mcburg93;1347221 wrote:I have an ar15 I use to varmint hunt with. Its lighter than my .223 rifle I used to hunt with. I could not hunt coyotes, ground hogs, or fox with out it. If I used a 9mm I would never get close enough to kill one of these animals. So yes I have many different types of guns for different type of hunting. I have bought other guns for investments as well.

So you need a semi auto rifle because it makes it easier?

(the comment about the 9mm was about carrying a concealed gun, not to hunt with)

Raw Dawgin' it;1347225 wrote:So you need a semi auto rifle because it makes it easier?

(the comment about the 9mm was about carrying a concealed gun, not to hunt with)

My other .223 rifle is semi auto too it holds eight rounds and the magazine I have for my ar only holds 5 rounds. It is better to carry the lighter weapon and use it instead of lugging around the heavy one.

Mental health issues are already supposed to be reported to NICS. States are not properly following this law,, a la the VT shooter.

I think we should make them illegal as soon as it is proven that making something illegal stops "all the bad things" from happening.

SEE: Crystal Meth, Heroin, Rape, MURDER, etc...

Raw Dawgin' it;1347206 wrote:derp derp dems taking our guns away derp derp.

Honest question - does anyone need a semi automatic rifle? You don't NEED a gun. I'm not saying ban guns, but there should be more restrictions on what you can own. Do you need anything bigger than a 9mm? Probably not. Do you need a semi-auto rifle to hunt?

This is no different than when a muslim suicide bombs a place and people call all muslims terrorists. I know sane legal gun owners aren't going to shoot up a mall or a school - but do you really need a gun? And would it really be that bad if the government put restrictions on the types or amount of weapons you could own?

What about sport? Perhaps the target shooting I do at the range can be done safely with even an automatic weapon, shooting metal targets. Certainly, I don't NEED to do it, but we don't NEED a lot of recreational activities.

As for whether or not it would be that bad, even if we were to take a "militia-only" view of the 2nd Amendment, the weapons available to us still make us able to form a militia in the event that one becomes necessary, and one doesn't really become necessary unless that government protecting us either refuses to continue doing so or is unable to continue doing so.

And this still comes back to the fact that I think "would it be so bad" is just the wrong question. I don't think the "would it be so bad" question should ever be asked in regard to taking something away from the public, simply because I think it sets a precedent.

Raw Dawgin' it;1347207 wrote:When they do background checks for guns, they should be able to check if you've been treated for mental health issues and what prescription drugs you take.

What I actually wouldn't mind about this would be something like Spamhaus for gun sellers. Spamhaus, for those who don't know, is a PRIVATE entity that studies email senders and determines who is and isn't sending spam. They have amassed a blacklist, and ISPs will pay a service fee for access to their constantly updated blacklist, because that, in turn, is great for their PR, which is then good for their business.

The one big problem I see with this (including your suggestion) is that client-patient privilege will probably be an issue, and a legitimate one, at that.

Raw Dawgin' it;1347225 wrote:So you need a semi auto rifle because it makes it easier?

Nobody needs one, but I don't think anyone has claimed to need one, so I don't think that's the issue.

The issue is that it makes no sense to take a steak away from you because a baby can't eat it without choking and dying. If you are able to responsibly handle something you enjoy, someone else's inability to do so doesn't invalidate your ability to do so.

mcburg93;1347236 wrote:My other .223 rifle is semi auto too it holds eight rounds and the magazine I have for my ar only holds 5 rounds. It is better to carry the lighter weapon and use it instead of lugging around the heavy one.

So the AR-15 holds LESS per magazine than your .223 ... but don't worry. There's still some reason why it shouldn't be allowed.

Raw Dawgin' it;1347206 wrote:This is no different than when a muslim suicide bombs a place and people call all muslims terrorists. I know sane legal gun owners aren't going to shoot up a mall or a school

Are you saying we should "ban" muslims because of suicide bombers? I agree it's the same. You can't blame all muslims for suicide bombers and you can't blame all gun owners for the crazies.

Raw Dawgin' it;1347206 wrote:do you really need a gun?

The government should not be allowed to take things from me because it thinks I don't need them.

"Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it."

Raw Dawgin' it;1347206 wrote:derp derp dems taking our guns away derp derp.

Honest question - does anyone need a semi automatic rifle? You don't NEED a gun. I'm not saying ban guns, but there should be more restrictions on what you can own. Do you need anything bigger than a 9mm? Probably not. Do you need a semi-auto rifle to hunt?

This is no different than when a muslim suicide bombs a place and people call all muslims terrorists. I know sane legal gun owners aren't going to shoot up a mall or a school - but do you really need a gun? And would it really be that bad if the government put restrictions on the types or amount of weapons you could own?

Do you NEED a car? Do you NEED a TV? Do you NEED to vote?

Last I checked the first 10 amendments is not the Bill of NEEDS, it is the Bill of RIGHTS!

So, one may not NEED a gun (and I agree with you there), but they should have the RIGHT to own a gun (assuming they aren't a felon/insane, etc).

Raw Dawgin' it;1347207 wrote:When they do background checks for guns, they should be able to check if you've been treated for mental health issues and what prescription drugs you take.

O-Trap;1347286 wrote:The one big problem I see with this (including your suggestion) is that client-patient privilege will probably be an issue, and a legitimate one, at that.

LJ;1347252 wrote:Mental health issues are already supposed to be reported to NICS. States are not properly following this law,, a la the VT shooter.

As LJ already pointed out, there is a mental health database that they check during the background check. The states do not do an adequate job of keeping it updated.

WebFire;1347212 wrote:I'll post this link here too. I don't see anything unreasonable with this guy's ideas.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-lowden/gun-control-_b_2322619.html

I will admit that I don't find his ideas completely unreasonable. (I don't support them, but they are not ideas that can not be discussed.) But they would have not have stopped this tragedy.

gut;1347197 wrote:I'd love to hear the Rev. Al Sharpton's opinion on that.

No black people were killed in the shooting thankfully. We'd never hear the end of how this was racially motivated and that white people need to give black people more money to stop racism. There's only 2 ways to stop racism; give black people more money or give black people preferential treatment.

FatHobbit;1347302 wrote:I will admit that I don't find his ideas completely unreasonable. (I don't support them, but they are not ideas that can not be discussed.) But they would have not have stopped this tragedy.

I understand that. In fact that was the first thing I said to the person who sent it to me. But I think it's better than banning guns.

Can somebody provide a list of random acts of violence committed by concealed carriers?

Then provide a list of conceal carries that stopped a crime.

I've heard of the second instance a few times, although not in the media but have never heard of the first of which in sure would be CNN top story for a week.

bases_loaded;1347324 wrote:Can somebody provide a list of random acts of violence committed by concealed carriers?

Then provide a list of conceal carries that stopped a crime.

I've heard of the second instance a few times, although not in the media but have never heard of the first of which in sure would be CNN top story for a week.

Zimmerman, for starters.

That's been proven to not be a random act of violence and the proof is aided by the fact you don't hear about it anymore.

bases_loaded;1347324 wrote:Can somebody provide a list of random acts of violence committed by concealed carriers?

Then provide a list of conceal carries that stopped a crime.

I've heard of the second instance a few times, although not in the media but have never heard of the first of which in sure would be CNN top story for a week.

Its less than 1 per 50 according to the FBI.

Raw Dawgin' it;1347206 wrote:You don't NEED a gun.

Bill of RIGHTS. Not Bill of NEEDS.

bases_loaded;1347327 wrote:That's been proven to not be a random act of violence and the proof is aided by the fact you don't hear about it anymore.

Whether random or mistakes, it adds up. Just because you give someone a CCW doesn't magically make them responsible or immune to losing it.

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/ccwtotalkilled.pdf
About 100 murders a year committed by CCW carriers kind of trumps this sort of thing. I only looked thru a handful, but there were 2 mass shootings that I saw (like 10 and 5 people).

justincredible;1347334 wrote:Bill of RIGHTS. Not Bill of NEEDS.

Well said.

Bottom line, even if one feels that people shouldn't own guns, that ship has long sailed. Instead of attempting to pass feel good laws that accomplish nothing, perhaps the powers that be could focus on the intersection of mental illness and the availabilty of guns to those people who nearly everyone would agree should not possess them. Not as simple as an anti-gun rant, of course, but something that might have a small chance at saving a few lives.

queencitybuckeye;1347812 wrote:Bottom line, even if one feels that people shouldn't own guns, that ship has long sailed. Instead of attempting to pass feel good laws that accomplish nothing, perhaps the powers that be could focus on the intersection of mental illness and the availabilty of guns to those people who nearly everyone would agree should not possess them. Not as simple as an anti-gun rant, of course, but something that might have a small chance at saving a few lives.

I would be perfectly fine with them enforcing the existing laws we currently have.

FatHobbit;1347818 wrote:I would be perfectly fine with them enforcing the existing laws we currently have.

If that's the solution, great. I don't know why this wouldn't be the case already? Money? Higher priorities (until a tragedy occurs)? Poorly written laws that are difficult/impossible to enforce?

queencitybuckeye;1347822 wrote:If that's the solution, great. I don't know why this wouldn't be the case already? Money? Higher priorities (until a tragedy occurs)? Poorly written laws that are difficult/impossible to enforce?

It wouldn't have helped in this case (since he killed his mom and stole her guns) but I do know that when you buy a gun you have to pass a background check that is supposed to catch people with mental illness but their database is not up to date.

Not going to do a thing about people who legally buy a gun and then later in life develop those mental illnesses.

tk421;1347926 wrote:Not going to do a thing about people who legally buy a gun and then later in life develop those mental illnesses.

really? no way around this what so ever?