I'm not necessarily against better background checks and perhaps a longer waiting period but if the thread is regarding "After Sandy Hook" well then I don't think it changes my stance much. This kid murdered his mother and then took her guns and used them to murder other innocent people. Not like he went out and bought them himself the kid murdered his own mother to get those guns. I just don't see how stricter background checks or longer waiting periods would've saved lives in this situation.

True

What is the waiting period to buy a gun?

 

1 day? 2 days?

 

Is there a downside to 1 week ?

Currently none in Kentucky, if your NICS check gets approved at the time of your purchase. Sometimes NICS is delayed and you have to wait for it to be approved. By law if a delayed response does not come back as denied within 3 days a FFL dealer can sell a gun without an approval. I know some retailers will still not sell then and only will sell with a confirmed approval. Also in Kentucky if you have a Concealed Carry Permit they do not complete a NICS approval. The 7 background checks completed by the State Police are enough, and you just fill out the form and pay for the firearm.

Currently none in Kentucky, if your NICS check gets approved at the time of your purchase. Sometimes NICS is delayed and you have to wait for it to be approved. By law if a delayed response does not come back as denied within 3 days a FFL dealer can sell a gun without an approval. I know some retailers will still not sell then and only will sell with a confirmed approval. Also in Kentucky if you have a Concealed Carry Permit they do not complete a NICS approval. The 7 background checks completed by the State Police are enough, and you just fill out the form and pay for the firearm.

 

 

When I bought my first about 5-6 years ago I think it might've taken about 45min to an hour from when I walked in the store picked out the gun and then walked out the door. The longest part was probably me actually filling out the paper work. With that said I have a clean driving record and no criminal record as well. I had a buddy of mine that had some minor things as a juvenile and a wrecklace driving incident as a young adult and it took a couple of weeks for him to actually be able to make his purchase.

Didn't this kid get the guns illegally?

 

Exactly the problem. Murdered his mother to obtain the weapons.

Currently none in Kentucky, if your NICS check gets approved at the time of your purchase. Sometimes NICS is delayed and you have to wait for it to be approved. By law if a delayed response does not come back as denied within 3 days a FFL dealer can sell a gun without an approval. I know some retailers will still not sell then and only will sell with a confirmed approval. Also in Kentucky if you have a Concealed Carry Permit they do not complete a NICS approval. The 7 background checks completed by the State Police are enough, and you just fill out the form and pay for the firearm.

 

 

Forgot about that, only bought one gun since completing my concealed carry course and that took all of 15 minutes probably.

I think there's something in the fact that our Canadian neighbors to the north that have strict gun control laws had 200 gun related deaths last year compared to 9,484 in the United States. The population of Canada is much less than the U.S., 35 million compared to 315 million, but the numbers are still way out of proportion. Other nation's numbers were: Germany 194, Spain 60, Britain 39, Australia 35, and Finland 17.

 

Our nation is too ingrained with a gun mentality. And everyone wants to use an amendment written in a time when guns were single shot muskets that took over a minute to reload. I'm not sure the great men who wrote the 2nd amendment foresaw the type of weapons that are on the market today.

 

We also have an out of proportion ratio of child abuse and neglect compared to these other countries. Maybe we should make that illegal too. Oops

 

Maybe the United States is just a sick place. We have the same crime rate today as we did in the 60's and homicides have been cut in half since early 90's. Making things illegal is not going to stop these criminals. Just like prohibition and the drug war, it only makes the gangs and cartels that much more powerful.

 

And for the record, I do not own a gun.

Here are a couple places to look, Newtown, CT, Clackamas, OR and Aurora, CO.

The whole debate is about the overwhelming amount of school shooting that must be stopped. I was just showing that it wasn't an issue of what this type of gun being used, as no other school shooting that I could find use those "dreaded high capacity magazines" that seem to scare everyone to death or "Scary looking black guns."

 

This is first and foremost a parenting issue and secondly an mental health issue. In Columbine they only took guns as a back up in case some tried to escape after they set their bomb off, fortunately it didn't go off.

Edited December 21, 201213 yr by Jumper_Dad

Here are a couple places to look, Newtown, CT, Clackamas, OR and Aurora, CO.

I know the bolded were both committed with stolen weapons, no law on the books or currently suggested would have prevented either of them.

Apples and oranges Clyde. I know you like to argue (debate) but this isn't even close. You are better than this one....

 

:lol: Come on, my man. That wasn't even a good attempt.

 

I'm not sure what was hard to follow here.

 

Your point is that on the off chance that 3 guys enter the home...How often do we hear of this where 3 or more people enter a home and there is a shootout with the owner?

 

I'd guess it's about the same as a person with a BAC of .02 causing an accident that killed an innocent person because the alochol somehow impaired them.

 

In other words, your example is extreme. Do we set up laws based on extreme?

 

Pretty straight forward.

I'm not sure what was hard to follow here.

 

Your point is that on the off chance that 3 guys enter the home...How often do we hear of this where 3 or more people enter a home and there is a shootout with the owner?

 

I'd guess it's about the same as a person with a BAC of .02 causing an accident that killed an innocent person because the alochol somehow impaired them.

 

In other words, your example is extreme. Do we set up laws based on extreme?

 

Pretty straight forward.

 

Oh it's not hard to follow. It just doesn't have any substance to compare to the topic. You're still reaching, and it's not there.

I'm not sure what was hard to follow here.

 

Your point is that on the off chance that 3 guys enter the home...How often do we hear of this where 3 or more people enter a home and there is a shootout with the owner?

 

I'd guess it's about the same as a person with a BAC of .02 causing an accident that killed an innocent person because the alochol somehow impaired them.

 

In other words, your example is extreme. Do we set up laws based on extreme?

 

Pretty straight forward.

Sandy Hook is the extreme

I know the bolded were both committed with stolen weapons, no law on the books or currently suggested would have prevented either of them.

 

Neither of the weapons would have had a 30 round magazine if it was against the law to sell a gun with that round capacity. How many lives could have been spared, maybe 20 or maybe 0. I don't know but I think it's worth an effort to at least try. I was watching ABC nightly news last night and they had a law enforcement expert on talking about high capacity magazines and reload time. He could switch magazines in 2 seconds, it took the reporter almost 5. The law enforcement expert stated that in one recent school shooting (sorry I can't remember where) the shooter was tackled by teachers and stopped while reloading. That is all the convincing I need.

I'm not sure what was hard to follow here.

 

Your point is that on the off chance that 3 guys enter the home...How often do we hear of this where 3 or more people enter a home and there is a shootout with the owner?

 

I'd guess it's about the same as a person with a BAC of .02 causing an accident that killed an innocent person because the alochol somehow impaired them.

 

In other words, your example is extreme. Do we set up laws based on extreme?

 

Pretty straight forward.

Clyde, Google home invasion followed by shootout and then Google BAC of .02 causes fatality and let me know which one is realistic.

 

It's not an extreme example, and it doesn't have to be three assailants for you to empty five rounds missing without hitting the target. Again, simple question, whose shoes would you rather be in?

As to the mental health issue here and in many, many situations in our society, there is one big starting point - fix the family.

 

If we really want to get to the base issue here, IMO it is all about the disintegration of family structure. We are getting to the point (maybe we are already there) where the traditional family - husband, wife, married for life, kids - is in the minority. In addition [please consider this an observation and not a chauvinistic belief] the two income family is a factor as well. I wonder how many of these perpetrators are from "broken" homes.

 

I could go on a complete rant on this topic as it relates to so many issues in our society. The loss of the traditional family is a major factor in many of our societal issues, including violent acts like Sandy Hook. Yes the Sandy Hook perpetrator (I will not use his name and don't think anyone should) had some mental issues. He also is a child in a broken family. His brother and father apparently had not talked with him since 2010. I have no doubt that this dysfunction is involved in this tragedy. Fix the family.

I don't think there is any legislation coming that can or will stop these types of shootings.

 

Gun deaths in general need to be the focus. Even then I suspect it would, at best, have only a small impact.

 

I'm all for closing any "gun show" loopholes that I read about.

 

I'm all for coming up with some sensible limit on clip capacity.

 

I'm all for making a gun purchase take a while. I see that as letting any passionate impetus subside.

 

I can't imagine why gun owners would be against any of the above.

I've been thinking about your list and the fact that mass killings aren't your focus. With that in mind tell me how any of the above changes the gun deaths?

 

Let's look at suicide. I have some chemical issues going on upstairs causing depression and what to kill myself. I go to buy a gun and I have to wait 3 days. In that time will I suddenly become happy and not want to kill myself? To stay on that, I can only buy a gun that holds 5 bullets. That's still 4 more then I need. There are no gun shows in my area for months so the loopholes don't affect me.

 

Let's look at heat of the moment killings. Husband and wife get into a fight, husband goes and buys a gun, comes back and shoots wife. I will give you this one. How many of the 11,400 killings in 2009 were a result of this type of situation?

Same scenario...except now husband can't run to local gun show and buy a gun. Doesn't matter because there isn't a gun show in town for months. As far as the capacity issue, no change, husband just shoots wife 5 times instead of 10-15. She is still dead. He reloads for good measure and shoots a few more.

 

Let's look at shootings by criminals/gang members/ect...None of the above changes anything because their guns are all illegal anyway.