Friday, February 10, 2017

VT legislators consider firearm background check bill

Springfield resident and firearms business owner Paul Stagner said on Wednesday that while firearms background check laws are important, adding more layers to existing regulations may not be effective.

www.eagletimes.com    

13 comments :

  1. Another piece of "feel good" legislation that will do NOTHING to stop crime. Most murders are committed with either legally purchased or stolen guns. Wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook, or most other mass shootings. Once a person has decided to commit murder, do you really think a $500 fine will be a deterrent? All someone would have to do if the person they "loaned" a gun killed someone with it, is say they stole it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. chuck gregory2/10/17, 5:25 PM

    No, actually most homicides (as opposed to suicides, accidental discharges resulting in death and law-enforcement homicides committed in the line of duty) are committed with guns that were released to the perpetrator by a purchaser who LET THE WEAPON LEAVE HIS CONTROL through loss, neglectful storage, loan, pawn or sale of a weapon.

    Had those gun purchasers exercised the proper respect for the power of their weapon and their responsibility to the public to ensure their weapon never passed into unworthy hands, we would not have 80% of homicides committed with the guns they bought.

    THAT is the legislation we need.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You CAN NOT hold someone responsible for someone elses actions! "Let the weapon leave his control?" That makes it the responsibility of the one IN CONTROL! Sounds like you're just looking for "targets of opportunity!" Let's apply the same logic to another situation; if you sell someone a car, and later they get stoned and kill someone, is it the seller's responsibility? If someone intentionally kills another with a chainsaw, is Ace Hardware responsible? All of these things; guns, cars, and chainsaws, are inanimate mechanical devices THAT CAN KILL in the "wrong hands." I suppose you COULD require the seller to read minds and see the future, THAT would prevent gun deaths; holding innocent citizens responsible for future crimes commited by others won't!

      Delete
    2. chuck gregory2/13/17, 11:18 AM

      The gun purchaser can control his/her weapon by destroying it rather than letting it get lost, stolen, lent, gifted, pawned or sold. It's that simple. And it's not a violation of the Second Amendment. So, what's your problem with that proposal, which would reduce gun homicides by 81%?

      Or, to put it another way, how would you feel if your spouse, parent or child was killed with a gun you had sold ten years ago to a friend, who then sold it to someone else?

      Delete
    3. Pack your bags, we're going on a guilt trip! I would feel no worse about someone getting killed with a gun I sold, than with a car I sold. I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF OTHERS. I also challenge your assertion that 81% of homicides would be prevented. It's a nice sounding number, but since you include EVERY way to purchase a used firearm in your "data," what you're really saying is that if all used guns were destroyed, no one could get a used gun. Unless they stole it, or illegally purchased a stolen one, which is how most criminals actually get them. So, I guess if you wanted to commit murder, you'd have to steal a gun, or buy a stolen one, or pass the background check and buy one legally! Wouldn't stop crime, just punish honest citizens for crimes they didn't commit. The real winner here? THE GUN INDUSTRY! With all the used guns out of circulation, people would have to buy NEW ONES! (Hmmm, didn't think that one through, did you?)

      Delete
  3. Philip Caron2/13/17, 9:19 AM

    Just an observation: online discussions about gun control, both here and elsewhere, seem to involve a high number of definitive statements, often involving capitalized words. It's as though people are really sure about what they're saying and they want to emphasize that. That applies to people on all sides of this complex topic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. chuck gregory2/13/17, 11:20 AM

      Philip, caps in the blogosphere are the equivalent of a shout. When passions run high, he who uses caps first is losing...

      Delete
    2. DON'T FEED THE TROLL.

      Delete
  4. The topic isn't complex, though it may seem that way. It's have the right to defend yourself, or don't have it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. chuck gregory2/14/17, 1:44 PM

    Good to know you wouldn't feel sorry if somebody you love gets killed with a gun you could have destroyed, 6:34. I'm not saying 81% of homicides would be prevented; I'm saying the 81% of homicides committed with the firearms that were not destroyed would be prevented.

    With original purchasers valuing the power of their firearm enough to keep it from falling into lesser hands, all gun homicides would be committed by the person who is the original purchaser-- which would mean fewer gun homicides overall.

    How is it punishing a gun owner to require him to respect the potency of his weapon enough to keep it from passer into hands that are not as worthy as his? King Arthur never lent or sold Excalibur.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chuck, you really are a piece of work. Instead of having a thoughful and productive conversation on an important topic, you engage in cheap insults, verbal manipulation, and "alternative facts." You are the Trump of the far left. Well, I'm done "feeding the troll," and I really do have better things to do!

      Delete
  6. Excalibur? Is that not legend?

    ReplyDelete
  7. King Arthur did get rid of Excalibur, As I recall it ended up in a stone for anyone to find , A total stranger pulls it out of stone ,Then some woman in a lake gets it, Everyone come's to their sense's and Excalibur is returned to the stranger

    ReplyDelete


Please keep your comments polite and on-topic.

R E C E N T . . . C O M M E N T S

Springfield Vermont News is an ongoing zero-income volunteer hyperlocal news gathering project. No paid advertising is accepted on this site but any Springfield business willing to place a link to this news blog on their site will be considered for a free ad here. Businesses, organizations and individuals may submit write-ups and photos about any positive happenings here in Springfield that they are associated with and would be deemed newsworthy. Email the Editor at ed44vt@gmail.com.

Privacy statement: This blog does not share personal information with third parties nor do we store any information about your visit to this blog other than to analyze and optimize your content and reading experience through the use of cookies. You can turn off the use of cookies at anytime by changing your specific browser settings. We are not responsible for republished content from this blog on other blogs or websites without our permission. This privacy policy is subject to change without notice and was last updated on January 1, 2017. If you have any questions feel free to contact Springfield Vermont News directly here: ed44vt@gmail.com .

Pageviews past week


Sign by Danasoft - For Backgrounds and Layouts