I just can't figure out how a gun causes the violence or is a part of the problem. Maybe I'm not understanding your point, if you'd wish to clarify that may help me.

 

RTS, I am not sure I can clarify other than I did. I have three sons, one owns handguns, another shotguns, and another goes to the range, but doesn't own any because he doesn't want them in the house around his young children. I don't own any and probably never will, because I just do not see the need and I don't have the recreational activities that require one (if I had one on the golf course, I might shoot myself anyway)

 

In other threads, I came to realize that I really don't know the difference in the types of guns I am trying to describe. I thought they were assault weapons, etc.

 

Bottom line, I cannot for any plausible reason believe that having a gun that can shoots hundreds of bullets or whatever they are called is useful for the average citizen. To me, at this time, is senseless.

 

I understand the 2nd Amendment and do believe it should attempted to be amended, if need be, with an unbiased study.

 

Therein lies my biggest dilemma, I am not sure you can have one. Studies by biased gun advocate or anti-gun groups is meaningless to me. They just provide the facts that fit their agendas.

 

I will also say this is not huge issue with me, but I do like debating it just to see if I can get the clarity I need.

 

I will also state I don't think I will see in my lifetime many changes different that what is there now, I i find that disappointing.

I'm curious. Have you never weighed in on the threads about gun shows? Seems you did, maybe I'm remiss.

 

Not really sure. Usually if there's a debate, I'm in the mix somewhere though.

Legally Transferred how?

 

There is no mechanism in place to do that, nor has there ever been as far as I know.

 

Thanks. For some reason I was thinking you were supposed to do some paper work with hand guns. Just read on the ATF website that nothing is required unless it is a state law.

Not really sure. Usually if there's a debate, I'm in the mix somewhere though.

 

Personal sale, lack of a record of transaction, no background checks are at the crux of the gunshow debate.

Personal sale, lack of a record of transaction, no background checks are at the crux of the gunshow debate.

 

Then I probably at some point commented. I had some sort of impression that there were at least some background checks at gun shows.

 

Anyway...now it's even more disturbing. Thanks! :lol:

Then I probably at some point commented. I had some sort of impression that there were at least some background checks at gun shows.

 

Anyway...now it's even more disturbing. Thanks! :lol:

If the seller has a FFL there is. Lot's of handshake deals go on at gunshows.

Then I probably at some point commented. I had some sort of impression that there were at least some background checks at gun shows.

 

Anyway...now it's even more disturbing. Thanks! :lol:

 

I have purchased twice at gun shows and both times they did a background check.

I have purchased twice at gun shows and both times they did a background check.

 

I guess that's where I got the impression. I know others who have as well.

If the seller has a FFL there is. Lot's of handshake deals go on at gunshows.

 

You don't find that disturbing?

 

You don't find the fact that a person can sell a gun on a social media site?

 

That's a heck of a loophole if we want to stop people from buying illegally. We practically hand them the guns as it stands.

Any study of firearm murders will include firearms, but to say the firearms are the cause is an over reach. It would be like saying, Beer, Cars or Car Keys cause DUI's.

 

I understand the thought process.

 

There is one constant in mass shootings (in any shooting). Not mental health, not domestic violence, not psychotropic medication - although these are tremendously important and deserve much additional research. However, the one constant - the one thing that is involved in 100 percent of shootings - is a gun.

 

Just like the one thing that is involved in fatal vehicle accidents is not alcohol, not speeding, not weather conditions. It's a vehicle.

 

The one difference has already been related somewhere in this thread. Firearms are designed to maim and kill. That is their intent.

And again, I fully support the Constitutional right to bear arms. I do have issues with several of the related issues we're talking about here - (practically) unfettered access, high capacity magazines and the like.

You don't find that disturbing?

 

You don't find the fact that a person can sell a gun on a social media site?

 

That's a heck of a loophole if we want to stop people from buying illegally. We practically hand them the guns as it stands.

 

It is sort of a double edged sword. If background checks were required, the fear is it would drive gun sales underground to avoid the cost and paperwork for a background check. I guess most people would prefer the sales to occur out in the open in a more "legitimate" environment that may be intimidating to some who mean to do ill will with the guns instead of behind closed doors similar to the drug trade.

I understand the thought process.

 

There is one constant in mass shootings (in any shooting). Not mental health, not domestic violence, not psychotropic medication - although these are tremendously important and deserve much additional research. However, the one constant - the one thing that is involved in 100 percent of shootings - is a gun.

 

Just like the one thing that is involved in fatal vehicle accidents is not alcohol, not speeding, not weather conditions. It's a vehicle.

 

The one difference has already been related somewhere in this thread. Firearms are designed to maim and kill. That is their intent.

That is what some say and a point often repeated on here. I have shot 1000's of rounds and can't remember ever maiming or killing anything...I guess I am doing it wrong. Are they using guns incorrectly in the Olympics also, I don't recall anyone getting shot during the Biathlon.

 

Cars weren't designed to maim and kill yet 1000's each year are killed and maimed by cars.

 

It comes back to holding people accountable for their actions and not legislating to the 99.994% of lawful gun owners.

And again, I fully support the Constitutional right to bear arms. I do have issues with several of the related issues we're talking about here - (practically) unfettered access, high capacity magazines and the like.

 

I think the 2nd Amendment crowd is so against widespread registration and background checks due to the fear that what the government will do with such information. I am sure many have heard the sound bite of the two New Jersey legislatures who publicly had said they are against gun confiscation but then were unknowingly next to a live microphone and were whispering how ultimately confiscation would be the ultimate goal. Also, most nations which implemented confiscation were able to do so because they already had in place wide spread registration.

 

I often wonder if Bloomberg is the same, in the public, he only wants "smart gun safety" laws, not confiscation but quietly with others in his mindset, looks at confiscation as a long term goal to achieve gradually.

You don't find that disturbing?

 

You don't find the fact that a person can sell a gun on a social media site?

 

That's a heck of a loophole if we want to stop people from buying illegally. We practically hand them the guns as it stands.

I absolutely do.