First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Post Reply Gun Rights
2345 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/19/15

sundin13 wrote:

Typically a background check and a waiting period are used to weed out those who are unfit to own a gun due to either criminal or mental health issues or wish to have a gun for heat of the moment crimes. Unfortunately the systems in place right now have to rely on our fairly terrible mental health system in the US which is quite a large drawback. Strengthening these systems will go a long way to making it easier to identify individuals who are unfit to own a firearm.


Sure thats the legal way of going but guns are sold out on the streets and whatnot all the time illegally, therefore no background check or waiting period.

The specific disqualifications related to mental health are quite narrow. Under federal law, an individual is prohibited from buying or possessing firearms if they have been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution.” A person is “adjudicated as a mental defective” if a court — or other entity having legal authority to make adjudications — has made a determination that an individual, as a result of mental illness: 1) Is a danger to himself or to others; 2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs; 3) Is found insane by a court in a criminal case, or incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. A person is “committed to a mental institution” if that person has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution by a court or other lawful authority. This expressly excludes voluntary commitment. If a person falls under one of these two categories, they are prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms for life — although federal law now allows states to establish procedures for such individuals to restore their right to purchase or possess firearms. Many states have done so at the behest of the National Rifle Association, with questionable results.

There is no guarantee, however, that a formal record of adjudication or involuntary commitment will find its way into the NICS database. Often disqualifying mental health records go unreported by the states. In Colorado, for example, only about 1% of people who have disqualifying mental health histories have been reported to NICS.
28635 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Seattle, WA, USA
Offline
Posted 9/19/15 , edited 9/20/15

K3n21 wrote:
ill never understand why some Americans are so passionate about surrounding themselves with tools for killing...


Thank you.
23684 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Fort Bragg, NC
Offline
Posted 9/19/15

VZ68 wrote:




yeah I want one in 9x19


9x18 t00 weak
is it legal yet?
last i checked, it was one of dem counter-hezbollalqaeda weaponz not available to dem normal folk
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 9/19/15 , edited 6/18/16

Gyava wrote:


VZ68 wrote:




yeah I want one in 9x19


9x18 t00 weak
is it legal yet?
last i checked, it was one of dem counter-hezbollalqaeda weaponz not available to dem normal folk


Serbs could make one, or the Poles, hell, someone made some 9mm AK pistols in the US but the cost was retarded.

Naw, I have more 9x19 than 9x18, and 9mm is easier to find.
13141 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 9/19/15

Haruna-kai wrote:

Sure thats the legal way of going but guns are sold out on the streets and whatnot all the time illegally, therefore no background check or waiting period.

The specific disqualifications related to mental health are quite narrow. Under federal law, an individual is prohibited from buying or possessing firearms if they have been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution.” A person is “adjudicated as a mental defective” if a court — or other entity having legal authority to make adjudications — has made a determination that an individual, as a result of mental illness: 1) Is a danger to himself or to others; 2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs; 3) Is found insane by a court in a criminal case, or incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. A person is “committed to a mental institution” if that person has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution by a court or other lawful authority. This expressly excludes voluntary commitment. If a person falls under one of these two categories, they are prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms for life — although federal law now allows states to establish procedures for such individuals to restore their right to purchase or possess firearms. Many states have done so at the behest of the National Rifle Association, with questionable results.

There is no guarantee, however, that a formal record of adjudication or involuntary commitment will find its way into the NICS database. Often disqualifying mental health records go unreported by the states. In Colorado, for example, only about 1% of people who have disqualifying mental health histories have been reported to NICS.


The fact that there will be people who break the law does not mean that laws should not exist. Illegal gun ownership should be fought, however, the first step is to actually implement controls which prevent them from legally purchasing guns. If it is legal for a felon to own a gun, you cannot do anything if you catch a felon who is carrying a gun.

Further, there seems to be some evidence that shrinking legal channels that provide guns for illegal activity reduces the total amount of guns circulating in the underground. This evidence isn't perfect, but it seems logical to assume that making it more difficult for someone to get a gun would make them less likely to get a gun.

Otherwise I agree with you. The background checks we currently use for firearms aren't particularly strong which sort of undermines the whole purpose of using background checks.
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 9/19/15 , edited 6/18/16

K3n21 wrote:

There needs to be restrictions. Not everyone should be able to buy and own guns.

I can understand wanting to own handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles...But why do you need assault rifles, machine guns, sniper rifles etc?

ill never understand why some Americans are so passionate about surrounding themselves with tools for killing...





What's a sniper rifle, assault rifle and machine gun and how are they different that hunting rifles?



And where does this fit?
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 9/19/15 , edited 6/18/16

sundin13 wrote:


Haruna-kai wrote:

Sure thats the legal way of going but guns are sold out on the streets and whatnot all the time illegally, therefore no background check or waiting period.

The specific disqualifications related to mental health are quite narrow. Under federal law, an individual is prohibited from buying or possessing firearms if they have been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution.” A person is “adjudicated as a mental defective” if a court — or other entity having legal authority to make adjudications — has made a determination that an individual, as a result of mental illness: 1) Is a danger to himself or to others; 2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs; 3) Is found insane by a court in a criminal case, or incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. A person is “committed to a mental institution” if that person has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution by a court or other lawful authority. This expressly excludes voluntary commitment. If a person falls under one of these two categories, they are prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms for life — although federal law now allows states to establish procedures for such individuals to restore their right to purchase or possess firearms. Many states have done so at the behest of the National Rifle Association, with questionable results.

There is no guarantee, however, that a formal record of adjudication or involuntary commitment will find its way into the NICS database. Often disqualifying mental health records go unreported by the states. In Colorado, for example, only about 1% of people who have disqualifying mental health histories have been reported to NICS.


The fact that there will be people who break the law does not mean that laws should not exist. Illegal gun ownership should be fought, however, the first step is to actually implement controls which prevent them from legally purchasing guns. If it is legal for a felon to own a gun, you cannot do anything if you catch a felon who is carrying a gun.

Further, there seems to be some evidence that shrinking legal channels that provide guns for illegal activity reduces the total amount of guns circulating in the underground. This evidence isn't perfect, but it seems logical to assume that making it more difficult for someone to get a gun would make them less likely to get a gun.

Otherwise I agree with you. The background checks we currently use for firearms aren't particularly strong which sort of undermines the whole purpose of using background checks.


Name the last time you filled out a 4473 and had a background ran on you
13141 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 9/19/15

VZ68 wrote:

Name the last time you filled out a 4473 and had a background ran on you


I'm sorry, but what point are you trying to make?
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 9/19/15 , edited 6/18/16

sundin13 wrote:


VZ68 wrote:

Name the last time you filled out a 4473 and had a background ran on you


I'm sorry, but what point are you trying to make?


When was the last time you filled out a 4473 and had a background ran on you.

Week, month, year, 5 years ago?
13141 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 9/19/15

VZ68 wrote:


sundin13 wrote:


VZ68 wrote:

Name the last time you filled out a 4473 and had a background ran on you


I'm sorry, but what point are you trying to make?


When was the last time you filled out a 4473 and had a background ran on you.

Week, month, year, 5 years ago?


I've never filled out a 4473 but I had a background check about three weeks ago.

Again, what is your point?
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 9/19/15 , edited 6/18/16

sundin13 wrote:



I've never filled out a 4473 but I had a background check about three weeks ago.

Again, what is your point?


All I needed to know. Thanks.
Posted 9/19/15


To each his own.
25344 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Various
Offline
Posted 9/20/15 , edited 9/20/15
I own guns, and actually use them rather regularly, but I still believe we need more stringent gun control laws. The arguments to lessen gun control laws, because more guns = less crime doesn't make any logical sense. It's very easy to buy guns as it is, and there are many people who own guns already, and yet violent crimes being prevented by a "law abiding citizen wielding a gun" is still extremely rare. Most people aren't going to buy a gun even if there was almost no restrictions, because they don't want one, or they can't afford one. It's easy enough to buy a gun now, making it even easier won't all of sudden inspire responsible citizens to go out and buy more guns. It'll just make it easier for those who shouldn't have one to get one.

Gun manufacturers, and those involved in the gun business, would like to see these restrictions lowered, because it allows them to make and sell "cooler" guns to more people - and the lethality of a gun is "coolest" factor in a gun by far, and actually determines the gun's "quality". Gun restrictions hurt the gun business because it seeks to lower the customer pool (less people are able to buy guns), and lower their product quality (reduces the lethality).

I honestly think besides the background checks, guns should only be sold to those who have a hunting license, or a concealed carry license. There should be a waiting period, proof of firearms safety and usage training, and if feasible, a mental health examination or some sort of proof the buyer is of sound mind. None of these restrictions will prevent anyone who qualifies from buying a gun, but will definitely weed out those who buy guns for nefarious purposes, or simply to own one, only to forget about them so it can get stolen or lost, and end up on the streets. Where do you think all those "illegal" guns on the street came from?

I'm aware that guns are simply tools, and that it's people who misuse guns that are at fault. I also realize that almost any object could be used to commit violent crimes, but unlike kitchen knives, power tools or lead pipes, guns have a very specific purpose. I doubt you'll see many guns being used to cook, build chairs or pipe water through.

I have a concealed carry, and I visit the range often. I've seen too many people with guns at the range who have no business handling a gun. They treat guns like toys, and not like the deadly weapons they are. If we were ever in an active shooter situation and I saw one of those people pull out a gun, I'd be more worried than relieved. And to think, those people are the ones that even to come to a range, how many more are out there that don't even bother to increase their proficiency on something that is designed to take a life?
5404 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Sitting on a pale...
Offline
Posted 9/20/15
Some people with guns kill people. Some people with cars kill people. Some people wont immunise their kids because? Jenny McCarthy and kill people. Usually infants and kids.

There's horrors around every corner.
19576 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / missouri
Offline
Posted 9/20/15
Guns are valuable resources they are not simply killing machines.
They just allow humans to throw rocks really fast. So in my opinion throwing a rock, a bullet, and a rocket are all the same thing. The crime is the intent to kill. simply throwing a rock at a target is not a crime and shouldn't be prevented. Same goes for a bullet. Those who lack the ability to know not to throw rocks at other people or themselves shouldn't have guns.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.