This news ancor really have understood

[dianaiad]

Finally, a person who understands the gun problem in America and what must be done to stop it.
She is my hero of the day.

Problem...and this woman mentioned it very early in her rant: gun laws only mean that those who want to shoot people will break the law to get them, and those who will obey the law (also known as 'targets') won't get guns.

IF we could figure out a way to make it impossible for OUTLAWS to get guns (and we can't) then I'd be all for this. There is an old bumper sticker that reads: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. This woman mentioned this issue, and it's an issue.

EVERY SINGLE SHOOTING that has happened in the last few years was perpetrated by people who broke laws in order to get the weapons they used. Every single one of them. Given this, you tell me how passing more laws will help anything?

As one poster has already mentioned, and it is true....the cities that have the most stringent gun laws are ALSO the places where the gun violence is the highest. Chicago. Washington DC.

SHOULD people who have proven violent intent be banned from gun ownership? Sure. Some mental patients? Sure...though I have a problem with categorically denying ALL mental patients access. Not all mental illness prompts people to shooting other people, or themselves, after all. Anybody who has committed a violent crime, or a felony, should be denied access. It should be hard to purchase a gun. I'm all for requiring proof of having taken gun safety classes, and for having those classes renewed the way other professional certificates are renewed. Shoot, I'd even be for requiring all gun owners to belong to a gun club, LIKE the NRA with proof of attendance and on-going training.

the thing is, those people who understand guns (and I don't happen to own one) and how dangerous they can be will gladly comply with the above requirements. I would...and so would every hunter in my family.

Y'know who wouldn't?

Anybody who wants to go out and shoot up a school. That's who....and who will get their guns without complying with the above rules? Those who want to use their guns to commit crimes, that's who.

Should we do the above? Sure. Will it fix the problem? Not even close.

 

[dianaiad]

You do realize you're more likely to kill yourself or a family member with your guns than protect yourself from any imagined criminal. How would a right minded person want to take that risk??

That's what training is for, Lyndon. That's what gun clubs are for. That's what safes and proper care of those guns are for.

I have an extended family. LOTS of us, all over the west. A bunch of farmers and ranchers who still, to this day, go out on horses (or ATV's) into the back of beyond, and TAKE GUNS because of rattlesnakes, bears and poachers. NONE of them have ever killed a family member by accident.

On the other hand, one of them killed her ex-husband because he was about to beat their son into paste. Unfortunately, it was the husband who was genetically related to us...and he was not legally allowed to own a gun. He used his fists and a tire iron instead.

One relative shot (but did not kill) a couple of men who were stealing a herd of cattle and driving them through an electrified fence. The poachers shot first, btw.

It was very 'wild west,' but unfortunately, that sort of thing still happens.

And I would prefer the 'wild west' to living in Chicago. Look at THOSE stats and see who does the shooting, and whether one is more likely to kill himself or a family member.

BTW, my family history includes something like a hundred and fifty years.

Chicago? the Chicago Tribune is bragging that there have been 186 fewer people shot this year than last year at this time. 1692 people shot.

.....and almost all of them were shot by people who used guns illegally obtained.

 

[Lyndon]

Problem...and this woman mentioned it very early in her rant: gun laws only mean that those who want to shoot people will break the law to get them, and those who will obey the law (also known as 'targets') won't get guns.

IF we could figure out a way to make it impossible for OUTLAWS to get guns (and we can't) then I'd be all for this. There is an old bumper sticker that reads: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. This woman mentioned this issue, and it's an issue.

EVERY SINGLE SHOOTING that has happened in the last few years was perpetrated by people who broke laws in order to get the weapons they used. Every single one of them. Given this, you tell me how passing more laws will help anything?

As one poster has already mentioned, and it is true....the cities that have the most stringent gun laws are ALSO the places where the gun violence is the highest. Chicago. Washington DC.

SHOULD people who have proven violent intent be banned from gun ownership? Sure. Some mental patients? Sure...though I have a problem with categorically denying ALL mental patients access. Not all mental illness prompts people to shooting other people, or themselves, after all. Anybody who has committed a violent crime, or a felony, should be denied access. It should be hard to purchase a gun. I'm all for requiring proof of having taken gun safety classes, and for having those classes renewed the way other professional certificates are renewed. Shoot, I'd even be for requiring all gun owners to belong to a gun club, LIKE the NRA with proof of attendance and on-going training.

the thing is, those people who understand guns (and I don't happen to own one) and how dangerous they can be will gladly comply with the above requirements. I would...and so would every hunter in my family.

Y'know who wouldn't?

Anybody who wants to go out and shoot up a school. That's who....and who will get their guns without complying with the above rules? Those who want to use their guns to commit crimes, that's who.

Should we do the above? Sure. Will it fix the problem? Not even close.

Thats lies, a lot of these mass shooters bought their weapons legally, the Las Vegas shooter was definitely one of them, this El Paso shooter bought the weapons legally too.

 

[Lyndon]

That's what training is for, Lyndon. That's what gun clubs are for. That's what safes and proper care of those guns are for.

I have an extended family. LOTS of us, all over the west. A bunch of farmers and ranchers who still, to this day, go out on horses (or ATV's) into the back of beyond, and TAKE GUNS because of rattlesnakes, bears and poachers. NONE of them have ever killed a family member by accident.

On the other hand, one of them killed her ex-husband because he was about to beat their son into paste. Unfortunately, it was the husband who was genetically related to us...and he was not legally allowed to own a gun. He used his fists and a tire iron instead.

One relative shot (but did not kill) a couple of men who were stealing a herd of cattle and driving them through an electrified fence. The poachers shot first, btw.

It was very 'wild west,' but unfortunately, that sort of thing still happens.

And I would prefer the 'wild west' to living in Chicago. Look at THOSE stats and see who does the shooting, and whether one is more likely to kill himself or a family member.

So you really need a semi automatic assault rifle with 100 round capacity to shoot rattlesnakes and scare off rustlers?? I don't think so.

 

[dianaiad]

Thats lies, a lot of these mass shooters bought their weapons legally, the Las Vegas shooter was definitely one of them, this El Paso shooter bought the weapons legally too.

But they broke other laws dealing with gun ownership AND YOU KNOW IT. For one thing, the store he bought his guns/rifles from was supposed to have reported his multiple purchases to the Feds, AND IT DID NOT DO SO. Broken law.

The Texas shooter...you are correct. He bought the gun legally. However, according to present laws, he should not have been able to do so.

 

[Lyndon]

But they broke other laws dealing with gun ownership AND YOU KNOW IT.

The only gun laws they broke is using their legally bought guns to kill innocent people.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You do realize you're more likely to kill yourself or a family member with your guns than protect yourself from any imagined criminal. How would a right minded person want to take that risk??

Well maybe if criminals are imaginary. ;O]

I've known shotguns that have been in the family for Generations. Grandpappy handed it to Pappy, and Pappy handed it to his son.

 

[shmogie]

Of course certain deaths are accepted as part of the risks of living.

Deaths in auto accidents, which account for as many or more than firearms deaths, are placidly accepted.

Suicides, without firearms, are placidly accepted.

I am amused by the liberal mantra,"ïf one life can be saved by banning firearms, it would be worth it. ´

Yet, if you respond with ¨ if one life could be saved by banning abortion, it would be worth it¨ They go nuts.

¨Abortion is our right, we can even kill babies after they are born if we choose. However, we want to rescind your right to own a firearm because we don´t like them ¨

Blatant, and brutal hypocrisy. Really, who are the true dangerous killers ?

 

[dianaiad]

So you really need a semi automatic assault rifle with 100 round capacity to shoot rattlesnakes and scare off rustlers?? I don't think so.

Don't be daft.

Those who seek to make guns illegal are not targeting semi automatic assault rifles with 100 round capacities even though that's what they SAY. They want all of 'em gone.

 

[dianaiad]

Well maybe if criminals are imaginary. ;O]

I've known shotguns that have been in the family for Generations. Grandpappy handed it to Pappy, and Pappy handed it to his son.

There is one of those on my parent's wall. Someday it will hang on my son's wall. A Civil War rifle that gets fired every five years or so just to make sure it still can do so. At a firing range, using all sorts of safety precautions. Then it gets put back on the wall.

 

[dianaiad]

Thats lies, a lot of these mass shooters bought their weapons legally, the Las Vegas shooter was definitely one of them, this El Paso shooter bought the weapons legally too.

Oh, and don't accuse me of lying. It's rude. If you look past the liberal smoke screen, you will see that in almost every case, a current law was broken during the acquisition of those weapons.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

You still haven't really answered my question, nor have you really outlined anything that's not being done already. The Trump administration has already banned the bump stocks which the Obama administration allowed (you can thank him with an email to the White House); so what else specifically can we do to prevent criminals from getting weapons of any type?

I did answer your question. I just won't be baited into writing an essay for you.
I illustrated why background checks are ineffective currently and some federal gun control initiatives. If you want to know more, you can look up things like red flag bills, and correcting background check system errors and closing loopholes.

 

[shmogie]

You do realize you're more likely to kill yourself or a family member with your guns than protect yourself from any imagined criminal. How would a right minded person want to take that risk??

So, the presence of a firearm mystically imbues someone with the desire to kill.

Interestingly, I have owned multiple firearms since I was twelve, a long time ago, yet none of them have ever communicated to me the order to kill someone. I guess my guns are dead, or missed the step in manufacture where they were given an evil soul.

If you get into a car you are much more likely to become one of the 50,000 people who die in car accidents every year.

¨ How would a right minded person want to take that risk ? Just take the bus, and be safe. Better yet, ban privately owned cars, and force everyone to ride the bus.

A huge reduction in annual deaths would result.

 

[shmogie]

I did answer your question. I just won't be baited into writing an essay for you.
I illustrated why background checks are ineffective currently and some federal gun control initiatives. If you want to know more, you can look up things like red flag bills, and correcting background check system errors and closing loopholes.

She doesn´t know the issues, nor does she want to discuss them. She is right, you are wrong, finito.

 

[shmogie]

I'm all about revolting...not rebelling.

What if someone is a revolting rebel ?

 

[Revoltingest]

What if someone is a revolting rebel ?

Then I am thoroughly bested.

 

[BSM1]

I did answer your question. I just won't be baited into writing an essay for you.
I illustrated why background checks are ineffective currently and some federal gun control initiatives. If you want to know more, you can look up things like red flag bills, and correcting background check system errors and closing loopholes.

Soooo...you got nothing that's not already feasible...

 

[dianaiad]

Sooo.....my daughter came home this afternoon. She had been in the local post office on Lancaster blvd, in Lancaster, Ca. That building is about half a block from the sheriff's station. Everything was fine when she went into the post office, but when she came out a few minutes later, she told me that 'all hell had broken loose.' It seems that a rookie sheriff's deputy had just been shot by a sniper, and was even then, along with his fellow sheriffs, hiding from further shooting. She happened upon the matter less than three minutes after the shooting. The police arrived like a tsunami, she said; the cops stopped her, searched her car, took her ID and asked her if she owned a gun. She said yes. She does. She was asked if she had it in her car. She said no...she didn't keep it with her when she was doing personal business. The police escorted her away from the area and she came home to tell us about it.

As far as I know, if you look for 'Lancaster CA shooter," you can still see live news coverage of the event, at least if you look NOW (Wednesday, Aug. 21, 2019 at 7:00 PM Pacific time)

So...what does that have to do with anything in this thread?

The shots came from a mental health facility....a housing project for those who are mentally disabled. NONE of those people are LEGALLY allowed to own a gun. None of them. We don't know who did the shooting (and the sheriff's deputy who was hit is going to be OK, evidently). They think he's still in the apartment building. At least, they hope he is. Or she is. The thing is, it is very much against the law for there to be any firearms in that building. Of any sort.

Trust me on this. I KNOW this. I know that area very, very well....have lived there for over half a century, after all.

So here's the question, asked before the shooter is identified or caught: how could a different law have changed what happened? Remember...SoCal has some of the most restrictive gun laws there are.

 

[Stevicus]

So here's the question, asked before the shooter is identified or caught: how could a different law have changed what happened? Remember...SoCal has some of the most restrictive gun laws there are.

Well, there are a lot of guns out there, and where there's a will to obtain them, there is a way - legal or illegal.

I think the real question is about enforcement. Even if they outlawed every gun out there (which no one is actually advocating), how could they even come close to enforcing it when the genie is out of the bottle and there's millions upon millions of guns out there already? And the people who have them now aren't going to give them up that easily.

The strange thing about it all is that, statistically, violent crime has gone down from what it was back in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s. I think there may have been a slight uptick in the past couple of years, but nowhere near as bad as it used to be.

Of course, if the domestic market in firearms dries up, then the gun manufacturers will have to find an overseas market, which seems somewhat saturated at the moment. In fact, I'm always amazed about reading stories of civil wars in other countries - places where they have no firearms manufacturing and most of the people seem dirt poor. Yet somehow, they manage to become heavily armed.

 

[dianaiad]

Well, there are a lot of guns out there, and where there's a will to obtain them, there is a way - legal or illegal.

I think the real question is about enforcement. Even if they outlawed every gun out there (which no one is actually advocating),

That's not true. Many people are advocating precisely that. Even those who CLAIM they aren't will acknowledge that such an outcome would be wonderful, and is the ultimate aim, leaving the government as the sole legal 'owner of guns.' That is a very scary proposition....and is, in fact, why the second amendment was enacted; to prevent just that.

how could they even come close to enforcing it when the genie is out of the bottle and there's millions upon millions of guns out there already? And the people who have them now aren't going to give them up that easily.

The strange thing about it all is that, statistically, violent crime has gone down from what it was back in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s. I think there may have been a slight uptick in the past couple of years, but nowhere near as bad as it used to be.

really? I'd like to see those stats.

Of course, if the domestic market in firearms dries up, then the gun manufacturers will have to find an overseas market, which seems somewhat saturated at the moment. In fact, I'm always amazed about reading stories of civil wars in other countries - places where they have no firearms manufacturing and most of the people seem dirt poor. Yet somehow, they manage to become heavily armed.

Oh, the black market gun group is very well established...and so are black market gun manufacturers. That IS a problem, and it's why the current aim of gun control laws simply isn't going to work. You are quite right; if we take all the guns away from those law abiding folks who will give them up to obey the laws, the only guns out there will be in the hands of those who have no intention of obeying any laws.