Should churches change security in wake of recent events?

[wvjules]

If you believe in stricter gun control, that is absolutely your right. But, please do not use your very incorrect interpretation of the 2nd amendment as your argument.

Ok then....

Everyone should have to apply for a license for a firearm whether they buy from a private owner or from a store. There should be a federal registry of those that are approved to get a license and also a list of those on the "no buy" list. There needs to be federal minimum regulations (no assault weapons, silencers, bump stocks, etc.) If the problem is mental illness, as so many adamant second amendment supporters suggest (guns dont' kill people, people kill people), then there needs to be periodic mental evaluations of licensed gun owners.

Will it stop all mass murders? Of course not. But it is a start and is doing something. You would think that the law abiding gun owners would want regulations.


Better?

 

[DopeyDame]

You have the right to travel (or at least as long as that right isn't taken away from you). What you don't have the RIGHT to is determining HOW you travel.

OK, so you have a right to bare arms. What you don't have a right to is determining WHICH arms you get to bare.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

then there needs to be periodic mental evaluations of licensed gun owners.

How would you do that anyways? With what $$$ and resources? What information would you use to obtain the necessary information to track down all gun owners? What about states that have laws regarding the requirement of permits/licenses or registering with the state?

 

[sam_gordon]

I realize that's what people say these days to justify the invasive search and seizures happening at TSA checkpoints, but freedom of movement is, in fact, a right.
"But a specific form of movement isn't a right" you say.
OK, then, if the right to bare arms is a right, but a SPECIFIC type of arms isn't a right, how about we say that everyone can have sling shots, but that's it.

Sigh. I agree you have the right to freedom of movement. But please show where you have the right to fly. Or for that matter to drive, ride a horse, have a wagon, etc.

 

[sam_gordon]

OK, so you have a right to bare arms. What you don't have a right to is determining WHICH arms you get to bare.

 

[bcla]

Just to clarify, handguns can also be equipped with high capacity magazines.

Sure. However, I remember the Luby's shooting in Texas, and there was a big deal made that the perp used a Glock 17 with a 17-round magazine. I understand that there are aftermarket magazines that extend well beyond the grip.

I don't believe a handgun would have inflicted less damage in the church. In Vegas, yes. Definitely.

Reports are that he started shooting from outside. It was certainly more powerful and more likely to go through walls.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Ok then....

Everyone should have to apply for a license for a firearm whether they buy from a private owner or from a store. There should be a federal registry of those that are approved to get a license and also a list of those on the "no buy" list. There needs to be federal minimum regulations (no assault weapons, silencers, bump stocks, etc.) If the problem is mental illness, as so many adamant second amendment supporters suggest (guns dont' kill people, people kill people), then there needs to be periodic mental evaluations of licensed gun owners.

Will it stop all mass murders? Of course not. But it is a start and is doing something. You would think that the law abiding gun owners would want regulations.


Better?

I hate to break it to you but your whole license thing...it's in direct violation of my state's constitution which allows those aged 21 and older are able to carry concealed and open firearms regardless of whether they have obtained a permit. You don't have to register with the state either.

See this is what I meant by my earlier comments about the U.S. being comprised of 50 states.

 

[wvjules]

How would you do that anyways? With what $$$ and resources? What information would you use to obtain the necessary information to track down all gun owners? What about states that have laws regarding the requirement of permits/licenses or registering with the state?

The money would come from the license application fee, or the licensee. The applicant would need to be evaluated periodically by an approved mental health professional in order to get, or maintain, a license for a firearm.

States can maintain stricter regulations and maintain their own lists but there needs to a be some sort of federal requirement. What is the point of State A having strict gun laws but then the applicant can cross the border to State B with weaker laws and buy a gun that he isn't' qualified to purchase in the first state?

 

[wonder whisper]

"There should be a federal registry of those that are approved to get a license .

One of the first things Hitler did when he became Chancellor of Germany in 1933 was to used a previously created national gun registry to identify and disarm political opponents and Jews. That was followed by mass searches for and seizures of privately owned guns, with police revoking gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.”

Moral: I don't trust governments that keep centralized firearms records nor do I trust anyone who advocates developing such registries.

 

[wvjules]

So what then? We just send weekly thoughts and prayers and do nothing? I get where you are coming from on the list of those approved but what about those that aren't approved? Would a federal list of those NOT approved to purchase a firearm be acceptable?

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Sure. However, I remember the Luby's shooting in Texas, and there was a big deal made that the perp used a Glock 17 with a 17-round magazine. I understand that there are aftermarket magazines that extend well beyond the grip.



Reports are that he started shooting from outside. It was certainly more powerful and more likely to go through walls.

Actually, despite the increase in energy, .223 does not penetrate better than handgun ammo. Penetration is more about momentum than energy, and the lightweight bullet common to the .223 doesn't have much momentum.

 

[LSUmiss]

LOL 15 or 16 rounds in a handgun is considered "high capacity" by most people who use that term, but based off your comment I'm assuming you mean what? The 30 round magazines that are standard with AR15's? If you don't see how a 30 round would be useful when there are riots going on I can't really help you.


You struggle to understand how rights work and what is a protected civil right in our country and what isn't ..so again I can't help you.

Riots?? Really??? I suppose it would be useful in a Zombie apocalypse too, but I don’t anticipate that being a problem either. Where do you ppl live that riots are a legitimate threat??

I don’t struggle to understand anything. Perhaps it’s not the best example. But, IMO, these arguments are just many of the ridiculous arguments that get thrown out instead of having a real conversation about reasonable regulation. So unless someone is convicted in a court with proper due process that ANYONE should be allowed to own gun b/c it’s a right? Is that what you’re saying? What about mentally ill or ppl with mental health issues??

 

[cabanafrau]

So interesting that we're about to come upon the second anniversary, yet it seems many here want to overlook the attack at the Bataclan in their haste to thumb their noses to and declare some sort of superiority over the U.S. in the face of horrific tragedy. I seem to remember the overwhelming American response to that event being words of condolence and support.

 

[cabanafrau]

Ok then....

Everyone should have to apply for a license for a firearm whether they buy from a private owner or from a store. There should be a federal registry of those that are approved to get a license and also a list of those on the "no buy" list. There needs to be federal minimum regulations (no assault weapons, silencers, bump stocks, etc.) If the problem is mental illness, as so many adamant second amendment supporters suggest (guns dont' kill people, people kill people), then there needs to be periodic mental evaluations of licensed gun owners.

Will it stop all mass murders? Of course not. But it is a start and is doing something. You would think that the law abiding gun owners would want regulations.


Better?

Law abiding gun owners aren't the ones I worry about personally.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

So what then? We just send weekly thoughts and prayers and do nothing? I get where you are coming from on the list of those approved but what about those that aren't approved? Would a federal list of those NOT approved to purchase a firearm be acceptable?

Here's my thought. EVERY American gets a firearms background check when they renew their driver's license/state ID. Your license would be stamped with "lawful firearms purchaser" or "denied firearms purchases". Then make it law that the ID must be checked for all sales, including private party.

By including everyone, you avoid the registration hurdle.

 

[wvjules]

Here's my thought. EVERY American gets a firearms background check when they renew their driver's license/state ID. Your license would be stamped with "lawful firearms purchaser" or "denied firearms purchases". Then make it law that the ID must be checked for all sales, including private party.

By including everyone, you avoid the registration hurdle.

I think that is a great idea. See...compromise! lol

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

The money would come from the license application fee, or the licensee. The applicant would need to be evaluated periodically by an approved mental health professional in order to get, or maintain, a license for a firearm.

States can maintain stricter regulations and maintain their own lists but there needs to a be some sort of federal requirement. What is the point of State A having strict gun laws but then the applicant can cross the border to State B with weaker laws and buy a gun that he isn't' qualified to purchase in the first state?

Do you live in the U.S. by any chance? What you are even considering is cost prohibitive and a logistic nightmare much less actually illegal in some states who do not require a license to own a firearm.

As far as state A and state B? Welcome to America where we have 50 states who have certain liberties, laws, policies, etc that differ from each other. Have you considered the multitude of other things each state is different on? Things like income tax collection, sales tax (either at all, same rate for all items, or reduced rate or increased rate for certain items), property tax, etc differs from state to state. And you know sometimes the whole state A vs state B actually works in one's favor such as when you need a liquor run and your state closes sales at 11 pm but the next state over doesn't close til midnight lol (ok that was humor being injected in).

 

[wonder whisper]

I give you exhibit "A" from earlier this year: Oklahoma Man Uses AR-15 to Kill Three Teen Home Intruders

I'm not about to tell that guy "Sorry, you can only own a 10-round magazine!"

Here are the three cretins the son of that Oklahoma homeowner legally defended himself from. A fourth participant (a female getaway driver) has been charged with their deaths, via three first degree counts of murder.

 

[LYSE]

Riots?? Really??? I suppose it would be useful in a Zombie apocalypse too, but I don’t anticipate that being a problem either. Where do you ppl live that riots are a legitimate threat??

I don’t struggle to understand anything. Perhaps it’s not the best example. But, IMO, these arguments are just many of the ridiculous arguments that get thrown out instead of having a real conversation about reasonable regulation. So unless someone is convicted in a court with proper due process that ANYONE should be allowed to own gun b/c it’s a right? Is that what you’re saying? What about mentally ill or ppl with mental health issues??

I was giving a few examples where you may want as much capacity as you can get, there are examples of people using that capacity to their advantage in legal self defense, just because it's unlikely doesn't mean it's unreasonable to list it as a reason when you ask me why someone may want it, especially when we are talking about policy that can stick around for an indefinite amount of time and be applied to millions of people.

Natural disasters happen, the LA riots happened, looters happen, home invasions happen you can't be short sighted when making policy you think I'm being ridiculous and I think you are being even more ridiculous.

Due process is required to strip rights, if you have been placed on the prohibited persons list to purchase a firearm there is a process you can follow to be removed from the list if your appeal is approved. If no one can come up with a good reason why you cannot own a gun then yes you should be allowed to own one.

Mental illness is a reason to be prohibited.

Like I said though, I think you are struggling to understand civil rights and the delicate process that taking away ones rights involves, your questions prove your difficultly grasping this.

 

[sam_gordon]

But, IMO, these arguments are just many of the ridiculous arguments that get thrown out instead of having a real conversation about reasonable regulation.

Who decides what's "reasonable"?