Figured this one was coming. No one is saying anything about banning. Didn't Justice Scalia once say that the 2nd Amendment comes with checks?

 

I'll ask you specifically. Should a mentally ill person deemed to be dangerous be allowed to purchase a gun?

 

Should a person whose actions have put them on a terrorist watch list be allowed to buy a gun?

 

No they shouldn't. Fix the background check.

 

One of the biggest issues is that the mentally ill person's medical records are protected, so no one knows they are mentally ill.

 

As to the terrorist watch list, to me that's a no brainer.

"Just read a Harvard study out last year: for every woman who is able to stave off an attacker with a gun another 83 are murdered. The article stated there will be studies upcoming to focus but 1:83. If I were a woman I wouldn't want a gun in the house"

 

Your original post referenced that for every 1 victim who successfully defended herself with a gun, 83 were murdered. I ask again, did the study conclude that those 83 would not have been killed had they just sat by passively and allowed themselves to be victimized? It is a logical follow up question.

 

Let me clarify. That study focused on woman who were killed by their intimate partners. As I stated earlier the study is ongoing; however, the success rate isn't very good.

 

Your attempt at oversimplifying the argument doesn't outweigh the amount of women who die at the hands of their partners when they are told that a gun is necessary for protection. In fact the adverse is true. Women may have a greater chance of surviving without a gun in the home.

No they shouldn't. Fix the background check.

 

One of the biggest issues is that the mentally ill person's medical records are protected, so no one knows they are mentally ill.

 

As to the terrorist watch list, to me that's a no brainer.

 

Am I correct that the NRA does not support the ban of sales to suspected terrorists?

 

I'll ask you specifically. Should a mentally ill person deemed to be dangerous be allowed to purchase a gun?

 

A very well world wide respected person that I know of in the protection field was reported a few years back during a divorce, a good, quick and detailed investigation cleared him and no harm or rights taken away. We need thorough checks for everyone.

OG,

Which mass shooter would have been stopped by tougher immigration? So far we are dealing with our own who are being influenced by outside hate groups or mental instability.

 

The orlando shooter's father was from Afghanistan. He hated homosexuals and was anti-american. I think that was who was talking about.

Am I correct that the NRA does not support the ban of sales to suspected terrorists?

 

I don't think that is the case. I have not read the actual bill.

 

My understanding is that they fought to stop it because it included a bunch of regulation in it. One of those items was terrorist related. So now the narrative is that the NRA wants terrorists to be able to buy weapons.

 

Put the terrorist bill up there by itself, I doubt you'll get any fight from the NRA.

 

The other issue would be how you define terrorist. Whole bunch of people worried they may be called terrorists because they stock pile weapons.

Even Justice Scalia recognized the 2nd Amendment has limitations:

 

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

 

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

 

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

 

 

The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right to Own Guns | Big Think

Let me clarify. That study focused on woman who were killed by their intimate partners. As I stated earlier the study is ongoing; however, the success rate isn't very good.

 

Your attempt at oversimplifying the argument doesn't outweigh the amount of women who die at the hands of their partners when they are told that a gun is necessary for protection. In fact the adverse is true. Women may have a greater chance of surviving without a gun in the home.

 

Perhaps if you had accurately described the study, my question may have been different. That said, even if 1 victim lives because she had access to a weapon, is that not enough for you? Study aside, do you believe that the other victims would be alive today if they did not try to defend themselves or are they dead because they fought back?

I don't think that is the case. I have not read the actual bill.

 

My understanding is that they fought to stop it because it included a bunch of regulation in it. One of those items was terrorist related. So now the narrative is that the NRA wants terrorists to be able to buy weapons.

 

Put the terrorist bill up there by itself, I doubt you'll get any fight from the NRA.

 

The other issue would be how you define terrorist. Whole bunch of people worried they may be called terrorists because they stock pile weapons.

 

Thanks. I found this on what appears to be a NRA site.

 

NRA-ILA | Why NRA Opposes Gun Control Supporters` "Terrorist Watchlist" Bills

 

One of the main objections is that a class of people without much supporting evidence may be denied their right to own a gun or that the majority of people who fall into a group (gun owners) are being lumped in with the few that cause problems.

 

Ironic considering today's arguments put forth in a somewhat related subject.

Does that study conclude that the 83 murder victims would all be alive today had they not tried to defend themselves?

 

Not defending yourself really works well...

The orlando shooter's father was from Afghanistan. He hated homosexuals and was anti-american. I think that was who was talking about.

 

Here's the problem with that logic: I have neighbors who feel the same who are white and Christian. Thinking a thing isn't a crime. Acting violently on it is.

Perhaps if you had accurately described the study, my question may have been different. That said, even if 1 victim lives because she had access to a weapon, is that not enough for you? Study aside, do you believe that the other victims would be alive today if they did not try to defend themselves or are they dead because they fought back?

 

Did the 83 have access to a gun or were they murdered unarmed. We know women are usually killed by their intimate partners.

Let me clarify. That study focused on woman who were killed by their intimate partners. As I stated earlier the study is ongoing; however, the success rate isn't very good.

 

Your attempt at oversimplifying the argument doesn't outweigh the amount of women who die at the hands of their partners when they are told that a gun is necessary for protection. In fact the adverse is true. Women may have a greater chance of surviving without a gun in the home.

 

That's absolutely an outlandish study. Intimate Partners have access to you your daily life your home. You would never see it coming they could kill you at any time if they were angered. Now somebody trying to kick in your door that you don't know because they don't have a key and they don't live with you you have a chance to protect yourself with a weapon. Pretty sure these women didn't go go to bed with the gun under the pillow and one eye open.

Perhaps if you had accurately described the study, my question may have been different. That said, even if 1 victim lives because she had access to a weapon, is that not enough for you? Study aside, do you believe that the other victims would be alive today if they did not try to defend themselves or are they dead because they fought back?

 

No they would not.

 

One of the huge pro gun arguments is guns are necessary for protection. If you're a woman, do these numbers support having a gun in your home for protection?

What a question?! :ohbrother:

 

If you were a woman reading those odds...what would you think?

 

Just want to clarify that we seem to have derailed the thread a little but all of this goes back to the need for guns and specific ones at that.

This may have been asked and answered so sorry if it's a repeat.

 

1. Were the 83 women in the report all armed with guns?

2. If you are a woman or anyone for that matter, facing an attacker, would you rather be armed or unarmed? Surely the point of the study wasn't to say only 1 out of 83 were successful s you're better off not being armed.