Thread: Open or Conceal Carry?

I was reffering to your reply in post 58 btw, and you said it without the words "Vets with" and then continued with "mental illnesses....."

Originally Posted by Traveler

You asked if i supported folks with mental illness's having the right to arms, i support the right of all vets to have them. You asked if i supported the right of people with mental illness's to have them...you do the math.

Now you're back to saying you support vets with mental illnesses having guns again?

Originally Posted by ViolaLee

Why would it be any different than someone being prevented from getting a driver's license? If someone does not pass the required tests, they should not have a license, driver's or gun.



It makes perfect sense, yet the NRA is preventing the laws to be changed so that guns can be kept out of the hands of mental patients and criminals. The NRA doesn't like strict background checks and testing and training. That's all the Brady campaign wants to do. But the NRA stops them every time.

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

I can't understand why anyone would be against this.

Sam, I bought my last piece at a gun show. I had to undergo a criminal and mental health background and other checks (citizenship or lawful residency, etc) to complete the process. It gets called right in to get the background clearance to authorise the sale. They have to get an approval number from the authorities and record the approval and sale in order to prevent prohibited sales. If any dealer does it, they'll get caught. They aren't back alley dealings. The criminal black market does that, and they don't care about the laws they are breaking.

Originally Posted by Traveler

I was reffering to your reply in post 58 btw, and you said it without the words "Vets with" and then continued with "mental illnesses....."

So civilians with mental illnesses shouldn't carry guns but vets with mental illnesses should?

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

Sam, I bought my last piece at a gun show. I had to undergo a criminal background and other checks to complete the process. It gets called right in to get the background clearance to authorise the sale. They have to get an approval number and record the sale in order to prevent prohibited sales. If any dealer does it, they'll get caught. They aren't back alley dealings. The criminal black market does that, and they don't care about the laws they are breaking.

Well, I trust that you aren't mentally ill and you should be fine carrying a gun.

But the Virgina Tech mass murderer went and legally bought a gun too. Proof that the restrictions and regulations and tests are not good enough.

So civilians with mental illnesses shouldn't carry guns but vets with mental illnesses should?

Yup. (Generally all those mental illnesses will have been obtained through the battles the wage and the war they fought, that poses no threat to any civillian population/innocent folks at all). There are a few exceptions but nothing i'm worried about.

Originally Posted by ViolaLee

Well, I trust that you aren't mentally ill and you should be fine carrying a gun.

But the Virgina Tech mass murderer went and legally bought a gun too. Proof that the restrictions and regulations and tests are not good enough.

So because one individual does something, the other 300 million Americans should be punished?

Charles Manson convinced his followers through speech to commit murder. Jim Jones used speech to bring about a mass-suicide.

What restrictions would you place on speech?

Matt

Originally Posted by ViolaLee

Well, I trust that you aren't mentally ill and you should be fine carrying a gun.

But the Virgina Tech mass murderer went and legally bought a gun too. Proof that the restrictions and regulations and tests are not good enough.

People can always find instances to the contrary to refute an entire general principle. What failed there was that his medical providers did not report his illnesses as required IIRC. If they had, it would not have been issued. And when others fail to perform their legal obligations, a guy like that can purchase a gun anywhere lawfully sold, never mind a gun show.

Originally Posted by MattLarson

So because one individual does something, the other 300 million Americans should be punished?

Charles Manson convinced his followers through speech to commit murder. Jim Jones used speech to bring about a mass-suicide.

What restrictions would you place on speech?

Matt

What does speech have to do with better gun laws?

How would 300 million Americans be punished if gun laws were sufficient to keep mental patients from buying guns legally?

I think 300 million Americans would be rewarded, not punished.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

People can always find instances to the contrary to refute an entire general principle. What failed there was that his medical providers did not report his illnesses as required by law. If they had, it would not have been issued. And when others fail to perform their legal obligations, a guy like that can purchase a gun anywhere lawfully sold, never mind a gun show.

The other failure was the creation of a "gun free" zone where the VT killer could carry out his plan without any chance of encountering armed resistance.

But that's a bit beyond the scope of the thread.

Matt

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

People can always find instances to the contrary to refute an entire general principle. What failed there was that his medical providers did not report his illnesses as required by law. If they had, it would not have been issued. And when others fail to perform their legal obligations, a guy like that can purchase a gun anywhere lawfully sold, never mind a gun show.

He was in a mental hospital. What more reporting do gun sellers need?

Originally Posted by MattLarson

The other failure was the creation of a "gun free" zone where the VT killer could carry out his plan without any chance of encountering armed resistance.

But that's a bit beyond the scope of the thread.

Matt

Yeah a bunch of students and teachers could have shot up the place too. That would have helped, more bullets flying around, shot by untrained civilians. Maybe a few more people would have been shot.

The point is, the gun laws today are not sufficient in keeping gun dealers from selling to mentally ill people. Gun rights advocates and the NRA are against better gun laws, training, testing and deeper background checking. And this is why we have such a problem with gun violence.

Originally Posted by ViolaLee

Yeah a bunch of students and teachers could have shot up the place too. That would have helped, more bullets flying around, shot by untrained civilians. Maybe a few more people would have been shot.

The point is, the gun laws today are not sufficient in keeping gun dealers from selling to mentally ill people. Gun rights advocates and the NRA are against better gun laws, training, testing and deeper background checking. And this is why we have such a problem with gun violence.

We have a problem with gun violence because we blame the object and not the criminal.

With respect to the nutjob mass shooters, out media goes into an orgy when one of these pathetic losers does something like this and posts his picture on TV 24/7, interviews his friends, neighbors and dog, and generally makes him famous for a few days.

Which is what these idiots want.

Matt