(03-28-2023 03:56 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 03:48 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 03:27 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 03:15 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 03:13 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  No one is forcing you to own a gun - you're choosing to. That is your right.

If you choose to do that, you need to be able to handle it responsibly when you're taking it out in public (and at home).

Thousands of dollars is laughable - you can get reputable safes for under $100.00 all day long. If you're spending that much on gun stuff, maybe you're just blowing your money....which again, is your right.

Which means I'll choose how I secure it.. Not some idjit in DC or a message board.

Apparently some "responsible" gun owners think throwing it in the glove box & locking their car door is enough security, which is flat out incorrect.

If we care one bit about stopping the ridiculous number of gun crimes and mass shootings, we're simply going to have to do more than what is currently being done.
Gun safes & the like are just a tiny piece of the puzzle.

I don't lock guns in car safes for safety. I periodically lock them in car safes in trunk to keep sh!theads from stealing my stuff when I go someplace that I am unable to carry.

I have safes at home that I use but primarily just for convenient storage. I also have firearms that are not in them right now as I type this. One bird gun I need to clean when I get around to it. One Ruger 10-22 for skunks that pop up this time of year. And two handguns in kydex that are on nightstands when not in a waistband. One is mine. One is my wife's.

No kids in house. Just wife and I. You really think legislation for keeping firearms locked up should apply to everyone? Safes make sense in many situations and definitely if there are kids in the home but legislating locking up firearms is going to turn a lot of law abiding citizens into potential criminals overnight.

I think it should for people who are choosing to take guns with them and leave them in cars, 100%. Again, this is a tiny measure I think could help against gun crimes in addition to many other ideas.

My personal feelings on guns in the home are just that - I agree with you if kids are in the house, you need a safe. I wouldn't go as far as to say it needs to be a legislated requirement in the house, though.

How many gun crimes are committed by guns stolen from cars? I really don't know the number.

I know a lot of gun owners and I don't know one that has ever lost a gun to a car break in. Not saying it doesn't happen just seems odd to focus on that.

I do know of one LEO that had a shotgun and tactical bag stolen out of the trunk of his marked car in his driveway.

I grew up with all sorts of guns in our house. Dad never once had them in a safe. Our folks set rules and disciplined us when we broke them. We knew not to touch any of my dad’s guns in his closet or else the belt hanging in there would be across our backside.

These people doing these mass shootings are not doing them with guns stolen out of cars. They're buying them legally.

Friggin morons.

(03-28-2023 03:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 03:45 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 03:21 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Her family said she was under treatment from a doctor for an emotional disorder.

Go figure.

Back on topic, what entails an emotional disorder? Anxiety? Depression? Bipolar disorder or schizophrenia?

Where do you draw the line of where a person shouldn't be able to purchase a gun if they have no prior record?

That rule already exists. If they have every been adjudicated as mentally ill, or any other appropriate terminology, they are prohibited legally from purchasing a firearm. The computer background check that is required however, is only as good as its data entry, and only as current as that data entry. There's the hole in the system.

What the law cannot protect against is an undiagnosed and never adjudicated individual who seeks to do the same. They'll get the gun, unless family or teachers or someone with direct knowledge and oversight of them request a ruling on their competency.

I understand that - but what constitutes the level at which a person would be considered "mentally ill?"

If someone is on anxiety or depression meds (which covers about 70% of the country I'd guess), and/or going to therapy, should they be blocked from purchasing a gun? Where does the line get drawn?

I’d say if you have voted for a Dem on any level in the past 12-15 years, you should be considered mentally ill.

(03-28-2023 04:01 PM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  I grew up with all sorts of guns in our house. Dad never once had them in a safe. Our folks set rules and disciplined us when we broke them. We knew not to touch any of my dad’s guns in his closet or else the belt hanging in there would be across our backside.

Bingo! Same in our home. Dad was a gunsmith by practice, a fighter pilot by profession, and on the pistol team.

I fired my first gun when I was five. It was an object lesson with my father attending me. He wanted my curiosity expelled from an interest in firearms by both the explosion and kick of the pistol, and then by showing me the damage and hole it made in a used oil can. He explained carefully how just as bad of a hole would be in me, my sister or anyone who fired a gun without knowing what it would do or how to use it. It instilled in me the proper respect due all weapons.

When old enough I was schooled in the operation of all of his firearms down to needed disassembly for proper cleaning and re-assembly, and in safe use in all cases.

The reason we have gun problems today is the same reason we have all problems today, lack of responsible instruction, oversight, and discipline.

(03-28-2023 04:06 PM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  I’d say if you have voted for a Dem on any level in the past 12-15 years, you should be considered mentally ill.

I voted for Leticia vandePutte against Dan Patrick for LtGov in 2014. That is the last time I voted for any democrat.

Except I registered democrat in the 2016 primary, and punted all local elections, in order to vote for Hillary against Bernie. Did the same thing in 2008 to vote Hillary against Obama. Both were in my mind very much lesser of two evils votes.

All the idiotic ideas here about safes, cars, etc have nothing to do with how this tragedy happened. None of it would've stopped this from happening. This was a degenerate lunatic who's "condition" has been normalized and basically promoted. They're allowed to say whatever they want. They're allowed to threaten people. They're allowed to call laws against converting children "genocide". What did you leftists think was going to happen when that sort of rhetoric is promoted?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

(03-28-2023 04:03 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  I understand that - but what constitutes the level at which a person would be considered "mentally ill?"

If someone is on anxiety or depression meds (which covers about 70% of the country I'd guess), and/or going to therapy, should they be blocked from purchasing a gun? Where does the line get drawn?

Transgenders qualify (as mentally ill). None of the last 4 or 5 shooters should have been able to purchase a gun.

(03-28-2023 04:02 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  These people doing these mass shootings are not doing them with guns stolen out of cars. They're buying them legally.

Friggin morons.

A freakin loon murders kids and the filth want to impose restrictions on law abiding citizens.

Typical

If you want to do something to reduce the number of school/mass shootings, try the following:

1) Bring back mental hospitals. There are people who simply do not belong to be living in society.
2) Require that any "gun free zone" must have restricted access and armed security to enforce it.

(03-28-2023 04:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If you want to do something to reduce the number of school/mass shootings, try the following:

1) Bring back mental hospitals. There are people who simply do not belong to be living in society.
2) Require that any "gun free zone" must have restricted access and armed security to enforce it.

If there are no guards and metal detectors I simply ignore "gun free". Ain't spit they can do about it if they aren't actively checking. Worst they can do is ask me to leave.

(03-28-2023 03:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Heck, I took a shotgun or two and a deer rifle to school in my car almost every day. And a bunch of us would go hunting right after school. And we never had even a threat of a shooting at school. Probably nobody would have dared because a bunch of us would have run out and gotten our guns and killed anybody who tried.

It's a different world today.

One question for those who favor gun control laws. Exactly WTF would any of the laws you favor have done to prevent Nashville or any other recent school or mass shooting?

The gun control topic coming up after these events is an emotional response. School shootings are a miniscule percentage of gun deaths in children. The far majority of deaths of children from gun violence are accidents and gang violence. Already laws for gang violence and accidents tend to fall on personal responsibility as my neighbors tragically discovered with their sweet boy.

Owl no law on the books or one I have seen proposed by anyone short of the abolish the 2nd crowd would have prevented this tragedy. A hand gun in close quarters of a school can do just as much damage an "assault rifle" so banning those isn't going to do anything.

People's efforts would be better spent addressing the gun violence that actually does the most damage to our country instead of the violence that does the most damage to our emotions.

(03-28-2023 04:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 04:01 PM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  I grew up with all sorts of guns in our house. Dad never once had them in a safe. Our folks set rules and disciplined us when we broke them. We knew not to touch any of my dad’s guns in his closet or else the belt hanging in there would be across our backside.

Bingo! Same in our home. Dad was a gunsmith by practice, a fighter pilot by profession, and on the pistol team.

I fired my first gun when I was five. It was an object lesson with my father attending me. He wanted my curiosity expelled from an interest in firearms by both the explosion and kick of the pistol, and then by showing me the damage and hole it made in a used oil can. He explained carefully how just as bad of a hole would be in me, my sister or anyone who fired a gun without knowing what it would do or how to use it. It instilled in me the proper respect due all weapons.

When old enough I was schooled in the operation of all of his firearms down to needed disassembly for proper cleaning and re-assembly, and in safe use in all cases.

The reason we have gun problems today is the same reason we have all problems today, lack of responsible instruction, oversight, and discipline.

You grew up in a nation that respected God for the most part. And if someone didn't they had the common decency to respect those who did.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

(03-28-2023 04:02 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  These people doing these mass shootings are not doing them with guns stolen out of cars. They're buying them legally.

Friggin morons.

80% of K - 12 school shooters between 1966 and 2019 used gun stolen from their home or a family members home.

(03-28-2023 04:03 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 03:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 03:45 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 03:21 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Her family said she was under treatment from a doctor for an emotional disorder.

Go figure.

Back on topic, what entails an emotional disorder? Anxiety? Depression? Bipolar disorder or schizophrenia?

Where do you draw the line of where a person shouldn't be able to purchase a gun if they have no prior record?

That rule already exists. If they have every been adjudicated as mentally ill, or any other appropriate terminology, they are prohibited legally from purchasing a firearm. The computer background check that is required however, is only as good as its data entry, and only as current as that data entry. There's the hole in the system.

What the law cannot protect against is an undiagnosed and never adjudicated individual who seeks to do the same. They'll get the gun, unless family or teachers or someone with direct knowledge and oversight of them request a ruling on their competency.

I understand that - but what constitutes the level at which a person would be considered "mentally ill?"

If someone is on anxiety or depression meds (which covers about 70% of the country I'd guess), and/or going to therapy, should they be blocked from purchasing a gun? Where does the line get drawn?

What part of adjudicated (legally decided by the court, judge, and expert testimony) do you not grasp? It is a ruling. It's not an opinion, not a psychologist's recommendation, nothing, until it is ruled upon. If parents, guardians, responsible overseers want to prevent this they have to have a court decide (at least in a hearing) whether or not the person in question is in control of their faculties of reason and comprehension.

(03-28-2023 04:12 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 04:02 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  These people doing these mass shootings are not doing them with guns stolen out of cars. They're buying them legally.

Friggin morons.

A freakin loon murders kids and the filth want to impose restrictions on law abiding citizens.

Typical

It's like a page out of the commie playbook...

(03-28-2023 04:02 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  These people doing these mass shootings are not doing them with guns stolen out of cars. They're buying them legally.

The stolen guns create a massive problem with gun crimes in this country.

In regards to mass shootings, you are correct that many times they are purchased legally, although there have been a LOT that stole guns from their parents or whomever. Posters on here have clung to one small suggestion out of a large list and that's how this has gotten derailed.

(03-28-2023 04:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 04:03 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 03:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 03:45 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 03:21 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Her family said she was under treatment from a doctor for an emotional disorder.

Go figure.

Back on topic, what entails an emotional disorder? Anxiety? Depression? Bipolar disorder or schizophrenia?

Where do you draw the line of where a person shouldn't be able to purchase a gun if they have no prior record?

That rule already exists. If they have every been adjudicated as mentally ill, or any other appropriate terminology, they are prohibited legally from purchasing a firearm. The computer background check that is required however, is only as good as its data entry, and only as current as that data entry. There's the hole in the system.

What the law cannot protect against is an undiagnosed and never adjudicated individual who seeks to do the same. They'll get the gun, unless family or teachers or someone with direct knowledge and oversight of them request a ruling on their competency.

I understand that - but what constitutes the level at which a person would be considered "mentally ill?"

If someone is on anxiety or depression meds (which covers about 70% of the country I'd guess), and/or going to therapy, should they be blocked from purchasing a gun? Where does the line get drawn?

What part of adjudicated (legally decided by the court, judge, and expert testimony) do you not grasp? It is a ruling. Not an opinion, not a psychologists recommendation, nothing, until it is ruled upon. If parents, guardians, responsible overseers want to prevent this they have to have a court decide (at least in a hearing) whether or not the person in question is in control of their faculties of reason and comprehension.

Reading too fast & missed it - my bad.

(03-28-2023 04:17 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 04:02 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  These people doing these mass shootings are not doing them with guns stolen out of cars. They're buying them legally.

Friggin morons.

80% of K - 12 school shooters between 1966 and 2019 used gun stolen from their home or a family members home.

True but 77% of mass shootings involved weapons purchased legally. I guess that shows just how rare school shootings are even though they get the most attention.