Making Fun of the Clown Car of Republican Candidates

@farmerman,

The problem might be in recognizing the 'crazies'. If they pass a background check, but just look crazy or dangerous, it kind of puts the gun shop in a delicate position. I mean, what do you tell them? "You look nuts and I'm not selling to you"? Could the seller have problems with discrimination if the buyer weren't total Anglo? There might even be some real world hazards in pissing off the nuts.

3 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people and criminals is a law that I support whole-heartedly. It makes sense, and anyone trying to weaken that law is responsible for what their negligence causes.

That is a different issue. What about frivolous lawsuits against gun stores? If the federal government tells a gun store that someone passes a background check, is the gun store to blame for then selling that person a gun?

But since you brought up that law, what do you think of the Democrats' efforts to abuse that law by using it to keep guns out of the hands of ordinary people who have the right to have guns?

Anyway, I am happy to take responsibility for my efforts to weaken the law. It is necessary to do so given the way the Democrats are using it to prevent ordinary people from buying guns.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I will never give up my guns.

And I would never actively be intentionally responsible for allowing the deranged and the criminal to have guns. Anyone who would is culpable in the murders those people commit.

Views like yours strengthen the case for gun control.

0 Replies

@roger,

Surely a gun shop owner would rely on a background check to see if there are any documented data to show someone has mental problems. I mean the system can never be perfect, some are naturally going to slip through the cracks, but we can at least do our best to make sure guns are not in the hands of those who are a risk to do harm to either themselves or others.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Who are these people who are grandstanding over murdered children but refuse to enforce the laws on the books? Most of those on the side of gun control just simply want to improve the laws on the books to make it more efficient. My husband owns guns, nearly everyone I know does as I live in southern KY. So I am not against gun ownership. The case in which you and I were discussing involved simple human error and the three day time constraints. I agree though (I am not sure what POS is) there should be better database which makes data more assessable across state and county lines.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

Point Of Sale.

I agree with what you said. It should be a priority to make the database accessible and reliable. It makes me furious that it hasn't been done, yet people use the shootings to bolster anti-gun laws.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Thanks, should have been obvious. Embarrassed

Anyway, I am not sure what all the reforms are which people have advocating for better gun safety (maybe that would be a better way to word it) but perhaps that is one of them. If it is not, you are right, it should be.

0 Replies

@roger,

Only people with mental health diagnoses or people who've had a run in with the law should be on the database. I think maybe if a potential gun-buyer was obviously under the influence of drugs or alcohol or was spouting angry rhetoric at the POS, there would be a legitimate reason not to sell. So the seller would not be culpable. Their only responsibility would be to fill out the paperwork on each sale, run the ID name through a database and not sell to people listed there. If they did their job, there would be no seller culpability.

Of course, some crazies would get through - but if this one law had been followed, most of the high profile murders in the media in the last decade would not have happened with a legally purchased weapon.

2 Replies

If you were one of those grieving parents who has tried to get involved in advocating for gun control after their child was killed, what would you do differently than them? I ask because it sounds to me as if there is criticism of the actions taken after another gun death. I just can't help but wonder, what CAN they do when there is such rabid resistance, both to existing law being enforced or any new laws.

1 Reply

@snood,

Quote:

The fact that no one is following up on the prosecution of laws that are already in place - and vilifying gun ownership instead - does make me believe that these people have an anti-gun ownership agenda. It does harsh my opinion about the honesty of most of those people.

I made the underlined remark with parents in mind. I don't hold parents of murdered children to account for anything. I can't imagine what I would do or say in that situation. I do, however, dislike those who use them.

2 Replies

@Lash,

I understand. But if you were a legislator/politician, you couldn't very well just ignore those parents when they cry out for action by legislators/politicians. I guess I'm wondering what would be an acceptable course of action for them, as well - keeping in mind that whatever they do, whether making public appearances or privately trying to advocate for tightening gun control - will meet with the maniacal resistance of the "no such thing as too many guns or too much shooting" crowd.

So, to be clear - while I'm sure that odds are that some of those pols who speak out after gun violence events are just cynical self-seekers, some of them probably have good intentions. I just don't know what they actually CAN do when up against the mindless "they're taking our guns away" bunch.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Only people with mental health diagnoses or people who've had a run in with the law should be on the database.

Sounds good, but actually, the diagnoses have to be confirmed by a court, and I'm pretty sure that would have to be based on testimony of a board certified psychiatrist, not just some passing psychologist. Also, some states do a much better for reporting both mental illness and felony convictions.

2 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Only people with mental health diagnoses or people who've had a run in with the law should be on the database.

That would be nice, but unfortunately the database is being abused to block ordinary law-abiding citizens.

Lash wrote:

I think maybe if a potential gun-buyer was obviously under the influence of drugs or alcohol or was spouting angry rhetoric at the POS, there would be a legitimate reason not to sell. So the seller would not be culpable. Their only responsibility would be to fill out the paperwork on each sale, run the ID name through a database and not sell to people listed there. If they did their job, there would be no seller culpability.

If you agree that the seller has no culpability, do you still object to laws that protect the seller from frivolous lawsuits?

0 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

Lash wrote:
Only people with mental health diagnoses or people who've had a run in with the law should be on the database.

Sounds good, but actually, the diagnoses have to be confirmed by a court, and I'm pretty sure that would have to be based on testimony of a board certified psychiatrist, not just some passing psychologist.

I assumed that is what she meant, but yes, that's a good point. Someone who was clinically depressed for a brief period 20 years ago after the death of a child/spouse/parent should not be placed on the list. The list should only be for people who are actually dangerous.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

I should have added a caveat about 'run in with the law'. Someone calls in a complaint, the police investigate, and no charges are filed and no arrest made. Is that a 'run in with the law'? How about a not guilt verdict in a felony case?

1 Reply

@roger,

I wonder about clinical depression diagnoses. Some are very serious. Do all those people taking pills qualify as mentally ill?

Surely some murder suicides are related to what might be called clinical depression.

I'm betting they are not catalogued. Not that I am sure they should be, just wondering.

1 Reply

It seems to me that it's easy to find a plethora of reasons why gun control won't work, or would be near-impossible to realize. What's hard is figuring out how we can make it better - because, don't we really need to?

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

It seems to me that it's easy to find a plethora of reasons why gun control won't work, or would be near-impossible to realize. What's hard is figuring out how we can make it better - because, don't we really need to?

The trouble is, gun control people only ever want measures that are outrageous civil rights violations. They never even try to come up with anything that would be both "better" and "compliant with the Constitution".

And that means that all their proposals get defeated by us gun rights advocates.

There is no point in even trying to talk with the opposing side. I've tried and I regret trying. The only thing to do is continue to defeat all their outrageous proposals when they come up with them. So that's what we do.

0 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

I should have added a caveat about 'run in with the law'. Someone calls in a complaint, the police investigate, and no charges are filed and no arrest made. Is that a 'run in with the law'? How about a not guilt verdict in a felony case?

They shouldn't be, but considering the way the Obama Administration is abusing the law, they probably are.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

I've known of a person with a depression diagnosis who was refused the right to buy a gun - and someone who'd had the cops called to their residence for a domestic dispute. I know it seems like a violation of rights, but I agree with these people having to go through extra hurdles (though I don't know what they are) to buy a firearm.

0 Replies

Making Fun of the Clown Car of Republican Candidates

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know