Countdown to a new lockdown?

8.1HD/ALLISON · December 21, 2012

Yeah I can understand that. I'm talking a short safety course. Nothing to in depth. I hate to say that because I generally am against the government sticking their nose up everyones buisness.

tanked_darren · December 21, 2012

In WA all I had to do to get a CCP was answer 10 questions. I thought that was a little odd... for Seattle that is.

I'm mixed about the training thing. I think it's a good idea, but I feel there are flaws there too.

That's scary.

People should be required to have a in depth safety course on handling and storing a firearm. I'm sure there are people who will disagree but you need training like that for the morons that make up the accident statistics, plus, if people stored their guns properly they wouldn't be stolen as often.

Sent from my Nokia 5190 using Tapatalk 2

BlackZ71Silverado · December 21, 2012

No matter what kind of political BS goes on, there is absolutely NO way to stop the bad guys or crazy people from getting weapons. That's why they are called criminals to begin with, they do not follow or care for any laws that are already in place. It's not hard to purchase a weapon illegally, it happens everyday.

What does need to be added to the gun law is the MENTAL HEALTH needs to be added to the background check. That does not come up currently because it's a HIPPA violation and it's BS. All a nut bag has to do is lie on the paper they fill out and nobody will know. If someone had been treated for mental illness or was locked in a mental health hospital, they should not be allowed to purchase a gun and the only way to stop that part of it is to add it to their background record and the hell with HIPPA.

They also need to change the way some gun shows do business. A lot of them just randomly sell weapons without any checks on the buyer OR even getting ID from someone. There is absolutely no way anybody should be able to purchase a weapon at one of these shows without taking the same steps they would if they walked into a gun dealer somewhere. This paperwork NEEDS to be submitted and a background check needs to be done.

This panic buying is crazy! There is no way that any law that takes away part of our 2nd Amendment right will be passed by the Republican House, not going to happen.

8.1HD/ALLISON · December 21, 2012

I would agree with both of those issues too. I have never understood how these " gun shows" get away with bypassing all the paperwork and background checks.

MikeNH · December 22, 2012

That's scary.

People should be required to have a in depth safety course on handling and storing a firearm. I'm sure there are people who will disagree but you need training like that for the morons that make up the accident statistics, plus, if people stored their guns properly they wouldn't be stolen as often.

Sent from my Nokia 5190 using Tapatalk 2

People who carry concealed are the last people on the planet you have to worry about. They are not unsafe with their skills or actions. I'm sure it's hard for someone in Canada to understand as the views toward guns are so different there but my native New Hampshire is one of the easiest states to get a carry permit in yet it has been voted one of, if not the safest state in the nation most of my adult life. And all states have laws that make you liable if an ineligible person gains access to your guns, be it a young child who hurts himself or a criminal who commits a crime with it.

I would agree with both of those issues too. I have never understood how these " gun shows" get away with bypassing all the paperwork and background checks.

Another media exaggeration. If you buy from a dealer you absolutely still do the process. The only time you don't is person to person sales. In those cases you must live in the state you're buying in but no background check is needed. This is not unique to gun shows. If I lived in Indiana and you said "Gee Mike, I want to buy that xxx pistol from you." From there it's all up to me if I feel like I want to sell to you. I don't do these transactions nor in six years of gun ownership and going to shows have I ever seen an individual selling guns. More media lies.

kstruckcountry · December 22, 2012

Was talking to one of my moms friends last night, she gave me some BS statistic that 60% of people who use guns for defense are shot by their own gun. I told her that 100% of people who don't use guns for defense and are shot are shot by someone else's gun.

RGNewell · December 22, 2012

Buying automatic guns here is NOT a common occurrence despite the liberal medias claims. To buy one, you go through an extensive background check (6+ months) pay a yearly tax of $500, and since you can only buy full auto from 1986 or earlier there is a small supply so even a lousy one costs $10,000. Probably more now. Also, a legally owned full auto has never been used in a high profile crime. The last time any full auto was used in a high profile shooting was the North Hollywood shoot out in the 90s and those were illegally modified.

Oh and gun control is using both hands.

Actually, there is no yearly tax on Class 3 items, fully automatic, silencers, short barrel rifle etc. There is only a $200 one time transfer tax, with which you receive a document with an actual $200 stamp on it. It used to take three months, but the last year or so, it has been taking about 6 months. This was mainly do to the fact that Texas and maybe other states allow the use of silencers for hunting starting this year. If an individual buys the class 3 item, you must submit fingerprint cards with photos, an application and a paper signed by the highest ranking law enforcement officer in your jurisdiction giving his or her OK. (Nearly impossible in some places). If you purchase as a corporation or trust, you just need the $200 and the application.

MikeNH · December 22, 2012

Actually, there is no yearly tax on Class 3 items, fully automatic, silencers, short barrel rifle etc. There is only a $200 one time transfer tax, with which you receive a document with an actual $200 stamp on it. It used to take three months, but the last year or so, it has been taking about 6 months. This was mainly do to the fact that Texas and maybe other states allow the use of silencers for hunting starting this year. If an individual buys the class 3 item, you must submit fingerprint cards with photos, an application and a paper signed by the highest ranking law enforcement officer in your jurisdiction giving his or her OK. (Nearly impossible in some places). If you purchase as a corporation or trust, you just need the $200 and the application.

I hadn't looked too deeply into it, thanks for clarifying. I have little interest in the suppressors myself and select fire stuff is too much money.

BlackZ71Silverado · December 23, 2012

If any of you guys are looking to buy a new rifle DON'T do it right now. There is a panic frenzy taking place. I would not believe it if I didn't see it myself but at a gun show yesterday, they were selling junky Bushmaster Ar-15's for $2,000!!!!!! The guns were $700 2 weeks ago now they jacked up the prices and people are falling for it and buying. Wait a couple weeks or a month and prices will be where they belong. Could not believe the amount of people standing in line to buy these bottom end Bushmaster rifles for that price, unreal.

MikeNH · December 23, 2012

Yep, it's nuts. A friend just got an RRA lower. Paid like $550 for it. Glad all I need to worry about is ammo!

wurgs · December 24, 2012

Yep, it's nuts. A friend just got an RRA lower. Paid like $550 for it. Glad all I need to worry about is ammo!

If you can find it. If its in stock the prices are being jacked up too by as much as 50%. I looked online for bulk 223 ammo last Wednesday and it took till the 17th website till I found someone with cases in stock. It is getting almost impossible to find places with ARs in stock either, many can't even tell you when they will get more in stock.

Doug_Scott · December 25, 2012

When the constitution was written, the 2nd amendment was in regards to forming a militia to defend yourself/property. Weapons that were around then were single shot, take a minute or so to reload, shoot again, and so on. Perhaps the constitution needs to be updated. For those that insist the constitution is written in stone, if that were the case there would be no amendments.

As long as humans are involved, you will never be able to 100% prevent these mass shootings from occurring. That being said, in the most recent act, if the mother did not have weapons, her son could not have used those weapons. That does not mean he could not go somewhere else and get them, but does 100% preclude him from using the ones he had access to. We also cannot just say he would not have killed anyone that day if the weapons were not there. If tightening the rules would have made that mother give up her weapons, I think we can safely say that there would be more people alive today. And is that not the only important thing? Maybe we only need to be concerned about stopping the opportunity killer, and accept that there will always be those that will kill regardless of the rules. It is very obvious that current rules are not working well enough. We can't stop them all, but can we at least try to stop 1%? Or is it really that important that you need to have a weapon that with a simple mod can fire off 100 rounds a min? Please stop with the "if we outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns" line of reasoning, No one expects any change to be a 100% cure.

kstruckcountry · December 25, 2012

Hmmm thanks for providing an argument. Since the 2nd amendment is basically designed to give people power over the government, then assault weapons are absolutely essential. Gotta keep up with the times. And people said the same things about revolvers/case ammunition when they were new that they say about AR's today.

brantjs · December 25, 2012

When the constitution was written, the 2nd amendment was in regards to forming a militia to defend yourself/property. Weapons that were around then were single shot, take a minute or so to reload, shoot again, and so on. Perhaps the constitution needs to be updated. For those that insist the constitution is written in stone, if that were the case there would be no amendments.

As long as humans are involved, you will never be able to 100% prevent these mass shootings from occurring. That being said, in the most recent act, if the mother did not have weapons, her son could not have used those weapons. That does not mean he could not go somewhere else and get them, but does 100% preclude him from using the ones he had access to. We also cannot just say he would not have killed anyone that day if the weapons were not there. If tightening the rules would have made that mother give up her weapons, I think we can safely say that there would be more people alive today. And is that not the only important thing? Maybe we only need to be concerned about stopping the opportunity killer, and accept that there will always be those that will kill regardless of the rules. It is very obvious that current rules are not working well enough. We can't stop them all, but can we at least try to stop 1%? Or is it really that important that you need to have a weapon that with a simple mod can fire off 100 rounds a min? Please stop with the "if we outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns" line of reasoning, No one expects any change to be a 100% cure.

This line of thinking has several flaws in it. I fundamentally agree that if there were any concern about the mental stability of this person, he should not have had access to the firearms. That said, all the firearms involved have the same capacity for damage. There is no reason to fear the semiauto bushmaster 'assault' rifle any more than a semiauto pistol. The capacity of the magazines used makes little difference when there is nobody allowed to carry a firearm in the gun free school environment to stop the shooter, whether he/she needs to reload or not. Studies have indicated that firearms are used for self defense and in the prevention of crimes up to 2 million times annually. This far outweighs the isolated firearms deaths and even massacres that happen, even as frequent as they occur. The fact is that the bad is what is published and shown ad nauseum on the news stations, and the good rarely make it into the news. For the vast majority of the population that owns firearms, it is clear that the current firearms regulations are more than adequate. For those who do not abide by the laws in place now, no new laws or restrictions are going to make them abide any better, and will only make it more difficult for the law-abiding folks to legally defend themselves.

tanked_darren · December 25, 2012

CNN rarely reports instances where a conceal carry person shoots attackers or someone defended their home, those stories aren't good for shock news. But when someone shoots up people and kills themself oh blow it right up the public eats those stories. Then you get the people riled up. It's sad how the news operates.

My only thing is I believe anyone that can buy a weapon should have to take a extensive course on handling and STORING their weapon as well as a mental check.

I'll say again, wish we had conceal carry in bc it truely does make people think twice about pulling a gun to commit a crime in public venues.

Sent from my Nokia 5190 using Tapatalk 2