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.
Thank you, though the link does seem to show that most of them could have been prevented if we denied those with a criminal background and/or mental health issues. So basically the current background check doesn't go far enough.
Though I doubt any gun nuts care about that....case in point will probably be all the posts that follow this one....
Those with "criminal backgrounds" (aka felony convictions) already are banned from possessing firearms. It's a federal felony. With regards to mental health issues, I agree. If someone is too mentally disturbed to purchase a firearm they should be institutionalized. Not allowed to operate vehicles, buy knives, gasoline or matches, let alone baseball bats. Do you support that?
Sure but only because you are only seeing cases where the system failed.
What you don't look at is how many mass shootings did not occur because the criminal or mentally ill person was not able to obtain a gun for some reason. Whether it is because of government screening or simply people practicing proper gun safety like locking their guns up in a secure location. In other words the shooting never happens so you do not hear about it.
Its hard to judge fairly when you only hear about failures and not success.
So, I guess you are saying the system is fine as is and there is no need to change it. Agreed.
It's not a matter of the depth of the background check. It's a matter of legality. Current law does not prevent a person who has not been ordered by a court to a mental institution to purchase a gun. Also, misdemeanor offenses do not result in a prohibition on gun ownership.
That's why Barack's proposed expansion of background checks are merely symbolic. A solution looking for a problem....that's all this is.
It is symbolic but he's really trying to back door registration.
I grasp the concept of you asserting out loud that you are a gun owner but now are not convinced that the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is useful any longer. Therefore, you should turn your weapons in.
I grasp the concept of you asserting out loud that you are a gun owner but now are not convinced that the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is useful any longer.
Therefore, you should turn your weapons in.
How does giving away my guns help repeal the 2nd amendment?
Sure but only because you are only seeing cases where the system failed.
What you don't look at is how many mass shootings did not occur because the criminal or mentally ill person was not able to obtain a gun for some reason. Whether it is because of government screening or simply people practicing proper gun safety like locking their guns up in a secure location. In other words the shooting never happens so you do not hear about it.
Its hard to judge fairly when you only hear about failures and not success.
Could
Might
Maybe
That's straight up crystal ball stuff.
FACT - we can't control private to private gun sales no matter how many touchy feel good pen swipes POTUS uses.
I understand that you should be the first to turn in your weapons since you no longer support the 2nd Amendment.
Did I hurt your feelings, Aero Guy?
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.
