Dear Gun Culture: THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE WROUGHT

[Ktoyou]

There is no minimum age to possess rifles and shotguns in Louisiana but Louisiana law generally prohibits a juvenile (defined as a person under 17 years of age) from knowingly possessing a handgun,1 and prohibits any person from selling or otherwise delivering for value any firearm to a person under age 18.

 

[zoo22]

when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns, it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...hammers-and-clubs-each-year-than-with-rifles/

Right. There are more homicides with blunt instruments than with rifles.

The amount of homicides by guns, however, dwarfs other homicides:

Here are the FBI annual homicide reports that the Breitbart article about rifles used:

 

[Ktoyou]

Good way to respond. I know someone would post that.

I think rifles, and hunting shotguns are in another class, and should be treated as such.

To move away from 'gun control' to handgun control takes on an awareness, which draws away some of the fear I see coming from hunters.

Most persons who apply for concealed permits have to undergo a strict background check. The problem is the background check is almost always criminal records. There are privacy issues with health records; although I see the issue of privacy as a choice when applying for the permit. Mental heath records may be included in background checks. Anyone who was involuntarily committed to a mental hospital should be known, and when the mental heath issue is apt, then one should not have a permit. One who has a diagnosis were one maybe to dangerous should be considered.

What makes these background checks good is that when we know someone has a serious mental illness, then I would not want that person owning a rifle, or shotgun either.

 

[Quetzal]

Good way to respond. I know someone would post that.

I think rifles, and hunting shotguns are in another class, and should be treated as such.

To move away from 'gun control' to handgun control takes on an awareness, which draws away some of the fear I see coming from hunters.

Most persons who apply for concealed permits have to undergo a strict background check. The problem is the background check is almost always criminal records. There are privacy issues with health records; although I see the issue of privacy as a choice when applying for the permit. Mental heath records may be included in background checks. Anyone who was involuntarily committed to a mental hospital should be known, and when the mental heath issue is apt, then one should not have a permit. One who has a diagnosis were one maybe to dangerous should be considered.

What makes these background checks good is that when we know someone has a serious mental illness, then I would not want that person owning a rifle, or shotgun either.

Nah, it needs to be across the board. All firearm purchases should be subject to a thorough background investigation and criminal history check. Period.

 

[Ktoyou]

That may be true, yet what do you care about? Is it public safety, or controlling people who think differently than you?

 

[Dan Emanuel]

Good way to respond. I know someone would post that.

I think rifles, and hunting shotguns are in another class, and should be treated as such.

To move away from 'gun control' to handgun control takes on an awareness, which draws away some of the fear I see coming from hunters...

Most strictly hunter's would prefer if they're were greater "gun control," because to them with there side-by-side's and internal magazined rifle's, all this mass shooting baloney tarnish's the reputation of there hobby/sport.

...Most persons who apply for concealed permits have to undergo a strict background check...

Everybody who buy's a handgun or long gun from an F.F.L. dealer is subject to a background check at point of sale.

...The problem is the background check is almost always criminal records...

Thats a problem with the young, who've yet to decide whether or not they are criminal's.

...There are privacy issues with health records; although I see the issue of privacy as a choice when applying for the permit. Mental heath records may be included in background checks...

I don't agree with this.

...Anyone who was involuntarily committed to a mental hospital should be known, and when the mental heath issue is apt, then one should not have a permit. One who has a diagnosis were one maybe to dangerous should be considered...

If we raise the minimum age, then we should be able to sort out youthful indiscretion from legitimate danger to society.

...What makes these background checks good is that when we know someone has a serious mental illness, then I would not want that person owning a rifle, or shotgun either.

Again, the criminal record should suffice for this, if we raise the minimum age.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[Quetzal]

That may be true, yet what do you care about? Is it public safety, or controlling people who think differently than you?

You can take your excluded middle fallacy and go take a walk, yeah?

We are talking about public safety here. I believe background checks regarding all firearms will be more helpful than a background check on select firearms.

 

[Ktoyou]

Everybody who buy's a handgun or long gun from an F.F.L. dealer is subject to a background check at point of sale.

You really don't know what you are talking about; I know when one buys a long gun one only signs the yellow sheet, which is a record of sale, not a background check. You show a regular state ID and then walk out with it, I know, have purchased many over my life, and have kids, and grand-kids who are purchasing the same way today.

 

[Ktoyou]

You can take your excluded middle fallacy and go take a walk, yeah?

We are talking about public safety here. I believe background checks regarding all firearms will be more helpful than a background check on select firearms.

Well that will not go over anytime soon. There are too many people with too much money, who are not willing to make radical changes.

It seems you have gone back to being a dweeb again, auguring with me because you dislike my politics, rather than seeking a reasonable measure?

 

[Quetzal]

Well that will not go over anytime soon. There are too many people with too much money, who are not willing to make radical changes.

It seems you have gone back to being a dweeb again, auguring with me because you dislike my politics, rather than seeking a reasonable measure?

Tell you what, can you give me one good reason why enforcing background checks on all firearms is unreasonable?

 

[Ktoyou]

Tell you what, can you give me one good reason why enforcing background checks on all firearms is unreasonable?

More and more gun owners are applying for concealed carry permits, and being voluntary, they submit to background checks. There is no law imposed on them to have the background check; they do it to have the right to carry concealed.

There is no outside opposition to this, and yet it helps know who should not possess a firearm, that is a handgun, where it can be concealed.

before, there was no concealed carry and as such, less a way to do any background checks.

If a group who opposes them sets out to mandate the same control when there is no gain, all you end up with is more people buying up guns they do not need to avoid oppression.

As it is, there has become a means to know who owns the most dangerous firearms.

There are a few hunters who buy only long guns for hunting; they are becoming a smaller group because most gun owners also like have a self-defense weapon and the permit does provide a way to know who owns weapons without a strong reaction.

If there was an easy way to implement more background checks it would have happened by now. As now there are armed persons who, in the 1960s, never thought about being armed for any reason than hunting.

 

[Quetzal]

More and more gun owners are applying for concealed carry permits, and being voluntary, they submit to background checks. There is no law imposed on them to have the background check; they do it to have the right to carry concealed.

There is no outside opposition to this, and yet it helps know who should not possess a firearm, that is a handgun, where it can be concealed.

before, there was no concealed carry and as such, less a way to do any background checks.

If a group who opposes them sets out to mandate the same control when there is no gain, all you end up with is more people buying up guns they do not need to avoid oppression.

As it is, there has become a means to know who owns the most dangerous firearms.

There are a few hunters who buy only long guns for hunting; they are becoming a smaller group because most gun owners also like have a self-defense weapon and the permit does provide a way to know who owns weapons without a strong reaction.

If there was an easy way to implement more background checks it would have happened by now. As now there are armed persons who, in the 1960s, never thought about being armed for any reason than hunting.

What is the downside to requiring a background check for rifles and shot guns, again? Your long winded post did not answer this clearly. Also, the reason why it hasn't happened yet is because there is so much money being thrown around my conservative special interests groups who don't want them there.

 

[Ktoyou]

All right, I had enough of you and your petty little games, grow up!

 

[genuineoriginal]

You can take your excluded middle fallacy and go take a walk, yeah?

We are talking about public safety here. I believe background checks regarding all firearms will be more helpful than a background check on select firearms.

There wouldn't be a public safety issue if you liberals had not created the entitlement culture we now have.
Now you are peddling a "cure" (background checks) to the disease you created (people with no morals).

 

[Granite]

All right, I had enough of you and your petty little games, grow up!

Says the one whose solution was "ban idiots" and "ban gangs."

 

[Ktoyou]

Says the one whose solution was "ban idiots" and "ban gangs."

:chew: Ban Granite

 

[Granite]

:chew: Ban Granite

I'm curious how this would play out. Would somebody just walk into a biker bar one night and let the Angels or Outlaws know they were banned? Or maybe they'd head into certain neighborhoods in LA and New York and inform the Crips and Bloods of the news. I'm sure MS-13 would be extremely interested to hear about how they were banned, too.

"Yeah, we're gonna ban your little gang here, so if you could just...take your colors off...and leave them at the door...that'd be great. Mmmmmmkay?"

 

[Ktoyou]

Now you are taking funny and making to a bit droll.

 

[Granite]

Now you are taking funny and making to a bit droll.

And how about the ban on idiots? I'm intrigued. Would there be a test, or something? Written oral or physical? At what age would we start testing for stupid? Would we put them on an island, or something? The misfit toys of humanity? Would the banned idiots just be allowed into idiot zones or would they not be able to leave the house? When would we start diagnosing the idiots? And would the people in charge of enforcing the law be relieved of their duties if they proved to be one of the newly-banned idiots?

 

[Ktoyou]

We might put you in charge of that job

:listen: you are not quite as good at this as fool.