another shooting

[Danzig]

yes, i'm saying the background check is insufficient. especially when they said not long ago that many states don't submit a lot of the info that they're looking for in the background checks. and with the hippa laws, many are also no longer submitting any mental health info. also, background checks are only done in about 4/5 of purchases. when the most recent attempt was made to close loopholes such as gun shows, private purchases, internet sales, people went nuts. saw a lot of comments about 'constitutionality'. er, that ship has sailed. checks are being done, just not in every instance. and i'm sure we know who benefits, knowing they can avoid a check and make a purchase.

the law they tried to pass was to help with state reporting of felony criminals, etc, and to change hippa laws in regards to reporting the mentally ill. youi know, the very people who shouldn't be able to buy. but the republicans did a great job in lying and getting people riled up (and then there's the nra), thus assuring a failure.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yes, i'm saying the background check is insufficient. especially when they said not long ago that many states don't submit a lot of the info that they're looking for in the background checks. and with the hippa laws, many are also no longer submitting any mental health info. also, background checks are only done in about 4/5 of purchases. when the most recent attempt was made to close loopholes such as gun shows, private purchases, internet sales, people went nuts. saw a lot of comments about 'constitutionality'. er, that ship has sailed. checks are being done, just not in every instance. and i'm sure we know who benefits, knowing they can avoid a check and make a purchase.

the law they tried to pass was to help with state reporting of felony criminals, etc, and to change hippa laws in regards to reporting the mentally ill. youi know, the very people who shouldn't be able to buy. but the republicans did a great job in lying and getting people riled up (and then there's the nra), thus assuring a failure.

What is "mentally ill"? Or " Under a physicians care for mental issues?"

A middle-aged man or woman who may be going through a particularly stressful patch in their everyday life (ie. lost a career and/or lost a home due to the economy, lost a parent) who then go to their doctor and are prescribed Ambien or Xanax is technically "Under a physician's care for mental issues".

I don't believe they should be required to forfeit their liberties to give others the false impression of "feeling" "more secure".

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

What is "mentally ill"? Or " Under a physicians care for mental issues?"

A middle-aged man or woman who may be going through a particularly stressful patch in their everyday life (ie. lost a career and/or lost a home due to the economy, lost a parent) who then go to their doctor and are prescribed Ambien or Xanax is technically "Under a physician's care for mental issues".

I don't believe they should be required to forfeit their liberties to give others the false impression of "feeling" "more secure".

i'm talking about people under a physicians care who the physician feels is very much a danger to society, is violent, etc. not talking about someone taking lexapro because they have anxiety or stress and can't sleep well.

[Rudeboyelvis]

A federal database of crazy people? Hmmmm...I think if they want one bad enough they will get one regardless...

I can tell you from first hand experience that I've been required (by the seller) to fill out a background check in two instances; once from an individual and once at a gun sale. Seller's who don't abide by the law need to be held accountable

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

A federal database of crazy people? Hmmmm...I think if they want one bad enough they will get one regardless...

I can tell you from first hand experience that I've been required (by the seller) to fill out a background check in two instances; once from an individual and once at a gun sale. Seller's who don't abide by the law need to be held accountable

i agree.
every gun we've aquired has had a background check done. but there are loopholes, and i'd bet good money who is utilizing those holes.

[GenuineRisk]

The government is not going to pass any laws making gun ownership more restrictive. They're just not. But unfortunately, the NRA is more than happy to stir up people's fears that the government will, because it will sell more guns. Gun ownership is declining in terms of the number of households that own guns, but the number of guns in those households is increasing. Danzig gave a perfect example, when she said she's likely to purchase more, even though she already owns more than she ever thought she would (I'm not saying you're buying out of fear, of course, Danzig, just that you're an example of a household owning more than one firearm, which is a change from a few decades ago).

It's all about moving product, and fear is an exceptionally effective marketing tool.

I wish we could have a conversation about gun violence without it turning into screaming cries of "Freedom!" because, mental health issues aside, there are many, many gun owners who should not be gun owners because they are simply not responsible enough to own one (I have the same feeling about many pet owners). The NY Times ran a piece a few weeks ago about children who die from accidental gun shootings and it was both heartbreaking and head slapping in the careless way these parents and relatives treated their firearms. But even a level-headed conversation is hard because the US gov't froze funds on research into gun violence 20 years ago and even Newtown couldn't change that:

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa...-violence.aspx

The NRA continues to spend a lot of money lobbying against any research into gun violence. What are they so afraid of?

Maybe the findings of the 1993 study that led to the slashing of federal funding:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...99310073291506

[Danzig]

no, we haven't bought one in forever. i think we've won more than we've bought, and then there's the hand me downs, and the ones he inherited from his grandfather. i just know we'll be going to more nwtf events in future, so i have no doubt we will win more guns. all of which go thru a b/g check.

and i agree, it would be nice if we adults could speak with one another as adults, and it not degenerate into 'you're a (insert label here).

it's funny, in a sad way, that just like asking people if they like the rules in the aca (they do), that when you asked people about the individual rules in the latest gun control attempt, they liked them. but, just like obamacare, if you used whatever the name was of the overall bill, they were against it. i guess branding does work.

people won't hand a sharp knife or scissors to a little kid...but many adults sure will hand over a gun without a thought.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The government is not going to pass any laws making gun ownership more restrictive. They're just not. But unfortunately, the NRA is more than happy to stir up people's fears that the government will, because it will sell more guns. Gun ownership is declining in terms of the number of households that own guns, but the number of guns in those households is increasing. Danzig gave a perfect example, when she said she's likely to purchase more, even though she already owns more than she ever thought she would (I'm not saying you're buying out of fear, of course, Danzig, just that you're an example of a household owning more than one firearm, which is a change from a few decades ago).

It's all about moving product, and fear is an exceptionally effective marketing tool.

I wish we could have a conversation about gun violence without it turning into screaming cries of "Freedom!" because, mental health issues aside, there are many, many gun owners who should not be gun owners because they are simply not responsible enough to own one (I have the same feeling about many pet owners). The NY Times ran a piece a few weeks ago about children who die from accidental gun shootings and it was both heartbreaking and head slapping in the careless way these parents and relatives treated their firearms. But even a level-headed conversation is hard because the US gov't froze funds on research into gun violence 20 years ago and even Newtown couldn't change that:

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa...-violence.aspx

The NRA continues to spend a lot of money lobbying against any research into gun violence. What are they so afraid of?

Maybe the findings of the 1993 study that led to the slashing of federal funding:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...99310073291506

I would tend to agree with the majority of this - Namely:

1. The principle issue being irresponsible possession - people that should not have guns are getting them from someone/somewhere that circumvents/violates the background checklist.

2. Which immediately knee-jerks directly into "more laws" against responsible gun ownership.

3. which then immediately knee-jerks into "OMG they are grabbing our guns! Let's buy more before Obama outlaws them!!"

4. Which feeds the lobby and in turn the legislature responsible for the laws in the first place.

Rinse. Repeat.


For the record, I am a staunch Constitutionalist, and I DO NOT support the govt's intervention into any sort of national database of insane people, or serialized gun registration. If the woman in Newtown, who's alleged crazy son grabbed her guns to kill those kids isn't held accountable for her poor judgement which led to her decision to keep firearms within arm's reach of the nutcase - then the whole discussion devolves into meaningless finger-pointing.

Owning a gun is probably the most important decision an American can make; because once you take ownership of that weapon, YOU are responsible for what happens with it. Period.