(06-19-2015 01:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  So you would support not closing mental health institutions or cutting back on money spent on mental health, generally speaking....

Agreed. I think removing the stigma from mental health concerns has been disastrous in many respects.

The two things that would have the biggest impact, based on results elsewhere:

1. A gun license, like a driver's license, with a background check plus a safety school plus a practical performance. If you don't have a license, you can't buy guns or ammo or have the. in your possession. This would give police a tool to use--you see someone with a gun, you ask for his license, no license and you lock him/her up.

2. A wholesale reevaluation of our mental health system.

(06-19-2015 01:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 12:37 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  First of all, I am not against people owning guns. I'm just not convinced that nothing more can be done to prevent things like this from happening.

The only aspect of gun control that could have stopped this would have been the total elimination of guns in society. The gun used in this heinous crime was reportedly a gift from his father for his 21st birthday, not purchased by Roof. Nobody clamoring for more gun control has been able to explain exactly how new, stricter laws would have prevented this from happening.


Also please explain the leap in logic where someone who has determined that they want to commit the ultimate crime against their fellow man......a crime that has been on the books in civilized society for centuries....is all of a sudden going to decide not to commit that crime because one of the many tools they could use to do this is illegal.

It would have been much more difficult without a gun, so I don't see a leap in logic there.

(06-19-2015 02:02 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 01:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 12:37 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  First of all, I am not against people owning guns. I'm just not convinced that nothing more can be done to prevent things like this from happening.

The only aspect of gun control that could have stopped this would have been the total elimination of guns in society. The gun used in this heinous crime was reportedly a gift from his father for his 21st birthday, not purchased by Roof. Nobody clamoring for more gun control has been able to explain exactly how new, stricter laws would have prevented this from happening.


Also please explain the leap in logic where someone who has determined that they want to commit the ultimate crime against their fellow man......a crime that has been on the books in civilized society for centuries....is all of a sudden going to decide not to commit that crime because one of the many tools they could use to do this is illegal.

It would have been much more difficult without a gun, so I don't see a leap in logic there.

Then explain how a gun control law is going to make a difference. If someone is willing to break a law that has been on the books for centuries how is a new one going to stop them?

Did the fact that making explosive devices stop James Holmes from booby trapping his residence? Did it stop Klebold and Harris from building close to 100 devices for Columbine?

(06-19-2015 02:22 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 02:02 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 01:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 12:37 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  First of all, I am not against people owning guns. I'm just not convinced that nothing more can be done to prevent things like this from happening.

The only aspect of gun control that could have stopped this would have been the total elimination of guns in society. The gun used in this heinous crime was reportedly a gift from his father for his 21st birthday, not purchased by Roof. Nobody clamoring for more gun control has been able to explain exactly how new, stricter laws would have prevented this from happening.


Also please explain the leap in logic where someone who has determined that they want to commit the ultimate crime against their fellow man......a crime that has been on the books in civilized society for centuries....is all of a sudden going to decide not to commit that crime because one of the many tools they could use to do this is illegal.

It would have been much more difficult without a gun, so I don't see a leap in logic there.

Then explain how a gun control law is going to make a difference. If someone is willing to break a law that has been on the books for centuries how is a new one going to stop them?

Did the fact that making explosive devices stop James Holmes from booby trapping his residence? Did it stop Klebold and Harris from building close to 100 devices for Columbine?

And how many of the devices worked for Columbine? Was anyone killed by any of the devices other than guns? Not that I can recall from reading the book about the massacre. The guns worked, we know that much.

But my real point was just that there wasn't a leap of logic, that if you make killing harder, you might keep someone from committing a crime, and even if you don't, you might limit the casualties. But I'm not recommending we ban all guns or anything, just pointing out that there's some logic.

So explain how stricter gun control makes it harder.

(06-19-2015 02:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  So explain how stricter gun control makes it harder.

Does every state have the same level of strictness in gun control? Do they all require background checks, even at gun shows? Is there any law against selling a gun to someone else, or are there any ramifications to giving a gun to someone who for whatever reason is likely not going to be responsible?

(06-19-2015 03:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 02:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  So explain how stricter gun control makes it harder.

Does every state have the same level of strictness in gun control? Do they all require background checks, even at gun shows? Is there any law against selling a gun to someone else, or are there any ramifications to giving a gun to someone who for whatever reason is likely not going to be responsible?

Asking 3 questions isn't explaining.

I'll answer your questions when you explain how stricter gun control is going to make it harder.

(06-19-2015 03:09 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 03:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 02:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  So explain how stricter gun control makes it harder.

Does every state have the same level of strictness in gun control? Do they all require background checks, even at gun shows? Is there any law against selling a gun to someone else, or are there any ramifications to giving a gun to someone who for whatever reason is likely not going to be responsible?

Asking 3 questions isn't explaining.

Require background checks for all gun purchases, even at gun shows.
Eliminate sales of guns between buyers, unless the purchaser is documented as a legal firearm owner
Keep mentally ill patients from being able to purchase guns
Make people responsible for crimes committed with guns that they provided to the criminal.

(06-19-2015 11:52 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I can live with certain amounts of firearms related violence and suicide if it means that the 2nd Amendment is not infringed.

/unpopular opinion.

This is the price you pay to live in a Free Country!Lost

(06-19-2015 03:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 02:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  So explain how stricter gun control makes it harder.

Does every state have the same level of strictness in gun control? Do they all require background checks, even at gun shows? Is there any law against selling a gun to someone else, or are there any ramifications to giving a gun to someone who for whatever reason is likely not going to be responsible?

All states have similar laws regarding to long guns and pistols( handguns) as far as age.

If you purchase a weapon at a gun show from a vendor that has a FFL dealer license you go through a background check. ONLY if you purchase a gun from an individual ,.. There is no background check requirement.

A person cannot purchase a weapon from a FFL dealer for any other person but themselves! That is on the current paperwork background check. That on itself is against the law!

Here's a question, how many car dealerships sell motor vehicles to persons that kill innocent people without background checks? DUI offenders , restricted license , domestic violence perps?

(06-19-2015 03:12 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 03:09 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 03:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 02:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  So explain how stricter gun control makes it harder.

Does every state have the same level of strictness in gun control? Do they all require background checks, even at gun shows? Is there any law against selling a gun to someone else, or are there any ramifications to giving a gun to someone who for whatever reason is likely not going to be responsible?

Asking 3 questions isn't explaining.

Require background checks for all gun purchases, even at gun shows.
Eliminate sales of guns between buyers, unless the purchaser is documented as a legal firearm owner
Keep mentally ill patients from being able to purchase guns
Make people responsible for crimes committed with guns that they provided to the criminal.

And exactly none of that would have prevented the Charleston shooting.

Roof had no convictions on his record that would have prevented him from passing a background check. The only two charges on his record were simple trespassing and misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance.

As of this point in the investigation it has not been proven that Roof was under any type of professional care for his mental illness.

There is no such thing as a "documented gun owner", and even if it were it would only serve to be a temporary inconvenience for someone determined to get a gun for nefarious purposes. All it would do is make an already robust underground market that much more profitable for illicit gun dealers.

At this point there are conflicting reports about how Roof obtained his weapon. Some are saying it was a gift from his father for his 21st birthday, others are saying he bought the gun with birthday money. Either way it wouldn't matter because you can't hold someone responsible for the actions of another simply because the provided an object to someone. That would be like charging the salesman at an auto dealership for selling someone a car that they committed felony DUI in.

(06-19-2015 03:25 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 03:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 02:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  So explain how stricter gun control makes it harder.

Does every state have the same level of strictness in gun control? Do they all require background checks, even at gun shows? Is there any law against selling a gun to someone else, or are there any ramifications to giving a gun to someone who for whatever reason is likely not going to be responsible?

All states have similar laws regarding to long guns and pistols( handguns) as far as age.

If you purchase a weapon at a gun show from a vendor that has a FFL dealer license you go through a background check. ONLY if you purchase a gun from an individual ,.. There is no background check requirement.

A person cannot purchase a weapon from a FFL dealer for any other person but themselves! That is on the current paperwork background check. That on itself is against the law!

Here's a question, how many car dealerships sell motor vehicles to persons that kill innocent people without background checks? DUI offenders , restricted license , domestic violence perps?

Every one of them at least has had training on driving a vehicle, and they have to have insurance, which costs more if they've been irresponsible. DUI offenders can lose their license. And it's pretty rare for anyone to kill someone with a car on purpose, when it's much easier with a gun. Accidents happen, but there are tens of millions of people on the road every day too. And most people depend on driving for their livelihood.

But thanks for explaining those points.

The Second Amendment gives a person enough documentation to be a gun owner. Unless you are a convicted felon, crazy, or have a dishonorable discharge from the military.

(06-19-2015 03:30 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 03:25 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 03:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 02:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  So explain how stricter gun control makes it harder.

Does every state have the same level of strictness in gun control? Do they all require background checks, even at gun shows? Is there any law against selling a gun to someone else, or are there any ramifications to giving a gun to someone who for whatever reason is likely not going to be responsible?

All states have similar laws regarding to long guns and pistols( handguns) as far as age.

If you purchase a weapon at a gun show from a vendor that has a FFL dealer license you go through a background check. ONLY if you purchase a gun from an individual ,.. There is no background check requirement.

A person cannot purchase a weapon from a FFL dealer for any other person but themselves! That is on the current paperwork background check. That on itself is against the law!

Here's a question, how many car dealerships sell motor vehicles to persons that kill innocent people without background checks? DUI offenders , restricted license , domestic violence perps?

Every one of them at least has had training on driving a vehicle, and they have to have insurance, which costs more if they've been irresponsible. DUI offenders can lose their license. And it's pretty rare for anyone to kill someone with a car on purpose, when it's much easier with a gun. Accidents happen, but there are tens of millions of people on the road every day too. And most people depend on driving for their livelihood.

But thanks for explaining those points.

Which amendment to the Constitution grants the right to drive?

(06-19-2015 03:30 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 03:25 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 03:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 02:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  So explain how stricter gun control makes it harder.

Does every state have the same level of strictness in gun control? Do they all require background checks, even at gun shows? Is there any law against selling a gun to someone else, or are there any ramifications to giving a gun to someone who for whatever reason is likely not going to be responsible?

All states have similar laws regarding to long guns and pistols( handguns) as far as age.

If you purchase a weapon at a gun show from a vendor that has a FFL dealer license you go through a background check. ONLY if you purchase a gun from an individual ,.. There is no background check requirement.

A person cannot purchase a weapon from a FFL dealer for any other person but themselves! That is on the current paperwork background check. That on itself is against the law!

Here's a question, how many car dealerships sell motor vehicles to persons that kill innocent people without background checks? DUI offenders , restricted license , domestic violence perps?

Every one of them at least has had training on driving a vehicle, and they have to have insurance, which costs more if they've been irresponsible. DUI offenders can lose their license. And it's pretty rare for anyone to kill someone with a car on purpose, when it's much easier with a gun. Accidents happen, but there are tens of millions of people on the road every day too. And most people depend on driving for their livelihood.

But thanks for explaining those points.

Question, do drunk drivers kill innocent people OR do motor vehicles kill innocent people?

(06-19-2015 03:32 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  The Second Amendment gives a person enough documentation to be a gun owner. Unless you are a convicted felon, crazy, or have a dishonorable discharge from the military.

If you sell a gun to someone else in a private transaction, how do you know they aren't a convicted felon, or have had a dishonorable discharge, or are crazy?

I'm also not sure I would even include dishonorable discharge from the military, depending on the reason.

(06-19-2015 03:35 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 03:32 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  The Second Amendment gives a person enough documentation to be a gun owner. Unless you are a convicted felon, crazy, or have a dishonorable discharge from the military.

If you sell a gun to someone else in a private transaction, how do you know they aren't a convicted felon, or have had a dishonorable discharge, or are crazy?

I'm also not sure I would even include dishonorable discharge from the military, depending on the reason.

OK, if I understand your beating around the bush correctly you'd like to outlaw all private transactions. Is that correct?

LAw abiding citizens sell guns to only the legal way. For example on Armslist.... Most all will not sell a weapon without the the buyer providing their CWP. That covers your question. Because in order to have a CWP you have already passed a background check.