DaVinci 0 #151 February 1, 2011 Quoteyes, but to drive, you have to prove that you are competent to drive, you have to be educated in driving and then tested in driving.....albeit minimal And to carry a gun you have to prove you are competent, be educated, and are tested.....albeit minimally QuoteFor guns, there is no such test False. To carry you must pass a class. Both guns and cars have no requirement to OWN them, only use them. QuoteI am all for a requirement to own and use a gun, the user must have taken and passed gun handling, gun safety programs. Along with recurrent training to maintain that rating. To carry a gun you must do all of that in most States. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #152 February 1, 2011 QuoteIt takes no skill to use the gun at close range either. None. Wrong. If you are correct, why did he only manage to kill 6 when he had magazines that held 30 rounds? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #153 February 1, 2011 QuoteLast year, Arizona become the third state to make it legal for adults to carry a concealed weapon without getting training and a background check. In 2009, the big change was allowing armed people in bars and restaurants, if they're not drinking alcohol and the establishments haven't posted signs against it." Oh yes, untrained people without any background check carrying in bars. Really helpful. This was not in a bar.... and there have been no cases of a gun fight in a bar caused by this... So your argument has no data and is just hot air. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #154 February 1, 2011 You just insult people that disagree with you. When you ask people questions, you demand an answer. When people ask you questions... you tell them to do a search. Hypocrisy at its best. QuoteDo you think the current state of the laws that allow disturbed people like Cho and Loughner easily to obtain weapons Cho and Loughner both had mental issues that were known about. In both cases the STATE and the SCHOOL failed in reporting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #155 February 1, 2011 QuoteDoesn't have to be, it's an inalienable human right. So is the right to self defense.... Ask Blackstone and the SC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #156 February 1, 2011 Quote QuoteDo you think the current state of the laws that allow disturbed people like Cho and Loughner easily to obtain weapons Cho and Loughner both had mental issues that were known about. In both cases the STATE and the SCHOOL failed in reporting. Cho, probably. Loughner, not likely. 'Guy acting weird' isn't a reportable event. They're unqualified to say more than that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #157 February 1, 2011 QuoteCho, probably. Loughner, not likely. 'Guy acting weird' isn't a reportable event. They're unqualified to say more than that. Cho had been sent to an eval... But that info was not allowed to be reported to the State. Loughner was told he could not come back to school without a letter from a shrink since he was deemed a "danger to himself and others" So both had documented mental issues. The VA law was changed after Cho (with the support of the NRA BTW). There was hard data that Cho had an issue... Less with Loughner. But there was some data available. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,032 #158 February 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteyes, but to drive, you have to prove that you are competent to drive, you have to be educated in driving and then tested in driving.....albeit minimal And to carry a gun you have to prove you are competent, be educated, and are tested.....albeit minimally QuoteFor guns, there is no such test False. To carry you must pass a class. Both guns and cars have no requirement to OWN them, only use them. There are states where no such requirements exist. Quote QuoteI am all for a requirement to own and use a gun, the user must have taken and passed gun handling, gun safety programs. Along with recurrent training to maintain that rating. To carry a gun you must do all of that in most States. There are states where no such requirements exist.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billeisele 130 #159 February 2, 2011 maybe I should buy or just steal a plane, I've got the skill to take off and fly, point it at something, jump out, then they can talk about banning planes joking of course but to even suggest banning guns in the US is a nonstarterGive one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #160 February 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteCho, probably. Loughner, not likely. 'Guy acting weird' isn't a reportable event. They're unqualified to say more than that. Cho had been sent to an eval... But that info was not allowed to be reported to the State. Loughner was told he could not come back to school without a letter from a shrink since he was deemed a "danger to himself and others" So both had documented mental issues. The VA law was changed after Cho (with the support of the NRA BTW). There was hard data that Cho had an issue... Less with Loughner. But there was some data available. Well, you're stretching reality to include those evaluators and school personnel as qualified to deem someone as having mental issues and issue certifications to that effect. Personal opinions, even yours and mine, don't count even if the subject truly does have "mental issues". Who gets to put the weirdo in for true psychiatric evaluation? His professor? Me? You? Who gets to say, "I think this guy is a nutter. Put him through the evaluation process to see if he's truly a "mental case" that should be banned from participating in our free society." As far as I know, only a judge can do that. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think even Florida's Baker Act needs an eventual judge's sign-off.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #161 February 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteCho, probably. Loughner, not likely. 'Guy acting weird' isn't a reportable event. They're unqualified to say more than that. Cho had been sent to an eval... But that info was not allowed to be reported to the State. Loughner was told he could not come back to school without a letter from a shrink since he was deemed a "danger to himself and others" So both had documented mental issues. One was documented by a professional. The other was not. The school can only say that they were unsure, and weren't inviting him back until a professional evaluation was given. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #162 February 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteCho, probably. Loughner, not likely. 'Guy acting weird' isn't a reportable event. They're unqualified to say more than that. Cho had been sent to an eval... But that info was not allowed to be reported to the State. Sent to an eval isn't a reportable event. QuoteLoughner was told he could not come back to school without a letter from a shrink since he was deemed a "danger to himself and others" Who deemed him a danger to himself or others? A judge can say that all he wants, but it has to be confirmed by a psych eval before it can be reported.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #163 February 2, 2011 QuoteThere are states where no such requirements exist. So? In every State there is a requirement to go through a background check to buy a gun from a dealer... no State has the requirement for a car. QuoteThere are states where no such requirements exist. That is why I said MOST. But like normal you are unable to debate on the ISSUE and instead throw a strawman. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #164 February 2, 2011 QuoteWell, you're stretching reality to include those evaluators and school personnel as qualified to deem someone as having mental issues and issue certifications to that effect. No, I am saying they could have reported him to people who could have made that call. This is why I said "There was hard data that Cho had an issue... Less with Loughner. But there was some data available." QuoteWho gets to say, "I think this guy is a nutter. Put him through the evaluation process to see if he's truly a "mental case" that should be banned from participating in our free society." I would think a Judge after discussing the issue with a Dr. that is qualified to make that kind of call. My point is that we had such data on Cho and it was not reported. And that Loughner had indications that could (maybe should) have led to further investigations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #165 February 2, 2011 BTW, still waiting for you to answer these: 1. This was not in a bar.... and there have been no cases of a gun fight in a bar caused by this... So your argument has no data and is just hot air. 2. So is the right to self defense.... Ask Blackstone and the SC Failure to provide an answer will be taken as your inability to provide one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #166 February 2, 2011 QuoteSent to an eval isn't a reportable event. Cho's case it was since it was ordered by a JUDGE. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/us/21guns.html "After an investigation, a Virginia special justice declared Cho mentally ill and ordered him to attend treatment." And if you have read the report about the incident it freely admits there were failures in the reporting and the NRA and the VPC joined together to close those loopholes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #167 February 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteSent to an eval isn't a reportable event. Cho's case it was since it was ordered by a JUDGE. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/us/21guns.html "After an investigation, a Virginia special justice declared Cho mentally ill and ordered him to attend treatment." And if you have read the report about the incident it freely admits there were failures in the reporting and the NRA and the VPC joined together to close those loopholes. Huge changes to Virginia law followed from the Cho case. Not just related to guns and reporting, either. Also relaxed teh standards to have somebody committed, created better tracking of treatment, etc."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #168 February 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteSent to an eval isn't a reportable event. Cho's case it was since it was ordered by a JUDGE. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/us/21guns.html "After an investigation, a Virginia special justice declared Cho mentally ill and ordered him to attend treatment." That's not "committed to a mental institution", sorry. QuoteAnd if you have read the report about the incident it freely admits there were failures in the reporting and the NRA and the VPC joined together to close those loopholes. States making sure they report to NICS is a good thing - so long as they ALSO report clearances.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,032 #169 February 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteThere are states where no such requirements exist. So? In every State there is a requirement to go through a background check to buy a gun from a dealer... no State has the requirement for a car. QuoteThere are states where no such requirements exist. That is why I said MOST. But like normal you are unable to debate on the ISSUE and instead throw a strawman. It's not a strawman, it's a fact that anyone can bypass a background check by going to one of 33 states.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,032 #170 February 2, 2011 QuoteBTW, still waiting for you to answer these: 1. This was not in a bar.... and there have been no cases of a gun fight in a bar caused by this... So your argument has no data and is just hot air. 2. So is the right to self defense.... Ask Blackstone and the SC Failure to provide an answer will be taken as your inability to provide one. Who do you think you are, Emperor of the Universe?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 806 #171 February 2, 2011 It's not a "bypass" when it's not required. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #172 February 2, 2011 Quote It's not a strawman, it's a fact that anyone can bypass a background check by going to one of 33 states. it would be (at least one) a felony for me to do so. So I could save myself a lot of driving and commit one locally instead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #173 February 2, 2011 >It's not a "bypass" when it's not required. Sort of the definition of a bypass. If there's a bypass around a city, it means you're not required to pass through it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,032 #174 February 2, 2011 Quote>It's not a "bypass" when it's not required. Sort of the definition of a bypass. If there's a bypass around a city, it means you're not required to pass through it. It's the same lame argument that mnealtx uses. Trouble is, we all know it's lame.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 806 #175 February 2, 2011 Like the numbers you post to 'support' your side??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
