Originally Posted by Guest

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.)

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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."

How to Prevent Gun Deaths? Where Experts and the Public Agree - The New York Times

Originally Posted by Guest

How to Prevent Gun Deaths? Where Experts and the Public Agree - The New York Times

The New York Times? LOL!

.

Originally Posted by Guest

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)

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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

.

Originally Posted by Guest

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

.

Originally Posted by Guest

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

.

Originally Posted by Guest

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

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:

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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?

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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.