[outlaw]

Originally Posted by David73

Concealed Carry Permit holders are exempt from background checks. But then, they also do not do mass shootings. They are law abiding citizens that you hope are near you when the next nut case starts shooting. GUN FREE Zones get innocent people killed without any chance to take out the shooter. WAKE UP AMERICA.

Not in Florida...as far as I know. CCP holders must still undergo a background check for every handgun purchase. They are exempt from the 3 day waiting period, though.

[OhioBuckeye]

They might get 90% percent of the guns from the law abiding people but forget it if they really think they'll take them away from the mentally unstable people. Guns are these peoples tools of their trade. I have to many guns that I bought yrs. ago that I didn't have to register, so I'm not letting new laws take them away from me because I didn't do anything wrong. It's the wacko gun activist that think they're gun experts & want them. If it comes to that, that they pass a law to take guns away & they think it's that easy, then it ought to be just as easy to find the mentally unstable people. How many times have we heard about someone killing someone or groups of people or their whole families & then find out these people were or are under a Dr. care for being mentally unstable, wouldn't you say 80 to 90%? Just my opinion but if they take our guns, like the Chinese said, we can take them over!

[tuccillo]

Enough with the references to assault weapons. You cannot buy them.

Originally Posted by Cedwards38

Seriously? Are you really suggesting the old desperation ploy of "if you don't like it why don't you leave" argument. Anyone who doesn't agree with you can get out? I'm an American, every bit as much as you are an American. I've always been an American. I'll always be an American. That doesn't mean I have to think the same way as you. And if I see something that I think is wrong about America, then I'll try to change it, and I won't ever leave. Tell me, if gun laws did change, and you didn't like it, would you leave? No. I won't either, and that suggestion is not only insulting, but contributes absolutely nothing to this discussion. Australia dealt with this issue, and that's why I mentioned them, and I think we can and should deal with it too.

You make the claim that gun carry laws reduce crime. Here are a few examples of statistics that demonstrate exactly the opposite is true.

Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows

Do concealed weapon laws result in less crime? - The Washington Post

https://www.texastribune.org/2015/09...nt-affect-cri/

No, Concealed Carry Permits Do Not Result in a Lower Murder Rate - Mic

There are many charts that compare how our country stacks up against others in gun violence. Ours is high. But even if it weren't, are you suggesting that it is insignificant? Should we not consider it an issue worthy of our discussion?

Kleck and Gertz is interesting in it's sharing statistics on Americans using firearms to defend themselves. It does not suggest that the best way to do that is with assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Yes, I still speculate that women defending themselves do not do that with an AK 47.

[jeraldinemarie]

Thank you Donald Trump for stating the obvious it's a mental health issue! I think that the German airline pilot took more lives than all of our massacres in the last 20 years.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

There are many charts that compare how our country stacks up against others in gun violence. Ours is high. But even if it weren't, are you suggesting that it is insignificant? Should we not consider it an issue worthy of our discussion?

In 2013, (the latest statistics available) there were approximately 33,000 deaths by gun. Approximately 21,000 of them were suicides. A small percentage were accidents and justifiable homicides. That leaves about 10,000 violent gun deaths.

That is approximately, .0003% of our population. Maybe it's not as big an issue as we think.

Honduras bans it's citizens from owning guns. They have the highest murder rate in the world with 83% of those murders being committed by gun.

On the other hand in that same year there were 88,000 alcohol related deaths. Why aren't we hearing cries to regulate or ban alcohol?

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

Enough with the references to assault weapons. You cannot buy them.

You forget that to the ignorant (no slight meant) all guns appear to be assault weapons. They are just frustrated because they know that they can't get rid of guns in America and they can't get rid of mentally unstable people. There is no law against being unstable until you in fact break a law. You can't be locked up for being a mental case. America is still a free country. There will always be conflict when any two people don't agree. They don't seem to understand that the only remedy for life's conflicts is located six feet under the ground.

[BradnKathy]

Most of these shootings are due to mental instability and most of those were know well in advance. But we as a nation have decided to let these instable people run free in our society. Look at China with the most sever gun controls in the world. They have mass stabbing attacks on a regular basis.
Stop "mainstreaming" treat or institutionalize mentally ill people and mass attacks will drop.

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by Cedwards38

What is sounds like is a leader who is saying, "I think we have a problem, and can we have a discussion about that?"

A discussion with Obama is non-existent. He just enjoys hearing himself expound and babble like a lunatic. He lectures, and never hears anyone else's part of the conversation.

Obama advocates the ban of hand guns. It's easy enough to prove if YOU want to read his comments. He said he would like to have Australia's system of gun control. Australia banned hand guns. In order to do that in America, he knows he would have a revolutionary war on his hands. Americans are not going to willingly give up their guns, and rely on the Constitution to back them up. A war against the government is not outrageous when you are positive that you are right and the gov is wrong.

The UK banned hand guns and have more than twice the violent crime we have. If you want specifics that are up to date, I bet you will find that their violent crime rate is three times or more times ours per capita.

You mention talk. Talk is cheap and does little to remedy the problem if you keep repeating the same thing over and over again. Gun control has nothing to do with violence in America. Guns are protecting millions from being victims of violence. We should encourage more guns, instead of discouraging gun ownership.

[billethkid]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

In 2013, (the latest statistics available) there were approximately 33,000 deaths by gun. Approximately 21,000 of them were suicides. A small percentage were accidents and justifiable homicides. That leaves about 10,000 violent gun deaths.

That is approximately, .0003% of our population. Maybe it's not as big an issue as we think.

Honduras bans it's citizens from owning guns. They have the highest murder rate in the world with 83% of those murders being committed by gun.

On the other hand in that same year there were 88,000 alcohol related deaths. Why aren't we hearing cries to regulate or ban alcohol?

Excellent question for which I have a very strong opinion.
Alcohol of course has many strings attached to too many levels of politics, industrial and corporate America.
So too many in the so called right places have too much too lose, hence there is little or no actions cried for to reduce the alcohol related carnage.

We are a very hypocritical society. Another example?
We have all heard of MADD (mother's against drunk driving). Has anybody ever heard of MACD (mothers against cell phone deaths)? Of course not. What is the difference? The mothers have little invested in or not involved in the use of alcohol to a level that matters. However, cell phones, they are all addicted to and anything that threatens to take them away is not acceptable. Hence we will never ever see or hear of any action from these same mothers against the death toll caused by cell phone use while driving.
Because they are invested in the issue. A cause of death the easily equals drunk driving!!!

It is, has been and always will be about special interests groups.

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by Cedwards38

Seriously? Are you really suggesting the old desperation ploy of "if you don't like it why don't you leave" argument. Anyone who doesn't agree with you can get out?

Didn't you say:

"Gun buybacks in cities in America have not worked that well, but they worked like a charm in Australia, so maybe we have something to learn from them."

My comment was not meant to be a personal attack on you, but rather a suggestion that you think about it before comparing a totally different scenario to our system.

Australia banned hand guns. If America did so, there would be a revolution because our constitution prevents the gov from such action. It was put in place for just such an occurrence of the gov tyranny. Picture soldiers or police coming to your door and demanding that you give up your hand guns. Do you really think that Americans would willingly give them up, full well knowing that the criminal would still have theirs? I don't think so. SO, before folks suggest trying someone else's idea, they might want to do a bit more thinking about the possible negative side effects.

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by billethkid

Excellent question for which I have a very strong opinion.
Alcohol of course has many strings attached to too many levels of politics, industrial and corporate America.
So too many in the so called right places have too much too lose, hence there is little or no actions cried for to reduce the alcohol related carnage.

We are a very hypocritical society. Another example?
We have all heard of MADD (mother's against drunk driving). Has anybody ever heard of MACD (mothers against cell phone deaths)? Of course not. What is the difference? The mothers have little invested in or not involved in the use of alcohol to a level that matters. However, cell phones, they are all addicted to and anything that threatens to take them away is not acceptable. Hence we will never ever see or hear of any action from these same mothers against the death toll caused by cell phone use while driving.
Because they are invested in the issue. A cause of death the easily equals drunk driving!!!

It is, has been and always will be about special interests groups.

Good point.

[Cedwards38]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

Enough with the references to assault weapons. You cannot buy them.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was implemented by the US Congress in 1994 and expired in 2004. Several attempts were made to renew it, but each failed, therefore there is no ban. What am I missing?

For Lives and Liberty: Banning Assault Weapons in America | The Institute of Politics at Harvard University

[Cedwards38]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

Didn't you say:

"Gun buybacks in cities in America have not worked that well, but they worked like a charm in Australia, so maybe we have something to learn from them."

My comment was not meant to be a personal attack on you, but rather a suggestion that you think about it before comparing a totally different scenario to our system.

Australia banned hand guns. If America did so, there would be a revolution because our constitution prevents the gov from such action. It was put in place for just such an occurrence of the gov tyranny. Picture soldiers or police coming to your door and demanding that you give up your hand guns. Do you really think that Americans would willingly give them up, full well knowing that the criminal would still have theirs? I don't think so. SO, before folks suggest trying someone else's idea, they might want to do a bit more thinking about the possible negative side effects.

My statement that you quote says not one word about moving to Australia, as you well know. I'd like to "think about it" as to what Australians do there and how it might apply well here, but some seem to be completely against even thinking about it.

Nevertheless, I'm glad that your statement:

"If you think that Australia has such a great idea, then by all means move to Australia."

...was not intended as a personal attack.

[ragtag22]

Originally Posted by Jimturner

I am a gun owner and can't imagine not having them. But not making the ownership more controlled is irresponsible.
The good guy bad guy or the silly guns don't kill people argument is worthless.
People with mental problems buy weapons and make long term plans to carry out their craziness. Background checks would help. I would propose to own a gun, you would be required to meet or exceed the requirements for concealed carry. If you can't qualify for concealed carry you should not own one.

Background checks might help somewhat if there was mandatory reporting of mental health issues (or other impairments) to the agencies used for checking, however, our current privacy laws would actually not permit this. I agree with many law enforcement leaders who don't want shooters names published. Removing the shooters public exposure removes their opportunity to try and seek fame. Let's also get more serious about enforcing the laws that currently exist.

[AJ32162]

Originally Posted by Cedwards38

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was implemented by the US Congress in 1994 and expired in 2004. Several attempts were made to renew it, but each failed, therefore there is no ban. What am I missing?

For Lives and Liberty: Banning Assault Weapons in America | The Institute of Politics at Harvard University

Actually, I think the correct name for this legislation is, "The Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as "assault weapons," as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity."

Source: Wikapedia