The Gun Control Debate Thread

[mistertim]

I've honestly never understood open carrying anyway. Seems like there are lots of people who do it "just because they can", as it were. Why announce what you have and make yourself a potential target when you could get a CCW?

[MattFancy]

I've honestly never understood open carrying anyway. Seems like there are lots of people who do it "just because they can", as it were. Why announce what you have and make yourself a potential target when you could get a CCW?

 

Intimidation and small weiner

[Larry]

I've honestly never understood open carrying anyway. Seems like there are lots of people who do it "just because they can", as it were. Why announce what you have and make yourself a potential target when you could get a CCW?

"Look what I can do, and you can't stop me!"

(And I think it's only for people who HAVE a CCW.)

[TheGreatBuzz]

I've honestly never understood open carrying anyway. Seems like there are lots of people who do it "just because they can", as it were. Why announce what you have and make yourself a potential target when you could get a CCW?

 

Intimidation and small weiner

Actually I would prefer it just because of a physical comfort standpoint.  But I also know that there will be some people who insist on carrying a big chrome .50 cal Desert Eagle.  Those are the ones that MattFancy is really talking about.

[mistertim]

Actually I would prefer it just because of a physical comfort standpoint.  But I also know that there will be some people who insist on carrying a big chrome .50 cal Desert Eagle.  Those are the ones that MattFancy is really talking about.

I can understand the comfort standpoint. Concealed carrying can be pretty uncomfortable...but not too bad unless you insist on carrying a full size .45 or something. But, for me personally, the semi-discomfort is offset by not making myself a target and not scaring the **** out of people who are just trying to do some shopping or something.

[tshile]

i know how i look and what i think about people who open carry. almost everyone i know seems to think the same.

 

i really have no desire to have people look at/think about me that way.

 

so i don't understand the desire to open carry.

 

of course i'm in VA where anyone can open carry as long as they're allowed to own a firearm. it feels weird hearing FL isn't that way, and are just now allowing open care for those with permits for concealed carry.

 

i prefer FL's laws on open carry, but VA's laws on when you can use a firearm. Weird.

[Larry]

When I was looking for sources for this article, (I looked at 3-4, and then s one had more information than the others), I found a few that say that open carry is currently allowed in, I think, 46 states. So it doesn't appear to be a law that's exclusive to the ultra-red states, or anything.

[btfoom]

Thanks for those who replied to my questions.  I am very much pro-gun ownership (even though I don't own one), just like I'm pro any other amendment to the US Constitution.

 

As for the 'militia' argument, that has been settled by several court cases, most relevant here.

 

Also, there has been nothing listed here that would have stopped the mass shootings in the past couple years, nor would have stopped what happened with the terrorism in California.  

 

Nothing here that I've read in the past 18 pages addresses the real gun violence - inner city people (mostly black, by FBI statistics) killing other inner city people (mostly blacks, by same statistics).

[Slateman]

Thanks for those who replied to my questions. I am very much pro-gun ownership (even though I don't own one), just like I'm pro any other amendment to the US Constitution.

As for the 'militia' argument, that has been settled by several court cases, most relevant here.

Also, there has been nothing listed here that would have stopped the mass shootings in the past couple years, nor would have stopped what happened with the terrorism in California.

Nothing here that I've read in the past 18 pages addresses the real gun violence - inner city people (mostly black, by FBI statistics) killing other inner city people (mostly blacks, by same statistics).

That's because of you bring it up in any other context other than white privilege and guns are killing black kids, you're immediately labeled a racist.

[Burgold]

The way I see it there seem to be three problems with some overlap.

There is urban violence which includes drug, gang, crime and other forms of gun violence.

 

There is suicide. The rates of gun suicides seem to be heading upwards (I haven't checked in a little while. I'd love to be wrong on this)

 

There are mass shootings.

 

Each problem has a different set of sociological underpinnings and probably require a slightly different approach to deal with. I think the first step is actually to actually research the problem. We need to do away with the blocks that prevent funding and analysis of the causes, the true numbers of casualties, etc. We also need to develop a common definition so that each county doesn't get to decide what constitutes gun violence or not. The numbers we read are not the true numbers. Let's at least be honest about the problem, its reach, extent, and prevalence. 

[Larry]

Thanks for those who replied to my questions.  I am very much pro-gun ownership (even though I don't own one), just like I'm pro any other amendment to the US Constitution.

 

As for the 'militia' argument, that has been settled by several court cases, most relevant here.

 

Also, there has been nothing listed here that would have stopped the mass shootings in the past couple years, nor would have stopped what happened with the terrorism in California.  

 

Nothing here that I've read in the past 18 pages addresses the real gun violence - inner city people (mostly black, by FBI statistics) killing other inner city people (mostly blacks, by same statistics).

I do want to thank you for returning the thread to topic.

(There's a joke in there, if y'all can spot it).

---

That's because of you bring it up in any other context other than white privilege and guns are killing black kids, you're immediately labeled a racist.

I'd be a lot more willing to trust your ability to speak for other people, if I hadn't just read your last seven posts.

[s0crates]

How did we get from "Well-regulated militia" to...all regulation is a violation of the constitution? Seriously, I'm asking.

". . . shall not be infringed."

Edited December 12, 2015 by s0crates

[skinsmarydu]

". . . shall not be infringed."

...which was written long before some became "un-hinged".

And what we're discussing is re-dress, also a Constitutional right...these latest (sorry to generalize the last 15 years, far too long) issues absolutely should require a discussion and SOME REAL FACTS to be addressed. 

But when people put their fingers in their ears & sing flalalalalalalala, it won't happen.

 

~Signed,

    A Lawful & Responsible One Gun Owner.  Not a 15-gun owner that requires something bigger than me to hold all the **** I won't be able to get to if I think I might need it.)

Just sayin'.

Edited December 12, 2015 by skinsmarydu

[tshile]

1). You don't think politicians would use a tragedy to push a feel-good piece of legislation that actually wouldn't have helped?

2). OTOH, I will note that "it wouldn't have helped, in this case", does not equal "therefore it's not a good idea". IMO, the question that ought to be used is whether the proposal will help enough, to justify its restriction of freedom. (In this case, I would assert that both the proposal's help, and it's harm, would be near trivial).

 

 

But this actually kind of gets to my point... we see this quite often. The pro gun control crowd focusing on things unrelated to an incident, and using the incident as a reason as to why everyone should now agree with them. When it's pointed out they get upset and start mocking the criticism saying things like 'we can never talk about gun control.' They have a really bad habit of declaring something common sense, even though it's unrelated to the incident they're discussing, then demanding everyone agree with them. Given long enough they'll actually start telling the rest of us we just don't care about children or some other nonsense.

 

How many of these gun control proponents harped on the "gun show loophole" after sandy hook, then (loudly) proclaimed disgust that people wouldn't agree with it after so many kids were killed? The incident is still referenced as this point at which it was realized nothing would ever be done about anything. The two had zero relation. He got the gun from his mother, who had no issues passing a background check.  Obama released his EO's shortly after and I thought they were perfect and exactly what was needed; these same people declared them to be nothing.

 

Should they be limited to only discussing potential fixes that would help with the latest shooting? No, of course not. But if you actually follow their tone, what they say, and to whom they say it... you'll find that they often have nothing to do with each other. It makes them look a certain way and it's not hard to see. I'm not the only one that sees it either. It's a part of the reason they can't find the support they claim exists, but never actually shows up when it matters (voting.) They don't appear genuine in their goals. They don't appear knowledgeable on the subject. And they're the ones screaming the loudest 10 minutes after a shooting.

 

My only issue with the no fly list is that we know it's got perfectly well meaning people on it. I don't really have an issue with it, but it's far from this perfect, common sense solution that some are saying it is. This has been pointed out by others; others that I believe have also stated multiple times, and ways, that they're perfectly OK with adding more gun control (as have I.) Ironically it'll probably only affect a certain portion of the population. I imagine Muslims are significantly more likely to be falsely added to the no fly list than anyone else, but I'm just guessing.  Maybe some of these white domestic terrorists in training will be added to the list, then they can't buy anymore guns

[abdcskins]

Why would anyone need to own an assault rifle?  Honest question.

[twa]

Why would anyone need to own an assault rifle?  Honest question.

 

 

A semi auto ,lightweight rifle with handy mount points can be useful in hunting,varmint control and  defense of person and property.

 

I much prefer a handgun and shotgun for the latter....but I'm a city boy.

 

assault rifle is a overused and abused term

[Redskins Diehard]

A semi auto ,lightweight rifle with handy mount points can be useful in hunting,varmint control and defense of person and property.

I much prefer a handgun and shotgun for the latter....but I'm a city boy.

assault rifle is a overused and abused term

Assault rifle is a term with no consistent definition. The one used in the assault weapon ban was so stupid and really hampered a reasonable discussion.

[PokerPacker]

Assault rifle is a term with no consistent definition. The one used in the assault weapon ban was so stupid and really hampered a reasonable discussion.

I believe the assault weapon ban definition is "it looks scary".

[Bang]

So i've been working on a routine for our brave well protected world.

 

 

So, a guy known to his neighbors to be quiet and keep to himself, a loner wearing a trench coat and a chicken walk into a bar. The bartender looks at the loner and the guy known to his neighbors to be quiet and keep to himself and says "you can't bring a chicken in here."
And the guy in the corner opens up with his pistol and kills 4 people before shooting himself because he felt he wasn't respected at work.

 

Shoot my wife, please!

 

So, why did the chicken cross the road?

Who cares? Shoot him, he's heading for that bar that doesn't serve chickens!

 

Home for Christmas Raheem wanted to fly

and TSA said, no way, suspected terrorist guy!

We've got you on our list!

You're much too much of a risk!

go use the money you save on airfare and buy yourself a new gun for Christmas instead.

 

 

thanks, i'll be here ll week.. be sure and tip your bartenders and wait staff.

 

~Shooty White

Edited December 16, 2015 by Bang

[visionary]

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article51118820.html

Georgia clears way for mentally ill to buy guns

 

The records of thousands of people who were involuntarily committed for mental health treatment in Georgia have been removed from the national database that gun dealers use to run background checks of buyers.

 

Such people are not permitted under federal and state law to buy firearms. And this year, the state uploaded more than 2,000 new records of mentally ill Georgians to the database – people committed for inpatient treatment; found incompetent to handle their own affairs; or found guilty of a crime but mentally ill.

 

But the state also took down almost 500 other records in 2015, making it possible for scores of mentally ill people to acquire guns legally anywhere in the country.

 

Why?

 

Because in Georgia, it’s the law: Once a record of a commitment in Georgia has been on the National Instant Background Check System for five years, state law requires that it be removed. So even as the state is adding hundreds of commitment records each year, it is also deleting hundreds more as they hit the five-year limit.

 

It is as if they were never prohibited from having guns.

 

“We’re pulling them back after five years,” said GBI Director Vernon Keenan, whose agency provides the commitment records to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System. “That’s a legal dilemma (because) that person is still prohibited from possession or buying firearms.”

 

The names come off the national list without any review by a doctor or a court. Although these are federal records, participation in the program by each state is voluntary and subject to conditions the state may impose.

 

More than a decade ago, the Legislature authorized the GBI to provide the FBI the names of mentally ill people involuntarily committed to a public or private hospital, but with the condition that records be removed after five years.

 

In light of recent mass shootings, the public has joined in the concern increasingly expressed by politicians, law enforcement and judges.

 

Athens-Clarke County Probate Court Judge Susan Tate was moved to write an opinion piece for her local newspaper in October after Christopher Harper-Mercer, 26, fatally shot eight students and an assistant professor at Umpqua Community College before killing himself.

 

There are gaps in the law, deadly gaps, said Tate, chair of the Weapons Carry License Committee for the Council of Probate Court Judges of Georgia.

 

Only mentally ill people who are involuntarily committed for inpatient treatment are reported to the FBI for the purpose of gun background checks. People who are ordered to have an evaluation but then agree to admit themselves for treatment are not reported. Neither are mentally ill people treated as outpatients, whether the treatment is voluntary or involuntary.

 

“I’m always scared when I’ve ordered somebody to be evaluated,” said Tate, the Georgia contact for the National Criminal Background Check System. “Even if they haven’t been hospitalized, I wouldn’t want any of those people to have a gun.”

[Springfield]

So VA will no longer accept other state's CCW.

[tshile]

So VA will no longer accept other state's CCW.

 

Kind of. Not suprisingly, the media butchers the story.

 

25 of the 30 states reciprocity agreements have been revoked.

 

So, VA will still accept the other 5.

 

Apparently VA has an issue with the requirements other states have for obtaining a CCW.

 

Wonder where that leads... reciprocity is mostly a two way street, so I imagine many of those states will end their side of it too...

[TheGoodBits]

So VA will no longer accept other state's CCW.

Well, not entirely true. There are still like 5 states that have reciprocity, that were deemed to have an acceptable training process.

Including, by the way, Utah. Where you watch a 45 minute video online, pay them $25, and they'll mail you a concealed permit. Regardless of whether or not you are a resident of Utah. Seriously. Anyone could have a Utah permit within about a week if they wanted.

Edited December 23, 2015 by skinsfan_1215

[tshile]

Well, not entirely true. There are still like 5 states that have reciprocity, that were deemed to have an acceptable training process.

Including, by the way, Utah. Where you watch a 45 minute video online, pay them $25, and they'll mail you a concealed permit. Regardless of whether or not you are a resident of Utah. Seriously. Anyone could have a Utah permit within about a week if they wanted.

 

I thought the Utah permit required a supervised shooting? What you described is the VA CCW process and I thought the Utah had a little more to it...

 

It always bothered me that you could get a permit from a state you don't have residence in... seems just wrong to me.

[TheGoodBits]

I thought the Utah permit required a supervised shooting? What you described is the VA CCW process and I thought the Utah had a little more to it...

It always bothered me that you could get a permit from a state you don't have residence in... seems just wrong to me.

See I thought VA required you to go to court... Might be wrong on that. Utah info came from reading an article about it years ago.

Maybe this one: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/us/06guns.html?referer=

I'd say that maybe it's gotten more strict since then, but what are the chances of that?