NationStates Jolt Archive

Now this is very interesting:

WASHINGTON — House Democratic leaders are working with the National Rifle Association to bolster existing laws blocking mentally ill people from buying guns.

Lacking support to enact strong new gun measures even after the Virginia Tech shootings, Democrats are instead resurrecting legislation, which has drawn broad bipartisan support and NRA backing, that would improve the national background check system.

The measure, a version of which has passed the House in two previous Congresses but died in the Senate, could come to a House vote as early as next month. It would require states to supply more-thorough records, including for any mental illness-related court action against a would-be gun purchaser.

Hopefully this time, it will not die in the United States Senate.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267620,00.html

Now this is very interesting:



Hopefully this time, it will not die in the United States Senate.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267620,00.html

I am impressed to see both sides working amicably towards a common goal: protection of US citizens. The NRA has long supported sensible gun legislation, and it is well known that there are several key members of the democratic leadership that are gun enthusiasts, including Harry Reid. I am excited looking forward. your thoughts?

Why would blocking mentally ill people from owning guns even be an issue? That is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard. Americans aren't safe because there are guns everywhere, and more guns do not equal a safter society. This is easily proven because America has the most guns and is no where even close in safety levels of other countries who have strict gun laws. America is the most corrupt country on earth, as lobby groups like the NRA have so much political power that they can keep something like guns and devises designed to kill and have no other purpose in the hands of Americans because of the Constitution which has no relevance today anyways. I hope someone goes to an NRA meeting and wastes them all so maybe they can see what it's like

Why would blocking mentally ill people from owning guns even be an issue? That is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard. Americans aren't safe because there are guns everywhere, and more guns do not equal a safter society. This is easily proven because America has the most guns and is no where even close in safety levels of other countries who have strict gun laws. America is the most corrupt country on earth, as lobby groups like the NRA have so much political power that they can keep something like guns and devises designed to kill and have no other purpose in the hands of Americans because of the Constitution which has no relevance today anyways. I hope someone goes to an NRA meeting and wastes them all so maybe they can see what it's like

It's not an issue, and it's already against federal laws. The problem is there isn't a good system in place to check it. I'll ignore the rest of your mindless flamebait.

Why would blocking mentally ill people from owning guns even be an issue? That is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard. Americans aren't safe because there are guns everywhere, and more guns do not equal a safter society. This is easily proven because America has the most guns and is no where even close in safety levels of other countries who have strict gun laws. America is the most corrupt country on earth, as lobby groups like the NRA have so much political power that they can keep something like guns and devises designed to kill and have no other purpose in the hands of Americans because of the Constitution which has no relevance today anyways. I hope someone goes to an NRA meeting and wastes them all so maybe they can see what it's like

And yet it is the NRA and Democrats pushing this.

The VT shooting proved that strict gun controls are not the holy grail of reduced violence. While this is certainly a change from the NRA's "Out of My Cold Dead Hands" era under Charlton Heston, gun control can only go so far to prevent violence.

The VT shooting proved that strict gun controls are not the holy grail of reduced violence. While this is certainly a change from the NRA's "Out of My Cold Dead Hands" era under Charlton Heston, gun control can only go so far to prevent violence.

Well, actually, if the "mentally-ill means no guns, and we've got your mentally ill status on the FBI registry for instant-background-checks" had been in place before the VT shooting, he'd never have been able to purchase a gun from a legitimate gun store like he did.

Whether or not this would have actually prevented the shooting is up for much debate, but that fact remains.

Whether or not this would have actually prevented the shooting is up for much debate, but that fact remains.

It pretty mcuh would have, in fact it definately would have. The idea that you can easily get a gun even if they are banned has no backing, not everyone has links to the underground crime scene.

Well, actually, if the "mentally-ill means no guns, and we've got your mentally ill status on the FBI registry for instant-background-checks" had been in place before the VT shooting, he'd never have been able to purchase a gun from a legitimate gun store like he did.

Whether or not this would have actually prevented the shooting is up for much debate, but that fact remains.

Word is he purchased ammunition over E-Bay, and far as I'm aware of there's no instant background checking policy available for online auctions. Even if he tripped off a physical background check, there's a fairly good chance he could have gotten it from the Internet as easily as the ammo.

Word is he purchased ammunition over E-Bay, and far as I'm aware of there's no instant background checking policy available for online auctions. Even if he tripped off a physical background check, there's a fairly good chance he could have gotten it from the Internet as easily as the ammo.

IIRC Ammo doesn't have the same purchasing restrictions that guns have. I'm not sure how easily he would've been able to purchase a gun over e-bay, but he certainly couldn't have gotten it from a legitimate, legal source.

It's nice to have your new gun control laws, but I think we should start enforcing the ones we have, not making new ones.

Honestly, gun free zones? What's the point of a gun free zone? Anyone can sneak in with a gun. Unless you have metal detectors and start padding people down, a gun free zone is useless because guns will get in anyway.

The NRA has long supported sensible gun legislation

I will have to dig up the links, but I remember being pointed at one piece of legislature Barrack Obama voted no to regarding NRA endorsed legislation that would have cleared firearms manufacturers from lawsuits based on deaths and injuries caused by defects in their products.

That doesn't seem like sensible legislation to me.

eBay does not allow firearms auctions on its site (it's against the TOS), and will cancel them if discovered. Firearms parts can be sold on eBay though, but not enough parts to piece together a complete firearm.

Well, actually, if the "mentally-ill means no guns, and we've got your mentally ill status on the FBI registry for instant-background-checks" had been in place before the VT shooting, he'd never have been able to purchase a gun from a legitimate gun store like he did.

Whether or not this would have actually prevented the shooting is up for much debate, but that fact remains.

And on top of that, from what I am reading, he bought magazines for the guns on Ebay.

I will have to dig up the links, but I remember being pointed at one piece of legislature Barrack Obama voted no to regarding NRA endorsed legislation that would have cleared firearms manufacturers from lawsuits based on deaths and injuries caused by defects in their products.

That doesn't seem like sensible legislation to me.


Here's some questions: How can a firearms manufacturer be liable for what happens to a product it makes, once it has left their control at the factory? Should Remington be liable because someone who owns one of their shotguns kills another person? Is Glock financially responsible because someone uses a Glock during a drive-by?

If a firearm malfunctions and results in a person's injury or death, I can understand a manufacturer being held liable (as long as it's a true malfunction with a well maintained firearm). But to hold a manufacturer financially responsible for the actions of another person, in my mind, is rediculous.

Here's some questions: How can a firearms manufacturer be liable for what happens to a product it makes, once it has left their control at the factory? Should Remington be liable because someone who owns one of their shotguns kills another person? Is Glock financially responsible because someone uses a Glock during a drive-by?
Should they be responsible if they purposefully keep their weapons simple to convert to automatic?

Should they be responsible if they purposefully keep their weapons simple to convert to automatic?

No.

Should they be responsible if they purposefully keep their weapons simple to convert to automatic?


No, they shouldn't be responsible if someone converts a firearm they make into full auto. How exactly can a manufacturer control what someone does with one of their firearms, after it's left their warehouse? Also, how do you know manufacturers are purposefully keeping their designs easy to convert? Do you work at a firearms manufacturer? Know someone who does?

No, they shouldn't be responsible if someone converts a firearm they make into full auto. How exactly can a manufacturer control what someone does with one of their firearms, after it's left their warehouse? Also, how do you know manufacturers are purposefully keeping their designs easy to convert? Do you work at a firearms manufacturer? Know someone who does?
You obviously missed the important parts.
Should they be held responsible if they purposefully keep their guns simple to convert?

Here's some questions: How can a firearms manufacturer be liable for what happens to a product it makes, once it has left their control at the factory? Should Remington be liable because someone who owns one of their shotguns kills another person? Is Glock financially responsible because someone uses a Glock during a drive-by?

Before I answer that question, answer this first. Are you sure you read and understood my post completely?


If a firearm malfunctions and results in a person's injury or death, I can understand a manufacturer being held liable (as long as it's a true malfunction with a well maintained firearm). But to hold a manufacturer financially responsible for the actions of another person, in my mind, is rediculous.

That's what the legislature was meant to cover. If it passed, what would happen is that you could buy a factory fresh shotgun, test it, and if it blew up in your face because of a defect, the company wouldn't be liable.

There should be only one law governing gun ownership: if you like guns, you're not allowed to have one. Gun ownership should be out of absolute necessity. Wanting to own a gun for something other than necessity is a mental illness.

There should be only one law governing gun ownership: if you like guns, you're not allowed to have one. Gun ownership should be out of absolute necessity. Wanting to own a gun for something other than necessity is a mental illness.

Care to prove it?

There should be only one law governing gun ownership: if you like guns, you're not allowed to have one. Gun ownership should be out of absolute necessity. Wanting to own a gun for something other than necessity is a mental illness.

What about for sport?

Care to prove it?

Not particularly. It's called hyperbole.

Not particularly. It's called hyperbole.

oook!

You obviously missed the important parts.
Should they be held responsible if they purposefully keep their guns simple to convert?


No, I don't think they should, because no matter the design, when it leaves the factory, it isn't full auto. Also, how would you prove that they're purposefully keeping their firearms easy to convert? The burden of proof would be on you, since you're the one making the accusation. And how would you define easy to convert? My AR-15 looks easy to convert (because it appears nearly identical to the M-16), but it isn't (my lower reciever would need machining to fit the select fire components). They look nearly identical because using the same body for 2 different firearms (like the AR-15 and M-16) helps to reduce manufacturing costs, even though the AR-15 is semi only, while the M-16 is select fire..

Not particularly. It's called hyperbole.


I prefer to call it talking about a subject you know nothing about.





:D

Here's some questions: How can a firearms manufacturer be liable for what happens to a product it makes, once it has left their control at the factory? Should Remington be liable because someone who owns one of their shotguns kills another person? Is Glock financially responsible because someone uses a Glock during a drive-by?

If a firearm malfunctions and results in a person's injury or death, I can understand a manufacturer being held liable (as long as it's a true malfunction with a well maintained firearm). But to hold a manufacturer financially responsible for the actions of another person, in my mind, is rediculous.

Um.....

Read what you're quoting?

that would have cleared firearms manufacturers from lawsuits based on deaths and injuries caused by defects in their products.


That is standard products liability that exists for every other product in creation. The bill that was voted down would have rendered gun manufacturers immune from products liability suits.

There should be only one law governing gun ownership: if you like guns, you're not allowed to have one. Gun ownership should be out of absolute necessity. Wanting to own a gun for something other than necessity is a mental illness.

*eyes narrow* You have something against mental illness?

The sane kill more people with guns than the insane ever will. Oh, sure we have the occasional bad seed like Cho Seung-Hui that goes on a rampage, but for the most part, it's you sane people that cause all the trouble. :mad:



:)

Um.....

Read what you're quoting?



That is standard products liability that exists for every other product in creation. The bill that was voted down would have rendered gun manufacturers immune from products liability suits.


I missed that part, and I apologize. I was (mistakenly) recalling legislation that had cleared manufacturers of liability, in instances where their products were used in the injury or death of another person, due to another person's actions.

I agree that manufacturers should be liable for manufacturing flaws and defects that cause the injury or death of the shooter or bystanders.

No, I don't think they should, because no matter the design, when it leaves the factory, it isn't full auto. Also, how would you prove that they're purposefully keeping their firearms easy to convert? The burden of proof would be on you, since you're the one making the accusation. And how would you define easy to convert? My AR-15 looks easy to convert (because it appears nearly identical to the M-16), but it isn't (my lower reciever would need machining to fit the select fire components). They look nearly identical because using the same body for 2 different firearms (like the AR-15 and M-16) helps to reduce manufacturing costs, even though the AR-15 is semi only, while the M-16 is select fire..

You do realize that this is exactly what lawyers..you know....do, right?

There are corporate civil and criminal acts with the necessity of showing intent in many instances. It's done all the time. Proving someone intended to manufacture something in some way is functionally no different really than proving someone intended to murder another person.

it's not that difficult and is done all the time. That's why we have lawyers and subpoenas. Additionally, intent typically can be demonstrated through a showing of reckless disregard. Or, in other words, if it can't be shown that you truly intended to, if you knew that would happen, and took absolutely no efforts to prevent it, and by all measure you just simply did not care, then you can be shown to have "intended" to.

What about for sport?

Depends upon your definition of sport. I don't consider going to a gun range and shooting weapons a "sport". I consider hunting a sport, one which often requires a weapon to be proficient at. The former is not needed. The latter may be.

I prefer to call it talking about a subject you know nothing about.

:D
What makes you say that, then? Disagreeing with my opinion does not negate it. Try harder next time.

*eyes narrow* You have something against mental illness?

The sane kill more people with guns than the insane ever will. Oh, sure we have the occasional bad seed like Cho Seung-Hui that goes on a rampage, but for the most part, it's you sane people that cause all the trouble. :mad:

:)

I don't understand your definition of "insane", then. To me, if someone goes out and shoots another person, they're not sane. People can't kill people with guns without being insane, in my eyes.

A firearms manufacturer can knowingly sell things to an firearms dealer that acts illegally. While they may not be directly responsible they can be in collusion when it comes to selling illegal arms or encouraging people to bypass background checks and safeguards to increase sales.

Why would blocking mentally ill people from owning guns even be an issue? That is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard. Americans aren't safe because there are guns everywhere, and more guns do not equal a safter society.

Well, this is the most Head-where-sun-don't-shine-uninformed post I've yet seen on these forums. Are you honestly saying that banning a mentally ill person from owning a gun and having better enforcement is a bad thing? I have a cousin who is mentally ill; He has the processing cabability of a 6 year old. He can communicate, but not very well, and is still convinced that guns don't hurt anyone.

Yeah, no offence to the mentally retarded out there, but I wouldn't want Joey getting even an air-soft gun.

Furthermore, cities exist in the US that require everyone to own a firearm and take a class in propre care and use of. Guess how much violent and gun crimes dropped when those laws were enacted?

About 95%. The Gun bans in Australia were horrendous, as is the gun ban in the UK. Yeah, your gun crimes have dropped off significantly, but otherwise? Skyrocketing instances of Rape, Murder, Mugging, and other violent crimes. It's like trying to get rid of sugar by banning chocolate.

*Deep Breath*

Okay, moving on now.

A firearms manufacturer can knowingly sell things to an firearms dealer that acts illegally. While they may not be directly responsible they can be in collusion when it comes to selling illegal arms or encouraging people to bypass background checks and safeguards to increase sales.

I think you underestimate the size and complexity of gun corporations: These are not a group of six guys with a few shop tools in a shack. They cannot go about and sell their items to stores one at a time. They do NOT sell retail; Corporations sell in bulk
Furthermore, the corporation doesn't get anything after they've sold to the gun shop. THe guns are out of their hands, and the money is out of the gun shop's hands. End of the deal.

Furthermore, cities exist in the US that require everyone to own a firearm and take a class in propre care and use of. Guess how much violent and gun crimes dropped when those laws were enacted?
I wasn't aware "cities" is the "United States of America." It doesn't matter what select cities do if it is not nationwide. Your point is moot.

I think you underestimate the size and complexity of gun corporations: These are not a group of six guys with a few shop tools in a shack. They cannot go about and sell their items to stores one at a time. They do NOT sell retail; Corporations sell in bulk
Furthermore, the corporation doesn't get anything after they've sold to the gun shop. THe guns are out of their hands, and the money is out of the gun shop's hands. End of the deal.
Funny how gun manufacturers can't be held accountable for the same kind of thing software companies can.

It's nice to have your new gun control laws, but I think we should start enforcing the ones we have, not making new ones.

Honestly, gun free zones? What's the point of a gun free zone? Anyone can sneak in with a gun. Unless you have metal detectors and start padding people down, a gun free zone is useless because guns will get in anyway.

By that logic, we shouldn't have speed limits on the highways either, because some people are always going to speed.

"It pretty mcuh would have, in fact it definately would have. The idea that you can easily get a gun even if they are banned has no backing"---Hydesland

so you're saying that something that isn't able to stop a 15 year old dropout would 'definately' have been able to stop a reasonably intelligent college student? Feel like explaining your nonsensical statement?

"It pretty mcuh would have, in fact it definately would have. The idea that you can easily get a gun even if they are banned has no backing"---Hydesland

so you're saying that something that isn't able to stop a 15 year old dropout would 'definately' have been able to stop a reasonably intelligent college student? Feel like explaining your nonsensical statement?

Let's reverse that--how about you give us a blow by blow description of how you would obtain an illegal firearm if you wished to do so, especially if you're a person who has plans to cause destruction where he or she will wind up dead at the end of it. Where do you go? Who do you talk to, especially when you have no previous connections to the types of people who would have access to illegal weapons? How do you gain their trust, assuming you find them, prove to them that you're not associated with the police?

Not as easy as you make it sound, now is it?

"Let's reverse that--how about you give us a blow by blow description of how you would obtain an illegal firearm if you wished to do so, especially if you're a person who has plans to cause destruction where he or she will wind up dead at the end of it. Where do you go? Who do you talk to, especially when you have no previous connections to the types of people who would have access to illegal weapons? How do you gain their trust, assuming you find them, prove to them that you're not associated with the police?

Not as easy as you make it sound, now is it?"---The Nazz

I would just go to someone that buys illegal firearms themselves. I'd start by asking drug dealers and work my way from there.

Actually, it is as easy as it sounds. I don't believe than any intelligent person could fail where so many idiots easily succeed.

"Let's reverse that--how about you give us a blow by blow description of how you would obtain an illegal firearm if you wished to do so, especially if you're a person who has plans to cause destruction where he or she will wind up dead at the end of it. Where do you go? Who do you talk to, especially when you have no previous connections to the types of people who would have access to illegal weapons? How do you gain their trust, assuming you find them, prove to them that you're not associated with the police?

Not as easy as you make it sound, now is it?"---The Nazz

I would just go to someone that buys illegal firearms themselves. I'd start by asking drug dealers and work my way from there.

Actually, it is as easy as it sounds. I don't believe than any intelligent person could fail where so many idiots easily succeed.
Here's where you fail. You assume that a 15 year old dropout is an idiot. He isn't--he has a different skill set, and a different sort of intelligence which allows him to succeed inside that world, and it's a world you would have serious trouble navigating.

"Here's where you fail. You assume that a 15 year old dropout is an idiot. He isn't--he has a different skill set, and a different sort of intelligence which allows him to succeed inside that world, and it's a world you would have serious trouble navigating."---The Nazz

Here is where YOU fail. Your post has nothing to do with what i have said or what is actually true. I do not assume that a 15 year old dropout is an idiot. There are very intelligent 15 year old dropouts, and very stupid college graduates. There is also a difference between intelligence and knowledge. But, you can have both a lack of knowledge and a lack of intelligence and still buy an illegal firearm. you can be both a 15 year old dropout and an idiot, and still buy an illegal firearm. Buying a gun isn't a 'skill set'. Any intelligent person should be able to replicate things such as this that are easily done by stupid, ignorant people. You then further your error by presuming to know anything about me.

"Here's where you fail. You assume that a 15 year old dropout is an idiot. He isn't--he has a different skill set, and a different sort of intelligence which allows him to succeed inside that world, and it's a world you would have serious trouble navigating."---The Nazz

Here is where YOU fail. Your post has nothing to do with what i have said or what is actually true. I do not assume that a 15 year old dropout is an idiot. There are very intelligent 15 year old dropouts, and very stupid college graduates. There is also a difference between intelligence and knowledge. But, you can have both a lack of knowledge and a lack of intelligence and still buy an illegal firearm. you can be both a 15 year old dropout and an idiot, and still buy an illegal firearm. Buying a gun isn't a 'skill set'. Any intelligent person should be able to replicate things such as this that are easily done by stupid, ignorant people. You then further your error by presuming to know anything about me.
I used your words, and your own words condemned you. You wrote "I don't believe than any intelligent person could fail where so many idiots easily succeed," and previously you'd said "so you're saying that something that isn't able to stop a 15 year old dropout would 'definately' have been able to stop a reasonably intelligent college student?" You called 15 year old dropouts idiots--do you deny this?

Being able to purchase a gun illegally is a skill set, despite your claims to the contrary. I noticed that you didn't answer my original question beyond "I would just go to someone that buys illegal firearms themselves," and then some nonsensical statement about starting with drug dealers. If you're not familiar with the people in those areas, if you don't have connections with those people, then it's going to be a little difficult to make your way into that world. That 15 year old dropout you called an idiot--and you did call him that--lives in that world and knows those people, and would be in a far better position to compete that task than you would be.

now i'm going to call YOU an idiot. you intentionally take different things i have said and attempt to add them together to make up things that YOU want me to have said. Sorry bucko, it doesn't work that way.

And buying illegal guns is not a skill set. Buying illegal drugs is not a skill set, buying the services of an illegal prostitute is not a skill set.... why the heck do you think illegal firearms are so much different?

now i'm going to call YOU an idiot. you intentionally take different things i have said and attempt to add them together to make up things that YOU want me to have said. Sorry bucko, it doesn't work that way.

And buying illegal guns is not a skill set. Buying illegal drugs is not a skill set, buying the services of an illegal prostitute is not a skill set.... why the heck do you think illegal firearms are so much different?

Call me whatever you want (within the allowable ranges for this forum)--anyone with a brain can look at what you wrote and judge for themselves. I quoted you accurately. That you don't like the fact that you come off looking more than a little dumb in the process is hardly my problem. Maybe if you think your posts through before you hit the reply button, you'll avoid that in the future.

i don't have a problem with you quoting me. I have a problem when you then go on to say that i said something which i never said. That is a lie, and if the best argument you can come up with is to lie about what another person said, then it is pretty obvious that no evidence backs your claims.

i don't have a problem with you quoting me. I have a problem when you then go on to say that i said something which i never said. That is a lie, and if the best argument you can come up with is to lie about what another person said, then it is pretty obvious that no evidence backs your claims.

Again, anyone can look at our exchanges and decide for themselves if I took you out of context. I don't have some sort of magical power to control other peoples' judgments or anything beyond my powers of persuasion and the use of your own words against you. I just think you didn't consider the full implications of what you were arguing and it bit you in the ass. Instead of accusing me of something I didn't do, maybe you could restate your argument or modify it as a result of our exchange. That's a more productive use of your time.

According to one poster in this thread, firearms manufacturers should be held liable for making guns that can be "easily converted into machine guns."

A good measure of whether or not this is true would be the number of guns used in crime in the last, say, 20 years, that were illegally converted from semi-automatic to fully-automatic fire.

It is relatively simple to foul a gun up so that it will empty its magazine when the hammer drops, but difficult to alter a gun so that it will fire automatically when the trigger is pulled and stop when the trigger is released.

The first case makes a much less effective weapon than an unmodified semi-auto gun.

Superficial appearance aside, e.g "that looks like an AK 47, you can make it shoot full auto by filing down the firing pin," the guns you see in gun shops and at wal-mart are not DIY machine guns.

I apologize if this has already been mentioned, but there was a great deal of discussion about Cho's mental health in the days following the shooting. Mentally ill persons are not able to purchase weapons, according to current law. As it turns out, Virginia requires one to be admitted to an institution before the 'mentally ill' flag in the background check database is triggered. Since Cho didn't get committed to a hospital, but only made office visits to a therapist, that condition was never met, the flag was never set...

One of the things that would worry me about the strengthed background checks is that it may make people shy away from normal kinds of counseling. I shouldn't be too easy to trigger that mental health flag, either.

As usual, hindsight is the best, but hopefully it won't lead to any new silliness.

I apologize if this has already been mentioned, but there was a great deal of discussion about Cho's mental health in the days following the shooting. Mentally ill persons are not able to purchase weapons, according to current law. As it turns out, Virginia requires one to be admitted to an institution before the 'mentally ill' flag in the background check database is triggered. Since Cho didn't get committed to a hospital, but only made office visits to a therapist, that condition was never met, the flag was never set...

One of the things that would worry me about the strengthed background checks is that it may make people shy away from normal kinds of counseling. I shouldn't be too easy to trigger that mental health flag, either.

As usual, hindsight is the best, but hopefully it won't lead to any new silliness.

I mentioned it the other thread, but according to the NY Times article I linked to there, the ATF said that he shouldn't have been able to buy legally according to federal law, and that the problem was with the reporting between the feds and the states.

I mentioned it the other thread, but according to the NY Times article I linked to there, the ATF said that he shouldn't have been able to buy legally according to federal law, and that the problem was with the reporting between the feds and the states.
That problem has existed for decades with driver's licenses. Haven't we been able to solve the problem of a suspended D/L not being re-issued in another state?

I don't understand your definition of "insane", then. To me, if someone goes out and shoots another person, they're not sane. People can't kill people with guns without being insane, in my eyes.

Sane is knowing what you are doing is wrong and doing it anyway. Especially if you try to get away with it.

Insane is thinking that it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, or being unable to consider the consequences of your actions; Like when I tackle my 6' 4" 220lb friend, 'Ape'. :)

Sane is knowing what you are doing is wrong and doing it anyway. Especially if you try to get away with it.

Insane is thinking that it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, or being unable to consider the consequences of your actions; Like when I tackle my 6' 4" 220lb friend, 'Ape'. :)

A lot of the gun nuts think it's "perfectly reasonable" to shoot someone who's running away after breaking and entering. That is not sane.

A lot of the gun nuts think it's "perfectly reasonable" to shoot someone who's running away after breaking and entering. That is not sane.

Strawman.

I don't. It's only legal to shoot people who pose an imminent threat to life.

You don't strike me as someone who has ever been to a CCW class before, because they definitely teach you that you can't shoot people who are running away.

Making the background check information more accurate can only be a good thing.

Why would blocking mentally ill people from owning guns even be an issue? That is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard. Americans aren't safe because there are guns everywhere, and more guns do not equal a safter society. This is easily proven because America has the most guns and is no where even close in safety levels of other countries who have strict gun laws. America is the most corrupt country on earth, as lobby groups like the NRA have so much political power that they can keep something like guns and devises designed to kill and have no other purpose in the hands of Americans because of the Constitution which has no relevance today anyways. I hope someone goes to an NRA meeting and wastes them all so maybe they can see what it's like

I've also learned that large Christian groups have a lot of political power and lots of friends in high places.

Just the thought of the NRA and Dems working together is nothing short of a miracle I'd have thought....

Its a start. I think its misguided in a sense that chances are that there is existing legislation that will achieve their objective without having to bring in a huge ream of new laws. Rather a tightening or linking of laws to process.

Of course in the issue with the recent shooting is that the protagonist had undergone treatment yet he was not flagged. Then the second and final warning signs were reported that he was possibly unstable nothing happened.

The problem seems that these people fly under the mental health radar and then pop up and commit a horrific crime.

However this will also drive the firearms black market even further. Not from these people who are insane but rather those who just can't be arsed to get a firearm legally. The numbers won't be huge who do that but given the population size it could be significant.

Still...its hopefully a right step.

Just the thought of the NRA and Dems working together is nothing short of a miracle I'd have thought....

Its a start. I think its misguided in a sense that chances are that there is existing legislation that will achieve their objective without having to bring in a huge ream of new laws. Rather a tightening or linking of laws to process.

Of course in the issue with the recent shooting is that the protagonist had undergone treatment yet he was not flagged. Then the second and final warning signs were reported that he was possibly unstable nothing happened.

The problem seems that these people fly under the mental health radar and then pop up and commit a horrific crime.

However this will also drive the firearms black market even further. Not from these people who are insane but rather those who just can't be arsed to get a firearm legally. The numbers won't be huge who do that but given the population size it could be significant.

Still...its hopefully a right step.

In 1994, the Democrats learned what it was like NOT to work with the NRA.

Yes, they would like to pass some gun control, but not with the NRA in opposition.

Just the thought of the NRA and Dems working together is nothing short of a miracle I'd have thought....
Except that there are large numbers of Democrats and Democratic politicians who are NRA members and have been for a long time. There's no question that there are Democratic congresspeople who are strong on gun control, but it's not a majority of the party anymore. They're generally the ones from the urban centers, which means they're doing what their constituents want. I think sometimes we forget just how rural most of the US really is.

Politics is rough. The NRA can't really say no at the moment can they?

Of course my more cynical side (the above was way too wishy washy) is that both groups will fall into internecine warfare and nothing will happen. It being politics and all.

The NRA has never opposed the instant computerized background check.

In 1994, the Democrats learned what it was like NOT to work with the NRA.

Yes, they would like to pass some gun control, but not with the NRA in opposition.

Politics is rough. The NRA can't really say no at the moment can they?

Of course my more cynical side (the above was way too wishy washy) is that both groups will fall into internecine warfare and nothing will happen. It being politics and all.

Except that there are large numbers of Democrats and Democratic politicians who are NRA members and have been for a long time. There's no question that there are Democratic congresspeople who are strong on gun control, but it's not a majority of the party anymore. They're generally the ones from the urban centers, which means they're doing what their constituents want. I think sometimes we forget just how rural most of the US really is.

I don't know how the NRA is organised but based on experience of non profits the base membership is usually taken for granted. Sure they get all the goodies but no say on policy.

It pretty mcuh would have, in fact it definately would have. The idea that you can easily get a gun even if they are banned has no backing, not everyone has links to the underground crime scene.

Yeah, but the people whose hands we want to keep guns out of tend to have those very links.

I would just go to someone that buys illegal firearms themselves. I'd start by asking drug dealers and work my way from there.

Actually, it is as easy as it sounds. I don't believe than any intelligent person could fail where so many idiots easily succeed.

First, learn to use the quote button. It prevents what you are accusing The Nazz of doing by putting a button that can send someone to the quoted post for context. It also streamlines quotes in discussion so we're not duplicating and reduplicating text unnecessarily.

Second, as a drug user I can tell you that finding someone who sells drugs is not like going to the store, and has been indicated in The Nazz's question, they're not a trusting bunch. You have to get their trust for them to even buy the drugs from them, much less have them let you know where they get their guns-if indeed they carry guns or know someone who does. I've known a pretty large number of drug dealers in my time and the only one that had a gun owned it legally.

Quit watching reruns of Hunter for your idea of how 'the underworld' works.

First, learn to use the quote button. It prevents what you are accusing The Nazz of doing by putting a button that can send someone to the quoted post for context. It also streamlines quotes in discussion so we're not duplicating and reduplicating text unnecessarily.

Second, as a drug user I can tell you that finding someone who sells drugs is not like going to the store, and has been indicated in The Nazz's question, they're not a trusting bunch. You have to get their trust for them to even buy the drugs from them, much less have them let you know where they get their guns-if indeed they carry guns or know someone who does. I've known a pretty large number of drug dealers in my time and the only one that had a gun owned it legally.

Quit watching reruns of Hunter for your idea of how 'the underworld' works.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people fall for the whole "you can just buy a gun illegally" argument, like you can just wander into a seedy part of town, ask anyone, and they'll point you in the direction of your local illegal arms dealer. I really think it comes from underestimating the intelligence of people who live in that world. They may not know Shakespeare from a salt shaker, but they're not stupid--they just have a different set of skills and information, and I'd be just as lost in their world as they'd be in mine.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people fall for the whole "you can just buy a gun illegally" argument, like you can just wander into a seedy part of town, ask anyone, and they'll point you in the direction of your local illegal arms dealer. I really think it comes from underestimating the intelligence of people who live in that world. They may not know Shakespeare from a salt shaker, but they're not stupid--they just have a different set of skills and information, and I'd be just as lost in their world as they'd be in mine.

Well, we've been teaching them with television that all they have to do is go find Huggy Bear or some other good natured snitch that is for some reason still alive or more more confusing inexplicably still in the loop despite being some sort of Underworld Internet for whoever asks them and they can get whatever they need.

Because we don't teach children in schools how to read media so some people don't understand the difference between actual representation and narrative expediency...

Well, we've been teaching them with television that all they have to do is go find Huggy Bear or some other good natured snitch that is for some reason still alive or more more confusing inexplicably still in the loop despite being some sort of Underworld Internet for whoever asks them and they can get whatever they need.

Because we don't teach children in schools how to read media so some people don't understand the difference between actual representation and narrative expediency...

Well, to be fair, the media doesn't actually give them much to read...

Well, to be fair, the media doesn't actually give them much to read...

That's the trap-there is plenty there to read (I'm talking about media in the broad term, not just news sources), but it's easy to be lulled into just letting it 'happen' to you, making you ignore the man behind the curtain, instead of engaging it critically which empowers its ability to normalize ideas.

I just want to point out that being mentally ill is VERY different from being mentally retarded.

someone who is mentally retarded didn't develop the mental skills at age appropriate times, or at all.

people who are mentally ill (the majority of the time) are fully developed when it comes to mental skills. They have a chemical imbalance in the chemistry of their brain which prevents them from functioning in the expected or desired way.

I don't think that either group should have easy access to guns, I don't know the laws regarding children and teens hunting, but if a mentally retarded person is functioning at a level where it is legal for a person to hunt, or whatever with close adult supervision, then I see no reason that a person who is mentally retarded shouldn't be able to also participate with an adult.

Anyway...I just wanted to point that out.

That's the trap-there is plenty there to read (I'm talking about media in the broad term, not just news sources), but it's easy to be lulled into just letting it 'happen' to you, making you ignore the man behind the curtain, instead of engaging it critically which empowers its ability to normalize ideas.

Unfortunately, the presence of information doesn't automatically mean that others will partake in it. Often it's easier to watch 'Hunter', form a rigid opinion of the world and then move on to more important things. Like American Idol. :)