Who should own guns? should there be background checks? - Page 5 - XDTalk Forums - Your HS2000/SA-XD Information Source!

grahamstein · 04-18-2007, 10:22 AM

I think a good idea would be that ALL purchases/transfers of guns should require a check. Besides that, i think all other gun control laws should be scrapped. Then increase the penalties for gun violations to 10 years in prison, so long as criminal intent can be proven. But i would still doubt if that would actually reduce illegal guns. Maybee nothing can, except for killing the criminals, but that is as far as "Sensible Gun Control" goes in my mind.

jednp · 04-18-2007, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jnclement

CNN interviewed the gun store owner in Roanoke, who informed them of the background checks. And any arrest should show up.

The flags here that should have been caught were ignored by his teachers and fellow students. I saw a student who talked about how surprised she was Cho lived in her dorm, and even more surprised he lived on her floor. That's a common denominator in school shootings; the shooter feels ignored and isolated. Makes me wonder if someone had said hi on occasion........

The answer to your debate is in place in Cali and NJ, it's called a waiting period, and low cap mags. Neither of which would have helped.

I don't think that's the answer to my debate. My feelings hinge directly on what is or isn't found by a background check. And from the sounds of it.. as I've learned more about what went on... just like you said.. the red flags weren't allowed to be raised becaues people failed to report this kids behaviors. And if they did report him, they failed to press charges.

People must not be afraid to press charges... if someone is stalking.. that's a serious thing.. especially when they then combine it with harassing emails and telling the people they are stalking they will kill themself. IF that doesn't throw up a huge red flag to you.. nothing will.. if a person did that to me.. you're damn right I'd press charges.. that person is dangerous.

If we want people who do bad things, to be kept from purchasing a firearm... then when we know something.. we must report it.. if someone does something crazy or somewhat violent toward us.. we must report it and press charges if we are allowed.. it's the only way for these incidents to be on record for a background check.

AlaskaXD · 04-18-2007, 01:38 PM

The questions: Who should own guns? should there be background checks?

My .02: Any U.S. citizen without a record of violent crimes or crimes commited with a weapon of any sort should be allowed to own a gun.

Yes there should be background checks!! (There should be a MAX of 3 day wait) Also, all firearms should be registered with resident state. If you have nothing to hide, there's no problem.

Reality: Can't identify or track all nutcases. We all know they'll find a way to hurt others wether or not we authorize gun ownership!

Allstates should have CCW!!!

wombat13 · 04-18-2007, 01:47 PM

Jednp,

People are justifiably wary about pressing charges. Let me tell you about one of my experiences. My wife and I were on a flight to Chicago returning home from vacation. The flight was full and a flight attendant asked a man to take his computer bag out of the overhead and put it under the seat so my carry-on wouldn't have to be gate-checked. He laughed and refused to do so and I commented that he didn't have to be an ass about it.

When the flight landed he and his friend waited for my wife and I to get off the plane. They said I better watch who I call an ass. They then asked us if either one us had ever been raped and said they would rape me and then my wife. They followed us as we walked and continued their threats until an airline employee asked if we needed help. The airline employee escorted us to a police officer who escorted us to our car.

While we were walking to our car, the police officer asked if we would press charges if they were able to locate the perps. I asked if during the course of pressing charges and any eventual trial the perps would learn my name. Of course, he informed me that they would. So I declined to press charges because the city of Chicago's anti-gun laws would make me a defenseless target for retribution while the legal system gave criminals all the information they needed to locate me. (In Chicago you can't own a handgun and even long-guns have to be registered). Even if the perps had been convicted of a crime, would they have been sent to prison? If so, for how long? In this case I thought my wife and I would be taking on too much risk for any likely punishment the perps would have received.

I completely understand why people decline to press charges against violent people. In this case I think it is completely reasonable that the victims of Cho's stalking declined to press charges. He probably would have gotten little or no punishment (look at how everything else had been ignored) and the risk of his harming them would have been increased. And as we all know, his victims were forced to be defenseless by VT policy.

jednp · 04-18-2007, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlaskaXD

The questions: Who should own guns? should there be background checks?

My .02: Any U.S. citizen without a record of violent crimes or crimes commited with a weapon of any sort should be allowed to own a gun.

Yes there should be background checks!! (There should be a MAX of 3 day wait) Also, all firearms should be registered with resident state. If you have nothing to hide, there's no problem.

Reality: Can't identify or track all nutcases. We all know they'll find a way to hurt others wether or not we authorize gun ownership!

Allstates should have CCW!!!

registration is useless. My city is the ONLY city in the state that requires handgun registration.. and it is the ONLY city in the state with rampant shootings, robberies, murders. almost all of the crimes are comitted with unregistered firearms.

Absolutely nothing can stop someone from obtaining a firearm illegaly if they know where to get one.

I don't want waiting periods mandatory.. I don't want registration.. I simply want the background checks.. to find red flags that should be able to be seen. The red flags can do several things.. They can either flat out deny puchase for a certain amount of time.. the amount of time would be set according to whatever the reason for denial is.. or the red flag should put a temporary hold on the purchase for further looking into whether or not the person is a threat for sure.

But again.. the problem remains.. stalking SHOULD be a reason to deny purchase if the incident was done within a certain amount of time prior to the purchase... but.. you simply can't have stalking on there if someone fails to press charges against that person. That's why charges need to be pressed.. and while charges are pending... no firearms purchases. If charges are dropped, then restrictions on you purchasing are dropped. If charges are kept.. then there needs to be restrictions kept on you for a certain amount of time.

jednp · 04-18-2007, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wombat13

Jednp,

People are justifiably wary about pressing charges. Let me tell you about one of my experiences. My wife and I were on a flight to Chicago returning home from vacation. The flight was full and a flight attendant asked a man to take his computer bag out of the overhead and put it under the seat so my carry-on wouldn't have to be gate-checked. He laughed and refused to do so and I commented that he didn't have to be an ass about it.

When the flight landed he and his friend waited for my wife and I to get off the plane. They said I better watch who I call an ass. They then asked us if either one us had ever been raped and said they would rape me and then my wife. They followed us as we walked and continued their threats until an airline employee asked if we needed help. The airline employee escorted us to a police officer who escorted us to our car.

While we were walking to our car, the police officer asked if we would press charges if they were able to locate the perps. I asked if during the course of pressing charges and any eventual trial the perps would learn my name. Of course, he informed me that they would. So I declined to press charges because the city of Chicago's anti-gun laws would make me a defenseless target for retribution while the legal system gave criminals all the information they needed to locate me. (In Chicago you can't own a handgun and even long-guns have to be registered). Even if the perps had been convicted of a crime, would they have been sent to prison? If so, for how long? In this case I thought my wife and I would be taking on too much risk for any likely punishment the perps would have received.

I completely understand why people decline to press charges against violent people. In this case I think it is completely reasonable that the victims of Cho's stalking declined to press charges. He probably would have gotten little or no punishment (look at how everything else had been ignored) and the risk of his harming them would have been increased. And as we all know, his victims were forced to be defenseless by VT policy.

then my statement still stands.. soft judges, just like soft victims.. make hardened criminals. like it or not, that's the sad truth of the matter.

cougar_guy04 · 04-18-2007, 02:16 PM

I don't mind the background checks, hell, I think had 3 done on me last year (FOID card for IL, IN Carry Permit, and when I purchased my XD). However, I hate the way Illinois does it. You have to have a FOID card to purchase ammo/firearms (I won't even comment on the "waiting period for those), then when you buy the gun from a dealer there's a 24 or 72 hour waiting period.

I say if you're going to have the FOID card, do away with the waiting period and set it up like IN (walk out with it the day you buy it) or vice versa.

Just my $0.02

**Powerman** · 04-18-2007, 02:22 PM

Good thread, couple of things....

It is obvious that Virgina's 30 day waiting period had no effect in this case.

In Colorado, if you have been "charged" with any crime, that could lead to a conviction and meet the requirement for denial, then it's no go. So any felony charge.

"Midemeanor" domestic violence charges or convictions denies ownership. That sounds like a no brainer, except today domestic violence can be an argument and a percieved threat. DA's prosecute DV much more aggressivly than before. A very minor charge can deny RKBA.

Any restraining order will do the same.

It's easy to say that one can buy guns illeagaly, but where? I wouldn't know the first place. That opens the door to quite a bit of risk. If you are a criminal than you already know, but for me to go buy a gun to kill my co-workers, I wouldn't have the first clue.

Mental stability is a whole other issue. How do you possibly counter normal folks going unstable. Only those deemed by the court as it already is, is possible. To say that someone is unable to purchase a fire arm if on anti depressants or something, would then mean that if you do go on anti depressants then you need to have your firearms confiscated.

No matter what laws are passed, they will not prevent. There is no doubt that gun laws unduly hinder law abiding citizens. Meaning there will be some non-threats effected by gun control, and some threats will go unchalenged. If you are convicted of a felony, then you loose your rights. However, what we are discussing is how do we interpret premeditation and how do we prevent a crime before it is commited. That is simply immpossibe. Not only that, it completely goes against the founding principle of our legal system. Innocent before proven guilty.

As far as back ground checks, I feel it is perfectly reasonable to keep felons and those with charges to be denied. No it isn't perfect. No it isn't going to stop everything, or spur of the moment killing sprees. I think it is reasonable to take a minor step to preventing easy accsess to criminals. If they want to break the law to get one then have fun, but we shouldn't knowingly sell to thsoe that shouln't have them just because "they can buy them off the street".

My last gun I bought I failed my check. I was pissed. I was told it was from something I didn't do. I had to take my time to get my records and prove that it was not me. 30 days later I was cleared and bought my gun. It wasn't the end of the world. So just because I agree with checks, don't think I believe they are perfect.

jednp · 04-18-2007, 02:41 PM

so virginia had a 30 day waiting period?

And I guess I'm not really trying to stop a crime before it happens... I fully understand that no amount of laws or actions taken.. aside from locking a person up for something they haven't committed yet.. can stop a crime from happening. Give me a 15 day waiting period to buy a gun.. I can wait 15 days if I really wanted to kill someone with it.

I will attempt to clarify what I am getting at here. SHOULD pending charges on you for various offences... be reaon to deny you purchase? If you're charged with stalking... if you're charged with arson, if you're charged with domestic abuse... until those charges are dropped... should you be kept from legally purchasing a firearm of any kind? Should there be a way to send red flags up in the background check for things like this?

Of course... if you are cleared of charges... any and all restrictions on your purchasing are done away with. Not going to use past charges that didn't lead to convictions.. only pending charges. But if you are convited of certain things.. depending on what it was.. there needs to be a varying amount of time put on you being unable to legally purchase a firearm after you are convicted... aside from a felony which removes your right to legally own a gun.

I'm just open to the idea that MAYBE there are certain crimes.. that while charges are pending, need to throw up red flags to deny purchase. Some states do it, some states don't. Actually, for handguns I don't think Nebraska even uses the NICS... we just use our state officials to do the checks. I think it might be the same way for long guns too.

I'm just not sure what to make of all this. I don't even know if I truly agree with anything I've even talked about. I'm just tossing up thoughts and seeing where it leads. I'm sick of people like this doing bad things... I just don't know that there's anything we can really do to stop them in the long run. We can find legal ways to red flag their purchase temporarily... but eventually they'll get a gun, legally or illegally. If an action slows down their plans... is that a win for people who want to stop gun violence? I want to stop gun violence.. but I only want to stop it through ways that target only the bad people.. if you target everyone.. you do absolutely nothing to slow bad people really.

jednp · 04-18-2007, 02:53 PM

again..the more and more I think about this... I guess I've been trying to play devils advocate... is there a way to go after people who are a threat.. and keep them from having a gun.. that will actually work? without affecting people who aren't a threat to someone.. because simply being depressed does not mean you want to kill yourself or someone else.

the more and more I think on this issue, my answer keeps coming back to NO in my mind. No matter how I try to put a little spin on this or that.. change it around a bit.. every single way I can see it affecting normal people inadvertantly.

Obviously my best course of action to stop this violence.. is just like what most of you think... carry a damn gun.. and quit having "no guns" zones. that's what I plan to do.

04-18-2007, 10:22 AM	#41
grahamstein XDTalk 500 Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: West Nyack, NY Posts: 671	I think a good idea would be that ALL purchases/transfers of guns should require a check. Besides that, i think all other gun control laws should be scrapped. Then increase the penalties for gun violations to 10 years in prison, so long as criminal intent can be proven. But i would still doubt if that would actually reduce illegal guns. Maybee nothing can, except for killing the criminals, but that is as far as "Sensible Gun Control" goes in my mind. __________________ "To be Irish is to know that in the end, the world will break your heart." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

04-18-2007, 02:16 PM	#47
cougar_guy04 XDTalk 1K Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Turn East at Orlando Posts: 1,827	I don't mind the background checks, hell, I think had 3 done on me last year (FOID card for IL, IN Carry Permit, and when I purchased my XD). However, I hate the way Illinois does it. You have to have a FOID card to purchase ammo/firearms (I won't even comment on the "waiting period for those), then when you buy the gun from a dealer there's a 24 or 72 hour waiting period. I say if you're going to have the FOID card, do away with the waiting period and set it up like IN (walk out with it the day you buy it) or vice versa. Just my $0.02 __________________ "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"

04-18-2007, 02:22 PM	#48
Powerman XDTalk 3K Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Colorado Posts: 3,129	Good thread, couple of things.... It is obvious that Virgina's 30 day waiting period had no effect in this case. In Colorado, if you have been "charged" with any crime, that could lead to a conviction and meet the requirement for denial, then it's no go. So any felony charge. "Midemeanor" domestic violence charges or convictions denies ownership. That sounds like a no brainer, except today domestic violence can be an argument and a percieved threat. DA's prosecute DV much more aggressivly than before. A very minor charge can deny RKBA. Any restraining order will do the same. It's easy to say that one can buy guns illeagaly, but where? I wouldn't know the first place. That opens the door to quite a bit of risk. If you are a criminal than you already know, but for me to go buy a gun to kill my co-workers, I wouldn't have the first clue. Mental stability is a whole other issue. How do you possibly counter normal folks going unstable. Only those deemed by the court as it already is, is possible. To say that someone is unable to purchase a fire arm if on anti depressants or something, would then mean that if you do go on anti depressants then you need to have your firearms confiscated. No matter what laws are passed, they will not prevent. There is no doubt that gun laws unduly hinder law abiding citizens. Meaning there will be some non-threats effected by gun control, and some threats will go unchalenged. If you are convicted of a felony, then you loose your rights. However, what we are discussing is how do we interpret premeditation and how do we prevent a crime before it is commited. That is simply immpossibe. Not only that, it completely goes against the founding principle of our legal system. Innocent before proven guilty. As far as back ground checks, I feel it is perfectly reasonable to keep felons and those with charges to be denied. No it isn't perfect. No it isn't going to stop everything, or spur of the moment killing sprees. I think it is reasonable to take a minor step to preventing easy accsess to criminals. If they want to break the law to get one then have fun, but we shouldn't knowingly sell to thsoe that shouln't have them just because "they can buy them off the street". My last gun I bought I failed my check. I was pissed. I was told it was from something I didn't do. I had to take my time to get my records and prove that it was not me. 30 days later I was cleared and bought my gun. It wasn't the end of the world. So just because I agree with checks, don't think I believe they are perfect. __________________ XD-45 service Springer Trigger job TFOs Welcome to the new equality. You too can be just as retarded as Rosie. Coal... Powering China's economic engine. Liberals now see it as a way to destroy ours. Last edited by Powerman; 04-18-2007 at 02:26 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

04-18-2007, 01:38 PM	#43
AlaskaXD XDTalk 100 Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Talkeetna, Alaska Posts: 156	The questions: Who should own guns? should there be background checks? My .02: Any U.S. citizen without a record of violent crimes or crimes commited with a weapon of any sort should be allowed to own a gun. Yes there should be background checks!! (There should be a MAX of 3 day wait) Also, all firearms should be registered with resident state. If you have nothing to hide, there's no problem. Reality: Can't identify or track all nutcases. We all know they'll find a way to hurt others wether or not we authorize gun ownership! Allstates should have CCW!!!

04-18-2007, 01:47 PM	#44
wombat13 XDTalk 1K Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Western NY Posts: 1,573	Jednp, People are justifiably wary about pressing charges. Let me tell you about one of my experiences. My wife and I were on a flight to Chicago returning home from vacation. The flight was full and a flight attendant asked a man to take his computer bag out of the overhead and put it under the seat so my carry-on wouldn't have to be gate-checked. He laughed and refused to do so and I commented that he didn't have to be an ass about it. When the flight landed he and his friend waited for my wife and I to get off the plane. They said I better watch who I call an ass. They then asked us if either one us had ever been raped and said they would rape me and then my wife. They followed us as we walked and continued their threats until an airline employee asked if we needed help. The airline employee escorted us to a police officer who escorted us to our car. While we were walking to our car, the police officer asked if we would press charges if they were able to locate the perps. I asked if during the course of pressing charges and any eventual trial the perps would learn my name. Of course, he informed me that they would. So I declined to press charges because the city of Chicago's anti-gun laws would make me a defenseless target for retribution while the legal system gave criminals all the information they needed to locate me. (In Chicago you can't own a handgun and even long-guns have to be registered). Even if the perps had been convicted of a crime, would they have been sent to prison? If so, for how long? In this case I thought my wife and I would be taking on too much risk for any likely punishment the perps would have received. I completely understand why people decline to press charges against violent people. In this case I think it is completely reasonable that the victims of Cho's stalking declined to press charges. He probably would have gotten little or no punishment (look at how everything else had been ignored) and the risk of his harming them would have been increased. And as we all know, his victims were forced to be defenseless by VT policy.

04-18-2007, 02:41 PM	#49
jednp XDTalk 4K Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Omaha, NE Posts: 4,691	so virginia had a 30 day waiting period? And I guess I'm not really trying to stop a crime before it happens... I fully understand that no amount of laws or actions taken.. aside from locking a person up for something they haven't committed yet.. can stop a crime from happening. Give me a 15 day waiting period to buy a gun.. I can wait 15 days if I really wanted to kill someone with it. I will attempt to clarify what I am getting at here. SHOULD pending charges on you for various offences... be reaon to deny you purchase? If you're charged with stalking... if you're charged with arson, if you're charged with domestic abuse... until those charges are dropped... should you be kept from legally purchasing a firearm of any kind? Should there be a way to send red flags up in the background check for things like this? Of course... if you are cleared of charges... any and all restrictions on your purchasing are done away with. Not going to use past charges that didn't lead to convictions.. only pending charges. But if you are convited of certain things.. depending on what it was.. there needs to be a varying amount of time put on you being unable to legally purchase a firearm after you are convicted... aside from a felony which removes your right to legally own a gun. I'm just open to the idea that MAYBE there are certain crimes.. that while charges are pending, need to throw up red flags to deny purchase. Some states do it, some states don't. Actually, for handguns I don't think Nebraska even uses the NICS... we just use our state officials to do the checks. I think it might be the same way for long guns too. I'm just not sure what to make of all this. I don't even know if I truly agree with anything I've even talked about. I'm just tossing up thoughts and seeing where it leads. I'm sick of people like this doing bad things... I just don't know that there's anything we can really do to stop them in the long run. We can find legal ways to red flag their purchase temporarily... but eventually they'll get a gun, legally or illegally. If an action slows down their plans... is that a win for people who want to stop gun violence? I want to stop gun violence.. but I only want to stop it through ways that target only the bad people.. if you target everyone.. you do absolutely nothing to slow bad people really.

04-18-2007, 02:53 PM	#50
jednp XDTalk 4K Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Omaha, NE Posts: 4,691	again..the more and more I think about this... I guess I've been trying to play devils advocate... is there a way to go after people who are a threat.. and keep them from having a gun.. that will actually work? without affecting people who aren't a threat to someone.. because simply being depressed does not mean you want to kill yourself or someone else. the more and more I think on this issue, my answer keeps coming back to NO in my mind. No matter how I try to put a little spin on this or that.. change it around a bit.. every single way I can see it affecting normal people inadvertantly. Obviously my best course of action to stop this violence.. is just like what most of you think... carry a damn gun.. and quit having "no guns" zones. that's what I plan to do.