Is this just our New Normal?

[8circles]

I am sorry you feel personally attacked. I am also flabbergasted. You used words like base, disgusting, inhumane and many more to describe how you felt about those of us giving a different point of view, and instead of being met with the same type of words and certainty that our position was the morally correct one, we explained not using inflammatory language yet you feel attacked by those explanations? That seems unfair.

I described the woman in the story and her actions with those words. I expressed my own feelings about people who think her actions are correct but I didn't address anyone in particular with those adjectves.

 

Alte didn't address me either but I felt it was obvious who she meant and I was confused where she got the idea that I had a pre existing bias and wasn't open minded - so I asked. She later called me creepy when I was agreeing to disagree.

 

I stand by my assessment of the woman in the possibly fictional story & her behavior and think that the attitude of such extreme reverence to a weapon that kills people is a huge problem in this country.

[StaceyinLA]

Gun control will not work here because criminals WILL find ways to get weapons. Though I am for restrictions on certain types of guns (auto and semi-auto, though sometimes I think maybe the police should have them), background checks, 72 hour holds, etc., I am not convinced in any way, shape or form that these restrictions would keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

 

I am certainly FOR concealed carry (with requirements met), and do not believe for a second that I wouldn't be able to shoot someone in my home threatening my family. I am comfortable with guns, have enjoyed shooting them at gun ranges and target courses, and have never had a problem keeping them in my home (with proper safety measures in place).

 

Had I EVER had an inkling of concern that one of my kids had any type of mental/behavioral issues, the scenario would likely be very different.

[poppy]

Gun control will not work here because criminals WILL find ways to get weapons. Though I am for restrictions on certain types of guns (auto and semi-auto, though sometimes I think maybe the police should have them), background checks, 72 hour holds, etc., I am not convinced in any way, shape or form that these restrictions would keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

 

I am certainly FOR concealed carry (with requirements met), and do not believe for a second that I wouldn't be able to shoot someone in my home threatening my family. I am comfortable with guns, have enjoyed shooting them at gun ranges and target courses, and have never had a problem keeping them in my home (with proper safety measures in place).

 

Had I EVER had an inkling of concern that one of my kids had any type of mental/behavioral issues, the scenario would likely be very different.

Gun control will not work here ? We already have lots of gun control measures on the books. So I am not sure what you mean. Are you arguing against current restrictions ? Or against future ones? Surely there must be some level of restrictions you are comfortable with. Or if you are arguing that we should not ban civilian guns altogether..... Let's take baby steps. Making it much harder for someone to buy guns legally and then sell them privately to any crook who answers a classified ad would be a fantastic start.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

 

 

Gun control can work. We just have to be willing.

 

I think we've proven that people are unwilling.

[AlmiraGulch]

 So playing off that, I am going to email my representatives suggesting a law that all guns are accessible only to the owner. This would have to be done in good faith because home visits are something else that is not going to happen in the USA. If you do not properly store your gun(s), and an accident happens or a crime is committed with your weapon, you can be held criminally and civilly responsible. I see NO problem with this from a gun owner point of view. I would like to hear other thoughts.

 

 

I support personal gun ownership, and I would be 100% in support of this.   I cannot see a down side.  

[Catwoman]

I am up too late too, taking first shift in monitoring a sick kitty.

I hope your cat is OK. :grouphug:

[MistyMountain]

I think the reason our country has more gun violence than other industrialized countries per capita actually is less to do with gun laws and more to do with the poverty, the inequality, and the poor state of our schools in poor neighborhoods.

[Luanne]

Gun control can work. We just have to be willing.

 

I think we've proven that people are unwilling.

 

So, you honestly think you are going to get the criminals to give up their guns so you can have your gun control?  They kill people, steal, etc... they don't care about what the law says about having a gun.  You live in a delusional world.

[8circles]

I may be way out in left field on this on but... This whole conversation reminds me of when gangbangers explain why they're in a gang. They see it as the only way to get respect in their environment so instead of fixing the root of the problem (I'm sure there are many but poverty and racism are big ones) they perpetuate the cycle and join in the violence. This is very similar to what has happened with the gun culture here IMO. People fear being the victim of violent crime so instead of working to fix that problem, they join in on the violence. "I need my guns because criminals have them". Why don't we work towards finding a solution to that problem instead of making it worse?

[8circles]

So, you honestly think you are going to get the criminals to give up their guns so you can have your gun control? They kill people, steal, etc... they don't care about what the law says about having a gun. You live in a delusional world.

Do you honestly think that we've made our society better with our obsession with guns? I live in reality and it isn't rainbows and unicorns carrying guns. Its children getting shot at school.

[shawthorne44]

Do you honestly think that we've made our society better with our obsession with guns? I live in reality and it isn't rainbows and unicorns carrying guns. Its children getting shot at school.

 

Well, that is what is reported.  When the old guy uses the gun in his robe pocket to kill the home invader, it isn't big news.  You only read about them in an article that is a collection of one paragraph reports of people defending themselves.  Even then it needs a hook to warrant the one paragraph.  In the robe story, the hook was the neighbors saying that the home invader must not have watched the old man ahead of time.  Since he always carried the gun in the pocket, that side of the robe was about one foot longer than the other.  But, unless you read that article too, you probably haven't heard of it.  

[RanchGirl]

WHAT?  If you believe that law-abiding gun owners are "perpetuating a cycle of violence" simply by owning a gun, then you're never going to get anywhere, because reasonable people won't talk to you.  Calling gun-owners names like  "obsessed" and "violent" might make you feel self-righteous, but it isn't getting any closer to a solution to children getting shot at school. 

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

So, you honestly think you are going to get the criminals to give up their guns so you can have your gun control? They kill people, steal, etc... they don't care about what the law says about having a gun. You live in a delusional world.

No I don't. I live in a world with ample evidence that real change is possible but it takes sacrifice.

 

If we wanted to get rid of the vast majority of guns, we could. This thread has shown that very few are willing.

 

We already regulate arms, including outright bans on some types of arms. We could further that.

 

We are unwilling to take the necessary steps.

 

I'm saying it's possible. That's not delusional. But it would take hard work.

[poppy]

So, you honestly think you are going to get the criminals to give up their guns so you can have your gun control?  They kill people, steal, etc... they don't care about what the law says about having a gun.  You live in a delusional world.

 

What is it you think "gun control" means?

[8circles]

WHAT? If you believe that law-abiding gun owners are "perpetuating a cycle of violence" simply by owning a gun, then you're never going to get anywhere, because reasonable people won't talk to you. Calling gun-owners names like "obsessed" and "violent" might make you feel self-righteous, but it isn't getting any closer to a solution to children getting shot at school.

No, I don't think all law-abiding gun-owners are perpetuating the cycle of violence. I think there is very vocal subset of them that are. The ones that worry about it getting scratched or the ones that think they need to carry a concealed weapon at all times, like at a Bible study, so they can let out their inner Rambo and be the hero of the day. There are MANY reasonable, responsible gun owners - its too bad the bad ones are ruining it for us all.

[In2why]

So, you honestly think you are going to get the criminals to give up their guns so you can have your gun control?  They kill people, steal, etc... they don't care about what the law says about having a gun.  You live in a delusional world.

 

 

Criminals do not seem to be the problem in school shootings.  Colombine, Newtown, and Oregon shooters all got their weapons from a family members arsenal in their homes.  The Virginia Tech shooter bought his gun easily, quickly and legally.  These aren't criminals buying them on the black market, stealing them from a neighbor, or smuggled across the border.  

 

Gun control and regulations could have stopped those shootings.  If gun owners secured their weapons their kids couldn't get them.  If there was a background check for mental illness or cooling off periods in Virginia.  

 

The vast majority of school shootings are kids getting legally obtained guns at home.  It should be a wake up call to parents, but it won't be because it is impossible to imagine your child could do something so heinous.  

[In2why]

I may be way out in left field on this on but... This whole conversation reminds me of when gangbangers explain why they're in a gang. They see it as the only way to get respect in their environment so instead of fixing the root of the problem (I'm sure there are many but poverty and racism are big ones) they perpetuate the cycle and join in the violence. This is very similar to what has happened with the gun culture here IMO. People fear being the victim of violent crime so instead of working to fix that problem, they join in on the violence. "I need my guns because criminals have them". Why don't we work towards finding a solution to that problem instead of making it worse?

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.   I don't believe there is anyone on this forum that doesn't want to be part of the solution.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Criminals do not seem to be the problem in school shootings.  Colombine, Newtown, and Oregon shooters all got their weapons from a family members arsenal in their homes.  The Virginia Tech shooter bought his gun easily, quickly and legally.  These aren't criminals buying them on the black market, stealing them from a neighbor, or smuggled across the border.  

 

Gun control and regulations could have stopped those shootings.  If gun owners secured their weapons their kids couldn't get them.  If there was a background check for mental illness or cooling off periods in Virginia.  

 

The vast majority of school shootings are kids getting legally obtained guns at home.  It should be a wake up call to parents, but it won't be because it is impossible to imagine your child could do something so heinous.  

 

The Columbine shooters acquired their firearms on their own, and I believe the purchases (definitely some but not sure about all) were illegal for various reasons.

[poppy]

The Columbine shooters acquired their firearms on their own, and I believe the purchases (definitely some but not sure about all) were illegal for various reasons.

 

They bought legally acquired guns from friends.

[In2why]

The Columbine shooters acquired their firearms on their own, and I believe the purchases (definitely some but not sure about all) were illegal for various reasons.

 

I didn't realize that.  I just read the Wikipedia page on Columbine and it is horrifying how close they came to killing hundreds.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

They bought legally acquired guns from friends.

 

And their act of buying those guns was illegal - ie straw man purchases and purchases by underage buyers.

[ThisIsTheDay]

No, I don't think all law-abiding gun-owners are perpetuating the cycle of violence. I think there is very vocal subset of them that are. The ones that worry about it getting scratched or the ones that think they need to carry a concealed weapon at all times, like at a Bible study, so they can let out their inner Rambo and be the hero of the day. There are MANY reasonable, responsible gun owners - its too bad the bad ones are ruining it for us all.

 

In general, I am fascinated to hear over and over how fearful and obsessive gun owners supposedly are. I think it's a big misstep of the gun control crowd, because such descriptions put us immediately on the defensive. You've already lost a chance at a reasonable discussion.  ("Inner Rambo"?  :lol: )

 

My husband and my father and a best friend carry everywhere (and none have an "inner Rambo" or desire to be a hero). Bible study, church, grocery store, it doesn't matter. It's just part of life. That's what we do. It's just like I wear a seat belt everywhere. I don't pick and choose which place I will be "safe" or more likely to get in an accident.  Do I think I will?  Nope, and I never have.  But I still wear the seatbelt.  I don't give it a second thought. 

 

I have smoke alarms in my house and fire extinguishers too.

 

I'm not fearful of criminals, nor am I fearful of fires or anything else in life (the exception being hitting a deer while driving).

 

[In2why]

And their act of buying those guns was illegal - ie straw man purchases and purchases by underage buyers.

 

 

I wonder if the people that sold them the guns were criminally charged and seriously punished.  I don't remember hearing much about them. 

 

Edited after more research........One of the people that sold them weapons was sentenced to 6 years and the other 4 1/2 years.  So they were charged.  

[poppy]

And their act of buying those guns was illegal - ie straw man purchases and purchases by underage buyers.

 

Yes, which still happens all the time. Straw man purchases are primary way criminals get guns.   Which is evidence that our system of selling and tracking guns is utterly inadequate and puts us all at risk.

[ktgrok]

For those that keep saying they want to ban semi automatic weapons, I'm not sure you know what those are. Anything where it automatically loads another bullet, like pretty much ANY modern hand gun is a semi automatic. The old cowboy guns where you had to recock it after each shot, those were not semi automatic. Depending on the exact method of classification most revolvers are also semi automatic. (some say no, because the shell isn't ejected after each shot the same way, but it still reloads and allows you to fire again without recocking).  I'm not sure that has been clear here.

[ThisIsTheDay]

Right on topic, this opinion was handed down by the Supreme Court today regarding straw purchases. A police officer bought a gun for his uncle.  While the uncle could legally purchase a handgun, the police officer purchased it because he could get a police discount.  Illegal, ruled the Court, even though the uncle was legally able to purchase a gun.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/16/supreme-court-guns-straw-purchasers/6180633/

[poppy]

Right on topic, this opinion was handed down by the Supreme Court today regarding straw purchases. A police officer bought a gun for his uncle.  While the uncle could legally purchase a handgun, the police officer purchased it because he could get a police discount.  Illegal, ruled the Court, even though the uncle was legally able to purchase a gun.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/16/supreme-court-guns-straw-purchasers/6180633/

 

How is it that 4 justices thought it should be ok to lie on a background check form???

[MSNative]

How is it that 4 justices thought it should be ok to lie on a background check form???

From the story posted it doesn't sound like that's what happened.

 

""The court makes it a federal crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner," he said. "Whether or not that is a sensible result, the statutes Congress enacted do not support it."

 

The straw purchaser in the case was a former Virginia police officer who bought a Glock 19 handgun for his uncle in Pennsylvania. Both were legal gun owners. But the purchaser, Bruce James Abramski, filled out a federal form indicating that he was the "actual buyer" of gun.

 

"Congress didn't use terms like 'true buyer' or 'true purchaser' or 'actual buyer' because they are not concerned about the ultimate recipients of firearms or what happens to a gun after it leaves the gun store," Dietz said.

 

The Justice Department, seeking to uphold the two lower court rulings against Abramski, argued that Congress always sought to identify the ultimate gun purchasers but did not want to intrude on private transactions.

 

But Scalia ridiculed the majority's assertion that under federal firearms laws, the uncle -- not Abramski — was the true purchaser of the gun. "If I give my son $10 and tell him to pick up milk and eggs at the store, no English speaker would say that the store 'sells' the milk and eggs to me," he said."

 

For example, should it be illegal for a wife to legally buy a gun to give to her husband who is legally allowed to own a gun? I guess it is now. Cars kill more people than guns but it's not illegal to give someone a car. Wouldn't this be similar to a car dealership employee buying a car for someone?

 

What I don't get is the part where Justice argued that Congress didn't want to intrude on private transactions? Isn't that what just happened here?

[poppy]

Sounds like a way to legalize gun trafficking, and a way to make background checks completely meaningless.

 

 

 

 

For example, should it be illegal for a wife to legally buy a gun to give to her husband who is legally allowed to own a gun? I guess it is now. Cars kill more people than guns but it's not illegal to give someone a car. Wouldn't this be similar to a car dealership employee buying a car for someone?

 

When you buy a car for someone, you have to transfer the registration. If every gun had to be registered to its owner, and every gun was taxed to the owner on file........ that would change a lot of things.

Sounds like a good plan to me.

[MSNative]

Sounds like a way to legalize gun trafficking, and a way to make background checks completely meaningless.

 

 

 

 

 

When you buy a car for someone, you have to transfer the registration. If every gun had to be registered to its owner, and every gun was taxed to the owner on file........ that would change a lot of things.

Sounds like a good plan to me.

 

Fair points. This is the first I've read about this so I'm still thinking it through.

 

In the gun case, though, he was buying for somebody who could legally buy.  Maybe a better analogy would be alcohol.  Should it be illegal for someone to buy a bottle of booze for someone else who is of age?  Certainly that person could end up getting drunk and kill someone by drunk driving or something else.  That action would be illegal but should the purchasing of a bottle of alcohol for someone else be illegal? Buying for an underage person is illegal just as buying for a felon or someone else who cant legally purchase is illegal.

[MSNative]

I looked up the oral arguments of the case and it turns out that the uncle did have to undergo a background check and fill out all of the federal paperwork and registration before taking possession of the gun.  

 

"In 2009, Bruce Abramski went to a gun store

 

at his home in Virginia and purchased a firearm. When he did so, he filled out all the required Federal paperwork providing his own name and identifying information and passing a background check. He then traveled to his uncle's home in Pennsylvania and delivered the firearm to a licensed gun dealer there. That gun dealer required Mr. Abramski's uncle to fill out the exact same Federal paperwork and pass his own background check before taking possession of the firearm."

 

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-1493_2135.pdf

 

[ktgrok]

That was actually very responsible to do it through a dealer, sounds like the true issue is that instead of it being him buying it, then selling it, he bought it with the intention of giving it to someone immediately. Intent was the issue. Interesting. 

 

Also, I wish all private sales were required to go through dealers like that. My husband inherited a gun when his mother died. His brother wanted it, so my husband wanted to do it "above board" and create a paper trail by doing the transfer through a dealer, with a background check, etc. The local dealer said they don't do that, and not to bother. 

[TCB]

I think the reason our country has more gun violence than other industrialized countries per capita actually is less to do with gun laws and more to do with the poverty, the inequality, and the poor state of our schools in poor neighborhoods.

 

 

It's always so interesting that for some gun violence is never about the guns at all, it's always a million other things that cause it but has absolutely nothing to do with the guns. It sounds like some of these other reasons would be much easier to solve since solving anything about guns is so apparently impossible, so please, I beg of you, solve them so we can be done with the gun violence. 

[SadieMarie]

I haven't caught up with everything so I apologize if someone had already posted it. The two priest that were shot in AZ were shot with a gun the killer took away from one of them.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/

[SadieMarie]

More evidence of the general suckiness of the NRA:

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/17/at-the-supreme-court-the-nra-finally-loses-one.html

[ThisIsTheDay]

More evidence of the general suckiness of the NRA:

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/17/at-the-supreme-court-the-nra-finally-loses-one.html

 

The only thing this "evidences" is the opinion of the author.  At least he doesn't hide his bias!  :D

[poppy]

The only thing this "evidences" is the opinion of the author.  At least he doesn't hide his bias!  :D

 

Here is the critical paragraph, so folks can form their own opinion:

 

The NRA first asserted that since the defendant’s uncle was not prohibited by law from owning a gun, the defendant should in essence be given amnesty for lying on the federal form. But then the NRA went even further. It argued that the question of who is the “actual buyer†of the gun should be stricken from the form because it was not promulgated properly under federal law.

 

What does that really mean? The NRA wants to make it easier for straw purchasers to buy guns for others without fear of criminal prosecution, undermining legal safeguards to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms. In fact, this isn’t the first time the NRA has tried this argument. Just last year, we saw the NRA lobby Congress in an effort to weaken a proposed law that would’ve increased penalties for straw purchasers of firearms.

 

My question is, why is it in the NRA's interest to remove the name of the 'actual buyer' from the federal form? 

[MSNative]

Here is the critical paragraph, so folks can form their own opinion:

 

 

My question is, why is it in the NRA's interest to remove the name of the 'actual buyer' from the federal form? 

 That's a really good question.  I searched on the nra site and so far there is nothing there though I'm certain they are crafting a response.  They did have a link to a Washington Times article from back in January which I think gives their reasoning.  It is an editorial so obviously biased.  I guess the issue is that the law never said that "Actual Buyer" should be on the form or dealt with straw purchasers at all.  ATF interpreted that.  Now, I disagree with the writer and think that the questions of whether or not there should be background checks or if Uncle Sam has an interest in stockpiling of weapons are really important and should be discussed.  I guess the point of this is that those decisions should be made by our elected officials, not unelected regulators.  

 

"The assistant to the solicitor general, Joseph Palmore, admitted to the court that the ATF was “interpreting†the will of Congress when it added the “actual buyer†question in 1995 on the background form.

Mr. Palmore said the other “critical†purposes of the ATF’s agenda with determining the final buyer was “tracing of firearms and to prevent the anonymous stockpiling of firearms.†Uncle Sam is not supposed to be getting involved in a citizen’s decision to buy as many guns as he decides he wants to defend himself.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. seemed to side with the plaintiff’s position that the ATF had overstepped into trying to create criminal law. Referring to the Gun Control Act, the chief justice said, “This language is fought over tooth and nail by people on the gun-control side and the gun-ownership side.â€

He called it “very problematic†for the government to cite going after law abiding people who resell firearms as a purpose of the law since “there are no words in the statute that have anything to do with straw purchasers.â€

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/22/supreme-court-abramski-decision-will-determine-oba/?page=2#ixzz34tpygXOR 

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

I guess their will be a lot more women at gun shows from now on, since it would be illegal for their husbands to purchase one for their wife to use or carry. Or am I wrong? 

 

It seems the only way to enforce this new definition of straw purchases is to register and track every firearm.  This seems like this is leading the way for gun registration - which has been found to be a no-no is past court cases.

 

I am really curious as how this is going to work.  The only people I've known to be prosecuted for straw purchases are the ones related to Columbine.  I'm sure the ATF has some stings set up to catch people doing it, we just don't read about it.  Just like they catch people buying alcohol for minors.

[poppy]

Seriously ? A person who buys a gun has to submit paperwork for a background check . That is not a radical or controversial opinion outside of the NRA.

[Mrs Mungo]

My dh is military. I have used a gun to scare off an intruder. I still think certain types of gun control are reasonable and necessary. I think they should go hand in hand with better mental health care to reduce gun violence.

 

ETA: I also think the need for guns in case of rebelling against the government is an absolutely terrible argument, unless you are arguing that people should be able to buy tanks, stinger missiles, grenade launchers and/or helicopters with machine guns.

[Laurie4b]

ETA: I also think the need for guns in case of rebelling against the government is an absolutely terrible argument, unless you are arguing that people should be able to buy tanks, stinger missiles, grenade launchers and/or helicopters with machine guns.

 

dp

[Laurie4b]

 

ETA: I also think the need for guns in case of rebelling against the government is an absolutely terrible argument, unless you are arguing that people should be able to buy tanks, stinger missiles, grenade launchers and/or helicopters with machine guns.

 

Good point. The technology gap in weapons was exponentially smaller in the Revolutionary War & the period in which the Constitution was written than it would be now.

[ChrissySC]

The problem is not the guns or the owning of a gun or the buying of a gun.  It is the actual gun owners.  That is a fact.

 

From the other post about children in parking lots ... people do not understand the consequences of their actions.  They are mentally numb, ignorant, and irresponsible.

 

Who in their right mind leaves their guns out?  I have several and many are very controversial, but guess what ladies and gents ... THEY ARE IN A GUN SAFE!  (And it looks like this kid took them out of the safe ... geesh ... what are we going to do with these kids?)

 

Franklin Regional was a knife though.  Remember that from just a few weeks ago?

 

(I am done ... just really ticks :banghead:  me off. I am sick of hearing about school shootings.)

 

BTW, I take my coffee mug and gun to the range.   :blushing: