Would background checks stop mass sho...

Would background checks stop mass shootings?

There are 186 comments on the Local TV Station KTVZ story from Apr 11, 2013, titled Would background checks stop mass shootings?. In it, Local TV Station KTVZ reports that:

The tragic shootings in each of these and other towns have ignited public sentiment for some kind of gun reforms and fired up gun advocates to protect what they see as their constitutional right of easy access to firearms.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Local TV Station KTVZ.

First Prev
of 10
Next Last

Since: Jan 13

Bozeman

#1 Apr 11, 2013
No.
4Liberty

Annapolis, MD

#4 Apr 13, 2013
No. Because no matter what, Govt can pass 100 laws against all the bad things that man does to one another, and it has yet to stop anyone from doing anything.

All this legislation is going to do is tear our country apart. The Constitution is not up for debate.
Grumpy553

Lawrence, MA

#6 Apr 15, 2013
Not a chance. Gun trafficing, straw purchasing, convicted felons owning/possessing firearms, assault, car jackings, home invasions, drunk driving, prostitution, armed robbery, and yes...even murder are all ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW. But all those things and many many more happen EVERY SINGLE DAY. Want to know why? Criminals and psychotics dont give a damn about the law. Never have, never will. None of this proposed legislation is going to deter anything
RandomThoughts

Atlanta, GA

#7 Apr 15, 2013
Not a chance .

Just keep talking , Obama and his liberals went into this thinking it was a cake-walk .

The giant is awake and the gun grabbers are looking like fools .

Keep talking , these ****** are going down .

There is NO reasoning with idiots .
Barbara

Charlottesville, VA

#9 Apr 16, 2013
You can't always perdict what you will do six months later, how can anyone perdict what someone else will do.
August

Silver Springs, FL

#12 Apr 24, 2013
No, not until criminals start obeying laws.
No, not until the DOJ starts enforcing the existing laws.
No.
daveman

Charlottesville, VA

#13 Apr 25, 2013
Maybe some, but definitely not all. It's ridiculous to think that. There is no absolute cure to this problem with so many guns already out there. BUT, if it stops just one......
real central Va Marine

Crozet, VA

#14 Apr 25, 2013
daveman wrote:
Maybe some, but definitely not all. It's ridiculous to think that. There is no absolute cure to this problem with so many guns already out there. BUT, if it stops just one......
it only stops one...
daveman

Charlottesville, VA

#15 Apr 25, 2013
real central Va Marine wrote:
<quoted text>it only stops one...
And that one....may be the one that involves you, or someone you care for. In any case, there's really no way to tell how many people with mental health issues (documented or not), that would be denied, and that would have actually carried out an attack. Background checks aren't the sole answer, but it is a start. Other than a minor inconvenience, and it is pretty minor, the benefits far outweigh not doing background checks. It's just common sense that we need to make happen.
Well

York, PA

#16 Apr 26, 2013
daveman wrote:
<quoted text>
And that one....may be the one that involves you, or someone you care for. In any case, there's really no way to tell how many people with mental health issues (documented or not), that would be denied, and that would have actually carried out an attack. Background checks aren't the sole answer, but it is a start. Other than a minor inconvenience, and it is pretty minor, the benefits far outweigh not doing background checks. It's just common sense that we need to make happen.
Perhaps you should actually read and comprehend the bills that are under consideration before you boldly state it is "a minor inconvenience". "...but it is a start" clearly demonstrates the mindset of the gun grabbers - you really need to stick to the covert talking points a bit better and only use the "officially" approved propaganda. Otherwise your true intent will continue to show...
daveman

Charlottesville, VA

#17 Apr 26, 2013
Well wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you should actually read and comprehend the bills that are under consideration before you boldly state it is "a minor inconvenience". "...but it is a start" clearly demonstrates the mindset of the gun grabbers - you really need to stick to the covert talking points a bit better and only use the "officially" approved propaganda. Otherwise your true intent will continue to show...
Well, genius....thanks for your faux mind reading abilities. Yes...it is a start, and a good one. Perhaps you should have someone read to you what I wrote, as I made no mention of taking your precious kill toys. Paranoid are we? The point of my post was that background checks are an initial safeguard to keep the kill toys out of the hands of nut jobs. If you're that concerned about a "very minor inconvenience", and are that impatient, then maybe the background checks should start with you.
real central Va Marine

Crozet, VA

#18 Apr 26, 2013
daveman wrote:
<quoted text>
And that one....may be the one that involves you, or someone you care for. In any case, there's really no way to tell how many people with mental health issues (documented or not), that would be denied, and that would have actually carried out an attack. Background checks aren't the sole answer, but it is a start. Other than a minor inconvenience, and it is pretty minor, the benefits far outweigh not doing background checks. It's just common sense that we need to make happen.
Background checks are already done...
daveman

Charlottesville, VA

#19 Apr 26, 2013
real central Va Marine wrote:
<quoted text>Background checks are already done...
True, but they are currently inconsistent, and the enforcement needs to be addressed as well.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#20 Apr 26, 2013
daveman wrote:
<quoted text>
True, but they are currently inconsistent, and the enforcement needs to be addressed as well.
So then, not only are you OK with the infringements already perpetrated by our perverse governments. But now you want it carried out with nazi like efficiency?

How about going back to how it was originally INTENDED. Where We The People are armed, and criminals wouldn't dare try to pull anything.(Including the criminals within our governments).
moronfinder

Charlottesville, VA

#21 Apr 26, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So then, not only are you OK with the infringements already perpetrated by our perverse governments. But now you want it carried out with nazi like efficiency?
How about going back to how it was originally INTENDED. Where We The People are armed, and criminals wouldn't dare try to pull anything.(Including the criminals within our governments).
I believe the Ammendment states 'a well organized militia", not self imposed commando.
READ!!!!!!
Hakin Ali Hakin

Washington, DC

#22 Apr 26, 2013
I've got a new bumper sticker. " Support Mental Health or I'll KILL YOU". Daveman, wake up! Enforce the Gun control laws that we already have and there would not be a problem. News Flash, without exception, every last mass shooter, was either raised in a liberal household or a registered DEMOCRAT! Do we try to outlaw Democrats? That would be stupid now. Enforce the laws we have on the books. Not make feel good laws and attack law biding gun owners!! ALI P.S. The MORON who stabbed all those people on campus with a knife. There are idiots out there trying to ban the "Type of knife" he used. What is next? ban forks, baseball bats, spoons? All this is to Mucking Fuch for me!!!!

The Flying Pig

UK

#23 Apr 26, 2013
When was the last time a 'background check' actually stopped any crime from happening?

If a law doesn't stop a crime, then what's the purpose of the law?

I'll tell you: Revenue generation.

In almost all cases of human laws, the sole purpose of VALID law is simply two things:
1. To define the acceptable limits of human behavior
2. To define describe the consequences of transgressing the law

So in essence, what that means is: If you do a prohibited thing, then this is what will happen to you.

The more laws a community has, the less free it is. And when there are so many laws that not even a judge may know all of them completely, then there is tyranny, for nobody may know at any given moment if he is transgressing one or another law.

So,'background checks' are nothing more than an excuse to trammel the rights of all.

Excuses pave the road to hell.
The Flying Pig

UK

#24 Apr 26, 2013
moronfinder wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe the Ammendment states 'a well organized militia", not self imposed commando.
READ!!!!!!
I see you've found yourself, Mr.'moronfinder.'

The amendment in question states: "A well regulated militia ..."

In the parlance of the period when the sentence was constructed, it meant 'well-trained' in the use of arms.

But you didn't know that, did you?
The Flying Pig

UK

#25 Apr 26, 2013
daveman wrote:
Maybe some, but definitely not all. It's ridiculous to think that. There is no absolute cure to this problem with so many guns already out there. BUT, if it stops just one......
"BUT, if it stops just one...... "

Yeah? Well, what IF it STOPS someone from defending herself?

Are YOU okay with that?

And HOW MANY TIMES must THAT happen before YOU decide that the law is an ASS?

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#26 Apr 26, 2013
moronfinder wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe the Ammendment states 'a well organized militia", not self imposed commando.
READ!!!!!!
Most, if not all, of this information, except what I derived from the Attorney General, came to me orally, and was to the effect that said counties were under the sway of powerful combination, properly known as "Ku-Klux Klan," the objects of which were, by force and terror, to prevent all political action not in accord with the views of the members, to deprive colored citizens of the right to bear arms, and of the right to a free ballot; to suppress schools in which colored children were taught, and to reduce the colored people to a condition closely akin to that of slavery; that these combinations were organized and armed and had rendered the local laws ineffectual to protect the classes whom they desired to oppress; that they had perpetrated many murder, and hundreds of crimes of minor degree, all of which were unpunished; and that witnesses could not safely testify against them unless the more active members were placed under restraint.
U. S. GRANT.
Executive Mansion, April 19, 1872.
The same having been read,
On motion of Mr. Dickey,
Ordered, That it be referred to the Joint Select Committee on the Insurrectionary States and printed.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 10
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Dem senator won't back concealed carry push Sat USAUSAUSA 7
News Bristol Palin is engaged (May '15) May 25 berettabone 71
News OK County acting sheriff: Let's keep working to... May 24 rationalchaos 3
News Joe The Plumber Stands By Shocking Holocaust Ch... (Jun '12) May 15 swedenforever 10
News "Open carry" bill shot down May 14 lifeisshort 72
News Concealed Carry on Campus: Why I Resigned From ... May 14 Say What 4
News Boom! Concealed Carrier Stops a Massacre Be Cra... May 14 jimwildrickjr 2
More from around the web