The Gun Control Debate Thread

[PeterMP]

27 minutes ago, just654 said:

1.Needs to be longer than 1 year, my HQL for MD is 10 years, I think every 5 is good enough

 

2. Dont mind training at all. But this should be paid for a either Federal or local levels. The renew class every 5 years a small fee to cont. to pay for classes

 

3. Do not have a problem 

 

4. States are notified when I buy gun.

 

5. So your telling me everytime I go to DC or VA I have to let the govt know I will be there not going to happen.

 

6. Dont have a problem with giving the ATF more money

 

Oh I know the NRA wont go for most of this but I think it is a start at least for me. 

 

I really dont believe in the cooling off period, to me it is kinda like the gun show loophole 

 

Your HQL doesn't allow you to carry a concealed weapon.  Much less across states.

 

That depends on what state you live in.  Federal law doesn't require it.  For the most part, the information you have given is destroyed by any government agency that got it.  They do the background check, and then it is deleted.  The gun seller as to keep the FFL (and if they out of business they have to give it to the ATF, but the ATF can't put it in a computer and keep the record electronically).  There is no long term government record that you bought a gun.  Much less which one.

 

If you are going to carry a concealed weapon and you plan to be there for some reasonable amount of time (I'd with 24 hours.  Yes).  If you want to visit and not carry a concealed weapon than fine.  If you are just driving through (i.e. less than 24 yours), it should be fine. (In most cases, the person would be in their own car, which means their own name attached to the plate).

Edited January 9, 2017 by PeterMP

[Hersh]

4 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I'm going to go back and address the two people that broke down their ideas (kudos to them by the way) but I wanted to address this before I forget. 

 

Assuming you would need the license to walk in and buy a gun and walk out, it would take a few days at least to get that license.  If you already have the license, then you probably already have a gun also so the cooling off period would be an inconvenience to way more people than it would save, right? 

 

Do you still think it would be needed after considering that?

That's exactly why I would need to come up with examples or case studies because I was thinking along what you posted. I was thinking if someone has a valid license for a few years, they may or may not have gun at that point or they may or may not have access to a gun when some impulse takes hold. Generally I agree with your premise but to me a license simply takes away the need to do paperwork every time you are making a purchase. 

 

Also, just because someone has a license, a check would still have to be done to make sure it's still valid and not revoked. This would require a national database. 

Edited January 9, 2017 by Hersh

[just654]

4 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I'm going to go back and address the two people that broke down their ideas (kudos to them by the way) but I wanted to address this before I forget. 

 

Assuming you would need the license to walk in and buy a gun and walk out, it would take a few days at least to get that license.  If you already have the license, then you probably already have a gun also so the cooling off period would be an inconvenience to way more people than it would save, right? 

 

Do you still think it would be needed after considering that?

Yes, thank you for explaining like that.  

[just654]

Sorry Peter, I dont even mind a national registration of the CCL. So that would kill the need to let each state know. It would show up when you run my license. Most people with CCL know how to talk with cops to let them know they have a CCL.

[tshile]

43 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

1.  It would have to be a yearly license.

 

3.  Carrying a concealed gun with an expired license can be punishable under state and local laws.  I don't trust the feds to enforce the law.  Carrying a concealed weapon without a valid and up to date license can be punished as strictly as a non-licensed person carrying a concealed weapon (or even more severely) by state and local governments.

 

4.  The states get information on the people that get the licenses (e.g. name, results of mental health screening, address, guns they bought, etc).  A state and local cop when approaching a car should have some sort of reasonable idea if that car might be connected to somebody that is carrying a concealed weapon.

 

These already exist. At least in my state (except I think it's a 5 year license.)

 

When cops pull you over there's three things they get immediately - warrants, concealed handgun permit, DUIs.

 

I think everything else has to be done over the radio. That's the way it used to be. VA State Police was very strict about that. May have changed recently...

Edited January 9, 2017 by tshile

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, just654 said:

Sorry Peter, I dont even mind a national registration of the CCL. So that would kill the need to let each state know. It would show up when you run my license. Most people with CCL know how to talk with cops to let them know they have a CCL.

 

Problem is that people that are in a state for longer periods of times tend not be driving their own car.  

 

They do things like rent cars or use other people's cars.

 

I'll visit my in laws about 3 hours away and not drive my car a single time I'm there for the weekend.

Edited January 9, 2017 by PeterMP

[tshile]

17 minutes ago, Hersh said:

Also, just because someone has a license, a check would still have to be done to make sure it's still valid and not revoked. This would require a national database. 

That's fine, they're already doing that. It takes less than an hour.

 

The real issue, is whether you believe there needs to be a wait for a "cooling down" period to stop people who are emotionally wound up from just buying a gun and killing someone.

 

I guess if you had the license you already have guns, so maybe it would be pointless? i could go either way. I have a hard time being OK with rules that don't actually provide anything of value.

 

 

2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Problem is that people that are in a state for longer periods of times tend not be driving their own car.  

 

They do things like rent cars or use other people's cars.

 

I'll visit my in laws in about 3 hours away and not drive my car a single time I'm there for the weekend.

 

Most people who get a CCL/CCW/CHP/whatever are trained to inform the police officer right away. I am not quite sure, but I believe it's required under VA law. I'm not sure what the punishment is if you don't, maybe they just revoke your license, I don't know if you'd get arrested (probably.)
 

[Hersh]

Just now, tshile said:

That's fine, they're already doing that. It takes less than an hour.

 

The real issue, is whether you believe there needs to be a wait for a "cooling down" period to stop people who are emotionally wound up from just buying a gun and killing someone.

 

I guess if you had the license you already have guns, so maybe it would be pointless? i could go either way. I have a hard time being OK with rules that don't actually provide anything of value.

 

 

Studies show they do provide value and, as I said, there are scenarios where having a license doesn't equate to having access to a gun when an impulse takes hold. Heck, even someone needing to drive home because they can't walk into a store and buy a gun might make a big difference. I would view the process like this:

 

I provide my license and another form of ID to the store. They run it, takes a few minutes max and I'm good to purchase either at that time or when I come back to pick up the gun 24 hours later or even a few hours later. I don't have to do paperwork, I don't have to sit around, etc. It's been 20 years since I bought a gun so maybe I'm just out of date.

 

Though I am interested in buying a lever action rifle and getting custom engraving to create an heirloom piece. I'm open to recommendations but it must be Made in America. 

[PeterMP]

8 minutes ago, tshile said:

Most people who get a CCL/CCW/CHP/whatever are trained to inform the police officer right away. I am not quite sure, but I believe it's required under VA law. I'm not sure what the punishment is if you don't, maybe they just revoke your license, I don't know if you'd get arrested (probably.)
 

 

It would be up to the state.  If VA cops and politicians are comfortable with their cops not learning that the person is likely carrying a concealed weapon, then that's fine for VA.  If NJ politicians/police feel differently, then they can have a different law.

[tshile]

@Hersh

that's fine, i'm sold. i don't really care about a waiting period. you provided a justification that makes perfect sense, so i'm cool with it.

 

 

3 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

It would be up to the state.  If VA cops and politicians are comfortable with their cops not learning that the person is likely carrying a concealed weapon, then that's fine for VA.  If NJ politicians/police feel differently, then they can have a different law.

VA Cops are not cool with it. That's why it's one of three things that show up when they scan your license.

 

I do not know how that works with rental cars... way beyond me.

 

I would think there's a level of caution taken with rental cars for the very reason you cannot tell who is inside, but I get where you're going with it.

 

I'm very much for the idea of a national license that requires training, certification, etc.

 

I'm even for tiered licensing of it that give you more privileges to carry in more places, which come with more training/certification requirements.

 

The question is - what does the left need in return? Would this mean revoking the states' ability to issue concealed carry permits? If not, what else would they want? An additional, federal license that supersedes states' laws on things wouldn't really help the pro-control crowd any...

[Hersh]

10 minutes ago, tshile said:

@Hersh

that's fine, i'm sold. i don't really care about a waiting period. you provided a justification that makes perfect sense, so i'm cool with it.

 

 

VA Cops are not cool with it. That's why it's one of three things that show up when they scan your license.

 

I do not know how that works with rental cars... way beyond me.

 

I would think there's a level of caution taken with rental cars for the very reason you cannot tell who is inside, but I get where you're going with it.

 

I'm very much for the idea of a national license that requires training, certification, etc.

 

I'm even for tiered licensing of it that give you more privileges to carry in more places, which come with more training/certification requirements.

 

The question is - what does the left need in return? Would this mean revoking the states' ability to issue concealed carry permits? If not, what else would they want? An additional, federal license that supersedes states' laws on things wouldn't really help the pro-control crowd any...

The amount of stuff 10 of us ordinary citizens would get done sitting in a room would solve many of the countries problems. 

[tshile]

18 minutes ago, Hersh said:

The amount of stuff 10 of us ordinary citizens would get done sitting in a room would solve many of the countries problems. 

i'm pretty reasonable on gun stuff. i know it doesn't seem that way because i'll nit pick stuff, but it's because i want stuff that works and some of the ideas pushed seem more like they make people feel better about themselves but don't actually help solve the problem. for instance - i don't know how you can do anything about the mass shooter crap without getting heavy into cdc/nih/academic research into the matter... i just don't know how else you can even attempt to come up with a reasonable idea. killing a ton of people you have no connection with is so far beyond what anyone would consider "normal".... for a bunch of people who don't know the first thing about mental health to start throwing around solutions... seems inappropriate.

 

anyways, my point was supposed to be that i know a ton of people that, while good people in the grand scheme of things, are nuts about guns. they honest to god think the NRA, warts and all, are the only thing keeping the liberals from stealing all our guns and turning us into a socialist state and making sure you can't so much as pick out what to eat for dinner. they realize the NRA is for the gun manufacturers but, as one person said to me once when I tried to discuss i with them, "who do you think makes and sells me the guns?"

 

so yeah, i'm sure a bunch of us could sit down and hash it out. but there's some legit gun-nuts out there, a lot of them, and as much as some people around here get picked on for being pro-gun i haven't seen anyone come close on ES to what i've seen a lot in real life...

 

when obama said people cling to religion and guns, he wasn't bull****ting. he retracted it because it was a bad look, but he meant what he said.

 

he was also correct.

 

edit: I trust the gun nuts i know with a gun. They have great respect for it. It's a tool. But when it comes to a discussion of changing the laws, it's like flipping a switch in their brain.

 

if you really want to make them irate mention that gun rights expanded under Obama (which is factually correct), and watch their heads explode. They're so per-programmed on the issue that they will refuse to accept that as fact.

 

Edited January 9, 2017 by tshile

[PeterMP]

55 minutes ago, tshile said:

The question is - what does the left need in return? Would this mean revoking the states' ability to issue concealed carry permits? If not, what else would they want? An additional, federal license that supersedes states' laws on things wouldn't really help the pro-control crowd any...

 

Given what I laid out:

 

The left would get a national database of concealed permit carriers and what guns they are buying, which from a research purpose would at least be interesting.  Plus we'd pick up more data from data the ATF currently has, but can't computerize.

 

They'd get more robust standards than many states currently have to get a concealed permit.  In some places it would be easier to get concealed permits, but others it would get harder.

 

They'd get a defacto tax on guns (if it is revenue neutral and training/mental health screenings are being paid for by taxes on guns, which should help limit gun sales).

 

And the big thing they'd get is a functional ATF.  Realistically, we haven't had a functional ATF that actually enforces laws on straw gun purchases for something like 20 years.

 

This is relevant to the idea of an unfunctional ATF, but from another thread:

 

6 minutes ago, Destino said:

I'm going to go biblical here and say the problem is "you can't serve two masters."  The design of government is too often the result of compromise between those fighting to accomplish different goals.  Compromise is how reasonable people solve their differences right?  The problem is that in government the word doesn't mean the same thing.  In the real world we argue and then come to an agreement on how to proceed and then everyone getting on board with the plan.  It's unacceptable to act like an asshole after the fact and try to sabotage everything.... which is precisely what the government does when they compromise.  One side wants to do X, the other side does not.  If X wins the other side does everything in it's power to make accomplishing anything is difficult and than uses any difficulty created to argue that it shouldn't have been done in the first place.  Precisely like an asshole you never want to deal with in real life.   

Edited January 9, 2017 by PeterMP

[tshile]

6 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

The left would get a national database of concealed permit carriers and what guns they are buying, which from a research purpose would at least be interesting.  Plus we'd pick up more data from data the ATF currently has, but can't computerize.

 

I get the more robust standards for permits. I get the tax thing.

 

But I don't think you're going to get much out this one here. Every piece of research I've ever seen done has shown that the people that have concealed carry permits are not a meaningful portion of the the problem, in fact they're the slightest little sliver of the problem (If you define the problem as being convincted of a crime, even ones not related to guns, that's more serious than a moving violation.)

 

The gun control people always want to go after the concealed carry people and I have never seen justification for why that is. It always seems to be "I just want to know if you have a gun, and can't if you can carry it concealed."

 

meanwhile, all the data shows the people you need to be concerned about are the people that carry guns concealed without permits...

 

do you have data that suggests permit holds are in any way a statistically relevant part of the problem?

 

(i'm excluding states that give you a permit when you're born)

 

I think you'd get a ton if you you got a database of all gun owners/purchasers... if you're going to give out a federal license that supersedes state's licenses on concealed carry, i think you need to up your ask to something more reasonable here.

 

you can always negotiate down to a database of only permit owners

 

edit: I realized you were specific about concealed permits and those are not a right, so i removed that...

 

Edited January 9, 2017 by tshile

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 hours ago, just654 said:

 

All about it, lets address it like Drunk Driving. We have to start blaming the person not the tool, like in drunk driving. No one says it is the cars fault for killing someone. 

 

I posted this on facebook back in the summer: This is something I would be willing to work with has a gun owner

 

What I would consider something that might work. I am sure that this something that both sides will not like. But I think it is a start to a middle ground. But personally I am not sure how these ideas will stop crime or what happened. But lets talk.

1. Education on guns. We need gun safety classes in schools again. One thing I have noticed is it seems a lot of people are scared of guns. There is nothing to be scared of, if you use the gun a safe way.

2. A registration on guns. So here is the thing on that every time I buy a gun, the State and Feds are notified. Lets just turn that into a registration. We can even make jobs with that. Have people sitting at a computer in putting the information into a database.

3. Going to back to the using guns safely. I do not have problem taking a gun safety class before my first purchase. This would also have a back ground check and mental heath check. But this class should be free and paid either by the states or at the federal level.

4. After taking this class. I would get a license. Lets just say this license is good for 5 years. I know a lot can change in 5 years. But the details can be hammered out later. Every 5 years, I would have to go a range. Do 30 mins to 1 hour range time. To show I can still use a gun safely. During my range time, a new back ground check and mental check is being done. I would be willing to pay a very small fee at this time. Lets say $35. But this fee will go to fund school educational gun safety classes and only that.

5. This is were I think I will lose liberals. So with this license, since this is a federal law. I should be able to walk into any gun shop in any state pay and walk out with any gun I want. Of course not fully auto. But that includes handguns, rifles, shotguns. Any legal gun.

What does everyone think?

1.  Totally agree.  People are scared of what they don't know.  And I would start reasonably young.  Hopefully that would help cut down on the kids that find a gun and play with it and kill someone also.

2. I would consider that as long as no attempt is made to limit the number of guns a person could own.  I'm very hesitant about this though and it would take a pretty big bargaining chip.

3.  I agree it should be paid for by the government.  Someone mentioned later a tiered gun license system.  I could see paying money for a higher level license but a general carry license should be free as should the training and such.  The level of intensity of training and mental checks would depend on how often I have to renew.

4. I agree.  Though the fee should be lower I think.  Same as what I said for #3.

5.  I agree.

 

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

1.  It would have to be a yearly license.

 

2.  The training/mental health screening would have to be done through the government at government facilities in a revenue neutral manner (which means a tax on your licenses or gun sales to cover the costs of licensing).  In some cases, private industry has pushed for the conceal carry permits and licensing to give them another revenue stream.  I don't want to give gun related industries more money.

 

3.  Carrying a concealed gun with an expired license can be punishable under state and local laws.  I don't trust the feds to enforce the law.  Carrying a concealed weapon without a valid and up to date license can be punished as strictly as a non-licensed person carrying a concealed weapon (or even more severely) by state and local governments.

 

4.  The states get information on the people that get the licenses (e.g. name, results of mental health screening, address, guns they bought, etc).  A state and local cop when approaching a car should have some sort of reasonable idea if that car might be connected to somebody that is carrying a concealed weapon.

 

5.  States can have some laws related to the licenses (e.g. I can require somebody that is a resident of another state that is going to be in their state for some reasonable period of time (e.g. 24 hours) to notify them that they will be in the state, etc). (Relatedly, anybody know how efficiently information is shared today from rental company to police.  If I'm a cop and I pull over a rental car, before I get out of the car, can I find out who rented it.)

 

6.  The ATF gets a significant increase in their budget (has been flat for 10 years), especially to go after things like straw purchases, the head of the ATF goes back to being an appointed position and not one that requires Senate approval (we haven't had an approved full time head of the ATF since 2006 because the Senate won't approve anybody), and many of the riders of the ATF budget are removed (e.g. it is illegal for the ATF to create a database of gun purchasers.  The out of business gun stores have to give their records to the ATF,  but the ATF can't put the information in a computer rendering it essentially useless). 

 

And you have a deal

1.  For a yearly license, I'm not going to give much except the most basic level of training and mental checks.

2. I think the government (state/federal) should bear at least the majority of the cost.

3.  It already is.  It would be a federal license but I'm fine with the state helping enforce it.

4.  Disagree.  I don think there is a need.  They get a lot more info knowing if the driver has a criminal record.

5.  Definitely against this.  It would defeat the whole point of a federal CC license.  (I'm also open to debate if conceal carry or open carry is better.  I see good arguments for both.)

6. No problem here.

2 hours ago, Hersh said:

If this country really wanted to reduce drunk driving deaths even more, all cars would be required to have a breathalyzer to start the car based on the legal limit of whatever state you are in. It would be a felony for anyone not driving to blow into the breathalyzer and if the person gets into an accident as a result, the person that blew into the breathalyzer would face manslaughter charges at a minimum. Drunk driving would plummet. 

 

(Sorry, I know it's off topic)

 

Anyway, the NRA doesn't view guns deaths as a national health crisis and too many politicians are scared of them and their misinformation campaigns. 

 

 

This is kind of what I was getting at earlier.  The numbers of deaths are similar.  So why don't we do that?

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

If you are going to carry a concealed weapon and you plan to be there for some reasonable amount of time (I'd with 24 hours.  Yes).  If you want to visit and not carry a concealed weapon than fine.  If you are just driving through (i.e. less than 24 yours), it should be fine. (In most cases, the person would be in their own car, which means their own name attached to the plate).

Again, that defeats the purpose of this federal license that's we proposed.  If you were going to set this "visitation" requirement I wouldn't want it to be for less than 2 weeks or so.

2 hours ago, Hersh said:

That's exactly why I would need to come up with examples or case studies because I was thinking along what you posted. I was thinking if someone has a valid license for a few years, they may or may not have gun at that point or they may or may not have access to a gun when some impulse takes hold. Generally I agree with your premise but to me a license simply takes away the need to do paperwork every time you are making a purchase. 

 

Also, just because someone has a license, a check would still have to be done to make sure it's still valid and not revoked. This would require a national database. 

I'd be interested to see how many people that have already owned a gun and instead went and bought one to kill themselves spur of the moment.  Like someone else said, make sure there is a problem before you try to fix it.

1 hour ago, Hersh said:

Studies show they do provide value and, as I said, there are scenarios where having a license doesn't equate to having access to a gun when an impulse takes hold. Heck, even someone needing to drive home because they can't walk into a store and buy a gun might make a big difference. I would view the process like this:

 

I provide my license and another form of ID to the store. They run it, takes a few minutes max and I'm good to purchase either at that time or when I come back to pick up the gun 24 hours later or even a few hours later. I don't have to do paperwork, I don't have to sit around, etc. It's been 20 years since I bought a gun so maybe I'm just out of date.

 

Though I am interested in buying a lever action rifle and getting custom engraving to create an heirloom piece. I'm open to recommendations but it must be Made in America. 

My main issue with waiting is gun show type things.  I go to a show and get a good deal, but then would have to go meet that dealer somewhere the next day, the deal isn't worth it anymore.

 

are you looking antique or new?  What's your budget?  Do you care more about looks or do you want to drive nails at 200 yards also?

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

It would be up to the state.  If VA cops and politicians are comfortable with their cops not learning that the person is likely carrying a concealed weapon, then that's fine for VA.  If NJ politicians/police feel differently, then they can have a different law.

It is now.  It's one of the things that makes the whole states with repriprocity difficult.  If I drive through 7 states with my gun, I have to make a notebook of all the different laws.  This is one reason I'd like more of a federal, across the board set of laws.  But currently each state decides regarding "duty to inform".

1 hour ago, tshile said:

i'm pretty reasonable on gun stuff. i know it doesn't seem that way because i'll nit pick stuff, but it's because i want stuff that works and some of the ideas pushed seem more like they make people feel better about themselves but don't actually help solve the problem. for instance - i don't know how you can do anything about the mass shooter crap without getting heavy into cdc/nih/academic research into the matter... i just don't know how else you can even attempt to come up with a reasonable idea. killing a ton of people you have no connection with is so far beyond what anyone would consider "normal".... for a bunch of people who don't know the first thing about mental health to start throwing around solutions... seems inappropriate.

 

anyways, my point was supposed to be that i know a ton of people that, while good people in the grand scheme of things, are nuts about guns. they honest to god think the NRA, warts and all, are the only thing keeping the liberals from stealing all our guns and turning us into a socialist state and making sure you can't so much as pick out what to eat for dinner. they realize the NRA is for the gun manufacturers but, as one person said to me once when I tried to discuss i with them, "who do you think makes and sells me the guns?"

 

so yeah, i'm sure a bunch of us could sit down and hash it out. but there's some legit gun-nuts out there, a lot of them, and as much as some people around here get picked on for being pro-gun i haven't seen anyone come close on ES to what i've seen a lot in real life...

 

when obama said people cling to religion and guns, he wasn't bull****ting. he retracted it because it was a bad look, but he meant what he said.

 

he was also correct.

 

edit: I trust the gun nuts i know with a gun. They have great respect for it. It's a tool. But when it comes to a discussion of changing the laws, it's like flipping a switch in their brain.

 

if you really want to make them irate mention that gun rights expanded under Obama (which is factually correct), and watch their heads explode. They're so per-programmed on the issue that they will refuse to accept that as fact.

 

I'm probably the closest to fitting this description that I know of on this site.  And I don't think I'm too bad when it comes to some common sense rules.

 

sorry for the late response.  And sorry it somehow posted and I'm not editing my response.  Don't know how that happened.

 

one other thing I'd like to add is that I'm fine with a mental health check for gun ownership but there would need to be a quick, reasonable way to appeal and get it overturned.  The fact that I had depression a few years ago when I had a lot of major issues come up at once shouldn't keep me from having a gun now.  I was also smart enough to store my guns with a friend during that time.

Edited January 10, 2017 by TheGreatBuzz

[Larry]

2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Assuming you would need the license to walk in and buy a gun and walk out, it would take a few days at least to get that license.  If you already have the license, then you probably already have a gun also so the cooling off period would be an inconvenience to way more people than it would save, right? 

 

Do you still think it would be needed after considering that?

 

Thats actually a good point, that I hadn't thought of. 

 

Although i would hilight the phrase "would inconvenience way more people than it would save". Me, I don't see anything inherently wrong with a ratio of, say, 100 "inconveniences" per one "life saved". (I'm thinking of "child proof caps", right now.)

[Kosher Ham]

Got my wife a bodyguard. 

 

I ain't talking about the ones that roll with movie stars. 

[Larry]

20 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

2. I would consider that as long as no attempt is made to limit the number of guns a person could own.  I'm very hesitant about this though and it would take a pretty big bargaining chip.

 

I don't really want a limit on ownership.  (Although I might want the computer to notify somebody if a person suddenly buys a big number.  Might be a warning flag.)  

 

But my fantasy gun laws would include something along the lines of any household which has more than, say, four guns, must have an approved (by some independent agency, like UL) safe, and all of the guns but four must be in it.  

 

Something to make the guns harder to steal.  

 

(Although I recognize that enforcing a law like that would be a real pain.)  

[TheGreatBuzz]

21 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Thats actually a good point, that I hadn't thought of. 

 

Although i would hilight the phrase "would inconvenience way more people than it would save". Me, I don't see anything inherently wrong with a ratio of, say, 100 "inconveniences" per one "life saved". (I'm thinking of "child proof caps", right now.)

I'd be interested to see the actual number first.  And also there is a gun show point I made above.  I just wrote it all out.  It's like 3 posts above.  You didn't miss it.  I just edited it.  Sorry.  Technical difficulties.

14 minutes ago, Kosher Ham said:

Got my wife a bodyguard. 

 

I ain't talking about the ones that roll with movie stars. 

Shoulda got a Glock 42 or 43.  Love both of mine.  Lighter with the Glock reliability.  And so much more comfortable in my hand.

1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

I don't really want a limit on ownership.  (Although I might want the computer to notify somebody if a person suddenly buys a big number.  Might be a warning flag.)  

 

But my fantasy gun laws would include something along the lines of any household which has more than, say, four guns, must have an approved (by some independent agency, like UL) safe, and all of the guns but four must be in it.  

 

Something to make the guns harder to steal.  

 

(Although I recognize that enforcing a law like that would be a real pain.)  

I wouldn't mind the safe requirement but as you pointed it, it would be toothless.  

 

I honestly don't know the limits, if any, on large purchases of guns.  I'll ask my local gun shop next time I'm there if I can order 20 and see what they say.

[Kosher Ham]

2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Shoulda got a Glock 42 or 43.  Love both of mine.  Lighter with the Glock reliability.  And so much more comfortable in my hand.

 

I liked the laser sight. I think the 42 is a nice piece of equipment also. I already have a few though. She is a tiny lady. 

[twa]

5 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

What link?

 

And does that apply to everywhere?  Is Buffalo Wild Wings need to have armed security since their policy prohibits weapons?

 

The one way back on guns forbidden in Florida airports....aside from checked ones or security.

 

Yes ...I think any business that forbids them should be required to have armed security.

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, twa said:

 

The one way back on guns forbidden in Florida airports....aside from checked ones or security.

 

Yes ...I think any business that forbids them should be required to have armed security.

 

Gotcha.

 

I think that may be pushing it.  Maybe they are responsible if a CCW permit holder is injured because they didn't have security, I could see that.  But only the person who's right to carry was denied (which is legal because it's private properry) or their family could sue.

[Larry]

16 minutes ago, twa said:

 

The one way back on guns forbidden in Florida airports....aside from checked ones or security.

 

Yes ...I think any business that forbids them should be required to have armed security.

 

 

12 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Gotcha.

 

I think that may be pushing it.  Maybe they are responsible if a CCW permit holder is injured because they didn't have security, I could see that.  But only the person who's right to carry was denied (which is legal because it's private properry) or their family could sue.

 

We also gonna allow people to sue businesses for not banning guns (he asked, innocently)?

[TheGreatBuzz]

5 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

 

We also gonna allow people to sue businesses for not banning guns (he asked, innocently)?

I would say no since it is a constitutional right.  But I would certainly allow someone to sue the shooter if that person was hurt/killed by a person who uses a gun in a dangerous manner.  

 

Someone mentioned a while back about requiring a person who carries a gun to have insurance.  It was an interesting idea but I'd want to see the cost first.  I have a problem charging people money to exercise a right.  That's also why I support voter ID laws but think the government should bear the cost of providing those ID's.

[twa]

6 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

 

We also gonna allow people to sue businesses for not banning guns (he asked, innocently)?

 

Do we allow suits for allowing legal behavior?....wouldn't doubt it. 

 

just as the airport will probably be sued for no security in baggage claims and allowing guns to be in baggage....and half a dozen other things.