s illegal for a felon to be in possession of a firearm, they know they are felons and having a gun is illegal.

The rest of your post is laughable. THEY ARE CRIMINALS, they don’t GAS about the law.
Click to expand...
The law is for the seller of the gun which was legally obtained through a background check when purchased new.

Again, I think responsable gun owners would follow the law.
 
#29,128
#29,128
MurphyVol said:
Bureau of Justice. At else 40% of rapists, 60% of robbers, etc etc has priors.

Personally, I think very few crimes are committed by responsible gun owners with legally obtained weapons.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think very few crimes are committed by responsible gun owners with legally and illegally obtained weapons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, kiddiedoc, StarRaider and 1 other person
#29,133
#29,133
85SugarVol said:
That’s against the law.

What are your thoughts on the War on Drugs? Success? Failure?
Click to expand...
It’s undoubtedly a failure, but the walking dead in the states that have abandoned any form of drug policy.. or even have started encouraging it with crack pipe and syringe vending machines… is an even worse policy.

I used to be a capital L libertarian and wanted all drugs decriminalized, but seeing what that’s done to all of those cities has made me rethink that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85 and MemphisVol77
#29,134
#29,134
85SugarVol said:
It’s all so silly.

Take away the guns, they’ll pick up a knife.
Take away the knives, they’ll pick up a bat.
Take away the bats, they’ll pick up a tire iron.

They’ll pick up a damn brick if it’s all that’s available.

But yea, the object is “the problem”.
Click to expand...
Look at the middle east. Ever since I was a kid (born 79) I remember seeing on the news people throwing rocks in the street etc. and every time I remember my mother saying those people have been throwing the same rocks since the beginning of time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: -GiveHim6-
#29,135
#29,135
hog88 said:
Used to be able to order a rifle from Sears and have it delivered by mail. So the access argument is BS.
Click to expand...
I've got a couple sweet little Saturday Night Specials my grandpa bought out of the back of magazines back in the day.
 
Last edited:
#29,136
#29,136
So no details on the shooter yet. It sounded like the initial reports said there were 2 shooters.
 
#29,138
#29,138
Christian Lowe said:
Priors don’t have to be felonies, unless it stated these priors were felonies.
Click to expand...
It was stated as felonies.

Back in the 90s a ban was put on using taxpayer funds to study gun violence (Dickey Amendment). Some funding came back after Sandy Hook, but I'll be the first to admit data is sporadic. One private study was done just by surveying gun related felons in prisons. Around 50% said they had obtained weapons through private purchases because they had felony records when they bought them.

Let me be clear, I 100% support law abiding citizens having the right the bear arms and I'm getting ready to make another purchase myself. I know any type of legislation would not be a cure all, but this is America and we have the resources and technology to do better.

I'm curious, honest question for those opposed- why are people ok with a background check at a gun store (or maybe some aren't even ok with that?) And think it's ok to sell without one in a private transaction?
 
Last edited:
#29,139
#29,139
turbovol said:
Idiotic response. Has it not occurred to you that nearly all of the people who murder people with guns were "law-abiding gun owners"
prior to committing their crimes? Apparently not--as that would require you to think. The Las Vegas shooter who killed 67 and wounded
more than 200 was a "law-abiding gun owner" before checking into that hotel and opening fire. Has it occurred to you that there are probably millions of Americans walking around with troubles or mental-health issues of one kind or another---depression, drug or alcohol addiction, anger issues, chilid-custody fights, nervous breakdown, lost job....on and on..and on?

Most of the people with mental issues in America don't even get diagnosed, much less treated. And a lot of people starting having life problems, they build over time, and they snap--and the snapping includes opening fire with guns. And if you make gun ownership very easy in a country full of people with problems, you, as states and a nation, are being grossly stupid and irresponsible. So the "I'm a law-abiding gun owner" argument doesn't mean squat--because tomorrow you might not be. But one would need to think to understand that.....
Click to expand...
This isnt even remotely true.

Gang violence is still the number 1 source of violent gun deaths. You just dont care about those cases because you cant push your agenda easily there. You dont give one crap about saving lives, you just want to control guns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, MemphisVol77, -GiveHim6- and 3 others
#29,140
#29,140
MurphyVol said:
It was stated as felonies.

Back in the 90s a ban was put on using taxpayer funds to study gun violence (Dickey Amendment). Some funding came back after Sandy Hook, but I'll be the first to admit data is sporadic. One private study was done just by surveying gun related felons in prisons. Around 50% said they had obtained weapons through private purchases because they had felony records when they bought them.

Let me be clear, I 100% support law abiding citizens having the right the bear arms and I'm getting ready to make another purchase myself. I know any type of legislation would not be a cure all, but this is America and we have the resources and technology to do better.

I'm curious, honest question for those opposed- why are people ok with a background check at a gun store (or maybe some aren't even ok with that?) And think it's ok to sell without one in a private transaction?
Click to expand...

I’m not ok with either.
 
#29,141
#29,141
MurphyVol said:
It was stated as felonies.

Back in the 90s a ban was put on using taxpayer funds to study gun violence (Dickey Amendment). Some funding came back after Sandy Hook, but I'll be the first to admit data is sporadic. One private study was done just by surveying gun related felons in prisons. Around 50% said they had obtained weapons through private purchases because they had felony records when they bought them.

Let me be clear, I 100% support law abiding citizens having the right the bear arms and I'm getting ready to make another purchase myself. I know any type of legislation would not be a cure all, but this is America and we have the resources and technology to do better.

I'm curious, honest question for those opposed- why are people ok with a background check at a gun store (or maybe some aren't even ok with that?) And think it's ok to sell without one in a private transaction?
Click to expand...
Do you support the War on Drugs?
 
#29,142
#29,142
Dems, you can enact the most draconian gun laws possible in your State and the only thing you have to do is repeal the 14th Amendment and end Incorporation Doctrine.

There should be bi-partisan support for this. Return power to the States where it belongs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#29,143
#29,143
Christian Lowe said:
He still hasn’t responded to my question as to why mass shootings weren’t ever an issue when you could walk into a gun store and buy an Uzi, but after banning the most destructive weapons for mass casualties.. the incidence skyrocketed.


That’s a total paradox to the “banning the guns will solve everything” argument.
Click to expand...
I agree with your basic argument but your facts are a little off. Full auto machine guns were basically outlawed in 1934 with that National Firearms Act. It basically placed FA, suppressors, short barreled rifles and shotguns in a class that made them hard to get. You had to purchase a $200 tax stamp, go through an extensive background check that included, finger prints, and wait an indefinite amount of time (currently around a year) prior to possession.

The Reagan 1984 law was on the production and importation side. It prohibited manufacture or importation of any full auto weapon for distribution in the US. What this did was basically limit supply of FA guns to what was currently in circulation. You can still purchase and possess FA but because of that limited supply they typically cost 10s of thousands of dollars.
 
#29,144
#29,144
VolTull said:
Thank you for that. Call me when your 62. Expect to have a different outlook.
Click to expand...
Why? He is right. When I was his age I spent a good bit of time trying to figure how to get out from under the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. And I am 62 even more pissed about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyVolette, hog88, LouderVol and 2 others
#29,145
#29,145
MurphyVol said:
As I said, a coworker bought a gun on his lunchbreak 48 hours after being released from a mental health facility. He was admitted for attempted suicide. And my state requires zero background checks for private party transactions. So actually I'm quite familiar with the process.
Click to expand...
What is the system supposed to catch in the case of your coworker?

If he was admitted for attempted suicide, it sounds like someone else "turned him in", so to speak. which means he shouldn't have been able to check himself out. Which means either the person who admitted him checked him out, or the medical professionals wherever he was, allowed him to go. If a medical professional said he was ok to be on his own, why should the state step in and say he isn't?

What would be the time delay until he gets his rights back after being cleared? 48hrs isn't enough. how long is he a second class citizen? 96 hrs? a week? a month? Does he keep his other rights, self destruction can go WELL beyond buying a gun, and a vote will do far more damage than a gun ever could.

don't you think that denying people their rights will either make their mental issues worse, or make it less likely to seek treatment knowing they will lose rights and be treated differently?

your system doesn't allow for any due process or appeals, and any system which defaults to fewer rights is unacceptable as a starting point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: -GiveHim6-, kiddiedoc, 85SugarVol and 2 others
#29,148
#29,148
LouderVol said:
What is the system supposed to catch in the case of your coworker?

If he was admitted for attempted suicide, it sounds like someone else "turned him in", so to speak. which means he shouldn't have been able to check himself out. Which means either the person who admitted him checked him out, or the medical professionals wherever he was, allowed him to go. If a medical professional said he was ok to be on his own, why should the state step in and say he isn't?

What would be the time delay until he gets his rights back after being cleared? 48hrs isn't enough. how long is he a second class citizen? 96 hrs? a week? a month? Does he keep his other rights, self destruction can go WELL beyond buying a gun, and a vote will do far more damage than a gun ever could.

don't you think that denying people their rights will either make their mental issues worse, or make it less likely to seek treatment knowing they will lose rights and be treated differently?

your system doesn't allow for any due process or appeals, and any system which defaults to fewer rights is unacceptable as a starting point.
Click to expand...
I am as constitutional as the next guy. America has a mental health issue. People who are not of sound mind do not enjoy full rights. Knowing how and when mentally unwell people are ready to be empowered with full rights and when those are to be restricted is exceptionally complex.

You're questions are valid wrt to how much time before re-empowerment. My off the cuff answer is every single case is different. A single standard is likely not a good idea. And since every case is different, fallible and corruptible humans would have to be put in charge of decided each case on its own factors. Not a good system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top