New shooting. Can anyone defend owning assault weapons?

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

maybe your bank was slow. The longest delay in my wife buying our house was her picking out the right one. The rest was just a matter of signing papers. If all it took was a criminal background check, it would have taken a few minutes at most.

What kind of background check do you want for a gun purchase other than making sure they don't have a criminal record?

I'm really not sure what your point is, and why you're comparing buying a gun to buying a house.

You understand my point perfectly fine. If the bank deems you're a risky asset to them for whatever reason, they have the right to cancel your mortgage application at any point during the process, most of which happens during underwriting. Up to that point, they do a lot of things. They check your credentials, your employment history, credit history, you want me to list all?

Why does it sound unreasonable to you, that if somebody is found to be a risky asset to the society, they should be denied access to guns?

Originally Posted by JonJon

I absolutely am having trouble understanding your posts.

I know, you didn't have to answer that.

And why on earth do you think a criminal background check should take so long to complete?

They're using a computer to check online records.

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

And why on earth do you think a criminal background check should take so long to complete?

They're using a computer to check online records.

Wow, they are using a computer to check online records! How cool.

What about off-line records?

You said you wanted to ensure criminals aren't buying guns from FFLs. What other checks do you want done other than a criminal background check?

Originally Posted by SeanC

Wow, they are using a computer to check online records! How cool.

What about off-line records?

how about mid-line records? How about Puff Daddy Records?

We could go about this all day, Hass. Don't test me.

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

1. That's not a clause in any insurance policy I've ever seen. And I'm asking about the damage that the car thief causes. Why should I be held liable if someone steals my car and causes damage? You may as well just hold me liable for any speeding tickets the thief gets in my car as well.

Agreed. With the exception of some very specialized policies, I can't recall a single policy that has a clause or exclusion for pre-loss contributory negligence. And those policies don't sell well because there are numerous options in the market that don't include such terms.

Given that auto policies are admitted products and subject to review from the DOI, I have a hard time believing these policies exist.

Originally Posted by SeanC

Wow, they are using a computer to check online records! How cool.

What about off-line records?

What about them? Do we need to send someone to every county and city in the US to ensure that there are no "offline records" out there?

Maybe instead of wasting money sending people to check the backwards courts, those courts should be mandated to bring themselves up to the 1990's.

Originally Posted by sea6speed

This is really the only 'control' or reform I'm interested in seeing. I don't think it will have an immediate effect but over time it would reduce the availability of firearms to people that shouldn't have them. It may have helped prevent the CT tragedy. I say this because mom wouldn't have been legally allowed to keep her guns unlocked - and any attempt by the son to get unauthorized access would have been more obvious and maybe clued her in that he was planning something.

I'm puzzled as to why groups that say they support responsible ownership don't push for this. My guess is the financial backers realize every stolen gun represents the potential to sell a new one. With 500,000 guns stolen annually in the US that is no small source of new gun sales.

So how would this have been a deterrent then? Considering the mother was murdered by the same son who shot up the school.

See, nothing is ever perfect and concrete. Punish the owner? Well, they are dead. Next of kin? Dead too. So the answer is take it out on the general public?

No. No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

You said you wanted to ensure criminals aren't buying guns from FFLs. What other checks do you want done other than a criminal background check?

Non-criminal background check. There should/must be a way to obtain some kind of information on somebody's adaptability to society without violating their privacy. Even when it did violate their privacy (patriot act), most right wing nuts didn't seem to care, because it made them feel safer.

Originally Posted by B_Cyrus

how about mid-line records? How about Puff Daddy Records?

We could go about this all day, Hass. Don't test me.

k

Originally Posted by SeanC

Non-criminal background check. There should/must be a way to obtain some kind of information on somebody's adaptability to society without violating their privacy. Even when it did violate their privacy most right wing nuts didn't seem to care, because it made them feel safer.

And now you're getting into a subjective psych interview. Which, if you've never been through that or a polygraph, is most definitely an invasion of privacy.

Reality is, remove all guns or leave all guns alone.

Originally Posted by kaput

So how would this have been a deterrent then? Considering the mother was murdered by the same son who shot up the school.

See, nothing is ever perfect and concrete. Punish the owner? Well, they are dead. Next of kin? Dead too. So the answer is take it out on the general public?

No. No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Think just a little further outside the box on occasion. What I'm saying is if mom was in the habit of controlling access to her guns, she'd have been more likely to notice her son trying to gain unauthorized access.

It would be great if gun owners would take it on themselves to be stewards and protectors of their guns, but for whatever reason they choose not to. Gun thefts outnumber car stereo thefts! Which is pretty amazing considering most people have several car stereos, and leave them out in their cars unprotected at night.

We're at the point where too many people have access to guns they do not legally own. While I wish we didn't need to legislate it, owners are in denial and refuse to take responsibility.

Originally Posted by SeanC

Wow, they are using a computer to check online records! How cool.

What about off-line records?

lol you're actually a crazy person. Maybe we could require interviews where bureaucrats can decide who is worthy of gun ownership? Maybe DNA testing? Crossfit WODs?

Oh maybe we should measure their dicks to make sure they aren't too small, thereby negating the need for them to overcompensate!

You're really smart.

Originally Posted by Act of God

lol you're actually a crazy person. Maybe we could require interviews where bureaucrats can decide who is worthy of gun ownership? Maybe DNA testing? Crossfit WODs?

Oh maybe we should measure their dicks to make sure they aren't too small, thereby negating the need for them to overcompensate!

You're really smart.

You're smarter than me. Dat dick argument... What more can I say? Touche!

Originally Posted by 'busa

Do you want your neighbor to shoot on his property?

Not everyone lives in a city or the burbs.

Originally Posted by SeanC

Wow, they are using a computer to check online records! How cool.

What about off-line records?

What the heck are you even talking about? They're not checking online records as in, things you've posted on your Facebook.
They're doing a federal background check.
There's really not much else you can do to gauge a complete strangers ability to mentally and legally handle a gun.

Originally Posted by Back2Basics

Only thing I want to add to this "discussion" - you guys who are talking about having guns to protect yourself from the government, you're assuming we (the military) would follow orders to go to war with American civilians.

I wouldn't, nor would any other soldiers I know. We're Americans too, as are our families. Same team, so relax with the civil war scenarios. Police may be another story, but the line between military and LE is pretty thin anyway.

For the record, I'm pro gun ownership.

Thanks for your service.

Don't underestimate the ability of what starts as a somewhat reasonable situation to get out of hand. Or underestimate how ugly a situation would have to be already before military units were deployed. Or how complex (your unit is deployed in order to protect one group of Americans from another group of Americans and it escalates rapidly) it could be and how crappy intel and incompetent leadership could get things fubared in a hurry.

And even though it was a long time ago, this country has fought a Civil War already. How many years before the secessation of the South would we have to go to find the professional soldiers of the US military making the same statement you're making, that they'd never make war of fellow Americans?

Originally Posted by Stickbuilder

The mass killing record for this Nation did not make use of any firearm. It happened in 1927, and the killer blew up the entire classroom. How do you propose to stop that? The fact that 20 children were murdered is a horrible thing. The fact that thousands are aborted every year is not newsworthy. Something wrong with that one too. Murder is murder. You can paint it with a different color if you wish, but their little lives are taken nonetheless.

If you want to have an abortion discussion, do it somewhere else. This is not the thread for it.

Originally Posted by sea6speed

This is really the only 'control' or reform I'm interested in seeing. I don't think it will have an immediate effect but over time it would reduce the availability of firearms to people that shouldn't have them. It may have helped prevent the CT tragedy. I say this because mom wouldn't have been legally allowed to keep her guns unlocked - and any attempt by the son to get unauthorized access would have been more obvious and maybe clued her in that he was planning something.

I'm puzzled as to why groups that say they support responsible ownership don't push for this. My guess is the financial backers realize every stolen gun represents the potential to sell a new one. With 500,000 guns stolen annually in the US that is no small source of new gun sales.

Honestly, its still not a solution. IIRC, mom took wacko son to the range, right? The practical implications of her keeping the guns secure from someone that lives with her and she's showing how to shoot with her guns just turns into a mess.

I get what you're trying to accomplish, I just don't see this preventing a Sandy Hook.

Originally Posted by Xcelratr

If you want to have an abortion discussion, do it somewhere else. This is not the thread for it.



.

Says who? We are discussing the murder of children, so it's fair game. Just because it makes you uncomfortable calling abortion murder does not make it less that murder.