Gun Background Checks Pass in Washington

[RandallFlagg]

Here is what the law does

suppose you teach people how to shoot as I do.

and say one of my friends says "HEY turtle, my wife is thinking of getting a CCW, could you teach her and have her get a pistol she is comfortable with"

So in OHIO, what I do would meet with the lady, explain the laws, etc and have her handle say 10-12 different pistols suitable for a lady to CC. then after she picked 3-4 we'd go over to the range and I would let her shoot each pistol 40-50 times

NOW IN WASHINGTON I would have to do a BACKGROUND CHECK on each pistol I lent her to shoot


IDIOCY

I dont think thats the case. If you go to a shooting range and rent one of their guns they dont run a background check.
Now, if you loaned her the gun overnight or for the day, yes you're right.

Agreed - to the point that I actually don't know. I would assume that the gun range owner has a FFL - but I don't know if that actually figures into the equation. But you are correct. A gun range/gun shop rents guns for the range in every state I have ever been in. You can not take the weapon off the premises, but you can shoot on their range without background checks.

I recall a case that was in the news a few years back where a Father gave his 10 year old son a 410 shotgun and then faced charges of not performing the necessary background check. a 10 YEAR OLD BOY.

One thing that we all have to prepare for is this: the left will stop at nothing to take guns away in this country, NOTHING. Doesn't matter if it takes 50 years - they will not stop. These worthless fools somehow believe that if only the military and police have guns - we will be safe. And the left wonders why we call them braindead idiots......

 

[2aguy]

So the idea that if we have strict gun laws only criminals will have guns, is not borne out in reality in countries with strict gun laws. I

Actually you are wrong...in Britain, Australia and the other European countries...their criminal populaitons have the guns...the law abiding do not...

 

[2aguy]

Guns were designed to kill. Nothing more. Tools were designed to fix things. Learn more, type less.

Guns are a tool designed to fix the problem of...

1) criminals, either in groups or as individual gangs or cartels

2) the dangerously mentally ill

3) a government who will not or cannot fulfill it's function to protect it's citizens...see Mexico, and Detroit...or latin America

4) a government that has decided to murder certain groups of it's citizens...see the 20th century and the socialist murder regimes, or Rwanda....

Guns fix those problems for good people....

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

So the idea that if we have strict gun laws only criminals will have guns, is not borne out in reality in countries with strict gun laws. I

What world do you live in??
Why do you morons not do research before making asses out of yourselves??

Do countries with stricter gun laws really have less crime or fewer homicides?
by Nicholas Gerbis

The former Soviet Union's extremely stringent gun controls, successfully implemented and enforced by a police state, did not keep the nation, and successor states like Russia, from posting murder rates from 1965-1999 that far outstripped the rest of the developed world [sources: Kates and Mauser; Kessler; Pridemore; Pridemore]. The killers in question did not obtain illegal firearms -- they simply employed other weapons [source: Kleck].

In the 1960s and early 1970s, murders committed by Soviet citizens -- again, almost entirely without guns -- equaled or surpassed the lives taken violently in the gun-saturated United States. By the early 1990s, the murder rate in Russia trebled the American rate, which had by then leveled off, then dropped significantly (more on that later) [sources: Kates and Mauser; Pridemore; Pridemore].

On the other hand, Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark, all countries with heavy gun ownership, posted low murder rates in the early 2000s compared to "gun-light" developed nations. In 2002, for example, Germany's murder rate was one-ninth that of Luxembourg, where the law prohibits civilian ownership of handguns and gun ownership is rare [source: Kates and Mauser].

Statistics within countries paint a similar picture: Areas of higher gun ownership rates correlate with areas of lower rates of violent crime, and areas with strict gun laws correlate with areas high in violent crime [source: Malcolm].

Does this mean that guns prevent crime? Not necessarily. After all, the most violent areas are also the most likely to pass stringent gun laws. It's a chicken-and-egg problem: Which came first, the violent crime or the gun laws? There's no simple answer. It does appear that high gun-ownership density does not imply high rates of violent crime, and that stringent gun controls do not reduce murder rates across the board [sources: Kates and Mauser; Liptak; Luo]. However, the data involved in these assessments are often mismatched and tricky to compare.

Violent Crimes No Guns No Problem - Do countries with stricter gun laws really have less crime or fewer homicides

 

[RandallFlagg]

I will agree with the notion that guns were designed for one thing and one thing only - to kill. He is exactly right. I have killed thousands of times with guns. 99% of those "kills" were meat for me and my family. The rest were assholes that were trying to kill me while I was in the Army.

Difference? Knowing when to use that weapon and when NOT to. I wouldn't trust one of these liberal assholes on this forum with a firearm as far as I could pick him up and throw him. No way.

 

[turtledude]

I will agree with the notion that guns were designed for one thing and one thing only - to kill. He is exactly right. I have killed thousands of times with guns. 99% of those "kills" were meat for me and my family. The rest were assholes that were trying to kill me while I was in the Army.

Difference? Knowing when to use that weapon and when NOT to. I wouldn't trust one of these liberal assholes on this forum with a firearm as far as I could pick him up and throw him. No way.

Kim Rohde and Vince Hancock (the ladies and men's Olympic gold medalists in skeet) have killed millions of defenseless clay discs!

 

[Iceweasel]

I dont think thats the case. If you go to a shooting range and rent one of their guns they dont run a background check.
Now, if you loaned her the gun overnight or for the day, yes you're right.

The law is 18 pages long and written ambiguously, probably for a reason. what is the legal definition of transfer? It doesn't say.

I-594 is fundamentally dishonest - Washington Arms Collectors
Claim: I-594 is a “simple measure to ensure that a background check is conducted for every gun purchase.”

FACT: No 18-page law is simple! Further, 594 is classic bait and switch…supporters constantly and dishonestly refer to “sales” when the language of the proposal regulates “transfers”, very broadly defined! Again, virtually every time a firearm changes hands, the transfer would be required to be processed through a licensed dealer. Of course, the most significant aspect of bait and switch dishonesty surrounding I-594 is the proponents’ pushing of a handgun registration mandate disguised as, and referring to it as, a simple background check measure!

 

[RandallFlagg]

I will agree with the notion that guns were designed for one thing and one thing only - to kill. He is exactly right. I have killed thousands of times with guns. 99% of those "kills" were meat for me and my family. The rest were assholes that were trying to kill me while I was in the Army.

Difference? Knowing when to use that weapon and when NOT to. I wouldn't trust one of these liberal assholes on this forum with a firearm as far as I could pick him up and throw him. No way.

Kim Rohde and Vince Hancock (the ladies and men's Olympic gold medalists in skeet) have killed millions of defenseless clay discs!

Hey - you have to be on constant guard for those damned skeet......you never know where they might "pop up".....

 

[turtledude]

I will agree with the notion that guns were designed for one thing and one thing only - to kill. He is exactly right. I have killed thousands of times with guns. 99% of those "kills" were meat for me and my family. The rest were assholes that were trying to kill me while I was in the Army.

Difference? Knowing when to use that weapon and when NOT to. I wouldn't trust one of these liberal assholes on this forum with a firearm as far as I could pick him up and throw him. No way.

Kim Rohde and Vince Hancock (the ladies and men's Olympic gold medalists in skeet) have killed millions of defenseless clay discs!

Hey - you have to be on constant guard for those damned skeet......you never know where they might "pop up".....

even worse is sporting clays where they might sneak up on you from behind some trees!!

 

[Dot Com]

true. decriminalize & tax non-narcotic drugs and violence will decrease. Selling drugs is the ultimate manifestation of capitalism. Theres a demand & the manufacturers & their distributors fulfill it. what is more MURICAN than that?

Drugs destroy more lives on a daily basis than guns ever could.

Annual Causes of Death in the United States
Related Chapter:
Overdose
For facts about specific drugs, here's a list of Controlled Substance sections.

1. (Annual Causes of Death, By Cause)

Looks like 40,000 and change for drugs, 31,000 and change for firearms...............
Firearms are looking much less deadly than drugs .................. let's get our priorities straight!!

How many of those drug deaths you listed are attributed to non-narcotic drugs AS I MENTIONED IN MY POST clinger boi!!!

 

[RandallFlagg]

I will agree with the notion that guns were designed for one thing and one thing only - to kill. He is exactly right. I have killed thousands of times with guns. 99% of those "kills" were meat for me and my family. The rest were assholes that were trying to kill me while I was in the Army.

Difference? Knowing when to use that weapon and when NOT to. I wouldn't trust one of these liberal assholes on this forum with a firearm as far as I could pick him up and throw him. No way.

Kim Rohde and Vince Hancock (the ladies and men's Olympic gold medalists in skeet) have killed millions of defenseless clay discs!

Hey - you have to be on constant guard for those damned skeet......you never know where they might "pop up".....

even worse is sporting clays where they might sneak up on you from behind some trees!!

Those damned clays are the WORST!! Last year I had a beautiful buck in my scope (300-350 yards) was about to pull the trigger on my Remington and WHAT!??! Two of those clays jumped out of the tree behind me and hit the barrel of the rifle.........

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

..................clinger boi!!!

Oh, here the nasty ass fucking faggot liberal wants to hurl the first insult, what a shocker ...................

 

[Dot Com]

..................clinger boi!!!

Oh, here the nasty ass fucking faggot liberal wants to hurl the first insult, what a shocker ...................

I call clingers clingers. I'm honest that way. Why you need 10 firesticks son? You afraid you might get your lip split in a real fight- mano a mano?

 

[turtledude]

..................clinger boi!!!

Oh, here the nasty ass fucking faggot liberal wants to hurl the first insult, what a shocker ...................

I call clingers clingers. I'm honest that way. Why you need 10 firesticks son? You afraid you might get your lip split in a real fight- mano a mano?

why does Tiger woods or Corey Pavin need more than one golf club?

 

[Pete7469]

They won't be able to do it legally in the state of Washington anymore.

And that is why you are a moron. OUT-LAWS never did withIN the LAW to begin with, and the crazies don't' care how they do it.


OUT-LAWS operate OUTside the LAW.

Gj beleaguering the law abiding.

It boggles the mind how people can post such insipid bullshit without it even crossing whatever organ qualifies as their "mind", that it ALWAYS WAS ILLEGAL for said persons to obtain a gun in the first place.

I'm sure that someone who is willing to violate a law against MURDER isn't going to reconsider his plans because he'll have to buy a gun illegally.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

I call clingers clingers. I'm honest that way. Why you need 10 firesticks son? You afraid you might get your lip split in a real fight- mano a mano?

That's it, an anti gun nut implying violence against his opposition ............................

 

[turtledude]

They won't be able to do it legally in the state of Washington anymore.

And that is why you are a moron. OUT-LAWS never did withIN the LAW to begin with, and the crazies don't' care how they do it.


OUT-LAWS operate OUTside the LAW.

Gj beleaguering the law abiding.

It boggles the mind how people can post such insipid bullshit without it even crossing whatever organ qualifies as their "mind", that it ALWAYS WAS ILLEGAL for said persons to obtain a gun in the first place.

I'm sure that someone who is willing to violate a law against MURDER isn't going to reconsider his plans because he'll have to buy a gun illegally.

what many pro gun posters fail to recognize is crime control has NOTHING to do with what TRULY motivates gun haters and crime control is not the main or even ancillary motivating factor

 

[Brain357]

So the idea that if we have strict gun laws only criminals will have guns, is not borne out in reality in countries with strict gun laws. I

Actually you are wrong...in Britain, Australia and the other European countries...their criminal populaitons have the guns...the law abiding do not...

You have stats on that?

 

[2aguy]

This is what the anti gunners want when they think of Europe, Australia and Japan as gun control paradises...

1) The political class will always have armed protection...in general when they are in public buildings where they work and in particular when someone is threatened with harm, the will get an armed security detail

2) the rich and famous will have the money to pay for their own armed security details

3) Criminals will always get the guns they decide they want or they need, they still do in Japan, Europe and Australia...

So where does that leave the law abiding, tax paying citizen who will not own a gun because it is against the law.....

1) Their taxes will pay for the around the clock security of the political class

2) the money they spend to buy goods and services provided by the wealthy, and the money they spend to be entertained by the famous, watching them on television, the movies or at sports events, will allow the rich famous to pay for their private, armed security

3) as victims of criminals, the law abiding will be surrendering their money to criminals, who will use this money to buy the guns they decide they want or need

And the result....the people who pay for the armed security of the political class, the rich and the famous, and who are beaten, robbed and murdered by the criminals will have no means to protect themselves from the criminals....or their own government if the government decides to murder them...

The law abiding citizen will be the victims of young, aggressive, violent, physically strong criminals or groups of criminals who will use guns (when they decide they want or need them) knives, meat cleavers, machetes, bats (cricket and American), or just their feet and their fists....

The old, the weak, women, the handicapped, the individual who is set upon by a group of criminals....will have no means to protect themselves from attack....at the same time they are providing the money that allows the political class, the rich and famous and the criminals to have arms or armed security for themselves...

The law abiding will have to sit quietly while their mothers, sisters, wives and daughters are raped....while they and their loved ones are brutally beaten, robbed or murdered at the whim of criminals....

Or....are rounded up by their government...


This is the desired outcome of the gun grabbers....

Does this make any F*****g sense to anyone but a gun grabber?

 

[2aguy]

Brain, do you deny that criminals in Britain and Australia have guns if they want them? Really? Do you deny that guns are becoming more popular with the youngest generation of criminals in britain? Or that guns are used by "Bikey" gangs and immigrant communities in Australia?


Really?

Larry Pratt British Gun Crime Stats are a 8220 Sham 8221 - The End Run