Colorado Shooting Rekindles Gun Control Debate

Armed Veteran wrote:

<quoted text>
Correct. Criminals don't give a damn about gun laws. However, they do care about which potential victim may or may not be armed.
<quoted text>
1. How are you going to enforce "mandatory" background checks between private individuals? All an owner would have to say is that the gun which is no longer in his possession was stolen.
2. What good would registration do if it has never been used to prevent or solve a crime??
3. Should I have to do a background check on my own kid or spouse if I want to give them a firearm as a gift?
4. Why are you so interested in giving the government a detailed list of items you own?? My personal opinion.....as long as I pay my taxes and stay out of jail, it is none of the govt's f-ing business what I own.

1. At the point of registration for a sale between an individual owner and buyer is when the background check would take place.

2. Registration prevents the owner from saying it was stolen, unless it really was stolen and he reported it. It also prevents the thief from saying he bought if from some guy on the street.

3. Yes, who not? Afraid they will fail? Change that registration too.

4. Who cares what the government thinks it knows. As soon as I hear that they are collecting my collection is getting stolen except for a couple of old broken guns I have. Must have been a neighbor or someone who knew me and what I had because they knew what to take and where it was. I'd report it too and be really pissed off.

Then it will stay buried and hidden for at least 6 months. Hope I have time to get that RPG.

Armed Veteran wrote:

<quoted text>
You need to stop getting your stats from the VPC.

I did not. Look at the links. NY is safer than California is safer than Texas is safer than Florida. Texa and California really aren't that far apart, they are both in the middle. NY is safe enough to call safe and Florida is dangerous enough to call it Dangerous.

Go to Table 308.

http://www.ce ns

us.gov/prod/2011pubs/12statab/law.pdf

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/12statab/...

Try this

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
How exactly does registration put teeth in anything? There are already more than 300 million guns in circulation.
Look at Mexican gun laws. Then look at their problem with criminals. Yes, you’ll be quick to blame the US for that problem. Right?
Put someone’s name on a government list for what they read? Put someone’s name on a list for a membership? Sounds eerily familiar circa 1930’s.
At this point I don’t like your politics. You’re beyond redemption despite the fact you feel your beliefs are in the best interests of society.
I would already be on four of your lists. Soon to be five. Black powder 45-70 ammo is much more expensive than reloading. On all five of your lists do I become a terrorist in your mind?
Your list
1 I subscribe to several firearm magazines
2 I bought 1,000 round of 9mm ammo this week, had it shipped from out of state. Saved a bundle. It arrived today and I’ll put it on the shelf with the other 35,000 or so rounds.
3 I have a hunting license, fishing license as well.
4 Belong to a gun range
5 soon to reload
I have no criminal record, last traffic citation was in 1988. Yet in your eyes I should be under government scrutiny.

You have a wild imagination.

In my mind, if the government wants to see if you have a gun or more then you have done much to bring yourself to their attention. It is that simple.

You fear registration soooooo mmuuuucccchhhhh. But you really could not care less if they know you have a gun?

I don't question your politics, I question your intelligence.

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>That might work for VA Tech, but the Mall is not gun free - where were the carriers running in? Where were they when the shooter walked to his car?

Do you even know what happened at the Aurora Movie Theater?

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>I get down to Florida every now and then. I don't mind talking cities when you are talking a representative sample from within a state. But cities are much more prone to problems like you mention for the state of Florida. That is why I chose cities safe and dangerous from two separate states, one with gun-owner friendly laws and one that is known for being gun restrictive.

As far as states go, not long ago I imagine NY and NYC were some of the most dangerous places in the US. They turned the city around and they did not do it by going lax on gun laws.

Florida and Texas both are worse than California and they both have gun friendly laws.

My point to all this is that a lot of things effect crime and to say with a blanket effect that gun laws do or do not lessen or increase crime is wrong.

The only city you mentioned is NYC. I guess if they didn't do it by lax gun laws, they did it by restricting drinks to 16oz. or less.

Why don't you compare Kennesaw GA. to Atlanta GA. They are 30 minutes away from each other. Kennesaw requires head of household to posses at least one firearm with ammunition. Atlanta has strict gun laws.

People have not fully known all the details of terror of 9-11 while many of those committing that 9-11 are still at large, as they need to know--and that is the point and only with an alive bin Laden could only be possible to find out everything and thus USA failed to pursue clear evidences of all other conspirators and the full terror scheme with not an alive bin Laden.

The particulars and real details of how 9-11 happened, for the 9-11 planning, schemes, accomplices and conspirators have not been presented to the public world because the world needs to know as many world citizens were killed at that terror--and only with an alive bin Laden could only be possible to find out everything.

Obama has shut down these aspects by boasting his bravery and taking credit for killing bin Laden, by not being able to come up with the details of how of the happening of 9-11 by ALL conspirators instead.

This will be viewed as a big discredit for Obama and the poor showing since getting bin Laden is not a brave decision, BECAUSE, while US has a whole country's large military presence in the region,IT IS JUST a ROUTINE.

As getting bin Laden-"dead or alive" should be the message to get a big monetary reward, it would be automatic for anyone to do so--due to the fact anyone including any world people as not as country's president or military officers, can collect that large reward by taking bin Laden with proof.

With an entire country of agents and force behind it, only a fool like Obama would be claiming this ordeal, as it is appalling and looks really ugly for Obama that he has touted his big mouth by being counter-productive.

Yet individuals of the world if were to have caught bin Laden (dead or alive)--especially caught alive (which would be more useful to answer all 9-11 particulars), would disclose their operations in order to collect the reward.

If US says the operation is of classified information,it then is not even matching the ability of individuals who were to have done that because they would tell their operations.

However, pictures of dead bin Laden and DNA should not be the classified information because knowing of getting the real person is the bottom line of everything.

Releasing pictures of dead bin Laden and more data is not owing to the security or fear for Muslims uprising as they claim--there seems a lot of undignified way of doing this bin Laden story by Obama in the assessment thus, since protective measures (which were already taken after 9-11 happening) are the ways to deal with any type of information releasing and all other matters.

As USA already has conducted targeting against terror, and with its involvement and other actions on the planet, these have been shown in bigger enticing the disturbing sentiments of many Muslims and others already around the world--while it has been the trend for USA already, by telling to not releasing pictures and data of Laden and 9-11, is of ugly business.

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>1. At the point of registration for a sale between an individual owner and buyer is when the background check would take place.

2. Registration prevents the owner from saying it was stolen, unless it really was stolen and he reported it. It also prevents the thief from saying he bought if from some guy on the street.

3. Yes, who not? Afraid they will fail? Change that registration too.

4. Who cares what the government thinks it knows. As soon as I hear that they are collecting my collection is getting stolen except for a couple of old broken guns I have. Must have been a neighbor or someone who knew me and what I had because they knew what to take and where it was. I'd report it too and be really pissed off.

Then it will stay buried and hidden for at least 6 months. Hope I have time to get that RPG.

Ok, this post just proved you are posting from the psych ward somewhere. Disregard my previous posts to you. I thought I might be posting to a sane, rational person. There is no doubt now I was mistaken.
Don't bother replying to any of those posts.

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>
1. At the point of registration for a sale between an individual owner and buyer is when the background check would take place.

You didn't answer the question. How would you enforce people submitting to background checks on sales between private individuals?

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>2. Registration prevents the owner from saying it was stolen, unless it really was stolen and he reported it. It also prevents the thief from saying he bought if from some guy on the street.

Registration does not prevent anything. What if the gun was purchased by the original owner prior to mandatory registration being enacted?(there are millions of unregistered firearms already in circulation) Do you think people are just going to put all their guns into their car and take them down to the local registrar's office? Do you think a single CRIMINAL will submit to mandatory registration??? You are a laugh riot!!!

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>3. Yes, who not? Afraid they will fail? Change that registration too.
4. Who cares what the government thinks it knows. As soon as I hear that they are collecting my collection is getting stolen except for a couple of old broken guns I have. Must have been a neighbor or someone who knew me and what I had because they knew what to take and where it was. I'd report it too and be really pissed off.
Then it will stay buried and hidden for at least 6 months. Hope I have time to get that RPG.

So you say that you support mandatory registration of ALL firearm sales, but then say you will not abide by it. Hypocrite much??

just another guy wrote:

Reasonable gun control.
1 Guns are always loaded.
2 Never point a gun at anything you don't intend to destroy.
3 Know your target and what is behind it.
4 Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.

Reasonable/Sensible gun control is a balanced stance, two hands on the weapon, and a smooth trigger squeeze.

Armed Veteran wrote:

<quoted text>
Reasonable/Sensible gun control is a balanced stance, two hands on the weapon, and a smooth trigger squeeze.

None of which you drooling gun nuts have.

OregonSUX wrote:

<quoted text>
None of which you drooling gun nuts have.

And what have the you offered in return?

Armed Veteran wrote:

<quoted text>
Reasonable/Sensible gun control is a balanced stance, two hands on the weapon, and a smooth trigger squeeze.

Spot on!

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>
There is no one that tells you that you have to use a particular business. But the first time someone pulls a gun and starts shooting at a sports bar because their team lost (and it will happen) Florida will look at that law just like they are looking at Stand Your Ground now.
What if the business owner posts a sign that says "If you are carrying this is your invitation to leave. If you stay you are trespassing."
I am not against concealed carry nor am I against open carry. However, I think that I have a right to know who may be a danger to me and mine and I would highly discourage concealed carry for that reason.
The Nazi's loved a lot of things. Do you really have a point? Of course not. I already gave a number of ways the government could find out who probably had guns. They just show up at your door and do a search, to include with metal detectors and sounding devices.

That sign wouldn’t carry weight of law. You have no right to know if someone has a firearm or not. However, bearing arms is a constitutionally protected right.

You expect to have a perceived right trump a protected right. Doesn’t work that way.

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>
Why would you need a carry permit for a shotgun? I was down near Ocala (Ft. McCoy area) a winter ago and there were people carrying shotguns and rifles all over the place.
I've had background checks before. I got to where I go start the background. Leave and do some running around and come back. That way if the clerks are taking their time to keep you looking in the store it ain't working.
Life sentences for parking violations, gotcha.
And that is why I was not going to define "impact." Exercising reasonaable procedures in order to protect yourself and fellow citizens is not an impact in my mind, it is being responsible.
You have a right to free speech. If you go to a town hall meeting the correct thing to do is to put your name on a list to speak and then wait until it is your turn. That list impacted you and everyone else on that list in your mind and no doubt violated your right in your mind. I call it acting responsibly.

Purchase, not carry.

In Georgia anyone with a carry permit isn’t subjected to yet another background check, Florida every retail purchase requires a check. Try reading more slowly. I was held up two hours waiting on approval to purchase.

Where did I say life sentence for parking violations?

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>
You have a wild imagination.
In my mind, if the government wants to see if you have a gun or more then you have done much to bring yourself to their attention. It is that simple.
You fear registration soooooo mmuuuucccchhhhh. But you really could not care less if they know you have a gun?
I don't question your politics, I question your intelligence.

It’s you who posted the lists for the government.

I question your motives. Registration of firearms is wrong.

Prep-for-Dep wrote:

<quoted text>
The only city you mentioned is NYC. I guess if they didn't do it by lax gun laws, they did it by restricting drinks to 16oz. or less.
Why don't you compare Kennesaw GA. to Atlanta GA. They are 30 minutes away from each other. Kennesaw requires head of household to posses at least one firearm with ammunition. Atlanta has strict gun laws.

Atlanta doesn’t have strict gun laws. I’ve carried concealed and open in Atlanta. I’ve purchased weapons within the city limits. Lived there for 26 years, I think I’m well qualified to speak on this.

As for Kennesaw. Read the ordinance carefully. Essentially reads every head of household is required to own a gun unless they don’t want to. They simply strongly urge ownership and it’s worked to reduce crime.

Then differences between Kennesaw and Atlanta are far greater than laws. Atlanta is much more “urban”, particularly south Atlanta.

OregonSUX wrote:

<quoted text>
None of which you drooling gun nuts have.

Care to test your theory by taking a seat down range?

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>
That might work for VA Tech, but the Mall is not gun free - where were the carriers running in? Where were they when the shooter walked to his car?

Good idea, I think I will go to the Mall and just start shooting all people walking to their cars......you are a hoot.

obarry wrote:

<quoted text>
And what have the you offered in return?

That troll offers nothing more than bloviated bullshit.