Gun Debate

mammasan

farfromglorified wrote:

Neither will a gun. However, your speech and a gun can both contribute to a person killing 32 people needlessly.



It shouldn't be any different. You certainly have established precedent for it.

A gun by itself will not kill 32 people but putting that gun in the hands of someone who hs no business having one will. I don't want to take away the right of decent responsible people from owning a gun, but let's be realistic there are people in this world who are not responsible enough to own one. An extensive background check is a way, and the only way that I know of and if there is another less intrusive way please present it, to make sure that the individual desiring the weapon is responsible enough to own it.
It is pretty obviouse, from the VT shooter case, that the background check system used by Virginia was not suffecient in determining if this kid was responsible enough to own a weapon. All I ask is what is wrong with implementing a more therough system that would have probabaly prevented Cho from purchasing the two hand guns.

farfromglorified

mammasan wrote:

A gun by itself will not kill 32 people but putting that gun in the hands of someone who hs no business having one will. I don't want to take away the right of decent responsible people from owning a gun, but let's be realistic there are people in this world who are not responsible enough to own one. An extensive background check is a way, and the only way that I know of and if there is another less intrusive way please present it, to make sure that the individual desiring the weapon is responsible enough to own it.
It is pretty obviouse, from the VT shooter case, that the background check system used by Virginia was not suffecient in determining if this kid was responsible enough to own a weapon. All I ask is what is wrong with implementing a more therough system that would have probabaly prevented Cho from purchasing the two hand guns.

I agree with you here -- certainly there are people in this world who are not responsible enough to own a gun. The problem with what you're proposing has two bad assumptions:

1) A background check can determine who is fit and who is not fit.
2) Buying guns via your process is the only way to buy guns.

Neither is true.

Collin

farfromglorified wrote:

I agree with you here -- certainly there are people in this world who are not responsible enough to own a gun. The problem with what you're proposing has two bad assumptions:

1) A background check can determine who is fit and who is not fit.
2) Buying guns via your process is the only way to buy guns.

Neither is true.

It's a start, though.

inmytree

mammasan wrote:

I would like to pose a question to the people on here who are against tougher gun restrictions. In New Jersey it is a lengthy process to own a gun. You have to apply for a permit first by filling out an application at you local police department. Then they start conducting an extensive criminal and psychological background test. This is followed by interviews and signed consent forms from any other adults living in the same residence as you. Once you are approved for the permit you may purchase a fire arm. My question is how is this restricting anyone from purchasing a fire arm. If you pass the background tests and you spouse, partner, roommate and/or parents sign the consent form you have no problems purchasing a weapon. It is only if you fail the check and or one of the people I mentioned above does not wish for any type of weapon to be inside the residency are you denied. It seems to me that this is a pretty safe way to conduct the sale of fire arms to make sure that people like the VT shooter do not obtain the weapon with such eletive ease. How is this infringing on a person's right to own a weapon?

it doesn't ...

great post...

farfromglorified

Collin wrote:

It's a start, though.

A start towards what???

mammasan

farfromglorified wrote:

I agree with you here -- certainly there are people in this world who are not responsible enough to own a gun. The problem with what you're proposing has two bad assumptions:

1) A background check can determine who is fit and who is not fit.
2) Buying guns via your process is the only way to buy guns.

Neither is true.

Agreed. A background check is not fool-proof, but I can't think of a better method and as I stated if their is a more reliable unintrusive method I would support it. And you are also correct in saying that people can purchase weapons on the street circumventing the legal process. New Jersey for example has pretty strict gun laws yet there are still high levels of gun violence, most of the weapons are purchased illegally. There was a report in the NJ Star Ledger yesterday that stated that the majority of illegal fire arms in the State of New Jersey where purchased in other states that have less stringent gun laws. So the arguement can be made that by implementing a stricter background check in all states we could possibly lessen the amount of illegal fire arms on our streets.

farfromglorified

mammasan wrote:

Agreed. A background check is not fool-proof, but I can't think of a better method and as I stated if their is a more reliable unintrusive method I would support it. And you are also correct in saying that people can purchase weapons on the street circumventing the legal process. New Jersey for example has pretty strict gun laws yet there are still high levels of gun violence, most of the weapons are purchased illegally. There was a report in the NJ Star Ledger yesterday that stated that the majority of illegal fire arms in the State of New Jersey where purchased in other states that have less stringent gun laws. So the arguement can be made that by implementing a stricter background check we could possibly lessen the amount of illegal fire arms on our streets.

We've arrived at a question of purpose. I have no interest with lessening the amount of guns in society. I have an interest in lessening the amount of murders in society. I do not see any need to violate the rights of the 99% of American gun owners or potential gun owners who will never murder anyone with their gun. This includes people who will fail your background checks.

Collin

farfromglorified wrote:

A start towards what???

Keeping guns out of the hands of those unfit. Sure, a background check won't weed out all the potential killers or idiots, nothing will, imo. But there's at least one group who won't be able to buy guns legally if a background check is in effect i.e. people with criminal records and mentally unstable people. So in that way it's a start towards a safer environment.

mammasan

farfromglorified wrote:

We've arrived at a question of purpose. I have no interest with lessening the amount of guns in society. I have an interest in lessening the amount of murders in society. I do not see any need to violate the rights of the 99% of American gun owners or potential gun owners who will never murder anyone with their gun. This includes people who will fail your background checks.

So then I can come to the conclusion that you have no problem with say a person convicted of violent crimes in the past or of having psychotic episodes walking into a gun shop and purchasing a fire arm. Now granted if this said individual was dead set on killing someone he ould do it with or without the fire arm, but why give them the opportunity to buy a device that can potentially kill or injure scores of people in minutes.

farfromglorified

Collin wrote:

Keeping guns out of the hands of those unfit. Sure, a background check won't weed out all the potential killers or idiots, nothing will, imo. But there's at least one group who won't be able to buy guns legally if a background check is in effect i.e. people with criminal records and mentally unstable people. So in that way it's a start towards a safer environment.

Do you not see you've also taken a start towards keeping guns out of the hands of those who are fit?

There's little data to suggest that your laws have created "a safer environment".

farfromglorified

mammasan wrote:

So then I can come to the conclusion that you have no problem with say a person convicted of violent crimes in the past or of having psychotic episodes walking into a gun shop and purchasing a fire arm.

I have a problem with a person convicted of violent cimes committing violent crimes.

Now granted if this said individual was dead set on killing someone he ould do it with or without the fire arm, but why give them the opportunity to buy a device that can potentially kill or injure scores of people in minutes.

If you don't want to give them such opportunities, don't sell him your guns.

Collin

farfromglorified wrote:

Do you not see you've also taken a start towards keeping guns out of the hands of those who are fit?

No, I don't see it. Please show me how.

mammasan

farfromglorified wrote:

I have a problem with a person convicted of violent cimes committing violent crimes.



If you don't want to give them such opportunities, don't sell him your guns.

There is no way to determine if the person buying the weapon will use it in such a manner without a background check and again it's not fool-proof but it is the best method we have.

floyd1975

mammasan wrote:

There is no way to determine if the person buying the weapon will use it in such a manner without a background check and again it's not fool-proof but it is the best method we have.

I have no problem with criminal background checks. No problem with people convicted of stalking, assault, etc... being banned from buying firearms, maybe even for a certain period of time instead of for life. I would have a problem if an accusation could get someone banned though.

mammasan

zstillings wrote:

I have no problem with criminal background checks. No problem with people convicted of stalking, assault, etc... being banned from buying firearms, maybe even for a certain period of time instead of for life. I would have a problem if an accusation could get someone banned though.

Well that is why NJ takes so long, longer than 2 minutes. The police department does an extensive background check to make sure that false alligations do not prevent a responsible person from being denied.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

We've arrived at a question of purpose. I have no interest with lessening the amount of guns in society. I have an interest in lessening the amount of murders in society. I do not see any need to violate the rights of the 99% of American gun owners or potential gun owners who will never murder anyone with their gun. This includes people who will fail your background checks.

then how do you propose to reduce the number of murders?

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

then how do you propose to reduce the number of murders?

By encouraging people to respect life and the rights of others, of course.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

By encouraging people to respect life and the rights of others, of course.

and how do you propose we do this?

mammasan

soulsinging wrote:

then how do you propose to reduce the number of murders?

Well I don't think we will reduce the numberb of murderers by imposing stricter gun laws. If an individual is set on killing someone he will do it wether he has a gun or not. We can possible reduce the amount of murders commited with a fire arm, but not the amount of people who commit them.

Pacomc79

soulsinging wrote:

and how do you propose we do this?

more sex.