Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • Gun Control
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 10
Gun Control
Tweet Topic Started: Apr 30 2013, 09:31 AM (863 Views)
Mr Gray Apr 30 2013, 04:25 PM Post #16
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Apr 30 2013, 04:07 PM
IUCOLTFAN
Apr 30 2013, 01:52 PM
sirbrianwilson
Apr 30 2013, 01:23 PM
require a background check for every single transfer of firearms, regardless of the two parties, and require all firearms to be licensed on an annual basis to assist in tracking lost/stolen firearms.

br
So we can be expected to track all guns in a financially efficient manner but we can't track people on a terror watch list?? How does that make sense? Weren't you the person who said it was in no way feasible to track people on a terror watch list? Are there more guns in the U.S. than people on the watch list?
No, I expect we do fucking nothing and hope things change.
Brum, do you agree that if something is to be done with gun control, that we should address the largest area of gun problems, ie gang violence? I guess I'm asking, are the American people better served addressing the Adam Lanza's or the those who are killing thousands and thousands more than that?
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Apr 30 2013, 04:54 PM Post #17
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
Apr 30 2013, 04:25 PM
brumdog44
Apr 30 2013, 04:07 PM
IUCOLTFAN
Apr 30 2013, 01:52 PM
sirbrianwilson
Apr 30 2013, 01:23 PM
require a background check for every single transfer of firearms, regardless of the two parties, and require all firearms to be licensed on an annual basis to assist in tracking lost/stolen firearms.

br
So we can be expected to track all guns in a financially efficient manner but we can't track people on a terror watch list?? How does that make sense? Weren't you the person who said it was in no way feasible to track people on a terror watch list? Are there more guns in the U.S. than people on the watch list?
No, I expect we do fucking nothing and hope things change.
Brum, do you agree that if something is to be done with gun control, that we should address the largest area of gun problems, ie gang violence? I guess I'm asking, are the American people better served addressing the Adam Lanza's or the those who are killing thousands and thousands more than that?
IMO, the required background check for all gun exchanges/purchase is attempting to do something about the number of illegally obtained guns which does impact gangs.

We know that most illegal guns started out legal.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Apr 30 2013, 05:04 PM Post #18
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Apr 30 2013, 04:07 PM
IUCOLTFAN
Apr 30 2013, 01:52 PM
sirbrianwilson
Apr 30 2013, 01:23 PM
require a background check for every single transfer of firearms, regardless of the two parties, and require all firearms to be licensed on an annual basis to assist in tracking lost/stolen firearms.

br
So we can be expected to track all guns in a financially efficient manner but we can't track people on a terror watch list?? How does that make sense? Weren't you the person who said it was in no way feasible to track people on a terror watch list? Are there more guns in the U.S. than people on the watch list?
No, I expect we do fucking nothing and hope things change.
Let's leave Obama's reelection out of this discussion.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IUCOLTFAN Apr 30 2013, 07:41 PM Post #19
Coach
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#131
Joined:
February 9, 2008
brumdog44
Apr 30 2013, 04:07 PM
IUCOLTFAN
Apr 30 2013, 01:52 PM
sirbrianwilson
Apr 30 2013, 01:23 PM
require a background check for every single transfer of firearms, regardless of the two parties, and require all firearms to be licensed on an annual basis to assist in tracking lost/stolen firearms.

br
So we can be expected to track all guns in a financially efficient manner but we can't track people on a terror watch list?? How does that make sense? Weren't you the person who said it was in no way feasible to track people on a terror watch list? Are there more guns in the U.S. than people on the watch list?
No, I expect we do fucking nothing and hope things change.
Really wasn't addressed to you but ill ask: So you agree when should be doing some electronic surveillance on people that are on the watch list?
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Apr 30 2013, 07:58 PM Post #20
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Apr 30 2013, 04:54 PM
Mr Gray
Apr 30 2013, 04:25 PM
brumdog44
Apr 30 2013, 04:07 PM
IUCOLTFAN
Apr 30 2013, 01:52 PM
sirbrianwilson
Apr 30 2013, 01:23 PM
require a background check for every single transfer of firearms, regardless of the two parties, and require all firearms to be licensed on an annual basis to assist in tracking lost/stolen firearms.

br
So we can be expected to track all guns in a financially efficient manner but we can't track people on a terror watch list?? How does that make sense? Weren't you the person who said it was in no way feasible to track people on a terror watch list? Are there more guns in the U.S. than people on the watch list?
No, I expect we do fucking nothing and hope things change.
Brum, do you agree that if something is to be done with gun control, that we should address the largest area of gun problems, ie gang violence? I guess I'm asking, are the American people better served addressing the Adam Lanza's or the those who are killing thousands and thousands more than that?
IMO, the required background check for all gun exchanges/purchase is attempting to do something about the number of illegally obtained guns which does impact gangs.

We know that most illegal guns started out legal.
Brum, could you elaborate on how required checks will keep guns out of the hands of illegals or gangs? I don't see it, but I might be missing something.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson Apr 30 2013, 08:44 PM Post #21
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
I never said that I was against tracking people of interest on terror lists. I said, if you want that, pony up and pay the government more to do so. Just as I would be more than willing to pay more for gun control/tracking measures.

These are both really, really, really, really, really expensive things to do. Start voting and promoting tax increases to accomplish these things. It's not like they are something you can just start doing without a MAJOR overhaul and expansion of government.

Tracking every single individual they receive a threat for...or even those who score higher on the person-of-interest scale is a MAJOR expansion of government. We're talking big, big, big government.

br
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Apr 30 2013, 09:23 PM Post #22
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
sirbrianwilson
Apr 30 2013, 08:44 PM
I never said that I was against tracking people of interest on terror lists. I said, if you want that, pony up and pay the government more to do so. Just as I would be more than willing to pay more for gun control/tracking measures.

These are both really, really, really, really, really expensive things to do. Start voting and promoting tax increases to accomplish these things. It's not like they are something you can just start doing without a MAJOR overhaul and expansion of government.

Tracking every single individual they receive a threat for...or even those who score higher on the person-of-interest scale is a MAJOR expansion of government. We're talking big, big, big government.

br
We already have a big, big, big, big government. We should be talking about a stream-lined, more efficient government. But sadly, the latter is an oxymoron, which is why I lean right on fiscal matters.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Apr 30 2013, 09:56 PM Post #23
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
Apr 30 2013, 07:58 PM
brumdog44
Apr 30 2013, 04:54 PM
Mr Gray
Apr 30 2013, 04:25 PM
brumdog44
Apr 30 2013, 04:07 PM
IUCOLTFAN
Apr 30 2013, 01:52 PM
sirbrianwilson
Apr 30 2013, 01:23 PM
require a background check for every single transfer of firearms, regardless of the two parties, and require all firearms to be licensed on an annual basis to assist in tracking lost/stolen firearms.

br
So we can be expected to track all guns in a financially efficient manner but we can't track people on a terror watch list?? How does that make sense? Weren't you the person who said it was in no way feasible to track people on a terror watch list? Are there more guns in the U.S. than people on the watch list?
No, I expect we do fucking nothing and hope things change.
Brum, do you agree that if something is to be done with gun control, that we should address the largest area of gun problems, ie gang violence? I guess I'm asking, are the American people better served addressing the Adam Lanza's or the those who are killing thousands and thousands more than that?
IMO, the required background check for all gun exchanges/purchase is attempting to do something about the number of illegally obtained guns which does impact gangs.

We know that most illegal guns started out legal.
Brum, could you elaborate on how required checks will keep guns out of the hands of illegals or gangs? I don't see it, but I might be missing something.
Increasing the penalty for not running a background check to the seller would have an adverse affect on sales.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray May 1 2013, 07:47 AM Post #24
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Apr 30 2013, 09:56 PM
Mr Gray
Apr 30 2013, 07:58 PM
brumdog44
Apr 30 2013, 04:54 PM
Mr Gray
Apr 30 2013, 04:25 PM
brumdog44
Apr 30 2013, 04:07 PM
IUCOLTFAN
Apr 30 2013, 01:52 PM
sirbrianwilson
Apr 30 2013, 01:23 PM
require a background check for every single transfer of firearms, regardless of the two parties, and require all firearms to be licensed on an annual basis to assist in tracking lost/stolen firearms.

br
So we can be expected to track all guns in a financially efficient manner but we can't track people on a terror watch list?? How does that make sense? Weren't you the person who said it was in no way feasible to track people on a terror watch list? Are there more guns in the U.S. than people on the watch list?
No, I expect we do fucking nothing and hope things change.
Brum, do you agree that if something is to be done with gun control, that we should address the largest area of gun problems, ie gang violence? I guess I'm asking, are the American people better served addressing the Adam Lanza's or the those who are killing thousands and thousands more than that?
IMO, the required background check for all gun exchanges/purchase is attempting to do something about the number of illegally obtained guns which does impact gangs.

We know that most illegal guns started out legal.
Brum, could you elaborate on how required checks will keep guns out of the hands of illegals or gangs? I don't see it, but I might be missing something.
Increasing the penalty for not running a background check to the seller would have an adverse affect on sales.
I guess my confusion comes from my perception of the type of people who are trafficking these guns to the criminals/felons/gangs...etc. He/she is already knowingly breaking the law with or without a background check. I'm not sure what will stop him from continuing to sell to them and just ignoring the background check law? I agree that increasing penalties would help, but I'm not making the connection to mandatory background checks.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 May 1 2013, 03:59 PM Post #25
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Let me ask you a simple question: why would you not want a background check for the sale of a gun? I'm looking for a logical, non-slippery slope answer.

Wayne LaPierre was for background checks at gun sales ten years ago. Why would you -- or he -- disagree with it now?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon May 2 2013, 06:25 AM Post #26
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Classes for people buying guns and mandatory purchase of approved storage units.

http://fox2now.com/2013/05/01/5-year-old-kentucky-boy-fatally-shoots-2-year-old-sister-2/
Edited by dreachon, May 2 2013, 06:31 AM.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
realtivelynew May 2 2013, 07:43 AM Post #27
Coach
Posts:
3,215
Group:
Members
Member
#397
Joined:
September 28, 2011
Are there child warnings on rifles?

A 5 year old getting a rifle for their birthday

oy vey
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray May 2 2013, 08:04 AM Post #28
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
May 2 2013, 06:25 AM
Classes for people buying guns and mandatory purchase of approved storage units.

http://fox2now.com/2013/05/01/5-year-old-kentucky-boy-fatally-shoots-2-year-old-sister-2/
dreach, I understand your sentiment, but I'm not sure you've really looked at this in the big picture. There are around 600 accidental gun deaths each year in the US who has a population of 313 million people. Each one of those 600 deaths is tragic and avoidable, but I feel that creating national policy and mandatory action just isn't prudent for something that impacts only 0.00019% of the population.

In contrast, about 30,000 people are killed each year due to accidental poisoning, but I'm certain that you don't expect every person who purchases bleach or anti-freeze to take a safety class and purchase approved storage units.

As I said in my original post, I think policy should address areas where the most damage is being done.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray May 2 2013, 08:09 AM Post #29
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
May 1 2013, 03:59 PM
Let me ask you a simple question: why would you not want a background check for the sale of a gun? I'm looking for a logical, non-slippery slope answer.

Wayne LaPierre was for background checks at gun sales ten years ago. Why would you -- or he -- disagree with it now?
I'm a big opponent of creating laws just to say that we "did something". I have no problem with background checks at gun shows, as I have said before this more closely resembles a commercial environment vs a private one. Outside of that, I see so-called "mandatory" background checks of private sales to be ineffective, thus placing a burden on responsible citizens with no societal gain.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars May 2 2013, 09:32 AM Post #30
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Mr Gray
May 2 2013, 08:09 AM
brumdog44
May 1 2013, 03:59 PM
Let me ask you a simple question: why would you not want a background check for the sale of a gun? I'm looking for a logical, non-slippery slope answer.

Wayne LaPierre was for background checks at gun sales ten years ago. Why would you -- or he -- disagree with it now?
I'm a big opponent of creating laws just to say that we "did something". I have no problem with background checks at gun shows, as I have said before this more closely resembles a commercial environment vs a private one. Outside of that, I see so-called "mandatory" background checks of private sales to be ineffective, thus placing a burden on responsible citizens with no societal gain.
Non-liberals tend to prefer more substance over style.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Our users say it best:
"A great way to make a forums for free and it is very reliable as well. Thank you Zetaboards."
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 10

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:55 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy