Another campus shooting - Page 9 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Matt L · #**121** 02-22-2008, 06:53 PM

I can make a gun in my garage. How are you going to ban that?

Botnst · #**122** 02-22-2008, 06:58 PM

Ban garages, of course.

rwthomas1 · #**123** 02-22-2008, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

I'm talking about the risks. The outcomes will be whatever they are. In regards to students carrying, I find the risks to be too high. Outcomes must have an occurrence. Each one will be an any given Sunday variety. Maybe a CCW holder will shoot the villain before he gets a shot off, maybe it'll be a bloodbath. Since the outcome cannot be known prior to the specific incident, we are forced to consider likely risks.
Don't worry though, I won't continue with someone who doesn't want to listen.

You can rest assured my posts are the alarmist BS, not yours. I find it a bit funny that I pretty much agree with pt145ss's post (#105), and rwthomas porbably agrees with him too. I'm the alarmist though.
I've given my reasons why I don't think it's a good idea to arm students. Despite pt145ss's post about his 14 yr old, I am not convinced that a)the majority of kids are going to be that responsible, b)it is wise to give kids the opportunity to make mistakes on that scale, and c)that any amount of parenting can completely eliminate a moment's rash decision - something kids are hard wired to make. it would be a shame to burden a kid with such heavy consequences. Let their bad decisions lead to a moment's regret.

I'm more comfortable with professors carrying. Students would know where the weapon is, cops would, and a professor is far less likely to have his gun used poorly in some frat house. That is an acceptable level of risk to me.
I don't think the DC ban or amy statistics re: crime v. gun ownership are telling in any way. For example, in DC you can walk across Memorial Bridge to VA and buy as many guns as you want at a gun show, walk back across the bridge and blast away.
I think the mentally ill should lose their right to own a gun.
I agree, however there should be a mechanism to allow restoration of the right. Some illness can be treated.

I think people under 21 shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.
In many places you must be 21 to own a handgun and 18 to own a rifle or shotgun. I have no issue with the rifle or shotgun and young people hunting with them.

I think anyone convicted of a violent crime shouldn't be allowed to own.
There are already Federal and state laws that do this
I think there should be a thorough federal background check when purchasing a gun, made possible by a 5 day waiting period.
I disagree with any waiting period. The NICS system works very well provided it is updated and maintained. Waiting 5 days does nothing if the system is not updated, waiting won't help.
I think the gun show loophole should be closed federally.
Just what do you think the "gun show loophole" is? Do you understand that private citizens can legally sell firearms to other citizens at gun shows or anywhere else as long as it is not a business? What is the difference in buying a privately owned firearm at a gun show or from a classified ad, or from another member of a gun club? I am guessing you would like to force all firearm transfers through the FFL holders and have them subject to the NICS background check? Okay, what about allowing private citizens access to the NICS system so that they can feel they did their duty in a private sale? I do not want ALL private sales to have to go through a FFL. Its really not the Govt's business, or yours to know how many guns I have or what I am doing.
I think fingerprint resistant weapons should be off the market.
This statement shows how ignorant you are about firearms. I assume you are speaking of matte finishes? Common on many, many weapons. Firearm stocks and grips are usually "fingerprint resistant" as they have some sort of texture. Duh, its a grip.....
I think a gun safety course should be required before purchase, like driver's ed is before being allowed behind the wheel. I think that's reasonable.
Again, gun safety is being pushed heavily by the NRA and gun manufacturers and has been for a while. As to it being reasonable to make it mandatory let me ask you this. If safety classes and even licensing were accepted would you be okay with using tax dollars for building firing ranges and allocating open space for recreational shooting? How about an ironclad guarantee that our firearm rights could NEVER be revoked if we agreed to the above? I doubt that would make you happy, since your true goal has been stated below. You should know that you will be fought every step of the way. I don't plan on EVER giving in to people of your ilk and there are many more that think just like I do. Many more than you realize. RT

Oh, and one more: ban all guns.

Yes, and that will do exactly what is has done everywhere else it has been tried. Absolutely nothing. Show me evidence it works and I will agree with you.

tankdriver · #**124** 02-22-2008, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwthomas1

--I think there should be a thorough federal background check when purchasing a gun, made possible by a 5 day waiting period.--
I disagree with any waiting period. The NICS system works very well provided it is updated and maintained. Waiting 5 days does nothing if the system is not updated, waiting won't help.
-- I think the gun show loophole should be closed federally. --
Just what do you think the "gun show loophole" is? Do you understand that private citizens can legally sell firearms to other citizens at gun shows or anywhere else as long as it is not a business? What is the difference in buying a privately owned firearm at a gun show or from a classified ad, or from another member of a gun club? I am guessing you would like to force all firearm transfers through the FFL holders and have them subject to the NICS background check? Okay, what about allowing private citizens access to the NICS system so that they can feel they did their duty in a private sale? I do not want ALL private sales to have to go through a FFL. Its really not the Govt's business, or yours to know how many guns I have or what I am doing.

On the waiting period, what's wrong with waiting 5 days? The time will allow for proper depth of the background check.

The gun show loophole is obviously that buyers are not subject to background checks. Gun shows (and private sales) are a great example of how legal firearms can be the ones that end up in criminals' hands. I want all gun sales to have the buyer go through the check. As for you and your actions being the government's business, it is if you are engaged in illegal activity. Privacy is gone. Anyone can know anything about you. Especially if you are for the Nat'l ID card.

Quote:

-- I think fingerprint resistant weapons should be off the market. --
This statement shows how ignorant you are about firearms. I assume you are speaking of matte finishes? Common on many, many weapons. Firearm stocks and grips are usually "fingerprint resistant" as they have some sort of texture. Duh, its a grip.....

Look it up. I'm talking about fingerprint resistant coatings/materials. No need for them as long as a gun owner maintains his weapon, not to mention it'd take decades of wear for hand oils to damage grip materials.

Quote:

I think a gun safety course should be required before purchase, like driver's ed is before being allowed behind the wheel. I think that's reasonable.
Again, gun safety is being pushed heavily by the NRA and gun manufacturers and has been for a while. As to it being reasonable to make it mandatory let me ask you this. If safety classes and even licensing were accepted would you be okay with using tax dollars for building firing ranges and allocating open space for recreational shooting? How about an ironclad guarantee that our firearm rights could NEVER be revoked if we agreed to the above?

Good for the NRA. Are they pushing for a safety course requirement for gun ownership? I hope so.
I don't know why tax dollars would have to be allocated to build anything. Tax dollars didn't provide for my EZ Method driving course I had to complete with it's 7hrs behind the wheel to get me a DL. Tax dollars don't provide for locations purpose built for driving courses. Any current range could start offering a government approved safety course, and you could sign up for it. It's good for you and the shooting range business.

Quote:

I doubt that would make you happy, since your true goal has been stated below. You should know that you will be fought every step of the way. I don't plan on EVER giving in to people of your ilk and there are many more that think just like I do. Many more than you realize. RT

Thanks.

aklim · #**125** 02-22-2008, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

On the waiting period, what's wrong with waiting 5 days? The time will allow for proper depth of the background check.

The gun show loophole is obviously that buyers are not subject to background checks.

Good for the NRA. Are they pushing for a safety course requirement for gun ownership? I hope so.

Does anyone really know how long it takes? Is 5 days too little, too much, not enough, what? I know I can get approved for a handgun today but there will be a waiting period, aka cooling off period. Now, my question would be whether waiting another 4 days would prevent anything or not.

I'd be curious as to how we could administer it. What this means is that you have to give Citizen Joe the same access as the gun dealer. Otherwise, how will I check whether you are an honest person or some scumbag trying to shoot his wife?

So do I

rwthomas1 · #**126** 02-22-2008, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

On the waiting period, what's wrong with waiting 5 days? The time will allow for proper depth of the background check.

The gun show loophole is obviously that buyers are not subject to background checks. Gun shows (and private sales) are a great example of how legal firearms can be the ones that end up in criminals' hands. I want all gun sales to have the buyer go through the check. As for you and your actions being the government's business, it is if you are engaged in illegal activity. Privacy is gone. Anyone can know anything about you. Especially if you are for the Nat'l ID card.

Look it up. I'm talking about fingerprint resistant coatings/materials. No need for them as long as a gun owner maintains his weapon, not to mention it'd take decades of wear for hand oils to damage grip materials.

Good for the NRA. Are they pushing for a safety course requirement for gun ownership? I hope so.
I don't know why tax dollars would have to be allocated to build anything. Tax dollars didn't provide for my EZ Method driving course I had to complete with it's 7hrs behind the wheel to get me a DL. Tax dollars don't provide for locations purpose built for driving courses. Any current range could start offering a government approved safety course, and you could sign up for it. It's good for you and the shooting range business.

Thanks.

The problem with waiting 5 days is that it is simply unnecessary. With todays technology the check can and is done instantly as the NICS system is tied into Fed, state and local law enforcement records. More databases are being incorporated all the time, many don't have anything to do with law enforcement but that speaks to your Big Brother references. Delaying for 5 days to do what can now do instantly does nothing but inconvenience people.

As far as the "loophole" goes I would have no problem with private sales having access to the NICS system on a sale by sale basis but I do not want it to be mandatory. As it stands now NRA has fought for private access and been denied. No reason that it couldn't be done. I have owned and sold a few guns to friends when I grew tired of them. I really don't think the govt needs to know about that.

Regarding the National ID, etc. I am quite strongly against it. While you may think privacy is dead that depends on perspective. Privacy is only dead to the information that is available and entered into a computer. Look how hard it has been for our technology to find terrorists. If you don't leave an electronic or paper trail its awful hard to gather data. Many people are doing more and more business in cash. Bartering is becoming more common. Why is that? Backlash to Big Brother? Maybe.

Regarding the fingerprint resistant finishes, the only real references I found about it was on Brady, VPC and other anti-gun websites. Hmmm, again, you don't understand the purpose. Traditional firearm finishes such as hot bluing and to a lesser extent phosphating (know also as Parkerizing) will hold fingerprints and then rust quickly when stored. Special care must be taken when a firearm is stored to keep this from happening. The "fingerprint resistant" finishes that you seem to think are a criminals wet dream are simply matte epoxy or resin coatings that are self lubricating and greatly reduce maintenance/corrosion problems. The finishes are matte to reduce glare from light. This has been done for years with stainless firearms, the metal is given a sandblast/beadblast treatment. It to is naturally "fingerprint resistant" but that is not its intent. Have you ever cleaned or even fired a gun?

The NRA is pushing for voluntary firearm safety training and doing a good job. They have a very good child safety course as well. I am against mandatory anything.

If you are planning on making training and licensing mandatory I would expect that the govt would also provide places to shoot and training. My fuel taxes, registration, etc. pay for roads, state inspections, DMV, etc. If I am going to pay for a license and be registered I want something for my money.

RT

Matt L · #**127** 02-22-2008, 10:37 PM

The NICS check is not guaranteed to actually be instant. The answer has to be returned within three days if memory serves, or the buyer gets the gun without the check. Perhaps this time period should be lengthened, but it certainly should not be eliminated. To do so would mean that the government can suddenly make it impossible for any gun store to complete any legal sale at a whim.

Other delays don't make the NICS any more accurate. They only serve to assuage fears of someone going down to buy a gun in anger. As Homer said, "Five days? But I'm mad now!"

Skippy · #**128** 02-23-2008, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt L

The NICS check is not guaranteed to actually be instant. The answer has to be returned within three days if memory serves, or the buyer gets the gun without the check.

That's interesting. Mine have always come back within a few minutes. It takes me longer to fill out the form than the phone call to the government takes.

rwthomas1 · #**129** 02-23-2008, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt L

The NICS check is not guaranteed to actually be instant. The answer has to be returned within three days if memory serves, or the buyer gets the gun without the check. Perhaps this time period should be lengthened, but it certainly should not be eliminated. To do so would mean that the government can suddenly make it impossible for any gun store to complete any legal sale at a whim.

Other delays don't make the NICS any more accurate. They only serve to assuage fears of someone going down to buy a gun in anger. As Homer said, "Five days? But I'm mad now!"

You are correct sir! There are three possible outcomes to filling out the yellow form and having an FFL call in to NICS:
1-You pass instantly, or certainly in a few minutes complete your purchase and you are on your way.
2-There is a wait/hold for 3 days. This means the system has some inconsistency in its records and cannot return a "go". The background check is completed and if the FFL/gunshop doesn't hear otherwise in 3 days the sale may proceed.
3-The system returns a NO. This is usually due to someone trying to purchase a firearm that shouldn't be. This SHOULD automatically result in a warrant being issued for the attempted purchase since a convicted felon can receive 5 years for each attempted purchase, 5 years for each firearm possessed, etc. Sadly, these easy convictions are largely ignored.

RT

tankdriver · #**130** 02-23-2008, 01:03 AM

My concern for the background check and 5 days is that the mental health issue for one is going to take longer to verify. That sort of thing isn't on some national database. Also of concern, and I don't know how it would work, is some sort of effort to ensure a name change or something doesn't hide a violent crime background.

pt145ss · #**131** 02-23-2008, 01:22 AM

The problem is not with the federal background check. The problem is with the states. We have laws and administrative rules that require the states to report criminal convictions and mental defectives, however, the states fail to comply in a timely manner because of lack of funding and/or incentive. We saw this in the VA tech shooter who was deemed a mental defective by a judge and ordered to treatment. This information never made it to the feds. This is why he was able to purchase a handgun legally. So, if we have the laws in place, lets fund the states so they can be in compliance and/or provide incentive for the states…ie. If the states get all their stuff into the feds in a timely manner we provide funds to them for doing a good job…if the states do not get the info into the feds in a timely manner…then we fine them.

DieselAddict · #**132** 02-23-2008, 02:33 AM

Background checks are a joke if someone can legally buy a second hand gun from craigslist or a gun show without a background check. I say each gun should be registered like a vehicle through the DMV and I'd make it a felony to own an unregistered gun. Some gun nuts may see this as stepping on their rights, but I don't see the big deal. You go to the DMV to register your new vehicle and you don't complain (at least not too much) - I don't see why guns should get any special treatment. After all they can cause great bodily harm even more easily than a recklessly driven vehicle. The idea here is not to restrict gun ownership for law-abiding citizens. The idea is to make gun owners, both good and bad, more responsible and to more easily track down offenders. I bet if it wasn't for the NRA and its own agenda we'd already have this kind of system implemented.

aklim · #**133** 02-23-2008, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwthomas1

You are correct sir! There are three possible outcomes to filling out the yellow form and having an FFL call in to NICS:
1-You pass instantly, or certainly in a few minutes complete your purchase and you are on your way.
2-There is a wait/hold for 3 days. This means the system has some inconsistency in its records and cannot return a "go". The background check is completed and if the FFL/gunshop doesn't hear otherwise in 3 days the sale may proceed.
3-The system returns a NO. This is usually due to someone trying to purchase a firearm that shouldn't be. This SHOULD automatically result in a warrant being issued for the attempted purchase since a convicted felon can receive 5 years for each attempted purchase, 5 years for each firearm possessed, etc. Sadly, these easy convictions are largely ignored.

RT

RT, you forgot option 4. NCIS comes down to the shop. My gunsmith had that happen to him. They wanted to know about the guy he was trying to sell it to. Why? Because that guy was a known criminal based on the name. They asked him if he was sure that the guy was not the one in their pic. Gunsmith said it wasn't possible. The guy in their pic was black and the guy that applied for the transfer of firearm was white.

aklim · #**134** 02-23-2008, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

I bet if it wasn't for the NRA and its own agenda we'd already have this kind of system implemented.

Problem with the NRA is that they are on one extreme fighting the other extreme. The other extreme is the "gun control" group. While they sound nice and warm, their actual intent is usually to control it to the point that nobody can own one. Therefore, the NRA is unwilling to give an inch since it could slowly chip away their rights till nobody gets to own one. The "gun control" side sees this and fights tooth and nail. Basically we have 2 fighting dogs that don't want to yield an inch. Is it bad? Well, if we didn't have the NRA, would the "gun control" people take away our gun rights? I think so. Do I support EVERYBODY's right to have a gun? Sure. When pigs fly. Some people should be allowed and some should not ever be allowed to touch a butter knife

Skippy · #**135** 02-23-2008, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

I say each gun should be registered like a vehicle through the DMV and I'd make it a felony to own an unregistered gun. Some gun nuts may see this as stepping on their rights, but I don't see the big deal.

The big deal is that there is a fairly large and politically powerful group of people in this country who want to ban/confiscate all guns. Gun registration makes it much much easier for the government to go around to all the known gun owners and round up the guns once they're banned. This has already happened in the UK and Australia.

Quote:

You go to the DMV to register your new vehicle and you don't complain (at least not too much) - I don't see why guns should get any special treatment.

1. No one is seriously trying to have cars banned. Yet.

2. You have a constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. Do you have a constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and drive cars? For the record, I think you should only have to register your vehicle if you drive it on public roads and that laws to the contrary are BS intended to generate revenue and reduce the number of "derelict" vehicles on private property.

Quote:

After all they can cause great bodily harm even more easily than a recklessly driven vehicle.

I don't know about that. Ask the parents of the four kids killed recently by that illegal POS in Minnesota.

Quote:

The idea here is not to restrict gun ownership for law-abiding citizens. The idea is to make gun owners, both good and bad, more responsible and to more easily track down offenders. I bet if it wasn't for the NRA and its own agenda we'd already have this kind of system implemented.

Were it not for the fact that registration facilitates confiscation, I might agree with you. But it does, so I don't, and I'm glad that me and my fellow NRA members have been able to counter gun grabbers as much as we have.