[outlaw]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

The gun show loopholes might help.

My brother-in-law Jim was a paranoid schizophrenic but a clever one never saying or doing anything overt that would have allowed my older brother and sister-in-law to put him into treatment in Virginia. Instead, he purchased several Glock type weapons and started hanging out in gun ranges while also thinking that his sister had been taken over by aliens. My brother threw him out of the house a few years ago. He disappeared for a while but they ran into him walking around Burke Lake and he did not even acknowledge them. A few months later he shot himself with one of the guns he had bought at a VA gun show around November 2014. He left his car with many of his belongings in a field with his dead body as he thought he "journey" would continue according to writings found in his apartment by the police.

Jim had spent most of his life in India as a transcendental meditation teacher. His mentor died and he came back to the States. He immersed himself in Death Wish and other very violent movies. There are a lot of red flags here but my older brother and sister-in-law could not get the VA mental health laws to work for them.

Why do you think a gun show loophole allowed him to buy the guns? Did he have a record on file with the ATF showing he had been committed or a history of mental illness? If he didn't, then he probably would have passed the background check, assuming he lied on the form he had to fill out. Do you know that the vast majority of gun show sales require a background check? Any licensed dealer at a gun show MUST run a background check, period. In several states there is an additional waiting period after the sale for handguns, even at gun shows. The only guns that can be sold without a background check are personally owned guns an individual is selling to another individual. Yes. They show up at gun shows, but they could also run an ad in their local paper and sell it to someone without a background check.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by outlaw

Welcome to the club. Some see CCing as bravado, Rambo complex, and cowardice.

The way some approach this subject does cause some of us to think along those lines. Personally, I don't think that carrying where it is not needed proves anything at all. It just makea a person look like Dale Evans.


My husband always says that if laws were passed to take guns away from people than only the bad guys would have them. I think he is right. The cows are out of the barn and way down the road.

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by redwitch

I'm with JimT and the POTUS on this one. A better registry is needed. This is not an attempt to deny Second Amendment rights. There are far too many gun deaths here. Better screening might help. Statistics have repeatedly shown that those states and countries with stringent gun laws have far fewer gun deaths than those that don't. Why are people willing to give up their rights for search and seizure and privacy to stop terrorists but scream when it comes to reasonable gun laws?

Could you provide your source for the claim that those states with the strictest gun laws have the fewest gun deaths? I've read just the opposite. I'm equally surprised people would trade their freedoms for safety or the feeling of safety. It's a very disappointing trend with Americans.

[AJ32162]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

The way some approach this subject does cause some of us to think along those lines. Personally, I don't think that carrying where it is not needed proves anything at all. It just makea a person look like Dale Evans.


My husband always says that if laws were passed to take guns away from people than only the bad guys would have them. I think he is right. The cows are out of the barn and way down the road.

IMO, that's kinda like saying, I only carry a spare tire for my car when I think that I'm going to need it.

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

The way some approach this subject does cause some of us to think along those lines. Personally, I don't think that carrying where it is not needed proves anything at all. It just makea a person look like Dale Evans.


My husband always says that if laws were passed to take guns away from people than only the bad guys would have them. I think he is right. The cows are out of the barn and way down the road.

And I see your assumption that there is this protective place where it is "not needed" as naive. But I don't think you're a hoplophobe just because you don't think anyone needs to CC in TV and those that do are trying to "prove anything". You may not realize your bias against CC, but it is evident in your statements. That is not meant as an insult, so please don't read it that way.

[Sandtrap328]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

The way some approach this subject does cause some of us to think along those lines. Personally, I don't think that carrying where it is not needed proves anything at all. It just makea a person look like Dale Evans.
.

Absolutely right. It ridiculous to go out in The Villages with your concealed gun. Chances are that people carrying them regularly break the law by going into a bar area of a restaurant.

hotheads, too, with guns. How about the guy that got his motorcycle tapped by a car on 466 and he puts several shots into the occupied car? He is still free on bond, I believe.

Maybe carrying a gun would be okay IF you were walking late in the seedy area of Wildwood at night - but why would you be doing that?

As for the government taking your legal guns from you - ain't going to happen. The Supreme Court has made it's decision.

[gerryann]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I watched the POTUS speech last night in response to the campus shooting in Oregon.


He thinks that changing laws would lesson or stop this kind of awful event.


I don't.


I think only good people would comply. There are enough guns in circulation that bad people would get them and use them for their nefarious causes. AND that people who need to protect themselves could not protect themselves. If I were the person who had to carry cash to the bank for a business, I would want to have a gun. If I lived in a high crime area, I would want to have a gun.

But that's just it.....you WOULD be able to have that gun in that high crime area because you would have passed the stricter gun laws.

We need stricter laws and stricter background checks. As you say Grace, some of the criminals will still get guns....but think about it.....if we can keep just a small percentage of guns out of wackos hands....we will possibly save a few lives, not all; but even one life is worth it.

Also, just as with car use.....once you reach a certain age, there should be testing......a shooting range to prove you are still capable in the use of a firearm.

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by fred53

Strange that the prez mentioned the Oregon shooting but not the 50 shootings in Chicago over the past few weeks...

Chicago, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, started the week with 14 shot in the first 15 hours. Chicago Starts The Week With 14 Shot In 15 Hours

BTW, Mexico has extremely tough gun control laws but its populace experiences a terrible number of deaths by gunshot.

The problem, of course, is that criminals and mentally unstable individuals will still be able to acquire guns no matter the law.

My greatest concern is that folks need to be able to protect themselves, especially in areas where the nearest law enforcement officer may be a half hour away. My second concern is that one of the first steps totalitarian governments take is to deprive their citizens of their guns. I would not like to see that happen in the USA.

[Bonnevie]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

The "AR" rifles are not assault rifles. They are semi-automatic (you have to pull the trigger once per shot) as are many other rifles, handguns, and shotguns. They may look like an M-16, which is a fully automatic rifle, but they are not functionally equivalent anymore than any other semi-automatic gun.

I stand corrected. However, apparently all semi-automatic requires is to just re-pull the trigger--the quickest part of re-shooting I would think. So as long as there's enough ammo....they can fire away pretty quickly.

While all basic firearm actions require the action to be cycled manually before the first shot, semi-automatic, as well as automatic and selective-fire actions, are differentiated from other forms such as single-action or double-action revolvers, pump-action, bolt-action, or lever-action firearms by eliminating the need to manually cycle it after each shot. For example, to fire ten rounds from a semi-automatic or a selective-fire firearm set to fire semi-automatically, the action would initially be cycled to load the first round and the trigger would need to be pulled ten times (once for each round fired).

[AJ32162]

Originally Posted by gerryann

But that's just it.....you WOULD be able to have that gun in that high crime area because you would have passed the stricter gun laws.

We need stricter laws and stricter background checks. As you say Grace, some of the criminals will still get guns....but think about it.....if we can keep just a small percentage of guns out of wackos hands....we will possibly save a few lives, not all; but even one life is worth it.

Also, just as with car use.....once you reach a certain age, there should be testing......a shooting range to prove you are still capable in the use of a firearm.

How many murders do think occur because the perpetrator lacked the proper firearms safety training?

[rubicon]

Here we go again. This gun control farce is getting old and its proponents are reactionary to a fault. Its premises fits politicians who reach for ineffective but quick fixes for every solution.

The causes surrounding such tragedies are much more complex . This latest tragedy is going to turn out to be a result of radicalism. Those involving the mentally ill are caused because the mental health laws can't protect the mentally ill against themselves. they exclude any chance of a family support
and our mental health system and its professionals are wanting.

a person intending to do harm can use any number of instruments. As I recollect a man in china wounded several people with a knife

This nation needs to reassess its moral imperatives. Hollywood who is quick to admonish such acts and call for gun control promote violence, vile acts, etc for profit

the best offense is good defense

[Taltarzac725]

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Would like to see some more current information about gun control laws in the US in 2015. Anyone have up-to-date resources?

[Bonnevie]

the thing is, I don't think anyone here has said people shouldn't be allowed to own guns. But like everything, there's a responsible way and this way where people can buy guns that kill many people in a short period of time.

and I will tell you having worked with mentally ill people for many years, it's not them I'm afraid of. True schizophrenics usually are too disorganized to do something like this. It's the undiagnosed, and less apparent, personality disorders that scare me. The person who has become angrier and angrier over the years because life hasn't gone his way. Think road rage or the movie theater incident where the guy shot someone for texting. The kids who are bullied. Think Columbine. This Oregon shooter who apparently lamented he had no girlfriends ever-- but had 4 types of guns available to him. The Sandy Hook kid who should never been left alone with access to guns--but hey his mother was a gun enthusiast so she has her rights--too bad she didn't realize she also had a responsibility by owning them.
What's the answer--more armed guards at all campuses--even community colleges that don't have dorms. then it will be somewhere else and the gun lobbyist will be calling for armed guards there....playgrounds, movie theaters, the squares of the Villages...anywhere people gather. or we can take an honest look at how this can be regulated to better protect everyone while still guaranteeing peoples right to protection.

[Cedwards38]

What we know for sure is that doing nothing will change nothing, and, as it relates to the American epidemic of mass shootings over the past 20 years or so, I think most people are not satisfied with that.

[tuccillo]

This is mostly semantics. Strictly speaking a double-action revolver is not "semi-automatic" but in practice it acts like a semi-automatic as each trigger pull results in a shot being fired. Single action, pump action, and bolt-action are fundamentally different in that more than a trigger pull is required. There are many semi-automatic guns out there and most do not look like AR-15s. For example, any clip-based pistol is a semi-automatic: just chamber the first round and each trigger pull fires a shot.

Originally Posted by Bonnevie

I stand corrected. However, apparently all semi-automatic requires is to just re-pull the trigger--the quickest part of re-shooting I would think. So as long as there's enough ammo....they can fire away pretty quickly.

While all basic firearm actions require the action to be cycled manually before the first shot, semi-automatic, as well as automatic and selective-fire actions, are differentiated from other forms such as single-action or double-action revolvers, pump-action, bolt-action, or lever-action firearms by eliminating the need to manually cycle it after each shot. For example, to fire ten rounds from a semi-automatic or a selective-fire firearm set to fire semi-automatically, the action would initially be cycled to load the first round and the trigger would need to be pulled ten times (once for each round fired).