Ten Gun Myths and Memes-- Shot Down

[Bfgrn]

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass how many gun homicides they have in the UK, or Australia. I tend to focus on what happened to my realtor in Dallas in 1982, when some guy walked into a bar, and shot and killed her, and five other women sitting at the bar, because one of them had rebuffed him. I am concerned about what I perosnally saw in 1965, which was a drunk, thrown out of a bar in Atlanta, who returned with a gun and killed 5 patrons, and the bartender. I tend to think in terms of what I saw on the streets of Vegas in 1997, which was a drive by shooting right off the strip on Flamingo Rd. I also remember the two times that I was sitting on my apartment balcony in Reno in 1996 when I heard gunshots fired, and in both cases, read the next day of gang related shootings in the nieghborhood. Could all of these shootings been avoided if gun registration and background checks were in force? Of course not. Could some of them been prevented? Yes.

I am a sheriff's Auxcillary Volunteer in my community. Three weeks ago, we did a background check on a guy who wanted to attend our acadamy. We discovered a history of mental illness, and turned him down. However, such history of mental illness did not prevent him from buying a gun, and he made threats against us, which were relayed to us. We had to lock down the facility, and were told not to leave the building until he was apprehended. They did so, and took him to a hospital under arrest. He was bi-polar, and dangerous, when not taking his meds.

so why don;t you take up a cause to get people off the streets when their issues have been identified? and there is a problem with background checks. you've identified a problem and did nothing about it. go ahead and ban guns, if he wants one he'll still get one. the black market doesn do background checks. and what's to stop him from wacking you with a pipe?

you have identified a problem and you are letting it rome the streets unattended. you are the problem

I'll take my chances with a pipe, you asshole. He can't kill you from a block away, even if he is Nolan Ryan.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They did not change their gun laws last year, but thanks for showing how desperate you are to take away everyone's guns.

No one claimed the UK did change their laws last year.

The law changed some years ago now - with the net result that homicide rates are now at their lowest numbers since 1983.

There is a graph in the link presented earlier that demostrates this quite well.

btw. I don't support taking away everyone's guns, so do spare us the paranoia.

If we ignore the fact that all crimes are on the decrease after years of increase after the gun ban was passed you might have a point.

This is what I was talking about when I said your comparisons were simplistic. Criminologist spend half their time debunking idiots who think that a one year drop in homicide rates proves that gon control works.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

meaningless data to this conversation because their rate was low before gun control.

Right - this makes the US look bad, so we better ignore it.

The important thing is - NEVER look at statistics.

The really important thing is to compare them over time, not just a snapshot of one year. Crime rates in both countries have been falling at about the same rate even after the assualt weapon ban ended.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Spoonman -

The UK homicide rates at their lowest level since 1983.

The UK homicide rate is 1/4 that of the US.

The UK has had ONE mass shooting. ONE.

The UK had 41 gun-related homicides last year.

You choice is to learn from that, or ignore the lesson.

You are the one ignoring the lesson, but that is what happens when people don't understand statistics.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass how many gun homicides they have in the UK, or Australia. I tend to focus on what happened to my realtor in Dallas in 1982, when some guy walked into a bar, and shot and killed her, and five other women sitting at the bar, because one of them had rebuffed him. I am concerned about what I perosnally saw in 1965, which was a drunk, thrown out of a bar in Atlanta, who returned with a gun and killed 5 patrons, and the bartender. I tend to think in terms of what I saw on the streets of Vegas in 1997, which was a drive by shooting right off the strip on Flamingo Rd. I also remember the two times that I was sitting on my apartment balcony in Reno in 1996 when I heard gunshots fired, and in both cases, read the next day of gang related shootings in the nieghborhood. Could all of these shootings been avoided if gun registration and background checks were in force? Of course not. Could some of them been prevented? Yes.

I am a sheriff's Auxcillary Volunteer in my community. Three weeks ago, we did a background check on a guy who wanted to attend our acadamy. We discovered a history of mental illness, and turned him down. However, such history of mental illness did not prevent him from buying a gun, and he made threats against us, which were relayed to us. We had to lock down the facility, and were told not to leave the building until he was apprehended. They did so, and took him to a hospital under arrest. He was bi-polar, and dangerous, when not taking his meds.

Question, sinvce you are so sure that gun registration would have actually prevented some of the deaths you just described, lay out an actual list of facts surrounding each of those cases and explain, in detail, why registration would have been effective in some cases, and not in the others. Until you do that all you are doing is blathering personal opinion with no basis in reality.

As for you getting threats, if you don't like them you are free to go do soemthing else that will mean you will never get threatened, like burying yourself in a bunker without any outside contact. The simple fact is that the exact same thing would have happened if the guy you are talking about did not have a gun. In fact, unless you provide evidence he actually legally bought a gun, I am just going to assume you are making this entire story up in an attempt to prove how stupid organizations are when they respond to threats.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass how many gun homicides they have in the UK, or Australia. I tend to focus on what happened to my realtor in Dallas in 1982, when some guy walked into a bar, and shot and killed her, and five other women sitting at the bar, because one of them had rebuffed him. I am concerned about what I perosnally saw in 1965, which was a drunk, thrown out of a bar in Atlanta, who returned with a gun and killed 5 patrons, and the bartender. I tend to think in terms of what I saw on the streets of Vegas in 1997, which was a drive by shooting right off the strip on Flamingo Rd. I also remember the two times that I was sitting on my apartment balcony in Reno in 1996 when I heard gunshots fired, and in both cases, read the next day of gang related shootings in the nieghborhood. Could all of these shootings been avoided if gun registration and background checks were in force? Of course not. Could some of them been prevented? Yes.

I am a sheriff's Auxcillary Volunteer in my community. Three weeks ago, we did a background check on a guy who wanted to attend our acadamy. We discovered a history of mental illness, and turned him down. However, such history of mental illness did not prevent him from buying a gun, and he made threats against us, which were relayed to us. We had to lock down the facility, and were told not to leave the building until he was apprehended. They did so, and took him to a hospital under arrest. He was bi-polar, and dangerous, when not taking his meds.

so why don;t you take up a cause to get people off the streets when their issues have been identified? and there is a problem with background checks. you've identified a problem and did nothing about it. go ahead and ban guns, if he wants one he'll still get one. the black market doesn do background checks. and what's to stop him from wacking you with a pipe?

you have identified a problem and you are letting it rome the streets unattended. you are the problem

Spoon, you really have to get past this belief system you have that everyone who wants some common sense regulation of guns wants to "ban guns".

Second, keeping people off the street who are mentally ill, and requiring background checks and registration are not mutually exclusive concepts. There is no reason whyc we can not do both, or at least try.

Actually, you have to get rid of the delusion that the intent of gun control is not to ban guns. That means that anyone that wants "common sense" regulations on guns is nothing more than a tool of the people that want to ban guns. It might make me look extreme if you actually are sincere, but I prefer to err in the side of freedom than to let people who want to eliminate any of our rights any flexibility.

 

[freedombecki]

Ten Gun Myths Shot Down in a Hail of • • • bullets ​

• Myth #1: They're coming for your guns.
Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1. (chart)

• Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people.
Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates...

Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society.
Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.

• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without...
​

• Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0

• Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5.
​

• Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.

• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home...
​

• Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.

• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.
​

• Myth #7: Guns make women safer.
Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers...

• Myth #8: "Vicious, violent video games" deserve more blame than guns.
Fact-check: So said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre after Newtown. So what's up with Japan?
(chart/resource in link - wont behave here)

• Myth #9: More and more Americans are becoming gun owners.
Fact-check: More guns are being sold, but they're owned by a shrinking portion of the population...

• Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each...
​

• Myth #10: We don't need more gun laws—we just need to enforce the ones we have.
Fact-check: Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally.

• Around 40% of all legal gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. 40% of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes got them this way.
• An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check...
​

Links for substantiation of all points, charts, further point narratives at the article link here.

Here's one of them pertaining to Myth 2, particularly illustrative:

Also worth a look is this chart from one of the resources, listing the world's countries ranked by rate of gun ownership (i.e. how armed we are). Take a look at how far ahead we are.

Topic armed and dangerous, unlocked and loaded. Bring it on.

Pogo, "Myth" #4 is directed at mass murders. In 2007, in Colorado, a man entered a church and started firing away. He was stopped by a woman security guard carrying a concealed permit. She stopped him with a bullet. It was his second church invasion/killing that day. CNN: Security Guard who stopped shooter credits God

Of course, this story, while it made national news is conveniently ignored when some "trusted" other sources conveniently forget what would have happened to all those people by this killer had the woman security guard not have attended services that day and with her training, knew how to stop him.

I think I'd find the source of the document you shared and informed them they are mistaken. Nobody likes a shooting, but then, nobody wants to be one of the 4 dead people that guy killed that day, either. He was out to rack up a head count, and figured a church was where most people wouldn't be armed, so he could get away with it scot-free.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually no you don't. Not until tomorrow night. Want me to give you a wake-up call?

See, there it is again, you admit you're trying to intimidate free speech. I'm not surprised considering the source, but I'm dumbfounded that you think that would actually ever work. What planet do you people come from where the world works that way, where your subjects just bend over in fear of the mighty Neg? Planet Narcississium? But thanks for putting that in writing again, I can use it later.

Until tomorrow then sweetie. We've got all night to rock and roll...

Wanna bet?

Hee hee. You seem to have a gambling fixation (which also explains your posts) -- everything is "wanna bet" this and "wanna bet" that, in a medium where no kind of currency can be exchanged anyway (which also explains your logic).

But yes, technically you need not wait the 48 hours. Go ahead. Make my day.

Not a gambler at all, just like to rub people's noses in things when they are wrong.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass how many gun homicides they have in the UK, or Australia. I tend to focus on what happened to my realtor in Dallas in 1982, when some guy walked into a bar, and shot and killed her, and five other women sitting at the bar, because one of them had rebuffed him. I am concerned about what I perosnally saw in 1965, which was a drunk, thrown out of a bar in Atlanta, who returned with a gun and killed 5 patrons, and the bartender. I tend to think in terms of what I saw on the streets of Vegas in 1997, which was a drive by shooting right off the strip on Flamingo Rd. I also remember the two times that I was sitting on my apartment balcony in Reno in 1996 when I heard gunshots fired, and in both cases, read the next day of gang related shootings in the nieghborhood. Could all of these shootings been avoided if gun registration and background checks were in force? Of course not. Could some of them been prevented? Yes.

I am a sheriff's Auxcillary Volunteer in my community. Three weeks ago, we did a background check on a guy who wanted to attend our acadamy. We discovered a history of mental illness, and turned him down. However, such history of mental illness did not prevent him from buying a gun, and he made threats against us, which were relayed to us. We had to lock down the facility, and were told not to leave the building until he was apprehended. They did so, and took him to a hospital under arrest. He was bi-polar, and dangerous, when not taking his meds.

Question, sinvce you are so sure that gun registration would have actually prevented some of the deaths you just described, lay out an actual list of facts surrounding each of those cases and explain, in detail, why registration would have been effective in some cases, and not in the others. Until you do that all you are doing is blathering personal opinion with no basis in reality.

As for you getting threats, if you don't like them you are free to go do soemthing else that will mean you will never get threatened, like burying yourself in a bunker without any outside contact. The simple fact is that the exact same thing would have happened if the guy you are talking about did not have a gun. In fact, unless you provide evidence he actually legally bought a gun, I am just going to assume you are making this entire story up in an attempt to prove how stupid organizations are when they respond to threats.

This thread is not about me, Windbag, and no, I do not need to pass your interagation to make my point that it makes no sense that there is not a law requiring a background check on a person who might have a dangerous mental illness before he is allowed to buy a gun.

 

[Vandalshandle]

"Actually, you have to get rid of the delusion that the intent of gun control is not to ban guns. That means that anyone that wants "common sense" regulations on guns is nothing more than a tool of the people that want to ban guns. It might make me look extreme if you actually are sincere, but I prefer to err in the side of freedom than to let people who want to eliminate any of our rights any flexibility. " (Windbag)

Ok, so you are on to us. We all want to take your guns away. After that, we will take your wife, your money, your Playboy Channel, your 8 cyclinder car, your incadecent light bulbs, your swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated, your computer, your American Leagion membership card, and your vote. How foolish of us that we did not know that you could see through our sinister plot?
__________________

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass how many gun homicides they have in the UK, or Australia. I tend to focus on what happened to my realtor in Dallas in 1982, when some guy walked into a bar, and shot and killed her, and five other women sitting at the bar, because one of them had rebuffed him. I am concerned about what I perosnally saw in 1965, which was a drunk, thrown out of a bar in Atlanta, who returned with a gun and killed 5 patrons, and the bartender. I tend to think in terms of what I saw on the streets of Vegas in 1997, which was a drive by shooting right off the strip on Flamingo Rd. I also remember the two times that I was sitting on my apartment balcony in Reno in 1996 when I heard gunshots fired, and in both cases, read the next day of gang related shootings in the nieghborhood. Could all of these shootings been avoided if gun registration and background checks were in force? Of course not. Could some of them been prevented? Yes.

I am a sheriff's Auxcillary Volunteer in my community. Three weeks ago, we did a background check on a guy who wanted to attend our acadamy. We discovered a history of mental illness, and turned him down. However, such history of mental illness did not prevent him from buying a gun, and he made threats against us, which were relayed to us. We had to lock down the facility, and were told not to leave the building until he was apprehended. They did so, and took him to a hospital under arrest. He was bi-polar, and dangerous, when not taking his meds.

Question, sinvce you are so sure that gun registration would have actually prevented some of the deaths you just described, lay out an actual list of facts surrounding each of those cases and explain, in detail, why registration would have been effective in some cases, and not in the others. Until you do that all you are doing is blathering personal opinion with no basis in reality.

As for you getting threats, if you don't like them you are free to go do soemthing else that will mean you will never get threatened, like burying yourself in a bunker without any outside contact. The simple fact is that the exact same thing would have happened if the guy you are talking about did not have a gun. In fact, unless you provide evidence he actually legally bought a gun, I am just going to assume you are making this entire story up in an attempt to prove how stupid organizations are when they respond to threats.

This thread is not about me, Windbag, and no, I do not need to pass your interagation to make my point that it makes no sense that there is not a law requiring a background check on a person who might have a dangerous mental illness before he is allowed to buy a gun.

Apparently the thread is not about anything.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that this actually happened, even thought there is no evidence anywhere outside your pown posts. Why is asking for proof that he actually bought a gun through a dealer too much to ask for if you are arguing that background checks should be tightened, and providing this story as evidence? Is asking for something an insult just because you are a deputy? Do yo beat the crap out of people who you meet on official business if they ask for justification for your questions?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Actually, you have to get rid of the delusion that the intent of gun control is not to ban guns. That means that anyone that wants "common sense" regulations on guns is nothing more than a tool of the people that want to ban guns. It might make me look extreme if you actually are sincere, but I prefer to err in the side of freedom than to let people who want to eliminate any of our rights any flexibility. " (Windbag)

Ok, so you are on to us. We all want to take your guns away. After that, we will take your wife, your money, your Playboy Channel, your 8 cyclinder car, your incadecent light bulbs, your swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated, your computer, your American Leagion membership card, and your vote. How foolish of us that we did not know that you could see through our sinister plot?
__________________

Do you operate on the delusion that you are part of everything that goes on in the world?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The funny part is, you really can't COMPARE the US to ANOTHER COUNTRY. So we are we even doing that?

You need to get LOCAL when it comes to the United States. We have this thing called FEDERALISM. The LAWS of each of the 50 States are DIFFERENT. Also, the LAWS of every CITY/TOWN are also different. We are NOT a UNITARY government. In a UNITARY government, the laws only vary microscopically.

So, keeping that in mind. How are those gun control laws working in Chicago, Rochester and Detroit?

The funny part is, you really can't COMPARE the US to ANOTHER COUNTRY. So we are we even doing that?

You need to get LOCAL when it comes to the United States. We have this thing called FEDERALISM. The LAWS of each of the 50 States are DIFFERENT. Also, the LAWS of every CITY/TOWN are also different. We are NOT a UNITARY government. In a UNITARY government, the laws only vary microscopically.

So, keeping that in mind. How are those gun control laws working in Chicago, Rochester and Detroit?

The funny part is, you really can't COMPARE the US to ANOTHER COUNTRY. So we are we even doing that?

You need to get LOCAL when it comes to the United States. We have this thing called FEDERALISM. The LAWS of each of the 50 States are DIFFERENT. Also, the LAWS of every CITY/TOWN are also different. We are NOT a UNITARY government. In a UNITARY government, the laws only vary microscopically.

So, keeping that in mind. How are those gun control laws working in Chicago, Rochester and Detroit?

The funny part is, you really can't COMPARE the US to ANOTHER COUNTRY. So we are we even doing that?

You need to get LOCAL when it comes to the United States. We have this thing called FEDERALISM. The LAWS of each of the 50 States are DIFFERENT. Also, the LAWS of every CITY/TOWN are also different. We are NOT a UNITARY government. In a UNITARY government, the laws only vary microscopically.

So, keeping that in mind. How are those gun control laws working in Chicago, Rochester and Detroit?

The funny part is, you really can't COMPARE the US to ANOTHER COUNTRY. So we are we even doing that?

You need to get LOCAL when it comes to the United States. We have this thing called FEDERALISM. The LAWS of each of the 50 States are DIFFERENT. Also, the LAWS of every CITY/TOWN are also different. We are NOT a UNITARY government. In a UNITARY government, the laws only vary microscopically.

So, keeping that in mind. How are those gun control laws working in Chicago, Rochester and Detroit?

The funny part is, you really can't COMPARE the US to ANOTHER COUNTRY. So we are we even doing that?

You need to get LOCAL when it comes to the United States. We have this thing called FEDERALISM. The LAWS of each of the 50 States are DIFFERENT. Also, the LAWS of every CITY/TOWN are also different. We are NOT a UNITARY government. In a UNITARY government, the laws only vary microscopically.

So, keeping that in mind. How are those gun control laws working in Chicago, Rochester and Detroit?

The funny part is, you really can't COMPARE the US to ANOTHER COUNTRY. So we are we even doing that?

You need to get LOCAL when it comes to the United States. We have this thing called FEDERALISM. The LAWS of each of the 50 States are DIFFERENT. Also, the LAWS of every CITY/TOWN are also different. We are NOT a UNITARY government. In a UNITARY government, the laws only vary microscopically.

So, keeping that in mind. How are those gun control laws working in Chicago, Rochester and Detroit?

The funny part is, you really can't COMPARE the US to ANOTHER COUNTRY. So we are we even doing that?

You need to get LOCAL when it comes to the United States. We have this thing called FEDERALISM. The LAWS of each of the 50 States are DIFFERENT. Also, the LAWS of every CITY/TOWN are also different. We are NOT a UNITARY government. In a UNITARY government, the laws only vary microscopically.

So, keeping that in mind. How are those gun control laws working in Chicago, Rochester and Detroit?

The funny part is, you really can't COMPARE the US to ANOTHER COUNTRY. So we are we even doing that?

You need to get LOCAL when it comes to the United States. We have this thing called FEDERALISM. The LAWS of each of the 50 States are DIFFERENT. Also, the LAWS of every CITY/TOWN are also different. We are NOT a UNITARY government. In a UNITARY government, the laws only vary microscopically.

So, keeping that in mind. How are those gun control laws working in Chicago, Rochester and Detroit?

The funny part is, you really can't COMPARE the US to ANOTHER COUNTRY. So we are we even doing that?

You need to get LOCAL when it comes to the United States. We have this thing called FEDERALISM. The LAWS of each of the 50 States are DIFFERENT. Also, the LAWS of every CITY/TOWN are also different. We are NOT a UNITARY government. In a UNITARY government, the laws only vary microscopically.

So, keeping that in mind. How are those gun control laws working in Chicago, Rochester and Detroit?

The funny part is, you really can't COMPARE the US to ANOTHER COUNTRY. So we are we even doing that?

You need to get LOCAL when it comes to the United States. We have this thing called FEDERALISM. The LAWS of each of the 50 States are DIFFERENT. Also, the LAWS of every CITY/TOWN are also different. We are NOT a UNITARY government. In a UNITARY government, the laws only vary microscopically.

So, keeping that in mind. How are those gun control laws working in Chicago, Rochester and Detroit?

The funny part is, you really can't COMPARE the US to ANOTHER COUNTRY. So we are we even doing that?

You need to get LOCAL when it comes to the United States. We have this thing called FEDERALISM. The LAWS of each of the 50 States are DIFFERENT. Also, the LAWS of every CITY/TOWN are also different. We are NOT a UNITARY government. In a UNITARY government, the laws only vary microscopically.

So, keeping that in mind. How are those gun control laws working in Chicago, Rochester and Detroit?

 

[Vandalshandle]

If I seem to be a little on edge, Windbag, it is because I have very strong feelings about people who imply that I am dishonest. Frankly, I won't tolerate it, and usually put people on 'ignore" if they do it. If you want to disagree with my opinion on a subject, I have no problem. If you want to get personal, then I have a problem.

Having said that, I will move on. First, I am a Sheriff's Auxcillary Volunteer, which means that I have no special legal authority to do anything. I patrol, wear a uniform, drive a sheriff's car, and have a radio. I can not arrest anyone, and am not allowed to carry a weapon while in uniform. Second, I would never give out information that could possibly be used to identify a citizen involved in any incident that I may have encountered in my line of duty.

The indisputable fact that a man who has a history of mental illness, with violent incidents in his past, can walk into a gun show, lay down his money, and walk out with an AR-15 with a 100 round ammo cartradge, and several hundred rounds of ammo, without being required to submit to a background check, is a self evident example of total irresponsibility on the part of our society. What happened, or did not happen, to me, does not change that fact.

 

[Spoonman]

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass how many gun homicides they have in the UK, or Australia. I tend to focus on what happened to my realtor in Dallas in 1982, when some guy walked into a bar, and shot and killed her, and five other women sitting at the bar, because one of them had rebuffed him. I am concerned about what I perosnally saw in 1965, which was a drunk, thrown out of a bar in Atlanta, who returned with a gun and killed 5 patrons, and the bartender. I tend to think in terms of what I saw on the streets of Vegas in 1997, which was a drive by shooting right off the strip on Flamingo Rd. I also remember the two times that I was sitting on my apartment balcony in Reno in 1996 when I heard gunshots fired, and in both cases, read the next day of gang related shootings in the nieghborhood. Could all of these shootings been avoided if gun registration and background checks were in force? Of course not. Could some of them been prevented? Yes.

I am a sheriff's Auxcillary Volunteer in my community. Three weeks ago, we did a background check on a guy who wanted to attend our acadamy. We discovered a history of mental illness, and turned him down. However, such history of mental illness did not prevent him from buying a gun, and he made threats against us, which were relayed to us. We had to lock down the facility, and were told not to leave the building until he was apprehended. They did so, and took him to a hospital under arrest. He was bi-polar, and dangerous, when not taking his meds.

Question, sinvce you are so sure that gun registration would have actually prevented some of the deaths you just described, lay out an actual list of facts surrounding each of those cases and explain, in detail, why registration would have been effective in some cases, and not in the others. Until you do that all you are doing is blathering personal opinion with no basis in reality.

As for you getting threats, if you don't like them you are free to go do soemthing else that will mean you will never get threatened, like burying yourself in a bunker without any outside contact. The simple fact is that the exact same thing would have happened if the guy you are talking about did not have a gun. In fact, unless you provide evidence he actually legally bought a gun, I am just going to assume you are making this entire story up in an attempt to prove how stupid organizations are when they respond to threats.

This thread is not about me, Windbag, and no, I do not need to pass your interagation to make my point that it makes no sense that there is not a law requiring a background check on a person who might have a dangerous mental illness before he is allowed to buy a gun.

i'll go back to what do we do with this guy once we identify him as a threat? and make that action part of what ever legislation gets proposed. lets complete the picture

 

[Spoonman]

"Actually, you have to get rid of the delusion that the intent of gun control is not to ban guns. That means that anyone that wants "common sense" regulations on guns is nothing more than a tool of the people that want to ban guns. It might make me look extreme if you actually are sincere, but I prefer to err in the side of freedom than to let people who want to eliminate any of our rights any flexibility. " (Windbag)

Ok, so you are on to us. We all want to take your guns away. After that, we will take your wife, your money, your Playboy Channel, your 8 cyclinder car, your incadecent light bulbs, your swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated, your computer, your American Leagion membership card, and your vote. How foolish of us that we did not know that you could see through our sinister plot?
__________________

well you already took the incandecent light bulbs.

 

[The Rabbi]

If I seem to be a little on edge, Windbag, it is because I have very strong feelings about people who imply that I am dishonest. Frankly, I won't tolerate it, and usually put people on 'ignore" if they do it. If you want to disagree with my opinion on a subject, I have no problem. If you want to get personal, then I have a problem.

Having said that, I will move on. First, I am a Sheriff's Auxcillary Volunteer, which means that I have no special legal authority to do anything. I patrol, wear a uniform, drive a sheriff's car, and have a radio. I can not arrest anyone, and am not allowed to carry a weapon while in uniform. Second, I would never give out information that could possibly be used to identify a citizen involved in any incident that I may have encountered in my line of duty.

The indisputable fact that a man who has a history of mental illness, with violent incidents in his past, can walk into a gun show, lay down his money, and walk out with an AR-15 with a 100 round ammo cartradge, and several hundred rounds of ammo, without being required to submit to a background check, is a self evident example of total irresponsibility on the part of our society. What happened, or did not happen, to me, does not change that fact.

What law do you think would change that?
That same man can walk into any feed store and buy ammonia based fertilizer, gas station and buy diesel fuel, and mix up some high explosives. He can walk into any car dealership and buy a car and run people over with it. He can buy poison and kill lots of people with it.
Why aren't you concerned about these things?

 

[Spoonman]

If I seem to be a little on edge, Windbag, it is because I have very strong feelings about people who imply that I am dishonest. Frankly, I won't tolerate it, and usually put people on 'ignore" if they do it. If you want to disagree with my opinion on a subject, I have no problem. If you want to get personal, then I have a problem.

Having said that, I will move on. First, I am a Sheriff's Auxcillary Volunteer, which means that I have no special legal authority to do anything. I patrol, wear a uniform, drive a sheriff's car, and have a radio. I can not arrest anyone, and am not allowed to carry a weapon while in uniform. Second, I would never give out information that could possibly be used to identify a citizen involved in any incident that I may have encountered in my line of duty.

The indisputable fact that a man who has a history of mental illness, with violent incidents in his past, can walk into a gun show, lay down his money, and walk out with an AR-15 with a 100 round ammo cartradge, and several hundred rounds of ammo, without being required to submit to a background check, is a self evident example of total irresponsibility on the part of our society. What happened, or did not happen, to me, does not change that fact.

What law do you think would change that?
That same man can walk into any feed store and buy ammonia based fertilizer, gas station and buy diesel fuel, and mix up some high explosives. He can walk into any car dealership and buy a car and run people over with it. He can buy poison and kill lots of people with it.
Why aren't you concerned about these things?

he could even buy a hammer at home depot and kill more people than deadly assualt weapons did

 

[Vandalshandle]

Question, sinvce you are so sure that gun registration would have actually prevented some of the deaths you just described, lay out an actual list of facts surrounding each of those cases and explain, in detail, why registration would have been effective in some cases, and not in the others. Until you do that all you are doing is blathering personal opinion with no basis in reality.

As for you getting threats, if you don't like them you are free to go do soemthing else that will mean you will never get threatened, like burying yourself in a bunker without any outside contact. The simple fact is that the exact same thing would have happened if the guy you are talking about did not have a gun. In fact, unless you provide evidence he actually legally bought a gun, I am just going to assume you are making this entire story up in an attempt to prove how stupid organizations are when they respond to threats.

This thread is not about me, Windbag, and no, I do not need to pass your interagation to make my point that it makes no sense that there is not a law requiring a background check on a person who might have a dangerous mental illness before he is allowed to buy a gun.

i'll go back to what do we do with this guy once we identify him as a threat? and make that action part of what ever legislation gets proposed. lets complete the picture

I have no problem with that.

 

[The Rabbi]

If I seem to be a little on edge, Windbag, it is because I have very strong feelings about people who imply that I am dishonest. Frankly, I won't tolerate it, and usually put people on 'ignore" if they do it. If you want to disagree with my opinion on a subject, I have no problem. If you want to get personal, then I have a problem.

Having said that, I will move on. First, I am a Sheriff's Auxcillary Volunteer, which means that I have no special legal authority to do anything. I patrol, wear a uniform, drive a sheriff's car, and have a radio. I can not arrest anyone, and am not allowed to carry a weapon while in uniform. Second, I would never give out information that could possibly be used to identify a citizen involved in any incident that I may have encountered in my line of duty.

The indisputable fact that a man who has a history of mental illness, with violent incidents in his past, can walk into a gun show, lay down his money, and walk out with an AR-15 with a 100 round ammo cartradge, and several hundred rounds of ammo, without being required to submit to a background check, is a self evident example of total irresponsibility on the part of our society. What happened, or did not happen, to me, does not change that fact.

What law do you think would change that?
That same man can walk into any feed store and buy ammonia based fertilizer, gas station and buy diesel fuel, and mix up some high explosives. He can walk into any car dealership and buy a car and run people over with it. He can buy poison and kill lots of people with it.
Why aren't you concerned about these things?

he could even buy a hammer at home depot and kill more people than deadly assualt weapons did

Any of us could do that. And in some cases the people responsible were law abiding citizens right up until they became murderers. I dont know how you identify people who are off the radar.