Jim2Dokes 3 Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 Both of these statements are patently false. Convicted criminals can buy alcohol, but can't buy guns. Drug addicts can buy alcohol, but can't buy guns. Someone committed to a mental institution at any point in their life can buy alcohol, but can't buy a gun. Military personnel who were dishonorably discharged can buy alcohol, but can't buy guns. Spousal abusers can buy alcohol, but can't buy guns. Stalkers can buy alcohol, but can't buy guns. Illegal immigrants can buy alcohol, but can't buy guns. From December 2015 - "Its Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them." https://newrepublic.com/article/125498/its-time-ban-guns-yes-them The Firearms Control Act of 1975, which banned gun ownership for D.C. Residents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975 From Tuesday - "Why It's Time to Repeal the Second Amendment" http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-its-time-to-repeal-the-second-amendment-right-bear-arms-20160613 Now, tell me again that no one wants to take away guns? People with drug addictions can buy a gun and people that have been in Mh institutions can also buy guns. It may be law but hipaa protects that information. Unless someone was committed to state hospital or has a criminal record of being homcidal reported by a physician know one would ever know. Spousal abusers can also buy guns how would anyone know someone was beating their wife if not arrested and it was documented. Stalkers can certainly buy guns as well. Basically you have to have a record and even then the process gets confusing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDMJ1984 0 Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 It is the complete unwillingness to allow any reason into implementing some fair and logical checks that people who may not be suitable to buy guns. Who determines who is suitable and not suitable to buy a gun? Let me guess, the FBI and the no-fly list right? http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/no-fly-mistakes-cat-stevens-ted-kennedy-john-lewis/ Do you think its appropriate that the rights of these individuals were violated for no reason? How would you like it if someone violated your right for no reason, like searched your house with no warrant or threw you in jail without a fair trial? How bout this - after 9/11/2001, the undisputed pinnacle of terror consciousness in this country, there were just over 400 names on the no-fly list. In 2013, there were over 47,000. In 15 years, the no-fly list grew over 100 fold. Now, Diane Fienstein wants to delegate custody and authority of the no-fly list to the Attorney General. The same Attorney General who wants to prosecute climate change skeptics and critics of Islam for thought crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDMJ1984 0 Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 People with drug addictions can buy a gun and people that have been in Mh institutions can also buy guns. It may be law but hipaa protects that information. Unless someone was committed to state hospital or has a criminal record of being homcidal reported by a physician know one would ever know. Spousal abusers can also buy guns how would anyone know someone was beating their wife if not arrested and it was documented. Stalkers can certainly buy guns as well. Basically you have to have a record and even then the process gets confusing. That's odd, these two little known government agencies seems to disagree with you: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/appeals/nics-appeals-process/reasons-nics-background-checks-are-denied-or-delayed http://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/special-topics/NICS/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianIrish 0 Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 Interesting. Take a look at the World Bank website: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5 Let's put some more perspective on murder rates/100,000 by geographic area: Honduras 91, Venezuela 54, Jamaica 39, Guatemala 35, Trinidad and Tobago 28, Brazil 27, Mexico 22, Panama 17, Ecuador 12, Nicaragua 11, Peru 10, Paraguay 10, US 5, Canada 2 How about: Afghanistan 6, Saudi Arabia 6, Iran 5, Lebanon 4, Turkey 4, Libya 3, West Bank/Gaza 1. And then there's: Belgium 2, United Kingdom 1, France 1, Poland 1, Portugal 1, Netherlands 1, Denmark 1, Greece 1. Russia? 9 And finally: North Korea 5, South Korea 1, Japan 0 To be fair, all this post shows me is that any country that would be considered on par with the US in terms of laws, approximate GDP, education, etc has a more than 250% lower risk of gun related deaths. In your list, I would place Canada, South Korea, Japan, Belgium, UK, France, Poland, Portugal, Netherlands, Denmark, and Greece as these countries. Does this mean anything? I realize this can be interpreted as cherry picking, but I think it's ignorance to suggest that there are not more gun related deaths in the US than other similar countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jessemoore97 1,287 Posted June 16, 2016 Author Share Posted June 16, 2016 (edited) To be fair, all this post shows me is that any country that would be considered on par with the US in terms of laws, approximate GDP, education, etc has a more than 250% lower risk of gun related deaths. In your list, I would place Canada, South Korea, Japan, Belgium, UK, France, Poland, Portugal, Netherlands, Denmark, and Greece as these countries. Does this mean anything? I realize this can be interpreted as cherry picking, but I think it's ignorance to suggest that there are not more gun related deaths in the US than other similar countries. But it's also ignorant to suggest that these countries with vastly smaller, homogenous populations are comparable to the U.S. also. Since it goes against the talking points of the left and media, shootings and deaths from shootings is a tremendous problem in black population. The leading cause of death for black males between the ages 18-35 is by homicide from another black male, usually by firearm. In most of those instances the circumstances involved gang violence, drugs, or other criminal activity. Also of note that the majority of the weapons used in those crimes were unlawful to be in the possession of the person carrying them and were obtained through illegitimate means. Unfortunately the black population is responsible for over half the murder rate in this country, and mostly through the use of firearms, but make up only a fraction of the population. Facts don't lie, check the FBI criminal statistics. This is also true from my experiences dealing with it for 18 years as an officer in a predominately white city. These are the types of things that don't fit the agenda of the progressive left and movements like BLM. Out of all the contested shootings of a white cop against a black suspect, say 25 across the country in a given year. At least half of those are found to be justifiable. So contrary to popular belief cops aren't gunning down blacks left and right for no reason. The progressive left throws a fit about possibly 10 shootings a year that are unjustified against black persons by cops(having just 1 unjustified is too many BTW). Yet thousands upon thousands of blacks are killed each year across this nation(mostly with handguns) with barely any mention or call to action from the press, politicians, civil rights leaders, and the left. And this has been going on for decades! So when a predominatly white movie theater, elementary school, college campus, LGBT night club people on the left go out of their goddamn minds and want gun control this, gun ban that, and so forth to protect basically white society from those evil guns and the nuts trying to get them. Where the F do these hypocrites get off?! Tell me I'm wrong, please. Anyone. Edited June 16, 2016 by jessemoore97 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianIrish 0 Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 The young black male on young black male violence skewing the numbers is definitely a valid point. I don't know that I can agree about the homogeneity of some of these countries, but I can see where you're coming from. Definitely not fair to paint the whole country with the same brush. As I've said many times on here before too, I think it's disgusting how the police are vilified in the media. Cops get shot at for no reason, nobody bats an eye. Cops take down a threat that isn't immediately in the process of shooting at them, the left loses their minds. But, again, I reiterate that the fact of the matter is, there are more gun related deaths and more mass shootings in the US than any other 1st world Westernized society. It begs the question - why??? I don't think it's something as simple as gun control, but I do believe tightening the rules about who can and cannot purchase a gun is a start, no????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly Gruene 26 Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 (edited) Who determines who is suitable and not suitable to buy a gun? Let me guess, the FBI and the no-fly list right? http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/no-fly-mistakes-cat-stevens-ted-kennedy-john-lewis/ Do you think its appropriate that the rights of these individuals were violated for no reason? How would you like it if someone violated your right for no reason, like searched your house with no warrant or threw you in jail without a fair trial? How bout this - after 9/11/2001, the undisputed pinnacle of terror consciousness in this country, there were just over 400 names on the no-fly list. In 2013, there were over 47,000. In 15 years, the no-fly list grew over 100 fold. Now, Diane Fienstein wants to delegate custody and authority of the no-fly list to the Attorney General. The same Attorney General who wants to prosecute climate change skeptics and critics of Islam for thought crime. This is my concern. Who, exactly, determines the No Fly list? That right-wing bastion of news CNN even questions that, as does the right wing ACLU. A list like that, while having a purpose, has way too many opportunities for abuse. And as the CNN article notes, once you're on it, good luck getting off the list. Edited June 16, 2016 by Kelly Gruene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocketsan 768 Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 I had no clue it was this easy. http://m.thespec.com/news-story/6725387-this-reporter-bought-an-ar-15-assault-rifle-in-7-minutes Up here, I have no clue how to get a gun... Only know of one gun shop in the are... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDMJ1984 0 Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 I had no clue it was this easy. http://m.thespec.com/news-story/6725387-this-reporter-bought-an-ar-15-assault-rifle-in-7-minutes Up here, I have no clue how to get a gun... Only know of one gun shop in the are... Why wouldn't it be that easy/quick? The reporter, a law abiding American citizen with no criminal record or tenure in a mental health institution, exercised her right to keep and bear arms. The efficiency of the system, which seems to have so many people outraged, has no bearing on its efficacy. I can't find a single article where someone who should have failed a background check was legally in possession of a gun while committing a crime. It's a right enshrined in our constitution, and based on its location in our Bill of Rights, presumably the second most important right in the eyes of the founders. Should speaking your mind require a license? Should worshipping the god of your choosing be subject to a competency exam? Should you have to sit in jail for three weeks awaiting the right to a fair and speedy trial? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jessemoore97 1,287 Posted June 16, 2016 Author Share Posted June 16, 2016 The young black male on young black male violence skewing the numbers is definitely a valid point. I don't know that I can agree about the homogeneity of some of these countries, but I can see where you're coming from. Definitely not fair to paint the whole country with the same brush. As I've said many times on here before too, I think it's disgusting how the police are vilified in the media. Cops get shot at for no reason, nobody bats an eye. Cops take down a threat that isn't immediately in the process of shooting at them, the left loses their minds. But, again, I reiterate that the fact of the matter is, there are more gun related deaths and more mass shootings in the US than any other 1st world Westernized society. It begs the question - why??? I don't think it's something as simple as gun control, but I do believe tightening the rules about who can and cannot purchase a gun is a start, no????? Well,w e are comparing apples to oranges when referring to modern societies, America vs everyone else. America has a unique history compared to all those other countries. Firearms and their usage is intertwined with the founding, settling, and defense of this country. No other westernized society can claim that. Our form of government and the laws and rights for the people is also different compared to those other countries. We have always had more privately owned firearms compared to every first world country. The genie has been out of the bottle for as long as we've pretty much existed, and it was done out of necessity for the reasons I mentioned. There is a very famous quote from Admiral Yamamoto when the Japanese leadership was planning for an attack and invasion of the West Coast. He believed that such a venture would be disastrous for their military because,"behind every blade of grass, there would be an American with a gun." He was referring to the citizens who would fight any invasion with their own privately owned firearms, not the military/government. This statement only helps to reinforce the steadfast belief among 2nd Ammendment supporters, that our right to keep and bear arms is intrinsically tied to not only personal defense but the defense of the nation against the tyranny of both foreign and domestic threats. There are tons of laws restricting who can and can't purchase a firearm. Again from personal experience, not all of them are strictly enforced or adhered to by the government. Why make more when we aren't fully utilizing the ones we already have? The laws inhibit those who are already following them, not the criminals who don't care about them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soko 128 Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 Both of these statements are patently false. Convicted criminals can buy alcohol, but can't buy guns. Drug addicts can buy alcohol, but can't buy guns. Someone committed to a mental institution at any point in their life can buy alcohol, but can't buy a gun. Military personnel who were dishonorably discharged can buy alcohol, but can't buy guns. Spousal abusers can buy alcohol, but can't buy guns. Stalkers can buy alcohol, but can't buy guns. Illegal immigrants can buy alcohol, but can't buy guns. From December 2015 - "Its Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them." https://newrepublic.com/article/125498/its-time-ban-guns-yes-them The Firearms Control Act of 1975, which banned gun ownership for D.C. Residents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975 From Tuesday - "Why It's Time to Repeal the Second Amendment" http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-its-time-to-repeal-the-second-amendment-right-bear-arms-20160613 Now, tell me again that no one wants to take away guns? If you asked me whether the world is a better place with or without guns then it is clearly a gun free environment. However even the most ardent gun control activist knows that is completely out of the question but there has to be some common sense invoked with regards to how and where guns are sold and to whom. The fact that people's rights regarding guns now allow them to open carry in bars and restaurants in some states just blows my mind. Personally I don't see the fascination and I'll never own one nor have one in my house but that doesn't mean you can't do as you please. Responsible citizens and gun owners would have nothing to worry about so I'm not sure why they get in such a tizzy whenever this is brought up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocketsan 768 Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 Why wouldn't it be that easy/quick? The reporter, a law abiding American citizen with no criminal record or tenure in a mental health institution, exercised her right to keep and bear arms. The efficiency of the system, which seems to have so many people outraged, has no bearing on its efficacy. I can't find a single article where someone who should have failed a background check was legally in possession of a gun while committing a crime. It's a right enshrined in our constitution, and based on its location in our Bill of Rights, presumably the second most important right in the eyes of the founders. Ease up...I'm Canadian. I didn't know it was that simple in the US... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickman54 0 Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 If you asked me whether the world is a better place with or without guns then it is clearly a gun free environment. However even the most ardent gun control activist knows that is completely out of the question but there has to be some common sense invoked with regards to how and where guns are sold and to whom. The fact that people's rights regarding guns now allow them to open carry in bars and restaurants in some states just blows my mind. Personally I don't see the fascination and I'll never own one nor have one in my house but that doesn't mean you can't do as you please. Responsible citizens and gun owners would have nothing to worry about so I'm not sure why they get in such a tizzy whenever this is brought up. Responsible citizens are the ones that get punished because of criminals, that why we get into a tizzy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim2Dokes 3 Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 (edited) That's odd, these two little known government agencies seems to disagree with you: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/appeals/nics-appeals-process/reasons-nics-background-checks-are-denied-or-delayed http://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/special-topics/NICS/index.html You failed to read my post and also the hipaa article. What I am saying is that for all the above mentioned reasons in the fbi article those would have to be on record. Note that the Hipaa article you posted specifically states that most people receiving treatment would not qualify to be reported. It also states that states continue to have the right to have their own laws in regards to this. In most states it continues to not be required to report to law enforcement institutionalizations and especially someone who has a drug addiction. Furthermore, how would someone with a drug addiction be reported? There are plenty of people who have went to jail for DUI carry guns. And the found fathers are over 200 years ago. I would have hoped we have advanced as a society and don't need to worry about redcoats or carry muskets around. It is too open of a right in today's society. And going by your logic of following that amendment then none of the laws you mentioned that people who have drug addictions or criminal records ect should be barred as well. Considering it is the right of all citizens Edited June 16, 2016 by Jim2Dokes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickman54 0 Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 You failed to read my post and also the hipaa article. What I am saying is that for all the above mentioned reasons in the fbi article those would have to be on record. Note that the Hipaa article you posted specifically states that most people receiving treatment would not qualify to be reported. It also states that states continue to have the right to have their own laws in regards to this. In most states it continues to not be required to report to law enforcement institutionalizations and especially someone who has a drug addiction. Furthermore, how would someone with a drug addiction be reported? There are plenty of people who have went to jail for DUI carry guns. And the found fathers are over 200 years ago. I would have hoped we have advanced as a society and don't need to worry about redcoats or carry muskets around. It is too open of a right in today's society. And going by your logic of following that amendment then none of the laws you mentioned that people who have drug addictions or criminal records ect should be barred as well. Considering it is the right of all citizens https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jessemoore97 1,287 Posted June 16, 2016 Author Share Posted June 16, 2016 If you asked me whether the world is a better place with or without guns then it is clearly a gun free environment. However even the most ardent gun control activist knows that is completely out of the question but there has to be some common sense invoked with regards to how and where guns are sold and to whom. The fact that people's rights regarding guns now allow them to open carry in bars and restaurants in some states just blows my mind. Personally I don't see the fascination and I'll never own one nor have one in my house but that doesn't mean you can't do as you please. Responsible citizens and gun owners would have nothing to worry about so I'm not sure why they get in such a tizzy whenever this is brought up. No there doesn't need to be common sense, because that is entirely a subjective position. It is based off emotion and people's beliefs rather than fact. Who's common sense do we look to? Many find it highly disrespectful that their common sense is considered lesser than another's. My job would be extraordinarily easier and complicated at the same time if I could just arrest or cite people for common sense violations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jessemoore97 1,287 Posted June 16, 2016 Author Share Posted June 16, 2016 You failed to read my post and also the hipaa article. What I am saying is that for all the above mentioned reasons in the fbi article those would have to be on record. Note that the Hipaa article you posted specifically states that most people receiving treatment would not qualify to be reported. It also states that states continue to have the right to have their own laws in regards to this. In most states it continues to not be required to report to law enforcement institutionalizations and especially someone who has a drug addiction. Furthermore, how would someone with a drug addiction be reported? There are plenty of people who have went to jail for DUI carry guns. And the found fathers are over 200 years ago. I would have hoped we have advanced as a society and don't need to worry about redcoats or carry muskets around. It is too open of a right in today's society. And going by your logic of following that amendment then none of the laws you mentioned that people who have drug addictions or criminal records ect should be barred as well. Considering it is the right of all citizens How is it too open of a right, to keep and bear arms, in the past, now, or in the future when done by law abiding American citizens? I haven't seen one rational, fact based argument brought up by gun control advocates that has refuted any of the legitimate points made by gun supporters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
echo88 74 Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 If you asked me whether the world is a better place with or without guns then it is clearly a gun free environment. However even the most ardent gun control activist knows that is completely out of the question but there has to be some common sense invoked with regards to how and where guns are sold and to whom. The fact that people's rights regarding guns now allow them to open carry in bars and restaurants in some states just blows my mind. Personally I don't see the fascination and I'll never own one nor have one in my house but that doesn't mean you can't do as you please. Responsible citizens and gun owners would have nothing to worry about so I'm not sure why they get in such a tizzy whenever this is brought up. In what state is it legal to carry a concealed weapon in bars (and drink)? Private businesses are allowed to ban concealed weapons if they choose to do so. And CC laws are pretty clear about the fact that you cannot consume alcohol while carrying. So if someone is carrying in a bar, they aren't drinking. And if they're carrying in a restaurant, it's because the restaurant is cool with the CC laws of that state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim2Dokes 3 Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download Duuude! read my post, it doesn't matter if it's on the form. People can still put whatever down. Until it is on record there is nothing that can be done. You also can't join the military if have HIstory of mental illness, however there is no way for the military to know unless one tells them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jessemoore97 1,287 Posted June 16, 2016 Author Share Posted June 16, 2016 In what state is it legal to carry a concealed weapon in bars (and drink)? Private businesses are allowed to ban concealed weapons if they choose to do so. And CC laws are pretty clear about the fact that you cannot consume alcohol while carrying. So if someone is carrying in a bar, they aren't drinking. And if they're carrying in a restaurant, it's because the restaurant is cool with the CC laws of that state. In Iowa it was ok. The State Legislature enacted uniform laws for CC some years back. It used to be that each County sheriff issued CC permits based entirely on their whims. We had some that issued permits as long as you passed all the qualifications and background checks, while others wouldn't issue any or very few based on whatever reason even if you were good for everything else. Iowa has 99 counties, and we basically had 99 different ways to get permits. The legislature in an effort to finally make things uniform, made laws to cover CC across the state basically saying you could anywhere but schools and the like. Well in their efforts they were a little short sighted about carrying in bars, drinking, and the like. It's been remedied since. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.