Think it is high time we have an intelligent conversation regarding guns

[wjboyer1]

We are living in a time where there is a great deal of violence, much of which is related to guns.

Extreme voices on both the liberal and conservative way of thinking seem to drown out the necessary intelligent discussion about what to do to diminish the chances that more gun violence will take more innocent lives.

There are compelling instances of both law and emotion being screamed at each other currently, and no-one is looking at ways that we, as a nation, can address this situation.

As of today, and not counting the possible deaths of any of the surviving people who were injured in the gun violence of Las Vegas, over 407 people have had their lives ended as a result of gun violence this year alone. That does not include the many other instances in past years, but it does warrant the questioning of our leaders why has nothing been done to address this issue?

Currently a gun law that would permit silencers to become legal is before Congress, and just recently a bill was defeated in Congress relating to having background checks be performed before a purchase of a firearm could commence.

It looks like we cannot have confidence in our elected representatives to actually represent you, and me: their constituents. It looks like a national organization which has, in the past, directed significant funds to political candidates that support unfettered access to any kind of firearm, and made huge economic efforts against any who would even have an intelligent discourse about some sort of limitations.

Political groups will now rise up and blame their counterparts, but we will still have the problem before us. We need to actually start talking WITH each other, find solutions TOGETHER, and stop being so divisive as a nation and intolerant of each other.

Please contact your representatives and ask them to start talking with each other to address this, and many other problems. If they are not responsive, consider using your VOTE to change direction from being polarized and blaming each other to being an instrument of making America better and working together for that end.

[rubicon]

I believe its time we have an objective national conversation about the inadequate mental health system, providers , facilities and laws we have in this nation.

I believe its time we have an objective national conversation about the inadequate immigration system we have in this nation.

I believe its time we have an object national conversation about sanctuary cities that protect illegal criminal aliens.

I believe its time we have an objective national conversation explaining that law enforcement people are not crooked or bigoted people but people dedicated to their motto of protect and serve.

I believe its time for progressive to give up their push to take away 2nd amendment rights, which is one of the 50 ways government uses to take control over citizens rights.

Personal Best Regards:

[larbud]

We are living in a time where there is a great deal of violence, much of which is related to guns.

Extreme voices on both the liberal and conservative way of thinking seem to drown out the necessary intelligent discussion about what to do to diminish the chances that more gun violence will take more innocent lives.

There are compelling instances of both law and emotion being screamed at each other currently, and no-one is looking at ways that we, as a nation, can address this situation.

As of today, and not counting the possible deaths of any of the surviving people who were injured in the gun violence of Las Vegas, over 407 people have had their lives ended as a result of gun violence this year alone. That does not include the many other instances in past years, but it does warrant the questioning of our leaders why has nothing been done to address this issue?

Currently a gun law that would permit silencers to become legal is before Congress, and just recently a bill was defeated in Congress relating to having background checks be performed before a purchase of a firearm could commence.

It looks like we cannot have confidence in our elected representatives to actually represent you, and me: their constituents. It looks like a national organization which has, in the past, directed significant funds to political candidates that support unfettered access to any kind of firearm, and made huge economic efforts against any who would even have an intelligent discourse about some sort of limitations.

Political groups will now rise up and blame their counterparts, but we will still have the problem before us. We need to actually start talking WITH each other, find solutions TOGETHER, and stop being so divisive as a nation and intolerant of each other.

Please contact your representatives and ask them to start talking with each other to address this, and many other problems. If they are not responsive, consider using your VOTE to change direction from being polarized and blaming each other to being an instrument of making America better and working together for that end.

Look in the mirror to see a stupid person...

[Don Baldwin]

We are living in a time where there is a great deal of violence, much of which is related to guns.

Extreme voices on both the liberal and conservative way of thinking seem to drown out the necessary intelligent discussion about what to do to diminish the chances that more gun violence will take more innocent lives.

There are compelling instances of both law and emotion being screamed at each other currently, and no-one is looking at ways that we, as a nation, can address this situation.

As of today, and not counting the possible deaths of any of the surviving people who were injured in the gun violence of Las Vegas, over 407 people have had their lives ended as a result of gun violence this year alone. That does not include the many other instances in past years, but it does warrant the questioning of our leaders why has nothing been done to address this issue?

Currently a gun law that would permit silencers to become legal is before Congress, and just recently a bill was defeated in Congress relating to having background checks be performed before a purchase of a firearm could commence.

It looks like we cannot have confidence in our elected representatives to actually represent you, and me: their constituents. It looks like a national organization which has, in the past, directed significant funds to political candidates that support unfettered access to any kind of firearm, and made huge economic efforts against any who would even have an intelligent discourse about some sort of limitations.

Political groups will now rise up and blame their counterparts, but we will still have the problem before us. We need to actually start talking WITH each other, find solutions TOGETHER, and stop being so divisive as a nation and intolerant of each other.

Please contact your representatives and ask them to start talking with each other to address this, and many other problems. If they are not responsive, consider using your VOTE to change direction from being polarized and blaming each other to being an instrument of making America better and working together for that end.

MOST of it done by minorities...90%.

Ban minorities from having guns and you'll eliminate 90%.

Again...ban minorities from having guns and you cut gun violence by 90%.

Over 407 murders in Chicago alone...by blacks...thankfully against blacks most of the time.

90% of ALL violence is committed by minorities...lets talk about what to do about it.

Yes...we will still have rampant violence committed by minorities.

Yes...contact them and tell them...you're tired of the damage being done by minorities.

[Carl in Tampa]

wjboyer1

We are living in a time where there is a great deal of violence, much of which is related to guns.

Extreme voices on both the liberal and conservative way of thinking seem to drown out the necessary intelligent discussion about what to do to diminish the chances that more gun violence will take more innocent lives.

There are compelling instances of both law and emotion being screamed at each other currently, and no-one is looking at ways that we, as a nation, can address this situation.

As of today, and not counting the possible deaths of any of the surviving people who were injured in the gun violence of Las Vegas, over 407 people have had their lives ended as a result of gun violence this year alone. That does not include the many other instances in past years, but it does warrant the questioning of our leaders why has nothing been done to address this issue?

Currently a gun law that would permit silencers to become legal is before Congress, and just recently a bill was defeated in Congress relating to having background checks be performed before a purchase of a firearm could commence.

It looks like we cannot have confidence in our elected representatives to actually represent you, and me: their constituents. It looks like a national organization which has, in the past, directed significant funds to political candidates that support unfettered access to any kind of firearm, and made huge economic efforts against any who would even have an intelligent discourse about some sort of limitations.

Political groups will now rise up and blame their counterparts, but we will still have the problem before us. We need to actually start talking WITH each other, find solutions TOGETHER, and stop being so divisive as a nation and intolerant of each other.

Please contact your representatives and ask them to start talking with each other to address this, and many other problems. If they are not responsive, consider using your VOTE to change direction from being polarized and blaming each other to being an instrument of making America better and working together for that end.

I wonder what solutions you would suggest.

Let's look at the shooting in Las Vegas.

1. A "silencer" was not used. Why did you feel the need to bring up the issue of suppressors? (They muffle sound, but they do not silence it.)

2. There is no allegation that the firearms used were illegally purchased. Why do you bring up illegal purchases?

3. It is early in the investigation, but it appears likely that the shooter illegally possessed firearms capable of automatic fire. It is conjectured that he personally, illegally converted the firearms from semi-automatic to full automatic capability. There were "gun control laws" in place to deter what the shooter did, but he broke the laws.

4. He committed mass murder. What gun control laws do you think a mass murderer would feel constrained to obey?

Regarding some of your other statements and "statistics,"

1. Where did you get your figure of "407 people have had their lives ended as a result of gun violence this year alone?" I wonder if it includes Justifiable Homicides and the shooting of criminals by police officers.

More to the point, it is much too low, since it does not appear to include the 527 homicides in Chicago alone this year. That's Chicago, where handguns are pretty much totally outlawed by Chicago law. That demonstrates the ineffectiveness of such laws.

2. The purchase and possession of firearms is one of the most heavily regulated activities of our citizens, with federal, state, and local laws in force. Where do you get the idea "nothing been done to address this issue?"

3. And, of course, you surely know that all businesses that sell firearms are required to have potential firearms purchasers fill out a federal questionnaire and be subject to a National Criminal Background Check prior to the sale of a firearm.

And, purchase and possession of certain firearms, such as fully automatic firearms, are severely restricted. You make a much overblown statement when you speak of "unfettered access to any kind of firearm." That is nonsense.

------------------------

Things to consider:

1. The Second Amendment prohibits gun confiscation. Recent Supreme Court decisions have re-affirmed that the amendment guarantees the right of individual citizens to "keep and bear arms."

2. It is estimated that there are over 300 Million guns in the United States. Any attempt to outlaw or seize all guns would result in millions of them being tucked away and exchanged on the black market.

3. Experts who are concerned about defense against assassins and mass murders agree that there can never be an absolute defense against occurrences like Las Vegas in a free society.

--------------------------

So I ask you again. What would you suggest?


Carl in Tampa

.

[Don Baldwin]

I wonder what solutions you would suggest.

Let's look at the shooting in Las Vegas.

1. A "silencer" was not used. Why did you feel the need to bring up the issue of suppressors? (They muffle sound, but they do not silence it.)

2. There is no allegation that the firearms used were illegally purchased. Why do you bring up illegal purchases?

3. It is early in the investigation, but it appears likely that the shooter illegally possessed firearms capable of automatic fire. It is conjectured that he personally, illegally converted the firearms from semi-automatic to full automatic capability. There were "gun control laws" in place to deter what the shooter did, but he broke the laws.

4. He committed mass murder. What gun control laws do you think a mass murderer would feel constrained to obey?

Regarding some of your other statements and "statistics,"

1. Where did you get your figure of "407 people have had their lives ended as a result of gun violence this year alone?" I wonder if it includes Justifiable Homicides and the shooting of criminals by police officers.

More to the point, it is much too low, since it does not appear to include the 527 homicides in Chicago alone this year. That's Chicago, where handguns are pretty much totally outlawed by Chicago law. That demonstrates the ineffectiveness of such laws.

2. The purchase and possession of firearms is one of the most heavily regulated activities of our citizens, with federal, state, and local laws in force. Where do you get the idea "nothing been done to address this issue?"

3. And, of course, you surely know that all businesses that sell firearms are required to have potential firearms purchasers fill out a federal questionnaire and be subject to a National Criminal Background Check prior to the sale of a firearm.

And, purchase and possession of certain firearms, such as fully automatic firearms, are severely restricted. You make a much overblown statement when you speak of "unfettered access to any kind of firearm." That is nonsense.

------------------------

Things to consider:

1. The Second Amendment prohibits gun confiscation. Recent Supreme Court decisions have re-affirmed that the amendment guarantees the right of individual citizens to "keep and bear arms."

2. It is estimated that there are over 300 Million guns in the United States. Any attempt to outlaw or seize all guns would result in millions of them being tucked away and exchanged on the black market.

3. Experts who are concerned about defense against assassins and mass murders agree that there can never be an absolute defense against occurrences like Las Vegas in a free society.

--------------------------

So I ask you again. What would you suggest?


Carl in Tampa

.

Deport ALL minorities...make America white again.

[wjboyer1]

Well, we have had some contributions on misdirecting discussion away from the actual current topic, and we have had a contribution of the current status quo.

Again, there needs to be some intelligent discourse and problem solving here.

This is only and example: Car safety

Years ago, car safety was not a very popular subject. When seat belt laws were introduced, there was negative banter from both citizens and car manufacturers about the "negatives" of seat belts.

Gradually, car manufacturers, prescribed by law, eventually started to design cars with more safety features. Some were successful, some not, but over the past years, car safety has become one of the most popular ways that manufacturers have to "sell" their products.

Gun regulation will take time, but it really must start someplace and there have been technical advances that have been quashed by both manufacturers and gun advocates. Examples are the "smart guns" utilizing the Safe Gun Technology.

Other possible means to keep mentally unstable people from owning, and using firearms could be utilized and enforced.

No, not all things will completely solve the multi-faceted problem we face with gun related violence, but as with advancements in automobile safety, more and more people are surviving. Isn't that something to look at?

[Don Baldwin]

Well, we have had some contributions on misdirecting discussion away from the actual current topic, and we have had a contribution of the current status quo.

Again, there needs to be some intelligent discourse and problem solving here.

This is only and example: Car safety

Years ago, car safety was not a very popular subject. When seat belt laws were introduced, there was negative banter from both citizens and car manufacturers about the "negatives" of seat belts.

Gradually, car manufacturers, prescribed by law, eventually started to design cars with more safety features. Some were successful, some not, but over the past years, car safety has become one of the most popular ways that manufacturers have to "sell" their products.

Gun regulation will take time, but it really must start someplace and there have been technical advances that have been quashed by both manufacturers and gun advocates. Examples are the "smart guns" utilizing the Safe Gun Technology.

Other possible means to keep mentally unstable people from owning, and using firearms could be utilized and enforced.

No, not all things will completely solve the multi-faceted problem we face with gun related violence, but as with advancements in automobile safety, more and more people are surviving. Isn't that something to look at?

Deny MINORITIES access to guns and you cut 90% of gun violence.

90% with ONE simple act...WHY won't you consider it?

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

We are living in a time where there is a great deal of violence, much of which is related to guns.

Extreme voices on both the liberal and conservative way of thinking seem to drown out the necessary intelligent discussion about what to do to diminish the chances that more gun violence will take more innocent lives.

There are compelling instances of both law and emotion being screamed at each other currently, and no-one is looking at ways that we, as a nation, can address this situation.

As of today, and not counting the possible deaths of any of the surviving people who were injured in the gun violence of Las Vegas, over 407 people have had their lives ended as a result of gun violence this year alone. That does not include the many other instances in past years, but it does warrant the questioning of our leaders why has nothing been done to address this issue?

Currently a gun law that would permit silencers to become legal is before Congress, and just recently a bill was defeated in Congress relating to having background checks be performed before a purchase of a firearm could commence.

It looks like we cannot have confidence in our elected representatives to actually represent you, and me: their constituents. It looks like a national organization which has, in the past, directed significant funds to political candidates that support unfettered access to any kind of firearm, and made huge economic efforts against any who would even have an intelligent discourse about some sort of limitations.

Political groups will now rise up and blame their counterparts, but we will still have the problem before us. We need to actually start talking WITH each other, find solutions TOGETHER, and stop being so divisive as a nation and intolerant of each other.

Please contact your representatives and ask them to start talking with each other to address this, and many other problems. If they are not responsive, consider using your VOTE to change direction from being polarized and blaming each other to being an instrument of making America better and working together for that end.

The problem that you're having is that you are being fooled into thinking that legislation will have an effect on what's going on. I'll say it again, LAWS DO NOT PREVENT CRIMES.

This shooter in Las Vegas broke several laws including some gun laws. The guns that he used are basically (though not technically) illegal to own in this country. That did not stop him from acting.

People who want to kill people will find a way to do it. All states have laws against murdering people but people are murdered every day.

Most guns used in gun crimes have been obtained illegally. We already have laws that do not prevent crimes.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Well, we have had some contributions on misdirecting discussion away from the actual current topic, and we have had a contribution of the current status quo.

Again, there needs to be some intelligent discourse and problem solving here.

This is only and example: Car safety

Years ago, car safety was not a very popular subject. When seat belt laws were introduced, there was negative banter from both citizens and car manufacturers about the "negatives" of seat belts.

Gradually, car manufacturers, prescribed by law, eventually started to design cars with more safety features. Some were successful, some not, but over the past years, car safety has become one of the most popular ways that manufacturers have to "sell" their products.

Gun regulation will take time, but it really must start someplace and there have been technical advances that have been quashed by both manufacturers and gun advocates. Examples are the "smart guns" utilizing the Safe Gun Technology.

Other possible means to keep mentally unstable people from owning, and using firearms could be utilized and enforced.

No, not all things will completely solve the multi-faceted problem we face with gun related violence, but as with advancements in automobile safety, more and more people are surviving. Isn't that something to look at?

We already have laws in place that are supposed to prevent mentally unstable people from getting guns. The problem remains that mentally unstable people get guns through illegal means.

Safe gun technology presents a danger to gun owners.
If you are you familiar with fingerprint technology on cell phones you know how frustrating it can be when the device doesn't read your fingerprint correctly.

In a situation where a person is forced to use a gun to defend himself, they do not have the luxury of moving his finger around the trigger until it unlocks the gun. When a gun is used in self-defense it is usually used within 3 seconds of a threat being presented.

Maybe this might be something to look at in the future if the technology can be perfected and additional fingerprints can be added to make the gun work. I'd like my wife to be able to shoot my gun. But right now, the technology is too new and imperfect.

And like all technology, this would certainly be able to be overridden. Someone steals a gun they are going to be able to pick the lock so to speak.

[Sandtrap328]

[QUOTE=DON BLACK: MOST of it done by minorities...90%.

Ban minorities from having guns and you'll eliminate 90%.

Again...ban minorities from having guns and you cut gun violence by 90%.

Over 407 murders in Chicago alone...by blacks...thankfully against blacks most of the time.

90% of ALL violence is committed by minorities...lets talk about what to do about it.

Yes...we will still have rampant violence committed by minorities.

Yes...contact them and tell them...you're tired of the damage being done by minorities.[/QUOTE]

Don Black aka Don Baldwin is a former KKK leader and publisher of hate website called Stronghold. He married his first cousin (some reports are he married his sister) and has a retarded son named Derek Black.

Disregard any posts by this pervert, Black.

[Carl in Tampa]

wjboyer1

Well, we have had some contributions on misdirecting discussion away from the actual current topic, and we have had a contribution of the current status quo.

Again, there needs to be some intelligent discourse and problem solving here.

This is only and example: Car safety

Years ago, car safety was not a very popular subject. When seat belt laws were introduced, there was negative banter from both citizens and car manufacturers about the "negatives" of seat belts.

Gradually, car manufacturers, prescribed by law, eventually started to design cars with more safety features. Some were successful, some not, but over the past years, car safety has become one of the most popular ways that manufacturers have to "sell" their products.

Gun regulation will take time, but it really must start someplace and there have been technical advances that have been quashed by both manufacturers and gun advocates. Examples are the "smart guns" utilizing the Safe Gun Technology.

Other possible means to keep mentally unstable people from owning, and using firearms could be utilized and enforced.

No, not all things will completely solve the multi-faceted problem we face with gun related violence, but as with advancements in automobile safety, more and more people are surviving. Isn't that something to look at?

Once again YOU attempt misdirection.

You bring up "smart guns" which has nothing to do with the Las Vegas shooting. The shooter owned the guns. "Smart" technology would have changed nothing.

We will not be able to keep firearms out of the hands of people who have been evaluated as mentally ill as long as medical privacy laws prevent sharing of the fact of their mental illness.

Now, you have made several "gun control" suggestions, including:

1. Prohibiting "silencers."
2. Preventing illegal purchases.
3. "Smart gun" technology.
4. Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.

None of these would have had any effect on the Las Vegas shooting.

Specifically, what would you suggest that would have prevented the Las Vegas shooting?

Carl in Tampa

.

[wjboyer1]

We already have laws in place that are supposed to prevent mentally unstable people from getting guns. The problem remains that mentally unstable people get guns through illegal means.

Safe gun technology presents a danger to gun owners.
If you are you familiar with fingerprint technology on cell phones you know how frustrating it can be when the device doesn't read your fingerprint correctly.

In a situation where a person is forced to use a gun to defend himself, they do not have the luxury of moving his finger around the trigger until it unlocks the gun. When a gun is used in self-defense it is usually used within 3 seconds of a threat being presented.

Maybe this might be something to look at in the future if the technology can be perfected and additional fingerprints can be added to make the gun work. I'd like my wife to be able to shoot my gun. But right now, the technology is too new and imperfect.

And like all technology, this would certainly be able to be overridden. Someone steals a gun they are going to be able to pick the lock so to speak.

These are certainly problems with SOME technologies that have been introduced, but there are others that do not depend upon just fingerprint technologies.

Again, this is a process, and without good ideas and methods to overcome problems, the problem of gun violence still exists.

It is not only MASS gun violence, but also unauthorized gun usage such as children obtaining and firing firearms that have injured and killed other children as well as others.


This country needs to address this problem, just as it has addressed car safety and other things of mass consumption: food and drugs to mention just a few.

There are many ways of doing things, but when there are differing statutes, in differing areas, there are always going to be "cracks" in the legal system that allows the criminal element to obtain firearms without much trouble.
There will always be a criminal element, but that should not put the brakes upon an effort to do things that will prevent more unnecessary deaths.

[wjboyer1]

Once again YOU attempt misdirection.

You bring up "smart guns" which has nothing to do with the Las Vegas shooting. The shooter owned the guns. "Smart" technology would have changed nothing.

We will not be able to keep firearms out of the hands of people who have been evaluated as mentally ill as long as medical privacy laws prevent sharing of the fact of their mental illness.

Now, you have made several "gun control" suggestions, including:

1. Prohibiting "silencers."
2. Preventing illegal purchases.
3. "Smart gun" technology.
4. Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.

None of these would have had any effect on the Las Vegas shooting.

Specifically, what would you suggest that would have prevented the Las Vegas shooting?

Carl in Tampa

.

I never directed any of my remarks toward JUST the Las Vegas incident. Please stop putting your words in my remarks

[billethkid]

For those who are stepping up on the gun band wagon again where were you yesterday?

And those who continue to advocate stricter gun laws keep the following in mind:

New York City/State
Los Angeles
Chicago
Washington, DC

ALL have the strictest gun laws in the country.
Using Chicago as the example, proof positive, strict gun legislation is a partisan, arm waving exercise proving it is not the laws or the guns that are the problem.

Until and unless something is done without prejudice about the kinds and types of the people who are abusing the currently in existence laws and who statistically prove day in and day out they are the killers.
That has not happened and will not happen in our current permissive, violent society until the politics and special interest and minorities are made accountable.

That will require calling a spade a spade and that is the impediment in our society today.

[Carl in Tampa]

wjboyer1

I never directed any of my remarks toward JUST the Las Vegas incident. Please stop putting your words in my remarks

I take your statement as a concession that nothing you have suggested would have had any effect on preventing the Las Vegas shooting.

Carl in Tampa

.

[wjboyer1]

For those who are stepping up on the gun band wagon again where were you yesterday?

And those who continue to advocate stricter gun laws keep the following in mind:

New York City/State
Los Angeles
Chicago
Washington, DC

ALL have the strictest gun laws in the country.
Using Chicago as the example, proof positive, strict gun legislation is a partisan, arm waving exercise proving it is not the laws or the guns that are the problem.

Until and unless something is done without prejudice about the kinds and types of the people who are abusing the currently in existence laws and who statistically prove day in and day out they are the killers.
That has not happened and will not happen in our current permissive, violent society until the politics and special interest and minorities are made accountable.

That will require calling a spade a spade and that is the impediment in our society today.

Since "laws" in certain areas of the country have not been as effective as thought when they were proposed and passed, perhaps it is necessary to look at laws that will be effective throughout the country as a possible response.
If you take Chicago, as politicians and other ranters have identified, as an area with strict gun laws that don't seem to work because of the gun violence, there are actually some very significant situations that contribute to that situation. First, in the neighboring State of Indiana, there are very lenient gun laws that, because of its close proximity to Chicago, happen to supply the majority of guns that have been identified by police as used in crime. No, not just murder and assault, but bank robbery, car jacking, and other crimes. One of the major problems with the Indiana gun laws are the ability to have a potential gun purchaser buy multiple firearms at gun shows without having ANY background or identification checks.

This is a multi-faceted problem and as such there are multiple problems that need to be addressed, but, getting back to the car safety example, which has taken YEARS to implement and have significant reduction in death/injury, there needs to be a starting point.

If you feel that there is no problem here, you will continue to make excuses in order to maintain the current situation, until, of course, you, or someone you love, is at a concert, or a nightclub, or a school and is gunned down. Or perhaps your toddler, or grandchild finds your gun under the seat of your car and shoots you, or your spouse, or their brother or sister.....

[wjboyer1]

I take your statement as a concession that nothing you have suggested would have had any effect on preventing the Las Vegas shooting.

Carl in Tampa

.

this is not a contest, there is no concession there is only the attempt at an intelligent dialogue, but you don't seem to wish to contribute on any level, so, just sit this one out.....

[Carl in Tampa]

Sandtrap328

Don Black aka Don Baldwin is a former KKK leader and publisher of hate website called Stronghold. He married his first cousin (some reports are he married his sister) and has a retarded son named Derek Black.

Disregard any posts by this pervert, Black.

I've pretty much written Baldwin off, but is your claim that he is Don Black just to jerk his chain, or can you demonstrate that he actually is Don Black?

(The website is Stormfront, not Stronghold.)

Carl in Tampa

.

[cologal]

Why don't we be honest and tell it like it is!! The problem isn't guns... the problem is the people that fire them!! I believe that statistics will show the majority of gun vilolence incidents are perpetrated by men!

Here in The Villages, recently, I can site 3 cases:

1. Murder/Suicide... A man killed his wife and then himself. She was a regular at line dancing, she told her friends she was afraid for her life but she had nowhere to go...

2. A veteran was upset with his treatment at the VA Clinic so he came back with a gun and started shooting! When he finished he said do you believe me now?

3. A married man had designs on the woman next door! She rebuffed him so he put a few rounds thru her front door.

We go ring around the rosy every time this happens!! We regulate most everything why not some types of guns and gun magazines?

COPUFF no longer out west.... release the hounds!!!

[Carl in Tampa]

this is not a contest, there is no concession there is only the attempt at an intelligent dialogue, but you don't seem to wish to contribute on any level, so, just sit this one out.....

Well..........no.

I'll continue to point out lapses in logic --- like yours.

Carl in Tampa

.

[wjboyer1]

Why don't we be honest and tell it like it is!! The problem isn't guns... the problem is the people that fire them!! I believe that statistics will show the majority of gun vilolence incidents are perpetrated by men!

Here in The Villages, recently, I can site 3 cases:

1. Murder/Suicide... A man killed his wife and then himself. She was a regular at line dancing, she told her friends she was afraid for her life but she had nowhere to go...

2. A veteran was upset with his treatment at the VA Clinic so he came back with a gun and started shooting! When he finished he said do you believe me now?

3. A married man had designs on the woman next door! She rebuffed him so he put a few rounds thru her front door.

We go ring around the rosy every time this happens!! We regulate most everything why not some types of guns and gun magazines?

COPUFF no longer out west.... release the hounds!!!

Again, we can ALWAYS place blame somewhere......

The challenge is instituting solutions that minimize gun violence.

Yes, women are statistically, are the most victims of gun violence perpetrated by men, mostly known by the victim. One of the proposed actions to minimize that kind of violence (notice I said MINIMIZE- there are NO ABSOLUTES in any action that may be taken) is to refuse gun ownership to people who have been charged/convicted of spousal abuse, and/or stalking, and/or have an order of protection that has been made upon them. Again, there are many facets to this situation and many possible actions that could mean the difference between life and death.

We all need to look at first steps, and then improve them, or change them if they don't work.

[wjboyer1]

Well..........no.

I'll continue to point out lapses in logic --- like yours.

Carl in Tampa

.

A discussion is just that, not a debate. There were no lapses in logic, but rather your insistence that my attempt at starting a discussion to move toward possible solutions is illogical.

[wjboyer1]

Does this really make sense? Does it make things more dangerous?

Trump Signs Bill Revoking Obama-Era Gun Checks for People With Mental Illnesses - NBC News (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-signs-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221)

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

One of the major problems with the Indiana gun laws are the ability to have a potential gun purchaser buy multiple firearms at gun shows without having ANY background or identification checks.

Sorry, but that is simply not true. a background check is a federal requirement. A state may not opt out.

The only time that a background check is not necessary is when a firearm is transferred to a family member.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

These are certainly problems with SOME technologies that have been introduced, but there are others that do not depend upon just fingerprint technologies.

Again, this is a process, and without good ideas and methods to overcome problems, the problem of gun violence still exists.

It is not only MASS gun violence, but also unauthorized gun usage such as children obtaining and firing firearms that have injured and killed other children as well as others.


This country needs to address this problem, just as it has addressed car safety and other things of mass consumption: food and drugs to mention just a few.

There are many ways of doing things, but when there are differing statutes, in differing areas, there are always going to be "cracks" in the legal system that allows the criminal element to obtain firearms without much trouble.
There will always be a criminal element, but that should not put the brakes upon an effort to do things that will prevent more unnecessary deaths.

The point is that many of the things that are suggested are not going to prevent more unnecessary deaths and in fact put good law abiding people in jeopardy by making it more difficult for them to get a gun with which to defend themselves.

It is not "cracks" in the legal system that allows criminals to obtain guns. Criminals simply don't follow the law. Laws don't affect them until they are caught. But they don't prevent anything.

[Carl in Tampa]

wjboyer1

Again, we can ALWAYS place blame somewhere......

The challenge is instituting solutions that minimize gun violence.

Yes, women are statistically, are the most victims of gun violence perpetrated by men, mostly known by the victim. One of the proposed actions to minimize that kind of violence (notice I said MINIMIZE- there are NO ABSOLUTES in any action that may be taken) is to refuse gun ownership to people who have been charged/convicted of spousal abuse, and/or stalking, and/or have an order of protection that has been made upon them. Again, there are many facets to this situation and many possible actions that could mean the difference between life and death.

We all need to look at first steps, and then improve them, or change them if they don't work.

It has been my experience that people who call for more gun control laws immediately after a newsworthy shooting event are in the usual "gun grabber" crowd that has gun ownership prohibition as their motivation.

Perhaps that is not the case with your post. But, in many other cases the person calling for more laws usually is calling for new laws that would not have prevented the newsworthy event. You appear to be in that group.

In addition, well intentioned people propose restrictions that already exist. You also fall into that group.

Case in point is your proposal, highlighted above. I refer you to the Lautenberg Act (or Amendment.) The act bans shipment, transport, ownership, and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse that falls within the criteria set by 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). The 1968 Gun Control Act and subsequent amendments had previously prohibited anyone convicted of a felony and anyone subject to a domestic violence protective order from possessing a firearm. The act also makes it unlawful to knowingly sell or give a firearm or ammunition to such persons.

(See questions 11h and 11i on ATF Form 4473.)

The fact is that there is little left to be done in the area of gun control legislation. The lapse is in enforcement. Often potential gun buyers make false statements on ATF Form 4473, it is detected, but no one is ever prosecuted.

I suggest that you might want to review ATF Form 4473 in order to get an idea of how restrictive federal law is in the area of purchasing a firearm, both on the buyer and on the business making the sale. Read all the small print.

https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

Carl in Tampa

.

[Carl in Tampa]

wjboyer1

Does this really make sense? Does it make things more dangerous?

Trump Signs Bill Revoking Obama-Era Gun Checks for People With Mental Illnesses - NBC News (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-signs-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221)

You don't seriously believe a headline by NBC News do you?

What the Obama "regulation" actually did was decree that anyone on Social Security who had a person designated to assist them with their interaction with the Social Security Administration in financial matters was forbidden from purchasing a firearm.

And, as we know, current law prohibits firearm sale or transfer to and purchase or possession of a firearm by a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective, so we know that NBC News lied about allowing mental defectives to have firearms.

The Obama rule was done by the Obama Social Security Administration without going through Congress. Congress passed a law to reverse the rule, and Trump signed it.

Carl in Tampa

.

[wjboyer1]

The federal laws do not apply to many abusers who victimize non-spouse partners. Domestic violence affects people in family or intimate relationships that fall outside the protections of federal law. For example, dating partners are not within the federal prohibitions unless the partners have cohabitated as spouses or have a child in common. The risk of domestic violence being committed by a dating partner is well documented.

The federal laws do not apply to abusers who victimize a family member other than a partner or child. The current federal prohibitions also do not address violence against family members other than a child or intimate partner. They therefore do not address violence against someone like an abused sibling or parent.

The federal laws do not apply to convicted stalkers and others subject to a protective order. Similar loopholes in federal law allow access to guns by convicted stalkers13 and abusers subject to domestic violence protective orders that cover the period before a hearing

The federal laws fail to require domestic abusers to surrender their firearms. Federal law does not require domestic abusers to turn in their firearms once they are convicted of a crime of domestic violence or become subject to a restraining order. As a result, abusers continue to commit crimes with guns they are prohibited from owning under federal law.

The federal laws are weakened because not all states report all prohibited abusers. In order for background checks to prevent abusers from obtaining guns, states must report abusers who fall within prohibited categories to the proper databases. Identifying the abusers to be reported involves a series of complex legal issues that many states have not yet addressed.16 As a result, many states do not comprehensively enter domestic violence protective order and offender information into the proper databases.

The federal laws are weakened by ineffectual federal background check laws. Federal law does not require a background check to be performed before every sale of a gun, including sales by unlicensed, private sellers. The private sale loophole enables many domestic abusers to illegally obtain the firearms they use against their victims. In states that require a background check for every handgun sale, 38% fewer women are shot to death by intimate partners

I don't argue with the veracity of your "sources" and seem to find significant holes in your interpretation of the current laws and their subsequent enforcement. It is clear that there are problems, and those problems need to be addressed and corrected, but to widely admonish the law as a complete failure because of your perceived lack of enforcement is suspect to your particular viewpoint.

Again, this is an open discussion on the problem that gun violence has on our society, not the admonishment of any point of view. I again encourage a discussion, but you seem only to want to be confrontational and combative.

[fourandrew]

MOST of it done by minorities...90%.

Ban minorities from having guns and you'll eliminate 90%.

Again...ban minorities from having guns and you cut gun violence by 90%.

Over 407 murders in Chicago alone...by blacks...thankfully against blacks most of the time.

90% of ALL violence is committed by minorities...lets talk about what to do about it.

Yes...we will still have rampant violence committed by minorities.

Yes...contact them and tell them...you're tired of the damage being done by minorities.


Duh--the shooter was white!!!!!!!!!!!!!:jester:

[wjboyer1]

It has been my experience that people who call for more gun control laws immediately after a newsworthy shooting event are in the usual "gun grabber" crowd that has gun ownership prohibition as their motivation.

Perhaps that is not the case with your post. But, in many other cases the person calling for more laws usually is calling for new laws that would not have prevented the newsworthy event. You appear to be in that group.

In addition, well intentioned people propose restrictions that already exist. You also fall into that group.

Case in point is your proposal, highlighted above. I refer you to the Lautenberg Act (or Amendment.) The act bans shipment, transport, ownership, and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse that falls within the criteria set by 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). The 1968 Gun Control Act and subsequent amendments had previously prohibited anyone convicted of a felony and anyone subject to a domestic violence protective order from possessing a firearm. The act also makes it unlawful to knowingly sell or give a firearm or ammunition to such persons.

(See questions 11h and 11i on ATF Form 4473.)

It has been my experience that people The fact is that there is little left to be done in the area of gun control legislation. The lapse is in enforcement. Often potential gun buyers make false statements on ATF Form 4473, it is detected, but no one is ever prosecuted.

A conviction for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence represents the third-most frequent reason for denial of an application to purchase a firearm by the FBI, after a felony conviction and an outstanding arrest warrant.24 Between November 30, 1998 and July 31, 2014, over 109,000 people convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence were denied purchase of a firearm because of the Lautenberg Amendment.
Between November 30, 1998 and July 31, 2014, over 46,000 people subject to domestic violence protective orders were denied purchase of a firearm because of this prohibition.28 Research indicates that this prohibition also deters people subject to active protective orders from applying to buy a firearm.

I suggest that you might want to review ATF Form 4473 in order to get an idea of how restrictive federal law is in the area of purchasing a firearm, both on the buyer and on the business making the sale. Read all the small print.

https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

Carl in Tampa

.

I suggest you review results of the Lautenberg Amendment.

[Bog99]

We are living in a time where there is a great deal of violence, much of which is related to guns.

Extreme voices on both the liberal and conservative way of thinking seem to drown out the necessary intelligent discussion about what to do to diminish the chances that more gun violence will take more innocent lives.

There are compelling instances of both law and emotion being screamed at each other currently, and no-one is looking at ways that we, as a nation, can address this situation.

As of today, and not counting the possible deaths of any of the surviving people who were injured in the gun violence of Las Vegas, over 407 people have had their lives ended as a result of gun violence this year alone. That does not include the many other instances in past years, but it does warrant the questioning of our leaders why has nothing been done to address this issue?

Currently a gun law that would permit silencers to become legal is before Congress, and just recently a bill was defeated in Congress relating to having background checks be performed before a purchase of a firearm could commence.

It looks like we cannot have confidence in our elected representatives to actually represent you, and me: their constituents. It looks like a national organization which has, in the past, directed significant funds to political candidates that support unfettered access to any kind of firearm, and made huge economic efforts against any who would even have an intelligent discourse about some sort of limitations.

Political groups will now rise up and blame their counterparts, but we will still have the problem before us. We need to actually start talking WITH each other, find solutions TOGETHER, and stop being so divisive as a nation and intolerant of each other.

Please contact your representatives and ask them to start talking with each other to address this, and many other problems. If they are not responsive, consider using your VOTE to change direction from being polarized and blaming each other to being an instrument of making America better and working together for that end.


Yes -- and that "intelligent conversation" (is the conceit and pomposity of Femo-Fascism disgusting? Or is it just me?)

... that "intelligent conversation" would be short and simple: guns are property like all other property, with special, explicit protection in the Constitution, which makes all 22,000 laws against guns un-Constitutional and should be repealed, "en mass".

"God made man and woman. Samuel Colt made them equal."

"2nd Amendment <--- the one that guarantees the other nine."

[wjboyer1]

How to Prevent Gun Deaths? Where Experts and the Public Agree - The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/10/upshot/How-to-Prevent-Gun-Deaths-The-Views-of-Experts-and-the-Public.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0)

[Bog99]

How to Prevent Gun Deaths? Where Experts and the Public Agree - The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/10/upshot/How-to-Prevent-Gun-Deaths-The-Views-of-Experts-and-the-Public.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0)



The New York Times? LOL!

.

[wjboyer1]

The New York Times? LOL!

.

New York Times
New York Times - Left Center BiasLEFT-CENTER BIAS

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.

Factual Reporting: HIGH

Notes: The New York Times (sometimes abbreviated to NYT) is an American daily newspaper, founded and continuously published in New York City since September 18, 1851, by The New York Times Company. The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization. NYT is well sourced and factual in reporting. The paper has a pretty strong left wing editorial bias, but is considered one of the most reliable sources for information. (5/18/2016) Update (4/25/2017)

[Carl in Tampa]

One of the major problems with the Indiana gun laws are the ability to have a potential gun purchaser buy multiple firearms at gun shows without having ANY background or identification checks.

Sorry, but that is simply not true. a background check is a federal requirement. A state may not opt out.

The only time that a background check is not necessary is when a firearm is transferred to a family member.

You two may be talking about different issues.

The top "Guest" is talking about the alleged "Gun Show Loophole" where it is claimed that people can buy guns without a federal background check.

The second "Guest" thinks the first Guest is talking about a state opting out of the federal records check.

Here is the fact. A business (or individual) that is engaged in the purchase and resale of firearms for a livelihood must have a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and must obtain ATF Form 4473, and do a Criminal Records Check on prospective gun buyers before making a sale. It is a federal felony to engage in the business of firearms sales without a FFL license.

But, this requirement does not apply to occasional, individual sales.

Here is where the two of you misunderstood each other. Different states have different laws regarding the occasional, individual sales not regulated by federal law, referred to as "personal transactions." Different states have different laws regarding personal transactions selling firearms. I only know about Florida. In Florida these sales are not regulated.

Calling such sales the Gun Show loophole grew out of the fact that many such individual sales do take place at gun shows where a law abiding individual may be looking to simply sell a single gun or dispose of a firearms collection, while others are looking to circumvent the law.

The abuse of this "loophole" grows out of the fact that some people are "regulars" at gun shows where they are always buying and selling guns, and are making a good profit at it. Undercover police attend gun shows and try to make cases on people who they can demonstrate are engaged in the business of gun sales without a Federal Firearms License.

There are people at gun shows who are operating a business for profit. They obtain the proper paperwork and make the appropriate Criminal Records checks before transferring firearms.

That is the present state of the law.

Carl in Tampa

.

[Carl in Tampa]

The federal laws do not apply to many abusers who victimize non-spouse partners. Domestic violence affects people in family or intimate relationships that fall outside the protections of federal law. For example, dating partners are not within the federal prohibitions unless the partners have cohabitated as spouses or have a child in common. The risk of domestic violence being committed by a dating partner is well documented.

The federal laws do not apply to abusers who victimize a family member other than a partner or child. The current federal prohibitions also do not address violence against family members other than a child or intimate partner. They therefore do not address violence against someone like an abused sibling or parent.

The federal laws do not apply to convicted stalkers and others subject to a protective order. Similar loopholes in federal law allow access to guns by convicted stalkers13 and abusers subject to domestic violence protective orders that cover the period before a hearing

The federal laws fail to require domestic abusers to surrender their firearms. Federal law does not require domestic abusers to turn in their firearms once they are convicted of a crime of domestic violence or become subject to a restraining order. As a result, abusers continue to commit crimes with guns they are prohibited from owning under federal law.

The federal laws are weakened because not all states report all prohibited abusers. In order for background checks to prevent abusers from obtaining guns, states must report abusers who fall within prohibited categories to the proper databases. Identifying the abusers to be reported involves a series of complex legal issues that many states have not yet addressed.16 As a result, many states do not comprehensively enter domestic violence protective order and offender information into the proper databases.

The federal laws are weakened by ineffectual federal background check laws. Federal law does not require a background check to be performed before every sale of a gun, including sales by unlicensed, private sellers. The private sale loophole enables many domestic abusers to illegally obtain the firearms they use against their victims. In states that require a background check for every handgun sale, 38% fewer women are shot to death by intimate partners

I don't argue with the veracity of your "sources" and seem to find significant holes in your interpretation of the current laws and their subsequent enforcement. It is clear that there are problems, and those problems need to be addressed and corrected, but to widely admonish the law as a complete failure because of your perceived lack of enforcement is suspect to your particular viewpoint.

Again, this is an open discussion on the problem that gun violence has on our society, not the admonishment of any point of view. I again encourage a discussion, but you seem only to want to be confrontational and combative.

Well, it looks like you went somewhere and did a lot of cutting and pasting from anti-gun sites to make this post. It has several errors, but I have tired of pointing out your mistakes, so I will just make a general statement.

Many of the problems you cite have to do with the fact that you can't deny someone their Second Amendment rights without due process. You don't lose your rights when you are accused. You must be convicted.

Confrontational and combative? You bet, when I sense there are gun grabbers mounting a new attack on the Second Amendment. This happens after every high profile shooting, and invariably the proposed new gun control laws would not have prevented the newsworthy shooting.

Carl in Tampa

.

[Carl in Tampa]

A conviction for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence represents the third-most frequent reason for denial of an application to purchase a firearm by the FBI, after a felony conviction and an outstanding arrest warrant.24 Between November 30, 1998 and July 31, 2014, over 109,000 people convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence were denied purchase of a firearm because of the Lautenberg Amendment.
Between November 30, 1998 and July 31, 2014, over 46,000 people subject to domestic violence protective orders were denied purchase of a firearm because of this prohibition.28 Research indicates that this prohibition also deters people subject to active protective orders from applying to buy a firearm.

I suggest you review results of the Lautenberg Amendment.

So, you acknowledge that the Lautenberg Amendment already provides the coverage that you were suggesting, as I stated.

Carl in Tampa

.

[villagerjack]

I believe its time we have an objective national conversation about the inadequate mental health system, providers , facilities and laws we have in this nation.

I believe its time we have an objective national conversation about the inadequate immigration system we have in this nation.

I believe its time we have an object national conversation about sanctuary cities that protect illegal criminal aliens.

I believe its time we have an objective national conversation explaining that law enforcement people are not crooked or bigoted people but people dedicated to their motto of protect and serve.

I believe its time for progressive to give up their push to take away 2nd amendment rights, which is one of the 50 ways government uses to take control over citizens rights.

Personal Best Regards:
Wow!
I agree

[rubicon]

Given that it is a working theory that this event was targeted because it was comprised primarily of Christians conservatives, whom likely own guns,

And given that Hillary made clear that a silencer would have been more effective.

And given that a senior legal executive, Hayley Geftman-Gold at CBS viciously lashed-out at the victims of Sunday night’s deadly massacre in Las Vegas, saying she felt ‘no sympathy’ for the fallen because ‘country music fans are often Republican gun toters comments which she posted on social media just hours after this tragedy.

And given that Representative Steven Scalise, severely injured and other Republicans were targeted while at a practice game by a progressive hater of all things conservative.

And since a gentlemen in Denmark was verbal and physical attack and had a drink thrown in his face by a progressive only because he wore a "Make America Great Again....

one can conclude that guns in the hands of progressives makes it more likely that violence will pursue. so now we have another class of individuals that also should be restricted from buying guns.

The rationale and conclusions behind what I just posted is about as ridiculous as the progressive rhetoric about ending gun ownership.

We have witnessed random killings (violence), by knife cars, trucks baseball bats, fists, bombs.

The right question to ask and have answered is not why are these people so violent but more importantly why in their cases does their violence kill people?

A small %, in fact a lower than % of people mentally ill, per capita commit crimes of violence than does the population as a whole nationwide.

What finally caused this seemingly quiet law abiding citizen to turn to such violence? We can agree that the act is one of insanity but it does not necessitate the individual was insane. Timothy Mc Veigh the Oklahoma
bomber perpetuated an insane and violent act but he was not crazy

Finally look around the world and if you look close enough you will see people in many nations who are brutalized because they are unable to defend themselves because they have no weapons (like carrying a knife to a gun fight)

As a nation we need to stop the political rhetoric and deal with the real problem.. and even then we will fail because the cause is often random.

Personal Best Regards:

[Don Baldwin]

Given that it is a working theory that this event was targeted because it was comprised primarily of Christians conservatives, whom likely own guns,

And given that Hillary made clear that a silencer would have been more effective.

And given that a senior legal executive, Hayley Geftman-Gold at CBS viciously lashed-out at the victims of Sunday night’s deadly massacre in Las Vegas, saying she felt ‘no sympathy’ for the fallen because ‘country music fans are often Republican gun toters comments which she posted on social media just hours after this tragedy.

And given that Representative Steven Scalise, severely injured and other Republicans were targeted while at a practice game by a progressive hater of all things conservative.

And since a gentlemen in Denmark was verbal and physical attack and had a drink thrown in his face by a progressive only because he wore a "Make America Great Again....

one can conclude that guns in the hands of progressives makes it more likely that violence will pursue. so now we have another class of individuals that also should be restricted from buying guns.

The rationale and conclusions behind what I just posted is about as ridiculous as the progressive rhetoric about ending gun ownership.

We have witnessed random killings (violence), by knife cars, trucks baseball bats, fists, bombs.

The right question to ask and have answered is not why are these people so violent but more importantly why in their cases does their violence kill people?

A small %, in fact a lower than % of people mentally ill, per capita commit crimes of violence than does the population as a whole nationwide.

What finally caused this seemingly quiet law abiding citizen to turn to such violence? We can agree that the act is one of insanity but it does not necessitate the individual was insane. Timothy Mc Veigh the Oklahoma
bomber perpetuated an insane and violent act but he was not crazy

Finally look around the world and if you look close enough you will see people in many nations who are brutalized because they are unable to defend themselves because they have no weapons (like carrying a knife to a gun fight)

As a nation we need to stop the political rhetoric and deal with the real problem.. and even then we will fail because the cause is often random.

Personal Best Regards:

Minorities kill this many people in a typical weekend... This is a holiday weekend in Chicago.

The reason it's news is because it happened OUTSIDE the inner city slums and it happened to white people.

The difference between a slave and a citizen is...citizens can defend themselves.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Well, we have had some contributions on misdirecting discussion away from the actual current topic, and we have had a contribution of the current status quo.

Again, there needs to be some intelligent discourse and problem solving here.

This is only and example: Car safety

Years ago, car safety was not a very popular subject. When seat belt laws were introduced, there was negative banter from both citizens and car manufacturers about the "negatives" of seat belts.

Gradually, car manufacturers, prescribed by law, eventually started to design cars with more safety features. Some were successful, some not, but over the past years, car safety has become one of the most popular ways that manufacturers have to "sell" their products.

Gun regulation will take time, but it really must start someplace and there have been technical advances that have been quashed by both manufacturers and gun advocates. Examples are the "smart guns" utilizing the Safe Gun Technology.

Other possible means to keep mentally unstable people from owning, and using firearms could be utilized and enforced.

No, not all things will completely solve the multi-faceted problem we face with gun related violence, but as with advancements in automobile safety, more and more people are surviving. Isn't that something to look at?

I'm glad that you brought up car safety because to me carrying a handgun is the same as wearing a seatbelt. Both are designed to save my life in the event of something bad happening.

Maybe we should mandate carrying a gun.

And by the way, even though it is mandatory to wear a seatbelt while riding in a car, many people don't. Even though it's mandatory to have small children strapped into a car seat, many parents don't. There is no way of making people obey the law. LAWS DO NOT PREVENT CRIMES. People will disobey laws and they do all the time.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Why don't we be honest and tell it like it is!! The problem isn't guns... the problem is the people that fire them!! I believe that statistics will show the majority of gun vilolence incidents are perpetrated by men!

Here in The Villages, recently, I can site 3 cases:

1. Murder/Suicide... A man killed his wife and then himself. She was a regular at line dancing, she told her friends she was afraid for her life but she had nowhere to go...

2. A veteran was upset with his treatment at the VA Clinic so he came back with a gun and started shooting! When he finished he said do you believe me now?

3. A married man had designs on the woman next door! She rebuffed him so he put a few rounds thru her front door.

We go ring around the rosy every time this happens!! We regulate most everything why not some types of guns and gun magazines?

COPUFF no longer out west.... release the hounds!!!

We regulate many types of guns and magazines. But how would further regulation of guns or magazines have prevented any of the incidents that you cite here?

[Don Baldwin]

We regulate many types of guns and magazines. But how would further regulation of guns or magazines have prevented any of the incidents that you cite here?

There are stories about women using knives, using their car, to try to kill someone.

The REAL violence is committed by the minorities. 10X more than that of "white people".

Compare crime in the villages to Leesburg or Wildwood...it's 10X higher...because they're both full of minorities...we're not.

We want to change the country over this...when it's a drop in the bucket compared to the killing in the minority infested inner cities. But we don't care if they kill each other.

[mellincf]

The problem that you're having is that you are being fooled into thinking that legislation will have an effect on what's going on. I'll say it again, LAWS DO NOT PREVENT CRIMES.

This shooter in Las Vegas broke several laws including some gun laws. The guns that he used are basically (though not technically) illegal to own in this country. That did not stop him from acting.

People who want to kill people will find a way to do it. All states have laws against murdering people but people are murdered every day.

Most guns used in gun crimes have been obtained illegally. We already have laws that do not prevent crimes. Why then is the USA the "murder by gun" capital of the universe? Other countries don't have this problem. Of course, other countries don't have a Congress which has their balls in the moneyclip of the NRA.

[mellincf]

What the band thought. Caleb Keeter, the group’s lead guitarist, spoke up: “l’ve been a proponent of the 2nd amendment my entire life. Until the events of last night. I cannot express how wrong I was. We actually have members of our crew with [Concealed Handgun Licenses], and legal firearms on the bus,” Keeter wrote. “They were useless.” He continued:
We couldn’t touch them for fear police might think we were part of the massacre and shoot us. A small group (or one man) laid waste to a city with dedicated, fearless police officers desperately trying to help, because of access to an insane amount of fire power.
Enough is enough.

[dirtbanker]

We are living in a time where there is a great deal of violence, much of which is related to guns.

Extreme voices on both the liberal and conservative way of thinking seem to drown out the necessary intelligent discussion about what to do to diminish the chances that more gun violence will take more innocent lives.

There are compelling instances of both law and emotion being screamed at each other currently, and no-one is looking at ways that we, as a nation, can address this situation.

As of today, and not counting the possible deaths of any of the surviving people who were injured in the gun violence of Las Vegas, over 407 people have had their lives ended as a result of gun violence this year alone. That does not include the many other instances in past years, but it does warrant the questioning of our leaders why has nothing been done to address this issue?

Currently a gun law that would permit silencers to become legal is before Congress, and just recently a bill was defeated in Congress relating to having background checks be performed before a purchase of a firearm could commence.

It looks like we cannot have confidence in our elected representatives to actually represent you, and me: their constituents. It looks like a national organization which has, in the past, directed significant funds to political candidates that support unfettered access to any kind of firearm, and made huge economic efforts against any who would even have an intelligent discourse about some sort of limitations.

Political groups will now rise up and blame their counterparts, but we will still have the problem before us. We need to actually start talking WITH each other, find solutions TOGETHER, and stop being so divisive as a nation and intolerant of each other.

Please contact your representatives and ask them to start talking with each other to address this, and many other problems. If they are not responsive, consider using your VOTE to change direction from being polarized and blaming each other to being an instrument of making America better and working together for that end.

You don't want to discuss anything, just parrot liberal fear and drama...

You are an idiot Boy...that leaves you out of any intelligent conversation...go ahead post some liberal picture for response...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[dirtbanker]

What the band thought. Caleb Keeter, the group’s lead guitarist, spoke up: “l’ve been a proponent of the 2nd amendment my entire life. Until the events of last night. I cannot express how wrong I was. We actually have members of our crew with [Concealed Handgun Licenses], and legal firearms on the bus,” Keeter wrote. “They were useless.” He continued:
We couldn’t touch them for fear police might think we were part of the massacre and shoot us. A small group (or one man) laid waste to a city with dedicated, fearless police officers desperately trying to help, because of access to an insane amount of fire power.
Enough is enough.

Wonder why such a proponent of the 2nd amendment did not carry a firearm himself, left that to the crew?

He probably wished he did not play the guitar at the concert too...the guy is obviously a shooken liberal that voted for Crooked Hillary...probably smokes weed too.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[Taltarzac725]

What the band thought. Caleb Keeter, the group’s lead guitarist, spoke up: “l’ve been a proponent of the 2nd amendment my entire life. Until the events of last night. I cannot express how wrong I was. We actually have members of our crew with [Concealed Handgun Licenses], and legal firearms on the bus,” Keeter wrote. “They were useless.” He continued:
We couldn’t touch them for fear police might think we were part of the massacre and shoot us. A small group (or one man) laid waste to a city with dedicated, fearless police officers desperately trying to help, because of access to an insane amount of fire power.
Enough is enough.

Well said.

[dirtbanker]

Why then is the USA the "murder by gun" capital of the universe? Other countries don't have this problem. Of course, other countries don't have a Congress which has their balls in the moneyclip of the NRA.
Other countries don't have the numerous good things the USA has, but if you like one of those other countries so much...move there!

Someone else will be happy to buy your inefficient home built on a filled swamp!!


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[dirtbanker]

Well said.
Did you look up Caleb Keeters birthday yet? Wait till you see the numbers!!


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[wjboyer1]

Article:Largest study to date finds powerful evidence that gun control actually works - ScienceAlert (https://www.sciencealert.com/studies-show-evidence-that-stricter-gun-control-works-to-save-lives)


Actual Study-

https://watermark.silverchair.com/api/watermark?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL _9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAdcwggHTBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggHEMIIB wAIBADCCAbkGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMGq jWtOFovQ-7dHeeAgEQgIIBituaY3Qv1TG4Ab4LM1woDQqiWlQxO-uCvzfR5_hWDYNOvsak0ldp-xKWrK3BmKJoR9XnFDQEQSRr0cUGJusAc7cPz8qDJ5tGfXI4Vu3 p7-Tjxer29RP5DJUBOvjeIh4tDOfNm5RcK2COvdyj1h1orBmEcO8-OGkgbCo1gwCMOL64vpMsn9sGXZXxnqrYk2ivMsyEfJVUA6xSxb hh-UFd7A9lpto_HeKbE8nyHQYsEMBLSk9wFcMjfXOg9x_k_DPTwNL ZXQsAVvhvwkTfl8B5btQn6DCxRx0ifigaFoBoMAUTSBgPhPlnF zZLI-9etraskezaR41M530kSEmQUyocJO_UjUrhK9Y74AG75SdZu8LO Qmg-c2I-pyni_EPgyPjr0PfWYcIVSeTCSxTR9NpomCV59DAMIr72WxcVNj RF3ke5BA50dHUELYg4RXl6PWOjjunFs-BoajaEWcAMpiFVYAL5dBH8Ss39LTj1zrB6cCtdfer0LJkdvBIr pD3cYJOh2tGFQZYfhVRyX3U

[wjboyer1]

Want charts and graphs to show the problem?

America’s unique gun violence problem, explained in 17 maps and charts - Vox (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts)

[dirtbanker]

Article:Largest study to date finds powerful evidence that gun control actually works - ScienceAlert (https://www.sciencealert.com/studies-show-evidence-that-stricter-gun-control-works-to-save-lives)


Actual Study-

https://watermark.silverchair.com/api/watermark?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL _9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAdcwggHTBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggHEMIIB wAIBADCCAbkGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMGq jWtOFovQ-7dHeeAgEQgIIBituaY3Qv1TG4Ab4LM1woDQqiWlQxO-uCvzfR5_hWDYNOvsak0ldp-xKWrK3BmKJoR9XnFDQEQSRr0cUGJusAc7cPz8qDJ5tGfXI4Vu3 p7-Tjxer29RP5DJUBOvjeIh4tDOfNm5RcK2COvdyj1h1orBmEcO8-OGkgbCo1gwCMOL64vpMsn9sGXZXxnqrYk2ivMsyEfJVUA6xSxb hh-UFd7A9lpto_HeKbE8nyHQYsEMBLSk9wFcMjfXOg9x_k_DPTwNL ZXQsAVvhvwkTfl8B5btQn6DCxRx0ifigaFoBoMAUTSBgPhPlnF zZLI-9etraskezaR41M530kSEmQUyocJO_UjUrhK9Y74AG75SdZu8LO Qmg-c2I-pyni_EPgyPjr0PfWYcIVSeTCSxTR9NpomCV59DAMIr72WxcVNj RF3ke5BA50dHUELYg4RXl6PWOjjunFs-BoajaEWcAMpiFVYAL5dBH8Ss39LTj1zrB6cCtdfer0LJkdvBIr pD3cYJOh2tGFQZYfhVRyX3USuggests there would have been 64 people shot in Chicago this past weekend...instead of the 32 that were actially shot by illegal gun owners this past weekend??

If so, I guess someone could say the laws, that these people do not abide by, cut down the number of people shot...LOL, Lil Boy!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[wjboyer1]

Do 90% of Americans support background checks for all gun sales? | PolitiFact Wisconsin (http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/)

[wjboyer1]

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2017: Data From Mother Jones’ Investigation – Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/)

[dirtbanker]

Do 90% of Americans support background checks for all gun sales? | PolitiFact Wisconsin (http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/)They do background checks already...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[rubicon]

Seems to me this dead horse has been beaten enough?

Personal Best Regards:

[wjboyer1]

They do background checks already...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Known as the "gun show loophole," most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals -- federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks. ... Some states' requirements are limited only to handgun purchases.

[Shimpy]

. First, in the neighboring State of Indiana, there are very lenient gun laws that, because of its close proximity to Chicago, happen to supply the majority of guns that have been identified by police as used in crime.

But bringing guns into Chicago from Indiana would be against the law wouldn't it? Why doesn't the law work? Why do criminals bring in the guns if they know it's against the law?.........because criminals don't obey laws.

[AJ32162]

But bringing guns into Chicago from Indiana would be against the law wouldn't it? Why doesn't the law work? Why do criminals bring in the guns if they know it's against the law?.........because criminals don't obey laws.

I agree. If laws were obeyed our prisons would be empty.

[dirtbanker]

Known as the "gun show loophole," most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals -- federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks. ... Some states' requirements are limited only to handgun purchases.

Have you been to gun show lately?
Nevermind your post already answered that question...

You paint a picture of a bunch of gang bangers dragging their baggy pants legs up and down isles purchasing machine guns...not happening!

Get off your dumb ass and go see for yourself what you can buy at the gun show, that day with no paperwork!


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[wjboyer1]

I agree. If laws were obeyed our prisons would be empty.


Too bad, you both don't realize that by tightening the gun laws in states like Indiana and Wisconsin, fewer guns would be available to be transported to Illinois for illegal use.....

[AJ32162]

Too bad, you both don't realize that by tightening the gun laws in states like Indiana and Wisconsin, fewer guns would be available to be transported to Illinois for illegal use.....

Too bad that you don't realize that it is ALREADY illegal to purchase a firearm in a state in which you are not a resident, and it is also illegal to sell a firearm to a known or suspected felon. What new laws do you purpose?

[Carl in Tampa]

wjboyer1

Too bad, you both don't realize that by tightening the gun laws in states like Indiana and Wisconsin, fewer guns would be available to be transported to Illinois for illegal use.....

Well............no.

It is already a federal violation for someone to purchase and take delivery of a handgun in a state when they are not a resident of that state.

What Indiana or Wisconsin law would you "tighten" to prevent an activity that is already a federal crime?

Please be specific.

Carl in Tampa

.

[wjboyer1]

Well............no.

It is already a federal violation for someone to purchase and take delivery of a handgun in a state when they are not a resident of that state.

What Indiana or Wisconsin law would you "tighten" to prevent an activity that is already a federal crime?

Please be specific.

.

Firearm Acquisition Without Background Checks: Results of a National Survey. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28055050/)

[wjboyer1]

Too bad that you don't realize that it is ALREADY illegal to purchase a firearm in a state in which you are not a resident, and it is also illegal to sell a firearm to a known or suspected felon. What new laws do you purpose?
How Gun Traffickers Get Around State Gun Laws - The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/12/us/gun-traffickers-smuggling-state-gun-laws.html?_r=0)

Trace the Guns (https://tracetheguns.org/#)

[Carl in Tampa]

wjboyer1

Firearm Acquisition Without Background Checks: Results of a National Survey. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28055050/)

This study has no relationship to the discussion. This study is about transactions between individuals who live in the same state.

It is a federal violation for individual sales where one person is a resident of a state other than where the transaction occurs.

The only way such transactions can occur is by using a "middleman" in both states who has a Federal Firearms License. The FFL holder must do a background check.

Again, what state law would you "tighten" to control an activity that is already a violation of federal law?

Carl in Tampa

.

[wjboyer1]

This study has no relationship to the discussion. This study is about transactions between individuals who live in the same state.

It is a federal violation for individual sales where one person is a resident of a state other than where the transaction occurs.

The only way such transactions can occur is by using a "middleman" in both states who has a Federal Firearms License. The FFL holder must do a background check.

Again, what state law would you "tighten" to control an activity that is already a violation of federal law?

Carl in Tampa

.

hmmmm......firearms are not limited to handguns

Other posts have suggested tightening or closing the loophole allowing sales of firearms without background checks at gun shows, private sales....try reading each post and don't jump all over the one thing that you happen to disagree with. Keep the laws as they are: we will have more and more gun related deaths. Change the laws to make them more effective, fewer gun deaths. It looks obvious which alternative you want.....

[AJ32162]

How Gun Traffickers Get Around State Gun Laws - The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/12/us/gun-traffickers-smuggling-state-gun-laws.html?_r=0)

Trace the Guns (https://tracetheguns.org/#)

Thank you for making my earlier point...criminals DO NOT obey laws, they either find a way to work around them or, if that's not possible, just disregard them.

However, I completely understand your mindset. Liberals can NEVER have too many laws or too many taxes.

[wjboyer1]

Thank you for making my earlier point...criminals DO NOT obey laws, they either find a way to work around them or, if that's not possible, just disregard them.

However, I completely understand your mindset. Liberals can NEVER have too many laws or too many taxes.

Closing loopholes in present laws can make a difference. It looks like your focus is not on making things better, but keeping the same laws and keeping the same level of gun violence.

[AJ32162]

Closing loopholes in present laws can make a difference. It looks like your focus is not on making things better, but keeping the same laws and keeping the same level of gun violence.

What 'loophole' is responsible for the mass murder that happened in Las Vegas, and how would you purpose that it be closed?

[wjboyer1]

What 'loophole' is responsible for the mass murder that happened in Las Vegas, and how would you purpose that it be closed?

Evidently you only focus on the most recent event. This subject is a discussion of ALL gun violence and how we can improve our current laws and jurisdictions to prevent as many incidents of gun violence possible. This tragedy is just a terrible example of the availability of many types of firearms as well as "bump" technology that can modify weapons to increase the rapidity of gunfire. We all need to examine these weapons and technologies and make efforts to limit/control their availability.

[wjboyer1]

America's gun problem, explained - Vox (https://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-states-america)
71865

[AJ32162]

Evidently you only focus on the most recent event. This subject is a discussion of ALL gun violence and how we can improve our current laws and jurisdictions to prevent as many incidents of gun violence possible. This tragedy is just a terrible example of the availability of many types of firearms as well as "bump" technology that can modify weapons to increase the rapidity of gunfire. We all need to examine these weapons and technologies and make efforts to limit/control their availability.

The liberal way of thinking is that if we can just pass enough laws and spend enough money, we can solve any problem.

The problem is cultural, many in our society no longer value human life.

[wjboyer1]

The liberal way of thinking is that if we can just pass enough laws and spend enough money, we can solve any problem.

The problem is cultural, many in our society no longer value human life.


You seem to think the problem is a "liberal" vs "conservative" issue.

I look at it as a life or death issue.

Which side are you on? Life? or death? Looks like you are part of the society that no longer values human life.

[AJ32162]

You seem to think the problem is a "liberal" vs "conservative" issue.

I look at it as a life or death issue.

Which side are you on? Life? or death? Looks like you are part of the society that no longer values human life.

Possibly. And, it looks like you are the part of society that goes through life with their head up their ass and thinks more regulation, more laws and more spending is the answer to EVERYTHING...how naive you are.

Why not just call for the banning of all firearms and call it a day?

[Don Baldwin]

Why then is the USA the "murder by gun" capital of the universe? Other countries don't have this problem. Of course, other countries don't have a Congress which has their balls in the moneyclip of the NRA.

The USA is NOT the "murder capital" of the universe. We're not even in the top half. For that, you need to go to the "brown" 3rd world countries.

Want charts and graphs to show the problem?

America’s unique gun violence problem, explained in 17 maps and charts - Vox (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts)

So...you compared America that is 51% minorities...to European countries that are much more "white" then we are. The more brown/black people...the more dangerous a place is. America included.

But bringing guns into Chicago from Indiana would be against the law wouldn't it? Why doesn't the law work? Why do criminals bring in the guns if they know it's against the law?.........because criminals don't obey laws.

Minorities don't obey the laws.

Too bad, you both don't realize that by tightening the gun laws in states like Indiana and Wisconsin, fewer guns would be available to be transported to Illinois for illegal use.....

Illinois, Chicago has a gun problem because they have a minority problem.

Evidently you only focus on the most recent event. This subject is a discussion of ALL gun violence and how we can improve our current laws and jurisdictions to prevent as many incidents of gun violence possible. This tragedy is just a terrible example of the availability of many types of firearms as well as "bump" technology that can modify weapons to increase the rapidity of gunfire. We all need to examine these weapons and technologies and make efforts to limit/control their availability.

To eliminate 90% of ALL crime and violence...eliminate minorities. Control availability of guns to minorities.

The liberal way of thinking is that if we can just pass enough laws and spend enough money, we can solve any problem.

The problem is cultural, many in our society no longer value human life.

Minorities no longer value life.

Possibly. And, it looks like you are the part of society that goes through life with their head up their ass and thinks more regulation, more laws and more spending is the answer to EVERYTHING...how naive you are.

Why not just call for the banning of all firearms and call it a day?

That IS what they want...even though gun violence is a MINORITY problem...they're responsible for 90% of it.

[wjboyer1]

Possibly. And, it looks like you are the part of society that goes through life with their head up their ass and thinks more regulation, more laws and more spending is the answer to EVERYTHING...how naive you are.

Why not just call for the banning of all firearms and call it a day?

I do not call for the ban of all firearms, as our second amendment of the Constitution says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." But I do profess to believe in the first portion of that sentence that states that, "A well regulated militia..." which, in my estimation, means that firearms are allowed to be "regulated".

We are no longer in a country of a 1-musket ball long rifle, and we are no longer in a country whose citizenry must "defend" itself from outside forces. Do we individually need multi-fire semi-automatic weapons whose ammunition can pierce ANY armor, including the bullet-resistant vests worn by our law enforcement officers?

We need common sense regulation, and a perfect example of that is the regulation of automobiles and trucks. Of course there are elements of this society that can, and will, find ways to skirt the law, but as a whole, those regulations have saved countless lives. Aren't American lives worth saving?

I happen to think that saving lives is worth it, and you can call me naive, but I was a paramedic/firefighter for 20 years and had to deal with people who were gunshot victims, car crash victims, fire victims, and many others. I happen to value life. I will wear the badge of being naive with honor if it saves lives.

[Carl in Tampa]

hmmmm......firearms are not limited to handguns

Other posts have suggested tightening or closing the loophole allowing sales of firearms without background checks at gun shows, private sales....try reading each post and don't jump all over the one thing that you happen to disagree with. Keep the laws as they are: we will have more and more gun related deaths. Change the laws to make them more effective, fewer gun deaths. It looks obvious which alternative you want.....

My post, to which you were responding, did not say a word about handguns.

Carl in Tampa

.

[wjboyer1]

My post, to which you were responding, did not say a word about handguns.

Carl in Tampa

.

so sorry, I must have been looking at a different item when responding, but I still see the gun-show loophole as a significant problem.

[Carl in Tampa]

wjboyer1

I do not call for the ban of all firearms, as our second amendment of the Constitution says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." But I do profess to believe in the first portion of that sentence that states that, "A well regulated militia..." which, in my estimation, means that firearms are allowed to be "regulated".

We are no longer in a country of a 1-musket ball long rifle, and we are no longer in a country whose citizenry must "defend" itself from outside forces. Do we individually need multi-fire semi-automatic weapons whose ammunition can pierce ANY armor, including the bullet-resistant vests worn by our law enforcement officers?

We need common sense regulation, and a perfect example of that is the regulation of automobiles and trucks. Of course there are elements of this society that can, and will, find ways to skirt the law, but as a whole, those regulations have saved countless lives. Aren't American lives worth saving?

I happen to think that saving lives is worth it, and you can call me naive, but I was a paramedic/firefighter for 20 years and had to deal with people who were gunshot victims, car crash victims, fire victims, and many others. I happen to value life. I will wear the badge of being naive with honor if it saves lives.

In historical context the reference to "a well regulated militia" was understood to mean a well equipped militia. That's why people could keep and bear their own firearms. There was no provision for an armory full of firearms from which the militia could draw when needed.

The firearms that the citizens were authorized to own were the current weapons of war. The firearms keep up with the times. Contemporary writings by the Founding Fathers clearly demonstrate that the people were authorized to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from their own government if it should become tyrannical.

Virtually any rifle larger than a .22 rim fire, and many pistols, fire rounds capable of piercing the bullet resistant vests that are worn by most law enforcement officers. If you advocate forbidding private ownership of all those rifles, you end most hunting.

I value your 20 years as a paramedic/firefighter, but in my 40 years in law enforcement I also have rendered life saving attention to victims of gunshot, car crashes, people overcome in fires, and others in distress. And, I always arrived on the scene before the firefighters. You are not entitled to claim the moral high ground of compassion just because of your service.

You characterize my point of view as confrontational. I believe it is actually a realistic assessment of the facts. In virtually every high profile mass shooting since the Columbine High School incident there have been proposals for new "gun control" legislation, and none of those proposals would have corrected the situations that led to the shootings.

You keep calling for a discussion of sensible gun control laws. We are having it. You have made a couple of suggestions that I have pointed out are already the law of the land. You simply don't like what I have to say.

Carl in Tampa

.

[Carl in Tampa]

so sorry, I must have been looking at a different item when responding, but I still see the gun-show loophole as a significant problem.

It is actually not a "Gun Show loophole" so much as it is a "Private sale" loophole. It became characterized as a Gun Show loophole because so many private sales were being made at gun show venues, where complete strangers met to buy and sell guns.

Federal law can regulate "businesses" engaged in interstate commerce. Interestingly, the federal government has never settled on a specific number of gun sales at a gun show, or in a particular period of time, which would trigger the requirement for a person to have a Federal Firearms license.

Regulation of private in-state sales is more problematic, and is best addressed by the individual states. The residents of different states have different views.

Carl in Tampa

.

[Byte1]

It is actually not a "Gun Show loophole" so much as it is a "Private sale" loophole. It became characterized as a Gun Show loophole because so many private sales were being made at gun show venues, where complete strangers met to buy and sell guns.

Federal law can regulate "businesses" engaged in interstate commerce. Interestingly, the federal government has never settled on a specific number of gun sales at a gun show, or in a particular period of time, which would trigger the requirement for a person to have a Federal Firearms license.

Regulation of private in-state sales is more problematic, and is best addressed by the individual states. The residents of different states have different views.

Carl in Tampa

.

You are absolutely right, Carl. I have been to many gun shows and ALWAYS had to fill out background paperwork to purchase a new weapon. EXCEPT if I had a CCW where there was already an extensive background check on file.

When someone commits a crime using a gun, there are those that insist that we need new gun laws. When someone runs through a crowd in a car or truck, should we make new traffic laws? We have laws.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

You are absolutely right, Carl. I have been to many gun shows and ALWAYS had to fill out background paperwork to purchase a new weapon. EXCEPT if I had a CCW where there was already an extensive background check on file.

When someone commits a crime using a gun, there are those that insist that we need new gun laws. When someone runs through a crowd in a car or truck, should we make new traffic laws? We have laws.

The private sale law also only applies to the transfer of a firearm between family members. Private sellers are also supposed to do background checks.

The fact is that we have ATF agents at gun shows trying to crack down on private sales because they are not legal.

It's interesting that you mention cars. Over 40,000 in the US were killed in car accidents last year while 11,000 were killed by guns. I heard a woman on television say that we need to pass whatever laws we can even if it were only to save one life. So should we pass more automobile laws?

About 13,000 people were killed as the result of drunk drivers. Do we need to make more laws against drunk driving?

Most people would say no to these questions. The answer is usually, we need to better enforce the laws that we have. I would argue the same thing for guns and gun laws.

More laws won't prevent more deaths. LAWS DON'T PREVENT CRIMES.

We have laws against drunk driving and 13,000 people were killed by drunk drivers. People break the laws. People commit crimes. If all laws were followed, very few people would be killed by a gun. People who commit gun crimes are already breaking several laws.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

About "3 percent of murders and crimes are committed with guns from people who actually (legally) purchase those guns."
— Joe Scarborough on Friday, October 2nd, 2015 in a broadcast of MSNBC's "Morning Joe"

So how is making it more difficult for, good responsible, law-abiding citizens to obtain guns going to help this problem?

What we need to do is enforce the gun laws that we already have. We need stiffer penalties for people who commit crimes with guns. But even that is not going to prevent people like the LV shooter from acting. He went into this hoping to die. How do you defend yourself against someone who wants to die? They are like the Japanese Kamikaze pilots. Threats do not deter them and that is all that laws do. They present the threat of going to jail or being put to death.

[wjboyer1]

It is actually not a "Gun Show loophole" so much as it is a "Private sale" loophole. It became characterized as a Gun Show loophole because so many private sales were being made at gun show venues, where complete strangers met to buy and sell guns.

Federal law can regulate "businesses" engaged in interstate commerce. Interestingly, the federal government has never settled on a specific number of gun sales at a gun show, or in a particular period of time, which would trigger the requirement for a person to have a Federal Firearms license.

Regulation of private in-state sales is more problematic, and is best addressed by the individual states. The residents of different states have different views.

Carl in Tampa

.

They regulate "private" car sales....and do so effectively.

[dirtbanker]

hmmmm......firearms are not limited to handguns

Other posts have suggested tightening or closing the loophole allowing sales of firearms without background checks at gun shows, private sales....try reading each post and don't jump all over the one thing that you happen to disagree with. Keep the laws as they are: we will have more and more gun related deaths. Change the laws to make them more effective, fewer gun deaths. It looks obvious which alternative you want.....

Hmmmm....idiots are not limited to menopausal women.

Try reading some of the articles you are posting links for...Why don't you suggest we don't "jump all over" the numerous things we disagree on??

You know nothing about guns or the sales of guns. You just keep google searching links to post, you don't even take the time to read them, because they have nothing to do with your erroneous claims...you are an idiot PERIOD!

[Don Baldwin]

I do not call for the ban of all firearms, as our second amendment of the Constitution says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." But I do profess to believe in the first portion of that sentence that states that, "A well regulated militia..." which, in my estimation, means that firearms are allowed to be "regulated".

We are no longer in a country of a 1-musket ball long rifle, and we are no longer in a country whose citizenry must "defend" itself from outside forces. Do we individually need multi-fire semi-automatic weapons whose ammunition can pierce ANY armor, including the bullet-resistant vests worn by our law enforcement officers?

We need common sense regulation, and a perfect example of that is the regulation of automobiles and trucks. Of course there are elements of this society that can, and will, find ways to skirt the law, but as a whole, those regulations have saved countless lives. Aren't American lives worth saving?

I happen to think that saving lives is worth it, and you can call me naive, but I was a paramedic/firefighter for 20 years and had to deal with people who were gunshot victims, car crash victims, fire victims, and many others. I happen to value life. I will wear the badge of being naive with honor if it saves lives.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You misunderstand it...they wanted the PEOPLE to be the militia. They wanted NO standing Army. They wanted citizen soldiers. "ARMS" means EVERYTHING an Army would have...the people would have. They wanted the people to be "well organized" in their local militia. You see...there wasn't supposed to a a federal "Army" for anyone to have to fight to change the government when it inevitably became too tyrannical...like it is now.

The difference between a citizen and a slave? A citizen can defend himself and his property.

What stops people from driving into a crowd? Nothing. And you're starting to see it. Ban one thing and another takes its place.

IF you were in a diverse area...you know then that MINORITIES are a FAR larger problem than these lone crazy white people. The percentage is...90% of killings ARE done by minorities.

In historical context the reference to "a well regulated militia" was understood to mean a well equipped militia. That's why people could keep and bear their own firearms. There was no provision for an armory full of firearms from which the militia could draw when needed.

The firearms that the citizens were authorized to own were the current weapons of war. The firearms keep up with the times. Contemporary writings by the Founding Fathers clearly demonstrate that the people were authorized to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from their own government if it should become tyrannical.

Virtually any rifle larger than a .22 rim fire, and many pistols, fire rounds capable of piercing the bullet resistant vests that are worn by most law enforcement officers. If you advocate forbidding private ownership of all those rifles, you end most hunting.

I value your 20 years as a paramedic/firefighter, but in my 40 years in law enforcement I also have rendered life saving attention to victims of gunshot, car crashes, people overcome in fires, and others in distress. And, I always arrived on the scene before the firefighters. You are not entitled to claim the moral high ground of compassion just because of your service.

You characterize my point of view as confrontational. I believe it is actually a realistic assessment of the facts. In virtually every high profile mass shooting since the Columbine High School incident there have been proposals for new "gun control" legislation, and none of those proposals would have corrected the situations that led to the shootings.

You keep calling for a discussion of sensible gun control laws. We are having it. You have made a couple of suggestions that I have pointed out are already the law of the land. You simply don't like what I have to say.

Carl in Tampa

.

Exactly...the people were to form well regulated local militias who would be equipped with "arms"...everything an Army would have. They were meant to be defensive in nature.

They WANT us to be slaves and not citizens...THEY want to call ALL the shots.

Minorities are responsible for 90% of shootings and killings. Ban THEM from having guns. Would you let your dog play with guns? A chimp? Well then...why do we let another species play with them?

It is actually not a "Gun Show loophole" so much as it is a "Private sale" loophole. It became characterized as a Gun Show loophole because so many private sales were being made at gun show venues, where complete strangers met to buy and sell guns.

Federal law can regulate "businesses" engaged in interstate commerce. Interestingly, the federal government has never settled on a specific number of gun sales at a gun show, or in a particular period of time, which would trigger the requirement for a person to have a Federal Firearms license.

Regulation of private in-state sales is more problematic, and is best addressed by the individual states. The residents of different states have different views.

Carl in Tampa

.

You have a RIGHT to bear arms...that is why the regulation is at a minimum. Are ALL swap meets regulated? You can buy bows and arrows, knives, axes, all kinds of things that can harm...without regulation.

Minorities, the inner city thugs who commit 90% of the crime and killing...don't go to gun shows to buy their weapons. They get stolen guns from their fellow thugs.

You are absolutely right, Carl. I have been to many gun shows and ALWAYS had to fill out background paperwork to purchase a new weapon. EXCEPT if I had a CCW where there was already an extensive background check on file.

When someone commits a crime using a gun, there are those that insist that we need new gun laws. When someone runs through a crowd in a car or truck, should we make new traffic laws? We have laws.

You CAN'T stop someone who is determined.

So how is making it more difficult for, good responsible, law-abiding citizens to obtain guns going to help this problem?

What we need to do is enforce the gun laws that we already have. We need stiffer penalties for people who commit crimes with guns. But even that is not going to prevent people like the LV shooter from acting. He went into this hoping to die. How do you defend yourself against someone who wants to die? They are like the Japanese Kamikaze pilots. Threats do not deter them and that is all that laws do. They present the threat of going to jail or being put to death.

They regulate "private" car sales....and do so effectively.

For the tax money. If guns sold for multiple $ thousands...they'd be all over it.

Besides...owning a car isn't in the Constitution as a right.

[Byte1]

They regulate "private" car sales....and do so effectively.

Purchasing a car is not a Constitutional Right.

[billethkid]

The private sale law also only applies to the transfer of a firearm between family members. Private sellers are also supposed to do background checks.

The fact is that we have ATF agents at gun shows trying to crack down on private sales because they are not legal.

It's interesting that you mention cars. Over 40,000 in the US were killed in car accidents last year while 11,000 were killed by guns. I heard a woman on television say that we need to pass whatever laws we can even if it were only to save one life. So should we pass more automobile laws?

About 13,000 people were killed as the result of drunk drivers. Do we need to make more laws against drunk driving?

Most people would say no to these questions. The answer is usually, we need to better enforce the laws that we have. I would argue the same thing for guns and gun laws.

More laws won't prevent more deaths. LAWS DON'T PREVENT CRIMES.

We have laws against drunk driving and 13,000 people were killed by drunk drivers. People break the laws. People commit crimes. If all laws were followed, very few people would be killed by a gun. People who commit gun crimes are already breaking several laws.

Proof?
All the immigration laws did not/do not /has not/ will not prevent illegal entry to the USA....proven every single day.

[Fredster]

An intelligent conversation about guns will never happen
if certain liberal Democrats are involved.
A lot them shoot their mouth off half cocked! :blahblahblah::blahblahblah:

[MDLNB]

An intelligent conversation about guns will never happen
if certain liberal Democrats are involved.
A lot them shoot their mouth off half cocked! :blahblahblah::blahblahblah:

They are afraid that they might be shot by Joe Citizen when they are breaking into his business during a protest. They are real good at protesting guns and protesting COPs shooting criminal thugs. Their "intelligent conversation" consists of rehashing laws already in existence. But, they will also defend Obama's Fast and Furious gun program.

[billethkid]

One would think an easy bi-partisan action would be to outlaw bump stock and have manufacturers modify their product to not accommodate the modification.
And of course outlaw the kit to make the modification.
Seems like an easy opportunity to show an action being taken.

[MDLNB]

One would think an easy bi-partisan action would be to outlaw bump stock and have manufacturers modify their product to not accommodate the modification.
And of course outlaw the kit to make the modification.
Seems like an easy opportunity to show an action being taken.

Wow, amazing! First incident of bump stock killing and this is your answer for crime and killing. I have done the same exact thing with a large rubber band and you think that making a law will keep this from happening again? Hey, NEWS FLASH, he had bomb making material and could have blown up the whole hotel if he wished. If he didn't have a gun, he would have. Is there any doubt?

No, the answer is to prosecute every little gun related crime like President Ford wanted to do. Give an ADDITIONAL five years to anyone using a gun in the commission of a crime. Will that stop this kind of killing? NOPE. Nothing would have stopped it. You cannot regulate mental illness. And many mentally ill are functioning in society. There is NO absolute solution for violent behavior, other than keeping everyone drugged.

According to PEW, there are now half the gun related deaths than in 1993. AND there is twice the amount of guns owned as about that same period. Does it mean anything? Probably not, but it is an interesting question.

[ColdNoMore]

One would think an easy bi-partisan action would be to outlaw bump stock and have manufacturers modify their product to not accommodate the modification.
And of course outlaw the kit to make the modification.
Seems like an easy opportunity to show an action being taken.

That actually makes too much sense...so it will never fly.

The extreme gun nuts will scream at the NRA..."you're acquiescing on my right to bear arms!" :ohdear:

[MDLNB]

That actually makes too much sense...but will never fly.

The extreme gun nuts will scream at the NRA for..."acquiescing on their right to bear arms!" :ohdear:


Typically, those that do not understand guns, other than they go BOOM, will jump on any bandwagon, just to be doing something. Hysteria is predominant on the left.

One incident of this modification and we must have a law related to it. Like I said above, I can do it with a large rubber band so go ahead and waste time making new impotent laws. Laws do not matter to the left anyway. Laws infringe on their rights.

[ColdNoMore]

Typically, those that do not understand guns, other than they go BOOM, will jump on any bandwagon, just to be doing something. Hysteria is predominant on the left.

One incident of this modification and we must have a law related to it. Like I said above, I can do it with a large rubber band so go ahead and waste time making new impotent laws. Laws do not matter to the left anyway. Laws infringe on their rights.

Thank you for proving me correct. :thumbup:

And so darned quickly at that. :ho:



Deepest Sincere Wishes: :wave:

[MDLNB]

Thank you for proving me correct. :thumbup:

And so darned quickly at that. :ho:



Deepest Sincere Wishes: :wave:

You have NEVER been RIGHT. You are a libtard and they are ALWAYS left and wrong. What a dumb@ss!

[Carl in Tampa]

The private sale law also only applies to the transfer of a firearm between family members. Private sellers are also supposed to do background checks.

The fact is that we have ATF agents at gun shows trying to crack down on private sales because they are not legal.

It's interesting that you mention cars. Over 40,000 in the US were killed in car accidents last year while 11,000 were killed by guns. I heard a woman on television say that we need to pass whatever laws we can even if it were only to save one life. So should we pass more automobile laws?

About 13,000 people were killed as the result of drunk drivers. Do we need to make more laws against drunk driving?

Most people would say no to these questions. The answer is usually, we need to better enforce the laws that we have. I would argue the same thing for guns and gun laws.

More laws won't prevent more deaths. LAWS DON'T PREVENT CRIMES.

We have laws against drunk driving and 13,000 people were killed by drunk drivers. People break the laws. People commit crimes. If all laws were followed, very few people would be killed by a gun. People who commit gun crimes are already breaking several laws.

Your first three assertions are quite simply not correct.

1. Florida has no law generally requiring a background check for a Private Firearm Sale In Florida or on the purchaser of a firearm when the seller is not a licensed dealer.

2. Perhaps you come from a state where private sales of firearms can only be accomplished between family members, but that is not the case in Florida.

3. The ATF agents at gun shows are not there because private sales are illegal, but rather because they are looking for sellers who are pretending to only be doing a small volume of private sales when they are actually selling in numbers that should require that they have a Federal Firearms License.

Carl in Tampa

.

[wjboyer1]

Proof?
All the immigration laws did not/do not /has not/ will not prevent illegal entry to the USA....proven every single day.

71905

use facts, not opinions

[wjboyer1]

Purchasing a car is not a Constitutional Right.

A well regulated militia is.....so regulate!

[wjboyer1]

71906

71907

71908

71909

[wjboyer1]

The private sale law also only applies to the transfer of a firearm between family members. Private sellers are also supposed to do background checks.

The fact is that we have ATF agents at gun shows trying to crack down on private sales because they are not legal.

Please provide verifiable proof of that statement......



It's interesting that you mention cars. Over 40,000 in the US were killed in car accidents last year while 11,000 were killed by guns. I heard a woman on television say that we need to pass whatever laws we can even if it were only to save one life. So should we pass more automobile laws?
About 13,000 people were killed as the result of drunk drivers. Do we need to make more laws against drunk driving?


71910


Most people would say no to these questions. The answer is usually, we need to better enforce the laws that we have. I would argue the same thing for guns and gun laws.

Again, Please provide verifiable proof of that statement......

More laws won't prevent more deaths. LAWS DON'T PREVENT CRIMES.
We have laws against drunk driving and 13,000 people were killed by drunk drivers. People break the laws. People commit crimes. If all laws were followed, very few people would be killed by a gun. People who commit gun crimes are already breaking several laws.

More drunk drivers have been arrested, and taken off the road because of laws. No law will exact a universal solution because dirtbags break the laws, and morons defend those who break the laws (like the above statement). And, since more Americans have been killed by gun violence in the past 3 years than ALL of the Americans who died in the Vietnam War, we should look at the fact that the present laws are inadequate, not being enforced, or have too many loopholes to be effective.

GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE FAQ:Gun Show Loophole FAQ - The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (https://www.csgv.org/issues-archive/gun-show-loophole-faq/)

[cologal]

I wonder what solutions you would suggest.

Let's look at the shooting in Las Vegas.

1. A "silencer" was not used. Why did you feel the need to bring up the issue of suppressors? (They muffle sound, but they do not silence it.)

2. There is no allegation that the firearms used were illegally purchased. Why do you bring up illegal purchases?

3. It is early in the investigation, but it appears likely that the shooter illegally possessed firearms capable of automatic fire. It is conjectured that he personally, illegally converted the firearms from semi-automatic to full automatic capability. There were "gun control laws" in place to deter what the shooter did, but he broke the laws.

4. He committed mass murder. What gun control laws do you think a mass murderer would feel constrained to obey?

Regarding some of your other statements and "statistics,"

1. Where did you get your figure of "407 people have had their lives ended as a result of gun violence this year alone?" I wonder if it includes Justifiable Homicides and the shooting of criminals by police officers.

More to the point, it is much too low, since it does not appear to include the 527 homicides in Chicago alone this year. That's Chicago, where handguns are pretty much totally outlawed by Chicago law. That demonstrates the ineffectiveness of such laws.

2. The purchase and possession of firearms is one of the most heavily regulated activities of our citizens, with federal, state, and local laws in force. Where do you get the idea "nothing been done to address this issue?"

3. And, of course, you surely know that all businesses that sell firearms are required to have potential firearms purchasers fill out a federal questionnaire and be subject to a National Criminal Background Check prior to the sale of a firearm.

And, purchase and possession of certain firearms, such as fully automatic firearms, are severely restricted. You make a much overblown statement when you speak of "unfettered access to any kind of firearm." That is nonsense.

------------------------

Things to consider:

1. The Second Amendment prohibits gun confiscation. Recent Supreme Court decisions have re-affirmed that the amendment guarantees the right of individual citizens to "keep and bear arms."

2. It is estimated that there are over 300 Million guns in the United States. Any attempt to outlaw or seize all guns would result in millions of them being tucked away and exchanged on the black market.

3. Experts who are concerned about defense against assassins and mass murders agree that there can never be an absolute defense against occurrences like Las Vegas in a free society.

--------------------------

So I ask you again. What would you suggest?


Carl in Tampa

.

While you make some valid points doing nothing time after time when these events occur is no longer acceptable.

When the founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment they used muskets with gunpowder and balls. Now we have semi-automatic weapons, high capacity clips and high power scopes which allow a gunman to fire round after round at unarmed innocent people.

How many rounds did they find? How can one person be allowed to purchase that many rounds? Who knew about Bump Stocks? Are automatic weapons supposed to outlawed? Then why can someone buy something to turn his semi-automatic gun into an automatic gun?

We could start with Bump Stocks, or limit the amount of ammo you buy or own.

In my hometown Colorado Springs we had 2 domestic terrorist attacks in a month. One was reported to 911 before the attack as a resident saw a man brandishing a long gun but Colorado is an open carry state now. So 3 people in Colorado Springs are dead now, 4 if you count the shooter!

I noticed that no one has mentioned that the Orangeman just rescinded Obama gun checks for the mentally ill! Are you kidding me?

It is time to stand-up to the gun lobby especially the NRA...just where was the good guy with a gun to stop this terrorist attack or the 2 in Colorado Springs?

COPUFF...

[Don Baldwin]

https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/attachments/villages-florida-political-talk-88/71905-think-high-time-we-have-intelligent-conversation-regarding-guns-gunrelated-vs-autorelated-deaths-jpg
use facts, not opinions

Minorities do 90% of the killing in America. Whites have gone fro 90% to 49%...minorities have gone from 10% to 51%...THAT is the reason gun related deaths are rising.

A well regulated militia is.....so regulate!

Local militias are made to look like a bunch of KKK wackos.

While you make some valid points doing nothing time after time when these events occur is no longer acceptable.

When the founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment they used muskets with gunpowder and balls. Now we have semi-automatic weapons, high capacity clips and high power scopes which allow a gunman to fire round after round at unarmed innocent people.

How many rounds did they find? How can one person be allowed to purchase that many rounds? Who knew about Bump Stocks? Are automatic weapons supposed to outlawed? Then why can someone buy something to turn his semi-automatic gun into an automatic gun?

We could start with Bump Stocks, or limit the amount of ammo you buy or own.

In my hometown Colorado Springs we had 2 domestic terrorist attacks in a month. One was reported to 911 before the attack as a resident saw a man brandishing a long gun but Colorado is an open carry state now. So 3 people in Colorado Springs are dead now, 4 if you count the shooter!

I noticed that no one has mentioned that the Orangeman just rescinded Obama gun checks for the mentally ill! Are you kidding me?

It is time to stand-up to the gun lobby especially the NRA...just where was the good guy with a gun to stop this terrorist attack or the 2 in Colorado Springs?

COPUFF...

You mean doing noting when minorities kill more and more each year? How many killings in the black parts of Chicago already this year?

And they ALSO specified...ARMS...meaning ALL weaponry. You miss the whole point of the 2nd amendment...WE the people are supposed to be the "Army". WE are supposed to be organized into local militias.

WHY do they let sub-humans buy/have guns? THEY do 90% of the killing. These 60 people are a holiday weekend of killing in Chicago's black areas.

You expected someone with a gun to be in his room with him?

Freedom is messy. That's the way it is. If you want the ultimate in security...stay home.

[MDLNB]

A couple of points regarding this thread:

How can we have an "intelligent conversation regarding guns" when it seems that at least half those involved know NOTHING about guns? Isn't "intelligence" supposed to be synonymous with knowledge?

Another point is that the gun related death rate has gone down to half of what it was in 1993 and yet the gun ownership in America has doubled. Figure that one out.

Also something to consider: OVER half the gun related deaths are suicides.

Already mentioned: What law would you have created that would have stopped any of the past mass shootings?

We do not have a program like the "Minority Report" movie. We cannot predict a crime and we cannot stop a crime before it happens based solely on a theory. In most cases, you cannot arrest a person until he commits a crime. A crazy can purchase a gun with the intent to commit a crime with it, and in most cases you cannot do a thing about it. Some folks seem to be perfectly stable for decades and then something just sets them off and they start a killing spree. That's life. Look at road rage as an example.

Sure, you can argue some of the points I made, but the reality is that you cannot eliminate crime. It is human nature. You can make deterrents or put obstacles in the way, but you cannot stop some crime from happening.

Of course, you can always drug everyone into submission. That might work. I think that the CIA had some study on that at one time.

When ever there is a mass shooting, the left jumps in there with the ban guns demand. Sorry, but that ain't gonna happen. Thank goodness for the NRA.

[Don Baldwin]

A couple of points regarding this thread:

How can we have an "intelligent conversation regarding guns" when it seems that at least half those involved know NOTHING about guns? Isn't "intelligence" supposed to be synonymous with knowledge?

Another point is that the gun related death rate has gone down to half of what it was in 1993 and yet the gun ownership in America has doubled. Figure that one out.

Also something to consider: OVER half the gun related deaths are suicides.

Already mentioned: What law would you have created that would have stopped any of the past mass shootings?

We do not have a program like the "Minority Report" movie. We cannot predict a crime and we cannot stop a crime before it happens based solely on a theory. In most cases, you cannot arrest a person until he commits a crime. A crazy can purchase a gun with the intent to commit a crime with it, and in most cases you cannot do a thing about it. Some folks seem to be perfectly stable for decades and then something just sets them off and they start a killing spree. That's life. Look at road rage as an example.

Sure, you can argue some of the points I made, but the reality is that you cannot eliminate crime. It is human nature. You can make deterrents or put obstacles in the way, but you cannot stop some crime from happening.

Of course, you can always drug everyone into submission. That might work. I think that the CIA had some study on that at one time.

When ever there is a mass shooting, the left jumps in there with the ban guns demand. Sorry, but that ain't gonna happen. Thank goodness for the NRA.

No it hasn't...killing in America has never been higher...but it's MOSTLY happening in the inner city slums so it really doesn't affect us. Chicago, E St Louis, Memphis...they make new murder records every year. Violence has never been higher.

Bullsh!t...they're minority gangs shooting each other.

A complete banning of ALL firearms AND ammunition. A gun/ammunition "Rapture". But then, the next mass killing would be driving a loaded semi truck at 80mpg into that crowd...killing even more.

Sure we can...90% of violent crime is committed by minorities. Ban them.

These "white guys" who make the news when they snap...they're literally a drop in the bucket when it comes to killings in America. Similar to how people fear plane crashes and yet they're VERY uncommon...you SHOULD be fearing the quick drive to the store where deaths occur much more frequently. You SHOULD be fearing the minority majority...it IS much more deadly.

[Carl in Tampa]

MDLNB

A couple of points regarding this thread:

How can we have an "intelligent conversation regarding guns" when it seems that at least half those involved know NOTHING about guns? Isn't "intelligence" supposed to be synonymous with knowledge?

Another point is that the gun related death rate has gone down to half of what it was in 1993 and yet the gun ownership in America has doubled. Figure that one out.

Also something to consider: OVER half the gun related deaths are suicides.

Already mentioned: What law would you have created that would have stopped any of the past mass shootings?

We do not have a program like the "Minority Report" movie. We cannot predict a crime and we cannot stop a crime before it happens based solely on a theory. In most cases, you cannot arrest a person until he commits a crime. A crazy can purchase a gun with the intent to commit a crime with it, and in most cases you cannot do a thing about it. Some folks seem to be perfectly stable for decades and then something just sets them off and they start a killing spree. That's life. Look at road rage as an example.

Sure, you can argue some of the points I made, but the reality is that you cannot eliminate crime. It is human nature. You can make deterrents or put obstacles in the way, but you cannot stop some crime from happening.

Of course, you can always drug everyone into submission. That might work. I think that the CIA had some study on that at one time.

When ever there is a mass shooting, the left jumps in there with the ban guns demand. Sorry, but that ain't gonna happen. Thank goodness for the NRA.

You have contributed some intelligent views to the "intelligent conversation" on gun control.

I agree that at least half of the people who jump into the discussion appear to know little or nothing about guns. Every time there is a major shooting incident there are cries that we must "do something," but in almost every case the proposed new measures would not have prevented the shooting. But, the logic of this fact escapes the emotional imperative to "do something."

Even more to the point, the recent incident has resulted in emotional calls for gun control laws that already exist. Other posts include statements about gun laws that are not true. It is frustrating to the point of exhaustion to try to keep up with the mis-information and correcting it.

When asked what specific new laws might be proposed that would have prevented the mass shooting under discussion, the "do something" proponents propose...........nothing. Because, as you point out, not all crime can be permitted; particularly by just passing more laws.

Carl in Tampa

.

[Carl in Tampa]

cologal

1. While you make some valid points doing nothing time after time when these events occur is no longer acceptable.

2. When the founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment they used muskets with gunpowder and balls. Now we have semi-automatic weapons, high capacity clips and high power scopes which allow a gunman to fire round after round at unarmed innocent people.

3. How many rounds did they find? How can one person be allowed to purchase that many rounds? Who knew about Bump Stocks? Are automatic weapons supposed to outlawed? Then why can someone buy something to turn his semi-automatic gun into an automatic gun?

4, We could start with Bump Stocks, or limit the amount of ammo you buy or own.

5. In my hometown Colorado Springs we had 2 domestic terrorist attacks in a month. One was reported to 911 before the attack as a resident saw a man brandishing a long gun but Colorado is an open carry state now. So 3 people in Colorado Springs are dead now, 4 if you count the shooter!

6. I noticed that no one has mentioned that the Orangeman just rescinded Obama gun checks for the mentally ill! Are you kidding me?

7. It is time to stand-up to the gun lobby especially the NRA...just where was the good guy with a gun to stop this terrorist attack or the 2 in Colorado Springs?

COPUFF...

I have taken the liberty of numbering your paragraphs to make it clear which area of your post I am responding to with each of my points.

1. Thank you for acknowledging that the points in my earlier post were valid. I strive for accuracy. Your reaction to the recent shooting, that we must "do something" is a common emotional response, but it ignores the fact that there is virtually no law that you can propose which would have stopped the shooting. If you have such a law in mind, please post it.

2. The level of firearms technology at the time of adoption of the Second Amendment is not relevant to the conversation unless you are proposing that we should be limited to possession of firearms of that era. Surely you know the courts and the legislature would never permit that.

3. There is a lot contained in paragraph three. First, it is immaterial how many cartridges were found at the scene. A person could make small purchases over a period of several years in order to build up a large supply.

Who knew about bump stocks? Well, several million Americans did. They are gun hobbyists, gunsmiths, police officers, gun show attendees, and just about anyone who has seen them demonstrated on youtube videos. Obama's Bureau of ATF also knew about them, and ruled that attaching them to rifles to make them fire at a rate approaching the rate of full automatic rifles, was LEGAL.

No, fully automatic weapons are not outlawed. They never have been. They are, however, very heavily regulated. Background checks on people who apply to purchase a Class III (automatic) firearm are extensive; storage rules for keeping them are stringent; the cost of the weapons is quite high; and there is a $200 tax stamp that must be purchased from the government before the sale is final.

4. There has been a call for an outright ban of bump stocks. This seems extreme since fully automatic weapons are not banned, and they only mimic those weapons. The NRA has called for bump stocks to be "regulated as a Class III item, just as fully automatic weapons are regulated."

How would you limit the amount of ammunition that an individual owns? You might limit the amount of ammunition that can be made in an over the counter purchase, but purchases can be made and ammo accumulated over several years.

5. Your point 5 is a bit vague. I'm not sure whether or not you blame the shooting on Colorado being an open carry state. If so, I don't see the relevance.

6. This point is nonsense. Trump did not "rescind Obama gun checks for the mentally ill." Obama's Social Security Administration unilaterally, without Congressional approval, declared that retired people receiving Social Security benefits, who had designated a surrogate to deal with Social Security regarding their financial issues, were ineligible to own firearms.

Congress passed a bill, and President Trump signed it into law, forbidding Social Security from their illegal violation of the Second Amendment.

7. I take your remark in #7 as a challenge to the saying that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun, which is true.

Actually, it is quite commonplace that when an active shooter is confronted by the police, or other armed obstacle to his shooting, he usually takes his own life. That happened in this case. But, interestingly, it wasn't even a "good guy with a gun," it was just a "good guy."

The police in Las Vegas report that when an unarmed security guard approached the suite where the bad guy was located, the bad guy fired through the door, striking the security guard in the leg, and there was no further gunfire from the suite........ever. It is conjectured that the bad guy took his own life at that point.

I don't know about your Colorado Springs shootings, but if they were stopped by having the bad guy shot, the odds are that it was done by a good guy, either a civilian or a cop.

Now. Again. What law would you propose that would have prevented the shooting in Las Vegas?

Carl in Tampa

.

[MDLNB]

I have taken the liberty of numbering your paragraphs to make it clear which area of your post I am responding to with each of my points.

1. Thank you for acknowledging that the points in my earlier post were valid. I strive for accuracy. Your reaction to the recent shooting, that we must "do something" is a common emotional response, but it ignores the fact that there is virtually no law that you can propose which would have stopped the shooting. If you have such a law in mind, please post it.

2. The level of firearms technology at the time of adoption of the Second Amendment is not relevant to the conversation unless you are proposing that we should be limited to possession of firearms of that era. Surely you know the courts and the legislature would never permit that.

3. There is a lot contained in paragraph three. First, it is immaterial how many cartridges were found at the scene. A person could make small purchases over a period of several years in order to build up a large supply.

Who knew about bump stocks? Well, several million Americans did. They are gun hobbyists, gunsmiths, police officers, gun show attendees, and just about anyone who has seen them demonstrated on youtube videos. Obama's Bureau of ATF also knew about them, and ruled that attaching them to rifles to make them fire at a rate approaching the rate of full automatic rifles, was LEGAL.

No, fully automatic weapons are not outlawed. They never have been. They are, however, very heavily regulated. Background checks on people who apply to purchase a Class III (automatic) firearm are extensive; storage rules for keeping them are stringent; the cost of the weapons is quite high; and there is a $200 tax stamp that must be purchased from the government before the sale is final.

4. There has been a call for an outright ban of bump stocks. This seems extreme since fully automatic weapons are not banned, and they only mimic those weapons. The NRA has called for bump stocks to be "regulated as a Class III item, just as fully automatic weapons are regulated."

How would you limit the amount of ammunition that an individual owns? You might limit the amount of ammunition that can be made in an over the counter purchase, but purchases can be made and ammo accumulated over several years.

5. Your point 5 is a bit vague. I'm not sure whether or not you blame the shooting on Colorado being an open carry state. If so, I don't see the relevance.

6. This point is nonsense. Trump did not "rescind Obama gun checks for the mentally ill." Obama's Social Security Administration unilaterally, without Congressional approval, declared that retired people receiving Social Security benefits, who had designated a surrogate to deal with Social Security regarding their financial issues, were ineligible to own firearms.

Congress passed a bill, and President Trump signed it into law, forbidding Social Security from their illegal violation of the Second Amendment.

7. I take your remark in #7 as a challenge to the saying that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun, which is true.

Actually, it is quite commonplace that when an active shooter is confronted by the police, or other armed obstacle to his shooting, he usually takes his own life. That happened in this case. But, interestingly, it wasn't even a "good guy with a gun," it was just a "good guy."

The police in Las Vegas report that when an unarmed security guard approached the suite where the bad guy was located, the bad guy fired through the door, striking the security guard in the leg, and there was no further gunfire from the suite........ever. It is conjectured that the bad guy took his own life at that point.

I don't know about your Colorado Springs shootings, but if they were stopped by having the bad guy shot, the odds are that it was done by a good guy, either a civilian or a cop.

Now. Again. What law would you propose that would have prevented the shooting in Las Vegas?

Carl in Tampa

.

Good post. It's obvious by now that the left when faced with a crisis will immediately run in circles flapping their arms like chickens. They want action even if it does not produce solutions. To them, success is measured by laws they can pass, not whether or not they work or regardless of repercussions/cost. In this case, their answer is ban guns. Even when this action has resulted in MORE gun related deaths where such a law exists. You cannot have an "intelligent discussion" with those that are ruled by hysteria.

[Don Baldwin]

Good post. It's obvious by now that the left when faced with a crisis will immediately run in circles flapping their arms like chickens. They want action even if it does not produce solutions. To them, success is measured by laws they can pass, not whether or not they work or regardless of repercussions/cost. In this case, their answer is ban guns. Even when this action has resulted in MORE gun related deaths where such a law exists. You cannot have an "intelligent discussion" with those that are ruled by hysteria.

You don't understand..."laws" that are voted on...are FRONTS...facades...for the REAL "meat" that is hidden inside.

A "law" that should be a paragraph or a page at most...becomes 3,000 pages long. Why? Because everyone who helped in the campaign, the rich and powerful, are getting their payback. LOTS of people profit with EVERY "law" that is passed.