Redskins Diehard Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Example 1: Example 2: Bottom line is that with limited political clout and public support for bans, the best way to save the most lives is with improved and expanded background checks, stricter laws and better education for firearm storage to keep weapons from un-intended users like the Sandy Hook killer, and better education and access to mental health systems that can identify and help the most potentially dangerous people in society. As for arming teachers... no. Bad idea. But I have no problem with at least one school official, be it a security guard or administrative person with the proper training, background checks and mental health screening being armed as a deterrent and emergency defense against a shooter. I agree with pretty much everything here. First step is to try and prevent people that shouldn't acquire them from actually acquiring them. I think we have some mental health professionals that post here so I am interested in their thoughts on a mental health screening process. I once purchased a firearm while on active duty and I did have to get signatures from my battalion commander and I believe the provost marshal office essentially certifying that I was authorized to purchase. I showed that paperwork at the dealer and then he sold me the gun. I wonder if that sort of process would work for at least purchases at businesses or gun shows. Show up with a form from the local PD that says you have a clean background and some sort of paperwork that says you are mentally fit. That would only solve the problem of people acquiring AFTER they are unsuitable...but I think it is a reasonable start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I can't imagine how you could get real mental health professionals to get involved. Can you see someone paying such the typical several hundred dollar fee to do a proper assessment (akin to an MMPI-II or MCMI-III) that any credentialed professional would be required to do for it to be safe (legally) for the provider? Not to mention what would have to be designed in the way of a additional specialized form that could approved by APA or such? And then the provider would have to specifically be saying "this person is ok to have a gun"? Not to mention the field is beset with underpaid overworked people as it is with plenty of serious and immediate needs going unmet without adding legions of "yahoos who need to get more bangs bangs" (forgive me that last). Imagine the number of people who want to buy guns flooding that work force with MORE paperwork. Nope. Most likely, this culture is simply ****ed in this regard and people are going to continue to die from our wonderful mix of level of widespread multifaceted cultural violence + proliferation of guns + idiocy + crazy + politics, period. Always the possibility that some unspecified forces I can't envision manages somehow to change things. I admit that's a quick response without prolonged thought given, but I'll go with ti for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 22, 2013 Author Share Posted March 22, 2013 Actually, I get the impression that the thing that would do the most good, if we could accomplish it, would be some way of getting current gun owners to keep their weapons responsibly out of reach by other people. But then, I seem to remember that this thread had a bit, numerous pages ago, where somebody had proposed such rules for people who wanted to be grandfathered into owning assault weapons, and you would have thought that the Nazis were coming to confiscate all the Jew's guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 25, 2013 Author Share Posted March 25, 2013 And now, from the Shooting Yourself In the Foot Department: Yahoo: Newtown residents upset about NRA robocalls NEWTOWN, Conn. (AP) — Some residents of the Connecticut community devastated by December's school shooting said they're outraged over robocalls they've received from the National Rifle Association only three months after a gunman killed 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School. More of the same things we've already read, at the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 And now, from the Shooting Yourself In the Foot Department: Yahoo: Newtown residents upset about NRA robocalls More of the same things we've already read, at the link. Good grief. Some people and/or organizations have no shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 1, 2013 Author Share Posted April 1, 2013 Yahoo: Conn. reaches deal on tough gun laws after Newtown HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Connecticut lawmakers announced a deal Monday on what they called some of the toughest gun laws in the country that were proposed after the December mass shooting in the state, including a ban on new high-capacity ammunition magazines like the ones used in the massacre that left 20 children and six educators dead.The proposal also called for background checks for private gun sales and a new registry for existing magazines that carry 10 or more bullets, something of a compromise for parents of Newtown victims who had wanted an outright ban on them, while legislators had proposed grandfathering them into the law. The package also creates what lawmakers said is the nation's first statewide dangerous weapon offender registry, immediate universal background checks for all firearms sales and expansion of Connecticut's assault weapons ban. A new state-issued eligibility certificate would also be needed to purchase any rifle, shotgun or ammunition under the legislation. To get the certificate, a buyer would need to be fingerprinted, take a firearms training course and undergo a national criminal background check and involuntary commitment or voluntary admission check. Apparently, it's one of those "we've reached a back room deal, and now we're going to reveal it and have a vote" deals. The proposal was revealed to rank-and-file lawmakers Monday after weeks of negotiations among legislative leaders. A vote was expected Wednesday in the Legislature, where Democrats control both chambers, making passage all but assured. The bill would then be sent to Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who has helped lead efforts to strengthen the state's gun laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikered30 Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 It is hard to believe that you will have to register your guns and submit to fingerprinting if you live in Connecticut. Any one know what an ammunition eligibility certificate is? How can you register and therefore track a single magazine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 I'll toss this in here: Georgia town passes measure requiring gun ownership http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-georgia-gun-ownership-20130402,0,5485486.story The City Council of Nelson has approved an ordinance that requires each head of household to own a gun. The legislation passed unanimously and goes into effect in 10 days. Nelson, population about 1,300, is about 40 miles north of Atlanta. The measure contains no penalties and exempts anyone who objects, as well as felons and people with mental or physical disabilities. In short, it is substantially unenforceable but is designed to send a message. “Some people have security systems, some people don’t, but they put those signs up,” Councilman Duane Cronic said at Monday night’s meeting, according to media reports. “I really felt like this ordinance was a security sign for our city.” The measure, officially known as the Family Protection Ordinance, is more symbolic than anything else, Councilwoman Edith Portillo said during deliberations last month. “Our government at the moment, they want to take as much away from us as they can,” Portillo said. The ordinance is patterned after a similar law approved in another Georgia city, Kennesaw, more than 30 years ago. It has never been enforced, Pam Davis, a spokeswoman for the city told the Los Angeles Times. The Kennesaw ordinance was passed in 1982 as a symbolic response to an effort to ban guns in a town in Illinois, she said. <more at link> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 I'll toss this in here:Georgia town passes measure requiring gun ownership> seems a rather foolish waste of time ,but maybe I'm biased http://www.infowars.com/map-of-registered-texas-gun-owners-published-satire/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 2, 2013 Author Share Posted April 2, 2013 seems a rather foolish waste of time ,but maybe I'm biased Can I vote for "both"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 the latter is certain:),but if it gets him votes I suppose it is not foolish seen this? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/16/texas-calls-all-gun-toting-yanks.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 seems a rather foolish waste of time ,but maybe I'm biasedhttp://www.infowars.com/map-of-registered-texas-gun-owners-published-satire/ I remember during earlier pipeline days, some of us walrus wranglers wondered why so many of the visiting texans only carried two guns and no knives. Kinda felt let down. Looks like things are improving in your turf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 walrus wranglers is a new one to me, my NY friends are not happy Endless entertainment in ribbing them for me though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Maryland is set to pass similar laws. WELCOME TO VIRGINIA, BERETTA!!!! Once again, Marylanders prove my point that their state sucks and they suck as residents of it. Enjoy the higher taxes, champs!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 10, 2013 Author Share Posted April 10, 2013 Yahoo: Senators announce deal on background check in gun bill Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., unveiled a deal in a press conference on Wednesday morning to expand background checks to nearly every commercial gun purchase.Manchin called the agreement a "first step" to passing broader legislation to cut down on gun violence. Currently, only people who buy guns through federally licensed dealers have to undergo a criminal background check, leaving a loophole for some online and gun show shoppers. The new bill would expand checks to nearly every gun transaction except for some private sales and transfers among relatives. The background checks bar people who have committed felonies or have been declared mentally ill by a judge from purchasing firearms. Both Toomey and Manchin are gun owners and have an A rating from the National Rifle Association, the largest pro-gun lobby group. Toomey said he added some provisions to strengthen gun rights in the bill, including allowing a legal gun owner to take his or her concealed weapon over state lines while traveling, even if that state does not allow concealed carry. There's more at the link. I'm trying to dance the line between not quoting the whole thing, but getting the important parts. Really love the way we've decided that, in order to actually try to have background checks, we have to give the NRA (slogan "it's the government's job to keep guns away from bad people! Just enforce the existing laws!") a federal law that allows pro-gun states to hand out permits that permit gun people to commit felonies in other states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 17, 2013 Author Share Posted April 17, 2013 Yahoo: Senate rejects gun amendment compromise The Senate on Wednesday rejected a bipartisan amendment that would have expanded background checks on gun purchases, a blow to advocates calling for more strict firearm laws after the mass shootings in Newtown, Conn., late last year.The measure, the product of intense negotiations between Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey and West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, would have extended background check requirements on gun owners. It needed 60 votes to pass, but failed 54-46. Democratic Sens. Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Max Baucus of Montana voted against it. (Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada switched his vote to no at the end, a procedural tactic that allows him to bring it up for a vote later.) In addition to Toomey, Republicans who supported the amendment were Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Susan Collins of Maine and John McCain of Arizona. OK, at least last I heard, this was a bill that would have extended background checks to people like gun show dealers, but not to sales strictly between two individuals. (Something which, I think I've read, 60% of NRA members approve of.) And included sweeteners in the form of greatly expending the rights of gun permit holders. And it still gets 3 R votes, and fails to overcome the filibuster. More (about the politics, not about the bill) at the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartacus87 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 This is from Mitch McConnell's official Facebook page (which is maintained by interns and assistant staffers, but still): The caption is "We love the memes you send us! Keep them coming!" https://www.facebook.com/McConnellForSenate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abdcskins Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Pretty pathetic. Who doesn't want stronger background checks on firearms sales? Other than the NRA- who are stubborn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 OK, at least last I heard, this was a bill that would have extended background checks to people like gun show dealers, but not to sales strictly between two individuals. (Something which, I think I've read, 60% of NRA members approve of.) And included sweeteners in the form of greatly expending the rights of gun permit holders. . I was under the impression any licensed dealer (even at gun shows) was under the background check requirement already.....am I mistaken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 18, 2013 Author Share Posted April 18, 2013 I was under the impression any licensed dealer (even at gun shows) was under the background check requirement already.....am I mistaken? And unlicensed dealers and straw sellers aren't. Which you already knew. Which was why you chose to insert the phrase "licensed dealer". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMalcolmConnection Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 So here's my question (would LOVE a non-biased answer): Why is anyone opposing extensive background checks? I mean sure, it might not help, but what is it going to hurt? I just cannot stand that my Facebook is 95% full of "They tryin' to take our guns!" No. No one is trying to do that. They're trying to implement things that MAY work. It's possible they don't, but I cannot fathom opposing something that, at worst, might do nothing for violence and not impose on 'Merican freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Did Mitch McConnell outsource his social media to the folks at i can haz cheezburger? I sort of love his Facebook page. Not what I expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 And unlicensed dealers and straw sellers aren't. Which you already knew. Which was why you chose to insert the phrase "licensed dealer". you mean straw purchasers?....the ones that already buy from licensed dealers? unlicensed dealers are ATF business(when they are not busy running guns to Mexico) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 So here's my question (would LOVE a non-biased answer): Why is anyone opposing extensive background checks? I mean sure, it might not help, but what is it going to hurt? I just cannot stand that my Facebook is 95% full of "They tryin' to take our guns!" No. No one is trying to do that. They're trying to implement things that MAY work. It's possible they don't, but I cannot fathom opposing something that, at worst, might do nothing for violence and not impose on 'Merican freedom. To be honest, I am not sure. While I am not for adding new useless gun laws, I have no thoughts for or against this proposed law. However, I don't agree with the let's do something, anything point of view.Gun violence is dropping despite appearances. Do I think that liberals want to disarm society, yes. However, I have no problems with basic background checks to ensure that criminals and the mentally ill are not buying guns. I think the biggest complaint is the data basing of information from these background checks. That is what most are concerned with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Do I think that liberals want to disarm society, yes. You can read reams of what some one writes, yet also get very significant components of their thinking in one line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.