ChimpGrip Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Just now, noonereal said: agree background checks are a subset of licensing Concealed carry? No way, no one no how. (except undercover law agencies) So a legal, sane, law-abiding citizen can't carry to protect his/herself in the event of an armed confrontation? So they can end up being just another victim? Fuck that. LTCs are already hard to get, and even more so in the left leaning states. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChimpGrip Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Just now, TheBlockIsHot said: Exactly. Bad credit= no gun (show irresponsibility) Criminal history= no gun Suspect employment history= no gun Bad character= no gun What if they have bad credit because they pay cash for everything and don't worry about worshipping the almighty FICO score? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Just now, ChimpGrip said: What if they have bad credit because they pay cash for everything and don't worry about worshipping the almighty FICO score? Whose opinion of bad character??? Whats a suspect employment history?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlockIsHot Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Just now, ChimpGrip said: What if they have bad credit because they pay cash for everything and don't worry about worshipping the almighty FICO score? Bad credit and no credit are completely different things. This is the purpose that a security clearance could clarify and ensure those with no credit aren't being penalized like someone with bad credit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlockIsHot Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Just now, HSFBfan said: Whose opinion of bad character??? Whats a suspect employment history?? A security clearance determines a persons "whole picture" to determine issues with character. For example- if a person jaywalked once or stole from Ross when they were 13, that would be fine. Someone who gets fired from jobs. steals from jobs, and other suspect things would be considered to have suspect character and shouldn't own a gun. Employment history- a good example would be someone that has been fired from his last 3 jobs for fault of his own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 6 minutes ago, ChimpGrip said: Limit number owned? Someone out to cause harm only needs one. so you prefer we ban all guns? That is extreme but I would compromise and agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChimpGrip Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Just now, TheBlockIsHot said: Bad credit and no credit are completely different things. This is the purpose that a security clearance could clarify and ensure those with no credit aren't being penalized like someone with bad credit. Bad credit is quite common in the middle in lower class due to... 1. Bad advice 2. Poor choices It doesn't automatically mean he/she is a potential menace to society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChimpGrip Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 2 minutes ago, noonereal said: so you prefer we ban all guns? That is extreme but I would compromise and agree. No. I said that in reply to your proposal, that placing a limit on number of guns owned is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlockIsHot Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 1 minute ago, ChimpGrip said: Bad credit is quite common in the middle in lower class due to... 1. Bad advice 2. Poor choices It doesn't automatically mean he/she is a potential menace to society. It doesn't but it is a very good predictor of future bad behavior. No class in society gets a pass on the rules. The rules are designed to protect the public while protecting gun rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Just now, ChimpGrip said: No. I said that in reply to your proposal, that placing a limit on number of guns owned is wrong. They will not ban number of guns. Im sure the bump stock will be banned or whatever but they will certainly not limit the number of legal guns that you can own Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChimpGrip Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Just now, HSFBfan said: They will not ban number of guns. Im sure the bump stock will be banned or whatever but they will certainly not limit the number of legal guns that you can own Yep. Won't happen. I could see the bump stock being banned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilDog Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Here is some interesting information. I tried to point out to some ignorant people on here who scream Chicago at any mention of Gun violence. It seems that the most killings with Gunz are self inflicted so that well if we cut down on gunz others will kill me without protection. It seems ridiculous since most deaths are by Suicide not homicide and that doesn't have a damn thing to do with Chicago. Check out these for the real on Gunz While firearm homicides are a major cause for concern, suicide by firearm makes up almost two-thirds of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. In fact, the number of firearm homicides has been on a general decline since 1993, while firearm-related suicides have increased in recent years. Broken down, about 36,100 people die from firearms each year in the U.S. Suicides make up over 21,300 of those deaths, while homicides make up nearly 11,000. Legal intervention and accidental discharge of firearms are each responsible for roughly 500 deaths annually. For every category except suicide, victims are, on average, between the ages of 15 and 34. While victims of self-inflicted gunshot wounds are usually between the ages of 45 and 64, the rate of suicide is relatively high for all involved age groups compared with other categories of death by firearm. Where gunz are loved you have -Cides. What prefix fits your agenda Sui or Homo? It is still death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Just now, ChimpGrip said: Yep. Won't happen. I could see the bump stock being banned. Yeah i can see that happening which means only the criminals will be getting their hands on bumpstocks but i guess well have to deal with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 2 minutes ago, ChimpGrip said: No. I said that in reply to your proposal, that placing a limit on number of guns owned is wrong. why? as you said you only need one forget past practice and tradition, we have a problem that needs fixing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlockIsHot Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 2 minutes ago, HSFBfan said: They will not ban number of guns. Im sure the bump stock will be banned or whatever but they will certainly not limit the number of legal guns that you can own Number doesn't concern me. It is the person that does. This is where my suggestions come into play. As gun lovers always say- "you can't blame the gun, you have to blame the person." I believe them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChimpGrip Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 4 minutes ago, TheBlockIsHot said: It doesn't but it is a very good predictor of future bad behavior. No class in society gets a pass on the rules. The rules are designed to protect the public while protecting gun rights. Maybe, maybe not. But I think being fired from jobs holds a lot more value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxchoboian Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 12 minutes ago, HSFBfan said: Whats a suspect employment history?? You know darn well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 2 minutes ago, HSFBfan said: They will not ban number of guns. Im sure the bump stock will be banned or whatever but they will certainly not limit the number of legal guns that you can own nothing will be none that will make a differance maybe, for the first time, we will have national background checks which are almost useless maybe we will ban bump stocks, again, something that will have little effect. nothing important,that can change things will be done we are speaking of what should be done, not what will be done Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilDog Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Pretty ignorant to think it is just a problem of a bunch of wild inner city thugs killing each other when the real killings are occurring at a 64% rate elsewhere by another group 70% of the time. UHOH Facts don't suck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlockIsHot Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 1 minute ago, ChimpGrip said: Maybe, maybe not. But I think being fired from jobs holds a lot more value. I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilDog Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Also wherever you see Stand your Ground Laws you get people eager to kill someone. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChimpGrip Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 2 minutes ago, noonereal said: why? as you said you only need one forget past practice and tradition, we have a problem that needs fixing They only need ONE to commit murder. Why place a limit of guns per person (e.g. 10) when they need just one to go out and kill? On the other, there are people who are solely interested in guns for collecting (people like myself, I collect WW2 era stuff). Why should they have a limit? Or a professional hunter or a competition shooter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilDog Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Less stringent Gun Laws you get more deaths usually. facts don't suck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlockIsHot Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 The biggest fallacy in all of this is how the NRA has convinced most of these idiots that they are "fighting for your gun rights" when they are really just fighting to make money. Scary that many of our non educated brethren can't see this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Just now, ChimpGrip said: They only need ONE to commit murder. Why place a limit of guns per person (e.g. 10) when they need just one to go out and kill? On the other, there are people who are solely interested in guns for collecting (people like myself, I collect WW2 era stuff). Why should they have a limit? Or a professional hunter or a competition shooter? collections need to be of permanently deactivated guns... then have all you like i feel bad for folks like you, law abiding, responsible, a heritage and i am sure awesome collection but as with anything, we must look to the greater good. too many guns is exactly the problem we have, it needs to change Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.