DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:
OrionTheWolf
A yes or no flag in a national database for the purpose of determining background checks gives no details. Your credit report invades your privacy more than it would. If it is kept at yes or no, and proceedings allowed to be brought before a judge in the case of exceptions, then I do not see where it would be much of an issue. The ones that would oppose are the ones that would oppose any law no matter how common sense because their cry is "if we allow this then eventually they will take all our guns", which I hear a lot around the Missouri area I am in living in now.
If the yes or no flag in a national database were in place, and the background check tied into it, would it have averted this shooting or others?
I am with Tweak on this and we need to find productive ways to make it safer. Ways that are not extreme, nor would cause a challenge with substance to the 2nd amendment.
Most people are in favour of background checks, if these boards are anything to go by. However I believe an attempt to get background checks in place nationally after Sandy Hook failed in the Congress . So there's some work to be done to get this idea into law.
Perhaps if the debate was framed in terms of keeping guns out of the public domain, rather than pro or anti gun control, some progress might be possible. People who legitimately own guns for sporting or home protection reasons have no real reason to carry guns around all the time. The fact that they don't do so at the moment confirms this. So there's no reason why they should feel threatened by this approach to the problem.
Keeping guns out of the public domain isn't going to help. Two of the three guns used at the Navy Yard were allowed to be there. The shotgun used to kill the first guard wasn't allowed. The other two guns were taken from the guard(s). Unless you're talking about unarming the guards, guns weren't allowed in the general public domain.
The Ft. Hood shooter brought his own firearms. He was in a no gun zone (outside of security personnel).
Sandy Hook was a case where guns were brought in from outside a "general no gun zone" into a "general no gun zone," so that wouldn't help, either.
Jared Loughner likely wouldn't have held back just because guns weren't allowed in public.
James Holmes planned out what he was doing. Preventing people from carrying firearms in the movie theater wouldn't have done anything to prevent the Aurora, CO massacre.
These people killed people. If they were willing to kill people, which is illegal here, what makes you think they'd have not killed simply because guns aren't allowed in public? Disarming the public tells a criminal that the only one with a gun is a criminal. The majority of people aren't criminals, so the vast majority won't have a gun. That makes the criminal's gun that much more potent of a motivator. Allowing the public to legally concealed carry means that criminals won't know who has a gun and who doesn't. Reduces the effectiveness, to a degree, of the gun as a motivational tool.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: US Navy Shootings. - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread