U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-06-2013, 05:26 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
21,133 posts, read 14,195,420 times
Reputation: 15655

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker View Post
Spoken like one who has never been to a gun show.... The vendors at a gun show are gun shops etc that still do background checks... Where the issue is, is individuals outside of the gun show purchasing firearms... Individual to individual requires no background check, and even if you mandated it, how are you ever going to enforce it? If I sell you my gun and you don't want a background check and I don't want the hassel of it, how do you stop such a sale with a law? Fact is, you don't.
Wrong-o. I go to at least one local show a year. There are around 4 yearly here., and I've never seen a vendor ask for anything much other than a credit card or driver's license.

IO agree with you about the difficulty of controlling in any way person to person private sales. But a concerned private gun seller should have access to the same warning sings and signals that are given to gun shops at the least.

I own a gun as do most of the folks I know, and I would never want to sell it into the wrong hands, even if there is nothing to prevent it. And here, there is nothing to prevent it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-06-2013, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Lost in Texas
9,833 posts, read 5,817,000 times
Reputation: 3404
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike View Post
Wrong-o. I go to at least one local show a year. There are around 4 yearly here., and I've never seen a vendor ask for anything much other than a credit card or driver's license.

IO agree with you about the difficulty of controlling in any way person to person private sales. But a concerned private gun seller should have access to the same warning sings and signals that are given to gun shops at the least.

I own a gun as do most of the folks I know, and I would never want to sell it into the wrong hands, even if there is nothing to prevent it. And here, there is nothing to prevent it.
When you purchase a firearm from a vendor at a gun show, you typically don't get to take the weapon until after the vendor runs a background check.. Usually the following monday. That is when you get to take your weapon.... At least that is the way it is done here, unless you have a concealed carry permit, in which case, you have already met the requirement prior to the purchase. I will only sell to a concealed carry holder and even then I am reluctant. Otherwise if I sell, I sell or trade with a vendor or gun shop. My family is the exception. I would know if they are felons or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2013, 05:33 PM
 
47,576 posts, read 60,402,919 times
Reputation: 22269
Quote:
Originally Posted by smittyjohnny38 View Post
But let's come after the law abiding. You gun grabbers would have been classified as treasonous 100 years ago when America had bal ls!





Revealed: Aurora shooter James Holmes was taking prescription antidepressants and hypnosis drugs
He also used LSD and pot.

I think they should publish all the drugs each of these mass shooters was on. Including ritalin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2013, 05:50 PM
 
225 posts, read 297,990 times
Reputation: 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by smittyjohnny38 View Post
But let's come after the law abiding. You gun grabbers would have been classified as treasonous 100 years ago when America had bal ls!





Revealed: Aurora shooter James Holmes was taking prescription antidepressants and hypnosis drugs
You said it all yourself in your first sentence. "But let's go after the law abiding". Obviously this is supposed to be sarcastic. I absolutely agree with you. We should actually be targeting people like this mass murderer and not people who only have a gun for self defense or for sport. If only we had a way of knowing he might do something like this beforehand. Oh! Perhaps if we had some sort of database that cross-referenced him as both an anti-depressant taker and a gun owner. Or maybe if he had to get something like a...you know a background check before he bought the guns in the first place. We can dream, can't we?

Wait, why do those ideas sound familiar? Oh that's right, they were actually proposed. Gun lobbyists shot them down. Here is a piece of advice. Stop being so paranoid. The government is not interested in the fact that you own a gun to protect yourself and your family. They are trying to target people like Holmes and Lanza so these mass shooting sprees no longer happen.

I hear this argument all the time: guns are supposed to protect us from the government. We are not teetering on the brink of totalitarianism. The only reason this is such a common argument is because there is a Democrat in the white house. If this were a Republican administration, you wouldn't have any problem with it because you would trust the government. You're not afraid of a tyrannical leader, you know how unlikely that scenario is, you just happen not to agree with the man in office right now and you are blowing his actions way out of proportion. There is a huge difference between you not agreeing with the president's policies and him being a tyrant.

Just to be clear, I don't support Obama. I just understand the difference between a democratically elected president and a dictator. You and other paranoid gun lovers don't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2013, 05:55 PM
 
77,576 posts, read 33,053,099 times
Reputation: 15443
Quote:
Originally Posted by montycench View Post
You said it all yourself in your first sentence. "But let's go after the law abiding". Obviously this is supposed to be sarcastic. I absolutely agree with you. We should actually be targeting people like this mass murderer and not people who only have a gun for self defense or for sport. If only we had a way of knowing he might do something like this beforehand. Oh! Perhaps if we had some sort of database that cross-referenced him as both an anti-depressant taker and a gun owner. Or maybe he had to get something like a...you know a background check before he bought the guns in the first place. We can dream, can't we?
Which is indeed all we can do until we start asking what we can do to address mental illness as opposed to how many cartridges a gun may hold.

Quote:
Wait, why do those ideas sound familiar? Oh that's right, they were actually proposed. Gun lobbyists shot them down. Here is a piece of advice. Stop being so paranoid. The government is not interested in the fact that you own a gun to protect yourself and your family. They are trying to target people like Holmes and Lanza so these mass shooting sprees no longer happen.
Could you find me the story where the government proposed that we make the health history of people public? The ACLU just came out with an argument against this, but I don't recall an actual bill that proposes this.

Quote:
I hear this argument all the time: guns are supposed to protect us from the government. We are not teetering on the brink of totalitarianism. The only reason this is such a common argument is because there is a Democrat in the white house. If this were a Republican administration, you wouldn't have any problem with it because you would trust the government. You're not afraid of a tyrannical leader, you know how unlikely that scenario is, you just happen not to agree with the man in office right now and you are blowing his actions way out of proportion. There is a huge difference between you not agreeing with the president's policies and him being a tyrant.
We wouldn't be having this argument because nobody would be trying to ban anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2013, 05:57 PM
 
Location: Lost in Texas
9,833 posts, read 5,817,000 times
Reputation: 3404
Quote:
Originally Posted by montycench View Post
You said it all yourself in your first sentence. "But let's go after the law abiding". Obviously this is supposed to be sarcastic. I absolutely agree with you. We should actually be targeting people like this mass murderer and not people who only have a gun for self defense or for sport. If only we had a way of knowing he might do something like this beforehand. Oh! Perhaps if we had some sort of database that cross-referenced him as both an anti-depressant taker and a gun owner. Or maybe if he had to get something like a...you know a background check before he bought the guns in the first place. We can dream, can't we?

Wait, why do those ideas sound familiar? Oh that's right, they were actually proposed. Gun lobbyists shot them down. Here is a piece of advice. Stop being so paranoid. The government is not interested in the fact that you own a gun to protect yourself and your family. They are trying to target people like Holmes and Lanza so these mass shooting sprees no longer happen.

I hear this argument all the time: guns are supposed to protect us from the government. We are not teetering on the brink of totalitarianism. The only reason this is such a common argument is because there is a Democrat in the white house. If this were a Republican administration, you wouldn't have any problem with it because you would trust the government. You're not afraid of a tyrannical leader, you know how unlikely that scenario is, you just happen not to agree with the man in office right now and you are blowing his actions way out of proportion. There is a huge difference between you not agreeing with the president's policies and him being a tyrant.

Just to be clear, I don't support Obama. I just understand the difference between a democratically elected president and a dictator. You and other paranoid gun lovers don't.
Golly Gee, that system is already in place and administered by the federal government!! They have done such a marvelous job of enforcement. Actually I haven't trusted the federal government since the early 70's and many of us haven't, but don't let that fact get in the way of your political ranting...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2013, 06:00 PM
 
17,752 posts, read 15,569,357 times
Reputation: 6391
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen View Post
Nancy Lanza was a responsible, law-abiding gun owner. Which I'm sure is a comfort to the parents of those dead children.
I am sure all the parents who have dead children from legally purchased automobiles, who were legally licensed to drive from their respective states, and who purchased alcohol legally are just as comforted by the abuse of freedom.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2013, 06:02 PM
 
225 posts, read 297,990 times
Reputation: 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker View Post
Golly Gee, that system is already in place and administered by the federal government!! They have done such a marvelous job of enforcement. Actually I haven't trusted the federal government since the early 70's and many of us haven't, but don't let that fact get in the way of your political ranting...
No we don't have a system like that, not in the way it's meant to work anyway. Every measure we have in place is stripped down to the point of it being completely inefficient and any attempt to fix the system is labeled as a move by people on the left to take everyone's guns away.

Last edited by montycench; 04-06-2013 at 06:13 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2013, 06:08 PM
 
225 posts, read 297,990 times
Reputation: 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Which is indeed all we can do until we start asking what we can do to address mental illness as opposed to how many cartridges a gun may hold.



Could you find me the story where the government proposed that we make the health history of people public? The ACLU just came out with an argument against this, but I don't recall an actual bill that proposes this.



We wouldn't be having this argument because nobody would be trying to ban anything.
What would you propose about the mental health issue? I choose my words carefully which is why I mentioned "cross-referencing" in a database. Having a mental illness by itself isn't enough evidence to make that person a potential threat just as owning a gun by itself isn't enough evidence to make someone a potential threat. Put them together however, now you've got a very specific set of circumstances that very often leads to mass shootings.

As for making the health history of people public, I never said anything about making it public. Background checks and other similar measures would only be there to give the police a heads up. "Hey this guy lives near a school, has a history of mental illness and has guns in the house, maybe we should keep an eye on this guy."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2013, 06:17 PM
 
77,576 posts, read 33,053,099 times
Reputation: 15443
Quote:
Originally Posted by montycench View Post
What would you propose about the mental health issue. I choose my words carefully which is why I mentioned "cross-referencing" in a database. Having a mental illness by itself isn't enough evidence to make that person a potential threat just as owning a gun by itself isn't enough evidence to make someone a potential threat. Put them together however, now you've got a very specific set of circumstances that very often leads to mass shootings.
Someone with a mental health issue that makes him a threat to society doesn't become a threat when he shows up on a gun registry also. Adam Lanza would have not shown up in a cross reference.

Those with these issues also kill in many different ways. From pushing people off of subway platforms to placing bombs in people's mailboxes.

How we deal with those with mental health issues is a very difficult question that I admit to not having all the answers but like I said, we never come up with any solutions until that becomes the discussion.

Quote:
As for making the health history of people public, I never said anything about making it public. Background checks and other similar measures would only be there to give the police a heads up. "Hey this guy lives near a school, has a history of mental illness and has guns in the house, maybe we should keep an eye on this guy."
As opposed to trying to get him treatment? He gets his own private around the clock surveillance?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top