Welcome, Guest. Please Login
SLINGING.ORG
 
Home Help Search Login


Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
Shooting (Read 1490 times)
Morphy
Interfector Viris Spurii
*****
Offline


Checkmate

Posts: 4854
Re: Shooting
Reply #15 - Sep 3rd, 2019 at 9:59pm
 
NooneOfConsequence wrote on Sep 3rd, 2019 at 8:19pm:
@Morphy: it took me a second to realize that you were agreeing with me Smiley


Oh I agree completely. But if I didn't word vomit all over the screen and still leave you wondering it wouldn't be like me now would it?  Cheesy
Back to top
 

"The problem with democracy is no matter who you vote for the government still gets in."
 
IP Logged
 
Rat Man
Slinging.org Moderator
*****
Offline


Slinging Rocks!

Posts: 11557
New Jersey, USA
Gender: male
Re: Shooting
Reply #16 - Sep 4th, 2019 at 3:05pm
 
† † Gun control means† different things to different people.† There's a phobia on the far Right that Big Brother is going to come to their house and take their guns away.† And there are some factions on the far Left that would like to see that occur. I don't see that happening in the near future.†
† † To me as a middle of the roader and a lifelong gun owner gun control means making it illegal for the mentally ill and convicted criminals to purchase or own firearms.† As I said, there is no perfect solution. Some criminals and nuts will still be able to get guns.† And there are many ways to kill many people without guns.† But right now under the current law in many (most?) states any nut bag can just walk in† and legally buy an AR 15. There is no logical argument that can make sense of this. It's just plain wrong.† Whatever the solution, we can't be having a mass shooting every other week.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perpetualstudent
Interfector Viris Spurii
*****
Offline


Slinging Rocks!

Posts: 1159
Gender: male
Re: Shooting
Reply #17 - Sep 4th, 2019 at 7:03pm
 
If you've ever been involuntarily committed (ie a medical professional has said you're a danger to yourself or others), you are already banned from owning a firearm in all 50 states.

[edit: forgot to include]
If you've ever been convicted of any felony doesn't matter if it was violent or nonviolent (including plea bargains where you plead guilty to something that could have been a year in prison but served only probation) you are likewise prohibited from owning any firearm.
Back to top
 

"Facts stand wholly outside our gates; they are what they are, and no more;they know nothing about themselves and they pass no judgement upon themselves. What is it, then, that pronounces the judgement? Our own guide and ruler, Reason."
 
IP Logged
 
AlexZaamii
Tiro
**
Offline


Slinging Rocks!

Posts: 43
Canada
Gender: male
Re: Shooting
Reply #18 - Sep 9th, 2019 at 12:42pm
 
perpetualstudent wrote on Sep 3rd, 2019 at 7:36pm:
@Judo
Depends what you see a political break-up or civil war as constituting. You're quite right that a shotgun vs a tank isn't a contest. But the US hasn't done so well very recently in Afghanistan. Iraq it was more explosives but Afghanistan rifles were a very large factor. And civil wars imply that there is not a monopoly on the armed forces and in such a situation I would certainly prefer to have a firearm to not having one. We've been preaching the "end of the rifleman" for a long time, hasn't happened yet.


On top of that, proper militaries can be defeated or slowed down by a lot of people armed with simple firearms. Off the top of my head, the resistance in Yugoslavia in WW2 managed to take back the entire country by the end of the war and in Poland there was a failed uprising in Warsaw in 1944, but it took a while for it to be defeated. When Japan invaded China the Chinese most of the time didn't have much more than rifles. Like you pointed out, as many tanks and airplanes you have, you still need boots on the ground.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Rat Man
Slinging.org Moderator
*****
Offline


Slinging Rocks!

Posts: 11557
New Jersey, USA
Gender: male
Re: Shooting
Reply #19 - Sep 12th, 2019 at 4:28pm
 
perpetualstudent wrote on Sep 4th, 2019 at 7:03pm:
If you've ever been involuntarily committed (ie a medical professional has said you're a danger to yourself or others), you are already banned from owning a firearm in all 50 states.

[edit: forgot to include]
If you've ever been convicted of any felony doesn't matter if it was violent or nonviolent (including plea bargains where you plead guilty to something that could have been a year in prison but served only probation) you are likewise prohibited from owning any firearm.


Known as the "gun show loophole," most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals -- federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks. ... Some states' requirements are limited only to handgun purchases.

https://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-c...

† †
Back to top
 

background.JPG (38 KB | 4 )
background.JPG
 
IP Logged
 
perpetualstudent
Interfector Viris Spurii
*****
Offline


Slinging Rocks!

Posts: 1159
Gender: male
Re: Shooting
Reply #20 - Sep 15th, 2019 at 10:34pm
 
While private sellers do not have the capability to run background checks, if you as a private seller sell it to a prohibited possessor that is itself a felony. It's a risky thing and most gun owners don't.

This is actually a place where I'd be willing to meet in the middle. Background checks mandatory but no charge for running them. Turn it into a sin tax (I'm looking at you CA) and we part ways.

I doubt it would have much effect. It's drummed up as a big deal, but the consequences for selling to a prohibited possessor are already high enough that there's not a whole heck of a lot of it.  But "gunshow loophole" has a lovely scary ring to it.
Back to top
 

"Facts stand wholly outside our gates; they are what they are, and no more;they know nothing about themselves and they pass no judgement upon themselves. What is it, then, that pronounces the judgement? Our own guide and ruler, Reason."
 
IP Logged
 
Rat Man
Slinging.org Moderator
*****
Offline


Slinging Rocks!

Posts: 11557
New Jersey, USA
Gender: male
Re: Shooting
Reply #21 - Sep 16th, 2019 at 12:17pm
 
perpetualstudent wrote on Sep 15th, 2019 at 10:34pm:
While private sellers do not have the capability to run background checks, if you as a private seller sell it to a prohibited possessor that is itself a felony. It's a risky thing and most gun owners don't.


So if the seller doesn't do background checks how is he supposed to know if he's selling to a prohibited possessor?  This discussion seems to be leaving the realm of logic.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Rat Man
Slinging.org Moderator
*****
Offline


Slinging Rocks!

Posts: 11557
New Jersey, USA
Gender: male
Re: Shooting
Reply #22 - Sep 16th, 2019 at 12:26pm
 
† † I started this as a thread about shooting mechanics.† Somehow it's morphed into a discussion on gun control, which is fine.† Many of our threads take off in their own direction.
† † As I've mentioned many times, I've had guns since I was a child.† In my state of New Jersey there have always been background checks, throughout my entire life. There is no gun show loophole here.† The purpose of this process is to make it illegal for criminals and mentally ill† people to purchase firearms.† It's not perfect but at least it's something.† There is no sensible argument† against such precautions. Period.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perpetualstudent
Interfector Viris Spurii
*****
Offline


Slinging Rocks!

Posts: 1159
Gender: male
Re: Shooting
Reply #23 - Sep 16th, 2019 at 7:51pm
 
law often leaves common sense logic behind. In any of its realms. Fact remains if you were to sell one of your firearms to somebody who was a prohibited possessor that's your crime.

As I mentioned, that is common ground provided it doesn't morph into what it has in CA. Where it effectively becomes 100 dollar sin tax to buy a firearm. If the goal is simply to make sure all sales are legal, then there is no problem for the Feds providing that background check free of charge.
Back to top
 

"Facts stand wholly outside our gates; they are what they are, and no more;they know nothing about themselves and they pass no judgement upon themselves. What is it, then, that pronounces the judgement? Our own guide and ruler, Reason."
 
IP Logged
 
Rat Man
Slinging.org Moderator
*****
Offline


Slinging Rocks!

Posts: 11557
New Jersey, USA
Gender: male
Re: Shooting
Reply #24 - Sep 17th, 2019 at 9:24pm
 
There was a charge for my background check here in Jersey.  I don't recall exactly what it was but it was reasonable.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
NooneOfConsequence
Funditor
****
Offline



Posts: 956
Texas
Re: Shooting
Reply #25 - Sep 18th, 2019 at 7:51pm
 
@RM, your argument is missing the point. The baseline should be whether a legal burden on all citizens is worth the cost to achieve the intended goal. If the goal is to reduce criminal violence, then background checks fail miserably at the objective. Thereís no evidence that mandatory background checks prevent crime. In fact, many of the high profile mass shootings recently were done with guns purchased legally and included background checks. Iím also not aware of any gun used in a mass shooting that was purchased from a gun show. The so-called loophole is a separate conversation, but it also doesnít seem to matter for crime statistics.
The fact that this requirement is only a small burden that is bearable or ďreasonableĒ is irrelevant if the background checks donít prevent the murders they were designed to prevent.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Rat Man
Slinging.org Moderator
*****
Offline


Slinging Rocks!

Posts: 11557
New Jersey, USA
Gender: male
Re: Shooting
Reply #26 - Sep 20th, 2019 at 4:55pm
 
† So the solution is???  If background checks are useless this  seems to leave us with only two options.  To continue to live with mass shootings as a regular part of our culture or to ban guns completely.  Neither is a desirable option.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
joe_meadmaker
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 370
PA, USA
Re: Shooting
Reply #27 - Sep 20th, 2019 at 6:18pm
 
NooneOfConsequence wrote on Sep 18th, 2019 at 7:51pm:
Iím also not aware of any gun used in a mass shooting that was purchased from a gun show. The so-called loophole is a separate conversation, but it also doesnít seem to matter for crime statistics.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/gun-loophole-allowed-west-texas-mass-shooting-suspect/...

I have zero problem with law abiding people owning guns, or selling them to other law abiding people.† But if someone who isn't allowed to legally purchase a firearm can easily get one illegally, I think that's a big problem.† I don't know how to fix that.† It's something to be figured out by someone much smarter than I am.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
NooneOfConsequence
Funditor
****
Offline



Posts: 956
Texas
Re: Shooting
Reply #28 - Sep 21st, 2019 at 2:47am
 
Rat Man wrote on Sep 20th, 2019 at 4:55pm:
† So the solution is???† If background checks are useless this† seems to leave us with only two options.† To continue to live with mass shootings as a regular part of our culture or to ban guns completely.† Neither is a desirable option.


I agree. Neither one is a reasonable option. My vote is to enforce the current laws, fix interoperability among databases so background checks can work better, improve mental health support systems, and as a last resort... allow trustworthy people to shoot back. The vast majority of mass shootings happen in places where carrying a gun is illegal. That just means that the only people who are armed are the criminals. The mass shooter will always have the element of surprise, but effective armed citizens can help minimize the damage. Strangely, most mass shooters flip a switch and give up as soon as they see some resistance. Itís not uncommon for the perp to either surrender or commit suicide when the police arrive, but by then the damage is done.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
NooneOfConsequence
Funditor
****
Offline



Posts: 956
Texas
Re: Shooting
Reply #29 - Sep 21st, 2019 at 8:24am
 
@Joe_m... ok you really want to go there? Letís go there.
That article doesnít say the gun was purchased at a gunshow, just that it was a private sale. Thatís not a ďloopholeĒ, by the way. There is a fundamental limit on the federal governmentís authority to regulate private transactions within a single state. We should think long and hard before we decide to remove the governmentís limits on intruding on private transactions.

The shooting is obviously a tragedy, but giving the government the power to ďdo somethingĒ that restricts the freedom of all law abiding citizens would be another tragedy that ultimately affects more than private gun sales and still would not prevent crazies from committing murder. Look at all of the incidents in Europe (and New York, California...) where a truck or car was used as a murder weapon. Should we require a background check before you hand your car keys off to your friend too?† Even that wonít stop crazy from being crazy unless we also regulate knives and clubs that could be used to steal a truck to run over a crowd...
I donít think the government can prevent this stuff, and if they canít stop it, I donít want to sacrifice my freedoms for the sake of some politicianís virtue signals and moral pronking.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
(Moderators: Chris, Curious Aardvark, David Morningstar, Rat Man, Masiakasaurus, Mauro Fiorentini, Bill Skinner) - (Moderator Group: Forum Moderator)