Still think they're not coming for your guns?

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You didn't answer the question.

Actually, I did.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Go back a couple of years and look for it (though I'm sure you saw it the first time I posted it). However, if you're too lazy to look for it, the point is not to punish or inconvience the law abiding. I'd open up the psych records but as a recent study has shown, it would only effect about 1% of all gun purchases.

Nope, I'd go for punishment. If you commit a crime using a gun then you get five years for using the gun. actually this already exists on the federal level as an enhancing offense, there are two "using a firearm in the furtherance of a drug trafficking", "using a firearm in the futherance of a crime of violence", each is a 10 year tack on. Make it a federal bust so a local prosecutor can't toss the charge or plea bargain it down. Now I'm going to make a difference between carrying a gun as a crime and committing a crime using a gun. The first could be some person trying to defend themselves and the second is a criminal. Convicts have already lost their voting rights and they will continue to loose their 2nd amendment rights (someone tell Hillary that this is already a law). I'd up the anty for crime, anyone who steals someone's gun is looking at two years for every gun stolen. Possession of a stolen or altered weapon is already a enhancement crime punishable for up to 10 years per weapon.

So I'd punish the use of guns in criminal acts above and beyond the final judicial finding. I'd also punish people for stealing weapons. So if you're a law abiding person then you're in the clear. No one is looking to screw you up or take away your guns. Only the criminals.

I would also create a federal concealed carry program that you can VOLUNTARILY enroll in to have a 50 state permit. The states can make their own programs as they see fit.

Of course, we're all waiting to see your program NBK.

The big problem is the lack of prosecution for these crimes of violence. However how will these changes stop something like the Oregon shooting from happening? All of the steps you have put forth are reactionary to crimes that have already occurred. Most of the shooters in these mass shootings did not have a criminal record at the time of their act of violence. Even if we open up back ground checks to include comprehensive mental health examination, many of the shooters did not have prior known mental health issues, so they would have still passed a back ground check, what if anything can be done to know who is going to snap and who isn't, if someone can figure that out, then it will go a long way to the prevention of mass shootings.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Actually, I did.

You just moved up in the DOTY voting.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Actually, I did.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You just moved up in the DOTY voting.

Did COIdiot nominate himself to be the DOTY again?

By nominating himself to be DOTY, CO The Welshing Idiot provided us with the textbook example of a true blue, 100% pure, Dipshit!

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You just moved up in the DOTY voting.

Since you are as dense as I think you are, I did answer your question. They may have done all kinds of research, may have had the best intentions, but it didn't work in Oregon, did it? Had it not been a "gun free zone", there may have been no violence. Or much less violence. But the law abiders were not allowed to carry, and the criminal didn't pay attention to the sign. Got it?

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Since you are as dense as I think you are, I did answer your question. They may have done all kinds of research, may have had the best intentions, but it didn't work in Oregon, did it? Had it not been a "gun free zone", there may have been no violence. Or much less violence. But the law abiders were not allowed to carry, and the criminal didn't pay attention to the sign. Got it?

The school was not a gun free zone, CC was allowed there.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Since you are as dense as I think you are, I did answer your question. They may have done all kinds of research, may have had the best intentions, but it didn't work in Oregon, did it? Had it not been a "gun free zone", there may have been no violence. Or much less violence. But the law abiders were not allowed to carry, and the criminal didn't pay attention to the sign. Got it?

Yes I "got it". It may or may not have happened. As you say "There MAY have been no violence." You can say the killer chose the site of his killings simply because it was a gun free zone. I can say he chose it because he was a student in the classroom where the killings took place. Unless there is SOLID proof one way or the other, it is simply speculation on both our parts.

I believe that people have the right to ban handguns from establishments or campuses. If you don't like it, stay out. People have the right to allow handguns in establishments or campuses. If I don't like it, I can stay out. What I do believe is that the people who make the decision to ban handguns do so with the best interests of the people who enter the premises.

But then people like you know more about the reasons to make such a decision than all those at UT-Austin who have made a decision with which you disagree . Good for you!!!

[JD Barleycorn]

Do you believe he chose it because one of the heroes of the French train went to class there?

As an aside for DD, Yes, there are federal laws and local laws but it has been my sad experience that they use those laws as leverage to get a confession and then throw them out. I had a break in several years ago and six handguns were stolen. The guy was caught later that very night trying to sell a gun to someone. They didn't pick him up for three weeks and when he went before a judge, they threw out all the weapons charges (possession of stolen property, theft of guns) for his plea on other charges like breaking and entering. He got 1 year in the county. After which he was sent to a halfway house for drug addiction. The detectives said that they were going to wait until his year was about up and then hit him with the gun charges (thrown out by the DA). After one month, he fled from the halfway house and the state. He was picked up two years later in the neighboring state for assault with a deadly weapon. My state refused to extradite. I even offered to go pick the asshole up but no.

Under my idea, this thief would be charged with each and every gun (12 years) and another charge for selling stolen property (which was gun, 5 more years). So my little drug using thief would be facing 17 years for above and beyond the robbery. Now I forgot to mention the back door escape plan. If you can recover the weapons then you can get half of the sentence knocked off. So if Ruben (yep, I know his name) had helped to recover all the years then he could reduce his time to 6 1/2 years. Sounds like a good deal to me. Better to leave the guns behind if you rob someone. They're not worth the penalty.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Do you believe he chose it because one of the heroes of the French train went to class there?

????

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

????

Maybe you missed it. Not surprised. The three Americans who overpowered the Tunisian terrorist on the train to Paris, remember them? One of them was publicly identified as going to that particular college. He would have been in class that day but he had been invited to be some place else in the country. Also, he and his friends had all publicly said that they were christians. So why did the shooter want to find the christians that day. The shooter is dead and we may never know but what do you think.

http://www.people.com/article/alek-s...regon-shooting

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Since you are as dense as I think you are, I did answer your question. They may have done all kinds of research, may have had the best intentions, but it didn't work in Oregon, did it? Had it not been a "gun free zone", there may have been no violence. Or much less violence. But the law abiders were not allowed to carry, and the criminal didn't pay attention to the sign. Got it?

You can't say any of that with any conviction. Pure conjecture.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

The big problem is the lack of prosecution for these crimes of violence. However how will these changes stop something like the Oregon shooting from happening? All of the steps you have put forth are reactionary to crimes that have already occurred. Most of the shooters in these mass shootings did not have a criminal record at the time of their act of violence. Even if we open up back ground checks to include comprehensive mental health examination, many of the shooters did not have prior known mental health issues, so they would have still passed a back ground check, what if anything can be done to know who is going to snap and who isn't, if someone can figure that out, then it will go a long way to the prevention of mass shootings.

None of this will stop a mass shooting. It will only affect someone who doesn't want to go away for long time. If you expect to die nothing is to deter you but a bullet in the face will stop you.

[Asfaloth54]

end...

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Do you believe he chose it because one of the heroes of the French train went to class there?

As an aside for DD, Yes, there are federal laws and local laws but it has been my sad experience that they use those laws as leverage to get a confession and then throw them out. I had a break in several years ago and six handguns were stolen. The guy was caught later that very night trying to sell a gun to someone. They didn't pick him up for three weeks and when he went before a judge, they threw out all the weapons charges (possession of stolen property, theft of guns) for his plea on other charges like breaking and entering. He got 1 year in the county. After which he was sent to a halfway house for drug addiction. The detectives said that they were going to wait until his year was about up and then hit him with the gun charges (thrown out by the DA). After one month, he fled from the halfway house and the state. He was picked up two years later in the neighboring state for assault with a deadly weapon. My state refused to extradite. I even offered to go pick the asshole up but no. Which is exactly what I have previously posted, if you prosecuted people to the fullest on the laws already on the books there would be no need for additional laws.

Under my idea, this thief would be charged with each and every gun (12 years) and another charge for selling stolen property (which was gun, 5 more years). So my little drug using thief would be facing 17 years for above and beyond the robbery. Now I forgot to mention the back door escape plan. If you can recover the weapons then you can get half of the sentence knocked off. So if Ruben (yep, I know his name) had helped to recover all the years then he could reduce his time to 6 1/2 years. Sounds like a good deal to me. Better to leave the guns behind if you rob someone. They're not worth the penalty.

There releasing prisoners because of overcrowding, how are they going to house these for the number of years you wanting. Furthermore non of this is going to prevent mass shootings.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

None of this will stop a mass shooting. It will only affect someone who doesn't want to go away for long time. If you expect to die nothing is to deter you but a bullet in the face will stop you.

Exactly as I have said before, all of the laws even your proposed ones would not stop mass shootings because they are reactionary.