It shouldn't have anything to do with politics. Just people, working together, to come up some type of plan to keep guns out of the hands of people like this. Not the people on this site per se, but people in Washington....local police, anyone at all. It's sickening that we simply don't do anything about it.
[Edited on 8/26/2015 by BoytonBrother]
This site could start by not referring to mentally ill people as crazy, lunatics, whack jobs, psychos, and other derogatory names. Words do matter.
I'm not referring to this situation, but not everyone who is a mass murderer is mentally ill. Some people are just plain angry. Anger is not a recognized mental illness.
I have been through TSA screening several times where I wasn't
required to take my shoes off.
__________________________________________________________________________
Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.
Chicago is one of the leading killing fields for black people by gun violence.
Knee jerk "gun control legislation" only puts law abiding citizen in more danger.
I have been through TSA screening several times where I wasn't
required to take my shoes off.
Whether traveling for business or pleasure, I haven't been through one screening since the shoe bomber that I wasn't required to take my shoes off. I even had to take them off my disabled son the last time I flew with him in March.
Knee jerk "gun control legislation" only puts law abiding citizen in more danger.
Knee jerk?? Columbine was 16 years ago, with 31 school shootings (and countless other gun deaths) since.
Knee jerk "gun control legislation" only puts law abiding citizen in more danger.
Knee jerk?? Columbine was 16 years ago, with 31 school shootings (and countless other gun deaths) since.
overlooked in all the madness -- sheriff's deputy in Houston, ambushed from behind & shot to death last week while putting gas in his car -- by someone w/a completely clean record --
as long as guns are out there -- and they will be -- there will never be a way to monitor their use
And therein lies the rub.
At first, the talk is - "yes let's figure out a way we all can agree on to address mental health and keep them from getting guns."
But rather quickly goes right back to - "let's get rid of ALL guns"
So sad that some see this as political, rather than basic human morality. If you tie this to Obama, or any politician, you are not anywhere close to helping anything, and only create more problems that we don't need around this particular issue.
Did you feel that way when Obama and company tied the Gabby Giffords shooting to Sarah Palin and the right? Just want to be consistent here.
Flanagan said he was bullied at work because he was black and gay
That would never happen in...America! 😮 He probably brought all of it on himself and deserved it. Shoulda' been born white, straight and conservative like Timothy McVeigh, and he wouldn't have been so angry....
Apparently he felt that when his colleagues said they were going "in the field" that was a racist attack. Apparently when a colleague brought in a watermelon to share with everyone he thought it was a racist attack. The man was clearly deranged and I wonder how he got hired int he first place. But if we can speak about the "racist atmosphere" created by the conferate flag we can cetainly speak of the atmosphere of grievance that has been driven in this country for years and which I believe the president has helped foster. The kind of thing that can set off a deranged nut to kill two completely and entirely innocent people no?
I was with you in agreement until you found a misguided way to bring in Obama with your "which I believe the president has helped foster" line. Look, we all know you don't like the President, but clearly he is not to blame here & everywhere else where people like you want to go. I would think you're too intelligent to go there. I'm guessing it's your consistently negative posts & bitterness speaking.
The reality is there were deranged individuals and societal ills long before Obama was President, and these will exist long after he is gone. Will you shamelessly blame the next Presidents for these types of individuals, actions, and the evolution of problematic issues - many of which can't be solved by Presidential speeches, Presidential actions, and governmental policy?
agree. I don't blame this maniacs actions on Obama or anything else other than his own mental insanity. I regret saying the above. The only thing that gets me is how quick the left is to blame the "rhetoric" of the right and then recols fromt he reverse. I remember very well the attacks on Sarah Palin and her "targetting" langauge. And I also remember the constant talks of a c"climate of racial hatred" that drove the last maniac. We need to be consistent here. Is that possible?
I have been through TSA screening several times where I wasn't
required to take my shoes off.Whether traveling for business or pleasure, I haven't been through one screening since the shoe bomber that I wasn't required to take my shoes off. I even had to take them off my disabled son the last time I flew with him in March.
I just flew out of JFK to Orlando and didn;t have to take my shoes off.
So sad that some see this as political, rather than basic human morality. If you tie this to Obama, or any politician, you are not anywhere close to helping anything, and only create more problems that we don't need around this particular issue.
Did you feel that way when Obama and company tied the Gabby Giffords shooting to Sarah Palin and the right? Just want to be consistent here.
What I remember is Sarah Palin depicted Gabrielle Giffords in the cross hairs of a rifle scope with the caption "Don't retreat! Instead - RELOAD!" She tied herself to that one.
I have been through TSA screening several times where I wasn't
required to take my shoes off.Whether traveling for business or pleasure, I haven't been through one screening since the shoe bomber that I wasn't required to take my shoes off. I even had to take them off my disabled son the last time I flew with him in March.
I just flew out of JFK to Orlando and didn;t have to take my shoes off.
Ok, but that has not been my experience. In any case you guys have successfully deflected away from the point that was being made, so good job.
I remember very well the attacks on Sarah Palin and her "targetting" langauge.
Politicians get attacked for pretty much everything they say and do. Nothing inconsistent about that.
We need to be consistent here. Is that possible?
Based on what I see from you, no.
From the Black Lives Matter crowd, "pigs in a blanket, fry like bacon"
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/black-lives-matter-march/2015/08/29/id/672609/
Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.
Chicago is one of the leading killing fields for black people by gun violence.Knee jerk "gun control legislation" only puts law abiding citizen in more danger.
You bring this up every time.... yes, Chicago has a problem - gangs. Almost all of the gang shootings are in 3 neighborhoods......
Illinois joined the concealed carry crowd last year - while you cannot buy guns in Chicago city limits (legally), it's easy to go somewhere else to buy one.....
So sad that some see this as political, rather than basic human morality. If you tie this to Obama, or any politician, you are not anywhere close to helping anything, and only create more problems that we don't need around this particular issue.
Did you feel that way when Obama and company tied the Gabby Giffords shooting to Sarah Palin and the right? Just want to be consistent here.
Exactly where did Obama himself tie that shooting to Sarah Palin and the right? Even the folks at Fox News gave him high praise for the speech at the memorial service.
Not a true statement, here in CT there are quite a lot of new changes on the books with gun control.
Only criminals will have them now.
EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY
ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN: The state's ban on assault weapons, which covered 66 weapons as adopted in 1993, has been increased by at least 100 more that now will meet the expanded definition of the military-style firearm, that the industry refers to as sporting rifles.
The sale of AR-15s since the tragedy at Newtown increased dramatically due to the anticipated rule changes and the fear that assault weapons currently owned would be confiscated.
Legal owners can keep them in their homes and their businesses and they can use them at the shooting range, but they can't be transported with magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
Under the changes, no one has to give up their assault weapons purchased by April 3, but there are restrictions on where they can be used.
That means citizens who rushed out to continue to clear the shelves at firearm dealers of any of the banned firearms on the morning of April 4, before Gov. Dannel P. Malloy signed the bill at noon, are in possession of a banned weapon which is subject to a class D felony with a mandatory one-year minimum prison term.
The exemptions to the ban allow their sale and possession to the Department of Corrections, the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, police departments and state/national military or naval forces for use in their official duties.
LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINE BAN: Magazines holding more than 10 rounds cannot be sold, purchased or imported into Connecticut as the state joins New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Colorado, California, Hawaii and Washington, D.C. in limiting their size and use.
To reach bipartisan agreement among the leaders, the law does not ban possession of magazines larger than 10 rounds, but, similar to the banned assault weapons, they can only be possessed in a owner's home or place of business and at a shooting range. When they are transported to and from a shooting range, they cannot be loaded with more than 10 bullets.
The exemptions are the same as those for the banned assault weapons.
UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS: The sale of all firearms, including the private sale or transfer of long guns (rifles and shotguns) requires the buyer to pass a national criminal background check. Up to now, the private sale of long guns was not regulated and 40 percent of firearms sales across the country did not require a background check.
The seller of long guns, in addition to the background check, has to document the transaction with the state Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection which must authorize the sale; the gun cannot be loaded when transferred.
AMMUNITION SALES: Sales of ammunition to anyone under the age of 18 are barred.
EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2013
LONG GUN ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE: The minimum age for a long gun eligibility certificate is 18, whereas the existing law sets a minimum age of 21 for a handgun. The eligibility certificate provisions are substantially the same as those for handgun eligibility certificates: DESPP issues them; the fee is $35 and the certificate is good for five years; a background check is needed; applicants are ineligible after felony convictions, certain misdemeanors or certain mental health history.
MENTAL HEALTH AND ELIGIBILITY FOR GUN CREDENTIALS: Persons confined to a psychiatric hospital by a probate court order within the preceding 60 months are ineligible for a gun permit or eligibility certificate. Under current law, it is within 12 months of the order.
AMMUNITION CERTIFICATE: Anyone 18 years of age and older can request an ammunition certificate, which will require a national criminal history check. The cost is $35 and it is in effect for five years. Applicants are ineligible if guilty of any felony, certain misdeamonors or involuntary psychiatric confinement. The certificate is not needed for those holding a permit to carry a pistol, which covers about 200,000 individuals in Connecticut, a handgun eligibility certificate or a long gun certificate.
RISK REDUCTION EARNED CREDITS AND PAROLE FOR VIOLENT OFFENDERS: The law requires inmates convicted of violent crimes to continue to serve 85 percent of their sentences before being eligible for parole, regardless of any credits they receive. As under current law, inmates convicted of any crimes except the following can earn credits: murder, capital felony, felony murder, arson murder, first-degree aggravated sexual assault and home invasion.
BOARD OF FIREARM PERMIT EXAMINERS MEMBERSHIP: The law increases the board membership from seven to nine, by adding one retired Superior Court judge, appointed by the chief court administrator, and a Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services nominee, appointed by the governor. The law also allows the board to grant one continuance, for good cause, to an official whose action on a gun permit or gun eligibility certificate is being appealed.
APPROPRIATION: The law appropriates $1 million to DESPP to fund the statewide firearms trafficking force.
EFFECTIVE OCT. 1, 2013
MENTAL HEALTH AND GUN PERMITS ELIGIBILITY: The bill makes ineligible any person who voluntarily admitted himself or herself to a psychiatric hospital, on or after Oct. 1, 2013. A person who has been so admitted will not be able to receive a permit or eligibility certificate for 6 months thereafter, nor will they be eligible to possess any firearm for those six months following their release from the hospital.
You are not ineligible if your admission is solely for drug or alcohol treatment.
The Department Mental Health and Addiction Services will be responsible for maintaining information on voluntary admissions and make that information available to the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection to carry out the new provisions on obtaining gun credentials. DMHAS must start to maintain identifying information on these individuals as of July 1, 2013.
ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION BANNED: The bill expands the definition of what constitutes banned armor piercing bullets beyond .50 caliber, which have already been banned.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INVESTIGATIONS: The bill allows police to seize ammunition, under the same circumstances as they can seize guns, when investigating domestic violence crimes.
INCREASED CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR GUN TRAFFICKING AND OTHER GUN-RELATED OFFENSES: Sixteen specific firearm related crimes have increased felony penalities and mandatory minimum sentences usually moving from one felony category to at lease one higher punishment level.
SAFE STORAGE REQUIREMENTS: Owners must secure firearms if they know that a resident on the premises is ineligible to possess firearms under state or federal law or poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself, herself or others. The current ban applied to keeping the firearms away from anyone who is under age 16. As under current law, a gun owner is strictly liable for damages if an ineligible or at-risk person gains access to an inappropriately stored weapon and uses it to injure himself or someone else.
GUN PERMIT APPLICATION: The law requires those applying for a gun permit to be a permanent resident of the town to which he or she applies, not where they have a business. The usual process is two-part, with a local official or police chief issuing a temporary state permit with other aspects conducted by state police who issue the five-year state permit if all requirements are met.
The new law prohibits anyone from applying for a temporary permit more than once in a 12-month period.
EFFECTIVE JAN. 1, 2014
DANGEROUS WEAPON OFFENDER REGISTRY: Individuals must register with the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection for a period of five years after they have served their sentences for any of more than 40 weapons offenses or another felony that the court makes a finding involved the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon.
They must keep their registration address current at all times and check in once a year with local law enforcement. This is the first statewide weapon offender registry and was requested by urban mayors and the Police Chiefs Association. It will only be available to law enforcement.
REGISTER LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINES: Anyone who lawfully possesses a magazine with more than 10 rounds as of April 3, 2013, must register them with the state by January 1, 2014. Orders of such magazines made before April 3, 2013, but delivered after that, still are legal but must be registered.
REGISTER BANNED ASSAULT WEAPONS: Anyone who legally owned a now-banned assault weapon by April 3, 2013, must apply for a certificate of possession by Jan. 1, 2014.
[Edited on 8/31/2015 by OriginalGoober]
Knee jerk "gun control legislation" only puts law abiding citizen in more danger.
Knee jerk?? Columbine was 16 years ago, with 31 school shootings (and countless other gun deaths) since.
Nothing is going to change regarding guns in this country. Yesterday, today, tomorrow or ever.
Not a true statement, here in CT there are quite a lot of new changes on the books with gun control.
It was in reference to Federal law...I thought the reference to aviation security made that obvious, but obviously not. Lots of states have changed laws since 1999, including Maine which just went the other way and got rid of the requirement for a permit for concealed carry).
Only criminals will have them now.
Not a true statement. That is, assuming what you posted right after this is accurate...
Legal owners can keep them in their homes and their businesses and they can use them at the shooting range, but they can't be transported with magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
Under the changes, no one has to give up their assault weapons purchased by April 3, but there are restrictions on where they can be used.
The exemptions to the ban allow their sale and possession to the Department of Corrections, the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, police departments and state/national military or naval forces for use in their official duties.
[Edited on 8/31/2015 by gondicar]
UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS: The sale of all firearms, including the private sale or transfer of long guns (rifles and shotguns) requires the buyer to pass a national criminal background check. Up to now, the private sale of long guns was not regulated and 40 percent of firearms sales across the country did not require a background check.
The seller of long guns, in addition to the background check, has to document the transaction with the state Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection which must authorize the sale; the gun cannot be loaded when transferred.
I have no idea how this will be enforced in a private sale.
Dougrhon - yes, tying the AZ shooting to any politician is foolish.
A dressed and armed police officer was just executed at a gas station in Houston, and some here still don't see the need for tougher gun control.
Question: What should the officer have done differently to prevent this? Honest question looking for a sincere answer from the pro-gun crowd.
The shooter who executed the Sheriff in Houston was a convicted felon.
So, how did he obtain the gun he used to kill the Sheriff?
1.) Did the gun check system in place fail?
2.) Did he, as most inner city criminals, buy the gun on the street?
The question still is out there:
Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.
Why are so many black people killed by other black people using a gun?
Does anyone think passing more knee-jerk gun control laws will stop the criminals from getting guns?
Why is it that the left keep screaming for more gun control laws that obviously do not work?
Muleman, I'll answer your questions:
Criminals cannot be stopped from gun crimes. It's too easy to get a gun on the street, so if you choose a life of crime for a living, no gun laws will prevent that.
But these mass shootings are different from gang shootings because many of them are committed in a fit of rage or mental illness. The big difference between the 2 is that the passage of time is proven to be a deterrent to irrational thinking. That's why we "sleep on it" when faced with an important decision.
By creating new gun control laws that make it a longer and more thorough process, we create the possibility of either identifying an applicant to be mentally ill, or we can create that valuable passage of time that might change a persons mind - not a full proof plan, but could very likely prevent a couple shootings - and if we prevent one, is t it worth it?
I chose to answer your questions even though you never answered mine. You might want to learn some better communication skills.
And for those who responded to the Jon Oliver picture with "well I didn't have to take my shoes off one time".......wow, thanks for the insight!!! How thought-provoking of you. Do you really not understand the point of it or are you just not in the mood to add anything valuable to the discussion?
Muleman, I'll answer your questions:
Criminals cannot be stopped from gun crimes. It's too easy to get a gun on the street, so if you choose a life of crime for a living, no gun laws will prevent that.
But these mass shootings are different from gang shootings because many of them are committed in a fit of rage or mental illness. The big difference between the 2 is that the passage of time is proven to be a deterrent to irrational thinking. That's why we "sleep on it" when faced with an important decision.
By creating new gun control laws that make it a longer and more thorough process, we create the possibility of either identifying an applicant to be mentally ill, or we can create that valuable passage of time that might change a persons mind - not a full proof plan, but could very likely prevent a couple shootings - and if we prevent one, is t it worth it?
I chose to answer your questions even though you never answered mine. You might want to learn some better communication skills.
______________________________________________________________________
What you are proposing will not work as long as the government refuses to follow or even enforce the laws already on the books. Laws exist that would prevent a mentally ill person from obtaining a gun permit but the reporting system of mentally ill people is woefully inadequate and broken. Add to that the fact that the criminal background check system, run by the government, is both incompetent and flawed.
For decades The NRA has been calling for a competent and complete criminal background check system that is tied to a mental health reporting that is also complete to go along with their primary mission which is gun safety. The NRA is of course vilified by the Democrat’s political rhetoric.
A government the picks and chooses which laws to ignore when it fits their political agenda cannot be allowed to continue but alas, it will until the people stand up and demand it.
BTW – I answer questions I chose to as you do.
For decades The NRA has been calling for a competent and complete criminal background check system that is tied to a mental health reporting that is also complete to go along with their primary mission which is gun safety. The NRA is of course vilified by the Democrat’s political rhetoric.
You keep stating things as fact, hoping nobody checks anything. No search shows any NRA support for this... here is from their own website..
"NRA opposes expanding background check systems at the federal or state level. Studies by the federal government show that people sent to state prison because of gun crimes typically get guns through theft, on the black market, or from family members or friends, and nearly half of illegally trafficked firearms originate with straw purchasers—people who can pass background checks, who buy guns for criminals on the sly. No amount of background checks can stop these criminals.
NRA also opposes gun registration. Expanding background check systems and allowing records to be kept on people who pass background checks to acquire guns would be steps toward transforming NICS into the national gun registry that gun control supporters have wanted for more than a hundred years."
https://www.nraila.org/issues/background-checksnics/
What you are proposing will not work as long as the government refuses to follow or even enforce the laws already on the books. Laws exist that would prevent a mentally ill person from obtaining a gun permit but the reporting system of mentally ill people is woefully inadequate and broken. Add to that the fact that the criminal background check system, run by the government, is both incompetent and flawed.
For decades The NRA has been calling for a competent and complete criminal background check system that is tied to a mental health reporting that is also complete to go along with their primary mission which is gun safety. The NRA is of course vilified by the Democrat’s political rhetoric.
A government the picks and chooses which laws to ignore when it fits their political agenda cannot be allowed to continue but alas, it will until the people stand up and demand it.
BTW – I answer questions I chose to as you do.
I know, but without me taking that shot at you, I wouldn't have been able to distract you from your favorite hobby of pissing off the liberals here.
As for your response, it sounds like you support a society where it's much tougher to get a gun, than it is today. What you're saying is that we don't need new laws, we just need to enforce the ones we have. Ok fine, then that means we fix the reporting of mental illnesses, and improve the criminal background check system. Fix what's broken. And if it doesn't get fixed, we must hold ourselves, meaning the voters, responsible. I would love to hold local politicians responsible for it, but I won't hold my breath.
And if that's how the pro-gun crowd feels, then they sure do a piss poor job of communicating that to the public, which is why the NRA gets sh*t on all the time. It's their own fault for not properly explaining their point of view. Instead they come off like complete jerks. I hope they figure that out.
But these mass shootings are different from gang shootings because many of them are committed in a fit of rage or mental illness. The big difference between the 2 is that the passage of time is proven to be a deterrent to irrational thinking. That's why we "sleep on it" when faced with an important decision.
By creating new gun control laws that make it a longer and more thorough process, we create the possibility of either identifying an applicant to be mentally ill, or we can create that valuable passage of time that might change a persons mind - not a full proof plan, but could very likely prevent a couple shootings - and if we prevent one, is t it worth it?
X2
For decades The NRA has been calling for a competent and complete criminal background check system that is tied to a mental health reporting that is also complete to go along with their primary mission which is gun safety. The NRA is of course vilified by the Democrat’s political rhetoric.
You keep stating things as fact, hoping nobody checks anything. No search shows any NRA support for this... here is from their own website..
"NRA opposes expanding background check systems at the federal or state level. Studies by the federal government show that people sent to state prison because of gun crimes typically get guns through theft, on the black market, or from family members or friends, and nearly half of illegally trafficked firearms originate with straw purchasers—people who can pass background checks, who buy guns for criminals on the sly. No amount of background checks can stop these criminals.
NRA also opposes gun registration. Expanding background check systems and allowing records to be kept on people who pass background checks to acquire guns would be steps toward transforming NICS into the national gun registry that gun control supporters have wanted for more than a hundred years."
_________________________________________________________________________
The NRA opposes expanding background check systems because the government run systems do not work.
The NRA is opposed to giving the government more power to suppress a citizen’s 2nd Amendment Right to defend themselves.
“No search shows any NRA support for this”
- Crap. Check the Congressional Record for the decades of The NRA testifying and calling for exactly what I stated.
“illegally trafficked firearms originate with straw purchasers”
- By that I assume you mean the Obama administration’s illegal Fast and Furious program to supply the drug cartels with automatic weapons which were used to kill hundreds of Mexican citizens and an American Border Patrol Agent?
BTW:
- How many of the guns used by people in Chicago to murder black people were “registered”?
- How many of the people who used a gun to kill a black person in Chicago had a permit for their gun?
