What's the difference between a terrorist attack and a massacre?
In California, state law prevents me from selling or buying a weapon -- private sale, gun show, or gun shop -- without having the instant background check and going through the waiting period. If I want to sell my rifle, I have to do it through an FFL holder, who (for a commission not to exceed $10) takes care of the paperwork. It's a PITA, but it's hardly the Communist revolution the NRA makes it out to be. BTW - I was an NRA member for many years, until approximately the 90s, when it ceased to be an organization devoted to supporting the shooting sports and became wholly devoted to propping up the arms industry as a political lobbying group.
Because:I'm not sure why folks think that is unreasonable.
I think the waiting period is pretty dumb if its applied to somebody who already owns guns. Whats it going to prevent in that situation?
But both sides are so dug in that common sense compromises will never happen
Some of the latest news on the Vegas shooting is the that deniers/conspiracy theorists are going after the victims, calling them crisis actors. It's un-fucking-believable how these minds work. Nothing will ever be enough to have them reconsider their stance on guns...the age of victims, the number of victims, etc.
You're right though Mark, that this is stalemated as an agree to disagree situation, but how the fuck is anyone comfortable doing nothing? It's as scary as it it is enraging.
There are reports that there were 20+ rifles in the room. Waiting periods wouldn't have made a difference.It could possibly prevent some casualties in the Vegas case. If the dude had to wait for his last purchase, he may not have been able to get so many shots off. I know its a stretch, just trying to come up with an answer.
I'm still not sure why we can't approach it like a drivers license. You take a class, get you gun license for class A type guns. You want to move up to the next class of guns, take the next class and get issued a Class B gun type license and so on. You go to a gun show, show your valid license, buy your gun. You are a private seller, you ask to see the gun license, and they have one, make the sale. Then you know the person buying the gun has had some form of training, is not on some kind of watch list or is a convicted felon. I'm not sure why anyone wouldn't want gun owners to have had some basic firearm training before they are allowed to purchase a gun.
Do we need a permit or class to exercise our first amendment rights?
Is there a conspiracy? Probably not, but there are certainly discrepancies in the investigation. Whether these discrepecies are simply incompetence or a cover up what's feeding the fires of these nutters.
Give no shits how much harder it makes things for anyone or everyone that wants to practice their 2nd amendment rights. Individual rights should not outweigh the rights of general citizenry to feel safe. And delusions of heroics aren't being bought.
- Full psych eval for any purchase, don't care about the wait time
- includes all sales, private or gun dealer
- one rifle one hand gun MAX
- no assault rifles
- full registration and annual tracking of ownership, e.g. inspection stations
- limits on the amount of ammunition you can buy/have/stockpile at any given time.
- full account of said ammo, when and where used (proof for ranges, shells from hunting and private property shooting)
- every box has is batched with a unique serial # etched in each shell/casing
"Real heroes don't need guns." - The Tick
I'm not a gun owner and I was thinking of closing this thread because it's no longer about the OP and don't want it getting nuts. But honestly, this statement right here is makes a massive amount of sense as a first step.Im fine with a waiting period and training for new gun buyers. Im fine with background checks for ALL gun purchases. Get rid of bump stocks and high cap magazines. Lets try that first and see if things dont improve.
You can cause all sorts of havoc with a vehicle: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack - 86 dead, more than were killed in this attack, which was a pretty nightmarish scenario.I'm not a gun owner and I was thinking of closing this thread because it's no longer about the OP and don't want it getting nuts. But honestly, this statement right here is makes a massive amount of sense as a first step.
And I think that gun owners should have to re-qualify at regular intervals to own guns. Take a test and submit to a current background check. You're never going to get rid of guns in this country but there needs to be what I consider "common sense" regulation for owning deadly weapons. And before anyone brings up knives or that you can kill people with a car, you can't throw a knife or a car far enough with any real accuracy to do the damage that a projectile weapon can. What is wrong with what 2manband is suggesting?
You can cause all sorts of havoc with a vehicle: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack - 86 dead, more than were killed in this attack, which was a pretty nightmarish scenario.
The problem with "common sense" gun control is fanatics go nuts with it and you end up with shit like was posted above: ain't gonna happen.
Several states have very restrictive gun control and out of control violence committed with guns. My state has a very high gun ownership rate and very low rates of crime and murder.
People chomping at the bit to "do something" really mean "restrict everyone in hopes we'll restrict the right person". The list posted by Dogsinotpalc is *exactly* why I'll never agree to any form of govt mandated gun control. You give an inch and they keep taking.
I would like to see more people take gun safety courses, especially if they're going to carry a weapon. I'd like to think people would voluntarily take a course (or refresher) if it were available. Mandating it is again a slippery slope that I'm not comfortable with.