Real gun law changes to be done?

[Meghan54]

Compulsory liability insurance, esp. for pistol ownership.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

This latest mass killing will result in nothing more than massive bloviation on both sides of the gun control issue with no real results.

 

[blastingcap]

This latest mass killing will result in nothing more than massive bloviation on both sides of the gun control issue with no real results.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Svnla]

Not really true. Japan has the Yakuza. They won't persecute a crime unless they are nearly 100% certain they will get a conviction. So lots of crimes go misreported as accidents, or whatever to toss them under the rug statistically.

This is why crime stats aren't really comparable between countries.

Have you ever been to Japan? I have, several times and cities in Japan are some of the cleanest and safest places I visit in Asia.

I rather take a trip late at night by myself in Tokyo over NYC or any large cities in the US anytime.

The point is, even the safest countries on Earth will have crazy idiots and crimes. You can NOT impose common sense and morality.

 

[TheVrolok]

Could we put into effect real change that would actually reduce gun violence? Of course we could. Will we? Absolutely not. The US, at large, has quite clearly and repeatedly stated that we will tolerate this amount of gun violence to maintain our current level of gun ownership.

 

[boomerang]

Could we put into effect real change that would actually reduce gun violence? Of course we could. Will we? Absolutely not. The US, at large, has quite clearly and repeatedly stated that we will tolerate this amount of gun violence to maintain our current level of gun ownership.

Contrary to what our President has to say, we rank lower than numerous advanced countries. I just don't see it even on the radar as one of our most pressing problems.

 

[TheVrolok]

Contrary to what our President has to say, we rank lower than numerous advanced countries. I just don't see it even on the radar as one of our most pressing problems.

It's all about how you play with the numbers. In addition, it's not mutually exclusive to attempt improvement in this issue as well as other "more pressing issues." While it may not be on your radar, it certainly is on the radar of quite a few people out there.

 

[Genx87]

Could we put into effect real change that would actually reduce gun violence? Of course we could. Will we? Absolutely not. The US, at large, has quite clearly and repeatedly stated that we will tolerate this amount of gun violence to maintain our current level of gun ownership.

What would be this real change? I hear this thrown around a bit. Twice in this thread alone.

 

[fskimospy]

It's all about how you play with the numbers. In addition, it's not mutually exclusive to attempt improvement in this issue as well as other "more pressing issues." While it may not be on your radar, it certainly is on the radar of quite a few people out there.

He's also full of shit. The U.S. has one of the highest murder rates of any developed country and murders are committed by far most often with guns.

Again, I wish gun rights people would just own their position instead of trying to rationalize it. Why can't they admit that they think more deaths are an acceptable price to pay for gun rights?

 

[boomerang]

It's all about how you play with the numbers. In addition, it's not mutually exclusive to attempt improvement in this issue as well as other "more pressing issues." While it may not be on your radar, it certainly is on the radar of quite a few people out there.

A change in the Constitution is going to be required first. All these discussions end up there.

These threads are both predicable and boring. The same shit over and over.

 

[TheVrolok]

What would be this real change? I hear this thrown around a bit. Twice in this thread alone.

Significantly stiffer purchasing laws/background checks, hell, all the way to amending the constitution. It's certainly not impossible IF it were important enough to enough people. It's simply not, and that's my point.

 

[fskimospy]

What would be this real change? I hear this thrown around a bit. Twice in this thread alone.

Studies show that greater gun control laws reduce gun violence. You could do it in any one of a number of ways, from stricter licensing all the way up through repealing the second amendment and confiscating them.

Again, you can say we won't do those things or we don't want to do them, but we could, and gun violence would go down.

 

[TheVrolok]

He's also full of shit. The U.S. has one of the highest murder rates of any developed country and murders are committed by far most often with guns.

Again, I wish gun rights people would just own their position instead of trying to rationalize it. Why can't they admit that they think more deaths are an acceptable price to pay for gun rights?

That's my point exactly. It's really simple, as above, the US, at large, is comfortable with this amount of gun violence as long as gun ownership is not curtailed. As you said, people just need to admit it rather than saying "nothing we can do," which is completely bullshit.

 

[fskimospy]

A change in the Constitution is going to be required first. All these discussions end up there.

These threads are both predicable and boring. The same shit over and over.

Of course it wouldn't be required. Where do you get these ridiculous ideas in your head?

 

[senseamp]

Maybe if liberals start arming themselves and forming left-wing militias.

 

[HTFOff]

What would be this real change? I hear this thrown around a bit. Twice in this thread alone.

That secret red button that makes all baby killing instruments of death go *poof*.

That muzzle loader in some random log cabin, becky's pink .380, grand pappi's single shot 12GA, bubba's mall ninja AR, home skillet's .45 in his waistband, officer McHothead's s&w, van helsing's revolver, mac's gatling gun.

All gone with the push of a button.

/s

 

[TheVrolok]

A change in the Constitution is going to be required first. All these discussions end up there.

These threads are both predicable and boring. The same shit over and over.

A change in the Constitution would be required to modify the course of gun violence in the US? Absurd statement.

 

[fskimospy]

That's my point exactly. It's really simple, as above, the US, at large, is comfortable with this amount of gun violence as long as gun ownership is not curtailed. As you said, people just need to admit it rather than saying "nothing we can do," which is completely bullshit.

It is funny and sad how often "don't want to do" is substituted by "impossible to do" when it's convenient

 

[MagickMan]

You're in luck, we already have tough gun laws. But, you see, if we don't actually enforce them, or they're blatantly ignored, they don't really do shit.

 

[mizzou]

What laws are in place now regarding this?

People convicted with felonies can't own or purchase a firearm that isn't an antique. As far as I know, there is no consistent way for a background check to reveal someone's mental/emotional troubles.

I think I should have clarified that people who do anything even less then a felony that is extremely violent (terroristic threats, etc.) should also be included. Apparently not everywhere requires a background check to verify these incidents for every firearm transaction.

 

[mizzou]

You're in luck, we already have tough gun laws. But, you see, if we don't actually enforce them, or they're blatantly ignored, they don't really do shit.

Yep...just google this

"armed robber gets probation"

 

[Fenixgoon]

this just in, CNN author doesn't know anything about firearms laws:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/19/news/guns-background-checks/index.html?iid=SF_LN

1) background checks are required for all FFL (dealer) sales.
2) background checks are not required by federal law for private sales (person-to-person). state laws vary - CA for example, requires an FFL to transfer firearms, even in private party sales
3) gun dealers at gun shows must still conduct background checks as they are FFLs
4) most americans probably live closer to gun stores, which are permanent fixtures for purchasing firearms, than gun shows, which are only temporary and obviously are going to cater to firearms enthusiasts
4) the author argues that it's too easy to buy a firearm in america and rants on gun shows, and then proceeds to write how the firearm purchased by the charleston guy was legally purchased and he passed the federally-required background check.

 

[Venix]

this just in, CNN author doesn't know anything about firearms laws:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/19/news/guns-background-checks/index.html?iid=SF_LN

1) background checks are required for all FFL (dealer) sales.
2) background checks are not required by federal law for private sales (person-to-person). state laws vary - CA for example, requires an FFL to transfer firearms, even in private party sales
3) gun dealers at gun shows must still conduct background checks as they are FFLs
4) most americans probably live closer to gun stores, which are permanent fixtures for purchasing firearms, than gun shows, which are only temporary and obviously are going to cater to firearms enthusiasts
4) the author argues that it's too easy to buy a firearm in america and rants on gun shows, and then proceeds to write how the firearm purchased by the charleston guy was legally purchased and he passed the federally-required background check.

That's a terrible article even by CNN's low standards. The article's claim that "gun buyers don't have to go through a background check when they make a purchase at a gun show" is simply false, and suggests that the author literally did no research before writing this propaganda piece.

More concerning is the author's closing comment that "Roof also displayed racist symbols on Facebook, but the FBI said that kind of information would not come up in a background check," implying that unpopular/offensive speech should disqualify a person from owning firearms. I guess the author is at least consistent in his contempt for civil rights.

 

[boomerang]

People convicted with felonies can't own or purchase a firearm that isn't an antique. As far as I know, there is no consistent way for a background check to reveal someone's mental/emotional troubles.

I think I should have clarified that people who do anything even less then a felony that is extremely violent (terroristic threats, etc.) should also be included. Apparently not everywhere requires a background check to verify these incidents for every firearm transaction.

I just wanted to see if you had any knowledge of the existing law and you clarified it nicely.

They have something in Michigan. It's a question asked on the paperwork that must be filled out. My sister is bipolar and collects SSI. She's in a national database somewhere. She moved to another state a year or so ago and her benefits moved with her. If she was trying to purchase a gun in Michigan, I'm certain her name would pop up and she'd be unable to purchase one. The paperwork is filled out and the call is made from the gun store for verification of eligibility while you stand there. Very quick process.

 

[boomerang]

A change in the Constitution would be required to modify the course of gun violence in the US? Absurd statement.

It's not if you can think further than two steps ahead.