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 10-08-2015, 08:58 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,784,028 times
Reputation: 6509

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost View Post
So preventing a loaded gun from being left out for a kid to find won't prevent (EVER) a curious kid from blowing his face off, or his siblings head off? And it won't prevent a person who just got fired from the post office from finding a gun (that they hadn't planned on finding) and using it to take out his revenge.

Those things are ALL mass murders, but both happen too often, and both are preventable WITHOUT RESTRICTING GUN OWNERSHIP. So why would you be against such a common sense law. What is the reason?
It is already against the law if you leave your gun out and a child gets it and harms themselves or others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-08-2015, 09:03 AM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
11,080 posts, read 10,644,681 times
Reputation: 9719
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
It is already against the law if you leave your gun out and a child gets it and harms themselves or others.
Shhhh. Don't confuse the gun grabbers with facts. They don't play well with reality.

Those of us who are actually part of the "gun culture" as some on the left like to call it are far more knowledgeable about gun laws than they are. However, they don't want to acknowledge that point. Most of them dream of a Utopia where everyone sits around singing Kumbaya and nobody commits violence. The understanding that violence is part of human nature is something that they seem to have a hard time dealing with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2015, 09:05 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,784,028 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom View Post
Shhhh. Don't confuse the gun grabbers with facts. They don't play well with reality.

Those of us who are actually part of the "gun culture" as some on the left like to call it are far more knowledgeable about gun laws than they are. However, they don't want to acknowledge that point. Most of them dream of a Utopia where everyone sits around singing Kumbaya and nobody commits violence. The understanding that violence is part of human nature is something that they seem to have a hard time dealing with.
On multiple occasions I have thought creating a "ask me questions about guns" thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2015, 09:42 AM
 
Location: NC
11,202 posts, read 8,246,380 times
Reputation: 12408
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom View Post
Shhhh. Don't confuse the gun grabbers with facts. They don't play well with reality.

Those of us who are actually part of the "gun culture" as some on the left like to call it are far more knowledgeable about gun laws than they are. However, they don't want to acknowledge that point. Most of them dream of a Utopia where everyone sits around singing Kumbaya and nobody commits violence. The understanding that violence is part of human nature is something that they seem to have a hard time dealing with.
and those who are part of the knowing the facts culture seem to be more knowledgeable about life in general. Speaking of the facts, I already addressed that there are laws on the books, but as many have pointed out, they are not enforced for one reason or another. If laws are not enforced, or have loopholes, then address it.

I'm giving solutions that don't grab ANY guns. Why would you be against a law that constantly keeps responsible gun owners protected from the stigma that gets put on them by the few who are not responsible? Seems like if you are pro gun you'd be all for that. Personally, I don't want anyone coming after mine, so instead of deflecting, I'm trying to have a genuine discussion about what we can do to make things better. If you don't want to have that discussion, it's better to just stay out of it, rather than continually trying to prevent others from having one by bending facts or writing misleading posts, or labeling anyone who has an opinion as a "gun grabber". I'm not one. Of this I am sure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2015, 09:43 AM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
11,080 posts, read 10,644,681 times
Reputation: 9719
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
On multiple occasions I have thought creating a "ask me questions about guns" thread.
I don't think it would help, honestly. Most on the left don't wish to learn anything about guns. Look at the rampant display of ignorance that is shown by gun grabbers in this and other threads. Facts don't matter, and neither does logic. It's all about emotional feel good laws so that they can say they "did something", whether that something actually helps the situation or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2015, 09:46 AM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
11,080 posts, read 10,644,681 times
Reputation: 9719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost View Post
and those who are part of the knowing the facts culture seem to be more knowledgeable about life in general. Speaking of the facts, I already addressed that there are laws on the books, but as many have pointed out, they are not enforced for one reason or another. If laws are not enforced, or have loopholes, then address it.

I'm giving solutions that don't grab ANY guns. Why would you be against a law that constantly keeps responsible gun owners protected from the stigma that gets put on them by the few who are not responsible? Seems like if you are pro gun you'd be all for that. Personally, I don't want anyone coming after mine, so instead of deflecting, I'm trying to have a genuine discussion about what we can do to make things better. If you don't want to have that discussion, it's better to just stay out of it, rather than continually trying to prevent others from having one by bending facts or writing misleading posts, or labeling anyone who has an opinion as a "gun grabber". I'm not one. Of this I am sure.
You're recommending "new" laws that already exist. It is already illegal to leave a firearm where a child can obtain it. The facts are that the parents are rarely prosecuted for breaking this law. Quite frankly, the majority of firearms laws go unenforced for one reason or another. We should address that issue before we start passing more laws that won't be enforced.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2015, 09:50 AM
 
17,389 posts, read 11,917,005 times
Reputation: 16136
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
Chuck,

I think a proper background check (that includes medical history) would have (could have, should have) prevented it....here is why

1. the mother is diagnosed as aspergers, and bi-polar
2. the young man (son) is bi-polar and aspergers
3. the young man flunked out of basic training for the military (would love to see what his exit code is)
4. mother has said he had anger issues, and refuse to take his medicine


all of these could and should be red flags to prevent him or his mother from buying guns or at least a delay in their ability to purchase

again this is just like adam lanza, where the young man COULD have been institutionalize IF the doctors and his mother had actually done their jobs


JMHO

wch
Until you you can prove that EVERY person that is aspergers or bi-polar, or whose parent is, or has anger issues, or flunks out of the military WILL commit a crime of that magnitude, you have a proposal that is pure garbage. "Red flags"? "Could have" been institutionalized? "Anger issues"? That's the "thought police", and in a free country, the thought of that scares me to death. We are FREE to have any of them, if we never act on those thoughts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2015, 09:51 AM
 
3,216 posts, read 2,075,613 times
Reputation: 1861
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
I don't think Hippa laws have to come into play here

it could be something as simple as {"red flag" for medical condition} , this way nothing personal needs to be revealed
Who decides who is ineligible? What conditions would preclude someone from owning a firearm?
Is someone who has in the past been on anti depressants disqualified?
How does one go about getting "unflagged" if they dispute the decision?
Do we trust the government to be efficient in flagging and unflagging?

I agree there are certain mental conditions that should disqualify people from buying firearms.
I'm just not sure I trust the government to do the right thing and do it efficiently.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2015, 09:51 AM
 
17,389 posts, read 11,917,005 times
Reputation: 16136
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaseMan View Post
How about making any crime committed with a firearm a felony, with a minimum 10 year prison sentence and no parole? How about making failure to secure a firearm, which is then used in a crime, a felony as well, with a minimum 10 year prison sentence and no parole?

Don't think for a minute the NRA would support either of those ideas.
That would NOT have stopped the Oregon shooting. Care to try again?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2015, 09:54 AM
 
Location: On the Chesapeake
45,046 posts, read 60,086,133 times
Reputation: 60605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlandochuck1 View Post
Who decides who is ineligible? What conditions would preclude someone from owning a firearm?
Is someone who has in the past been on anti depressants disqualified?
How does one go about getting "unflagged" if they dispute the decision?
Do we trust the government to be efficient in flagging and unflagging?

I agree there are certain mental conditions that should disqualify people from buying firearms.
I'm just not sure I trust the government to do the right thing and do it efficiently.
Some states suspend your driver's license if you've had a heart attack requiring the use EID paddles. That's reported by the doctor.

So, again, the question is what "condition" would disqualify for firearms?
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