No guns in Chicago = War zone

[billvon 3,116]

>But the aviation medical records are done to specifically determine
>physical ability. And it is measurable.

It's mental and physical, actually. A severely mentally deficient guy would not be able to get a pilot's license even if he was in physically good shape.

(other people said)

>Do you honestly believe a criminal wanting a gun buys it from a gun shop, a
>gun show, or a legal FFL holder?

We know for a fact they sometimes do.

>The convicted felon bikers I know that carry have other "sources".

No doubt. That does not mean you should sell guns to convicted felons. (And I doubt even you would suggest we should.)

>But there is no single source for medical information.

It works for medicals.

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

OK, if you can tell me what "better background checks" would mean? Specifically?

One that wouldn't allow people like the V. Tech shooter to slip through the cracks.

So you want the government to maintain a database with individuals medical information to be used during background checks?

Now correct me if I am wrong, but don't you need to meet a minimum medical standard in order to drive a car? No one objects to the state indicating on your driver's license that you need glasses

Eyes are tested on site. You are not required to show medical records are you?

And then there are medicals required if you want to be a pilot, or a tandem master.

There's plenty of precedent.

Ok, so you advocate giving up mental medical records and your right to privacy to stop a few nuts.

Or are you say everyone who wants to own a firearm should go through a mental evaluation?

Pilots, as truck drivers do, take specific exames that are not fishing expiditons. Based on tests.

Are mental evals as black and white or are they more subjective?

I understand the importance of right-to-privacy, and by and large I like as little govt intervention in my personal affairs as possible.

That said, there has to be a balance between what we each want in our ideal world and what the reality is out there.

What kind of registration/background check/process/training would you propose in order to help with the problem of people who shouldn't have guns getting their hands on guns? Do you think that it is even needed?

I brought up driving as an example of government regulations requiring some kind of medical clearance. Your point that for driving/flying are based on tests that are pass/fail is valid. The thing is, and I think you'd agree, that the danger in cars/airplanes is that a lack of skill will cause an accident causing injuries/death and these tests are designed to filter those prone to these accidents. With guns, it appears to me that the danger is not so much in the accidental misuse as in the deliberate misuse. So any standard/check to make sure that the wrong people don't end up armed would HAVE to include a way to filter out those that would have a higher tendency to intentionally misuse a gun. Wouldn't it?

Or is everything just fine?

And you bring a point from which a good and logical debate could be had. kallend will not be so forthcoming in expressing his opinon on what a "completed" check would be.

But to your point, how could what you ask be done?

To be perfectly honest, I don't think that asking for medical records to see if there are red flags is too much. I think that while it is a constitutional right, as has been noted it also carries some limitations. Additionally, I think that the nature of guns in and of themselves - how easily they can be used to cause so much harm - means that they can't be treated with the same kind of logic that would be applied to other rights. At the same time, I understand the 'slippery-slope' arguments against further restrictions/allowing government incursion into privacy *just this once* because it only leads to more, etc.

So personally, like in other facets of life, I don't think that having evaluations of medical history in order to possess a gun is excessive. In the interest of full disclosure, I live in Chicago and have never felt the need to own a gun or really ever considered it. I've never owned a gun for protection or amusement, so really from a personal perspective more restrictions wouldn't affect me anyway.

What I would like, though, is an actual proposal from you, or John Rich, or some others that have experience with guns as to how this problem can be realistically dealt with.

Or, as I asked before (and this goes out to everyone) - is everything ok the way it is?

[Butters 0]

Quote

I think butters, rushmc, etc, are making my point very nicely that the gun lobby effectively obstructs any and all suggestions that might make it harder for inappropriate people to buy guns.

Thanks guys - have a safe weekend.

I didn't obstruct anything. You should really work on your reading and comprehension skills along with your implementation of a system to prevent the purchase of guns by people who you don't believe should be allowed to purchase them.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[normiss 897]

"And I doubt even you "

ahhh...the digs from the elitist crowd....

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

I think butters, rushmc, etc, are making my point very nicely that the gun lobby effectively obstructs any and all suggestions that might make it harder for inappropriate people to buy guns.

Thanks guys - have a safe weekend.

I didn't obstruct anything.

A review of this thread shows otherwise.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

I didn't obstruct anything.

A review of this thread shows otherwise.

Then you are just as guilty of obstruction.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[billvon 3,116]

>the digs from the elitist crowd....

As mentioned in another thread, I am indeed an arrogant elitist; I think my beliefs are my own.

But to get away from the personal comments, do YOU think that we should be selling guns to convicted felons?

[normiss 897]

No I don't.
I'm just curious how increased legislation is going to help. While it may reduce the legal purchase loopholes, the entire illegal path will always be there.
My bet is on more are acquired there than via the gaps in lawful purchase. It's easier for them by far.

[billvon 3,116]

>I'm just curious how increased legislation is going to help.

I don't know that it would. I have yet to see a good piece of proposed legislation that would deal effectively with the issue. I hope we can come up with one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I answered already, in this thread. Use the texas CCW model

And what is it about the Texas CHL checks that are so much better than the usual FBI background check, which occurs when a gun is purchased? Be specific.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Everyone keeps looking at this from a "legal" gun purchase perspective.
Do you honestly believe a criminal wanting a gun buys it from a gun shop, a gun show, or a legal FFL holder?
REALLY???



The convicted felon bikers I know that carry have other "sources". All the laws we could ever pass won't eliminate an alternate, illegal suplly.

Cho did!

yep - which is why we want people to be able to defend themselves. You can't stop the other side.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I don't think that having evaluations of medical history in order to possess a gun is excessive.

Mental evaluations are a very subjective thing - it's not a science whereby everyone who looks at the same person will agree upon the finding. For every shrink brought into court to testify that a defendent is insane, the prosecution will bring another shrink in to testify that he is sane. So denying someone a constitutional right based upon such subjective evaluations, is fraught with problems and will lead to many injustices.

If you try and require such evaluations for gun purchases, it will just lead to doctor shopping, and people who know how to answer the questions correctly to get by. And of course, it won't do a thing to stop criminals from getting black market guns - they're not going to go a fricking shrink. So all it will do is create a vast nationwide network of shrinks who make a ton of money giving gun purchase evaluations, impeding the rights of the law-abiding, and in the end, it won't do a thing to stop crime.

But no one seems to care if such things are done to gun owners.

If mental evaluations sound like a good idea to you, how about we require that to exercise the right to vote? Wanna flip a switch in a polling booth, then you better have your psych eval handy along with your voter registration card!

And such abuses are already occurring. For example, every soldier returning from Iraq or Afghanistan who is treated for PTSD, is put into that mental database by the VA, which denies him the right to own a gun. That's right. A soldier whom we entrust to risk his life to fight for his country, comes home from war and can't be trusted with a gun to defend his own family in America.

The gun-o-phobes are using this mental disqualification database to add as many names as they can, as just another tactic to deny the public their 2nd Amendment rights.

If someone has a nasty divorce and goes to see a shrink to sort through their feelings, should they be denied a gun? If someone is suffering grief from the loss of a child and goes to see a shrink, should they be denied a gun? All of these things will come to be, if you expand this database.

Once again, when it comes to guns, nobody seems to care. But let their names appear on a TSA "no fly" list, and they howl. Let terrorist detainees be denied rights, and they howl. Let privacy be intruded upon for the war against terror, and they howl. But when it comes to honest Americans being denied guns - they're all in favor of it!

Quote

What I would like, though, is an actual proposal from you, or John Rich, or some others that have experience with guns as to how this problem can be realistically dealt with.

No gun control measure in the history of mankind has been effective in reducing gun violence. Crime is not caused by guns. Crime is caused by factors like drugs, gangs, population density, demographics, poverty, in short: culture. Work on THOSE things.

Oh, I know, it's hard to change culture. It's hard to get fathers to stay home and be a part of their family and actually raise their sons to be decent young men. It's hard to fight the influence of drugs and the appeal of gangster hip-hop rap gun-toting machismo to poor inner-city youth.

Yeah, it's much easier for politicians just to take guns away from law-abiding people, and then smugly claim in front of the TV cameras that "we're doing something" to fight crime. Well, actually, no, that's not doing anything except appealing to the stupid masses who haven't studied this issue.

Work on catching and locking up actual criminals, and leave the hell alone the honest gun owners.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What I would like, though, is an actual proposal from you, or John Rich, or some others that have experience with guns as to how this problem can be realistically dealt with.

Or, as I asked before (and this goes out to everyone) - is everything ok the way it is?

No, it's not.

We've proposed eliminating victim zones (aka, gun free zones), and increasing CCW rights.

Right now the media publicity, and the inability of anyone to legally defend themselves encourages this events.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Even MORE interesting will be seeing what kallend has to say about this

Gang war, battling over turf.

And he dodges and weaves again!

Yet another useless, stupid and incorrect comment from you. A gang war is EXACTLY what it is.

Funny how it wasn't gang wars in other cities last year when Chicago had it's one good year wrt murders, but now when your false metric blows up, you resort to reality.

[rhys 0]

Quote

I believe that the law needs to be strengthened to make it much more difficult for criminals and the deranged to get guns.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Once again, how would you accomplish this?

Restrict ammunition, make ammunition harder to get if you are not a legal gun owner, make the ammo very tracable and put the fucking price up on it.

Eddie murphie did a great stand up piece on that subject.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

What I would like, though, is an actual proposal from you, or John Rich, or some others that have experience with guns as to how this problem can be realistically dealt with.

Or, as I asked before (and this goes out to everyone) - is everything ok the way it is?

No, it's not.

We've proposed eliminating victim zones (aka, gun free zones), and increasing CCW rights.

Right now the media publicity, and the inability of anyone to legally defend themselves encourages this events.

How would that have stopped Cho from getting a gun? Oh, it wouldn't.

I notice the recent massacre in WA involved 2 cops, whose weapons didn't do them much good, nor did it deter the mentally ill perp.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>the digs from the elitist crowd....

As mentioned in another thread, I am indeed an arrogant elitist; I think my beliefs are my own.

But to get away from the personal comments, do YOU think that we should be selling guns to convicted felons?

kallend and you (now) love to take this fucking rediculas twist. You want a debate then lets have a debate. Statements like this are eliltists, condisending and pure bull shit.

NO I DO NOT WANT GOD DAM FELONS TO GET FUCKING GUNS ANY MORE THAN YOU DO!!!!! THE DIFFERENCE IS YOU WOULD GIVE UP PERSONAL INFORMATION TO STOP IT WHILE NOT WANTING TO GIVE UP INFORMATION TO STOP TERRORISTS!!!!!! CANT HAVE IT BOTH GOD DAM WAYS!!!

Ya, I was yelling. But you seen to ignore normal conversations to make stupid points

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

You don't believe in gun bans do you Kallend?

No.

Law abiding, sane people should be allowed to own guns.

I believe that the law needs to be strengthened to make it much more difficult for criminals and the deranged to get guns. The V. Tech massacre (among others) shows that existing checks don't work.

Look, if there was a law that banned college professors from getting guns, do you think that would prevent you from obtaining one, if you really wanted one?

Most criminals don't go into the gun shops to buy guns. There are several reasons for this:

1. Cost, gun stores charge retail, stolen/lost items are 1/10th the price or less.
2. Who has time for all those background checks?
3. Records of sale
4. Serial numbers, why scrape them off when you can have that done for you?

So, gun bans through the legal channels don't work. They never have. The shootings in Chicago and Washington DC over the past two years prove it.

Where's the story of that 90-ish year old lady who held a thief at bay with a .22 in her house while she called police? Pretty good deterrent.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You don't believe in gun bans do you Kallend?

No.

Law abiding, sane people should be allowed to own guns.

I believe that the law needs to be strengthened to make it much more difficult for criminals and the deranged to get guns. The V. Tech massacre (among others) shows that existing checks don't work.

Look, if there was a law that banned college professors from getting guns, do you think that would prevent you from obtaining one, if you really wanted one?

It would make it more difficult, which would (a) require me to make a greater effort (thus increasing the chance I wouldn't bother), and (b) increase the lilkelihood that I'd get caught making an illegal transaction. And the general thrust here is about loonies anyway, like Cho.

Quote

Most criminals don't go into the gun shop to buy guns. There are several reasons for this:

Cho did - then shot 32 people dead.

Quote

1. Cost, guns stores charge retail, stolen/lost items are 1/10th the price.
2. Who has time for all those background checks?
3. Records of sale
4. Serial numbers, why scrape them off when you can have that done for you?

So, gun bans through the legal channels don't work. They never have. The shootings in Chicago and Washington DC over the past two years prove it.

STRAWMAN - no-one suggested a ban.

Quote

Where's the story of that 90-ish year old lady who held a thief at bay with a .22 in her house while she called police? Pretty good deterrent.

Good for her. Hear the story about the cop shot with his own gun in the police station?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[1969912 0]

Quote

>Should a gun ownership screener have open access to this info?

The screener - no. He just gets a "yes" or "no" on his computer screen. Decision should be made by a doctor who reviews the patient's record, as it is for aviation medicals.

Medical records are not checked by AME's. You should know that, and Kallend surely does know that. Last time I renewed my 2nd Class FAA medical, I walked into a corner "doc-in-the-box" office that had an FAA AME in its employ. The AME asked all the pertinent questions, performed the tests, then signed the paperwork. That's how it works.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What I would like, though, is an actual proposal from you, or John Rich, or some others that have experience with guns as to how this problem can be realistically dealt with.

Or, as I asked before (and this goes out to everyone) - is everything ok the way it is?

No, it's not.

We've proposed eliminating victim zones (aka, gun free zones), and increasing CCW rights.

Right now the media publicity, and the inability of anyone to legally defend themselves encourages this events.

How would that have stopped Cho from getting a gun? Oh, it wouldn't.

I notice the recent massacre in WA involved 2 cops, whose weapons didn't do them much good, nor did it deter the mentally ill perp.

You're never going to stop him from getting the gun. You hope to stop him long before he kills 32 people. Making the targets sheep doesn't help one bit. You might also recall he killed 32 people in two distinct attacks, with considerable time in between.

BTW, aren't you the guy who likes bitching about data being plural? Your entire argument rests on one case, one where the existing system wasn't not even adhered to as designed.

You reject any 'solutions' that don't guarantee 100% results, but you're very quick to offer ones that won't even get 10% results, yet will greatly infringe rights.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Restrict ammunition, make ammunition harder to get if you are not a legal gun owner, make the ammo very tracable and put the fucking price up on it.

Eddie murphie did a great stand up piece on that subject.

Chris Rock, actually, though I don't know if he was the originator.

But it ignores the technical realities. Limiting ammo discourages practice, which increases unsafe handling and accidents. Ammo is easy to reload. It is impossible to make trackable in any reasonable manner.

Criminals are going to be least sensitive to the price of ammunition, as theyre least likely to practice, least concerned about missing their homey and hitting an innocent, and they only need a few rounds to be a legitimate threat to kill an unarmed person.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

What I would like, though, is an actual proposal from you, or John Rich, or some others that have experience with guns as to how this problem can be realistically dealt with.

Or, as I asked before (and this goes out to everyone) - is everything ok the way it is?

No, it's not.

We've proposed eliminating victim zones (aka, gun free zones), and increasing CCW rights.

Right now the media publicity, and the inability of anyone to legally defend themselves encourages this events.

How would that have stopped Cho from getting a gun? Oh, it wouldn't.

I notice the recent massacre in WA involved 2 cops, whose weapons didn't do them much good, nor did it deter the mentally ill perp.

You're never going to stop him from getting the gun. .

As Ron likes to say, do you have PROOF of that?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

You're never going to stop him from getting the gun. .

As Ron likes to say, do you have PROOF of that?

The 40 year war on drugs is sufficient proof, following by England, Columbine, and common sense.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You're never going to stop him from getting the gun. .

As Ron likes to say, do you have PROOF of that?

The 40 year war on drugs is sufficient proof, following by England, Columbine, and common sense.

OK,. so you have no proof then, just guessing.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.