Originally Posted by GenuineRisk (Post 907217)

I'm the first to admit I don't know much about firearms; never had a particular interest in them, and no real desire to own one. So, since a lot of you are gun owners, I'll ask you-

Do you think a limit on number of guns someone who is not commercially involved in firearm sales may own is a good idea, and if so, what would that number be?

I understand there is a lot of argument over what constitutes an "assault" weapon. As a non-gun person, my question is over the necessity of a private citizen owning something that fires a large number of rounds in a short amount of time, as it seems to me the purpose of such a weapon is to hit a large number of targets in a short amount of time, which doesn't seem to me, to be useful either in self-defense or in recreational shooting (where, I assume, developing the skill required to shoot accurately is part of the appeal). Basically, other than as a item to brag about or to have swiped by someone planning to carry out a large-scale assault on a movie theater or school or whatever, can someone explain to me under what circumstances a private citizen would actually have use for a high capacity, rapid discharge firearm?

Again, sincerely asking.

And for the record, "To defend oneself against the guvmint" is not an acceptable answer, as the guvmint, should it decide to come against a private citizen, will be able to do it. To my knowledge, we've only had one citizens' uprising on a scale that had any chance of success and it ended in 1865 with the government winning.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 907224)

Background checks are vastly overrated as a deterrent IMO. I agree that they should be a requirement but unless there is a obvious smoking gun they are pretty much not dq'ing many other than the obvious.

I'm not a lawyer and didnt stay in a Holiday Inn express last night but I think a few of your suggestions like the Doctors and databases open to gun dealers may be illegal. Who would Doctors report the dangerous patients to? How would you be able to determine what is crazy and what is dengerous crazy?

The felon restrictions are nice for the media and for politicians looking to make points but felons are probably the group most able to acquire firearms by non-legal means.

The number of people who attempt to illegally acquire guns through legal means has to be a small number right?

I get where you are going with this but there are millions of guns out there already and like illicit drugs it just isnt that hard to get your hands on them if you have the desire and cash.

Originally Posted by cal828 (Post 907235)

Such things happened here in the 60s. Don't you remember "burn baby burn"?

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk (Post 907255)

I was not yet here. But of course, you know what they say- if you remember the 60s, you weren't really there.

In all seriousness, Rick Perlstein's Nixonland goes into great detail about some of the riots of that decade. We certainly weren't learning about THAT in my Central PA Social Studies classes...

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 907244)

Background checks probably need to be more in depth. As for doctors reporting, perhaps to the atf? Just like a medical doctor reports you to the dmv if you have unexplained blackouts...you get your drivers license suspended for a year in that situation.
As for illegal purchase, thats why i said ban all private sales.

Originally Posted by cal828 (Post 907258)

Sorry, I sometimes forget that everyone's not an old coot like me.

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF (Post 907250)

So banning private sales will stop criminals from acquiring guns? Punks in Chicago have killed more people than the Taliban this year. I don't think they are going to gun shows. More gun control equals more crime. It hasn't been mentioned much in the media because it doesn't fit the anti-gun narrative being belched out, but the guy that shot up the mall in Oregon didn't stop until he was confronted by an armed citizen.

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk (Post 907259)

Another of the challenges is, what gets defined as a mental illness severe enough to warrant a handgun restriction? More people die from suicide via gunshot each year than homicide. So does anyone who's ever been diagnosed with depression get a no-gun rule due to fear they'll kill themselves with it? Or just men, because they're more likely to use guns. I'm exaggerating for effect, of course, but that's the challenge- trying to find a mental health rule of thumb for what is a very individualized condition.

I do think greater resources for treating mental ill health. Which would be good, not just for dealing with gun violence, but all kinds of situations.

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk (Post 907259)

Another of the challenges is, what gets defined as a mental illness severe enough to warrant a handgun restriction? More people die from suicide via gunshot each year than homicide. So does anyone who's ever been diagnosed with depression get a no-gun rule due to fear they'll kill themselves with it? Or just men, because they're more likely to use guns. I'm exaggerating for effect, of course, but that's the challenge- trying to find a mental health rule of thumb for what is a very individualized condition.

I do think greater resources for treating mental ill health. Which would be good, not just for dealing with gun violence, but all kinds of situations.

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 907271)

why am i surprised??

it seems westboro baptist 'church' has plans to protest at sandy hook elementary.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...GlvbnM-;_ylv=3


After the Westboro Baptist Church posted on Twitter its intention to picket the Newtown, Conn., site where 26 shooting victims died, including 20 children, hackers retaliated.

The reason for the protest? Reportedly because Connecticut has legalized same-sex marriage.

Shirley Phelps-Roper, a spokesperson for the Topeka, Kan., Westboro church and daughter of church founder Fred Phelps, put on Twitter, "Westboro will picket Sandy Hook Elementary School to sing praise to God for the glory of his work in executing his judgment."

Originally Posted by bigrun (Post 907273)

The Constitution garantees freedom of speech..Maybe we should re-visit that and the 2nd amendment...said a million times, too many fkn nuts in the country...

Originally Posted by Arletta (Post 907285)

Sign the petition(s)

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF (Post 907250)

So banning private sales will stop criminals from acquiring guns? Punks in Chicago have killed more people than the Taliban this year. I don't think they are going to gun shows. More gun control equals more crime. It hasn't been mentioned much in the media because it doesn't fit the anti-gun narrative being belched out, but the guy that shot up the mall in Oregon didn't stop until he was confronted by an armed citizen.

Originally Posted by Dahoss (Post 907300)

So more guns are the answer? Just arm everyone?

Something tells me when the second amendment was passed, they didn't think society would erode to the point of people shooting up malls and schools. Time for us as a society to understand we suck and make the necessary changes and I don't see how the rational answer could be to arm more people.

Originally Posted by joeydb (Post 907311)

Less guns are not the answer. More guns? Everything has a practical maximum, after which you get diminishing returns for a good effect, or a negative effect emerges. Medicine for a condition is great until you overdose and it becomes a toxin.

Think of many people you know. Do you think the good guys, if armed, would hurt anybody? Even the guys you might know who get into barfights, would they suddenly start whacking people, knowing full well that they will be locked up or executed? More guns would not inspire non-criminals to undertake criminal acts. But, in the hands of would-be victims, it would inhibit the plans of those who have already decided to undertake a criminal act. Predator and would-be prey would then be on more equal terms.

Originally Posted by Dahoss (Post 907319)

More guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have guns would absolutely increase death and injuries by guns. Of that I have no doubt.