What's your opinion of gun control?

[bitcoin-shark]

according to me the control of weapons is unconstitutional the americans have the right to possess the weapons but not to kill but as a deterrent, for legitimate self-defense, to defend themselves and their property from possible aggressions / thefts...

[1714018995]

1714018995

[PopoJeff]

How many liberal heads would explode just knowing about my latest toy?

AR pistol with 7" barrel and binary trigger.

[BADecker]

More gun freedom every day, even if the strict gun control is done by teachers.


Some Florida teachers can now carry firearms on school, campuses

Teachers in certain Florida school districts are now allowed to carry firearms on school grounds due to a controversial state law that came on the heels of a school massacre.

The measure stems from a hotly debated new law signed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis in May giving districts the option to arm teachers and security guards. The law was passed in response to the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland on Feb. 14, 2018; 17 people were killed in the shooting spree.

The law gives districts the right to opt into the Coach Aaron Feis Guardian Program. Feis was a  Stoneman Douglas staff member who shielded students from a barrage of bullets and was himself fatally shot.

Watch the latest video at foxnews.com [at the above link].

The program designates teachers and security guards as "guardians" who respond to armed attacks on school campuses. Guardians are strictly volunteers, who will receive a $500 stipend for their participation in the program.

According to the Florida Department of Education, guardians must pass psychological and drug screenings, and successfully complete a minimum of 144 hours of training.

Currently, 39 out of Florida's 67 counties have opted to participate in the program, including Broward County, where the Parkland episode occurred. Miami-Dade and Orlando have chosen not to take part.

[BADecker]

Folks, this is actually being done right now. Parents of these kids should teach the kids about guns, and how to use them in the face of real shooters. And, the parents should arm themselves. This way all the drills will backfire on the gun control people.


How active shooter drills are used to terrorize the public into supporting gun control

    School Resource Officer Amanda Myers said students will meet in their homerooms and will be taken to the auditorium for a presentation about the drill they are about to experience. She said teachers in the building went through a similar drill two weeks ago.

    Myers said after the presentation, students will return to their classrooms and await the start of the scripted drill. She said teachers will have the option to say where the shots were coming from or not during the drill. During each set of shots, the students and teachers will talk about it and a possible plan of action whether to barricade their classroom or evacuate.

    Outside of the building, staff members will be wearing safety vests to assist and direct students to pre-determined safe zones. In addition, there will be school buses circulating in the adjacent neighborhood which will also be safe zones. The safety staff members will have a list of safety steps relating to medical treatment, cover and concealment, bus locations.

    Following the drill, students will return to their homerooms as well as back to the auditorium for a one-hour debriefing. After lunch, students will have discussions with their teachers and participate in social emotional activities.

[Moonmanmun]

We are living in a sick sick world so I think we need stricter backround checks

[PopoJeff]

We are living in a sick sick world so I think we need stricter backround checks

Can you expand on that blanket statement ?

What is being missed in current background checks? Who isn't getting a background check?

[TwitchySeal]

We are living in a sick sick world so I think we need stricter backround checks

Can you expand on that blanket statement ?

What is being missed in current background checks? Who isn't getting a background check?

You can buy a gun without a background check from a gun show or another individual.

[PopoJeff]

We are living in a sick sick world so I think we need stricter backround checks

Can you expand on that blanket statement ?

What is being missed in current background checks? Who isn't getting a background check?

You can buy a gun without a background check from a gun show or another individual.

Long gun.... in a few states you can buy person to person.  But laws require the seller to not knowingly sell to a prohibited person

Handgun..... nope, never gets sold without a background check.

Gun show.... nope (unless it's a person to person long gun sale, in one of the few states that allow it, and the     meeting just happens to take place in the area of a gun show)

And nothing is sold from a licensed dealer, ever, without a background check, even if the dealer is at a gun show.

If anyone uses the term "gun show loophole" , that's a clear sign they don't know guns laws and are just regurgitating bull crap buzzwords

[TwitchySeal]

We are living in a sick sick world so I think we need stricter backround checks

Can you expand on that blanket statement ?

What is being missed in current background checks? Who isn't getting a background check?

You can buy a gun without a background check from a gun show or another individual.

Long gun.... in a few states you can buy person to person.  But laws require the seller to not knowingly sell to a prohibited person

Handgun..... nope, never gets sold without a background check.

Gun show.... nope (unless it's a person to person long gun sale, in one of the few states that allow it, and the     meeting just happens to take place in the area of a gun show)

And nothing is sold from a licensed dealer, ever, without a background check, even if the dealer is at a gun show.

If anyone uses the term "gun show loophole" , that's a clear sign they don't know guns laws and are just regurgitating bull crap buzzwords

You're correct (sort of) for selling a gun to someone from a different state. But not if they live in your state.

From atf.gov:

3. May I lawfully transfer a firearm to a resident of the same State in which I reside?


Any person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the State where he resides as long as he
does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or
possessing firearms under Federal law. There may be State laws that regulate interstate firearm
transactions. Any person considering acquiring a firearm should contact his or her State Attorney
General’s Office to inquire about the laws and possible State or local restrictions. A list of State
Attorney General contact numbers may be found at www.naag.org.- 3 -

https://www.atf.gov/file/61721/download

And nothing is sold from a licensed dealer, ever, without a background check, even if the dealer is at a gun show.

Yeah they do.

[PopoJeff]

It's got nothing to do with gun shows.  The person to person sales of long guns is permitted (some states) without using an FFL, unless they live in different states. If buyer and seller live in different states, an FFL transaction is required.

And please tell me what kind of gun you can buy from an FFL without a background check

[TwitchySeal]

It's got nothing to do with gun shows.  The person to person sales of long guns is permitted (some states) without using an FFL, unless they live in different states. If buyer and seller live in different states, an FFL transaction is required.

And please tell me what kind of gun you can buy from an FFL without a background check

You're right.  Trying to buy a gun from a FFL without a BC is a waste of time.

You're wrong about this rule having nothing to do with gun shows:

Any person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the State where he resides as long as he
does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or
possessing firearms under Federal law.

Ever notice a bunch of nice RVs parked outside of gun shows?  It's so that any person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the State where he resides.  Totally legal and I've saved money both times I've walked out to one (Sig Sauer P320 and a Glock 19 5), although that's probably because they knew I could pass the BC and would just buy the same gun in the show if they couldn't beat it.
Getting rid of this exception is what most people mean when they say "stricter background checks".  Some mean that the actual checks should be more strict, but most mean that you shouldn't be able to buy a gun without a background check.  And I agree.

[PopoJeff]

It's got nothing to do with gun shows.  The person to person sales of long guns is permitted (some states) without using an FFL, unless they live in different states. If buyer and seller live in different states, an FFL transaction is required.

And please tell me what kind of gun you can buy from an FFL without a background check

You're right.  Trying to buy a gun from a FFL without a BC is a waste of time.

You're wrong about this rule having nothing to do with gun shows:

Any person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the State where he resides as long as he
does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or
possessing firearms under Federal law.

Ever notice a bunch of nice RVs parked outside of gun shows?  It's so that any person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the State where he resides.  Totally legal and I've saved money both times I've walked out to one (Sig Sauer P320 and a Glock 19 5), although that's probably because they knew I could pass the BC and would just buy the same gun in the show if they couldn't beat it.
Getting rid of this exception is what most people mean when they say "stricter background checks".  Some mean that the actual checks should be more strict, but most mean that you shouldn't be able to buy a gun without a background check.  And I agree.

I will assert again.... the private sale of a firearm between two residents of the same state, is NOT a "gun show loophole".  It's the same legal private sale allowed on any other piece of property in the state.
   If it happens at a gun show, or in the parking lot of a Walmart, it's the same exact thing. It's been incorrectly named and makes people think it's a gun show thing.
https://www3.nssf.org/share/factsheets/PDF/MythofGunShowLoophole.pdf

And my first response, with the different rules for long gun vs handgun, that's specific to my state.      


But I think we are getting to splitting hairs.

My point of argument to almost any gun control hot air is...... what new law will stop gun murders?   The ONLY thing that's accomplished with any new gun restrictions, is the creation of more steps for people following the legal process. Those who follow the legal process, also follow the 'don't kill people law.'
    Those who don't follow the law, don't care what new laws are enacted, they won't follow any new gun law, and they don't follow that other one (killing people is illegal)

Then, to take it one step further...... to conduct a legal private sale, the seller may not sell to someone he knows is prohibited. And the buyer can not buy or possess a gun if they are a prohibited person. If either party violates those rules, they've committed a crime.     Now say we require a background check for this same sale.  If they knowingly sold to, or bought as, a prohibited person.....(committed a crime), why in the heck would they stare at each other and say "gee, I can't commit this crime, there's a background check law now".  They're still gonna trade cash for gun

[johnpaul94]

When the government would not control illegal purchasing of guns how then do they expect to reduce the crime rate?

[PopoJeff]

When the government would not control illegal purchasing of guns how then do they expect to reduce the crime rate?

Take a look at a crime rate chart for the last 30 years. The gun laws we have now have been the same since 1968 iirc. Look at that chart and tell me if the crime rate is really the problem.....or is it that EVERY shooting goes viral in minutes with the advent of the internet.

The news/internet/social media makes you believe its Armageddon.  But a review of actual statistics tells otherwise 

[tvbcof]

When the government would not control illegal purchasing of guns how then do they expect to reduce the crime rate?

Take a look at a crime rate chart for the last 30 years. The gun laws we have now have been the same since 1968 iirc. Look at that chart and tell me if the crime rate is really the problem.....or is it that EVERY shooting goes viral in minutes with the advent of the internet.

The news/internet/social media makes you believe its Armageddon.  But a review of actual statistics tells otherwise 

Not exactly.  Back in the 1980's when the FBI was less corrupt and people sometimes did real science, they did a study to try to come up with an effective way to address the 'gun problem' since shootings were getting more common.

The study basically showed that criminals NEED guns in order to protect themselves against other criminals who they come in contact with frequently in their line of work.  For this reason they will never be dis-armed, and if their weapon of choice was somehow rendered unavailable they would 'upgrade' to a more deadly one.

The common sense solution was to make it very much more costly for criminals to use guns against non-criminals in the course of committing a crime.  The idea is that innocent bystanders will be at less risk and they getting shot will be more rare.

This policy went into effect and gun related crimes have been declining ever since (with some minor blips corresponding to general economic conditions.)

In my area, breaking into a house and stealing an ATV won't probably even land you in the country jail for more than a few hours.  Breaking into a house at stealing a gun will get the entire law enforcement spectra to go after you and if they catch you you'll do years in the pen.  This because the criminal touched a gun in the course of committing  the theft.

Most criminals in my area are smart enough to leave their guns behind when they go out to burglarize.  And, since probably 90% of homeowners are armed and ready, they are also super careful to only break into houses when the owner is not home.

[BADecker]

^^^ Didn't you say they needed their guns to protect themselves from other criminals?

[PopoJeff]

When the government would not control illegal purchasing of guns how then do they expect to reduce the crime rate?

Take a look at a crime rate chart for the last 30 years. The gun laws we have now have been the same since 1968 iirc. Look at that chart and tell me if the crime rate is really the problem.....or is it that EVERY shooting goes viral in minutes with the advent of the internet.

The news/internet/social media makes you believe its Armageddon.  But a review of actual statistics tells otherwise  

Not exactly.  Back in the 1980's when the FBI was less corrupt and people sometimes did real science, they did a study to try to come up with an effective way to address the 'gun problem' since shootings were getting more common.

The study basically showed that criminals NEED guns in order to protect themselves against other criminals who they come in contact with frequently in their line of work.  For this reason they will never be dis-armed, and if their weapon of choice was somehow rendered unavailable they would 'upgrade' to a more deadly one.

The common sense solution was to make it very much more costly for criminals to use guns against non-criminals in the course of committing a crime.  The idea is that innocent bystanders will be at less risk and they getting shot will be more rare.

This policy went into effect and gun related crimes have been declining ever since (with some minor blips corresponding to general economic conditions.)

In my area, breaking into a house and stealing an ATV won't probably even land you in the country jail for more than a few hours.  Breaking into a house at stealing a gun will get the entire law enforcement spectra to go after you and if they catch you you'll do years in the pen.  This because the criminal touched a gun in the course of committing  the theft.

Most criminals in my area are smart enough to leave their guns behind when they go out to burglarize.  And, since probably 90% of homeowners are armed and ready, they are also super careful to only break into houses when the owner is not home.

Sorry, but this made no sense to me.  What study? What policy?
FBI less corrupt than now? I highly doubt that.
The only thing changing over that time frame was local laws. Not federal gun control acts.  Some sates have implemented stronger sentencing if a crime was committed with a deadly weapon.... not just guns, knives too. Bombs, grenades, nerve gas. Etc...  And thats on a state prosecution level, nothing to do with federal gun regulation

[mr.robot8]

the sale of weapons must be free everyone must be able to possess a weapon in order to be able to spread from various dangers, is a right written in the american constitution

[BADecker]

Ya but... but. The American military has cannon fired mini-nukes.

 

[tvbcof]

Not exactly.  Back in the 1980's when the FBI was less corrupt and people sometimes did real science, they did a study to try to come up with an effective way to address the 'gun problem' since shootings were getting more common.

The study basically showed that criminals NEED guns in order to protect themselves against other criminals who they come in contact with frequently in their line of work.  For this reason they will never be dis-armed, and if their weapon of choice was somehow rendered unavailable they would 'upgrade' to a more deadly one.

The common sense solution was to make it very much more costly for criminals to use guns against non-criminals in the course of committing a crime.  The idea is that innocent bystanders will be at less risk and they getting shot will be more rare.

This policy went into effect and gun related crimes have been declining ever since (with some minor blips corresponding to general economic conditions.)

In my area, breaking into a house and stealing an ATV won't probably even land you in the country jail for more than a few hours.  Breaking into a house at stealing a gun will get the entire law enforcement spectra to go after you and if they catch you you'll do years in the pen.  This because the criminal touched a gun in the course of committing  the theft.

Most criminals in my area are smart enough to leave their guns behind when they go out to burglarize.  And, since probably 90% of homeowners are armed and ready, they are also super careful to only break into houses when the owner is not home.

Sorry, but this made no sense to me.  What study? What policy?

I cannot find the study now.  Lots of stuff is being memory-holed off the internet.  Earlier in this thread I have at least once put a link to it, but the search functions on this site are dismal.

The policy is to reduce the amount of gun crimes by criminals against non-criminals by making the penelty very high for comiting a crime using a firearm.  Much higher than doing the same crime without using a firearm.

The policy is pretty common sense, and it worked will since it was implemented.  As a consequence gun related crimes have dropped for 20 or 30 years.

Again, the main findings of the study were that guns are a MUST HAVE for criminals to protect themselves against other criminals.  As a consequence of this, outlawing guns is utterly futile for removing guns from the hands of criminals.

Of course if your goal is to remove guns from the hands of NON-criminals, which I strongly believe is the driving force behind the political push for gun control, then the above study should be minimized and the policies which fell out of it should be deprecated.

As I see it the main reason to get guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens is NOT for fear of revolution or whatever.  What it would do is make it less possible for communities to police themselves from within.  That would make people dependant on the state for security.

FBI less corrupt than now? I highly doubt that.

When the study was done it was clearly done by serious professionals at the FBI who wanted to understand the problem and come up with workable policy input.

Now, 30 or 40 years later the FBI is a very different organization.  Highly corrupt and beholden to their political sponsors.

The only thing changing over that time frame was local laws. Not federal gun control acts.  Some sates have implemented stronger sentencing if a crime was committed with a deadly weapon.... not just guns, knives too. Bombs, grenades, nerve gas. Etc...  And thats on a state prosecution level, nothing to do with federal gun regulation

My point is that laws generally did change.  And thus so did policy.  And thus so did behavior.

We now live in a time when most laws, policies, and behaviors are specifically engineered to make more problems.  The driving force behind it are people who have some ideas which they might be able to sell as 'solutions'.  Classic Hegelian dialectic.

An alternate but related hypothesis is that the controllers simply wish to destroy the society and don't really care so much about the minor details.  More and more I am leaning toward that one.