Coward Murders Children in Florida

[Love Mountain]

We're talking about schools.

It should not cost more than $10 or $20 billion to implement in every school, which is pocket money.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fo...rticle/2649205

http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/ther...y-anyones-guns

And I'm not. Shootings and mass shootings are nation wide problem. Unless you want to tell me that the Las Vegas shooting took place at a school.

Britain has stricter gun laws but a higher homicide rate. If you're not getting it, the point is that the strictness of a country's gun laws doesn't determine its homicide rate. There are other factors involved. Emulating another's country's gun laws won't necessarily result in adoption of its homicide rate.

nobody said there arent other factors involved.

[PointOfViewGun]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homicide_rate
In 2015 the rate was 0.69 for Switzerland and 0.75 for Czechia. In 2014 it was 0.92 for the UK. Why do Czechia and Switzerland have a lower rate despite having significantly more liberal gun laws? There must be other factors involved besides availability of guns.
Handguns are banned in most of the UK since 1997. Other firearms are heavily restricted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firear...United_Kingdom

You're trying to twist facts into your liking. Looks like you looked at the numbers I cited and seeing how they don't sit well with your position started fishing for more favorable ones. Your source, Wikipedia, points out how unreliable it is to compare two different nations for differing definitions. In any case, your trying to operate under much smaller differences compared to what you have between UK and USA. You also shy away from acknowledging the fact that Switzerland has many national mechanisms like UK does that USA does not.

Handguns, not guns in general, are effectively banned in UK.

[JP226]

Fell bad for the Democrats here. If that kid's last name was more white sounding, they'd been able to hit a political grand slam. They could tie nazi's, Trump and anti gun legislation for the next 3 or 4 news cycles. Now they have to be content with just anti gun message, and it'll be interesting to see how the combat back the mental health angle. Get your pop corn ready, we've got some great tv in store the next week or so.

[PointOfViewGun]

Fell bad for the Democrats here. If that kid's last name was more white sounding, they'd been able to hit a political grand slam. They could tie nazi's, Trump and anti gun legislation for the next 3 or 4 news cycles. Now they have to be content with just anti gun message, and it'll be interesting to see how the combat back the mental health angle. Get your pop corn ready, we've got some great tv in store the next week or so.

What does it accomplish to bicker in such a pathetic way over the death of kids?

[JP226]

What does it accomplish to bicker in such a pathetic way over the death of kids?

Serious? You think this is some sort of genuine concern? Lol. I’ll throw one dem goal, break up of the NRA.

[PointOfViewGun]

Serious? You think this is some sort of genuine concern? Lol. I’ll throw one dem goal, break up of the NRA.

So, your answer is to dilute the discussion as much as possible no matter how pathetic it is to hide the lack of merits of your position?Good luck with that.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

I've never heard anyone advocate to "simply ban one or two weapons and hope".

For me its a logical combination of things that can be done to curb the ease of access and the decrease the fatalities.

• Reinstate the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.
• Remove all private seller loopholes to background checks
• Ban all domestic violence perps from owning guns.
• When relevant ban all perps of animal cruelty especially those that kill animals from owning guns.
• Gun registration throughout the whole country with the potential for spot checks to ensure safety.

People forget its not just mass shootings or murder but suicide and accidental shootings.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/healt...udy/index.html

So you're basically going to get rid of the 2nd Amendment *AND* the 4th Amendment?

Police can now come into homes, at will, and conduct warrantless searches, and presumably [under some circumstances] seizures?

[PointOfViewGun]

So you're basically going to get rid of the 2nd Amendment *AND* the 4th Amendment?

Police can now come into homes, at will, and conduct warrantless searches, and presumably [under some circumstances] seizures?

None of the amendments disallow regulations. Banning assault weapon does not stop anyone from owning a legal gun, or have any measure on state militias. Also, 4th amendment has nothing to do with having a federal gun registry and possibility of being stopped on the road to check gun registration.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

Police need reasonable articulable suspicion that a person has committed a crime [to stop and detain them] or that the person is "armed and dangerous" to stop them, detain them, and frisk them.

They cannot conduct Terry stop's on anybody and everybody.

Also police would need reasonable articulable suspicion, or possibly probable cause, to seize a weapon from somebody to run the serial number and verify registration.


These cases have emerged over the years, police see somebody openly carrying a pistol, they approach him, detain him, and they claim they are taking his gun to run the serial number and verify it was not reported as stolen. Courts have consistently held the police do not even have the right to approach the man and initiate an involuntary encounter because openly carrying a firearm is not a crime and thus they have no reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred, and they have no probable cause to seize the firearm because they have no reason to believe it is stolen property.


Merely open carrying a pistol in a holster does not make you "armed AND dangerous" for Terry stop purposes, nor does it give police even reasonable suspicion, let alone probable cause, that the firearm is stolen.


So yes, if police are empowered to stop and detain people to conduct random warrantless spot checks on guns to make sure they are registered and not stolen, without particular individualized suspicion that the particular gun is stolen or not-registered, then the Fourth Amendment is dead and gone.

[Cyclops]

And if a miracle did occur and guns were magically eliminated -- we would still have a problem with our public schools. Bad people would still be getting in and doing bad things. Heck the shooter in Florida had smoke bombs to cause confusion. They were on the no go list as well and they came into the building. The problem is still access and response. This is a problem with guns and without guns.

I agree completely. Indeed mass shooting really are only a fraction of the gun problem, and the violence problem, albeit a politically visible and contentious fraction.

The US does have some sensible gun legislation in place, but it is AFAIK applied patchily across jurisdictions. Part of this is due to states vs Feds rivalry, and part due to distrust of the central government. In my discussions with different users on this site I realise the US has a very complex legal and social situation, and a simple point of legislation is not the silver bullet.

I would like to see the current rules applied uniformly. Trumps action on bump stocks is to be applauded, how can a device that makes semi auto act basically like an automatic weapon not be an illegal modification? He's done something sensible against strong opposition on his own side.

The NRA is a dirty political organisation but its members have legitimate concerns and very good points among the stuff I disagree with. Many of their opponents offer simplistic solutions and banal simplifications. I like the fact the kids from the school in question are speaking out but I hate that politicians have crept onto the stage beside them: they will not do those kids any good and will probably use them and chip trade them for their own political games.

Of course not, you can imply whatever you want from my arguments. I'm not dealing in absolutes. Your erroneous implications do not change the substance and nature of my arguments. My point is that even without guns, would be criminals will still find the means and opportunity to carry out heinous acts of mass murder. The fact that some criminals use guns to commit these crimes does not justify disarming 100,000,000 law abiding gun owners in the United States and thereby deprive them of their right to defend themselves against these same kinds of criminals. It's proven that the government can't defend them, self defense is therefore a personal responsibility and a personal right.

You've been walloped on the idiotic "knives are as dangerous as guns" point, there are different kinds of weapons with different murder potential. Otherwise you'd be spruiking for the national sword association instead of fleshbotting for the NRA.

The stats show people are more likely to kill themselves accidentally than be killed by an intruder. Safety requirements on weapons mean that when you restrict their danger to the user you also restrict their utility for home defence. The idiotic "cold dead hand" rhetoric of anti-ZOG Bundy types is laughable: militarily they were crushed like bugs for their silly grandstanding and would have required a lot more heavy weapons to resist Washington: does the 2nd cover nukes? If not then the we are quibbling over where the line is drawn and ruling automatic longarms in or out is not a matter of freedom, just vanity.

Some good discussion ITT despite a weak OP, thx for starting it.

[mrmouth]

I agree completely. Indeed mass shooting really are only a fraction of the gun problem, and the violence problem, albeit a politically visible and contentious fraction.

The US does have some sensible gun legislation in place, but it is AFAIK applied patchily across jurisdictions. Part of this is due to states vs Feds rivalry, and part due to distrust of the central government. In my discussions with different users on this site I realise the US has a very complex legal and social situation, and a simple point of legislation is not the silver bullet.

I would like to see the current rules applied uniformly. Trumps action on bump stocks is to be applauded, how can a device that makes semi auto act basically like an automatic weapon not be an illegal modification? He's done something sensible against strong opposition on his own side.

The NRA is a dirty political organisation but its members have legitimate concerns and very good points among the stuff I disagree with. Many of their opponents offer simplistic solutions and banal simplifications. I like the fact the kids from the school in question are speaking out but I hate that politicians have crept onto the stage beside them: they will not do those kids any good and will probably use them and chip trade them for their own political games.



You've been walloped on the idiotic "knives are as dangerous as guns" point, there are different kinds of weapons with different murder potential. Otherwise you'd be spruiking for the national sword association instead of fleshbotting for the NRA.

The stats show people are more likely to kill themselves accidentally than be killed by an intruder. Safety requirements on weapons mean that when you restrict their danger to the user you also restrict their utility for home defence. The idiotic "cold dead hand" rhetoric of anti-ZOG Bundy types is laughable: militarily they were crushed like bugs for their silly grandstanding and would have required a lot more heavy weapons to resist Washington: does the 2nd cover nukes? If not then the we are quibbling over where the line is drawn and ruling automatic longarms in or out is not a matter of freedom, just vanity.

Some good discussion ITT despite a weak OP, thx for starting it.

It's pretty simple to boil down once you address the three phenomena that make the the US gun problem unique. The inner-city gun crime, the still incredibly rare but rising mass shootings, and the white male gun owners with no criminal records committing suicide with their own guns. There is going to be some opioid abuse overlap in that last one to add impetuous to the need to solve that problem.

When you remove those three the gun issue essentially vanishes and looks comparable to nations many times smaller and that have very restrictive regulations. And that is why when statisticians who have looked at the issue and applied those same regulations in the UK or Australia (that often get cited) they dont see any clear answers. Nor do they see clear answers from any of the legislation ever proposed in the US. They can likely have some small dents but there is no magical answer to this. As was the case of the kid in Minnesota who was building bombs and got caught because a suspicious woman saw him walking across her backyard and called the cops; sometimes people just want to kill people. In that case the kid had a model family and a good life and bought into the old message the Columbine shooters put out there. Or more accurately, that the media put out there after the crime.


Articles and science like this need to begin to form the foundation for the debate. Not kids marching and saying things.

I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

I agree completely. Indeed mass shooting really are only a fraction of the gun problem, and the violence problem, albeit a politically visible and contentious fraction.

The US does have some sensible gun legislation in place, but it is AFAIK applied patchily across jurisdictions. Part of this is due to states vs Feds rivalry, and part due to distrust of the central government. In my discussions with different users on this site I realise the US has a very complex legal and social situation, and a simple point of legislation is not the silver bullet.

I would like to see the current rules applied uniformly. Trumps action on bump stocks is to be applauded, how can a device that makes semi auto act basically like an automatic weapon not be an illegal modification? He's done something sensible against strong opposition on his own side.

The NRA is a dirty political organisation but its members have legitimate concerns and very good points among the stuff I disagree with. Many of their opponents offer simplistic solutions and banal simplifications. I like the fact the kids from the school in question are speaking out but I hate that politicians have crept onto the stage beside them: they will not do those kids any good and will probably use them and chip trade them for their own political games.



You've been walloped on the idiotic "knives are as dangerous as guns" point, there are different kinds of weapons with different murder potential. Otherwise you'd be spruiking for the national sword association instead of fleshbotting for the NRA.

The stats show people are more likely to kill themselves accidentally than be killed by an intruder. Safety requirements on weapons mean that when you restrict their danger to the user you also restrict their utility for home defence. The idiotic "cold dead hand" rhetoric of anti-ZOG Bundy types is laughable: militarily they were crushed like bugs for their silly grandstanding and would have required a lot more heavy weapons to resist Washington: does the 2nd cover nukes? If not then the we are quibbling over where the line is drawn and ruling automatic longarms in or out is not a matter of freedom, just vanity.

Some good discussion ITT despite a weak OP, thx for starting it.

Swords and knives are not under extreme attack.

As an aside, if necessary I believe I could make reasonable use of a Roman gladius, particularly when combined with a Roman style rectangular shield, particularly in conjunction with others similarly armed, to oppose a riotous band so long as the riotous band was not armed with firearms or projectile weapons.

[NorseThing]

Trump wants to ban the sale of the bump stock. Not that the reputable retail carries such an add on device, but this will not change a blessed thing. The Las Vegas shooter is reputed to have used bump stocks and this may be way it is in the pulic mind at the moment. However, semiautomatic weapons not designed to be fully automatic may jam from over heating. This is probably what stopped the carnage in Vegas.

I could make one in a few hours in my garage with my woodworking tools plus some wire and metal. Of course for about $130, the rich guy does not need to make his own until after the ban. I wonder, do rich guys have wood and metal working tools?

So I cannot applaud the action, but I suppose it takes away a bumper sticker or two from the left in the next election cycle.

[Love Mountain]

It's pretty simple to boil down once you address the three phenomena that make the the US gun problem unique. The inner-city gun crime, the still incredibly rare but rising mass shootings, and the white male gun owners with no criminal records committing suicide with their own guns. There is going to be some opioid abuse overlap in that last one to add impetuous to the need to solve that problem.

All three are addressed by my arguments. The problem of social ills is always going to be present, as we see in many other countries around the globe, many with much more generous social programs than USA and with higher GDP per capita. However, they also do not have the issue of gun crime which I suspect would greatly exacerbate the problem. Access to firearms is a major factor in all three problems you mentioned. Nobody is discounting social ills, but the issue of social issues is not mutually exclusive with the issue of prolific firearm access.

When you remove those three the gun issue essentially vanishes and looks comparable to nations many times smaller and that have very restrictive regulations. And that is why when statisticians who have looked at the issue and applied those same regulations in the UK or Australia (that often get cited) they dont see any clear answers. Nor do they see clear answers from any of the legislation ever proposed in the US. They can likely have some small dents but there is no magical answer to this. As was the case of the kid in Minnesota who was building bombs and got caught because a suspicious woman saw him walking across her backyard and called the cops; sometimes people just want to kill people. In that case the kid had a model family and a good life and bought into the old message the Columbine shooters put out there. Or more accurately, that the media put out there after the crime.


Articles and science like this need to begin to form the foundation for the debate. Not kids marching and saying things.

I have posted my position on gun control several times in the last few weeks. I have yet to see any of my arguments addressed. Either in mainstream media, where things like blanket bans are discussed, and in right wing rhetoric where the idea that guns dont kill people, people kill people is prevalent and absolutely no discussion of any gun control is tolerated.

Trump wants to ban the sale of the bump stock. Not that the reputable retail carries such an add on device, but this will not change a blessed thing. The Las Vegas shooter is reputed to have used bump stocks and this may be way it is in the pulic mind at the moment. However, semiautomatic weapons not designed to be fully automatic may jam from over heating. This is probably what stopped the carnage in Vegas.

I could make one in a few hours in my garage with my woodworking tools plus some wire and metal. Of course for about $130, the rich guy does not need to make his own until after the ban. I wonder, do rich guys have wood and metal working tools?

So I cannot applaud the action, but I suppose it takes away a bumper sticker or two from the left in the next election cycle.

It's pretty idiotic to ban bump stocks. Just goes to show Trump's sophistication as a politician. This is a knee-jerk reaction to a national tragedy that's got both sides of the isle grumbling. If it was just Liberals who were whining and not Trump's base, he wouldn't bother with it.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

Trump wants to ban the sale of the bump stock. Not that the reputable retail carries such an add on device, but this will not change a blessed thing. The Las Vegas shooter is reputed to have used bump stocks and this may be way it is in the pulic mind at the moment. However, semiautomatic weapons not designed to be fully automatic may jam from over heating. This is probably what stopped the carnage in Vegas.

I could make one in a few hours in my garage with my woodworking tools plus some wire and metal. Of course for about $130, the rich guy does not need to make his own until after the ban. I wonder, do rich guys have wood and metal working tools?

So I cannot applaud the action, but I suppose it takes away a bumper sticker or two from the left in the next election cycle.

A guy that rich can just toss down $40,000 and buy an M2 Browning, a tripod, a T&E mechanism, a dozen spare barrels, 10,000 rounds of ammo, and take classes on how to properly employ a belt-fed machine gun on a tripod.

Or he could buy an MG-42 or any medium machine gun, a tripod, a T&E mechanism, and the same classes.

Or he could buy 50 acres in the desert, spend a few $100,000 on precursors and lab equipment, make a few hundred gallons of a blood agent or a nerve agent, buy a crop-duster, and go from there...

We're fortunate if somebody with such resources elects to use a semi-automatic rifle with a flimsy crappy bump-fire stock device.



I personally believe Las Vegas was an absolute hoax and that nobody died [except perhaps the alleged shooter who was dumped there as a patsy], but I am very thankful the hoax didn't implicate lawfully held NFA items.

That's all that lawful NFA item holders need, a massacre involving a lawfully held NFA item.

Most soccer mom morons demanding action [they ought to start by going on a diet] have no idea that you can legally own a fully-automatic weapon in the USA or that you can legally own a suppressor.

[Gaidin]

I personally believe Las Vegas was an absolute hoax and that nobody died [except perhaps the alleged shooter who was dumped there as a patsy], but I am very thankful the hoax didn't implicate lawfully held NFA items.
.

Tell that to all the families.

[Love Mountain]

You're talking to a guy who dedicates his time (allegedly) by being some kind of a SHTF nut. Apparently his idea of a good time is working out, practicing martial arts, and reading SWAT manuals. It's not a dig, he said as much in the past on this board. Discussing gun control with someone like that is meaningless, as is most normal discussion. Such a demeanor is simply not useful to meaningful discourse.

[Elfdude]

Jesus christ, they keep reproducing. It's like you squish one and 10 more appear in it's place.

HAIL HYDRA



I just don't even know where to start, he mentions dozens of ways to kill people which can't be done because of regulations or oversight.

[Forward Observer]

Seeing as most others in this thread aren't worth responding to, private sales require no background checks. This is called the gunshow loophole and anyone who sells no more than 4 guns a year does not have to worry about it. Only licensed dealers have to worry about background checks. The background checks only look at past crimes, since the repeal of the mental health ban on gun laws there's nothing else which qualifies you to have your background reversed. Many crimes do not even count either for example most domestic abusers have no difficulty purchasing firearms from a licensed dealer. Gunshows are very common, btw you can find thousands of "private sellers" on craigslist.

I have wasted a lot time reading through this thread. First of all, I'm not particularly political. I fact in the 50 years that I have been voting, this last presidential election is the first one that I did not cast a vote. Somehow making a choice between the current head of the Clinton crime family and a former reality show ass clown turned me off. so much that I just couldn't bring myself to the polls.

That said, I am a gun owner and have been for at least 10 years longer than I've been voting. I collect mostly antique stuff like old Colts,Winchesters, and muzzle loaders. I really have no use for what most refer to as an "AR". I don't think many here really understand the term. I carried an M-16 in Vietnam and that was enough for me. Honestly, I didn't care much for the platform although the ammo was easy to lug around along with all the other crap I had on my back.

OK back on topic

@Elfdude
I have no idea where you got all this misinformation, but with only one or two exceptions, almost everything you typed in that paragraph ranges from half truths to total BS.

Let's take them one by one.

"Private sales require no background checks" This is only true in 41 states and only if both parties are residents of the particular state that allows it. There are 9 states that do not allow private sales without going through an FFL and a background check or conversely require the buyer to obtain a special license or permit which of course still requires a background check. You cannot legally avoid it if you are a resident of those states regardless of the fact that the federal law does not require it. You can't temporarily skip over a state line to avoid it either since at that point the law requiring state residency would kick in,

The federal rule that establishes the rules for in state private sales is part of the federal gun control act of 1968 which was passed after 5 years of wrangling in congress that started with the assassination of JFK in 1963. If you accept the single shooter theory, Kennedy was assassinated with an Italian military surplus rifle that Oswald both ordered and received in the mail from an out of state surplus dealer. Hence the gun control act of 1968 was as much a law governing interstate commerce of firearms as it was an act of pure gun control. I'll clarify later, but there was no such thing as a background check included in this law nor would there be another 15 years for handguns and 20 years for long guns


Most state firearms laws in the US simply mimic the federal law. However, some state have laws in addition to the federal requirement that have to be followed in that particular state. As mentioned, there are 9 states in the US that require background checks on all private sales and/or transfers. They are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington. You can not even legally gift a gun to a relative without performing a transfer through an FFL. For private sales, federal law only requires both you and the seller to be residents of the same state--while those 9 states require all private sales to still have to still go through an FFL who fills out form 4473 and performs a background check--for a fee. Any state can pass laws like this and I'm assuming this is allowed by the 10th amendment in our original bill of rights. There are other states with even stricter laws like Illinois, New York, and New Jersey to name a few
but discussing them would only add to the confusion.

@Sukiyama
It's kind of odd that you failed to mention that your state required background checks on all guns transactions when asked about how your state laws were for firearms (early of this thread) and you stated that your state was liberal as could be. Either you were ignorant of your own state's gun laws or you knew this and decided it was an inconvenient fact for your narrative. It also disproves your other statement at that time that state laws are irrelevant. In the case of the 9 states mentioned which includes the very state you live in, it is not irrelevant and you can't avoid it unless you move to a state that does not have this requirement and live there long enough to establish legal residency. This is not a very practical option for most.

"This is the so called gun show loop hole at gun shows". Yes, this is the origin of the term. However, the term "loop hole" implies that this was not intended by the law, when that is simply not the case as designed by the GCA of 1968. There was no loop hole at the time since background checks simply did not exist. Background checks didn't exist until the passing of the Brady Bill or Act in 1993 They were only required for handguns at the time, and most checks took time since the electronic technology we have today also didn't exist. The Brady bill did not address private sales, so it in effect created what is called the loop hole today. Longguns were added to the check when the FBI formerly launched the NICS system in 1998.

Many gun shows limit the number of non-FFL sellers while others do not. However, more private sales are conducted through on-line want ads services like Armslist and on-line gun auctions like Gunbroker. com than gun shows. Armslist is mainly aimed at local face to face sales with in the same state. Regardless, if you buy from an out of state seller, private or otherwise, they have to ship the firearm to a local FFL where you will fill out the form 4473 while they instigate a background check--all for a fee. The fees are not regulated, so FFL's can charge whatever they think they can get by with--from a low of $20 to a high of over $100. The high fees are mostly with large local stores who really want to discourage the service because it means that you are not buying from them.

I should add here that most of these laws do not pertain to those firearms classified as antiques. For cartridge firing guns, that's any firearm manufactured in 1898 or before. Generally any muzzle loader is considered an antique--even modern reproductions of antique muzzle loaders. The 1898 date was an arbitrary date that happen to coincide with the year that the US military officially adopted modern smokeless gun powder to replace black gunpowder. These firearms can be ordered on line and shipped directly to your door with no FFL or background checks.

However, there are a few states like New Jersey and Illinois that consider a modern reproduction of a muzzle loader also a modern firearm. I'm not aware of a crime ever being committed with a flintlock pistol in the 20th or 21st centuries, but then so much for "common sense" gun laws at least for those states.

"anyone who sells no more than 4 guns a year does not have to worry about it"----I have no idea where you got this piece of bogus info. The gun control act has no specific number of firearms in its stated requirement to have a license. It's really quite ambiguous. All it says is that if one is regularly engaged in the business of selling firearms and derives income from it, they are required to obtain a federal firearms license. A private seller can sell 50 guns in one day and another 150 the next day. All they are supposed to do if questioned, is to prove is that these guns are part of their personal collection or from the personal collection of someone else they are representing. They can do this on a quite regular basis if they are supposedly doing it to either improve or liquidate a collection. The idea being that they are not selling as routine source of income. In one of Obama's press meetings he promised to crack down on this aspect of the law and mostly only reiterated the language of the 1968 law. Having read the law numerous times, I knew he was simply blowing smoke, and of course nothing ever came of it. Most of the private sellers I see at gun shows are locals who only have a few used firearms along with a lot of stuff that might be considered flea market items.

Obviously, my numbers are imaginary examples to just to illustrate my point, but I'm also sure there are sellers who are abusing these rules because they either don't want to have to contend with obtaining an FFL or alternatively they know that they have something in their background that might disqualify from getting approved. However most of these people are small timers and from what I have heard from a few friends who are FFL's, it appears that the ATF just doesn't have the time, manpower, nor inclination to go after most of them unless they are blatantly violating the intent of the rules.

"Only licensed dealers have to worry about background checks" On a basic level this is true, so you at least got one thing right. However, the NICS system is used by more than just FFL dealers. I had to apply for my concealed carry through my state police office, so they use it as one of their checks. However, they also take finger prints and run more complete criminal background checks in addition to the NICS background.

"The background checks only look at past crimes, since the repeal of the mental health ban on gun laws there's nothing else which qualifies you to have your background reversed. Many crimes do not even count either for example most domestic abusers have no difficulty purchasing firearms from a licensed dealer."

I'm not sure what mental health ban on gun laws you are talking about since there never has been one. However, I suspect I know what you are referring to, which I will address next since you basically seem to refer to it again. As to your statement that most domestic abusers have no difficulty purchasing firearms, I would refer you to reason number 3 in your list of reasons that one can get rejected for in a back ground check. You mis-copied reason 3. It is supposed read that you can get rejected for only having a misdemeanor conviction of domestic abuse. By the way these reasons came from the firearms owners protection act of 1986 which was the same bill that stopped the sale of new manufacture fully automatic weapons.

"Gunshows are very common, btw you can find thousands of "private sellers" on craigslist. Well, of course Gunshows are common. We have one within 50 miles of where I live at least once a month. However, I don't know when is the last time you have checked Craigslist, but that statement appears to be totally false. Presently they do not allow firearms sales of any kind. Maybe they did at some point in the past, but since I've never used them, I don't know.

Here's a link to the only list I could find of prohibited items that one must agree to before they can post on Craigslist:

https://www.craigslist.org/about/prohibited

here are the first two class of items prohibited on that list:

• weapons; firearms/guns and components; BB/pellet, stun, and spear guns; etc
• ammunition, clips, cartridges, reloading materials, gunpowder, fireworks, explosives

Note: This is actually more restrictive than eBay since they do allow tons of components, accessories, and reloading tools--just not actual firearms or kits to assemble a firearm.



"His mental health status would not have changed his ability to purchase a gun. Trump removed the only ability to do that." I'll address this along with your statement about the repeal of the mental health ban. The liberal media has been spreading this lie ever since the event at the end of the of last year and not enough people have called them out on it. I even see that Snopes seems to support this misrepresentation of the facts with out properly explaining it.

Almost immediately after the tragic New Town shooting, Obama appeared on TV in news conferences and town hall meetings usually with the grieving parents of the murdered children--- promising new gun control. He actually got very little done except to scare the pro gun crowd in to buying more firearms than in any time before or since in US history. It turned out that his rhetoric made him the best gun salesman in history.

Ironically, Trump's victory over Clinton is one of the reasons that many gun manufacturers are hurting right now. They over built in anticipation of the predicted victor, who had promised to double down on the gun control crusade. Of course the resulting upset resulted in Trump getting elected, who had the backing of the pro 2A crowd, which in turn has caused a downturn in firearms sales.

Anyway, knowing he couldn't personally legislate, nor do a lot without congressional support, Obama decided to take what ever action he could and had his people looking 24/7 for back door ways to add anti-gun layers on to existing law. It would take many pages to fully cover most of these schemes, but the I think the particular regulations you are referring to got reversed before it took effect this past December. In effect it simply involved changes to the rules for information sharing from the Social Security administration allowing certain recipient classes to be added to the NICS system for nefarious reasons.

There is a certain portion of SS recipients who receive their social security benefits via a 3rd party who manages their finances. They may be in this situation due to a number of reasons either voluntary or involuntary. Involuntary reasons could stem from being victims of stroke, dementia, autism, alzheimer's,etc. Voluntary reasons could be that due to age and/or other physical constraints, the recipient has simply turned power of attorney to someone they trust to manage their finances. They could be any age, but most are elderly as I understand it.

What Obama wanted to do was to have the personal info of the SS recipients in this group added to the NICS records as banned from owning or purchasing firearms under the assumption that these people as a group were a danger to the public and themselves based solely on the fact that they did not receive their benefits directly. All this was going to be done without due process.

This meant that if your 62 year old grandma who never used a computer and who no longer drove a car asked you to handle her banking and in turn named you the recipient of her SS payment, her name would go on the ban list to no longer be able to legally purchase a firearm to protect herself. Thanks, Obama!

In Obama's mind he was simply thwarting the purchase of more firearms, but in effect he was illegally prohibiting a group of the American public--many with disabilities of their constitutional legal rights with out due process. The rule change was passed late in 2016 I think, but was not to take effect until December of 2017. After much review, Congress in turn use a little known rule review law to reverse the changes and Trump signed off on it.

There were a lot of people who weighed in on this as to how outrageous this scheme was to basically disenfranchise a segment of our population without due process---a group that most likely were in no position to legally contest the outcome.

The bottom line is that this would have had absolutely no effect on any mass shooting from the Newtown event to recent Florida event. None of these shooters were receiving social security benefits in the first place--either in their name nor anybody else.

It was so underhanded that even the ACLU (about as left as one can get) plus many other disabilities anti-discrimination organizations came out against it--oddly putting them and the republicans on the very rare same side of an issue.

Here is a link to the Vox (liberal site) written by a person who is not a republican nor is a Trump fan since they worked with the Obama administration. However, since they are involved with anti-discrimination issues of both the physically and mentally disabled, they were honest enough to report this thing fairly and voice the opinion that eliminating this underhanded Obama Social Security rule change was the best thing to do for the country. I have at least a half a dozen other links describing this, but thought that one coming from a rare sensible and responsible liberal author might be the best one to post.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/201...-obama-liberty

If you disagree with the reversal of this rule change that's fine, but actually do some real research on it before you just read how the liberal media presents it and then simply regurgitate their misrepresentation of it.

Cheers

[Love Mountain]

I have wasted a lot time reading through this thread. First of all, I'm not particularly political. I fact in the 50 years that I have been voting, this last presidential election is the first one that I did not cast a vote. Somehow making a choice between the current head of the Clinton crime family and a former reality show ass clown turned me off. so much that I just couldn't bring myself to the polls.

That said, I am a gun owner and have been for at least 10 years longer than I've been voting. I collect mostly antique stuff like old Colts,Winchesters, and muzzle loaders. I really have no use for what most refer to as an "AR". I don't think many here really understand the term. I carried an M-16 in Vietnam and that was enough for me. Honestly, I didn't care much for the platform although the ammo was easy to lug around along with all the other crap I had on my back.

We all understand the term AR means. Hence why we use it. If you're using terms like "Clinton crime family" I suggest you stop listening and believing everything you read on the Internet.

"Private sales require no background checks"

This is only true in 41 states and only if both parties are residents of the particular state that allows it. There are 9 states that do not allow private sales without going through an FFL and a background check or conversely require the buyer to obtain a special license or permit which of course still requires a background check. You cannot legally avoid it if you are a resident of those states regardless of the fact that the federal law does not require it. You can't temporarily skip over a state line to avoid it either since at that point the law requiring state residency would kick in,

The federal rule that establishes the rules for in state private sales is part of the federal gun control act of 1968 which was passed after 5 years of wrangling in congress that started with the assassination of JFK in 1963. If you accept the single shooter theory, Kennedy was assassinated with an Italian military surplus rifle that Oswald both ordered and received in the mail from an out of state surplus dealer. Hence the gun control act of 1968 was as much a law governing interstate commerce of firearms as it was an act of pure gun control. I'll clarify later, but there was no such thing as a background check included in this law nor would there be another 15 years for handguns and 20 years for long guns

"This is only true in 41 states and only if both parties are residents of the particular states that allows it."

In other words the vast majority of the states in question, which is what I've repeated over and over again. I did not say all of the states, though I will concede I may have slipped once or twice. I don't proofread everything I read, as this is not my job nor am I that invested. However, I have referred to my criticism of private gun sales by citing that most states allow it, not all.

Two, state residency is not a serious deterrent. Most criminals, mass shooters, perpetrators of gun violence in general do not need to migrate or run over to a different state to get a firearm. With a few notable exceptions, the vast majority of the states have easy access to firearms.

Most state firearms laws in the US simply mimic the federal law. However, some state have laws in addition to the federal requirement that have to be followed in that particular state. As mentioned, there are 9 states in the US that require background checks on all private sales and/or transfers. They are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington. You can not even legally gift a gun to a relative without performing a transfer through an FFL. For private sales, federal law only requires both you and the seller to be residents of the same state--while those 9 states require all private sales to still have to still go through an FFL who fills out form 4473 and performs a background check--for a fee. Any state can pass laws like this and I'm assuming this is allowed by the 10th amendment in our original bill of rights. There are other states with even stricter laws like Illinois, New York, and New Jersey to name a few
but discussing them would only add to the confusion.

Which again is a tiny minority. So I'm not even sure why you bring this up, this has been brought up over and over again by posters from both sides of the aisle, it's redundant information.

@Sukiyama
It's kind of odd that you failed to mention that your state required background checks on all guns transactions when asked about how your state laws were for firearms (early of this thread) and you stated that your state was liberal as could be. Either you were ignorant of your own state's gun laws or you knew this and decided it was an inconvenient fact for your narrative. It also disproves your other statement at that time that state laws are irrelevant. In the case of the 9 states mentioned which includes the very state you live in, it is not irrelevant and you can't avoid it unless you move to a state that does not have this requirement and live there long enough to establish legal residency. This is not a very practical option for most.

Because it is. Clearly you are no acquainted with my state's gun laws as you don't live here. I did not say that my state allows no background check sales either, though again, I may have slipped. Washington state does not require firearm registration (for the most part), they do not require anything substantial to get a concealed carry license aside from an "Ok" from a local LEO office. Open carry is not illegal, there are not blanket bans on any particular firearms or attachments. This is a defacto "Stand your ground" state. So yes, Washington State is extremely liberal when it comes to gun control. I.e. they virtually have no additional legislation to support federal regulations.

"This is the so called gun show loop hole at gun shows". [/B]Yes, this is the origin of the term. However, the term "loop hole" implies that this was not intended by the law, when that is simply not the case as designed by the GCA of 1968. There was no loop hole at the time since background checks simply did not exist. Background checks didn't exist until the passing of the Brady Bill or Act in 1993 They were only required for handguns at the time, and most checks took time since the electronic technology we have today also didn't exist. The Brady bill did not address private sales, so it in effect created what is called the loop hole today. Longguns were added to the check when the FBI formerly launched the NICS system in 1998.

This is irrelevant. The criticism is that the loophole exists, not the origin of its design. We're not debating political legacy here, we are debating laws that govern access to firearms and this is a glaring loophole. Does it cause a lot of firearm deaths? No, on a grand scale of course not, but there is no reason for it to exist so someone does exploit it.

Many gun shows limit the number of non-FFL sellers while others do not. However, more private sales are conducted through on-line want ads services like Armslist and on-line gun auctions like Gunbroker. com than gun shows. Armslist is mainly aimed at local face to face sales with in the same state. Regardless, if you buy from an out of state seller, private or otherwise, they have to ship the firearm to a local FFL where you will fill out the form 4473 while they instigate a background check--all for a fee. The fees are not regulated, so FFL's can charge whatever they think they can get by with--from a low of $20 to a high of over $100. The high fees are mostly with large local stores who really want to discourage the service because it means that you are not buying from them.

This is irrelevant to the argument.

I should add here that most of these laws do not pertain to those firearms classified as antiques. For cartridge firing guns, that's any firearm manufactured in 1898 or before. Generally any muzzle loader is considered an antique--even modern reproductions of antique muzzle loaders. The 1898 date was an arbitrary date that happen to coincide with the year that the US military officially adopted modern smokeless gun powder to replace black gunpowder. These firearms can be ordered on line and shipped directly to your door with no FFL or background checks.

However, there are a few states like New Jersey and Illinois that consider a modern reproduction of a muzzle loader also a modern firearm. I'm not aware of a crime ever being committed with a flintlock pistol in the 20th or 21st centuries, but then so much for "common sense" gun laws at least for those states.

Irrelevant. While separate regulations for collectors' items should exist, they are firearms in the end and should have extra regulations.

"anyone who sells no more than 4 guns a year does not have to worry about it"----I have no idea where you got this piece of bogus info. The gun control act has no specific number of firearms in its stated requirement to have a license. It's really quite ambiguous. All it says is that if one is regularly engaged in the business of selling firearms and derives income from it, they are required to obtain a federal firearms license. A private seller can sell 50 guns in one day and another 150 the next day. All they are supposed to do if questioned, is to prove is that these guns are part of their personal collection or from the personal collection of someone else they are representing. They can do this on a quite regular basis if they are supposedly doing it to either improve or liquidate a collection. The idea being that they are not selling as routine source of income. In one of Obama's press meetings he promised to crack down on this aspect of the law and mostly only reiterated the language of the 1968 law. Having read the law numerous times, I knew he was simply blowing smoke, and of course nothing ever came of it. Most of the private sellers I see at gun shows are locals who only have a few used firearms along with a lot of stuff that might be considered flea market items.

A dealer who sells a low number of firearms can claim it's a hobby and thus be exempt from having to be licensed. 4 guns is an arbitrary number but it's also a reasonable one. An enthusiast who trades guns frequently can indeed go through 1-12 guns in a single year, or they're simply part of a scheme to avoid being a licensed FFL. Who knows, this is too small to chase down but loopholes like this should be closed and not left to the discretion of each individual judge.

"Only licensed dealers have to worry about background checks" On a basic level this is true, so you at least got one thing right. However, the NICS system is used by more than just FFL dealers. I had to apply for my concealed carry through my state police office, so they use it as one of their checks. However, they also take finger prints and run more complete criminal background checks in addition to the NICS background.

The commentary doesn't address the point in any way whatsoever. Either there shouldn't be anyone who sells a gun without a license, or there shouldn't be anyone who buys a gun without a background check. Actually both should be true.

"The background checks only look at past crimes, since the repeal of the mental health ban on gun laws there's nothing else which qualifies you to have your background reversed. Many crimes do not even count either for example most domestic abusers have no difficulty purchasing firearms from a licensed dealer."

I'm not sure what mental health ban on gun laws you are talking about since there never has been one. However, I suspect I know what you are referring to, which I will address next since you basically seem to refer to it again. As to your statement that most domestic abusers have no difficulty purchasing firearms, I would refer you to reason number 3 in your list of reasons that one can get rejected for in a back ground check. You mis-copied reason 3. It is supposed read that you can get rejected for only having a misdemeanor conviction of domestic abuse. By the way these reasons came from the firearms owners protection act of 1986 which was the same bill that stopped the sale of new manufacture fully automatic weapons.

This doesn't address the main point. There is nothing stopping a person who's abusive but not on the police record, or mentally disturbed from getting a firearm. A criminal who is not yet in the system can buy a gun legally, that's a problem.

"Gunshows are very common, btw you can find thousands of "private sellers" on craigslist. Well, of course Gunshows are common. We have one within 50 miles of where I live at least once a month. However, I don't know when is the last time you have checked Craigslist, but that statement appears to be totally false. Presently they do not allow firearms sales of any kind. Maybe they did at some point in the past, but since I've never used them, I don't know.

https://oig.justice.gov/reports/ATF/e0707/final.pdf

There's a few thousand gun shows every year ranging between 2,000-5,200 according to this report.

Here's a link to the only list I could find of prohibited items that one must agree to before they can post on Craigslist:

https://www.craigslist.org/about/prohibited

here are the first two class of items prohibited on that list:


Note: This is actually more restrictive than eBay since they do allow tons of components, accessories, and reloading tools--just not actual firearms or kits to assemble a firearm.

It doesn't matter that it's prohibited. People still sell firearms, ammunition, accessories on craigslist anyway. The only way to prevent this is to simply strictly regulate private sales, requiring sales to go through LEOs or FFLs.

"His mental health status would not have changed his ability to purchase a gun. Trump removed the only ability to do that

." I'll address this along with your statement about the repeal of the mental health ban. The liberal media has been spreading this lie ever since the event at the end of the of last year and not enough people have called them out on it. I even see that Snopes seems to support this misrepresentation of the facts with out properly explaining it.

Almost immediately after the tragic New Town shooting, Obama appeared on TV in news conferences and town hall meetings usually with the grieving parents of the murdered children--- promising new gun control. He actually got very little done except to scare the pro gun crowd in to buying more firearms than in any time before or since in US history. It turned out that his rhetoric made him the best gun salesman in history.

Ironically, Trump's victory over Clinton is one of the reasons that many gun manufacturers are hurting right now. They over built in anticipation of the predicted victor, who had promised to double down on the gun control crusade. Of course the resulting upset resulted in Trump getting elected, who had the backing of the pro 2A crowd, which in turn has caused a downturn in firearms sales.

Anyway, knowing he couldn't personally legislate, nor do a lot without congressional support, Obama decided to take what ever action he could and had his people looking 24/7 for back door ways to add anti-gun layers on to existing law. It would take many pages to fully cover most of these schemes, but the I think the particular regulations you are referring to got reversed before it took effect this past December. In effect it simply involved changes to the rules for information sharing from the Social Security administration allowing certain recipient classes to be added to the NICS system for nefarious reasons.

There is a certain portion of SS recipients who receive their social security benefits via a 3rd party who manages their finances. They may be in this situation due to a number of reasons either voluntary or involuntary. Involuntary reasons could stem from being victims of stroke, dementia, autism, alzheimer's,etc. Voluntary reasons could be that due to age and/or other physical constraints, the recipient has simply turned power of attorney to someone they trust to manage their finances. They could be any age, but most are elderly as I understand it.

What Obama wanted to do was to have the personal info of the SS recipients in this group added to the NICS records as banned from owning or purchasing firearms under the assumption that these people as a group were a danger to the public and themselves based solely on the fact that they did not receive their benefits directly. All this was going to be done without due process.

This meant that if your 62 year old grandma who never used a computer and who no longer drove a car asked you to handle her banking and in turn named you the recipient of her SS payment, her name would go on the ban list to no longer be able to legally purchase a firearm to protect herself. Thanks, Obama!

In Obama's mind he was simply thwarting the purchase of more firearms, but in effect he was illegally prohibiting a group of the American public--many with disabilities of their constitutional legal rights with out due process. The rule change was passed late in 2016 I think, but was not to take effect until December of 2017. After much review, Congress in turn use a little known rule review law to reverse the changes and Trump signed off on it.

There were a lot of people who weighed in on this as to how outrageous this scheme was to basically disenfranchise a segment of our population without due process---a group that most likely were in no position to legally contest the outcome.

The bottom line is that this would have had absolutely no effect on any mass shooting from the Newtown event to recent Florida event. None of these shooters were receiving social security benefits in the first place--either in their name nor anybody else.

It was so underhanded that even the ACLU (about as left as one can get) plus many other disabilities anti-discrimination organizations came out against it--oddly putting them and the republicans on the very rare same side of an issue.

Here is a link to the Vox (liberal site) written by a person who is not a republican nor is a Trump fan since they worked with the Obama administration. However, since they are involved with anti-discrimination issues of both the physically and mentally disabled, they were honest enough to report this thing fairly and voice the opinion that eliminating this underhanded Obama Social Security rule change was the best thing to do for the country. I have at least a half a dozen other links describing this, but thought that one coming from a rare sensible and responsible liberal author might be the best one to post.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/201...-obama-liberty

If you disagree with the reversal of this rule change that's fine, but actually do some real research on it before you just read how the liberal media presents it and then simply regurgitate their misrepresentation of it.

Cheers

That's an awful lot of text that address next to nothing about gun regulations but it does sound like a conservative critique of the evil propaganda portal Vox and Obama. Obama's presidency was mainly concerned with the economy, and by the time gun control was a major issue on the billet, Republicans would've blocked anything that was remotely anti gun. Republicans would've blocked everything regardless as we can clearly see by their voting record during the entire Obama presidency.