So what do you propose to do that hasn't already been implemented to prevent bad people from accessing guns?

2017-06-15T10:32:35-04:00

I just had a really long conversation, but no one could answer this question for me that were wanting more limits on gun access? We have background checks, lots of paperwork, laws in place to prevent those already labelled as insane or criminal from being able to access guns yet here we are. I pointed out that not all crazy is easily shown from the outside look at Ted Bundy.

Response by TSgt Joe C. made Jun 15 at 2017 10:39 AM

2017-06-15T10:39:34-04:00

It won't happen in our life time, sorry.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2017 10:40 AM

2017-06-15T10:40:00-04:00

In PA there isn't a lot of paperwork, a single sheet of paper and it's all self reporting, the background check is only done at a store, not at a gun show, and is limited only to convictions, if he took an Alfred plea or had been ruled insane, he would still be able to buy a gun, fixing those problems would be a good start

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2017 10:40 AM

2017-06-15T10:40:31-04:00

There will be another shooting today, tomorrow and days after

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2017 10:42 AM

2017-06-15T10:42:14-04:00

I think a good idea to implement reasonable gun control would be to start with denying Democrats the ability to own or carry firearms. I think that is a good compromise which permits the Democrats to deny citizens their second amendment rights, Keeps the guns out of most criminal hands, and permits Republicans to keep their guns.

Response by MSgt Stephen Council made Jun 15 at 2017 10:43 AM

2017-06-15T10:43:49-04:00

SPC Britanny *Winnie* Balthaser I propose we ask the following question: If gun control works so well, why does the Prime Minister of Great Britton require an armed security detail?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2017 10:44 AM

2017-06-15T10:44:32-04:00

The issue is we won't keep guns out of every person's hands who wants to do harm. But some states have zero limits on who gets a gun. That's a problem.

But you can have someone who has a perfectly clean background, no criminal history, no history of mental illness who just snaps one day and goes and buys a gun and then massacres some people. I don't think we can stop that.

I think if people sat down and discussed this like adults instead of spoiled children we could figure it out - either as a society or the government could figure it out.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Jun 15 at 2017 10:50 AM

2017-06-15T10:50:28-04:00

What we have now works. You can never stop crazy though, it will happen unfortunately.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Jun 15 at 2017 10:54 AM

2017-06-15T10:54:45-04:00

How about, just like with the illegal immigrant/aliens laws? Strict enforcement of the existing laws and regulations. As a test case focus on Chicago, that has the most draconian laws on the books. More laws are a farce, unless existing and new ones are enforced. That would be a start, I could add to this, but those against the 2nd amendment would just obstruct with blather.

Response by SSgt Robert Jorgensen made Jun 15 at 2017 10:57 AM

2017-06-15T10:57:43-04:00

Once again we beat a dead horse! By definition a criminal does not care about any law any government entity makes, laws are only followed by honest people.

If someone that owns or had possession of a gun flips out there is nothing that can be done until a law is broken!

There was a reason that our forefathers wrote the Second Ammendment!

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Jun 15 at 2017 11:03 AM

2017-06-15T11:03:26-04:00

That definetly is a tough question, but even if it was made harder to obtain a weapon, crooks would find a way.

Response by SPC Greg K. made Jun 15 at 2017 11:07 AM

2017-06-15T11:07:37-04:00

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun...!!! You CAN'T legislate CRAZY!!!

"Gun control is not Crime control" -John Stossel

Response by SSG Robert Webster made Jun 15 at 2017 11:18 AM

2017-06-15T11:18:02-04:00

SPC Britanny *Winnie* Balthaser How about actual ENFORCEMENT of the laws already on the books. And it is the same with immigration, ENFORCE the laws already enacted.

Though the laws are legal, the biggest two issues are the courts (judiciary) not allowing the enforcement of those laws, which actually ends up negating them; and the leadership of the various law enforcement agencies not allowing or supporting their subordinates attempts at enforcing the laws, which in the long run creates moral issues and allows LEOs to abuse their positions to the detriment of civil society.

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2017 11:24 AM

2017-06-15T11:24:36-04:00

It is a complex question with no simple answer. If there was a simple answer, we wouldn't need to have this debate.
That being said, I think the focus is in the wrong place. Bottom line up front, if somebody wants something, they will find a way to get it. Drugs. Guns. Any number of illegal items. I do support background checks as a screening measure, but more importance should be given to deterrence and prevention of violent crime.
Now how do we do this? As I've stated, I have no simple answer or solution, just my musings. Perhaps requiring basic firearms training for those who purchase and wish to operate a weapon, just as we do with vehicles. Just as a car, I have no problem if you own one, I just expect you to know how to use it.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jun 15 at 2017 11:39 AM

2017-06-15T11:39:39-04:00

It's a helluva good question and I wouldn't expect anyone to have a quick answer. The trouble with answering difficult questions lies in the question itself. Is it being asked properly? I have attended countless business meetings as a consultant wherein attendees argued over the solution to a problem until I asked them to explain the problem to me. That invariably resulted in a new argument during which attendees fought over the exact nature of the problem they were attempting to solve. In the end, if they were able to agree on that, the answer came easily. Thus, I would ask you to consider rephrasing your question. For example, how do we prevent people from doing bad things with guns? See the difference? Your question assumes that we are dealing with bad people. Well, bad people do bad things and will get their hands on guns in bad ways regardless of what we do to stop them. History has proven time and again that when anyone has ever attempted to control commerce between people, people have found ways of circumventing that control. (Think "Black Markets") That is why all gun control laws, background checks, etc. are doomed to failure. (Think Chicago and other metropolitan areas with the greatest "gun control" and the highest rates of gun crimes while areas with little gun control have low rates of gun crime)

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Jun 15 at 2017 12:20 PM

2017-06-15T12:20:57-04:00

We could start prosecuting people that commit felonies and getting them felony convictions so they cannot legally buy a weapon. There is far too much dismissing of charges, plea bargaining etc. that lets dangerous, criminal people escape convictions. This guy was another one of those people. He should have had more than one felony conviction and he had none.

Criminal, however do not follow the law. I suspect he would have bought a weapon illegally or stolen it if he was hell ben on shooting up the GOP.

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2017 12:21 PM

2017-06-15T12:21:18-04:00

The crux of this issue is that the Insane and criminal LIE when getting a fire arm.
See Criminals by definition are breaking the law!!! As for the Insane even if they are under a Dr care or have been locked up there is no way to background check them. If they have not been caught committing a crime they are good to go.

Me I say more people being armed is the way to go. Ease up the insane restrictions on people so they can defined themselves when being attacked by one of these nuts. If the Coward / Bully knows you have no teeth they become emboldened but the moment you turn and fight they back down. that is the nature of the coward. Perceived force is force gained.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2017 12:22 PM

2017-06-15T12:22:20-04:00

HERE WE GO AGAIN!!!

Response by SGT James (Jimmy) Crone made Jun 15 at 2017 1:28 PM

2017-06-15T13:28:50-04:00

I don't think it's the right of any one person to deny the citizens of these United States the rights given us from the founding fathers the 2nd amendment right to bear arms they who deny us of our rights changes us into a communistic country and our rights as a citizen of the United States are revoked. The leader that starts taking or rights away need to be publicly humiliated and then they are thrown in prison or denied the right to stay in America. See how that feels when their rights are taken from them.

Response by PO3 Don Goracke made Jun 15 at 2017 1:37 PM

2017-06-15T13:37:48-04:00

Cain used an assault weapon to kill his brother Able, one can make a case that an assault shoe was throw at President Bush & young King David had an assault spear throw at him... Now you wonder what leads to these events? Sin.

Response by SSgt Robert Jorgensen made Jun 15 at 2017 1:40 PM

2017-06-15T13:40:27-04:00

So how about this while on the topic!

https://bearingarms.com/beth-b/2017/06/15/gop-reciprocity-congress/?utm_source=badaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

GOP Rep. Proposes Concealed Carry Reciprocity For Congress

Is this a viable solution for the future?

Response by SGT James (Jimmy) Crone made Jun 15 at 2017 1:44 PM

2017-06-15T13:44:49-04:00

Here is another thing to contemplate, i say let's just take the constitution and burn it and start over how about that. What are your thoughts on that, can't take something away if you don't have them to start with. Just something to contemplate.

Response by Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2017 3:42 PM

2017-06-15T15:42:15-04:00

Simply put - We have the right laws already in place in most states. We have even more laws in places in California that do not actually make us safe rather make law abiding citizens more at risk.

We cannot legislate complete safety. We must change how people view safety. We cannot stop crazy people from getting guns/knives/cars and killing people.

However, If more citizens had CCWs and could carry - we could stop those intent on harm sooner. We could put the responsibility for our safety back in our own hands = not on 911.

The shootings yesterday happened in locations that where "Gun Free Zones". They happened in cities with incredibly strict gun control laws. In San Francisco, there are no gun stores. none. you cannot legally buy a gun in san francisco. THey have some of the stricktest and dumbest gun control laws in the country. Yet there was a shooting.

In the Capitol we have the strictest gun control laws in the nation. And yet it has one of the highest gun violence rates. Gun Laws dont make people safer.

If you remove the top five gun violance cities from our states - the U.S. becomes a very safe place to live. What do these locations have in common? 1)The Strictest Gun Control Laws 2) Poverty levels 3) Complete Democratic Party Control for over 60 years.

So - reduce gun control laws back to normal levels, get rid of democratic control and increase our job industry and you fix gun violance. And arm our law abiding citizens. An armed society is a polite society.

Response by PO2 Robert Aitchison made Jun 15 at 2017 4:15 PM

2017-06-15T16:15:48-04:00

Biggest thing is to strengthen & improve the existing NICS background check system to stop more unauthorized purchasers.

Also step up enforcement of laws against straw purchasers.

Response by Lt Col Mark Avery made Jun 15 at 2017 4:24 PM

2017-06-15T16:24:40-04:00

I don't propose anything to prevent bad people from accessing guns, and I don't recommend anyone bother asking or answering that question. I understand where it comes from - it's the false premise that, since a gun was used to commit this crime, the crime would have been prevented if the criminal couldn't get the gun. Again, that's a false premise. No law will ever prevent a criminal from doing anything. All those laws do is arm the legal system to lock up the criminal after the crime.
That doesn't mean I'm suggesting that laws preventing those adjudicated mentally defective from purchasing firearms should be repealed. The problem is that those with criminal intent don't care about your laws. If they can't buy one legally from a licensed dealer, they'll buy one illegally through the black market, or break into some place with a gun and steal it. No law can be passed to keep guns out of the hands of those determined to obtain them to commit crimes.
Everyone wants to find the perfect way to prevent bad things from happening, from bad people doing evil. It's not possible. Bad people will do bad things, period.
What can happen is for good people to be there at the time, be properly prepared, and stop the dangerous action in as short a time as possible after the least amount of damage has been done. It's happened many times, most of which never gain national attention. It happened in Alexandria also, but those good people also happened to be law enforcement on duty. Most violent crime occurs when law enforcement is not present.
Those who try to make the argument that some additional law to prevent crimes from being committed fail to recognize one very important fact - that laws will never stop those determined to disobey them. The fantasyland of ethnocentricity is the only place where the argument makes any sense at all. If you don't live there, you recognize that the criminal mind doesn't work like yours and doesn't make decisions like you do.
Sadly, much of the media does live in that fantasyland. They give equal weight to both fact-based and fantastic arguments. They simply ask questions and serve as scribes, not investigators. With a few rare exceptions, the noble investigative journalist who seeks more than a sound bite but actually works to get to the root of a matter no longer exists.
If you find yourself again in a situation of trying to answer the question which has no answer, don't accept the false premise. Instead, turn the question around and force the questioner to question their own assumptions. Expose the fallacy by asking your own questions. "Your question assumes that criminals who are determined to break laws against murder will follow laws designed to make buying a gun more difficult. Do you really believe that?" If the answer is "yes," then don't waste your time. Otherwise, there may be hope - throw them a lifeline and help drag them back to a reality-based discussion. The real question is not about how to prevent evil people from doing evil things. Instead, we need to figure out how best to stop them as soon as possible.
After all, they were the ones who decided someone would be injured or killed. We only get to choose to stop those people from doing so to others, even if it means they suffer the fate they intended to inflict on others.

Response by SSgt Christopher Brose made Jun 15 at 2017 6:01 PM

2017-06-15T18:01:39-04:00

Who the hell cares who has guns? Allow me to suggest that nobody is really concerned about bad people HAVING guns, what they're really concerned about is bad people DOING SOMETHING BAD with guns. That's a completely legitimate concern, but many seem to think the only way to prevent it from happening is to prevent bad people from having guns -- because it has obviously worked so well to this point. (sarcasm/rolls eyes) I have a different perspective. I suggest we instead focus on preventing people from doing something bad with guns, since that's what we really want anyway.

So how do we do this? Easy. Make the places where a lot of shootings happen to be more like the places where shootings happen a lot less. Eliminate gun-free zones; encourage people to buy guns, get training, and carry guns; and vote out of office anyone who opposes this.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2017 6:34 PM

2017-06-15T18:34:42-04:00

In my view, you treat people that offend with guns ... essentially the same way you treat people that offend with vehicles. You punish them under the laws in existence at the time of the offense. I am more concerned when I am out on the street with people driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol ... or babbling on their cell phones ... than I am with people carrying guns. If a society that purports to be free constrains the freedoms of all because of the actions of a few, it is no longer free. It is hostage to those few that do not follow the societal norms. I would rather be free, with the risk that entails, than restricted in my liberty because of the actions of others.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2017 6:48 PM

2017-06-15T18:48:59-04:00

I'd add to my earlier comment ... that whatever one puts in place to deny someone access to guns ... should apply equally to one's access to the voting booth. If one is deemed not to be worthy of using their 2A right to keep and bear arms ... one should not have access to any of their other Constitutional rights either.

Response by SGT Joseph Gunderson made Jun 15 at 2017 10:11 PM

2017-06-15T22:11:27-04:00

I don't think that it is a case of keeping the guns from bad people, but making sure that good people can have access to them.

Response by SPC Greg K. made Jun 16 at 2017 7:17 AM

2017-06-16T07:17:53-04:00

“A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
George Washington

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jun 16 at 2017 8:23 AM

2017-06-16T08:23:16-04:00

SPC Britanny *Winnie* Balthaser http://www.npr.org/2017/06/16/533176627/mark-kelly-husband-of-gabrielle-giffords-on-baseball-shooting

Mark Kelly, Husband Of Gabrielle Giffords, On Baseball Shooting

After the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise, Steve Inskeep talks to Mark Kelly. Kelly's wife, Gabrielle Giffords, was a congresswoman when she was shot in an assassination attempt in 2011.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jun 16 at 2017 2:57 PM

2017-06-16T14:57:36-04:00

SPC Britanny *Winnie* Balthaser http://www.salon.com/2017/06/16/ted-nugent-steve-scalise-gabby-giffords/

After Scalise shooting, Ted Nugent pledges to cease violent rhetoric

Following the congressional baseball shooting, the rocker will reform his ways, but why not after Giffords?

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jun 16 at 2017 3:05 PM

2017-06-16T15:05:21-04:00

SPC Britanny *Winnie* Balthaser http://www.salon.com/2017/06/16/more-guns-is-not-the-answer-to-mass-shootings-or-violence-against-women/

More guns is not the answer to mass shootings — or violence against women

Sexual assault, domestic violence and mass shootings are connected — but more women with guns is not the answer