Gun Control

[Misawahawk]

I say arm everybody. Shoot first, and ask questions later. Give people grenades in case some shit goes down.

[Longermonger]

Hey DD, what about non-law abiding gun owners? What if we just take people that break gun laws out behind the shed and put a bullet in their head? What's your opinion on that?

(some people on this board don't know your history and are mistakenly taking your opinions seriously)

[kc-max]

Interesting, 6 pages and not a single lady has expressed an opinion. Had thought a few would.

[BigMikeinKC]

Just a thought - there is a lot of talk about not allowing the mentally ill own guns. Couple of questions:

Who determines if someone is mentally ill?
There are various degrees of mental illness and many can be treated with medication. Depression, bi-polar, taking their meds, do we say they can't own a gun.

And looking in the bill of rights I didn't see an asterisk next to people with a comment "* except for the mentally ill." So would it be constitutional to ban them from gun ownership? Common sense says yes, but a strict interpretation of the Constitution would say no.

[LordBeaverbrook]

Originally Posted by Misawahawk

I say arm everybody. Shoot first, and ask questions later. Give people grenades in case some shit goes down.

Great! So now we have shoot outs instead of shootings.

Yes, a "practiced" person can reload and fire quickly in a "practice" setting, but that IS NOT the same as doing it when you are killing people. "Practiced" police officers and FBI agents hit their targets 10% to 33% of the time when using their service weapon in the line of duty. Just gun safety/control laws will do little to resolve these problems so we DO need to keep all options on the table and select the best set to save lives listening to both those for and opposed to gun control. Too often those opposed ONLY argue against trying anything and never propose anything so we do nothing. I don't think that is acceptable anymore. And yes, I am a gun owner.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by BigMikeinKC

Just a thought - there is a lot of talk about not allowing the mentally ill own guns. Couple of questions:

Who determines if someone is mentally ill?
There are various degrees of mental illness and many can be treated with medication. Depression, bi-polar, taking their meds, do we say they can't own a gun.

And looking in the bill of rights I didn't see an asterisk next to people with a comment "* except for the mentally ill." So would it be constitutional to ban them from gun ownership? Common sense says yes, but a strict interpretation of the Constitution would say no.

Thats a tough one Mike, any way you slice it someone is going to have their rights infringed upon, but honestly because I believe that banning a weapon based on looks is not going to stop school shootings, I think that we need to look at the mental health side of it in addition to the several ideas that I have stated several times, such as closing the gun show loophole and requiring weapons to be secured when the owner is not present and placing armed police officers in our schools. The 1994 gun ban did not stop school shootings as 13 occured during that time period.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by Longermonger

Hey DD, what about non-law abiding gun owners? What if we just take people that break gun laws out behind the shed and put a bullet in their head? What's your opinion on that?

(some people on this board don't know your history and are mistakenly taking your opinions seriously)

Non - law biding gun owners are by nature criminals and should not have guns, if your referring to me the Federal government saw fit to restore my rights, but I like your idea but I think society would be better served to take those like you around back and drive a pick ax through your scull, wouldnt want to waste a bullet. As for my history a mmember of this board made sure to air out my laundry months ago so I am sure that most people on here know my history.

So please return to the rock you have been hiding under.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by BigMikeinKC

Just a thought - there is a lot of talk about not allowing the mentally ill own guns. Couple of questions:

Who determines if someone is mentally ill? The government will have to draw the line for this and I am sure the answer would have to be worked out by the medical profession.
There are various degrees of mental illness and many can be treated with medication. Depression, bi-polar, taking their meds, do we say they can't own a gun. You are right there are degrees to these illnesses, but yes there is a point where they should be denied the right to own guns, The government has seen fit to deny gun ownership to drug abuser, alcohol abusers and those with a history of domestic violence.

And looking in the bill of rights I didn't see an asterisk next to people with a comment "* except for the mentally ill." So would it be constitutional to ban them from gun ownership? Common sense says yes, but a strict interpretation of the Constitution would say no.

Well Mike we can continue to try and legislate the tool used to commit the crime and continue to ignore the person using the tool. If you ban one gun they will just use another, is it acceptible to say okay it wont stop it but we might reduce the totals from 23 to 14. So 14 becomes the acceptible amount of loss. If we attack this from the position of denying weapons to the mentally ill, eliminating private sales and the gun show loopholes and reduce the number of guns getting into the hands of the mentally ill and criminal eliment we may just prevent many of these attacks.

Look as Longermonger was alluding to I know about the flow of guns in the streets from a personal level, for 15 years I made a living trafficing in firearms, yes providing criminals with the weapons of their trade, most of these weapons went to members of Italian organized crime, but I sold a fair number to gang bangers, drug deaers etc. I sold full auto versions of the M16, AK47, Mac 10, silencers and handguns of multiple types. I tell you all this to say not one of the guns I sold were purchased at gun stores, the majority of handguns came from corrupted police officers who would confiscate the guns and then sell them to me, they came from crews of thefts I had doing break ins and stealing all the weapons they could. I got the full auto weapons from sources I had in Mexico. I also utilized straw purchasers and gun store burglarys to obtain weapons and lastly I got many weapons fromprivate purchase sales from individuals. In 2001 I was arrested and indicted on 7 counts of interstate trafficking of firearms, I served 7 years in Federal prison, first at Marion Max in Illinois and then finished out at Leavenworth camp. If you say this destroys my credibility I counter that it gives me greater credibility because the ideas I have put forth would have reduced the number of weapons I had to sell and improved control of the borders would have reduced or stopped the flow of automatic weapons. I am not done discussing gun control, those who support it have already made up their minds, those who dont have already made up theirs. The result is probably going to be laws such as those from 1994 which will in the long run do nothing to stop these types of attacks.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

Do you shoot guns, have you ever shot a semi auto pistol. If you have then you would know it take a practiced person less than 2 seconds to change magazines. Do you really think you will have enough time to close the distance to a shooter before he puts one through your forehead. The simple fact of the matter is that in the case of the CT shooting, he could have used a single shot rifle and killed as many as he did because there was no one there to stop him once he got started. Who settled on a 10 round magazine as the "perfect" number, how did they acertain that number.Why not a 4 round magazine, is 10 somehow the acceptible number of dead, dont you see the absurdity of this approach, its a bandaid on an open chest would. You want to stop this from happening, change the laws to allow background checks to include mental history, enforce the laws on the books regarding straw purchasing, and make getting a sales transfer through a licensed dealer a requirement for all private sales so that the buyer has to go through a back ground check. Banning weapons because they look more lethal and thinking your solving the problem by limiting the size of the magazine, will only mean the the crazy person who still go the gun will have to use a different and/or multiple weapons and the body counts will not change much. Bans have been tried before and they did not change anything. Columbine occured during the 1994 assault weapons ban and the ban on high capasity magazines, I guess they did not get the memo.

Think you drifted off target.Your first was about shooting X number of rounds and changing mags So I asked how many with larger mags.Had nothing to do with the rest of your reply.Yes I shoot a lot and am proficient with Semi's wheel guns have a CCl.Any other shit you need to know.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Think you drifted off target.Your first was about shooting X number of rounds and changing mags So I asked how many with larger mags.Had nothing to do with the rest of your reply.Yes I shoot a lot and am proficient with Semi's wheel guns have a CCl.Any other shit you need to know.

Sorry that offended you? By the way is a CCI the same as a CCW. Always thought CCI was a bullet manufacturer.

[i'va biggen]

No ,and was CCL my bad.

[Bartman1963]

I don't know if laws making it more difficult to get guns will work.

What I do know is that children are dying. Children shot multiple times at close range with a weapon designed to kill people.
Not a long gun I would want, because ironically its ammunition is generally regarded as too weak to hunt large game such as deer.
But a weapon perfect for killing that delicate thin skinned light boned animal known as Man.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Well regulated Militia. Where is that? I wanna join. I want to be part of that "well regulated" militia that is necessary to the security of our free State.
Truth is there is no well regulated Militia. It went out the door a long time ago. Replaced by our standing Army and the other branches of the service all of us are so rightly proud of.
So why do we REALLY need guns? Most of us will never have the need to fire a weapon in defense of self or loved ones. Let alone in defense of liberty and freedom. Unless we are in those armed forces of course. We really don't NEED guns. We want them. We want them so bad we convince ourselves we need them.
Shooting is fun. Shooting is powerful. I love my .45 acp. I don't need the dozen 16 round magazines I have for it. I WANTED them.
The point is stopping something awful almost always involves sacrifice. What are we willing to sacrifice?
I hear a lot of people talk about this subject and very few are willing to sacrifice a damned thing. Not one ounce of personal freedom or liberty.
I have found that those the most adamant gun control is not the answer are usually not able to give an idea of what should be done, other than to say we need more guns. Guns on guards in every school. Armed teachers. Will that work? Maybe, but somebody would have to convince me.
I don't know what will work. But I will continue to throw out ideas. I am willing to work with people who don't think like I do. I will continue to say something does need to change and damned soon.

I am tired of tearing up at the thought of, or sight of murdered children on TV.

I am willing to sacrifice. How much? I hope just a little. What? What I have to.
But if convinced of the rightness of the answer, I would sacrifice my 45. I don't love it more than the lives of kids. In fact I don't care if my right to own any gun I legally can now is limited a little, if that is the answer, so kids are less easily butchered, their little faces rendered unrecognizable by the horrible wounds that a 5.56 mm round at less than 15 feet cause to delicate human bodies.

It's time everyone join the discussion and get serious about real answers. Bickering gives the next nut more time to prepare. Whatever the answer proves to be, lets get after finding it.

[bartipero]

The answer actually is to do nothing. I'm not willing to give up one more of any of my rights. Enough is enough of the government or anyone else getting involved in what I want to do or not do.

We have whole walls of laws. More laws than at any time in history. We already imprison more people than any other country. Every time something terrible happens it's used as the poster child of why we should lose more freedom in an effort for a perfect world and give someone who wants to publicly grieve a cause for going on. And it is always directed at taking someone else's rights away than their own because they aren't impacted one way or another. Well, guess what--making the perfect world is not there, nor will it ever be so you better get some stomach for life and the things you can make better--and there are plenty-- not the solutions that enslave us whether in thought or deed.

In thousands of years many people smarter than us haven't solved bad people. Short of issuing you a license to live at birth and requiring permission to leave your home, do anything you do and then tracking you to your next approved location, you can't do what you think should be done. "Do something" because something happens is unconvincing.

[BigMikeinKC]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

Well Mike we can continue to try and legislate the tool used to commit the crime and continue to ignore the person using the tool. If you ban one gun they will just use another, is it acceptible to say okay it wont stop it but we might reduce the totals from 23 to 14. So 14 becomes the acceptible amount of loss. If we attack this from the position of denying weapons to the mentally ill, eliminating private sales and the gun show loopholes and reduce the number of guns getting into the hands of the mentally ill and criminal eliment we may just prevent many of these attacks.

Look as Longermonger was alluding to I know about the flow of guns in the streets from a personal level, for 15 years I made a living trafficing in firearms, yes providing criminals with the weapons of their trade, most of these weapons went to members of Italian organized crime, but I sold a fair number to gang bangers, drug deaers etc. I sold full auto versions of the M16, AK47, Mac 10, silencers and handguns of multiple types. I tell you all this to say not one of the guns I sold were purchased at gun stores, the majority of handguns came from corrupted police officers who would confiscate the guns and then sell them to me, they came from crews of thefts I had doing break ins and stealing all the weapons they could. I got the full auto weapons from sources I had in Mexico. I also utilized straw purchasers and gun store burglarys to obtain weapons and lastly I got many weapons fromprivate purchase sales from individuals. In 2001 I was arrested and indicted on 7 counts of interstate trafficking of firearms, I served 7 years in Federal prison, first at Marion Max in Illinois and then finished out at Leavenworth camp. If you say this destroys my credibility I counter that it gives me greater credibility because the ideas I have put forth would have reduced the number of weapons I had to sell and improved control of the borders would have reduced or stopped the flow of automatic weapons. I am not done discussing gun control, those who support it have already made up their minds, those who dont have already made up theirs. The result is probably going to be laws such as those from 1994 which will in the long run do nothing to stop these types of attacks.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the mentally ill not having guns. But I wanted to point out the problems with it. Having gone through a hearing to have someone declared incompetent, I know how difficult it is. For every doctor who testifies that the person is unable to make proper decisions, there's another one who will testify that they are perfectly sane.

[Guest013121]

If they disarm the US, a lot of city hall and county employees would be out of jobs. So good luck with that! The US would rather have a high crime rate than be broke and give up their bmw's and nice houses with white picket fences. Just sad.