Reducing Gun Violence
-
And a question for the Liberals as well as the privacy Obsessed conservatives.
I have absolutely no problem with an in depth psychological background check for someone who wants to buy a weapon. Fine with me.
Just curious however, where do you draw the line? Is anyone who has ever been prescribed an anti depressant already disqualified?
But don't forget you guys freak out when I mention having DNA on file for every US citizen.
Hell we can't even get a nationwide database for medical procedures prescription drugs and psychological testing.
Will you sit still for a psychological profile For each and every citizen on file somewhere?
WSS
And a question for the Liberals as well as the privacy Obsessed conservatives.
I have absolutely no problem with an in depth psychological background check for someone who wants to buy a weapon. Fine with me.
Just curious however, where do you draw the line? Is anyone who has ever been prescribed an anti depressant already disqualified?
But don't forget you guys freak out when I mention having DNA on file for every US citizen.
Hell we can't even get a nationwide database for medical procedures prescription drugs and psychological testing.
Will you sit still for a psychological profile For each and every citizen on file somewhere?
WSS
I have no idea how a system like this would work. It's above my pay grade. I suspect this is what's been discussed over the last few weeks, devising a system of background checks that's more useful than the one we have now, which isn't very useful, and misses about 40% of gun sales.
-
If we can agree on the premise that in general, laws penalize the law-abiding, not the law-breaking, we could have an honest discourse over this issue (which I believe we are in this thread). 'Penalize' can be in the form of a mere annoyance, to monetary or safety problems for those who abide by the law. I'm not so sure requiring insurance for firearm owners will have a worthwhile effect (if we are looking to lower gun violence).
I posted a video in another thread by a guy going by "Amidst the noise" or something like that on youtube/twitter and he makes some really good points. Violent crime (all forms) in the US is on the decline and has been for some time. Yet we are at the top of the list when it comes to per capita handgun ownership. There is a strong correlation there. LaPierre and others like to imply causation, just as Feinstein and the other fools manipulate data to serve the counter to that argument and also imply causation.
Here it is again ICYMI:
If we can agree on the premise that in general, laws penalize the law-abiding, not the law-breaking, we could have an honest discourse over this issue (which I believe we are in this thread). 'Penalize' can be in the form of a mere annoyance, to monetary or safety problems for those who abide by the law. I'm not so sure requiring insurance for firearm owners will have a worthwhile effect (if we are looking to lower gun violence).
I posted a video in another thread by a guy going by "Amidst the noise" or something like that on youtube/twitter and he makes some really good points. Violent crime (all forms) in the US is on the decline and has been for some time. Yet we are at the top of the list when it comes to per capita handgun ownership. There is a strong correlation there. LaPierre and others like to imply causation, just as Feinstein and the other fools manipulate data to serve the counter to that argument and also imply causation.
Here it is again ICYMI:
Leg, he's not controlling for gun crime here, only violent crime. I don't think he's making a very good argument. The correct comparison wouldn't be the one he's making. If he wants to make any conclusions about gun crime, then look at the numbers of gun crimes, not violent crimes, which include simple assaults, rapes, robberies, etc.
England, of course, has very low rates of gun crime. Japan has almost no gun crime at all. We have extremely high rate of gun crime, whether or not it's lessened in the past 20 years. He doesn't seem to want to point this out.
-
I think he spelled out violent crime vs gun crime fairly succinctly.
-
Look at this table:
www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Every type of homicide with any kind of firearm is on the decline, and has been (table goes back to 2007).
-
Look at this table:
www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Every type of homicide with any kind of firearm is on the decline, and has been (table goes back to 2007).
Look at this table:
www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Every type of homicide with any kind of firearm is on the decline, and has been (table goes back to 2007).
Except for mass shootings in which 16 happened in 2012 for an average of 1.3 per month the highest total in any year ever. How is that kind of homicide with any type of firearm going down?
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
And a kid taking an inappropriately secured firearm which has been made available to him by his guardian is theft, technically, but that's only a weak diversonary tactic to avoid acknowledging that through gross negligence the gun's legal owner is directly responsible for allowing her son access to a weapon that allowed him to murder 20 helpless children in minutes. While trying to skirt the issue you literally could not be making a better case for the reform of the standards of gun ownership.
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
Look at this table:
www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Every type of homicide with any kind of firearm is on the decline, and has been (table goes back to 2007).
Except for mass shootings in which 16 happened in 2012 for an average of 1.3 per month the highest total in any year ever. How is that kind of homicide with any type of firearm going down?
Except for mass shootings in which 16 happened in 2012 for an average of 1.3 per month the highest total in any year ever. How is that kind of homicide with any type of firearm going down?
So, you didn't look at the table? It stopped at 2011.
Where are you getting your figure of 16 shootings in 2012? I have data that incorporates all of the 2010's setting that # at 14 (for the entire 3 years).
Mass Public Shootings per Decade
1900s : zero
1910s: 2
1920s: 2
1930s: 9
1940s: 8
1950s: 1
1960s: 6
1970s: 13
1980s: 32
1990s: 42
2000s: 28
2010s (three years): 14
Brady Bill signed into law.
-
One thing that peeves me here is that the debate is about gun control. A lot of people, particularly on the right, call that banning guns in their mind. There is no banning guns. Instead let's look for a way to make everyone safer. It happened with cars, and tobacco. No reason it couldn't happen for guns. And if it makes you guys have to pay more taxes and have to prove insurance before a gun sale so be it. Too bad.
If you Had to prove insurance, if somebody were financially liable you'd better believe there would be a mental health exam you had to pass. And whether or not you guys like to admit it or not, all these massacres of late have been committed by legal owners of registered firearms. Not ex cons with illegal guns. Adam Lanza was the son of the legal owner whose gross negligence cost 20 children and 6 women their lives.
This is my focus and its better than the gun control debate which is a dead end. How to force responsibility on legal gun owners, and keep them from being legally obtained by mentally ill people with no criminal histories.
One thing that peeves me here is that the debate is about gun control. A lot of people, particularly on the right, call that banning guns in their mind. There is no banning guns. Instead let's look for a way to make everyone safer. It happened with cars, and tobacco. No reason it couldn't happen for guns. And if it makes you guys have to pay more taxes and have to prove insurance before a gun sale so be it. Too bad.
If you Had to prove insurance, if somebody were financially liable you'd better believe there would be a mental health exam you had to pass. And whether or not you guys like to admit it or not, all these massacres of late have been committed by legal owners of registered firearms. Not ex cons with illegal guns. Adam Lanza was the son of the legal owner whose gross negligence cost 20 children and 6 women their lives.
This is my focus and its better than the gun control debate which is a dead end. How to force responsibility on legal gun owners, and keep them from being legally obtained by mentally ill people with no criminal histories.
It's all a part of the MO.....make legal owners pay for insurance against criminals just like workers pay for slackers.
I get it.
You guys are numbnuts if you think banning something is going to stop the problem. Plus, what the fudge is insurance going to do?? Nothing is the answer. All you seek to do is penalize the masses because some wacko goes out and kills someone.....FUCK THAT! (I don't cuss much, but this called for it)
Last time I checked, Marijuana was listed as a illegal substance by the DEA. How has that worked out?
The problem is with the people. We have to change the culture in which we raise children.
-
One thing that peeves me here is that the debate is about gun control. A lot of people, particularly on the right, call that banning guns in their mind. There is no banning guns. Instead let's look for a way to make everyone safer. It happened with cars, and tobacco. No reason it couldn't happen for guns. And if it makes you guys have to pay more taxes and have to prove insurance before a gun sale so be it. Too bad.
If you Had to prove insurance, if somebody were financially liable you'd better believe there would be a mental health exam you had to pass. And whether or not you guys like to admit it or not, all these massacres of late have been committed by legal owners of registered firearms. Not ex cons with illegal guns. Adam Lanza was the son of the legal owner whose gross negligence cost 20 children and 6 women their lives.
This is my focus and its better than the gun control debate which is a dead end. How to force responsibility on legal gun owners, and keep them from being legally obtained by mentally ill people with no criminal histories.
It's all a part of the MO.....make legal owners pay for insurance against criminals just like workers pay for slackers.
I get it.
You guys are numbnuts if you think banning something is going to stop the problem. Plus, what the fudge is insurance going to do?? Nothing is the answer. All you seek to do is penalize the masses because some wacko goes out and kills someone.....FUCK THAT! (I don't cuss much, but this called for it)
Last time I checked, Marijuana was listed as a illegal substance by the DEA. How has that worked out?
The problem is with the people. We have to change the culture in which we raise children.
It's all a part of the MO.....make legal owners pay for insurance against criminals just like workers pay for slackers.
I get it
guys are numbnuts if you think banning something is going to stop the problem.
Last time I checked, Marijuana was listed as a illegal substance by the DEA.
The problem is with the people. We have to change the culture in which we raise children.
Once again I have to ask you to go ahead and read that statement. You clearly don't get it as I already said banning anything will be both ineffectual and impossible.
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
And a kid taking an inappropriately secured firearm which has been made available to him by his guardian is theft, technically, but that's only a weak diversonary tactic to avoid acknowledging that through gross negligence the gun's legal owner is directly responsible for allowing her son access to a weapon that allowed him to murder 20 helpless children in minutes. While trying to skirt the issue you literally could not be making a better case for the reform of the standards of gun ownership.
And a kid taking an inappropriately secured firearm which has been made available to him by his guardian is theft, technically, but that's only a weak diversonary tactic to avoid acknowledging that through gross negligence the gun's legal owner is directly responsible for allowing her son access to a weapon that allowed him to murder 20 helpless children in minutes. While trying to skirt the issue you literally could not be making a better case for the reform of the standards of gun ownership.
Nobody is arguing that the gun wasn't secured properly. Nobody sane anyway.
And it's not a diversionary tactic. I'm merely pointing out your excessive use of hyperbole in an attempt to make it seem like a "law-abiding citizen" (a common phrase used by "crazy gun zealots") committed the horrific act at Sandy Hook. Just acknowledge what you're doing, and we can have a discussion about your proposals. I've said this at least 10 times now.
-
Heck you do realize that stiffer penalties for honest gun owners who allow their weapons to fall into the wrong hands isn't that much of a big deal right?
It's not useless, mind you. It may well serve to make people who have pistols lying around the house lock them up.
And you do realize you are back to talking about only the tiny percentage of public massacres correct, dot gun violence in general?
Remember the gun the kid used at Sandy Hook was stolen from his mother.
I don't suppose filing charges posthumously would be of great help.
I'm talking mandatory 10 years for anyone convicted of a crime with a gun.
I think that would be a deterrent in a lot of street crime which is the biggest number.
WSS
I've already said a couple times that these are efforts to change things at the margins. As for the dead mother, the point of the legislation would be to force people like that to consider what might happen to them if their guns fall into the wrong hands, and to make sure they don't. This doesn't necessarily prevent Sandy Hook, but if that woman kept her guns in a safe that only she knew the combination to Lanza would have had to get his guns somewhere else. Problem is, he probably wouldn't have had a hard time doing that either.
These aren't ideas geared to stop another Sandy Hook. They're ideas geared toward stopping gun violence in general. Your idea for mandatory sentencing for gun crimes is fine. I'm just telling you that it's not new.
I've already said a couple times that these are efforts to change things at the margins. As for the dead mother, the point of the legislation would be to force people like that to consider what might happen to them if their guns fall into the wrong hands, and to make sure they don't. This doesn't necessarily prevent Sandy Hook, but if that woman kept her guns in a safe that only she knew the combination to Lanza would have had to get his guns somewhere else. Problem is, he probably wouldn't have had a hard time doing that either.
These aren't ideas geared to stop another Sandy Hook. They're ideas geared toward stopping gun violence in general. Your idea for mandatory sentencing for gun crimes is fine. I'm just telling you that it's not new.
No it isn't new.
What would be new would be actually enforcing it.
I just today heard a prominent Democrat spokesperson saying that the manufacturer's need to be held accountable.
There's always going to be that wing of your party that can't see past the deep pockets.
Anything to keep from blaming the actual criminals, huh?
WSS
-
And a kid taking an inappropriately secured firearm which has been made available to him by his guardian is theft, technically, but that's only a weak diversonary tactic to avoid acknowledging that through gross negligence the gun's legal owner is directly responsible for allowing her son access to a weapon that allowed him to murder 20 helpless children in minutes. While trying to skirt the issue you literally could not be making a better case for the reform of the standards of gun ownership.
Nobody is arguing that the gun wasn't secured properly. Nobody sane anyway.
And it's not a diversionary tactic. I'm merely pointing out your excessive use of hyperbole in an attempt to make it seem like a "law-abiding citizen" (a common phrase used by "crazy gun zealots") committed the horrific act at Sandy Hook. Just acknowledge what you're doing, and we can have a discussion about your proposals. I've said this at least 10 times now.
Nobody is arguing that the gun wasn't secured properly. Nobody sane anyway.
And it's not a diversionary tactic. I'm merely pointing out your excessive use of hyperbole in an attempt to make it seem like a "law-abiding citizen" (a common phrase used by "crazy gun zealots") committed the horrific act at Sandy Hook. Just acknowledge what you're doing, and we can have a discussion about your proposals. I've said this at least 10 times now.
Dude. Loughner and Holmes purchased their weapons legally. Nancy Lanza purchased her weapons legally and made no effort to keep them from her son. His mental issues were well known to her. She was his guardian. No matter what symantics you want to use she isdirectly responsible for facilitatating his actions. If you want to hold up a solution and argue instead about whether he stole the guns or not, that's your problem. They were made freely available to him without regard to his mental problems. That makes their legal owner responsible. I don't have any pity for her because she paid for her negligent stupidity with her life.
If you want to stickle over Lanza, look instead at Holmes and loughner and let's go from there.
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
Well, I have some sympathy for her because she had a son with serious mental health issues - which is every parent's nightmare, one of many - and it cost her her life. But having a mentally ill son and thinking the best thing to do was teach him how to shoot to build his confidence isn't exactly top-notch parenting. But we can't expect super duper parenting from everyone and that's unenforceable. But leaving your guns where they were available to him is something that in my mind should be prosecuted forcefully had she lived. That message should get out - you're going to be on the hook for what someone does with your gun, especially if it can be proven that you were aware of their mental health issues prior to the incident.
-
It's all a part of the MO.....make legal owners pay for insurance against criminals just like workers pay for slackers.
I get it
guys are numbnuts if you think banning something is going to stop the problem.
Last time I checked, Marijuana was listed as a illegal substance by the DEA.
The problem is with the people. We have to change the culture in which we raise children.
Once again I have to ask you to go ahead and read that statement. You clearly don't get it as I already said banning anything will be both ineffectual and impossible.
Once again I have to ask you to go ahead and read that statement. You clearly don't get it as I already said banning anything will be both ineffectual and impossible.
Fair enough. I admit I didn't read all the replies, so I'll offer something pretty rare around here.... my apology.
-
I've already said a couple times that these are efforts to change things at the margins. As for the dead mother, the point of the legislation would be to force people like that to consider what might happen to them if their guns fall into the wrong hands, and to make sure they don't. This doesn't necessarily prevent Sandy Hook, but if that woman kept her guns in a safe that only she knew the combination to Lanza would have had to get his guns somewhere else. Problem is, he probably wouldn't have had a hard time doing that either.
These aren't ideas geared to stop another Sandy Hook. They're ideas geared toward stopping gun violence in general. Your idea for mandatory sentencing for gun crimes is fine. I'm just telling you that it's not new.
No it isn't new.
What would be new would be actually enforcing it.
I just today heard a prominent Democrat spokesperson saying that the manufacturer's need to be held accountable.
There's always going to be that wing of your party that can't see past the deep pockets.
Anything to keep from blaming the actual criminals, huh?
WSS
No it isn't new.
What would be new would be actually enforcing it.
I just today heard a prominent Democrat spokesperson saying that the manufacturer's need to be held accountable.
There's always going to be that wing of your party that can't see past the deep pockets.
Anything to keep from blaming the actual criminals, huh?
WSS
That's someone try to take a page out of the tobacco strategy. I don't think it's very smart. Gun manufacturers don't have the same history of misleading the public. It's not like people aren't aware that guns can do harm. These suits haven't worked in the past.
As for not enforcing it, I'm not sure what you mean. I wasn't aware that gun crime wasn't enforced.
Plus, mandatory sentences have their own problems too. Look at the drug laws. I generally don't want to hamstring judges and prosecutors, the people on the ground who live in these systems and usually know what's appropriate to individual cases better than Congress does. I generally don't like dictums from on high. It often makes the judicial system too clumsy.
-
Nobody is arguing that the gun wasn't secured properly. Nobody sane anyway.
And it's not a diversionary tactic. I'm merely pointing out your excessive use of hyperbole in an attempt to make it seem like a "law-abiding citizen" (a common phrase used by "crazy gun zealots") committed the horrific act at Sandy Hook. Just acknowledge what you're doing, and we can have a discussion about your proposals. I've said this at least 10 times now.
Dude. Loughner and Holmes purchased their weapons legally. Nancy Lanza purchased her weapons legally and made no effort to keep them from her son. His mental issues were well known to her. She was his guardian. No matter what symantics you want to use she isdirectly responsible for facilitatating his actions. If you want to hold up a solution and argue instead about whether he stole the guns or not, that's your problem. They were made freely available to him without regard to his mental problems. That makes their legal owner responsible. I don't have any pity for her because she paid for her negligent stupidity with her life.
If you want to stickle over Lanza, look instead at Holmes and loughner and let's go from there.
Dude. Loughner and Holmes purchased their weapons legally. Nancy Lanza purchased her weapons legally and made no effort to keep them from her son. His mental issues were well known to her. She was his guardian. No matter what symantics you want to use she isdirectly responsible for facilitatating his actions. If you want to hold up a solution and argue instead about whether he stole the guns or not, that's your problem. They were made freely available to him without regard to his mental problems. That makes their legal owner responsible. I don't have any pity for her because she paid for her negligent stupidity with her life.
If you want to stickle over Lanza, look instead at Holmes and loughner and let's go from there.
Lanza was 20 years old. An adult. Not under anyone's guardianship. I'm forced to use semantics (read: facts) to combat your hyperbole.
I already addressed Holmes. His firearms were not legal. (Loopholed via avoidance of the FFL requirement for online purchases)
Loughner bought a single pistol legally. This we can talk about.
He had previous arrests. He was stopped that morning, but let go. His youtube page - wowzers. He was suspended from his Community college because of a crazy internet post.
Personal privacy needs to be part of this discussion, because if somebody quit the PC bullshit and essentially gave this maniac a scarlet letter in his "file" (whatever a "file" is), the background check at the sporting goods store should have been able to pick these facts up and say, "nope, here's a bicycle helmet - have a good day."
-
Once again I have to ask you to go ahead and read that statement. You clearly don't get it as I already said banning anything will be both ineffectual and impossible.
Fair enough. I admit I didn't read all the replies, so I'll offer something pretty rare around here.... my apology.
Fair enough. I admit I didn't read all the replies, so I'll offer something pretty rare around here.... my apology.
It's all good. Because I obviously feel strongly on this issue, and some of you may recall arguing these same points a year or so ago, well before sandy hook, my strong feelings on it may make it seem like I'm advocating the banning of guns which I realize is not possible.
I will say, though, if banning guns weren't toothless, if it could actually get rid of them, then I'd advocate it in a second, no questions asked. But its not possible, so its sort of pointless to be on the side of banning guns. All talk of banning guns does is feed the opposition and divert from the measures that actually could be taken, to set a new standard of criteria for gun ownership which I believe will be the only thing that's even minimally effective in preventing future mass shootings by individuals like loughner, Holmes and Lanza. I don't believe any of those three individuals could have gotten a hold of guns illegally.
(I'll make a partial exception to this statement on account of Lanza who, for the sake of legacy, I will concede stole the guns he used if he (legacy) will concede that the stolen guns were in fact made freely available to him, and thus muddies the term and concept of theft.)
-
Dude. Loughner and Holmes purchased their weapons legally. Nancy Lanza purchased her weapons legally and made no effort to keep them from her son. His mental issues were well known to her. She was his guardian. No matter what symantics you want to use she isdirectly responsible for facilitatating his actions. If you want to hold up a solution and argue instead about whether he stole the guns or not, that's your problem. They were made freely available to him without regard to his mental problems. That makes their legal owner responsible. I don't have any pity for her because she paid for her negligent stupidity with her life.
If you want to stickle over Lanza, look instead at Holmes and loughner and let's go from there.
Lanza was 20 years old. An adult. Not under anyone's guardianship. I'm forced to use semantics (read: facts) to combat your hyperbole.
I already addressed Holmes. His firearms were not legal. (Loopholed via avoidance of the FFL requirement for online purchases)
Loughner bought a single pistol legally. This we can talk about.
He had previous arrests. He was stopped that morning, but let go. His youtube page - wowzers. He was suspended from his Community college because of a crazy internet post.
Personal privacy needs to be part of this discussion, because if somebody quit the PC bullshit and essentially gave this maniac a scarlet letter in his "file" (whatever a "file" is), the background check at the sporting goods store should have been able to pick these facts up and say, "nope, here's a bicycle helmet - have a good day."
Lanza was 20 years old. An adult. Not under anyone's guardianship. I'm forced to use semantics (read: facts) to combat your hyperbole.
I already addressed Holmes. His firearms were not legal. (Loopholed via avoidance of the FFL requirement for online purchases)
Loughner bought a single pistol legally. This we can talk about.
He had previous arrests. He was stopped that morning, but let go. His youtube page - wowzers. He was suspended from his Community college because of a crazy internet post.
Personal privacy needs to be part of this discussion, because if somebody quit the PC bullshit and essentially gave this maniac a scarlet letter in his "file" (whatever a "file" is), the background check at the sporting goods store should have been able to pick these facts up and say, "nope, here's a bicycle helmet - have a good day."
Lanza was a Retard who was dependant on his mother. Maybe she was not his guardian anymore but just because she could no longer claim him on her taxes because of his age doesn't make him NOT her dependant. Again, just symantics. She IS responsible in the matter. And like it or not about Holmes loopholes are legal. Otherwise they wouldn't be loopholes. It would just be illegal.
-
Lanza was 20 years old. An adult. Not under anyone's guardianship. I'm forced to use semantics (read: facts) to combat your hyperbole.
I already addressed Holmes. His firearms were not legal. (Loopholed via avoidance of the FFL requirement for online purchases)
Loughner bought a single pistol legally. This we can talk about.
He had previous arrests. He was stopped that morning, but let go. His youtube page - wowzers. He was suspended from his Community college because of a crazy internet post.
Personal privacy needs to be part of this discussion, because if somebody quit the PC bullshit and essentially gave this maniac a scarlet letter in his "file" (whatever a "file" is), the background check at the sporting goods store should have been able to pick these facts up and say, "nope, here's a bicycle helmet - have a good day."
Lanza was a Retard who was dependant on his mother. Maybe she was not his guardian anymore but just because she could no longer claim him on her taxes because of his age doesn't make him NOT her dependant. Again, just symantics. She IS responsible in the matter. And like it or not about Holmes loopholes are legal. Otherwise they wouldn't be loopholes. It would just be illegal.
Lanza was a Retard who was dependant on his mother. Maybe she was not his guardian anymore but just because she could no longer claim him on her taxes because of his age doesn't make him NOT her dependant. Again, just symantics. She IS responsible in the matter. And like it or not about Holmes loopholes are legal. Otherwise they wouldn't be loopholes. It would just be illegal.
I'm trying to be civil here and educate you as you've clearly never purchased a firearm nor have had any experience with anything related to one.
To purchase a firearm legally online, you must purchase through a FFL dealer, and/or (depending on the state) have the weapon delivered to a FFL dealer. So that background checks and registration can be completed. It is on the seller to either a: have his FFL and b: ship to a FFL dealer. It is on the purchaser to a: buy from a FFL dealer, and b: have the weapon shipped to a FFL dealer. That's not always the case (as with Holmes).
"Loopholes" was used for lack of a better term. I compared his purchases to a speeder not getting caught. Or drunk driver not getting caught. It is on the bartender to not over serve a patron, just as it is on the patron to not get behind the wheel after drinking.
No comment on Loughner?
-
But yes you are absolutely right about loughner and his ability to legally obtain a gun is one reason that some measure has to be taken against people like him. There's not nothing we can do
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login