DescentBB

callmeslick wrote:because drunk driving deaths are down, substantially.

But not because we limit access to alcohol.

Spidey wrote:

callmeslick wrote:because drunk driving deaths are down, substantially.

But not because we limit access to alcohol.

sure, we do. By age, by location, by state regulations, on and on. Plus, as I am sure you realize, drunk driving requires access to TWO things: booze and a vehicle. Both have access regulated, and thus limited, and the first is EXTREMELY limited by law, with severe penalties for violation, and unlike weapons, sufficient resources and personnel to enforce the law. You all love to dance around the realities of gun access and enforcement of laws, don't you?

God damn, you sure know how to obfuscate a debate, yes alcohol and cars have limited access, but this is not the reason drunk driving deaths are reduced.

The reason is more along the lines of making people aware of things like dedicated drivers, check points…etc.

callmeslick wrote:[removed]

Why was this guy allowed to get a gun?

He was allowed because he had no criminal record. Do you suggest we now look at mental issues as a crime? How do you determine how bad a mental state is cause for not owning a gun. Already the Obama admin. is looking at stopping SS payments to someone if they own a gun and have someone handling their finances. Of course you would approve of this.

Spidey wrote:God damn, you sure know how to obfuscate a debate, yes alcohol and cars have limited access, but this is not the reason drunk driving deaths are reduced.

The reason is more along the lines of making people aware of things like dedicated drivers, check points…etc.

oh, get a grip. The rates dropped the moment we lowered the alcohol limit for DUI and enforced the crap out of it, putting people in jail on first offense.

woodchip wrote:He was allowed because he had no criminal record.

not true, according to family and Alabama cops

Do you suggest we now look at mental issues as a crime?

no, I suggest that selling guns to people with mental issues should be, and that if we cannot adequately background check for mental issues, it is time to stop all weapons transfers until we can.

How do you determine how bad a mental state is cause for not owning a gun.

involuntary committment is a start, albeit a really low bar that should be raised.

Already the Obama admin. is looking at stopping SS payments to someone if they own a gun and have someone handling their finances. Of course you would approve of this.

wholeheartedly. Who the hell needs incompetent old people running about with guns? This is an example of COMMON SENSE.

Wouldn’t it be a better idea to go and get the weapon from the “incompetent old fool” then stopping their SSI payments?

See this is the difference between “common sense” and “good sense”.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:He was allowed because he had no criminal record.

not true, according to family and Alabama cops

You'll have to link that as the reports I read was he had no convictions or are you getting your info off some anti-gun site?:

"Drew Griffin, a senior investigative correspondent for CNN, said it appears Houser was cleared to buy the gun because he didn't have any convictions for serious crimes."

callmeslick wrote:

Do you suggest we now look at mental issues as a crime?

no, I suggest that selling guns to people with mental issues should be, and that if we cannot adequately background check for mental issues, it is time to stop all weapons transfers until we can.

Ah, a typical leftist method to stop the sale of firearms. So who determines what degree of mental issues qualify as a condition to ban the sale of a firearm? You?

callmeslick wrote:

Already the Obama admin. is looking at stopping SS payments to someone if they own a gun and have someone handling their finances. Of course you would approve of this.

wholeheartedly. Who the hell needs incompetent old people running about with guns? This is an example of COMMON SENSE.

That's right so now we start by declaring people who might not remember to pay their bills as mentally incompetent. Next you'll think it is alright just to get rid of those "incompetent" old folks as they are a drain on society. You libs are such a compassionate bunch.

Spidey wrote:Wouldn’t it be a better idea to go and get the weapon from the “incompetent old fool” then stopping their SSI payments?

See this is the difference between “common sense” and “good sense”.

as I understood it, the request to turn in or sell the weapon would go out before anyone lost SSI payments.

So will these old fools have to also turn in their cars?

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Do you suggest we now look at mental issues as a crime?

no, I suggest that selling guns to people with mental issues should be, and that if we cannot adequately background check for mental issues, it is time to stop all weapons transfers until we can.

Ah, a typical leftist method to stop the sale of firearms. So who determines what degree of mental issues qualify as a condition to ban the sale of a firearm? You?

no, I laid out one core parameter(hospitalization), and what is so wrong with the 'leftist' approach which says, 'this crap is out of control, so we're stopping sales until we get it under control'? They do that with other products from certain vegetables(remember the outbreaks of E. Coli) on down. Public safety trumps running out and getting another gun. Sorry to be rational and adult, which apparently equates with 'leftist'

That's right so now we start by declaring people who might not remember to pay their bills as mentally incompetent. Next you'll think it is alright just to get rid of those "incompetent" old folks as they are a drain on society. You libs are such a compassionate bunch.

now, you just start to make stuff up. People who have been declared legally incompetetent to manage their personal affairs have to have that case presented to a freaking judge. If they cannot manage paperwork, I don't want them forgetting the safety was off. Once again, it seems 'libs' equates with sensible, in regards to public safety.

woodchip wrote:So will these old fools have to also turn in their cars?

most states have adopted laws requiring more frequent licensure of seniors over 72 years old. Isn't that the same, if you get your license revoked? I see, for the second time this week you do at least realize that gun ownership is akin to driving a car. In other words, it is a PRIVILEGE.

Now you are confusing ownership with operation.

I have the right to own a car, but I need a license to operate it on public roads.

Spidey wrote:Now you are confusing ownership with operation.

I have the right to own a car, but I need a license to operate it on public roads.

true, but not confused. Once again, the goal here is PUBLIC SAFETY. Having elderly folks with limited faculties with loaded weapons raises all sorts of safety concerns.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:So will these old fools have to also turn in their cars?

most states have adopted laws requiring more frequent licensure of seniors over 72 years old. Isn't that the same, if you get your license revoked? I see, for the second time this week you do at least realize that gun ownership is akin to driving a car. In other words, it is a PRIVILEGE.

I guess you don not understand what a constitutional right is. You do not have the right to own or drive a car, a firearm you do.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:So will these old fools have to also turn in their cars?

most states have adopted laws requiring more frequent licensure of seniors over 72 years old. Isn't that the same, if you get your license revoked? I see, for the second time this week you do at least realize that gun ownership is akin to driving a car. In other words, it is a PRIVILEGE.

I guess you don not understand what a constitutional right is. You do not have the right to own or drive a car, a firearm you do.

sure, you do, for the purpose of forming a militia if needed. That is no longer needed, as we have an army.

No, you absolutely DO have the right to “own” a car, it’s only driving it on public roads that is the privilege.

Believe me as someone that did a lot of racing on private land, you can own a car without the license to operate it…but you must register it in either case.

But no, ownership of a car is not a “protected” right, and could in theory be removed by law, but I know of no such laws at this time.

And slick the SCOTUS says otherwise.

The SCOTUS felt otherwise before the NRA bought them off in the late 1980s. Frankly, I do feel, based on feedback from the folks who should be at the forefront of protecting their precious right to bear arms(deflection, lies, more deflection) that the matter is FAR from settled. With the percentage of gun owners dropping steadily for 20 years or more, we'll get to the point where the Amendment is addressed, or the SCOTUS revisits the interpretation back to the one they used for 100 years.

Wishful thinking most likely.

But hey...

oh, it WILL be an electoral issue. Has been, to some extent for the last few cycles in a few districts(the NRA has lost the fights they've engaged in, 99.2% of the time). Time, demographics and ongoing outrage can work that way for electoral politics.

callmeslick wrote:The SCOTUS felt otherwise before the NRA bought them off in the late 1980s.

HAHAHA, so you are saying that SCOTUS is bought off when the decision is not in your favor. Now that is true comedy.

glad you enjoyed it.

woodchip wrote:So who determines what degree of mental issues qualify as a condition to ban the sale of a firearm?

These guys could.

https://www.acpsych.org/