Plenty of folks work in industries where you must be evaluated by a medical professional in order to stay employed. I'm sure it has already been mentioned, but why not have the same requirement for those who "must" have numerous guns including assault rifles. Make it once every 3 years or some such. They could even just have 2 senior local PD boys knock it out, although the good ole boy network might stomp all over this little program.
Gun control
- Thread starter Saladus
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 55,943
- 138,381
Heres my problem with mental health evaluation,If it's used in a forward looking manner it's not exactly a measurable thing, it seems completely arbitrary that a small group of people to control a large group of people by getting themselves called "professional experts".
To analyse the past sure it helps understand but when you start dictating rights and behavoir based on it, that's alot of power in unelected people.
To analyse the past sure it helps understand but when you start dictating rights and behavoir based on it, that's alot of power in unelected people.
Kreugen
Vyemm Raider
- 6,599
- 793
And then you'll have a worse situation where people who probably should be on anti-depressants or receiving mental health care are instead lying to their doctors so they won't have their guns taken away. In fact that is likely already happening just because of the mere suggestion of ideas like this.
This really isn't a good place to put it but since the discussion is more on mental health this really fucked up thing happened here today:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/ne...mself-p/nWDX8/
Shot himself but strangled the kids. Left the wife alive to suffer the loss. Can't even imagine but wish the wife had a gun and had gone to the range a few times to know how to use it. He might not of been able to strangle the kids while she watched helpless. Hear commotion, grab piece see him strangling the kid and pop him a few times in the back.
Piece of shit.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/ne...mself-p/nWDX8/
Shot himself but strangled the kids. Left the wife alive to suffer the loss. Can't even imagine but wish the wife had a gun and had gone to the range a few times to know how to use it. He might not of been able to strangle the kids while she watched helpless. Hear commotion, grab piece see him strangling the kid and pop him a few times in the back.
Piece of shit.
B_Mizzle
Golden Baronet of the Realm
- 7,760
- 15,349
Why are you so concerned about what your stepdad's cousin is doing underneath his house? Is it bothering you? Or is it because your not takingyour medsanymore? The reason I bring this up is because you keep rambling on about this person in at least 4 posts that I've read. It's old and no one cares what your stepdad's cousin is doing with his money/tme, and it has no bearing on any gun control discussion.
Kreugen
Vyemm Raider
- 6,599
- 793
So the whole last page or whatever was totally irrelevant then, because that was the fucking topic being discussed. And yes for thesecondtime I brought up an actual crazy gun person that I know, rather than relying on the Made up Shit so liberally employed here. Excuse me for not assuming that everyone has read 150 pages of this crap. And then I pointed out how the system won't work because crazy people will simply not confide in doctors if they think it will threaten their guns, perhaps depriving themselves of anti-depressants or other medications that they need to keep the crazy away. Which again is completely on topic because of the whole "Mental health vs gun control" thing. So what's your fucking point, other than chiming in with a useless personal attack that has exactly nothing to do with the discussion?
EDIT: Here, I'll remove the reference to him. The point still stands on its own. Now fuck off.
PS: I took meds for exactly one reason: The fact that for two weeks it felt like my rib cage was being pulled out of my chest.
Cybsled
Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
- 17,092
- 13,620
Even if she did own a gun, it sounds as though it wouldn't have mattered. Think about it: Watching TV, in a home with 2 boys, hear fighting/scuffling/etc...your first thought will probably be that the 2 boys are fighting or messing around, then you walk in on that horrible scene. Even if the mother could actually -walk away- from her kid being murdered to get a gun, the father would have probably executed the kids before she got back either way. It would have been lose/lose regardless as to whether or not she owned a gun I imagine.
The guy was just a fucking piece of shit. Sadly, that happens all too often. Some dickhead derp mother/father decides to get revenge on the other person by murdering the kids.
Kreugen
Vyemm Raider
- 6,599
- 793
You're also assuming she kept the knowledge of the gun hidden from her husband, or locked away where only she had access to it, so he didn't simply TAKE THE GUN HIMSELF FIRST derp. Which of course according to the statistics is exactly what is likely to have happened.
Fadaar
That guy
- 10,946
- 11,966
Exploiting the legal system to circumvent the already tragically weak gun laws we have in place sure is awesome! High five!
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
By "exploiting the legal system", do you mean that they are obeying the current framework of laws and exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear arms?
Ignatius
#thePewPewLife
- 4,762
- 6,403
I would love to find out how many participants in similar trusts have committed crimes, or whose guns have been used in crimes.
Like I said earlier, these guys spend butt loads of cash on these things, they aren't going to break ANY law and risk losing them.
edit: Not to mention by doing it this way, the government knows exactly who they are and where to find them sooooo....yea. We found the problem I guess.
Like I said earlier, these guys spend butt loads of cash on these things, they aren't going to break ANY law and risk losing them.
edit: Not to mention by doing it this way, the government knows exactly who they are and where to find them sooooo....yea. We found the problem I guess.
I love how John Q Citizen who sets up a legal trust to cover his firearms is "exploiting the legal system." I'm sure William T McGangbanger goes through the same effort to cover his firearms.
I've avoided envolving myself in this thread but:
The people who think that a "No guns" sign on a gas station door prevents said stores from being robbed lives in some sort of Nerverland world. Like William T McGangbanger sets off for the night with the intent of committing a robbery is going to be disuaded by the sign.
I've avoided envolving myself in this thread but:
The people who think that a "No guns" sign on a gas station door prevents said stores from being robbed lives in some sort of Nerverland world. Like William T McGangbanger sets off for the night with the intent of committing a robbery is going to be disuaded by the sign.
Fadaar
That guy
- 10,946
- 11,966
What's trolling about it? That's exactly what these trusts do.
http://www.guntrustlawyer.net/nfa_trust
That site, by a lawyer who sets these things up for people (i.e. as pro-gun as you can probably get) specifically calls out that the main objectives are to circumvent the necessity to have law enforcement sign off on transfers of Class 4 weapons, and to circumvent the need to have fingerprint cards/photographs submitted for the same. Other, similarly pro-gun sites call out the advantage of the trusts' confidentiality.
You can argue about whether those requirements are good or bad requirements, but there really is no argument to be made that those trusts aren't exploiting poorly written laws.
http://www.guntrustlawyer.net/nfa_trust
That site, by a lawyer who sets these things up for people (i.e. as pro-gun as you can probably get) specifically calls out that the main objectives are to circumvent the necessity to have law enforcement sign off on transfers of Class 4 weapons, and to circumvent the need to have fingerprint cards/photographs submitted for the same. Other, similarly pro-gun sites call out the advantage of the trusts' confidentiality.
You can argue about whether those requirements are good or bad requirements, but there really is no argument to be made that those trusts aren't exploiting poorly written laws.
Ignatius
#thePewPewLife
- 4,762
- 6,403
The biggest attraction of doing it like that is based on the fact that at a minimum, you are looking at 6 months between time of purchase and actually receiving your firearm because of waiting on the ATF and a LEO. Now I'd be shocked if it is under a year with how busy ATF has been. This is specifically aimed at Class III and destructive items. And even after all that, if it's class III it still requires the tax stamp which means the ATF knows damn well who has what and where.
Again, how many crimes are being committed by this group? If this was the source of the gun violence problem, it would be worth looking at. But as it stands right now, its a legal method through which people with cash to burn can participate in a hobby and spend an absurd amount of money on ammunition because of how fast they burn through it. I'm sure the local gunshops/academy/walmart/etc love how much money these guys spend!
As for the site you linked, the lawyer is specifically talking about situations in which a LEO refuses to sign (they don't have an obligation to do it, they can leave it on their desk as long as they like). The lawyer is not calling out the weakness of the system, he is pointing out the ATF intimidating officers, which he gives a good example of if you follow the links he posted.
Not even sure why this is an issue.
Again, how many crimes are being committed by this group? If this was the source of the gun violence problem, it would be worth looking at. But as it stands right now, its a legal method through which people with cash to burn can participate in a hobby and spend an absurd amount of money on ammunition because of how fast they burn through it. I'm sure the local gunshops/academy/walmart/etc love how much money these guys spend!
As for the site you linked, the lawyer is specifically talking about situations in which a LEO refuses to sign (they don't have an obligation to do it, they can leave it on their desk as long as they like). The lawyer is not calling out the weakness of the system, he is pointing out the ATF intimidating officers, which he gives a good example of if you follow the links he posted.
Not even sure why this is an issue.
I don't really care if you think it's the coolest thing ever, is only ever going to be used responsibly, blah blah blah.
It's still specifically designed to circumvent the fact that the law refers to "individuals".
(By the way, I like how you call out the ATF as both being all-knowing and horribly backlogged in the very same paragraph)
It's still specifically designed to circumvent the fact that the law refers to "individuals".
(By the way, I like how you call out the ATF as both being all-knowing and horribly backlogged in the very same paragraph)
Ignatius
#thePewPewLife
- 4,762
- 6,403
I don't see how those two statements contradict. I didn't say all knowing, what I said was that the organization that ultimately has to OK your shiny new whatever will have record of who purchased it. As in, they keep a record of it. A record they can easily look up. Hardly all knowing to look in file for something you authorized.
You may not like it, but it is the current law. A pathway created for people to do this. There are ways to change laws. Write your congressman if it bothers you this much. Not sure how it is circumventing anything if the law has been written specifically to allow this. Your argument sounds more like "I don't like it, so it's wrong."
Still waiting on an example of someone who has used trust-acquired guns to commit a crime.
You may not like it, but it is the current law. A pathway created for people to do this. There are ways to change laws. Write your congressman if it bothers you this much. Not sure how it is circumventing anything if the law has been written specifically to allow this. Your argument sounds more like "I don't like it, so it's wrong."
Still waiting on an example of someone who has used trust-acquired guns to commit a crime.
Kreugen
Vyemm Raider
- 6,599
- 793
Wow, yet another case where if someone had a gun and a little training they could have saved themselveshttp://www.wfaa.com/news/local/rough...189536271.html
(I know, I know. I apologize. Going to hell, etc)
(I know, I know. I apologize. Going to hell, etc)