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.
I am gonna go out on a limp here, but it sounds like it was the ex-boyfriend that allowed this woman to be murdered rather than a wait period for something that I would bet had being going on longer than a couple of months.
Murder laws put killers in jail.. Irrespective of what means they use to commit their crime. Gun control laws are only restrictive to those who legally obtain their firearms. They don't apply to criminals.
Murder laws put killers in jail.. Irrespective of what means they use to commit their crime. Gun control laws are only restrictive to those who legally obtain their firearms. They don't apply to criminals.
Exactly, and gun laws also put criminals in jail. If you don't want to go to jail, don't buy illegal guns and don't murder people. I am pretty sure when a criminal buys an illegal gun, they can be arrested and charge for that due to the fact that they broke the law....
I am gonna go out on a limp here, but it sounds like it was the ex-boyfriend that allowed this woman to be murdered rather than a wait period for something that I would bet had being going on longer than a couple of months.
She was denied her constitutional right to have the means of defending herself by gun control. She would have had far less risk of dying had she had her gun to protect herself with. Her blood is on the hands of those responsible for NJ's gun laws. Waiting period don't save lives they cost lives.
Exactly, and gun laws also put criminals in jail. If you don't want to go to jail, don't buy illegal guns and don't murder people. I am pretty sure when a criminal buys an illegal gun, they can be arrested and charge for that due to the fact that they broke the law....
Murder hurts someone by taking their life away. Owning a piece of metal does nothing to harm anyone. Gun laws and murder laws are not comparable. Apples and oranges.
She was denied her constitutional right to have the means of defending herself by gun control. She would have had far less risk of dying had she had her gun to protect herself with. Her blood is on the hands of those responsible for NJ's gun laws. Waiting period don't save lives they cost lives.
That is false, she was not denied a gun, she had to satisfy the waiting period, so not the same thing. If the gun was such an important factor to her survival, she should have gotten the gun sooner because I highly doubt her murderous ex boyfriend just turned into a person who could potentially kill her within that two month period. So her blood is on the hands of her ex-boyfriend....which he stabbed her with a knife, so that would be literal and figurative.
All you are trying to do is look to lash out blame to others where there is nowhere to actually lash out to. So I am going to have to disagree with you on wait periods.
Tell me, how do you propose to enforce mandatory background checks on gun sales between private citizens?
If I've had a shotgun that I've owned for 20 years, how do you enforce me doing a background check on my brother in law before selling it to him?
I don't have a proposal to give you to satisfy this answer, all I can give you is an opinion. I do however think you should share any fault if your brother in law turns around and murders his wife with the gun you gave him for not properly doing a background check on him because you might have missed something that you didn't know about the person. But don't worry, I don't see anything like that ever passing Congress, so I am sure you will be fine giving him your gun.
A gun is a gun is a gun is a gun, this idea that a gun law will restrict the ability one has at owning a gun is nonsense.
If a gun is a gun us a gun in your mind, then are you proposing that we repeal the Lautenberg Amendment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
The idea that one should be able to own as many guns of whatever type they like without question is also nonsense, but knowing if someone should be allowed to own a gun in the first place is important.
Should we also have restrictions on how many cars people own? Televisions? Toothbrushes? Wrenches? after all people can only drive one car, watch one TV, and use one toothbrush at the same time. Wrenches is a good analogy, since wrenches are tools, and each wrench is designed to be used on specific sized nuts or bolts, they may be used on other than that intended nut or bolt, but they're less effective.
We already have criteria that prohibits classes of people from owning firearms, regardless of where they receive them. If you wish to incrementally increase these classes then you are indeed reducing the numbers of people who can own firearms which contradicts your statements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
I support background checks and think they should be more streamlined and more thorough. I also support waiting periods simply because it prevents someone from going to buy a gun on their way to committing a crime.
We have background checks, either directly through NICS, or indirectly through local intermediary who must by law also run a NICS check.
I've said this before (although not to you). You appear to be attempting to prevent crimes of passion where someone develops immediate homicidal intent. If the person already owns a firearm and has it in their possession you do not prevent any of these crimes if a person chooses to flip out and kill people. If someone does not own a firearm and they can drive 20 minutes to a gun store, spend 10 minutes picking out a gun and ammunition, spend 10-15 minutes waiting for clearance, spend another 20 minutes driving back to where they then kill people (a one hour delay or more), then any waiting period is not going to prevent them from doing that. No one in a state of fury of wanting the immediate elimination of another person will have the cognitive faculties to even consider that course of action, they're more likely to grab a laptop, ashtray, chair, fire extinguisher and beat someone to death with it.
If anyone with the faculties to run that process with the express intent of committing homicide, then no delay will be of any benefit. They may obtain a gun through a non-commercial purchase (privately or illegally). Or just wait until the waiting period is over.
Of course there are documented cases where people have been killed because of waiting periods preventing them from obtaining a firearm for protection (although to be fair there is no guarantee that a firearm would have saved them, there is given the known outcome, no possibility from them owning a firearm it would have made the situation worse).
Murder hurts someone by taking their life away. Owning a piece of metal does nothing to harm anyone. Gun laws and murder laws are not comparable. Apples and oranges.
Speeding in a car doesn't hurt anyone or take away a life if it isn't a result of an accident, but try telling a cop handing you a speeding ticket that and see what happens....I am sure he will agree and tear up the ticket. Buying guns illegally is breaking the law and should result in the one buying and the one selling being sent to prison.
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.
