WiRes-Thanks for your honest answer. I can respect the fact that you want to protect your family.

HighRoad you asked if I was legal to answer your question yes I have the permit to carry. But as far as democrats and republicans go I will not be able to trust them to pass laws and enforce those laws and enforce laws that will end gun violence. After what happened to Brittany I have little trust in any democrat or republican that is asking me ti give up the right to protect my family. Especially where law enforcement lacks the ability to capture her killer because no witness is willing to come forward because her killer is still running free. Sorry but I am unwilling to do things anyone else's way not when it comes to protecting my family. Sorry but I have little trust in the law or politicians.

Dog-Do you agree that what we have now is not working? If so, do we just let it go as is or should we try to fix it? This is a very complex problem. One thing is not going to fix it. What are your solutions? Please post the links to your experts opinions. I would like to read it.

strawman huh? what if you have to licensed professionals that disagree with the diagnosis? what happens then? how long is the ban good for? is it permanent? How much will this cost? Who pays for it? Will the professionals have any liability for giving the OK on someone that then commits a violent act?

-

You can call me as many names as you'd like. None of these proposals will fill the voids in people's lives that make them commit these atrocious acts.
-
they make you feel better, and I guess that is what is really important. Kids will still die, spouses will still kill their families, people will still go crazy and kill others, criminals will still be criminals. But you'll feel better :) carry on.

Is there an ssessment that can predict the future of ones actions? Absolutely not!! That is a ridiculous straw man argument, so I wont even give that justice with an answer. Again I NEVER said that there is any miracle potion that will ascertain ones propesnity to commit a crime with a gun? Of course not! again if that is your goal with any regulation then it may be time to just repeal all laws and regulations on everything, see how ridiculous that sounds? Maybe you can't I dont know.
All that being said any licensed psychologist could give a mental screening for a potential gun owner. Where is the harm? All of your questions are strw man arguments, this comes down to how hysterical ou want to get to make your convoluted point. Requiring background checks for ALL gun sales is where I would like to start, as far as mental health screenings go. I would be more inclined to require that they be required to purchase any type of assault weapon, assuming that they aren't banned. Maybe instead of ASSuming m position, you should hold your insults in.

No one said that changes would be easy, including me, but to do nothing would be ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as saying that any mental health check that doesnt eliminate all crazy people from committing crimes isnt worth instituting.

so, please, tell me about this mental health assessment that will ascertain one's propensity to commit gun violence in the future. Explain to me just who is qualified to conduct such an assessment and how are they going to conduct that on all current and future gun owners. What mental health diagnosis will result in being placed on a "no gun list"? How many doctors will have to coraborate? Can one bef removed from the list thru medication? Treatment? is it a permanent ban? How will they pay for it? How will they enforce it? That's just start. You said these needed to be added to every background check, now you tell us how.

Yeah zdog. Irattional, not really, actually quite rational. What is irrational is saying that "new laws" just wont work, that is irrational. Making statements about mental health assessments that you really obviously know little about.
Emotional? Maybe because its an emotional issue. I dont want nuts having access to firearms. Responsible, law abiding citizens should have NO problems with proving their competancy and waiting a couple extra days, if they do there is smething to hide.Otherwise why the complaining?
If you want to have a rational conversation zdog, know your statistics, know your side of the issue, and stop with nonsensical statements that really mean nothing. It makes ou look silly.

No. I endorse the restrictions that were added to combat drunk driving. There were no restrictions added to background checks for guns yet. There should be, and there will be. The Republicans best to get to compromising now. With the Republican party in a state of implosion, there's a chance the Democrats take the House back in 2014, and then gun law reform won't require as much discussion. Anything the public opinion polls show being favored will get passed. As it is most polls show 90% of Americans favor universal background checks. It's a foregone conclusion at this point.

WalterReuther - care to endorse allowing the police to stop you and run a check on you for DUIs each time you buy a drink at at bar or restaurant?

Call it a background check to weed out drunks before allowing you to drive.

Remember when making the drunk driving laws more strict only affected the law abiding drinkers? Me either.

I don't see where the constitution requires a politically designed background check or certain level of mental health to 'deserve' your right to bear arms. The crooked politicians are not the people that you want deciding how to measure these stipulations. Once the furor's henchmen get this discretion they will be able to twist it into anything they are ordered to do with it.

RobsEm - you're just not viewing the term "compromise" in a politically correct fashion. You're like the missionary who argued with the cannibal. The cannibal wanted to "disarm" the missionary and put the entire limb in his stew pot. The missionary totally refused and the cannibal complained that the missionary was being selfish and not compromising by offering to at least "lend a hand", or split the difference up to his elbow.

Let's offer some real compromising, such as requiring background checks (including using a nation-wide mental health database) on firearm purchases, including gun shows, in exchange for a Federal concealed carry program good in all 50 states, which overrides state law about concealed carry, and allows for concealed carry in Federal parks, preserves and forests, in national museums and at national monuments, as well as any college, university or technical school which accepts Federal money.

If Catholic health care facilities have to offer abortion and contraception in exchange for accepting Federal funding, it's only fair that schools benefiting from Federal funding and more rigorous firearms sales screening should be required to allow concealed carry so those faculty, staff, and students who wish to carry protection against the rare chance of someone slipping through the background check process and deciding to go postal at school, have the means to defend themselves (other than searching nearby desks for unregistered scissors).

Let's see if the lefties are really willing to compromise.

Are you legal to posses guns? If so, you have nothing to worry about.

I tell you what I will give up my guns when Brittany Zimmerman's murder is behind bars or dead which ever comes first. Until then I will do what I have to to keep me and my family safe.Why because to date Brittany Zimmerman's murder is still running around free and no on has done a dam thing to catch her killer

You are welcome to bring something worthy to the table if you have something.

There is nothing productive about the conversation going on here,...just saying.

fear, relax, your acting irrationally and far to emotional to have a productive conversation.

A good friend of mine is an old boy who has owned guns his whole life and has a safe full of them. I don't think he has ever bought a gun from store. About 5 years ago he called me and told me he went to purchase a shot gun for a grand kid of his at the store and was denied. For the life of him he did not know why and was to scared to look into it fearing they would come and snag his arsenal. Since then I have been at several auctions where he purchased guns, I have seen at least two guns he has purchased at the bar, and have been hunting with him where he was able to buy a license to do so. Is he a danger? Absolutely not. The point is he failed a background check and still has the ability to fill up his gun safe. I am sure the bad guys can just as easily. Doesn't it make sense to close the loop hole to keep the bad guys from getting guns? By the way, he is against this change too because he is afraid it will cut off his stream of guns. I would think too that it might hamper his ability to sell guns because I am sure the background check will have his name on it as seller.

Allin- can you explain what law abiding folks will have to fear? If you aren't hiding anything there is nothing to be scared of. These proposed rules are meant to get rid of "straw purchasers". 40 percent of the guns used by criminals are purchased through straws. Wouldn't it be great to cut out 40 percent of there gun stream?

Most enforcement efforts will be directed toward the law abiding gun owners. These efforts won't even phase the criminals that are being targetted. I agree that the senators are just trying to carry out the wishes of our furor.

Compromise refers to terms mutually agreeable by both sides. This should read "Screw less vigorously."

helge- Which ones are not getting enforced that are causing the problem?

Let's be clear. The majority of NRA members are wonderful people. They own guns for hunting, home protection, etc. The NRA leadership is out of touch with the membership and the majority of Americans. The NRA leadership is composed of people who frankly are insane. There is no reason why there should not be background checks at gun shows. If you need a background check at a gun store, then have one at a gun show. In addition, unless you are active duty military or police, YOU DO NOT NEED AN ASSAULT WEAPON. Give it a rest.

If you are open minded enough to read the Feinstein Bill there are some statistics in there that show assault weapon and high capacity magazine restrictions do work.
The 2% that fail the background check aren't the issue here. Stores and gun dealers fill out background checks. Once the gun leaves the store it is a free for all. After that initial sale there is nothing safe guarding the sale of that gun. Currently it is way too easy for a criminal to give $100 to someone, a "straw purchaser" who can pass the background check and get them a gun. The straw purchaser can lie and say he say he sold it to Joe Blow and the tracks are covered. If the same straw does this in the future the law will be knocking at his door when the gun is found and he did not do the proper paperwork and check the new owner to be sure he was not a criminal. The good guys will still have no problem getting and selling guns, this will make it harder for the bad guys to get them.

Just enforce the laws we already have

The same lame left argument, because of the blood of children, while the left does NOTHING to address the leading causes of childhood deaths. This is just another example of liberals using a tragedy to further their political agenda, regardless of how ugly the circumstances.

It's the same mentality that says well even if we stop carbon emission's it will barely make a dent in the total output. Or taxing "high income" people or those "job creators" will only increase revenue by x amount, it isn't enough to cover the deficit. It's step 1 of many steps to address a problem, very few problems have one magical solution. So currently 2% of people fail the background checks, with better and more in-depth background checks that number will increase. I think that keeping guns out of 2% or more of the population that shouldn't have them is worth the time and cost.

ahhh so your answer to the PROBLEM that exists is.......hurdles too big, not enough accuracy in certain or any mental health screenings, background checks wont be used by the criminals(dumbest statement ever) ......lets do NOTHING, that is the better answer instead of making a concerted effort to make things better and somewhat safer by enforcing some commonsense responsibvle measures the right wings answer is NOTHING WORKS , so DO NOTHING. With that logic lets repeal all laws because NONE of them work 100% of the time.

Who said anything about the school shooting in Newtown? Not me, YOU DID. I have been calling for simple measures to be put in place for YEARS. Making excuses makes the problem worse, doing nothing does the same. I don't need to "talk" with someone who has closed their mind to common sense and opened their mind to Hysterics.

ahhh, so bringing up images of classrooms "flooded" with the blood of children will magically make this something that will be feasibly implemented and have any effect at all on gun violence.

you don't even realize the hurdles in even making mental health records available for a database, let alone making it legal to do that and have everyone under go a psych eval. ANd what psych eval can accurately predict a propensity for gun violence? Just figure those 2 things out, then we can discuss more.

Since some people claim that these ideas won't solve the problem immediately and in total, we might as well just abandon the whole idea of trying to solve the problem at all. Let's just leave things the way they are since that's worked so well for us lately. How many classrooms have to be literally flooded with the blood of schoolchildren before we decide to actually address the problem rather than continuously arguing about it while doing nothing?

I watch the police in California as they walk in groups of 5 to 10 to bring down a single man. They have their bullet proof vests, their helmets and their automatic weapons, clubs, and all the accoutrements of SWAT teams. All this for one single assassin.
.
Meanwhile, at the Capitol, they tell the citizenry that one single gun with six or less bullets is all that is needed to defend themselves and their families from any assault on their lives and property.

This is my joke for the day.

I'm hardly a cult member, never been a member of the NRA, own one hunting rifle that I got when I was 15. It's the only gun i've owned in almost 40 years.
-
That said, while all these things might sound good, and make people feel good, I see serious hurdles to implementation.
-
Should they find a way to overcome all those hurdles, I see very little gain for society from this. Might make some people feel good, but in reality, I see it having very little affect, other than making law abiding citizens jump thru a few more hoops.

Its called common sense. Do you people want to make it easier for criminals to get weapons? Should felons and domestic offenders be able to go to gun shows and buy weapons?
If you want to address mental health I think that is an EXCELLENT idea, on top of background checks people that purchase guns should have to pass a mental health assessment as well. More common sense steps that no responsible , law abiding citizen should fight. This is from a gun owner. Not all of us buy into the hysterics from the NRA which was ALL FOR background checks, Gun-free zones, etc in the year 2000. Now they have convinced all of their cult members that these are bad things?
I hear all of the nuts talking about mental health as something that needs to be addressed, but no mention of how we should do it. Just paranoia, paranoia, paranoia. If the government gets tyrannical and comes for you, you are dead. So please get over that non-argument.

As of this writing, there is a massive manhunt going on in California for an ex-cop who has killed 3 people and wounded 2 others.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/08/us/lapd-at...
He not only passed background checks, the United States Navy and the City of Los Angeles trained him how to use assault weapons.

Background criminal records checks can't assess the mental health of members of the armed forces and police departments who have access to assault weapons. They can't find at-risk people who have had mental problems unless they also have a criminal record. We need to invest our resources in better mental health screening and reporting, and in building the infrastructure to tie those mental health records into into the background check process first.

Expanding background checks without first making them effective in screening out people with known mental health problems will just give the naive public a false impression of safety - much like "Gun-Free Zones" do today.

Guns will always be available to anyone without background checks. Much like alcohol is available to anyone under 21 today. Like prohibition did, all this will do is create an underground market and more criminal activity. People will buy guns legally, jack the price up, and then sell them on the black market to people who cant get them... great new way for criminals to make money.

Amen, smallbizowner.

And the furor's henchmen plot to disarm the general public before delivering the final blow.