https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
Please take a moment to contact your Representative. Carolyn McCarthy (a woman famously ignorant about firearms) is calling for stricter gun laws in response to the shooting in Arizona. Rather than enforce laws that already exist, McCarthy wants to make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to own guns. If you are a gun owner, or support people's right to bear arms, please take a few minutes to send an email today!
It never ceases to amaze me that they believe making the weapon illegal would be a deterrent to a person who is already onboard with premeditated murder one.
"Oh no! I can't possibly purchase an illegal weapon to carry out my plan to murder a Congresswoman. That would be wrong."
In reality, anyone with an agenda against firearms will use whatever they can to promote the viewpoint just as the gun lobby will tote out a story of where it saved lives. Common sense is never considered nor is the banning of lunatics, Congress persons or strip malls because that would be "silly".
Contact your Senators. www.senate.gov, then click the pull down in the upper right "Find your senators."
As most of you know, I deal with the Caribbean Islands. These are beautiful islands racked with terrible, violent, crime. Criminals roving with full auto AKs, civilians that cannot defend themselves, as all guns are effectively banned. Even possession of 1 cartridge will get you in jail. As a result, home invasions are rampant, kidnappings common, and the police are outgunned. Jamaica and Trinidad are the worst, but all English speaking islands have the same policies. Sad. The politicos pushing for harsh gun control need to see how well it works in reality, not in fantasy.
Is anyone here familiar with gun laws in AZ? Did this guy legally purchase his firearm? I read that he recently bought it at a store out there. If true, maybe the laws out there either A: weren't enforced, or B: aren't strict enough to prevent a mentally ill guy like this from buying a gun. I'm all for waiting periods, background checks, and fairly strict licensing. After something like this I think it's reasonable to take a look at current laws and consider if there's a way to improve them.
Some paper: said: However, Matt French, vice president of hunting operations for Sportsman’s Warehouse, told Fox News Channel that the suspected gunman recently purchased a firearm legally from the company's Tucson store. He said the suspect did not present a concealed weapons permit and so was required to pass an FBI background check, which he did “immediately and without incident." However, he could not confirm it was the gun used Saturday.
If the Congress woman or the Judge had been armed it may have been a completely different outcome. I hope she makes it, I'm pulling for her.
914Driver wrote:Some paper: said: He said the suspect did not present a concealed weapons permit and so was required to pass an FBI background check, which he did “immediately and without incident."
So perhaps there's room to improve FBI background checks. Anyone think that's a bad idea?
I agree, an FBI check is how I keep my clearance. If the young man can buy a gun, he can also get a clearance to damaging information.
Dan
well, regardless of the FBI background check, they ask you, right on the form
"Are you a fugitive from justice?" "have you ever been declared mentally defective?"
i mean its right there on the paper, i don't see why he didn't tell them he was crazy
To get my CCW, the FBI even went back to my homeland downunder to check my background.
The problem isn't the checks, it is follow up and training, decent training by trained professionals would quickly weed out those with an agenda. I have no problem with doing a regular update course to maintain my permit those that do have something to hide.
Strizzo, They ask if you are a terrorist when you enter the country, who would have thought that wouldn't keep them out.
Does it bother anyone how this poor woman being shot is now being used to further someone's agenda? The poor woman is not even out of the hospital yet and already she is they new face of the anti gun crowd. We don't even know if she would even support the actions being taken in her name. I know that this not really that unusual but it still rubs me the wrong way.
TRoglodyte wrote: If the Congress woman or the Judge had been armed it may have been a completely different outcome. I hope she makes it, I'm pulling for her.
More guns will solve the gun violence problem.
JohnGalt wrote: Does it bother anyone how this poor woman being shot is now being used to further someone's agenda? The poor woman is not even out of the hospital yet and already she is they new face of the anti gun crowd. We don't even know if she would even support the actions being taken in her name. I know that this not really that unusual but it still rubs me the wrong way.
I am greatly disturbed by this. The dead weren't even buried yet before McCarthy was screaming for a quick push of stricter gun laws.
I'm not sure what the response to this tragedy should be. But I feel like it shouldn't be a knee jerk reaction to start punish law abiding citizens. I'm open to discussion. I'm not against better background checks, but what would that imply? Personal interviews, pysch evals, accredit training programs?
And on a side note, I think any public figure speaking in public should have some sort of security. Not a SWAT team, but hell one guy standing point might have changed the outcome out this situation greatly.
Cone_Junky wrote:TRoglodyte wrote: If the Congress woman or the Judge had been armed it may have been a completely different outcome. I hope she makes it, I'm pulling for her.More guns will solve the gun violence problem.
yEP. Time and time again it's been shown that loosening the laws for law abiding citizens to own and carry their own firearms actually leads to LESS gun crimes. Who knew? If a criminal thinks he's goingto get shot he is less likely to commit the crime.
the early reports said that someone did shoot back at the guy, but i haven't heard anything about that since saturday night.
this all happened so fast that i don't think have an armed guard right up front would have made much of a difference... how long did it take the guy to empty his clip? how long would it take someone with a gun to hear the shots, grab his (or her) gun, aim, and shoot back at the shooter?
Bobzilla wrote:Cone_Junky wrote:yEP. Time and time again it's been shown that loosening the laws for law abiding citizens to own and carry their own firearms actually leads to LESS gun crimes. Who knew? If a criminal thinks he's goingto get shot he is less likely to commit the crime.TRoglodyte wrote: If the Congress woman or the Judge had been armed it may have been a completely different outcome. I hope she makes it, I'm pulling for her.More guns will solve the gun violence problem.
That's a big presumption based on one guy's interpretation. Kinda like one guy's interpretation that vaccines cause autism...
novaderrik wrote: the early reports said that someone did shoot back at the guy, but i haven't heard anything about that since saturday night. this all happened so fast that i don't think have an armed guard right up front would have made much of a difference... how long did it take the guy to empty his clip? how long would it take someone with a gun to hear the shots, grab his (or her) gun, aim, and shoot back at the shooter?
http://www.selfdefenseresource.com/general/articles/awareness-color-codes.php
usually a person will give off other signs that they are about to do something drastic before they pull out a gun and start shooting.
Cone_Junky wrote:Bobzilla wrote:That's a big presumption based on one guy's interpretation. Kinda like one guy's interpretation that vaccines cause autism...Cone_Junky wrote:yEP. Time and time again it's been shown that loosening the laws for law abiding citizens to own and carry their own firearms actually leads to LESS gun crimes. Who knew? If a criminal thinks he's goingto get shot he is less likely to commit the crime.TRoglodyte wrote: If the Congress woman or the Judge had been armed it may have been a completely different outcome. I hope she makes it, I'm pulling for her.More guns will solve the gun violence problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law
Cone_Junky wrote:TRoglodyte wrote: If the Congress woman or the Judge had been armed it may have been a completely different outcome. I hope she makes it, I'm pulling for her.More guns will solve the gun violence problem.
Yeah and more gas will put out a fire. Whatever
In reply to Strizzo:
Quoted from that article- "Statistical analysis of the data over a longer period of time did not show any evidence that the law reduced the rate of home burglaries in Kennesaw.[16][17]"
SupraWes - my post was acutally sarcastic. We don't live in the wild west, so we don't all need to own guns.
Ha, ha!
Strizzo wrote:Cone_Junky wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_lawBobzilla wrote:That's a big presumption based on one guy's interpretation. Kinda like one guy's interpretation that vaccines cause autism...Cone_Junky wrote:yEP. Time and time again it's been shown that loosening the laws for law abiding citizens to own and carry their own firearms actually leads to LESS gun crimes. Who knew? If a criminal thinks he's goingto get shot he is less likely to commit the crime.TRoglodyte wrote: If the Congress woman or the Judge had been armed it may have been a completely different outcome. I hope she makes it, I'm pulling for her.More guns will solve the gun violence problem.
Um, I don't have a dog in this fight, but . . .
Wikipedia also wrote: Statistical analysis of the data over a longer period of time did not show any evidence that the law reduced the rate of home burglaries in Kennesaw.
In addition, I grew up right next to Kennesaw and (mis)spent most of my teenage years there chasing girls. It's not exactly a rough area of town to begin with.
Whatever, this whole situation stinks.
edit - Cone junky beat me to it.
Well, if guns are employed by more people to kill as many people as possible all the time - eventually the number of people on whole will drop - vastly reducing crime as well - except those left alive will mostly be a bunch of murderin' fools. The crime per capita would be thru the roof.
Cone_Junky wrote: In reply to Strizzo: Quoted from that article- "Statistical analysis of the data over a longer period of time did not show any evidence that the law reduced the rate of home burglaries in Kennesaw.[16][17]" SupraWes - my post was acutally sarcastic. We don't live in the wild west, so we don't all need to own guns.
taken from the SOURCE :
But Kennesaw's crime rate plummeted. In fact, the number of some crimes declined amid soaring population growth. For example, in figures the city provided to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, Kennesaw had 54 burglaries in 1981 – the year before the gun ordinance – with a population of 5,242. In 1999, with a population of 19,000, only 36 burglaries were reported.
Population more than tripled, crime rates did not. That shows data over 18 years. How much longer does one need to check? Or is it because your personal opinions differ than what the results show so you'd rather just dismiss those facts?
remember when Texas loosened it's restrictions on when a gun owner was allowed to use deadly force? Someone stealing their car and they could shoot them? I remember hearing how the sky was going to fall and there were going to be shootouts in the streets and gun crimes would go through the roof...... didn't happen.
It's already illegal to kill someone. It's already illegal to use a gun to kill someone. How about we enforce those laws that are already in place instead of making more laws for the law abiding citizens to deal with. Criminals don't give two E36 M3's about laws... that's why they are CRIMINALS. Why is that such a hard idea to fathom?
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
