Triple check only takes a day or two? No it doesn't more like a week or two. All you do when you do that is keep them out of the hands of good people. That's not an opinion that's a fact. For one person who you prevent who is a risk, 40 more just go around it and buy a gun illegally anyway. The illegal gun market in this country is just as big as any other. What you think because assault weapons are banned in jersey, people don't have them? Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
First there has to be background checks for gun shows. But for all gun sales if there's red flags extend the time until you can give the applicant a green light. I would assume for most people it would be pretty fast. If there are red flags like the kid in Charleston you don't go through with the sale unless everything is ok. Illegal guns is another story.
and make sure you have enough cash left over for kids getting hit by stray bullets and the lawyers you're gonna need to defend against the lawsuits that will surely come.
And there are background checks. Not trying to blast you man but do you know how these things are done? The police do them in their spare time. There's no dedicated person to do a background check. They can't devote time and manpower to scrutinize everyone. If there are some things, then yes, but you also need to remember that you can't just call a Dr or hospital and get a mental health record. Generally tho people like that have some checkered records so they do stand out. For the people who don't? Should they have to wait because someone else is a nut? There's no guarantee that tighter laws would prevent this guy from getting a gun. What we need to look at isn't tighter gun laws but the American mentality. Why people feel they are entitled to commit these acts. How do we change that, if we can. There are so many aspects to this that gun laws. If you wanna talk about the deeper social issues I'd gladly discuss them with you just not typing it all out here. Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
You don't think there wasn't any planning here? What I'm saying to you is these people are gonna commit these acts no matter what. Less guns doesn't prevent it. Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
That bold part is money. These people who want to kill others will get a weapon to do it no matter what. I'm all for making the laws stricter, no problem, But I have seen people wanting to completely abolish guns from being legal -- I just think that is asinine.
1 - going in with a small concealed weapon and shooting 10 kids vs 2 - going in, planting the bomb, securing the time for the bomb to go off, and avoid getting caught all at the same time ... Less guns isn't the point, it's taking the guns away from people that aren't mentally inept to have one.
You don't need a gun to set it off. The point being its super easy to kill a ton of people without a gun.
So how do you propose we do that? Go back and read my last long ass post. You're not going to. I don't believe it was you, but someone said a psych evaluation.... Ok who does it and who pays for it? Who pays for the devoted man power to do background checks? Who gives someone who's not a law enforcement personnel the right to decide who gets a gun and who doesn't? So a psychologists has that right? They're not even real doctor's. They half assed and in the medical community all they are good for is getting rid of Patients we don't want to deal with. So now you take a gun from a person that could use the gun to protect themselves and others. While some wacko can get one legally or illegally. There's too many layers to this than to simply say let's have tighter laws. Well what does that entail. Unless Obama has a plan, and he doesn't he needs to just shut up. This isn't about toting the Democratic party line. There needs to be real thought towards a solution. Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
the point is you need a lot more to go right for you and you never know about certain external factors that play a role. EVERYTHING would have to go the way you planned it - shit happens. It's not easier than getting a gun and shooting up a school. the outcome would be the same regardless.
I said getting a gun should require a psychological examination - and the psychologists plays a role, they are not the deciding factor - it should help though. Sorry, but I would rather save 10 lives then give a crazy fuck a gun.
The gun is just the tool. Take away a mans saw and he'll use an axe. The tree is coming down regardless. Mental health evaluations have no place in this and couldn't stop it.
And who pays for it? Obviously the community would. So you're telling me some guy who doesn't know jack shit about someone is gonna meet them and make a determination that is going to spot on? You really think somebody is gonna walk in and say "I want to kill people"? Come on man don't just throw arbitrary stuff out there. Think of the logistics. There a reason psychological evaluation are basically tantamount to a lie detector I court. They can't say anything with a scientific certainty, so there's no way they can be reliable to determine who gets a gun or not. No psychologist would want that job. As soon as something happens they're getting sued. Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
whats harder to stop ... a gun or an melee weapon? Mental assessments does help evaluate a person, you can help stop people from getting guns. Does that not make sense?
