June 13, 201610 yr Ten states allow unrestricted conceal carry for any resident of their state who has legally obtained their weapon. Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho (effective July 1, 2016), Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming. All other states are either "shall issue" or "may issue", requiring some form of training or testing for the state. "Shall Issue" means there is a specific test and training for that state that allows a legal gun owner to get a permit to conceal carry, and if you take the class and pass the tests - "You shall be issued a permit." "May Issue" has similar tests and training but you're not assured of a permit just for passing the state requirement. It means you "May be issued a permit." Also the training or testing can be more stringent in certain municipalities or districts. There are no longer any "No Issue" states, however, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, Rhode Island and certain cities and counties within California, Massachusetts, and New York are no-issue jurisdictions in practice, with governmental policy directing officials with discretionary power to rarely or never issue licenses. I'm paraphrasing from a publication I have. I'm sure it's on line somewhere.
June 13, 201610 yr Nope' date=' it was implied you must have this or otherwise you're not protected, which isn't true. You may choose it, but it isn't necessary.[/quote'] If he had used a Glock 17 with 17 rounds would you be after pistols today instead?
June 13, 201610 yr Then what is it you were trying to ask? I got the implication that you said what is the difference between getting a gun right away and waiting two weeks was because it might be better for safety. The obvious answer is that one simply waits. It's not necessarily about safety. Why do you NEED the gun today as opposed to two weeks from today? Where's the harm in waiting two weeks if it means a more thorough background check?
June 13, 201610 yr There are nations all over this world that have curbed gun violence. There are answers out there. Some of us just don't want to hear them. there some on both sides that don't want to hear anything. There is more to it than just gun control. 2/3's of all gun deaths are suicides, perhaps a better health care system would be better suited. Some of it is gang related. Maybe better a education system to give some the inner-city youth a better chance at life than resorting to joining a gang.
June 13, 201610 yr Can we all agree that, in this situation, the process failed? This guy was legally able to purchase a firearm, even with all the blatant red flags associated with him. That's not okay. That's not just a "miss". That's a flaw in the process, and something that absolutely should be looked at, and addressed.
June 13, 201610 yr IMO that's a short sighted and terrible solution. You would rather face that as a reality than try to do something that helps. Making me wait months to buy any semi auto weapon helps in no way against the things going on these days.
June 13, 201610 yr It's not necessarily about safety. Why do you NEED the gun today as opposed to two weeks from today? Where's the harm in waiting two weeks if it means a more thorough background check? They do the same background check brother. NICS doesn't matter if it's today, tomorrow or November.
June 13, 201610 yr It's not necessarily about safety. Why do you NEED the gun today as opposed to two weeks from today? Where's the harm in waiting two weeks if it means a more thorough background check? There is no evidence to show that longer background checks are more thorough. Also, how could it not be about safety? If the background check system is poorly funded and it is, a longer background check is going to do nothing.
June 13, 201610 yr There is no evidence to show that longer background checks are more thorough. Also, how could it not be about safety? If the background check system is poorly funded and it is, a longer background check is going to do nothing. You still haven't provided a reason as to why you need it immediately instead of waiting for it. Again, if ONE person is deterred from having to wait for the gun, it would be worth it.
June 13, 201610 yr Author There is no evidence to show that longer background checks are more thorough. Also, how could it not be about safety? If the background check system is poorly funded and it is, a longer background check is going to do nothing. Agreed overall. It doesn't matter how much money you pour in if all of the pertinent data/info is not going to make it into the check as my previous examples (terror watch lists/mentally unstable) show and if it doesn't include all of the private transactions. Would gun owners and NRA and, ultimately, NRA's paid workers in Congress support all of that?
June 13, 201610 yr Clearly something more is needed. This guy was investigated twice by the FBI, had been on their watch list, etc and the current process said he was okay to purchase a gun. That should have never been allowed. Agreed. Big red flags should have been waving.
June 13, 201610 yr I'm certain you don't need that weapon to protect your life. It's not a valid argument to say criminals would get an illegal weapon on the black market. A comparable argument would be minors can get alcohol anyway so we just lower the drinking age. Seriously, guys, I can't wrap my mind around why we can't intensity screening and training on new gun owners. Point is determined people will find a way. Rules only apply to those who abide by them. A person who is attempting mass murder laughs at the legislative attempt to keep them from doing so.
June 13, 201610 yr You still haven't provided a reason as to why you need it immediately instead of waiting for it. Again, if ONE person is deterred from having to wait for the gun, it would be worth it. Because it is better to protect my myself immediately than wait. I have an uncle down in Tx that can attest to that.
June 13, 201610 yr Can we all agree that, in this situation, the process failed? This guy was legally able to purchase a firearm, even with all the blatant red flags associated with him. That's not okay. That's not just a "miss". That's a flaw in the process, and something that absolutely should be looked at, and addressed. Reminds me of the Virginia tech shooter. Wasn't he under mental care but was able to buy guns?
June 13, 201610 yr I don't know anyone that owns an AR-15 or AK. In my 46 years I've needed to use my car and house insurance several times ver the course of my life. I've never once needed or ever even been close to ceding in a situation where I've needed a gun for protection, let alone a military type weapon like an AK. And I've worked in inner city Philadelphia and NY, including a location that was robbed twice at gunpoint. Carrying a gun does not make me feel safer, and equating it to house or car insurance is a stretch. Perhaps I'll be proven wrong someday. If it works for you (or anyone else), and you are responsible, then by all means carry? But I strongly disagree with your assertion that not owning and carrying a gun is an irresponsible decision (equating it to other types of insurance) on my part. The biggest difference I can see in this argument is that the need for personal protection with a gun may only occur once in your life, while car and homeowners may occur multiple times in one's life. The biggest concern for those who want to carry for protection is that one chance.....some aren't willing to hedge against the odds.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.