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.
Way back around 15 pages ago, I answered Old Cold's question about what crimes would have been averted had the proposed legislation been in effect at the time. I named names, described the crimes, and described how the perpetrator's purchase could have been prevented. Usually it was people buying guns on the Internet. I also noted that there were no background checks at the gun show where the Columbine weapons were obtained.
Funny how that post was completely ignored.
Sorry, I honestly didn't see it so just now did a search to fins it.
You did list 4 individual incidences where those people would have been prevented from puchasing a weapon in the way that they did.
I'm not being purposely argumentative just for the fun of it but because
I will maintain that if they had not been able to purchase a gun easily they would have done so illegally or killed by other means.
Demetry Smirnov ....traveled to the US from Canada for the purpose of killing his GF. Jeffrey Calvert...another case of jilted lover....killed himself too. Radcliffe Haughton .....Zina Haughton wrote in restraining order request filed Oct. 8 that her husband had threatened to kill her if she ever left him. He also, at various times, threatened to throw acid on her face and burn her and her family with gas.
I didn't find the 4th.
Also, I do believe I have asked....not just you.....how expanded background checks would have prevented the Sandy Hook type murders....only in that last case were bystanders also shot but all of those brought up were personal love-gone-bad type situations.
Also, it's been said and said and repeated, it is not right to require millions of innocent people to do anything in a useless effort to stop deranged people for what they do or criminals that wouldn't be affected by it in any case.
A few days ago you gave me a "rep" with this note: "Good sports deserve a rep old_cold"
Fair is fair.....even a bad dog should get a treat when theydo something right.
How aboutyou be a good sport and stop the personal attacks? (i.e. you said you read everything... how about sounding like it). I do read everything. But, that doesn't mean I'm required to respond to everything. Having to repeat is for classrooms, not when the discussions are in print and can be referred back to. It is not any kind of 'attack' to let you know typing something once is bad enough....to have to do it again is annoying....and is now even more so when you say you would like what would be a long, complicated discussion but then say you don't have to respond If you aren't going to respond then why should I bother typing it?
We have a good chance of getting Republicans back in control of Congress. And, we have a chance (please God) of getting a Republican back in the White House next election. These issues aren't going to go away. They will just get passed on to the newly elected officials. We need answers. Otherwise it's just business as usual which you've already stated that the direction of the United States is headed in the wrong direction. We can't afford any more business as usual policies.
Reading your posts now about armed guards in schools tells me we probably would not argree on much anyway so me not getting into it will be no loss to you
Here in Oklahoma a teacher would have to take 40 hours of classroom instruction. Then they would have to take firearm instruction (Different phases of the CLEET licensing procedure). It's the same instruction that Police Officers receive during their academy training.
Then, there is the cost of the license. The last I checked it is $50 for two years. And, now I believe that each CLEET certified licensed armed individual, while performing duties as an armed guard, are required to have either a $10k or $15k bond. I believe that would apply per teacher. Or, each school district might have to carry a bond that would cover all armed personnel.
Either way having armed teachers would cost a considerable amount of money to implement.
In Alaska we have a bill that would allow teachers, or any permanent school employee, to carry a concealed weapon on school grounds providing they have taken the Concealed Carry course.
HB55 - "An Act allowing school districts and private schools to adopt a policy authorizing one or more permanent employees to possess one or more firearms on school grounds under certain conditions."
It really does not matter if anyone at any school carries a concealed firearm or not. Just knowing that Alaskan schools are no longer "gun free zones" should give any would-be shooter second thoughts about targeting our schools.
In Alaska we have a bill that would allow teachers, or any permanent school employee, to carry a concealed weapon on school grounds providing they have taken the Concealed Carry course.
HB55 - "An Act allowing school districts and private schools to adopt a policy authorizing one or more permanent employees to possess one or more firearms on school grounds under certain conditions."
It really does not matter if anyone at any school carries a concealed firearm or not. Just knowing that Alaskan schools are no longer "gun free zones" should give any would-be shooter second thoughts about targeting our schools.
Sorry, I honestly didn't see it so just now did a search to fins it.
You did list 4 individual incidences where those people would have been prevented from puchasing a weapon in the way that they did.
I'm not being purposely argumentative just for the fun of it but because
I will maintain that if they had not been able to purchase a gun easily they would have done so illegally or killed by other means.
Demetry Smirnov ....traveled to the US from Canada for the purpose of killing his GF. Jeffrey Calvert...another case of jilted lover....killed himself too. Radcliffe Haughton .....Zina Haughton wrote in restraining order request filed Oct. 8 that her husband had threatened to kill her if she ever left him. He also, at various times, threatened to throw acid on her face and burn her and her family with gas.
I didn't find the 4th.
Also, I do believe I have asked....not just you.....how expanded background checks would have prevented the Sandy Hook type murders....only in that last case were bystanders also shot but all of those brought up were personal love-gone-bad type situations.
Also, it's been said and said and repeated, it is not right to require millions of innocent people to do anything in a useless effort to stop deranged people for what they do or criminals that wouldn't be affected by it in any case.
Who cares if they were jilted lovers? The particular reasons have no bearing on this, nor do their suicides. The fact is that these men would not have been able to obtain their weapons had the proposed legislation been in effect--and there are plenty of other cases like theirs. If you couldn't find the Lockheed case, it's because you didn't look, because it's a pretty prominent case against allowing those with mental health conditions have access to fire arms.
Why are you so hung up on Sandy Hook? As I said earlier, the only thing Sandy Hook has to do with this is that it was the particular incident that put the entire issue of gun violence in the spotlight. Whether those background checks could have prevented Sandy Hook in particular is irrelevant other than that, because the issue is gun violence in its broadest sense. As I also said earlier, this legislation should have been put in place after Columbine, because Columbine would have been prevented had background checks been in place. Columbine, the murders I listed, and other incidents of gun violence that anyone with 10 minutes and a knowledge of how to use Google can find are reason enough. Maybe the tragedy at Sandy Hook would have happened, but those others would not have, and that is what is important here.
Who cares if they were jilted lovers? The particular reasons have no bearing on this, nor do their suicides. The fact is that these men would not have been able to obtain their weapons had the proposed legislation been in effect--and there are plenty of other cases like theirs. If you couldn't find the Lockheed case, it's because you didn't look, because it's a pretty prominent case against allowing those with mental health conditions have access to fire arms.
Sigh...repeat....."I will maintain that if they had not been able to purchase a gun easily they would have done so illegally or killed by other means."
"
"
Why are you so hung up on Sandy Hook? As I said earlier, the only thing Sandy Hook has to do with this is that it was the particular incident that put the entire issue of gun violence in the spotlight. Whether those background checks could have prevented Sandy Hook in particular is irrelevant other than that, because the issue is gun violence in its broadest sense. As I also said earlier, this legislation should have been put in place after Columbine, because it WOULD have prevented that. Columbine, the murders I listed, and the others that anyone with 10 minutes and a knowledge of how to use Google can find are reason enough.
Sorry...the fact that I bothered to look up the 3 proves I don't know how to use Google,right? Keep repeating the same things that have already been said, discussed, some discredited and you might understand why this legislation did and won't pass. Bye
Background checks on Americans from the same government that cannot do background checks on "refugees" coming over here to live off government handouts and bomb the Boston marathon -- yeah -- makes liberal sense.
I give Ayotte credit, that was a tough meeting but she really doesn't have a good answer why she voted against background checks.
Quote:
Erica Lafferty, the daughter of slain Sandy Hook Elementary School principal Dawn Hochsprung, confronted Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) Tuesday over her vote against expanding background checks for firearm purchases.
"You had mentioned that day you voted, owners of gun stores that the expanded background checks would harm," Lafferty said, during a town hall in Warren, N.H. "I am just wondering why the burden of my mother being gunned down in the halls of her elementary school isn't more important than that."
The fact is that these men would not have been able to obtain their weapons had the proposed legislation been in effect
Of course they would have. People intending to murder or commit suicide have no regard for regulations.
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.
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.
old_cold"