Recent Shooting and Discussion

notnalc68 said:
I bought a gun at a gun show, and had a Federal background check conducted. At the ones I’ve been to, every booth must conduct that. I’ve seen a man refused a sale because of it.


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app
Click to expand...

Here in Michigan it is not required and is transacted as a private person to person sale.


2015 JKUR AEV JK350
1985 CJ8 Scrambler
 
WJCO said:
You're right. I may be over-thinking it.

View attachment 332127
Click to expand...

I don’t find find the terrible treatment of the Native Americans to be particularly relevant here. I bet if the government tries to take your land via eminent domain you’ll fight it in court and guns won’t play a large part in that battle. Times were a little different then.

Don’t take this the wrong way, but it seems to me like you’re set in your belief that any additional restriction is bad and you’re grasping at any argument to justify it.
 
Sharkey said:
Most law enforcement agencies have cadet programs that involve pretty substantial training over the course of many months. That training is not limited to just being proficient with a firearm.

When I obtained my CCW, the older woman next to me had never previously fired a weapon of any kind. She took her test with a semi-automatic .22, which in turn qualified her to carry pistols and revolvers in any caliber and/or configuration. She didn't know how to load it, to unload it, to deal with a round failure, work the safety...nothing. She was able to keep most of the rounds she fired in an 8" x 11" box from 7 yards away. She walked away with a completed CCW permit that day (all was left was the formality of the background check and the issuance of the actual permit) after a three hour class and passing a multiple choice test to which the answers were provided prior to taking the test. At one point during the class, when discussing the appropriate times to pull a firearm and engage a target, the teacher said to the entire class: "I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6". Yep, I for sure feel safer knowing that older woman is out there walking the aisles of WalMart with a firearm.
Click to expand...

I understand your point and agree CONTINUATION of training is absolutely necessary. I’ve been to those recertification classes and actually a guy shot himself in the leg. My wife and I shoot very often and train when we shoot. I am medically trained as well. If you want to carry it is a huge responsibility and lifestyle. That being said my brother in law is a police officer and they have had lots of training but a lot do not continually train. They just qualify. I’m lucky I have him and a place where we can actually drill and have fun doing it.


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app
 
TLife said:
Don’t take this the wrong way, but it seems to me like you’re set in your belief that any additional restriction is bad and you’re grasping at any argument to justify it.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that any additional restriction is bad, I just haven't seen/heard a single example yet that has a strong case for preventing gun violence while still not infringing on the rights of responsible gun owners.

As far as me grasping at any argument to justify my opinions or beliefs, imagine how/why our founding fathers pounded this point home. There's a reason our gun rights are a foundation of our country. And yes I do think it's naive to assume that we don't have the opportunity for tyrannical government in our 1st world super-comfortable current society.
 
TLife said:
I don’t find find the terrible treatment of the Native Americans to be particularly relevant here. I bet if the government tries to take your land via eminent domain you’ll fight it in court and guns won’t play a large part in that battle. Times were a little different then.

Don’t take this the wrong way, but it seems to me like you’re set in your belief that any additional restriction is bad and you’re grasping at any argument to justify it.
Click to expand...


It’s not so much bad, just absolutely pointless. The bad part comes in once they realize that the new restrictions didn’t change a damn thing and they start pushing for more. That’s all dems know to do.... blame guns and blame trump.


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app
 
WJCO said:
I don't believe that any additional restriction is bad, I just haven't seen/heard a single example yet that has a strong case for preventing gun violence while still not infringing on the rights of responsible gun owners.
Click to expand...

I believe mental evaluations being part of the background check process could prevent some gun violence. I haven’t heard how that infringes on the rights of responsible gun owners besides some possible inconvenience of whatever that process actually involves. It seems some additional inconvenience is a fair trade if it saves even one life.

Without any details of what that evaluation would be you jumped straight to government conspiracy (again for lack of a better term). To me that screams unwillingness to any additional restriction.
 
Leeboy03 said:
It’s not so much bad, just absolutely pointless. The bad part comes in once they realize that the new restrictions didn’t change a damn thing and they start pushing for more. That’s all dems know to do.... blame guns and blame trump.


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app
Click to expand...

Don’t you think it might be worth it to try though?
 
TLife said:
I believe mental evaluations being part of the background check process could prevent some gun violence. I haven’t heard how that infringes on the rights of responsible gun owners besides some possible inconvenience of whatever that process actually involves. It seems some additional inconvenience is a fair trade if it saves even one life.

Without any details of what that evaluation would be you jumped straight to government conspiracy (again for lack of a better term). To me that screams unwillingness to any additional restriction.
Click to expand...

Till you get denied from purchasing a weapon because you got in a fight in grade school over some playground bullshit. But you answer honestly on your evaluation so now you’re a “violent” person.
Obviously that’s probably an exaggeration.
Have you ever taken a mental health evaluation? I have and there’s definitely questions asked that, if answered honestly, pretty much anyone could be classified as a risk.


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app
 
TLife said:
Don’t you think it might be worth it to try though?
Click to expand...

It’s already been tried and failed miserably. I think most everyone can agree on what the problems is, or at least a big portion of it, but no one really wants to step up and try to make a difference. We just blame the guns and expect the “lawmakers” to restrict the weapons. It’s an indirect approach to a problem that can’t be fixed by restricting guns.


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app
 
Admittedly I’ve never gone through the process to buy a gun. However, I don’t see the issue for those responsible gun owners who do value both side of this debate. In my head if there is more rigor around the process, right or wrong, it may deter some additional people enough to stop some.

An example to me is locking your car as people are widely opportunists in most scenarios. If the doors are locked most will move on. It will not stop those willing to throw a brick in the window, but some level of extra effort does deter some.
 
Speedy_RCW said:
Till you get denied from purchasing a weapon because you got in a fight in grade school over some playground bullshit. But you answer honestly on your evaluation so now you’re a “violent” person.
Obviously that’s probably an exaggeration.
Have you ever taken a mental health evaluation? I have and there’s definitely questions asked that, if answered honestly, pretty much anyone could be classified as a risk.
Click to expand...

Totally agreed that the threshold that would prevent someone from being able to purchase a gun certainly would need to be evaluated. There would be lots of other details that need to be ironed out as well. It definitely wouldn’t easy, but I haven’t heard anything yet that I think couldn’t be overcome.
 
Speedy_RCW said:
Till you get denied from purchasing a weapon because you got in a fight in grade school over some playground bullshit. But you answer honestly on your evaluation so now you’re a “violent” person.
Obviously that’s probably an exaggeration.
Have you ever taken a mental health evaluation? I have and there’s definitely questions asked that, if answered honestly, pretty much anyone could be classified as a risk.


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app
Click to expand...

This. I would never buy another firearm if I had to take one. Not worth being put “on the list” for answering “incorrectly”.


Sent from my iPad using WAYALIFE mobile app
 
Leeboy03 said:
It’s already been tried and failed miserably. I think most everyone can agree on what the problems is, or at least a big portion of it, but no one really wants to step up and try to make a difference. We just blame the guns and expect the “lawmakers” to restrict the weapons. It’s an indirect approach to a problem that can’t be fixed by restricting guns.
Click to expand...

What’s been tried and failed?

I agree that there’s a mental health component to this and that gun laws won’t totally solve anything. I don’t have any realistic ideas on how to fix mental health, so attempting to stop guns from falling into the wrong hands is the next best thing.
 
Masjkf84 said:
Admittedly I’ve never gone through the process to buy a gun. However, I don’t see the issue for those responsible gun owners who do value both side of this debate. In my head if there is more rigor around the process, right or wrong, it may deter some additional people enough to stop some.

An example to me is locking your car as people are widely opportunists in most scenarios. If the doors are locked most will move on. It will not stop those willing to throw a brick in the window, but some level of extra effort does deter some.
Click to expand...

I think they are way past that “certain level” once they actually make up their minds to do something like that. I mean, if someone is ready to die and/or kill another human being without cause then what would it actually take to stop them?


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app
 
OverlanderJK said:
This. I would never buy another firearm if I had to take one. Not worth being put “on the list” for answering “incorrectly”.
Click to expand...

I don’t believe that. If there was no other option and several people you personally knew had successfully gone though it I don’t think you’d find it a big deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom