Senate Rejects Expanded Gun Background Checks

[QUOTE="Chaos_HL21"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Gun Show. Was on a show about the problems in Mexico. LJS9502_basic

Have a link or name of the program?

Between private sales there is no background checks (but that is everywhere and not just at gunshows). Between a person and a dealer the federally licensed firearms dealer have to do a background check. It is federal law.

With all this talk about gun shows being a favorite place to buy guns amongst felons. We need to ask ourselves how felons are getting their guns to use in crimes. Gun shows account for a very small percentage I believe. The vast majority of felons obtain their guns illegally through straw purchases.

DJ419

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]I agree. The notion that convicted felons buy their guns via federal licensed dealers and not off the black market is silly.KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="DJ419"]

With all this talk about gun shows being a favorite place to buy guns amongst felons. We need to ask ourselves how felons are getting their guns to use in crimes. Gun shows account for a very small percentage I believe. The vast majority of felons obtain their guns illegally through straw purchases.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="DJ419"]

With all this talk about gun shows being a favorite place to buy guns amongst felons. We need to ask ourselves how felons are getting their guns to use in crimes. Gun shows account for a very small percentage I believe. The vast majority of felons obtain their guns illegally through straw purchases.

KC_Hokie

How about we try to ban bombs now?

How about we try to ban bombs now?

ristactionjakso

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]That's still illegal and the black market. KC_Hokie

How about we try to ban bombs now?

ristactionjakso

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Based on this post I have to say you don't seem to know what a straw purchase. -Sun_Tzu-

FYI a straw purchase is when someone who can legally buy a specific widget  for themself buys it for someone else who can't legally make that same purchase.  

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Based on this post I have to say you don't seem to know what a straw purchase. -Sun_Tzu-

FYI a straw purchase is when someone who can legally buy a specific widget  for themself buys it for someone else who can't legally make that same purchase.  

I think you may be talking about two things, a straw purchase (which is illegal) is from a legal gun dealer by a person with a clean background. The weapon then goes to the black market.

How about we try to ban bombs now?

ristactionjakso

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]When you sell something illegally to someone who can't legally have that product...that's the black market.Chaos_HL21

FYI a straw purchase is when someone who can legally buy a specific widget  for themself buys it for someone else who can't legally make that same purchase.  

I think you may be talking about two things, a straw purchase (which is illegal) is from a legal gun dealer by a person with a clean background. The weapon then goes to the black market.

[QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

How about we try to ban bombs now?

LJS9502_basic

Not really. You just need the permits to be able to store explosives. Those are expensive.

Explosives like gunpowder are a lot less potent and are safe for citizens to own. You can buy black powder and other really low grade explosives and stuff used to refill ammo if you're over the age of 18 I believe (don't quote me on that).

this sums up my feelings for the day

 

Serraph105

He killed more with his pistol than the AR. The AR was bought legally, so was the pistol. None of the proposed laws would have saved those kids. None. Absolutly none.

Unless you want to flat out ban all guns, all of these feel good laws will not stop these kind of things. We need to focus on identifying those who are unstable and having ways of dealing with their issues before they ever snap.

I don't have the exact facts on me but the majority of gun sales that happen in the US often go through background checks. It's very rare a gun that is used in a crime is bought at a gun show. Most online purchases require a background check already.

I doubt the legislation would have done much anyways.

A real huge issue right now is our current laws are not being enforced properly. We should increase the funding to properly enforce those laws. That will go a lot farther than just increased laws that aren't really enforced well.

What I find interesting is how we are always trying to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals with these bills but the majority of mass shootings happen from law abiding citizens who snap. Those are the only ones people care about becuase something like 60-70% of all gun violence in this country happens criminal on criminal (again don't have the exact stats on me but that was the last I read, I would love to hear some contraditory info if possible).

Even moreso in most mass shootings the most used weapons are rarely assault weapons but rather shotguns and pistols. At point blank it doens't really matter the size, accuracy, and power of the gun. A little .22 pistol with a 5 round magazine could still kill a lot of people at close range.

Wasdie

I'm sure the republicans will be moving forward with your suggestions soon.

 Great gun control commercial, wanted to share.

Anyways, saddened with the Senate 

[QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

How about we try to ban bombs now?

KC_Hokie

 

 

 

 Great gun control commercial, wanted to share.

Anyways, saddened with the Senate 

Mithrandir50

The idea was rubbish to begin with and would not have improved anyone's safety. Considering how many people own guns, the % of people who use them for ill purposes would be a small fraction of a percent. The anti-gun crowd is just exploiting people's fear to push their agenda. The largest school massacre in US history was carried out with EXPLOSIVES INSTEAD OF GUNS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

The idea was rubbish to begin with and would not have improved anyone's safety. Considering how many people own guns, the % of people who use them for ill purposes would be a small fraction of a percent. The anti-gun crowd is just exploiting people's fear to push their agenda. The largest school massacre in US history was carried out with EXPLOSIVES INSTEAD OF GUNS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Bubble_Man

[QUOTE="Bubble_Man"]

The idea was rubbish to begin with and would not have improved anyone's safety. Considering how many people own guns, the % of people who use them for ill purposes would be a small fraction of a percent. The anti-gun crowd is just exploiting people's fear to push their agenda. The largest school massacre in US history was carried out with EXPLOSIVES INSTEAD OF GUNS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

JML897

And to think that Wayne LaPierre gets to meet Matthew Moore on the very same forum. What are the odds?

What a bunch of cowards. Voting to protect their seats instead of voting to stop another Elementary School Massacre. They may as well take up assault rifles and start shooting innocent people themselves. Because that's what this amounts to. Not even the murders of children means anything to these pieces of garbage.Netherscourge

This shit would not have done a god damn thing to stop future killings.

[QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

How about we try to ban bombs now?

DroidPhysX

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

How about we try to ban bombs now?

Wasdie

Not really. You just need the permits to be able to store explosives. Those are expensive.

Explosives like gunpowder are a lot less potent and are safe for citizens to own. You can buy black powder and other really low grade explosives and stuff used to refill ammo if you're over the age of 18 I believe (don't quote me on that).

The idea was rubbish to begin with and would not have improved anyone's safety. Considering how many people own guns, the % of people who use them for ill purposes would be a small fraction of a percent. The anti-gun crowd is just exploiting people's fear to push their agenda. The largest school massacre in US history was carried out with EXPLOSIVES INSTEAD OF GUNS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Bubble_Man

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]What a bunch of cowards. Voting to protect their seats instead of voting to stop another Elementary School Massacre. They may as well take up assault rifles and start shooting innocent people themselves. Because that's what this amounts to. Not even the murders of children means anything to these pieces of garbage.Ingenemployee

This shit would not have done a god damn thing to stop future killings.

[QUOTE="JML897"][QUOTE="Bubble_Man"]

The idea was rubbish to begin with and would not have improved anyone's safety. Considering how many people own guns, the % of people who use them for ill purposes would be a small fraction of a percent. The anti-gun crowd is just exploiting people's fear to push their agenda. The largest school massacre in US history was carried out with EXPLOSIVES INSTEAD OF GUNS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Bubble_Man

And to think that Wayne LaPierre gets to meet Matthew Moore on the very same forum. What are the odds?

Great news.

I just hope this forceful debate stops already.

Does it? Compare the gun ownership to other countries....I'd say the US would qualify as wide spread gun ownership. Not look at the gun crime in the US. Is it reduced compared to other countries?LJS9502_basic

Might want to include the little factor that we have more urban centers than all of the countries usually compared to the US. Those skew all of the results. Gang violence and whatnot counts for a massive chunk of gun violence. 

It's really hard to compare a nation like the US to any other nation in the world. It's just radically different in so many areas. 

Generally speaking countries with less guns have less gun crime, which is just logical if you think about it. Do a total removal of guns and you should see less gun crime. 

Great news.

I just hope this forceful debate stops already.

Kamekazi_69

[QUOTE="Ingenemployee"]

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]What a bunch of cowards. Voting to protect their seats instead of voting to stop another Elementary School Massacre. They may as well take up assault rifles and start shooting innocent people themselves. Because that's what this amounts to. Not even the murders of children means anything to these pieces of garbage.Serraph105

This shit would not have done a god damn thing to stop future killings.

Republicans seem to have adopted the armed guard approach. Not that I agree with that either, probably as useless as gun control.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="Ingenemployee"]

This shit would not have done a god damn thing to stop future killings.

Ingenemployee

Republicans seem to have adopted the armed guard approach. Not that I agree with that either, probably as useless as gun control.

[QUOTE="Kamekazi_69"]

Great news.

I just hope this forceful debate stops already.

Rich3232

[QUOTE="Bubble_Man"]

The idea was rubbish to begin with and would not have improved anyone's safety. Considering how many people own guns, the % of people who use them for ill purposes would be a small fraction of a percent. The anti-gun crowd is just exploiting people's fear to push their agenda. The largest school massacre in US history was carried out with EXPLOSIVES INSTEAD OF GUNS.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Mithrandir50

The weapons used in the shooting may of been legally owned; however with the case of the Sandy Hook shooter they were stolen. Also in the case of all the mass shooting they were used illegally, and broke a number of gun laws. One of them being brining a firearm onto school grounds (Schools/colleges are 'gun free zones)

And guns are NOT a good deterrent or defense against intruders. Assuming you would even wake up before the intruder has taken your stuff/killed you, do you really think he'd allow you to get up and grab your gun in time? You realize that owners of guns have a 400% higher chance of being shot? Just thought I'd put a blanket over all possible arguments, there.Mithrandir50

1) citation needed

2) There are a number of stories where firearms had acted as a deterrent.

[QUOTE="Mithrandir50"][QUOTE="Bubble_Man"] Please refer to the video I posted above. Like it says, the constitution was written hundreds of years ago. Guns have changed, so should our laws. This mentality that because other weapons are deadlier, guns should be legal and uncontrolled is ridiculous. Guns have the sole purpose of killing. The world would be a much better place without them. Anyways, many legally owned guns are used in shootings. Lanza's mother bought her gun legally. When is this self righteous bullcrap about having your rights (which you are likely uneducated on) being more important than children dying going to end? How many lives are going to have to end and families be torn apart before you realize that something needs to be done?Chaos_HL21

The weapons used in the shooting may of been legally owned; however with the case of the Sandy Hook shooter they were stolen. Also in the case of all the mass shooting they were used illegally, and broke a number of gun laws. One of them being brining a firearm onto school grounds (Schools/colleges are 'gun free zones)

And guns are NOT a good deterrent or defense against intruders. Assuming you would even wake up before the intruder has taken your stuff/killed you, do you really think he'd allow you to get up and grab your gun in time? You realize that owners of guns have a 400% higher chance of being shot? Just thought I'd put a blanket over all possible arguments, there.Mithrandir50

1) citation needed

2) There are a number of stories where firearms had acted as a deterrent.

[QUOTE="Bubble_Man"]

The idea was rubbish to begin with and would not have improved anyone's safety. Considering how many people own guns, the % of people who use them for ill purposes would be a small fraction of a percent. The anti-gun crowd is just exploiting people's fear to push their agenda. The largest school massacre in US history was carried out with EXPLOSIVES INSTEAD OF GUNS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Mithrandir50

That may be so, but statistically speaking, a gun owner is more likely to accidentally harm himself with his own weapon than actually fighting off a home invader/robber. Rich3232

A problem with that is there is no hard statistics on that, and there may be other explanations. Like how crime rate and ice cream sales seem to go up at the same time.

TBH, I can live with background checks.

coolbeans90

Exactly.

This is one of the few gun regulations proposed that actually makes a ton of sense. But of course, the senate doesn't actually represent the people, lol.

this sums up my feelings for the day

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"]I don't want to ban any weapons, however I wouldn't be opposed to greater restriction on sales and better background checks. Sometimes we have to give up some rights so that people have the chance to pursue freedom. ferrari2001

Restrictions on what, exactly? You want to restrict a semi-automatic rifle, something that is rarely used in these school shootings or other tragedies, but allow handguns to still be purchased with almost no issues? Even though they are the drivers of these gun crime statistics?

You guys make absolutely no sense.

Hate to break it to you but the majority of mass shootings are committed by previously law-abiding citizens.

Then there is the issue of straw purchases. It is currently illegal to sell to somebody who is a convicted felon. People do it all of the time regardless. Requiring a background check won't mean squat to those who don't care. It will only affect those who voluntarily subject themselves to the new laws.