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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-19-2013, 09:53 AM
 
1,111 posts, read 1,324,570 times
Reputation: 833

Advertisements

The DC Shooter had a criminal past and mental issues. Yet the guns that he LEGALLY purchased with the current restrictions were only bought 2 days prior to him ending the lives of 12 other people.

I'm a strong believer in people being allowed to own guns, but I believe as strongly that there needs to be a much more thorough registration process than what we currently have now.

So my question, to those of you who don't think that any regulation is necessary, or that what we have is enough is this: have the facts of this case as we now know them give you any sort of pause in your belief that there should be no regulation, or no stricter regulation?


And as I type this I can see some people using the old "if guns were illegal he'd just get them illegally" So let me get past that right now.
#1 I am not saying "guns should be illegal" I'm saying there should be stricter regulations and perhaps some mental aptitude tests. I have a feeling a guy who was telling his friends and neighbors that the microwave was talking to him, wouldn't have passed.
#2. If he couldn't buy it legally he would have just bought it illegally on the street, so what's the point? I'll break that down into 2 parts. For the "he would have just bought it illegally on the street, if he couldn't buy it legally" that's simple. Pharmacists need to get a prescription from a Doctor in order to sell you vicadin even though you can just go buy it illegally, so that point is moot. Second, "so what's the point?" The point is that if a guy with a criminal past who was determined to be mentally unstable enough to operate a weapon was in fact trying to buy a weapon, law enforcement could make an attempt to keep an eye on him. And in this case specifically he probably wouldn't have been granted entrance into the building.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-19-2013, 09:56 AM
 
Location: Minnysoda
10,659 posts, read 10,727,332 times
Reputation: 6745
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Rob123 View Post
The DC Shooter had a criminal past and mental issues. Yet the guns that he LEGALLY purchased with the current restrictions were only bought 2 days prior to him ending the lives of 12 other people.

I'm a strong believer in people being allowed to own guns, but I believe as strongly that there needs to be a much more thorough registration process than what we currently have now.

So my question, to those of you who don't think that any regulation is necessary, or that what we have is enough is this: have the facts of this case as we now know them give you any sort of pause in your belief that there should be no regulation, or no stricter regulation?


And as I type this I can see some people using the old "if guns were illegal he'd just get them illegally" So let me get past that right now.
#1 I am not saying "guns should be illegal" I'm saying there should be stricter regulations and perhaps some mental aptitude tests. I have a feeling a guy who was telling his friends and neighbors that the microwave was talking to him, wouldn't have passed.
#2. If he couldn't buy it legally he would have just bought it illegally on the street, so what's the point? I'll break that down into 2 parts. For the "he would have just bought it illegally on the street, if he couldn't buy it legally" that's simple. Pharmacists need to get a prescription from a Doctor in order to sell you vicadin even though you can just go buy it illegally, so that point is moot. Second, "so what's the point?" The point is that if a guy with a criminal past who was determined to be mentally unstable enough to operate a weapon was in fact trying to buy a weapon, law enforcement could make an attempt to keep an eye on him. And in this case specifically he probably wouldn't have been granted entrance into the building.

I kinda of agree. After all what better way to establish a data base of substandard, non productive citizens so we are better equiped to round them and send them to the gas chambers!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2013, 09:57 AM
 
Location: Annandale, VA
5,094 posts, read 5,174,352 times
Reputation: 4233
The shooter purchased a SHOTGUN. I don't think there are any restrictions or background checks for those.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2013, 10:02 AM
 
2,040 posts, read 2,459,195 times
Reputation: 1067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaten_Drinker View Post
The shooter purchased a SHOTGUN. I don't think there are any restrictions or background checks for those.
Exactly!

He bought ONE weapon and then took two handguns from victims.

The one weapon he purchased was a shotgun.....which isn't even considered when people talk about gun laws.

Posted with TapaTalk
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2013, 10:04 AM
 
2,040 posts, read 2,459,195 times
Reputation: 1067
Folks.....the real problem here is similar to the Fort Hood shooter. Plenty of red flags were raised and then ignored.

Posted with TapaTalk
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2013, 10:05 AM
 
3,216 posts, read 2,085,057 times
Reputation: 1863
Current HIPPA privacy laws would have to be amended to allow our government to decide who is fit to own an gun. Does anyone trust our government to make that decision? Could I be excluded because I was temporarily depressed because I lost my elderly parent?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2013, 10:05 AM
 
Location: Pa
20,300 posts, read 22,221,236 times
Reputation: 6553
What good are new gun laws when the old ones are not enforced? The man had been arrested at least twice for firearm violations. Neither case was prosecuted.
Either do away with the old laws and write new laws which will be enforced, or start enforcing the laws that are already on the books.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2013, 10:06 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,199,011 times
Reputation: 17209
Very few people are unwilling to have a discussion around the mentally ill owning guns. The problem is it is a very complicated discussion that involves people's rights that extend beyond the 2nd amendment. To do anything you are going to have to make the argument that you have a right to trump a persons right. It might even take a Constitutional Amendment.

That said this is the discussion we should be having, not how we should curtail the Constitutional Rights of the overwhelming vast majority that do not abuse those rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2013, 10:07 AM
 
3,216 posts, read 2,085,057 times
Reputation: 1863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bludy-L View Post
Exactly!

He bought ONE weapon and then took two handguns from victims.

The one weapon he purchased was a shotgun.....which isn't even considered when people talk about gun laws.

Posted with TapaTalk
Right, even Joe Biden says everyone should have a shotgun for self defense and fire it through the door if you suspect you are being targeted by criminals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2013, 10:08 AM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
11,143 posts, read 10,711,121 times
Reputation: 9799
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Very few people are unwilling to have a discussion around the mentally ill owning guns. The problem is it is a very complicated discussion that involves people's rights that extend beyond the 2nd amendment. To do anything you are going to have to make the argument that you have a right to trump a persons right. It might even take a Constitutional Amendment.

That said this is the discussion we should be having, not how we should curtail the Constitutional Rights of the overwhelming vast majority that do not abuse those rights.
Well said
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 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