Gun Control Forum on Facebook Gun Control Forum on Google Plus Gun Control Forum on Twitter

Greetings Gun Control Debater

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with Facebook Sign In with OpenID Sign In with Twitter

Popular Gun Control Forum Categories

In this Discussion

Buying a Gun

2»

Comments

  • I agree that you should be smart enough to know when to pull the trigger and when not to.  However, some people don't think about that.  And if they are law-abiding citizens, they can still buy that gun.  I think that some kind of training should be mandatory.  You need a car, but to get one you have to take a test.  I think they should do that for guns.  Kind of like a common sense test.  I'm not saying that you should be blacklisted if you fail, but it should be like for driving and you just get re-tested.  They should also have gun manuals available for free for people to look at, so they can learn things that some may consider common sense but others may not have thought of.  I think that every person who doesn't want to use a gun for evil should be able to have one, but I have seen some pretty stupid people with guns, including someone who used to point at things with the safety off.  "Oh, yeah.  She lives in that house, there."  And he used the gun to point at the house. 
  • I'm not sure why people are against it, either. I see some of the comments about it being for everything, like the person who said for posting on internet forums or going to dinner. I'm sorry, but I fail to see why a background check should be used to post on the internet. Even if you use the argument that they could post terrorist things, this stuff can be tracked. I don't exactly equate a bullet to an internet post.
    I personally feel just a little added informational checks should be no problem for a responsible gun owner, and it shouldn't honestly even just be a consideration. 
  • I agree.  I live in a rural area, so nearly everyone I know has a gun.  Hardly anyone has a problem with background checks.  The ones that do shouldn't have guns in the first place.  Not because they don't want the background checks, but because I've seen them handle guns.  Not everyone should have a gun.  I have no problem with responsible people having guns, but I have seen people handle them irresponsibly.  They shouldn't have them.  Average Joe Law-Abider is good, but not some of the people I have seen.  The only problem with gun control that most responsible gun owners have is with bullet restriction, which I can understand.  If you can have a gun, it really shouldn't matter how many bullets you can buy, especially if you hunt.  Deer are harder to shoot than people think.  One sound and they are gone.
  • Honestly I don't think it's the same in every state, but in my state it is 100% required to take a gun handling course before you can actually even apply for a license to carry. And I've seen plenty of people too, who have no problems with the background check. My grandfather is a big hunter, has dozens of guns, and has never had any problem with the idea of a background check for it. 
  • I like the idea of gun handling courses.  But I'm from the country and we were all taught by our fathers or mothers or uncles, etc.  I do think that there should be a test, just like when getting your learner's permit to drive.  Just because you were taught by family doesn't mean  they know what they are doing.
  • Yea we have to take it here. I think one of the biggest problems however, is that it's only held a few times a year, so it's not really all that easy or quick to get licensed here. So if anyone is for some reason in a rush for it, they are going to be sadly disappointed. If anything, I agree about the test. That way there is some proof they know what they're doing yet don't have to wait for a course. 
  • Ok here is a great example, I have an Amateur radio license from the Federal Communications Commision, an entry level technicians license, I had to study, take & pass a knowledge test, and have lots of communications experience, I can build radios and communicate on certain approved frequencies, lots of rules too.
    Ham radio saves lives, everyone agreed, when a storm knocks out towers and cell phones, and after 9/11/01 police radio equipment antennas were destroyed when tower 2 of the WTC collapsed, I was there in the Rescue effort.

    As you get higher licences, General, Extra being the highest LICENSE, you learn one thing, you never make a fake distress call, yet some guys with years of public service and a high license that is hard to get, have made fake distress calls, one guy radio a call that he was in a boat sinking, and gave a position, the Coast guard responded to sea, and found no boat or anything, they investigated and caught the licensed guy that made the prank and arrested him, BIG FEDERAL CHARGES !
    You can get 5-20 years in Federal prison and several hundred thousands dollar fines !

    So having a big TIME license and knowing how does not stop people from making stupid illegal pranks !
    And FYI, an Amateur radio license is hard to get, because the exam is hard to pass, harder than a gun license, yet enough people with an Amateur radio license have messed up bug time and gone to jail !
  • "ENFORCEMENT: CALIFORNIA SOS HOAXSTER SENTENCED TO 30 MONTHS IN FEDERAL PRISON

    A federal judge sentenced Kurtis Thorsted of Salinas, California to 30 months in federal prison. This, after the 53 year old pleaded guilty in July in U.S. District Court in San Jose to broadcasting a fake distress signal in October 2008.

    At that time he made the transmissions Thorsted told would-be rescuers in that he was in a kayak off the coast of Santa Cruz and having difficulty getting to shore. However it was found that he was actually at his home in the city of Salinas.

    Thorsted also pleaded guilty in October to making two other fake mayday calls to the Coast Guard. In all, the court found that Thorsted has made 51 false distress messages over six months and costing the Coast Guard $102,000 in search and related costs.

    This is not the first time that Thorsted has been convicted of transmitting a false distress message. In April 2004 he was sentenced to two years in federal prison and ordered to pay more than $29,000 in restitution to the Coast Guard for a similar series of hoax calls. And in one of the earlier incidents, Thorsted's phony call interrupted a real distress call from a 33-foot boat 4 miles off the coast of Santa Cruz island. More on this story is on-line at tinyurl.com/2f63oq8. (VHF Reflector, SF Chronicle)"
  • Today's background checks are based on a person's criminal record and not a person's real character. Background checks may show that a person is really a good type of person but they may not necessarily be true. They may overlook qualities like being a psychopath or suicidal tendencies. Or even anger management issues.

    A gun is not a toy. It is a killing machine and I think the push of better background cheques is a good idea and also doctors should be included to provide these checks.
  • Hozyboy; you make no sense.
    Mental illness can happen to any normal healthy person at any time.
    That is why you have Psychiatrists, to help people stay healthy mentally, or cure them if need be.
    Problem is, paltry lil swats, are only seeking a reason to disqualify people, not help them.
  • Posts: 75
    The world is rapidly urbanizing and congestion, even if superficially occurs inevitably in urban areas. Scientists have observed that when people live in a community in close quarters, people tend to behave like animals. Its safe to say that men are instinctively elevated meaning that they are capable of doing things that they wouldn't normally do. This accompanied by a culture glorifying violence promoted by pop stars is a recipe for trouble necessitating gun control.
  • Posts: 44
    Buying a gun is easy to people that have a money and many people used a gun without paper or not authorized to hold a gun to prevent this we need to cooperate all people but its hard to do this because if u tell to the authority maybe your life is in danger bacause most of people that have a gun is very powerful we need to be quite to save lifes but we need a good idea to prevent this problem.
  • Well I think it is very important. In that way they could somehow determine if you really needed to have a gun and if you are responsible to have one. Background check research will show your reasons for wanting to own a gun. 
  • It is just right to conduct a background check on people who will buy a gun. This is to make sure that you are capable and have no mental illness so you can use the gun properly and wiselybin the right state of mind.
  • In my opinion, everything about the person who feels the need to purchase a must be checked out because should any slightest details is overlooked, it might result to either getting the gun to fall into the wrong hands who are eager to commit acts of violence with the weapons of mass destruction.

    The entire history of such person must be evaluated by more than one agency and vetted my a strong committee. By this way, it's going to be hard for guns to fall into the wrong hands.
Sign In or Register to comment.