Morning Coffee

[Anvilsam]

I'm all for checking the mental status of people as long as they get due process. It's when beaurocrats make arbitrary decisions is where there is a problem. It is exactly why I oppose Red Flag laws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Im with you on this. At what point does our crooked government change what classifies someone unfit to own a firearm?

[TravisMac]

Not sure if anyone read the manifesto he published, but I found some of the parallels interesting. It's a sad state our country is in when people are so polarized in to the concept of party over country, that they think shooting up a Walmart is a real solution.

I realize some of these are a real stretch, but some of them are eerily similar.

[Danny Kinder]

I'm all for checking the mental status of people as long as they get due process. It's when beaurocrats make arbitrary decisions is where there is a problem. It is exactly why I oppose Red Flag laws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Im with you on this. At what point does our crooked government change what classifies someone unfit to own a firearm?

You're right. Don't make any changes. The system is working great right now.

My opinion you should have to pass a test similar to drivers license testing. Maybe a test at the range to ensure you know how to use the gun properly and a short exam to ensure you're not a psychopathy. Quick background check and you're approved. Pass the test = buy as many guns as you want. It's that simple. Like I said, it won't stop all shootings, but you have to start somewhere.

[lt99ls1]

Sorry, this is going to be a bit long.
The shootings suck and if there was a 100 guaranteed way of making it safe for everyone by removing firearms I would be all for it, but there isn't a guaranteed way. You just end up leaving guns in the hands of criminals and disarming the law-abiding people.

England took most of the people's guns and your average person switched to knives. Then they took away carrying knives. England passed a law not that long ago that pubs could only use some crazy type of beer mugs that break into super small bits because people were killing and maiming each other with the standard type of mug.  People will find a way to do bad and evil shit.


I work with all the different law enforcement folks in my county on a daily basis. The county has a population north of 105K and is 291 sq miles in size and has less than 100 POST certified officers in it.
In a perfect world that would mean 25 officers on patrol at any given moment covering 11.64 sq miles and protecting 4200 citizens per officer on a 12-hour shift seven days a week.  Unfortunately, some of those post certified officers are traffic enforcement, school resource officers, assigned protection duties to county/city buildings, detectives, drug unit or administrative types and never see a patrol shift. That dives the number of patrol officers below 25 on a given shift in a perfect world. Every officer that I have spoken to that has been around for more than a minute has said that they almost never in the right place to stop violent crime.

The average law enforcement response time for a violent crime in the county for this year is 8 minutes and 40 seconds.
The average law enforcement response time for a violent crime in the largest city inside the county for this year is 4 minutes and 39 seconds.
That is an eternity in a life and death situation.

I take the protection of myself, family and property very seriously and don't leave that up to someone else.

[BigMike]

I'm all for checking the mental status of people as long as they get due process. It's when beaurocrats make arbitrary decisions is where there is a problem. It is exactly why I oppose Red Flag laws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Im with you on this. At what point does our crooked government change what classifies someone unfit to own a firearm?

You're right. Don't make any changes. The system is working great right now.

My opinion you should have to pass a test similar to drivers license testing. Maybe a test at the range to ensure you know how to use the gun properly and a short exam to ensure you're not a psychopathy. Quick background check and you're approved. Pass the test = buy as many guns as you want. It's that simple. Like I said, it won't stop all shootings, but you have to start somewhere.

What other Rights guaranteed by Constitution require thisl


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[8lugLJ]

I'm all for checking the mental status of people as long as they get due process. It's when beaurocrats make arbitrary decisions is where there is a problem. It is exactly why I oppose Red Flag laws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Im with you on this. At what point does our crooked government change what classifies someone unfit to own a firearm?

You're right. Don't make any changes. The system is working great right now.

My opinion you should have to pass a test similar to drivers license testing. Maybe a test at the range to ensure you know how to use the gun properly and a short exam to ensure you're not a psychopathy. Quick background check and you're approved. Pass the test = buy as many guns as you want. It's that simple. Like I said, it won't stop all shootings, but you have to start somewhere.

I dont think anyone has said "dont change, our system is working fine". This is where tempers flare and noone has been able to come up with a starting point to make things better because unfortunately, we all like to argue for some reason. All the universal background check stuff is already in play, you cannot buy a handgun without a background check, unless you have a CCP, which you have to have a background check and renewals to own. That is the only thing I can see that would be any different is a simple background check for any and all gun purchases, rifle, shotgun, ANY gun. Like anything else, if you are doing nothing wrong, then you shouldnt have a problem with it, I wouldnt. Not to say its a fix (they dont know where the gun goes when you leave the store) but it might be a start. Registration on the other hand may be an overreach, but in the same boat, if you're not doing anything wrong, then whats the problem? You have to register and be approved for class 3, so why not? Lemme put it this way, say you carry everyday, you are trained, you are competent, and you have to actually use your weapon in a defensive situation to protect you or your family. But wait, you bought the gun from your best buddy and you never put it in your name? oh shit, now you used a weapon that is for all the law enforcement know, is stolen. Jail time is coming whether is was legal or not, at least until you can prove the paper trail, oh wait, you didnt get a BOS? more jail time. Registration is a double edged sword when you really think about having to use that gun. Now I suggest you let that one marinate.

[Danny Kinder]

I'm all for checking the mental status of people as long as they get due process. It's when beaurocrats make arbitrary decisions is where there is a problem. It is exactly why I oppose Red Flag laws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Im with you on this. At what point does our crooked government change what classifies someone unfit to own a firearm?

You're right. Don't make any changes. The system is working great right now.

My opinion you should have to pass a test similar to drivers license testing. Maybe a test at the range to ensure you know how to use the gun properly and a short exam to ensure you're not a psychopathy. Quick background check and you're approved. Pass the test = buy as many guns as you want. It's that simple. Like I said, it won't stop all shootings, but you have to start somewhere.

What other Rights guaranteed by Constitution require thisl

Mike the constitution was written in 1787, I think it's safe to say that we can ask people to take a course on using the weapon they're buying before they purchase. I never said "take guns away".

Actually you know what, don't ensure people buying guns are stable. Seems like common sense, but I guess I'm the crazy one here. I'll bow out of this conversation. 

[patman]

I'm all for checking the mental status of people as long as they get due process. It's when beaurocrats make arbitrary decisions is where there is a problem. It is exactly why I oppose Red Flag laws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Im with you on this. At what point does our crooked government change what classifies someone unfit to own a firearm?

You're right. Don't make any changes. The system is working great right now.

My opinion you should have to pass a test similar to drivers license testing. Maybe a test at the range to ensure you know how to use the gun properly and a short exam to ensure you're not a psychopathy. Quick background check and you're approved. Pass the test = buy as many guns as you want. It's that simple. Like I said, it won't stop all shootings, but you have to start somewhere.

What other Rights guaranteed by Constitution require thisl

Mike the constitution was written in 1787, I think it's safe to say that we can ask people to take a course on using the weapon they're buying before they purchase. I never said "take guns away".

Actually you know what, don't ensure people buying guns are stable. Seems like common sense, but I guess I'm the crazy one here. I'll bow out of this conversation. 

I'd argue that the 2 most recent shooters knew how to use their weapons.

Also, I believe if mental health patients knew the treatment would put them on a watch list, you'd see a lot less people who need help seek it. I'm not saying "dont do anything", just curious how to evaluate someone's mental state without knowing them and being around them for an extended time. The craziest person can convince a stranger they're sane for 30 minutes.

[kent10sne1]

I'm all for checking the mental status of people as long as they get due process. It's when beaurocrats make arbitrary decisions is where there is a problem. It is exactly why I oppose Red Flag laws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Im with you on this. At what point does our crooked government change what classifies someone unfit to own a firearm?

You're right. Don't make any changes. The system is working great right now.

My opinion you should have to pass a test similar to drivers license testing. Maybe a test at the range to ensure you know how to use the gun properly and a short exam to ensure you're not a psychopathy. Quick background check and you're approved. Pass the test = buy as many guns as you want. It's that simple. Like I said, it won't stop all shootings, but you have to start somewhere.

What other Rights guaranteed by Constitution require thisl

Mike the constitution was written in 1787, I think it's safe to say that we can ask people to take a course on using the weapon they're buying before they purchase. I never said "take guns away".

Actually you know what, don't ensure people buying guns are stable. Seems like common sense, but I guess I'm the crazy one here. I'll bow out of this conversation. 

FIFY

The craziest @clark123456 or @kent10sne1  person can convince a stranger they're sane for 30 minutes.

[clark123456]

I'm all for checking the mental status of people as long as they get due process. It's when beaurocrats make arbitrary decisions is where there is a problem. It is exactly why I oppose Red Flag laws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Im with you on this. At what point does our crooked government change what classifies someone unfit to own a firearm?

You're right. Don't make any changes. The system is working great right now.

My opinion you should have to pass a test similar to drivers license testing. Maybe a test at the range to ensure you know how to use the gun properly and a short exam to ensure you're not a psychopathy. Quick background check and you're approved. Pass the test = buy as many guns as you want. It's that simple. Like I said, it won't stop all shootings, but you have to start somewhere.

What other Rights guaranteed by Constitution require thisl

Mike the constitution was written in 1787, I think it's safe to say that we can ask people to take a course on using the weapon they're buying before they purchase. I never said "take guns away".

Actually you know what, don't ensure people buying guns are stable. Seems like common sense, but I guess I'm the crazy one here. I'll bow out of this conversation. 

...just curious how to evaluate someone's mental state without knowing them and being around them for an extended time...

Read their GATR forum posts...lots of targets for gun removal here.

[BigPrince]

Read their GATR forum posts...lots of targets for gun removal here.

[Big Dave]

What do you think the solution is without infringing on the People's Rights?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He doesnt have a solution, neither do any of the other candidates, they just use these acts as talking points to stand on, the Chicago and Baltimore stuff are just too common to stand on. You know what never get mentioned? Cross reference the shootings with the number of the shooters that were on medication, anti-depressants, etc, bet its 95% or better. I would also be willing to bet more than 75%, maybe closer to 90% of them either had priors, were on watch lists, or owned/possessed the weapons illegally. Im not even going to act like I have an answer to all of it, but the spoon is not what make people fat, Jack. I am all for a solution, but there needs to be an actual discussion by people who are educated ON BOTH SIDES to ever even begin to find a solution.

The solution can't come from anybody currently in office. Republicans and democrats are pushing their own agenda and neither has anything to do with whats best for the people.

Yeap. If these politicians really cared for the people then they should be worried about the stats Pat posted from Neil.
But they dont.
All they want to do is control the people.