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: