Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
 
Old 11-04-2015, 07:25 PM
 
Location: Eastern Shore of Maryland
5,940 posts, read 3,573,294 times
Reputation: 5651

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
And I bet you would support getting rid of a number of those checks.

I would.

 
Old 11-04-2015, 07:26 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,187,290 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
there you go again, being completely ignorant as usual. instant background checks are acceptable, since they DONT infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.


no i dont support eliminating those checks, i feel they are there for good reason. i dont want criminals to get their hands on guns, and this takes away an avenue for them to do so.

so please stop your crap postings, and get back to posting intelligently.
Okay, so instant background checks don't infringe, but that doesn't change the fact that others think that background checks to begin with are useless because criminals will still get guns for cheaper on the black market, so why have background checks?

So you counter those on this site that think background checks don't do anything to prevent criminals from getting guns. Making so criminals can't buy a gun in a gun store isn't an issue because those guns are cheaper on the streets.

What crap are you referring to? Is there something wrong with me agreeing with those that think background checks are useless? I have read over the reasoning against them, and it makes sense, if it isn't preventing anyone from access to guns, then what's the point in having background checks?
 
Old 11-04-2015, 07:28 PM
 
Location: NJ
23,558 posts, read 17,232,713 times
Reputation: 17599
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
Gun safety rankings by state

In 2014, the most recent year for which ratings were available, 27 states received an “F” in the center’s analysis. America Tonight looked at the 10 states with the highest gun death rate and what kind of gun laws they have — or don’t have, according to the 2014 report card.

All the following earned an "F" grade...

1. Wyoming

In Wyoming, private sellers don’t have to run background checks on buyers. The state also doesn’t require gun owners to have a license, register their guns or report when firearms are lost or stolen. It doesn’t regulate the sale or ownership of large capacity ammunition magazines or assault weapons. In 2011, Wyoming became the fourth state to allow residents to carry concealed guns in public without a license or permit.

2. Louisiana

In 2014, the state passed a law that makes it harder for those convicted of domestic abuse and battery to get guns. But in 2013, it also passed a law that blocked schools from getting information about student gun owners. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence says the state has the weakest gun laws in the country: It doesn’t require background checks for private sellers nor require licenses or permits for firearm owners or sellers. It also doesn’t regulate unsafe guns or ammunition or allow local governments to pass gun legislation. In Louisiana, police don’t have the power to deny permits for concealed handguns.

3. Mississippi

Mississippi hasn’t passed any new gun laws in the past two years. It doesn’t require gun owners or firearm dealers to be licensed and doesn’t have any gun registration requirements. The state also doesn’t regulate sales of high-capacity magazines, assault weapons or unsafe guns. Guns originally sold in Mississippi are recovered in crime scenes more often than guns from any other state in the country, according to 2009 data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

4. Alaska

Alaska was the deadliest state for gun deaths per capita in 2013, according to the scorecard. State law doesn’t require background checks in private sales or licenses for firearms dealers; it doesn’t ban the sale or ownership of assault weapons or high capacity magazines or regulate unsafe guns or ammunition sales. In Alaska, local governments can’t enact their own gun laws. And according to the 2014 scorecard, Alaska sells guns that are later recovered from crime scenes at more than twice the national average.

5. Alabama

Alabama doesn’t require residents to register their firearms or limit the number of firearms in a single purchase. Private sellers aren’t required to run background checks on those who purchase their guns. The state also doesn’t ban large-capacity magazines or assault weapons. In 2013, the state passed a law that denied police the right to reject concealed carry permits. A constitutional amendment passed by voters in 2014 allows residents to challenge gun laws under a “strict scrutiny” standard, which the scorecard says makes it easier to reverse restrictions already in place.

6. Montana

Montana has the sixth highest rate of gun deaths in the country. While Missoula has put forward its own legislation that would require universal background checks for all private sales, the state of Montana doesn’t require it. It also doesn’t have a ban on assault weapons, large capacity ammunition magazines or 50 caliber rifles. There’s no limit on how many firearms residents can purchase at a time; the state also doesn’t require licenses for gun owners or firearms dealers. Guns don’t have to be registered, either.

7. Arkansas

Arkansas didn’t pass any new gun laws in 2014. In the past two years, the state has expanded its “shoot first” law and passed legislation that allows guns in bars, colleges and universities, and places of worship and their affiliated schools. Gun owners aren’t required to have licenses and firearms don’t need to be registered. In Arkansas, cities can’t develop their own gun laws.

8. Oklahoma

Though Oklahoma got poor marks on the 2014 report card, largely because of legislation that relaxed rules around giving guns to children and allowed guns to be stored in cars parked outside elementary schools, its score could improve next year, according to the LCPGV: In 2014, officials passed a law that requires mental health records to be submitted for background checks.

9. New Mexico

New Mexico hasn’t passed any new gun laws in the past two years. Like many other states on the list, it doesn’t require background checks for private sales, ban assault rifles or require licenses for gun dealers. It also has no restrictions on gun purchases by residents with a history of domestic abuse.

10. South Carolina

In 2013, South Carolina was ranked No. 11 on the state gun law scorecard. It moved into the top 10 in 2014 largely because of a new law that allows guns in bars, along with newly relaxed restrictions on guns in cars. In 2012, the state did away with laws that required state licenses for gun dealers as well as a design safety standard for handguns. But the state’s score in 2015 could improve: This year, it passed a law that would prevent residents with certain histories of domestic abuse from owning guns.

So far in 2015, there have been 307 days — and 318 mass shootings.
318 mass shootings????

Unless you count gangs defending drug territories as mass shootings, where on earth do you get 318 mass shootings?

Half a year in detroit or newark nj surpasses all mass murders for that last 3 decades. Gangs and drugs are the source of murder and mayhem.
 
Old 11-04-2015, 07:28 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,187,290 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnum Mike View Post
Obviously you don't know too much about guns - if somebody walked up to me and wanted to sell me a gun that usually goes for $500 in a store, but he only wants $200 for it, that's a red flag. If he could prove with a receipt or something that he bought it and it is legally theirs, and the weapon is in good shape, then I would purchase it from him, otherwise I would never buy it without any such proof because I have no idea where he got it from, it could be stolen for all I know.

All my 17 weapons were purchased from stores with FFLs, not off the streets.
Well then another user has said that would be stupid because you are paying much more than you need to for a gun.
 
Old 11-04-2015, 07:28 PM
 
Location: Eastern Shore of Maryland
5,940 posts, read 3,573,294 times
Reputation: 5651
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
I am sure you would be content with being able to buy same day and not have to worry about background checks.
Of course. A lot of folks would.
 
Old 11-04-2015, 07:32 PM
 
32,026 posts, read 36,796,625 times
Reputation: 13311
I am okay with keeping guns out of the hands of idiots, hotheads and bad guys.

Leave the rest of us alone, although encourage safe storage and handling practices. There's ordinarily no reason to haul your firearm into public spaces such as Walmarts, Little league, etc.
 
Old 11-04-2015, 07:33 PM
 
Location: Lost in Texas
9,827 posts, read 6,937,526 times
Reputation: 3416
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Well then another user has said that would be stupid because you are paying much more than you need to for a gun.
If you are a criminal, you aren't thinking in terms of covering your assets in the event of it being a stolen gun. You are already breaking the law. If you are a law abiding citizen the bar is raised for you.. You have to cover yourself.
 
Old 11-04-2015, 07:34 PM
 
Location: Lost in Texas
9,827 posts, read 6,937,526 times
Reputation: 3416
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57 View Post
I am okay with keeping guns out of the hands of idiots, hotheads and bad guys.

Leave the rest of us alone, although encourage safe storage and handling practices. There's ordinarily no reason to haul your firearm into public spaces such as Walmarts, Little league, etc.
In your opinion..
 
Old 11-04-2015, 07:36 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,187,290 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker View Post
If you are a criminal, you aren't thinking in terms of covering your assets in the event of it being a stolen gun. You are already breaking the law. If you are a law abiding citizen the bar is raised for you.. You have to cover yourself.
So the only ones concerned about a good deal are criminals? So then, why not make it so criminals can also buy guns legally in gun stores, maybe they will be more careless with their money and blow it on more expensive guns.
 
Old 11-04-2015, 07:38 PM
 
17,581 posts, read 13,362,412 times
Reputation: 33026
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57 View Post
I am okay with keeping guns out of the hands of idiots, hotheads and bad guys.

Leave the rest of us alone, although encourage safe storage and handling practices. There's ordinarily no reason to haul your firearm into public spaces such as Walmarts, Little league, etc.
Define ordinarily


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.


Closed Thread


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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:42 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top