2405 shot dead since Tucson

[Kennedy 0]

He doesn't want felons and insane people to get guns any more than you want to completely take away everyone's constitutional rights. Now stop with your pedantic one liners. They don't accomplish anything. Honestly I'd like to discuss the issue with you, but I don't know where you stand, and all you've done is snipe at one small parts of posts or fire off your snide remarks.

Can you point to a post where you've clearly stated your position? Or will you do so now?

How would you define "loony" in terms of denying gun rights to citizens? Do you want to strengthen the system in place where those convicted of certain crimes and those adjudicated incompetent or insane are denied rights, or would you expand it in some way?

Do you want current purchasing laws enforced, or do you want to expand them?

Should every citizen be restrained and controlled so that no person can ever break gun laws?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[normiss 800]

Pass me some popcorn please.
Care for a beer?

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

www.newsweek.com/2011/03/13/2-405-shot-dead-since-tucson.html

So...got a breakdown on how many of them needed shooting?

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Why do YOU want it to be easy for felons and loonies to buy guns?

Show us the numbers for the people that have been adjudicated deficient or admitted to a mental institution who have then bought guns, then we'll discuss how 'easy' it is.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Can you point to a post where you've clearly stated your position? Or will you do so now?

?

ALL purchases should require a background check to ensure that the new 'owner' is not legally disqualified from owning a gun. Right now the majority of states don't require a NICS check on private sales.

Reporting cracks like the one Cho fell through should all be closed.

Nationwide uniformity - can't get around the law by going to a lax state.

To John Rich - a felon is a felon, someone who has held the law in contempt.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Nationwide uniformity - can't get around the law by going to a lax state.

Ah, still on that less than 1%, eh John?

"A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides."

So much for that 'lax state' bullcrap. Maybe you should spend some time learning what the laws actually ARE before spouting off on what you think they SHOULD be.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

ALL purchases should require a background check to ensure that the new 'owner' is not legally disqualified from owning a gun. Right now the majority of states don't require a NICS check on private sales.

If it stopped there, a lot of folks wouldn't argue with you. But I have to ask the related questions:
Should those background checks be recorded by seller, buyer, and make/model/serial of the firearm? Or should it be erased as soon as it is approved?

Quote

Reporting cracks like the one Cho fell through should all be closed.

I would be a fan of a simple and clear form for judges that has no purpose other than to report any adjuicated incompetant, insane, and for all convicted felons on the date of conviction.

Have you got anything in mind beyond better reporting by judges, and more referral to judges by concerned parties?

Quote

Nationwide uniformity - can't get around the law by going to a lax state.

No such thing. See post above.

Quote

To John Rich - a felon is a felon, someone who has held the law in contempt.

I agree with the caveat that any felon has the right to petition a court to restore his rights. Again, I think this is as it should be, because it goes through the courts and provides due process. It's not a "never-ever" or a "handing out lolly-pops" solution.


Now, for the clear stating of your position/views:

So what do you think about requiring registration of all firearms?

What do you think about storage requirements of private firearms kept on private property?

What do you think about limiting magazine capacity?

What do you think about private ownership of handguns?

What do you think about private ownership of military styled semi-auto rifles?

What do you think about private ownership of select-fire or full-auto firearms?

What do you think about concealed carry? Should it be banned, licensed, or unlicensed?

What do you think about open carry of firearms? Should it be banned, licensed, or unlicensed?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[normiss 800]

Bear in mind it is possible for a non-violent felon to have this right restored.
I agree with this.

[regulator 0]

There are simply too many ways for humans to die to just limit one medium and say that 'this was the sole reason these people were murdered'. I'm not a gun nut by any stretch of the imagination, but it was clearly crazy people who pulled the trigger of these guns and not the guns that went off by themselves and started assasinating everyone. So I was thinking about some more stringent laws that would prevent nutjobs from getting a gun legally...Like say make a requirement that the person has had stable employment for several years in a row....no that wont work...look at Dennis Radar...the BTK killer...he had a college degree, had been working for the Coleman company for several years WHILE he was killing people...so if having stable employment AND a college degree didnt prevent these psychos from murdering people then what extra laws or restrictions could we as a nation implement to limit the crazies from killing others? Probably not a lot...because if they couldnt use guns, they'd grab the next thing that would do the trick. Guns arent the problem or the solution. They're just the medium.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

I would be much more OK with expanding the list of crimes that would put you on the no-purchase list. Violent misdemeanors, for example.

Would you be just as willing to REMOVE non-violent felons from the no-gun list?
For example, an accountant who embezzled money, served his time, and paid restitution?

Well, I personally have very little sympathy for felons so I certainly don't have any big reason to allow gun rights to felons even if they are non-violent. Commit a felony and you forfeit your rights.

My main point was simply that any sort of psychological or psychiatric treatment or diagnosis is a very poor indicator that a person might become violent. Psychiatrists, psychologists, even judges, have very poor predictive powers with which to deny rights to somebody. The best predictor of future violence is a history of violence. That is a far better predictor then some kind of psychological diagnosis or even commitment. This is true both for those with mental illness and for those without a diagnosed mental illness.

Barring gun rights for people with violent misdemeanors would (IMHO) do more to reduce gun violence than a wholesale blanket ban on everybody who has ever received psychiatric treatment. It is also, again in my opinion, a far more reasonable basis on which to deny somebody a right (criminal=some forfeiture of rights).

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

To John Rich - a felon is a felon, someone who has held the law in contempt.

People who commit repeated misdemeanors aren't holding the law in contempt?
People who repeatedly get speeding tickets aren't holding the law in contempt?
Skydivers who repeatedly freefall through clouds aren't holding the law in contempt?

If your gun rights litmus test is simply "people who hold the law in contempt", rather than "people who have demonstrated that they are violent", then it should make no difference whether it's felonies or misdemeanors. Deny 'em a gun!

Why do you want it to be easy for misdemeanant loonies with contempt for the law to buy guns?

[futuredivot 0]

First question got ignored so I'll try a second. Out of that 2K plus victims, how many would have had a better chance at being alive if they had been armed? How many are dear because they are were armed, and once again-how many of them just needed to be shot?

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Why do you want it to be easy for felons and loonies to buy guns?

Define nutter, nutcase, and loonie.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Why do you want it to be easy for felons and loonies to buy guns?

Define nutter, nutcase, and loonie.

Cho is a good example. Why would YOU have wanted him to be able to buy a gun with no difficulty?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Define nutter, nutcase, and loonie.

Cho is a good example. Why would YOU have wanted him to be able to buy a gun with no difficulty?

He didn't ask for an example; he asked for a definition. If the best you can do is point them out by their actions, then you have no way of preventing them from getting guns. If they're not crazy until they shoot people, then how do you stop crazies from getting guns? (without banning everyone from getting them, that is)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why do you want it to be easy for felons and loonies to buy guns?

Define nutter, nutcase, and loonie.

Cho is a good example. Why would YOU have wanted him to be able to buy a gun with no difficulty?

Ok, no guns for felons and that guy. I'm good with that.

Now who else? Is he your only sample set for "nutter, nutcase, and loonie"?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[Lefty 0]

Quote

Is he your only sample set for "nutter, nutcase, and loonie"?

And Cho's identification is after-the-fact, even.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Define nutter, nutcase, and loonie.

Cho is a good example. Why would YOU have wanted him to be able to buy a gun with no difficulty?

He didn't ask for an example; he asked for a definition. If the best you can do is point them out by their actions, then you have no way of preventing them from getting guns. If they're not crazy until they shoot people, then how do you stop crazies from getting guns? (without banning everyone from getting them, that is)

ding dind ding ding

We have a winner

In all seriousness

kallend went here once before and in the end, his "solutions" would have effectively been a ban

He of course denies that but the fact is you have, as of yet, been unable to get any straight answer out of him and, because of he really exposing his real views once before (and getting blasted for them) he will not go there again

No conviction of any kink IMO

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Define nutter, nutcase, and loonie.

Cho is a good example. Why would YOU have wanted him to be able to buy a gun with no difficulty?

He didn't ask for an example; he asked for a definition. If the best you can do is point them out by their actions, then you have no way of preventing them from getting guns. If they're not crazy until they shoot people, then how do you stop crazies from getting guns? (without banning everyone from getting them, that is)

ding dind ding ding

We have a winner

In all seriousness

kallend went here once before and in the end, his "solutions" would have effectively been a ban

He of course denies that but the fact is you have, as of yet, been unable to get any straight answer out of him and, because of he really exposing his real views once before (and getting blasted for them) he will not go there again

No conviction of any kink IMO

Hey if you start convicting those with all those kinks.... you would not have much of a party left.

[Kennedy 0]

Haven't heard from you, so I thought I'd try again in case you missed the replies.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Define nutter, nutcase, and loonie.

Cho is a good example. Why would YOU have wanted him to be able to buy a gun with no difficulty?

He didn't ask for an example; he asked for a definition. If the best you can do is point them out by their actions, then you have no way of preventing them from getting guns. If they're not crazy until they shoot people, then how do you stop crazies from getting guns? (without banning everyone from getting them, that is)

Anything to say about a definition?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

That means a background check on ALL purchases - no exceptions.

Yet you bitched like hell when the ATF wanted to look into rocket motors, the FAA looked at Radio Controlled planes, the FAA blocked certain no fly zones.

The thing is that is clear you are against regulation against your favorite things, but for regulation for anything you dislike.

Typical.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Ok. good start
Now, how many of those you list as killed were murdered under the following situations.

First, how many were killed using gun purchased with no back ground check (ie private purchase)?

Second, how many were killed (of the number you list) by people who got thier guns by a means other than a legal purchase? (in other words, those who are banned already but found a loop hole to get a gun)

Lets see your data Dr...... Unless you just want to admit you do not have any and are just making up things.

Still waiting on your DEFINITION of "loony" as well.

[DougH 270]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why do you want it to be easy for felons and loonies to buy guns?

Define nutter, nutcase, and loonie.

Cho is a good example. Why would YOU have wanted him to be able to buy a gun with no difficulty?

Unless you remove all guns from society completely you will allways have some people gain access to weapons who really shouldn't have access at all.

It is unavoidable, and all the gun laws in the world won't change this unless you get rid of all of the guns.

So since you have to acknowledge that guns will get into the wrong hands, why restrict them from people who are stable law abiding citizens?

You reference the VA tech masacre. Why would you want all of Cho's victems to be legally barred from carrying weapons on campus? If there were several armed students do you think that may have changed the events of that day?

Gun free zones are only safe until some one like Cho shows up, then they are victim zones, without enough security and police to protect everyone.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why do you want it to be easy for felons and loonies to buy guns?

Define nutter, nutcase, and loonie.

Cho is a good example. Why would YOU have wanted him to be able to buy a gun with no difficulty?

Unless you remove all guns from society completely you will allways have some people gain access to weapons who really shouldn't have access at all.

It is unavoidable, and all the gun laws in the world won't change this unless you get rid of all of the guns.

So since you have to acknowledge that guns will get into the wrong hands, why restrict them from people who are stable law abiding citizens?

You reference the VA tech masacre. Why would you want all of Cho's victems to be legally barred from carrying weapons on campus? If there were several armed students do you think that may have changed the events of that day?

Gun free zones are only safe until some one like Cho shows up, then they are victim zones, without enough security and police to protect everyone.

STRAWMAN.

No-one has suggested preventing stable law abiding citizens from getting guns.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DougH 270]

No it isn't a strawman argument. I did not claim that anyone here was suggesting keeping stable law abiding citizens from getting guns.

What I am saying is that despite our best efforts sometimes the wrong people will get their hands on guns and will try to get their 5 minutes of fame. Any system you come up with to keep the guns out of the wrong hands will fail on occasion, and will somtimes fail with disasterous results. Cho shouldn't have been able to purchase his two weapons under current laws, but the system broke down.

Would you agree that as long as there is any private ownership of guns in this country that that systems can break down and people like Cho can get there hands on guns?

And while you took the time to call strawman on me, you didn't anwser my other question about gun free zones. You brought up Cho and VA Tech, which brings up the whole question about gun free zones.

Do you think the VA Tech shootings could have played out differently there were legally armed students among those attacked?

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P