Obama urges tighter background checks on gun buyers

[Hingle McCringleberry]

How about a background check on people to watch movies?

guns don't kill people, movies kill people? is that your argument?

It was a sarcastic response to the typical overreaction to these things. If a woman was standing on the street corner and a serial killer approached her would he be less likely to attack her if he noticed she had a gun hanging out of her purse? Let's say we have laws in place that prohibit guns being sold period. It might have slowed this guy down...or he might have just taken another page out of the Dark Knight film and made a homemade bomb and planted it in the theatre. These guys find their way to create chaos. So what's to stop the governement from laying down laws against movies being made with certain levels of violence (other than the multi millions that movie companies make...)

 

I know it's a stretch. The point I was making is that we can't prevent all this crap from happening...hell that was the point of Batman Begins. As they cracked down on crime more and Batman became more advanced the criminals followed suit. Guns or no guns these kind of people will find ways to destroy people's lives.

i agree to a certain extent, but the argument you are making is that why even having laws that make murder illegal? people are still going to kill. all i am saying is that there should be some regulations to make mass killings harder. what is the purpose of anyone owning an ar-15 or any assault rifle with an extended clip? if the mere possession of such weapons was illegal, it would certainly give law enforcement more options to prevent such crimes.

 

 

I shoot my buddies ar-15 all the time. We do a yearly prairie dog shoot out in western NE, and a scoped ar is perfect for it.

 

EDIT: clarity

[Hingle McCringleberry]

I've stated it before and I know I am in the minority on the subject but I've never understood why people think we need the right to bear arms at least in the context of the kind of arms one can get their hands on these days. You really think a semi automatic with a 100 round magazine is going to help you overthrow a tyrannical government when they have tanks, drones and F-22's? I heard some jackball on the radio today trying to explain how he needs a gun like an AR-15 to shoot coyotes. If you really think you need guns like that to hunt, you are either a terrible hunter or just lazy. You want a rifle or shotgun to hunt? I'm fine with that. You want a handgun that shoots 6 or 10 rounds for personal protection? Fine with that as well. But to have guns that are designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible (thus the name assault) and say they are for personal protection or for hunting or hell even target practice, sorry I just don't buy it. Hopefully someday our country evolves out the stone age with this issue.

 

 

Last I checked the people we are fighting in Afghanistan dont have trillions worth of weapons etc, and they will be a burr in our ass until we pull out of there.

[carlfense]

Why don't we just enforce the thousands of regulations we already have? Once those start working we can start talking about having more.

Which firearms regulations that exist and aren't enforced are you talking about?

 

I hear this talking point a lot . . . but I've never actually seen these laws/regulations. Could you help me out?

I should have said enforce effectively. The point is people break the existing gun laws, creating more laws only effect the people who actually follow them.

I think I'm with you . . . which laws should we enforce more effectively?

[lo country]

The laws are enforced. The only way to have "true" gun control is to enact some type of Brady bill or its clone. Those who choose to perpetrate crimes of violence will break the law to acquire a gun. Do you really think a guy intent on robbing a convenience store really cares about buying a pistol from a non-licensed firearms dealer, or a person assisting said criminal really cares about being a "straw" purchaser. What needs to be done, IMO, is stiffen the penalties for those who violate the gun laws. ie unlawful sales, straw purchasers, falsifying application etc.... The use of a firearm in the commission of a felony is already a stiff penalty as it is usually an "enhancement" to sentencing as opposed to the primary charge.

 

I guess the argument can also be said about banning cars as they kill more people than guns every year. Alcohol related fatalities ban alcohol etc......

 

Banning is not the issue. It won't work ie see prohibition.

 

It is a tense issue and will be used by both sides to shore up their political base. No one in their right mind would actually try and pass gun control during an election.

[knapplc]

Just another citizen exercising his second amendment rights.

[lo country]

And a few more....

 

Armed man stops knife attack

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

 

Ex Marine shoots robbers

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/07/marine_subway_robbery_070702/

 

Yet another 2nd amendment nut

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/18/florida-customer-shoots-suspects-during-internet-cafe-robbery/

 

Also funny these incidents haven't sparked talk of gun control from the President

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/chicago-homicide-rate-wor_n_1602692.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/29/chicago-shootings-10-dead_n_1552297.html

 

For every of a nut job killing people, you can find other stories that show armed citizens protecting themselves and/or others. Just saying.

[sd'sker]

i do not think anyone wants all guns to be banned, just the one's only used to kill large groups of people.

I've shot AR-15s on countless occasions, I was unaware their only use is killing large groups of people. I guess I've been doing it wrong.

well, just be careful.

[knapplc]

For every of a nut job killing people, you can find other stories that show armed citizens protecting themselves and/or others. Just saying.

 

If only that were really true. But we all know it isn't. There aren't equal numbers of "good guys" out-shooting the "bad guys" as there are "bad guys" shooting unarmed people.

 

And since no society in history has shown that MORE guns make for LESS gun crime, it's a pretty weak argument from the get-go.

[lo country]

For every of a nut job killing people, you can find other stories that show armed citizens protecting themselves and/or others. Just saying.

 

If only that were really true. But we all know it isn't. There aren't equal numbers of "good guys" out-shooting the "bad guys" as there are "bad guys" shooting unarmed people.

 

And since no society in history has shown that MORE guns make for LESS gun crime, it's a pretty weak argument from the get-go.

You put out articles showing nut jobs, I put out ones showing citizens protecting themselves. I never said they were equal. I simply said you can go back and forth all day showing the pros and cons and it won't solve a thing.

 

Take away all the guns in the US and you will still have guns in the hands of criminals. That is what it all comes down to actually. Criminals or people choosing to commit violent acts while using firearms. Crime won't go away with the removal of guns. It is sadly naive to think it will. (not saying you think this)

[sd'sker]

For every of a nut job killing people, you can find other stories that show armed citizens protecting themselves and/or others. Just saying.

 

If only that were really true. But we all know it isn't. There aren't equal numbers of "good guys" out-shooting the "bad guys" as there are "bad guys" shooting unarmed people.

 

And since no society in history has shown that MORE guns make for LESS gun crime, it's a pretty weak argument from the get-go.

You put out articles showing nut jobs, I put out ones showing citizens protecting themselves. I never said they were equal. I simply said you can go back and forth all day showing the pros and cons and it won't solve a thing.

 

Take away all the guns in the US and you will still have guns in the hands of criminals. That is what it all comes down to actually. Criminals or people choosing to commit violent acts while using firearms. Crime won't go away with the removal of guns. It is sadly naive to think it will. (not saying you think this)

but do we know if the most recent criminal could have attained the weapons he used? he was not part of the criminal class, would he have known how to get them? would they have been prohibitively expensive?

[lo country]

For every of a nut job killing people, you can find other stories that show armed citizens protecting themselves and/or others. Just saying.

 

If only that were really true. But we all know it isn't. There aren't equal numbers of "good guys" out-shooting the "bad guys" as there are "bad guys" shooting unarmed people.

 

And since no society in history has shown that MORE guns make for LESS gun crime, it's a pretty weak argument from the get-go.

You put out articles showing nut jobs, I put out ones showing citizens protecting themselves. I never said they were equal. I simply said you can go back and forth all day showing the pros and cons and it won't solve a thing.

 

Take away all the guns in the US and you will still have guns in the hands of criminals. That is what it all comes down to actually. Criminals or people choosing to commit violent acts while using firearms. Crime won't go away with the removal of guns. It is sadly naive to think it will. (not saying you think this)

but do we know if the most recent criminal could have attained the weapons he used? he was not part of the criminal class, would he have known how to get them? would they have been prohibitively expensive?

 

IMO, if a person wished to find a firearm and was currently prohibited from lawfully owning one it could be found. They would not be prohibitively priced.

[Blackshirts007]

It doesn't matter if gun control is limited or controlled...if someone wants a gun, they will get it. Like knapp said, had there been people with weapons during the shooting, it would end up worse than it was. IMO if i was trying to stop him and there were a lot of other people trying to as well, i wouldn't know who to shoot, especially since there was gas everywhere and everyone's vision would be blurred. People could shoot amoungst each other just off of the basis that they don't know who is the "good" and "bad" guys. Now this is obviously a different scenario than most, but if every time a person tried to rob a convenience store or bank etc, and the store owners were allowed to have guns, imagine how many more deaths there would be. It wouldn't be the traditional "guy runs into gas station with gun, takes cash, runs out," and then hopes to be caught. It would turn into gas attendant pulls gun on robber, and the first person to shoot lives. Deaths would dramatically increase IMO because every time someone makes a threat with a gun, another civilian with a gun will pull his out, and its a shootout.

[sd'sker]

For every of a nut job killing people, you can find other stories that show armed citizens protecting themselves and/or others. Just saying.

 

If only that were really true. But we all know it isn't. There aren't equal numbers of "good guys" out-shooting the "bad guys" as there are "bad guys" shooting unarmed people.

 

And since no society in history has shown that MORE guns make for LESS gun crime, it's a pretty weak argument from the get-go.

You put out articles showing nut jobs, I put out ones showing citizens protecting themselves. I never said they were equal. I simply said you can go back and forth all day showing the pros and cons and it won't solve a thing.

 

Take away all the guns in the US and you will still have guns in the hands of criminals. That is what it all comes down to actually. Criminals or people choosing to commit violent acts while using firearms. Crime won't go away with the removal of guns. It is sadly naive to think it will. (not saying you think this)

but do we know if the most recent criminal could have attained the weapons he used? he was not part of the criminal class, would he have known how to get them? would they have been prohibitively expensive?

 

IMO, if a person wished to find a firearm and was currently prohibited from lawfully owning one it could be found. They would not be prohibitively priced.

so, why have laws at all?

[Yossarian]

The Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. It doesn't say "for hunting" and it doesn't limit the size of the clip, and it doesn't say anything about whether or not the gun can be fully automatic or semi-automatic. People who want to limit the ownership of guns are usually not "originalists" when it comes to the Constitution, but when comes to this they often remind us that the framers were originally talking about muskets so Ak-47's therefore should be outlawed. I don't own an AK-47, but I don't want the Government telling which guns I can and cannot own.

[sd'sker]

even jefferson was not an 'originalist':

"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."

 

oh, and have you read the constitution?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

it could be argued that only members of a militia can bear arms.