RE: Active shooting reported at Umpqua Community College
(10-07-2015 08:29 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote: What's the point of registration of firearms ?? Be honest ?
Establishing a chain of custody and enacting accountability.
Local/state laws are useless. Here in Illinois, people go to Indiana, purchase guns legally the sell the here illegally.(I provided a line earlier to a man caught doing this, he was one of the few that got caught)
If a plan such as I suggest were in place, the guy buying and selling illegally would be accountable for any harm a gun he bough and sold did. This would certainly put a big dent in this type of "trafficking" business.
The idea is to keep guns out of the hands that would use them criminally. If purchasers had to register each fire arm I think we would see much fewer guns available to be purchased illegally.
I understand that some see this idea as the first step to confiscation, certainly language could be included to make it easier to swallow.
Active shooting reported at Umpqua Community College
There are already laws against that activity sir.ore laws is not the answer. Enforcing current laws would be a better step in the right direction.
People " traffic" cigarettes up and down I-95 from the South to NYC and Chicago all day. So trafficking legal items illegally happens all the time.
As far as changing the "wording"of such proposed legislation just to make it easier to swallow , no thanks. The law abiding people that own firearms are not that stupid.
RE: Active shooting reported at Umpqua Community College
(10-07-2015 08:32 AM)EverRespect Wrote:
(10-07-2015 08:29 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote: What's the point of registration of firearms ?? Be honest ?
There is none. The mass shooters want you to know who they are and all of them aside from the Aurora guy were essentially committing suicide. They were outcast nobodies making a name for themselves. All of them. Gun registration wouldn't have stopped a single one.
I am not suggesting registering guns would stop that type of incident, I would think that a national search of mental health records might. It certainly would have in the NIU shooting as he purchased the guns used legally and and been treated for mental health issues. At that time a mental health check was not part of the Illinois law.
RE: Active shooting reported at Umpqua Community College
(10-07-2015 12:54 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote: There are already laws against that activity sir.ore laws is not the answer. Enforcing current laws would be a better step in the right direction.
People " traffic" cigarettes up and down I-95 from the South to NYC and Chicago all day. So trafficking legal items illegally happens all the time.
As far as changing the "wording"of such proposed legislation just to make it easier to swallow , no thanks. The law abiding people that own firearms are not that stupid.
Well you are not going to please everyone..the status quo does not work, current laws dont work something has to change, I presented my thoughts.
RE: Active shooting reported at Umpqua Community College
(10-07-2015 09:26 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote: Where's is Bobl and all others regarding my question regarding registration? Btw, there are already laws and penalties regarding Gun charges. It's just that these are the first charges dropped upon the request of all the public defenders.
I was working. Patience, I dont usually post and run.
RE: Active shooting reported at Umpqua Community College
Got to LMAO at leftist logic.
"People are breaking the current laws so let's stop them by creating even more laws. Surely they'll listen then."
Perhaps we maybe want to try enforcing the current laws before you put even more restrictions on the law abiding citizens who have absolutely nothing to do with any of this.
RE: Active shooting reported at Umpqua Community College
(10-07-2015 01:04 PM)Kaplony Wrote: Got to LMAO at leftist logic.
"People are breaking the current laws so let's stop them by creating even more laws. Surely they'll listen then."
Perhaps we maybe want to try enforcing the current laws before you put even more restrictions on the law abiding citizens who have absolutely nothing to do with any of this.
If they're already law-abiding why should they object to reasonable measures aimed at preventing further tragedy? Nobody expects it to stop all of them, but, again, if it prevents one, then isn't that a good thing?
RE: Active shooting reported at Umpqua Community College
(10-07-2015 01:21 PM)gsu95 Wrote:
(10-07-2015 01:04 PM)Kaplony Wrote: Got to LMAO at leftist logic.
"People are breaking the current laws so let's stop them by creating even more laws. Surely they'll listen then."
Perhaps we maybe want to try enforcing the current laws before you put even more restrictions on the law abiding citizens who have absolutely nothing to do with any of this.
If they're already law-abiding why should they object to reasonable measures aimed at preventing further tragedy? Nobody expects it to stop all of them, but, again, if it prevents one, then isn't that a good thing?
Maybe you have a different definition of reasonable than I do.
So if you get your way I'll need to pay for a background check to my neighbor, the SC Law Enforcement Division Agent, a gun if I so desire? Or if I want to sell one to my cousin's pastor husband? And just how much is the extra inconvenience going to cost me?
Now how many mass shootings would this have stopped by preventing someone from buying a gun?
Oregon? Too early to tell, but leaning towards nope.
Virginia media shooting? Nope.
Chattanooga? Nope.
Charleston? Nope.
Aurora? Nope.
Sandy Hook? Nope.
Virginia Tech? Nope.
Columbine? Nope.
Ft Hood (either time)? Nope.
Name the mass shooting it would have stopped.
Would it make a dent in the weekly killings in Chicago? Studies say nope.
Quote:A survey conducted by researchers from Duke University and the University of Chicago found that Chicago criminals obtained their firearms almost exclusively from friends and family.
The survey, funded by the Joyce Foundation and set to be published in the October edition of Preventive Medicine, consisted of interviews with 99 inmates at Chicago’s Cook County Jail who had illegally possessed a gun within six months of their incarceration. It found that most criminals only acquired guns from people they knew and trusted.
“It is rare for offenders to buy from licensed dealers, and also rare for them to steal their guns,” the study says. “Rather, the predominant sources of guns to offenders are family, acquaintances, fellow gang members—which is to say, members of their social network.”
The study found that due to fears of encountering undercover police officers attempting sting operations, a large majority of the criminals surveyed would only make illegal gun purchases from people they knew. “In discussing the underground gun market in their neighborhoods, most respondents emphasized the importance of connections—prior relationships that could create sufficient trust to reassure the seller that the transaction would not create an unacceptable legal risk,” the survey says. “A majority of the primary guns (40 of the 48 for which we have detailed information on the source) were obtained from family, fellow gang members, or other social connections; the fraction is still higher for secondary guns.”
So what you and the dude in the video propose would have little to no effect on mass shootings or shootings in general yet you and he think it's reasonable?
Again, we have different definitions of the word reasonable.
Well, you certainly don't, sir. Clearing/racking the slide with your hand/arm in front of the barrel?
What is the ratio of mass shooters who buy their guns with a background check vs. personal sales? I believe the vast majority are purchased with a background check. So, what's his point?