• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing gun violence/injury thread

wfumike02 said:
I have no link to back it up, but I would agree with that. It is frequent for gun owners to be targeted for burglaries because they are gun owners. It happens to police officers a lot.

That said, I fail to see how it infringes on anyone's rights to have more comprehensive background checks. Just because your boat has multiple leaks doesn't mean you shouldn't try to fix any of them.
Click to expand...

We buy guns to protect our families. Yet by buying guns, our families are less safe because now we are targeted for burglaries. Brilliant.
 
RJKarl said:
mike, it would infringe on your rights to sell a gun to your next door neighbor who tells you he isn't a felon when he has convictions for armed robbery and spousal battery.

To elkman, Sc and others you should be able to sell him your guns just on his word.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the invite.
 
WFFaithful said:
We buy guns to protect our families. Yet by buying guns, our families are less safe because now we are targeted for burglaries. Brilliant.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that, per se. Someone who is breaking in to steal your gun because they know you own one is likely going to pick a time when you're not home to do it.
 
wfumike02 said:
I wouldn't say that, per se. Someone who is breaking in to steal your gun because they know you own one is likely going to pick a time when you're not home to do it.
Click to expand...

So instead of guns protecting families, families need to protect guns.
 
PhDeac said:
So instead of guns protecting families, families need to protect guns.
Click to expand...

exactly. what other commonly stolen, valuable, and potentially dangerous item do most families own? A car. If "responsible gun owners" would put as much protection around their guns as they do around their cars, a lot fewer guns would get into the hands of criminals and 4 year old kids.
 
DEACisGO said:
Gun inception: Guns to protect guns to protect guns.......................
Click to expand...

this is pretty much the official position of the NRA. You have to have guns to protect yourself from people with guns who need guns to protect themselves from people with guns who...
 
Deacon923 said:
exactly. what other commonly stolen, valuable, and potentially dangerous item do most families own? A car. If "responsible gun owners" would put as much protection around their guns as they do around their cars, a lot fewer guns would get into the hands of criminals and 4 year old kids.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. I feel like a gun would probably get stolen if I just left it in my driveway overnight. My car seems to do alright.
 
RJKarl said:
mike, it would infringe on your rights to sell a gun to your next door neighbor who tells you he isn't a felon when he has convictions for armed robbery and spousal battery.

To elkman, Sc and others you should be able to sell him your guns just on his word.
Click to expand...

By the by, as federal law says on private sales, one just has to reasonably believe a potential buyer is not a prohibited person. If this is all about safety, why cannot a private seller do a NICS check on potential buyer?
 
elkman92 said:
By the by, as federal law says on private sales, one just has to reasonably believe a potential buyer is not a prohibited person. If this is all about safety, why cannot a private seller do a NICS check on potential buyer?
Click to expand...

Because the NRA says no and the Congress doesn't have the balls to do what's right. Every sale or transfer should have a background check and there should be a record of it.

anyone who thinks a sales registry will lead to "confiscation" is a crazy person.
 
Deacon923 said:
exactly. what other commonly stolen, valuable, and potentially dangerous item do most families own? A car. If "responsible gun owners" would put as much protection around their guns as they do around their cars, a lot fewer guns would get into the hands of criminals and 4 year old kids.
Click to expand...

I think McDonald and Heller cut slightly against this though since one of the "purposes" of the Amendment is protection where a gun would theoretically need to be readily accessible in the event of quick action.

I say again the problem isn't necessarily gun owners, it's the fact that we have a constitutional allowance to own guns which is fucking nuts.
 
RJKarl said:
Because the NRA says no and the Congress doesn't have the balls to do what's right. Every sale or transfer should have a background check and there should be a record of it.

anyone who thinks a sales registry will lead to "confiscation" is a crazy person.
Click to expand...

You mean that elected officials are actually representing their constituents? Shocking. I guess you forgot that the NRA was a backer of instant background checks. Again, why cannot I ring a number to check to see if a potential buyer in a private sale is a prohibited person? Because Democrats want registration. If it was really about safety, that would not be a requirement. Security theater at its best at taxpayer expense...
 
elkman, have you mentioned your plan to keep legal guns from ending up in the hands of people who wish to do harm?
 
PhDeac said:
elkman, have you mentioned your plan to keep legal guns from ending up in the hands of people who wish to do harm?
Click to expand...

PhDeac, have you mentioned your plan to legislate morality and sanity?
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I think McDonald and Heller cut slightly against this though since one of the "purposes" of the Amendment is protection where a gun would theoretically need to be readily accessible in the event of quick action.

I say again the problem isn't necessarily gun owners, it's the fact that we have a constitutional allowance to own guns which is fucking nuts.
Click to expand...

Mumbles Menino probably agrees with you, as do his bodyguards. Get him to lead an amendment that eliminates 2A...
 
elkman92 said:
You mean that elected officials are actually representing their constituents? Shocking. I guess you forgot that the NRA was a backer of instant background checks. Again, why cannot I ring a number to check to see if a potential buyer in a private sale is a prohibited person? Because Democrats want registration. If it was really about safety, that would not be a requirement. Security theater at its best at taxpayer expense...
Click to expand...

The NRA WAS a supporter. Now they oppose the law they proposed.

Members of Congress are NOT representing their constituents as 91% want universal background checks.

Why can't you a number to find that out? Because some states aren't connected on criminal background and many aren't on mental health.

It's absurd not to support a law that holds the seller responsible for selling a gun to a criminal or mentally unstable person. There's no logical reason that a private seller can't go to a gunshop of PD to do a check. The public overwhelmingly supports this on the whores of the NRA and the profiteers from the blood of innocents in the gun industry oppose this.
 
People didn't say never. You have no information on size of magazine. If you did, you'd be saying it.

As opposed us knowing for certain the shooter in Tuscon was kept from killing more when he stopped to put in another clip and was apprehended. We know for sure kids escaped in Newtown when he reloaded. In Aurora when he ran out of magazines he left.

You have a theory. We know lives were saved.
 
RJ has something in common with Jesse Helms. He's all for the elected representatives of the people reflecting the polls when said polls are in his favor. If something is a bad idea, I really don't give a damn how many people are for it.
 
84Deac said:
Homeowner fights off 4 intruders, killing two: http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=9062720

Pretty sure there were at least a few people on here that said this kind of multiple perp attack never happens. I wonder how big the magazine was on the homeowner's weapon of choice?
Click to expand...

I have said many times that there are about 0 incidents where a law abiding homeowner gets into a multi-magazine gun duel, or is victimized because they ran out of bullets.

This news story uses the phrase gun battle, but it doesn't say whether the perps fired any shots or how many the homeowner fired. As far as we know it could have been a multi magazine shoot out, or the homeowner could have fired two shots from a 38 revolver and scored two kills. It also is silent on the context - was this a random victim, or was the homeowner a drug dealer? We don't know.

If you find out anything more about the incident please post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top