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

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 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:

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

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.

What do you suggest?
 

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.

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?

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.

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.

[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.

Your solution?
 

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

.

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.

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

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.

I thought so.
 

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

.

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.....

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.....

Really?
 

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

.

Domestic Terrorist
 

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!!!

Try logic.
 

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

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

Carl in Tampa

.

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.

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.

Trump Signs Bill Revoking Obama-Era Gun Checks for People With Mental Illnesses
 

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

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.

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.

Fact sheet.
 

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

.

Can't believe NBC News.
 

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

.

Gaps in Federal Law Leave Abused Victims Vulnerable
 

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.

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

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.

How to Prevent Gun Deaths? Where Experts and the Public Agree
 

.

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)

Here's the law.
 

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

.

Really?
 

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

.

See......
 

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

Carl in Tampa

.

Wow!
I agree

Stop the Political Rhetoric And Deal With The Real Problem
 

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: