S/O - are you in favor of gun regulation, no regulation or outright banning.

Two Peas is Closing
Click here to visit our final product sale. Click here to visit our FAQ page regarding the closing of Two Peas.

Posted 1/22/2013 by ~Lauren~ in NSBR Board
< 1 2 3 4
 

obliolait
PeaAddict

PeaNut 550,788
April 2012
Posts: 1,482
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/25/2013 9:12:38 AM

"Frequently used" are the key words here. My point is that the focus should be on the ones who are committing the crimes, not on the weapons they use. You could ban all the guns in the country and criminals will still find a way to obtain them. The only people who would be out are those who abide by the law.



We do focus on criminals you fool. In case you haven't noticed, our courts are backlogged and our prisons are overwrought with the condemned. We are capable of taking more than a single course of action. Claiming that we should "focus" on those that commit crimes is stating non-sense, you blithering buffoon.

I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!

PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 20,385
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando

Posted: 1/25/2013 10:48:53 AM

You could ban all the guns in the country and criminals will still find a way to obtain them. The only people who would be out are those who abide by the law.


Some criminals would still get them. However, there are a lot of homicides committed because there was a gun handy. There are a lot of suicides that might not have happened if a gun hadn't been close by. There are a lot of accidents that happen which might not have happened, if there hadn't been a gun left laying around. Yes, murders will still be committed by other means, people will still commit suicide by other means, but many lives would not have ended, if a gun had not be there right at the moment the person lost their mind and pulled the trigger... and all of those people were likely legal gun owners.

Obliolait....try being nicer. You can say all the same things without the name calling.

PeaCeaRyder
BucketHead

PeaNut 411,442
February 2009
Posts: 975
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/25/2013 11:03:58 AM
oblio, nastiness becomes no pea but since that seems to be your MO, I'll just say this:

When something like this happens, most of the hoopla surrounds gun control - more laws (rather than enforcing the ones we currently have); more talk of bans and more red tape for the responsible citizen to endure. Still, all that does not address the criminals and the mentally ill who are committing these crimes. I don't care how much gun control you have, there will always be a way for the criminals to obtain guns, just like liquor was obtainable for those who wanted it during prohibition. All it did was increase crime rather than curtail it. The answer is not more prisons or more asylums. Our society is sick; it's a moral and spiritual problem that is not going to go away even if you banned all the weapons in existence. I know no one wants to hear it so I'll say no more on the subject. Carry on.



"It is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God...and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord." - Abraham Lincoln

Proclamation of a National Fast-Day, March 30, 1863.
Quoted in Marion Mills Miller, ed., Life and Works of Abraham Lincoln, Centenary Edition, In Nine Volumes: Volume VI (New York: The Current Literature Publishing Co., 1907), p. 156.

"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." - George Orwell

maddiesmum
BucketHead

PeaNut 574,034
December 2012
Posts: 975
Layouts: 0
Loc: Obamaland

Posted: 1/25/2013 11:06:38 AM

None of your damn business where my guns are. But I will tell you that my kids are both crack shots and knowledgeable about their firearms. They both own several. And my youngest is going to take up the sport of Cowboy mounted shooting too. Guns are not something to be feared when you actually use your head, you dimwit


What about their friends and any other children that visit your house? Can they access them?

ePEAcenter
BucketHead

PeaNut 364,981
February 2008
Posts: 695
Layouts: 2
Loc: Texas Hill Country

Posted: 1/25/2013 11:12:51 AM

there should be strict storage regulations i.e., in a safe. I don't suggest that homes should be inspected, but the owner should be culpable if their gun is stolen and used in a crime. This goes for transporting the gun as well - it should be in a locked box in the trunk of the car. No one should be permitted to carry a concealed or visible firearm within a town or city's limits. There should also be a registry of firearms to which the police are privy. The background check for sale of guns should not happen at the point of purchase, but during a stringent licensing process. Some kind of biometric identification should be used a the point of purchase. Gun shows should be outlawed.


1. If I own a weapon for home defense, I would be stupid to have it unloaded and locked in a safe. In such a condition it would clearly be unable to serve the purpose I purchased it for. An unloaded weapon is about as useful for self defense as a brick.

2. Why in hell should a legal gun owner be culpable in any way for the actions of a criminal who stole the gun from his house? Would you like all victims of crime to be culpable for what happens to their stolen goods. Since most cars used in drive-by gang shootings are stolen, I assume you want the victims of those crimes to be held responsible for the actions of the criminals, correct? Positively asinine.

Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,912
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County

Posted: 1/25/2013 12:59:49 PM

None of your damn business where my guns are. But I will tell you that my kids are both crack shots and knowledgeable about their firearms. They both own several. And my youngest is going to take up the sport of Cowboy mounted shooting too. Guns are not something to be feared when you actually use your head, you dimwit.


Would you like to address the idiots that are considered "responsible law abiding gun owners" who leave their guns out and their kids get a hold of them and end up shooting themselves, their sibling, or playmates?

Its clear that idiots are allowed to own guns and until one can determine if this "responsible law abiding gun owner" is indeed a responsible gun owner then yes, guns are to be feared. Because you never know what catagory the gun owner falls into when they are holding a gun and that is a problem.



lynlam
Don'tcha wish your girlfriend had spurs like mine?

PeaNut 46,248
August 2002
Posts: 6,800
Layouts: 41
Loc: Ohio

Posted: 1/26/2013 7:14:46 AM
"What about their friends and any other children that visit your house? Can they access them?"
-------------

Yes. I leave them on the coffee table.

(That was sarcasm, in case you miss it)





"We demand entire freedom of action and then expect the government in some miraculous way to save us from the consequences of our own acts... Self-government means self-reliance." Calvin Coolidge

Lynlam, the second-tier Pea, paid (except it appears she is not) political shill.
Uploaded with iPhone client

lynlam
Don'tcha wish your girlfriend had spurs like mine?

PeaNut 46,248
August 2002
Posts: 6,800
Layouts: 41
Loc: Ohio

Posted: 1/26/2013 7:18:44 AM
"Would you like to address the idiots that are considered "responsible law abiding gun owners" who leave their guns out and their kids get a hold of them and end up shooting themselves, their sibling, or playmates?

Its clear that idiots are allowed to own guns and until one can determine if this "responsible law abiding gun owner" is indeed a responsible gun owner then yes, guns are to be feared. Because you never know what catagory the gun owner falls into when they are holding a gun and that is a problem. "
-------------

I will say the same thing I said on the other thread. There are stupid people everywhere. It's the nature of HUMANITY to be prone to making stupid decisions. How do you propose to determine ahead of time who will make stupid decisions and who won't?
We have laws to punish all the stupid people. But you just can't legislate stupid away. And taking the rights away, either directly or thru tighter and tighter regulations, of every single law abiding citizen, is not the answer.





"We demand entire freedom of action and then expect the government in some miraculous way to save us from the consequences of our own acts... Self-government means self-reliance." Calvin Coolidge

Lynlam, the second-tier Pea, paid (except it appears she is not) political shill.
Uploaded with iPhone client

leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.

PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 22,257
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.

Posted: 1/27/2013 2:04:28 AM
I-95, it's late and I'm not sure what thread it was on now, but I wanted to take a moment here to answer you about who checks the answers on the ATF form.

Right now, to my knowledge, no one does unless there's a specific need.

Who's fault is that? This is a federal agency.


So, my question to those who are demanding more laws is pretty much this...... If we can't handle the laws we already have, WTH makes you think even more laws are going to be the answer?

I'm still waiting to find out what Feinstein has to say about the specifics in her multiple bans that make those weapons so much more dangerous than others. That's a serious question, and one I think those defending her should be able to discuss.








If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.



I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!

PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 20,385
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando

Posted: 1/27/2013 2:23:17 AM

I-95, it's late and I'm not sure what thread it was on now, but I wanted to take a moment here to answer you about who checks the answers on the ATF form.

Right now, to my knowledge, no one does unless there's a specific need.

Who's fault is that? This is a federal agency.


So, my question to those who are demanding more laws is pretty much this...... If we can't handle the laws we already have, WTH makes you think even more laws are going to be the answer?


Thank you. It is as I suspected. So the questions actually have no real purpose, other than to make it look like someone is taking a responsible stand.

I agree with you, I'd like to see the laws that are already in place enforced before we jump into writing more laws that will likely be ignored also.

I am not crazy about a flurry of laws being rushed in to place after a tragedy. Look what we got out of 9/11...the Patriot's Act, which I consider to be the biggest thief of our personal freedoms than anything that has ever been dumped on us in the wake of a tragedy. I do not support that kind of law making. I'm not sure what will work, but we simply can't continue to ignore what is a real National tragedy...all the individuals who die from a bullet, one at a time.

leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.

PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 22,257
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.

Posted: 1/27/2013 2:34:59 AM

So the questions actually have no real purpose, other than to make it look like someone is taking a responsible stand.


The dealers that comply with the law and go through this paperwork are doing something responsible.

People are turned down everyday at this point, and these forms are kept indefinitely. ATF is very particular about how they are stored.

Could more be done? By the federal agency who's form is required by law? That might be a much more reasonable thing to focus on than some of the other things I've heard recently.






If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.



Ursula Schneider
PeaAddict

PeaNut 97,497
July 2003
Posts: 1,013
Layouts: 95
Loc: Southeastern Arizona

Posted: 1/27/2013 2:37:30 AM
I don't believe regulations are the answer to the murder issues we've seen on the increase. Mexico is an example of that. A citizen can't own a gun yet gun murders are rampant. When gun ownership becomes illegal or too highly regulated the only people with guns are the government and the bad guys.

The average citizen is left defenseless. Many have fought and died for our right to bear arms. It makes me sad how willing we are to sign that away.

The problem is not guns, it's people. To assume we can control the murderous rage of sick people by removing access to one type of weapon in a world where the design of weapons seems to be an underground past time is short sighted.



I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!

PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 20,385
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando

Posted: 1/27/2013 4:38:29 AM

Many have fought and died for our right to bear arms. It makes me sad how willing we are to sign that away.


I'm not sure anyone fought and died specifically to protect our right to bear arms, but if you've been reading these threads, nobody is suggesting that anyone 'sign away their rights to bear arms'. If this makes you sad, you must have been devastated when the Government took away a whole lot more of your freedoms with the Patriot's Act.

But let's not compare Mexico with the United States. Mexico is a third world country, we are not.

justalittletike
AncestralPea

PeaNut 434,313
August 2009
Posts: 4,506
Layouts: 26

Posted: 1/27/2013 4:53:53 AM
I don't think it will matter. No matter what the choice those that want to will find the option or choose something else like a knife.


Uploaded with iPhone client

lynlam
Don'tcha wish your girlfriend had spurs like mine?

PeaNut 46,248
August 2002
Posts: 6,800
Layouts: 41
Loc: Ohio

Posted: 1/27/2013 5:26:24 AM
"I-95, it's late and I'm not sure what thread it was on now, but I wanted to take a moment here to answer you about who checks the answers on the ATF form.

Right now, to my knowledge, no one does unless there's a specific need.

Who's fault is that? This is a federal agency. "
---------------

True. But do we have any idea what kind of nightmare bureaucracy it would take to check everyone of those forms for truthful answers?





"We demand entire freedom of action and then expect the government in some miraculous way to save us from the consequences of our own acts... Self-government means self-reliance." Calvin Coolidge

Lynlam, the second-tier Pea, paid (except it appears she is not) political shill.
Uploaded with iPhone client

I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!

PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 20,385
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando

Posted: 1/27/2013 6:41:01 AM

True. But do we have any idea what kind of nightmare bureaucracy it would take to check everyone of those forms for truthful answers?
Uploaded with iPhone client


Yes. And since one of them is something like 'Have you ever been admitted to a mental hospital/institution?' Is that an automatic denial? There are many reasons one can have been on a psychiatric ward at a hospital. 30 years ago a drunk driver ran a red light and smashed into me. One of the injuries I sustained was a frontal lobe brain injury (bruised brain) After seeing a neurologist, I was referred to a psychiatrist. In order to do the necessary testing and modify meds, I was placed on a psychiatric unit for observation and testing. Was I crazy then? No. Am I now? No, but the honest answer to that question on the form would be 'yes'.

During my stay there I met a couple of women who were there for psychiatric care. One whose husband had run off with all the money and his secretary, leaving his distraught wife suicidal. The other was a young mother who had lost her only child in a house fire. Neither of these women were insane, they'd each had a traumatic experience for which they got help, and recovered...would they be denied? And if we lied and said no, how would anybody check 30 year old hospital records, which are private anyway.

There's no question that almost anything proposed is a can of worms, but somewhere in there is a compromise.

tamhugh
Ancient Ancestor of Pea

PeaNut 12,875
March 2001
Posts: 8,668
Layouts: 11

Posted: 1/27/2013 8:27:00 AM

None of your damn business where my guns are. But I will tell you that my kids are both crack shots and knowledgeable about their firearms. They both own several.


My parents could have written this about my brother. He had certificates all over his wall from Boy Scout camps, etc on rifle safety and marksmanship. He took all the classes they could find before he was allowed to hunt. And then he accidently shot himself in a hunting accident. He lived, he was lucky. No one else was injured. But he was permanently injured, physically and mentally. So, don't be too confident about your children's abilities. Accidents happen.

Judie in Oz
PEAing Upside Down

PeaNut 12,503
March 2001
Posts: 7,455
Layouts: 44
Loc: Down Under

Posted: 1/27/2013 8:56:48 AM


Judie

Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,912
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County

Posted: 1/27/2013 11:37:39 AM

I will say the same thing I said on the other thread. There are stupid people everywhere. It's the nature of HUMANITY to be prone to making stupid decisions. How do you propose to determine ahead of time who will make stupid decisions and who won't?
We have laws to punish all the stupid people. But you just can't legislate stupid away. And taking the rights away, either directly or thru tighter and tighter regulations, of every single law abiding citizen, is not the answer.


And that is the problem isn't it. When a stranger is around you with a gun you have no idea what kind of person he/she is and what they are going to do with the gun do you?

"We have laws to punish the all the stupid people". Hmm that isn't going to help me much if I'm dead by the actions of the stupid gun owner now is it? The laws aren't helping the parents of the 20 children killed in Sandy Hook are they?

Here is how I see it. The gun group doesn't want any meaningful limitations on gun ownership. I don't want any guns around at all with a few exceptions.

However I'm open to compromise as long we find a way to start taking guns off the streets and out of the hands of "idiots".

What I would like to see is a national gun registry to follow the gun from the time its manufactured/imported until its destroyed. I don't know for sure but I suspect a lot of legal guns end up becoming illegal guns because of the lack of responsibility on thr part of the original gun owner. Maybe if a gun owner knew they would be held responsible for any crime used by a gun registered to them they may be a little more careful on what they do with their gun or guns.

I also think all gun laws should be federal so the same laws apply to all the states equally. A perfect example of why I think this is Chicago. Guns are banned in the city but not outside and I don't believe people are checked for guns before they enter Chicago so of course that law was going to fail. I'm not saying all guns should be banned but this is why gun laws should be federal so the same set of laws apply to everyone.

As much as I like to see this done its not going to happen the NRA is just too strong and too paranoid. I just wish someting would get done because I'm tried of reading about gun deaths with illegal and legal guns.

ePEAcenter
BucketHead

PeaNut 364,981
February 2008
Posts: 695
Layouts: 2
Loc: Texas Hill Country

Posted: 1/27/2013 1:02:40 PM

I don't know for sure but I suspect a lot of legal guns end up becoming illegal guns because of the lack of responsibility on thr part of the original gun owner. Maybe if a gun owner knew they would be held responsible for any crime used by a gun registered to them they may be a little more careful on what they do with their gun or guns.

So I'm sure you feel the same way about your car. If your car is stolen out of your driveway, you should be held responsible for the crimes committed with that car by the thieves. Also fertilizer, of course. If someone steals fertilizer out of your garden shed and uses it to make an explosive device you are fine to be held legally responsible for the deaths of all victims. Heck, how about that old thermometer. You are fine to be held legally responsible for the mercury contained in that thermometer which is more than sufficient to poison a victim? This could go on all day...

I'm for laws that punish actual criminals.

Maizie
* Happy Camper *

PeaNut 223,117
September 2005
Posts: 16,361
Layouts: 22
Loc: Heffalump Hollow

Posted: 1/27/2013 1:16:47 PM
I guess I just don't see a NEED for them.

The folks I know who are so pro-gun are also quiet extreme in their thinking... that is what scares me, there is underlying hatred there that is more obvious as the days go by. Do we have the right? Sure. Is it necessary... not really.



Maizie
* Happy Camper *

PeaNut 223,117
September 2005
Posts: 16,361
Layouts: 22
Loc: Heffalump Hollow

Posted: 1/27/2013 1:25:43 PM
I guess I just don't see a NEED for them.

The folks I know who are so pro-gun are also quiet extreme in their thinking... that is what scares me, there is underlying hatred there that is more obvious as the days go by. Do we have the right? Sure. Is it necessary... not really.



ePEAcenter
BucketHead

PeaNut 364,981
February 2008
Posts: 695
Layouts: 2
Loc: Texas Hill Country

Posted: 1/27/2013 1:37:16 PM

there is underlying hatred there

That is a shockingly offensive perspective.

You do realize that legal gun owners are far less likely to commit a crime or behave violently than the remainder of society right?

I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!

PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 20,385
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando

Posted: 1/27/2013 4:42:34 PM

You do realize that legal gun owners are far less likely to commit a crime or behave violently than the remainder of society right?


How do you figure that? And based on what...the ratio between legal gun owners who never commit a crime v criminals and street thugs v people who don't own guns at all v legal gun owners who do commit crimes? I wanna see those stats.

Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,912
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County

Posted: 1/27/2013 6:22:11 PM

So I'm sure you feel the same way about your car. If your car is stolen out of your driveway, you should be held responsible for the crimes committed with that car by the thieves. Also fertilizer, of course. If someone steals fertilizer out of your garden shed and uses it to make an explosive device you are fine to be held legally responsible for the deaths of all victims. Heck, how about that old thermometer. You are fine to be held legally responsible for the mercury contained in that thermometer which is more than sufficient to poison a victim? This could go on all day...



The arguement is old. Why shouldn't guns be tracked during their life? I would think a law abiding responsible gun owner would have a problem with this.

Problem with a lot of gun owners they want the guns but not the responsibility that goes with gun ownership. Lets be clear here, guns were invented for one thing and one thing only and that is to kill. You can put whatever spin you want on it but you can't change the facts.

leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.

PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 22,257
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.

Posted: 1/27/2013 10:49:48 PM

True. But do we have any idea what kind of nightmare bureaucracy it would take to check everyone of those forms for truthful answers?


Yeah, I do.

The question that I-95 referred to that deals with mental health uses legally specific terms regarding diagnosis/assessment of mental competence and refers to being judged in a court or otherwise forcibly committed to a mental institution. Voluntarily seeking mental counseling, either outpatient or inpatient, does not necessitate a "Yes" answer on the ATF form. (Which would end the process of sale of firearm at that point.)

(This question was changed because of the VA Tech shooter.)



Question 12f, ATF Form 4473

Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?


Your answer would be "No", I-95.







If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.



stampcrazychick
PeaFixture

PeaNut 328,112
July 2007
Posts: 3,127
Layouts: 0
Loc: Utah

Posted: 1/28/2013 8:45:49 AM
I'm against any kind of a gun ban.
I'm also against any additional regulations on guns.

ePEAcenter
BucketHead

PeaNut 364,981
February 2008
Posts: 695
Layouts: 2
Loc: Texas Hill Country

Posted: 1/28/2013 11:50:19 AM

How do you figure that? And based on what...the ratio between legal gun owners who never commit a crime v criminals and street thugs v people who don't own guns at all v legal gun owners who do commit crimes? I wanna see those stats.



Sure.

This (totally partisan but none the less accurate) analysis of data presented in a NYT article about North Carolina breaks it right down for you.

web page

leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.

PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 22,257
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.

Posted: 1/28/2013 12:26:08 PM
I am so glad you've been on these threads, ePEAcenter.

These results are consistent with the people I know who have a concealed carry handgun license. Note that I said that they have a license to cc. Most people who have a license (around here) do not carry even though they are legally allowed to.


From ePEAcenter's link....

According to the data, concealed carry permit holders in North Carolina are five times less likely to kill someone than the average citizen.


According to the data concealed carry permit holders are 5.48 times less likely to commit a violent crime with a firearm than the average citizen.


According to the data concealed carry permit holders are 6.6 times less likely to be involved with drunk driving than the average citizen.





This comment that was left on the Times' article sums up a lot of the problems we're having. Many of those wanting more regulations or bans are not evaluating the hard evidence honestly, and that's a true problem that will only continue to divide us.


There are always bad apples in the group as we all know. Thanks for basing the story around N.C. and creating unneeded attention to a process that has worked for YEARS. Cutting edge "Times". Wonder why there wasn't any mention of the cases of lives SAVED by CCW'ers and how other states rank in comparison, along with those who have much looser laws? Very sloppy story in my opinion since there was very little content, no statistics to back it, and very loose references and their details. I have seen better reporting in high school publications. Doubt this comment will get published but to those who read it it's amazing how poor quality this story was written and what it lacked.


The original story was a negative one about those with Concealed Carry in NC, but the facts that The Times based their article on told a completely different story.








If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.



Enough
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 553,030
April 2012
Posts: 2,637
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/28/2013 2:48:02 PM

So I'm sure you feel the same way about your car. If your car is stolen out of your driveway, you should be held responsible for the crimes committed with that car by the thieves. Also fertilizer, of course. If someone steals fertilizer out of your garden shed and uses it to make an explosive device you are fine to be held legally responsible for the deaths of all victims. Heck, how about that old thermometer. You are fine to be held legally responsible for the mercury contained in that thermometer which is more than sufficient to poison a victim? This could go on all day...




The arguement is old.


Can you explain why you feel that a gun owner should be held responsible for a crime committed by someone else who stole their property just because it's a gun, but you shouldn't be held accountable for a crime committed with your stolen property?

I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!

PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 20,385
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando

Posted: 1/28/2013 3:16:03 PM

Your answer would be "No", I-95.


Thank you

I have never personally purchased a gun, but DH has, and he has a C & C (not sure why, I have never known him to carry, ever, in the 25 years we've been married!



Sure.

This (totally partisan but none the less accurate) analysis of data presented in a NYT article about North Carolina breaks it right down for you.


Thank you for linking the article. I found it quite interesting. I do, naturally , have a small problem with it. It only compares legally authorized C & C permit holders with the rest of the population, all thrown in together. There is no comparison between regular gun owners, street thugs and gang bangers, and those who own no weapons at all (but committed their homicides with knives, strangulation, or some other means)

I do believe that C & C owners probably are a more responsible group of gun owners. They have gone to the trouble of purchasing a weapon, and taking a class, putting in some time at a shooting range etc. That involves a commitment, and probably a higher level of responsibility than the average Joe who just goes into Wal-Mart, fills out his questionnaire, submits to a background check, and rides off into the sunset with his new toy.

It doesn't address the rest of the gun owning population at all.

I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!

PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 20,385
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando

Posted: 1/28/2013 3:39:15 PM

Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?


Mmm, now I'm disturbed about that wording. According to that phrasing of the question, the Sandy Hook killer would have qualified to buy the weapons he used. And a whole bunch of other seriously disturbed people can legally buy weapons too.

It is next to impossible, these days to get someone involuntarily committed to a psychiatric unit. Since both my children are profoundly autistic, and unable to make the usual decisions one would expect of an adult, when they turned 18, we applied to the court to have them adjudicated as mentally defective, and placed in our guardianship. The process was very stringent. It cost $7,000 for each child, in legal fees. I have forgotten how much in additional court order psychiatric exams, tons of paperwork. We had to make full financial disclosures (to prove we weren't doing this just to get our hands on their trust funds!!) and we are required to report, once a year, to the court, how we have handled their affairs. A huge number of families, with adult children who SHOULD be thusly adjudicated, simply can't afford the financial cost, nor do they have the desire to put themselves through the process.... and that makes a lot of people who should never own a gun, in a perfectly legal position to own one. Not good.

leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.

PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 22,257
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.

Posted: 1/28/2013 4:19:06 PM
Understanding and treating mental health is the new frontier.

The recent rise in autism throughout the spectrum and the acknowledgement that people have different ways of paying attention have made a lot of ideas that worked previously completely outdated.

The involuntary commitment clause mentioned is not just from family, it's also more specifically for those who have gone through the court system. That makes sense on this form.



I do believe that C & C owners probably are a more responsible group of gun owners. They have gone to the trouble of purchasing a weapon, and taking a class, putting in some time at a shooting range etc. That involves a commitment, and probably a higher level of responsibility than the average Joe who just goes into Wal-Mart, fills out his questionnaire, submits to a background check, and rides off into the sunset with his new toy.


I was totally with you up until you walked into WalMart. Concealed handgun licensed individuals shop at WalMart, too.

Also, I think this is another very misunderstood way of purchasing firearms. In this small area I live in, the vast majority of people who purchase firearms and ammo from these retailers are hunters and/or veterans. Only a few WalMarts sell long guns (they only sell handguns in Alaska) and they are especially attentive to following the law. There are other retailers (not as large as WM) that sell firearms as well, and ATF may drop in unannounced at any time on any dealer to check on compliance. It's too big a market and they are too obvious to not take the laws extremely seriously.

Think about it. Who's more likely to comply with all the federal, state and local laws? A little gunshop who may go out of business after a few years, or a huge retailer with a national market?






If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.


< 1 2 3 4
Show/Hide Icons . Show/Hide Signatures
Hide
{{ title }}
{{ icon }}
{{ body }}
{{ footer }}