Case Shows Why Background Checks are wrong and other lessons.

KingCondanomation

KingCondanomation

New member
Was reading over this case and several points can be derived from it:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...9C58494B45470714862574F3006D0CA6?OpenDocument

1. If the woman that was raped went out to get a gun to defend herself and had to wait for a background check, she may not have had the gun in time to defend herself from the guy who in this case came back to rape her again.
It shows that though background checks COULD stop a criminal from getting a gun, it could also stop a victim from getting a gun in time to defend themselves. That becomes more true when contrasted to reality where law-abiding victims are far more likely to try and buy their guns legally, than criminals who buy them off the street.

2. It shows the importance that guns should be allowed to be used in more than just self-defence when your life is in danger. This guy probably just wanted to rape the woman again, but she should be allowed to kill him in defence even if her life is not jeapordy.

3. It shows in general that guns are the great equalizer. Criminals and male criminals are almost always physically stronger than their victims but with a gun the victim is on at least equal ground.

Gun control seems to be a rare area Conservatives are making progress and the Dems don't seem to be as hostile to rules on them as before, so now is a great time to push your rep in Congress to eliminate background checks and help reduce gun control that mostly just affects law-abiding people anyway.
 
There are typically fewer controls on longarms than on handguns. And a shotgun makes an excellent home protection gun.

This situation has been discussed before on here, I think.
 
KingCondanomation said:
2. It shows the importance that guns should be allowed to be used in more than just self-defence when your life is in danger. This guy probably just wanted to rape the woman again, but she should be allowed to kill him in defence even if her life is not jeapordy.
Click to expand...

That's why it should be "life or limb" and not just "life" - and that's how it is in most places.
 
Last edited:
Why are background checks wrong? This is the digital age. There's no reason they shouldn't be able to run a background check near instantaneously.
 
Solitary said:
There are typically fewer controls on longarms than on handguns. And a shotgun makes an excellent home protection gun.

This situation has been discussed before on here, I think.
Click to expand...
Most women I've heard of who have a gun for self-defence have a handgun. They are more interested in something easier to handle and more discreet.

The reason there are less controls on longarms is that they are more used for hunting, yet it is self-defence that is more important.
 
Watermark said:
Why are background checks wrong? This is the digital age. There's no reason they shouldn't be able to run a background check near instantaneously.
Click to expand...
Sometimes it takes longer or the system could be down. It's a barrier to getting a gun quickly which you may need as was the case in the story above where the rapist returned in just a few days.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Sometimes it takes longer or the system could be down. It's a barrier to getting a gun quickly which you may need as was the case in the story above where the rapist returned in just a few days.
Click to expand...

And she had a gun anyway. If you can't come up with a single situation in history where the background check requirement literally resulted in a death I don't see a reason to continue this conversation.
 
If all felons have guns and they get them from the underground then why are there hundred of applications to governors all over the nation to pardon someone so that they can own a gun again? Stupid, stupid Dano oversimplifications.
 
Dano, honestly, you come up with the dumbest arguments possible in support of conservative positions. I mean, for one, your main argument for the death penalty is that they "can escape and kill again!" And you use Ted Bundy as an example. Never mind the fact that he actually escaped during the trial, so under your world we would have to execute people before the trial to make any difference, or that his cause of death was ACTUALLY EXECUTION AND THE DEATH PENALTY WAS APPLIED TO HIM. No! Even though you can't produce a single modern case of a serial killer escaping a maximum security prison and killing again. Logic like that ain't gonna stop Dano! Saying something reasonable about the escape problem, like that people suspected of murder or violent crimes should be put under much stricter scrutiny before trial, rather than the death penalty before trial, isn't something Dano like to do. Or even presenting a halfway reasonable case for the death penalty.

And the argument that we should basically allow any felon to walk in a store, say he's not a felon, and buy any gun he wants because "the system might be down" and under some convulted, extremely unlikely, never before happened situation someone might not be able to buy a gun within thirty minutes (most people who need it that fast are criminals, but that doesn't stop dano!), is beyond retarded. It's danotarded.
 
Last edited:
I don't think background checks are a problem. There ARE people out there who should not be allowed to purchase guns. Convicted felons forfeit the right to bear arms.

Waiting periods are a waste of resources, but not something that are a big deal to me.
 
Background checks are one of the most reasonable measures that we have as they relate to gun control. An average of over 135,000 guns annually are denied to ex-criminals because of background checks.

I can't imagine having to explain the family of a victim that their loss could have been prevented by something as simple as a background check.

You guys are too much. The 2nd amendment doesn't mean that every single person should have immediate access to a firearm at any time.
 
Solitary said:
I don't think background checks are a problem. There ARE people out there who should not be allowed to purchase guns. Convicted felons forfeit the right to bear arms.

Waiting periods are a waste of resources, but not something that are a big deal to me.
Click to expand...

There is an argument that waiting periods reduce the amount of "murders of passion", but I think that anyone that violence prone would have a gun anyway. There's no need for waiting periods, and background checks should be constructed so that they can be done in a very quick period of time (I don't see why it would take much time, but I'm no expert on the subject). And we can even have a backup server so that the "system" won't "go down".
 
Watermark said:
And she had a gun anyway. If you can't come up with a single situation in history where the background check requirement literally resulted in a death I don't see a reason to continue this conversation.
Click to expand...

how bout issues where it resulted in people not being able to get one when they needed one, but were probably lucky enough not to have gotten killed?
 
Watermark said:
There is an argument that waiting periods reduce the amount of "murders of passion", but I think that anyone that violence prone would have a gun anyway. There's no need for waiting periods, and background checks should be constructed so that they can be done in a very quick period of time (I don't see why it would take much time, but I'm no expert on the subject). And we can even have a backup server so that the "system" won't "go down".
Click to expand...

waiting periods to stop murders of passion rarely stop murders of passion. If a person is that angry, any other tool can be used as a weapon
 
SmarterThanYou said:
how bout issues where it resulted in people not being able to get one when they needed one, but were probably lucky enough not to have gotten killed?
Click to expand...

The people who want to go and buy a gun for a specific time, and waiting until they are in danger, are too stupid to get one.
 
Solitary said:
The people who want to go and buy a gun for a specific time, and waiting until they are in danger, are too stupid to get one.
Click to expand...

You would think that the people of Los Angeles would have remembered the lesson they learned from the riots and made their legislature change the waiting period laws, but NOPE!!! idiots nearly to a fault, all of them
 
Back ground checks are not unreasonable. Even the most vapid pro-2nd Amendment advocate has a vested interest in regulating the legal sales of arms to convicted violent criminals. While preventing legal sales of firearms to convicted criminals does not prevent them from getting practically any firearm they want (including those I cannot have as a law abiding citizen) does not mean we should simply give up on taking reasonable measures to prevent crminals from illicitly purchasing firearms through legal dealers.

It is the waiting period that is ridiculous. An instant background check only takes a 3-5 minute phone call. The dealers don't even need computers.
 
Solitary said:
There are typically fewer controls on longarms than on handguns. And a shotgun makes an excellent home protection gun.

This situation has been discussed before on here, I think.
Click to expand...

Yep shotguns are excellent home defense weapons. Non weapon trained people ess likely to shoot themselves with one too.

The woman should have already had a weapon? Why wait till you actually need one?
 
uscitizen said:
Yep shotguns are excellent home defense weapons. Non weapon trained people ess likely to shoot themselves with one too.

The woman should have already had a weapon? Why wait till you actually need one?
Click to expand...

Shotguns do make good home protection. But many people mistakenly think that the spread pattern on the shot means you don't have to aim. Within 10 or 15 yards the shot is only going to spread 4 to 6 inches unless its a very short barrel.

And there are lots of good reasons for the woman to already have a pistol. Like learning to shoot well and shoot safely.
 
Yep a 20 gauge with #2 shot will punch about a 2 inch hole in a person at normal room distance. Much more effective than a pistol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top