Here's where the gun debate should go!

[Rogar]

While I generally agree with more extensive background checks before a gun sale is completed, we shouldn't overestimate what that will do for us....

It probably would not be the solution that solves all, but what if it prevented just one of these. For the common law abiding citizen, I can't see that it an inconvenience or an infringement on rights. There is probably the illusion to some that it gives the government more power to regulate.

[Gregg]

You, too, ApatheticNoMore? What are you and Gregg, missing?

Nothing. "Hatred at an all time high" is a statement that can not be quantified. It is an opinion and one that you have every right to hold if that is the result your experiences produce. I do not hold the same opinion because my own experiences produce an entirely different result. I can look back at the discrimination and fear and in some cases outright hatred that I witnessed years ago. That has not been entirely wiped out, but it is at least far less prevalent than it was. To be black or gay or any other part of the rainbow aside from the lily white world I was raised in used to automatically put you three steps behind and needing to always look over your shoulder. Most things probably still come easier for a straight, white man, but the division is not as dramatic as it used to be and we've made good progress reducing violence based on that hatred. To back it up our country has passed laws with severe penalties for hate crimes as a way to let people know that we won't stand for that type of behavior any longer. There is still work to be done, but from my vantage point hatred is a very long way from an "all time high".

Bottom-line, Gregg, granting permission to every Tom, Dick, and Harry, to carry a gun, is poor policy IMO.

I agree. But since we don't that is a moot point.

[Mrs-M]

It's unfortunate that every time a discussion/debate surrounding guns comes about on the forum, all the diehard gun-owners/supporters love delving into an all-out, denial mindset...

[Gregg]

It's unfortunate that every time a discussion/debate surrounding guns comes about on the forum, all the diehard gun-owners/supporters love delving into an all-out, denial mindset...

And equally unfortunate that strawmen constantly hinder real communication.

[bae]

It's unfortunate that every time a discussion/debate surrounding guns comes about on the forum, all the diehard gun-owners/supporters love delving into an all-out, denial mindset...

It is unfortunate that every time a "discussion" on this subject occurs, Mrs-M and a handful of quite predictable others engage in insulting characterization of others and uninformed fear-based blathering.

[Mrs-M]

Originally posted by Gregg.
Hatred at an all time high" is a statement that can not be quantified.

Oh, really? Well I encourage you to take a trip to Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, or Sudan, right now, and attempt to go for a cross-country journey though any of those countries and see what happens, but twenty years ago you could.

[Gregg]

It probably would not be the solution that solves all, but what if it prevented just one of these. For the common law abiding citizen, I can't see that it an inconvenience or an infringement on rights. There is probably the illusion to some that it gives the government more power to regulate.

Well, it probably really would give the government more power to regulate, but that in and of itself isn't always bad. I personally don't have any problem going through a much more stringent background check. I think it probably would weed out several people who might not make ideal gun owners. There are just a couple points that I'm trying to apply common sense to and see what the outcome is....

How many criminals actually get their guns through legal means that would subject them to that background check? That is a real question and I think the answer is important. As I said, I don't mind going through one because I know it will catch a few of these guys. I just don't have any unrealistic expectations that it would make much of an impact on the larger pool of criminals who possess guns acquired through less than legal means.

Would someone like James Holmes pass the background check and get his guns anyway? He did, so there are obviously cracks that people can fall through. Problem is he had no criminal background and apparently no history of mental issues that would show up on a background check regardless of how extensive it was. The two most obvious actions are to continue to refine our present course, accept that the possibility someone at sometime will again commit an act like Aurora and teach our children to be vigilant and keep their wits if ever in that situation ~OR~ we can revoke the 2nd amendment and simply outlaw all guns of any kind owned by any private party. I'd don't like all or nothing arguments, but because we DO have a system of checks in place we're not really in the "all" category anyway. For quite a few reasons well beyond simple gun ownership I'm uncomfortable with that second, "nothing" option.

[Mrs-M]

Originally posted by Bae.
It is unfortunate that every time a "discussion" on this subject occurs, Mrs-M and a handful of quite predictable others engage in insulting characterization of others and uninformed fear-based blathering.

Oh, Bae... if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen!

[bae]

Oh, Bae... if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen!

Mrs-M -you are rude and uninformed.

[Mrs-M]

Originally posted by Bae.
Mrs-M -you are rude and uninformed.

As a mom of four boys, I recognize a tantie when I see one.