"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
>
> Greg Procter
ihug.co.nz> wrote in
> news:4638FB03.5932F7F3@ihug.co.nz:
> >> "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
>>>
>>> Greg Procter
ihug.co.nz> wrote in
>>> news:4637A778.132CD4E2@ihug.co.nz:>
>>>>> NICS is the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
>>>>> NICS is a point of sale system that Federal Firearms License
>>>>> holders are required by law to use in the United States when
>>>>> selling a firearm to a customer to determine if the customer is
>>>>> prohibited from buying a firearm under the Gun Control Act.
>>>>
>>>> If it's "national" why would you expect anyone outside the USa to
>>>> understand what it is?
>>>
>>> I really don't. That is why I will explain what it is when asked.
>>> You have been around this newsgroup for some time so I assumed that
>>> you had become familiar with the term. My bad.
>>>
>>>>> It is tied to the NCIC or National Crime
>>>>> Information Ceter. It is supposed to contain the names of all
>>>>> prohibited possessors.
>>>>
>>>> If "they" are prohibited and possessors then why aren't they locked
>>>> up?
>>>
>>> Part of our cultural and social problems. Prohibited possessors is a
>>> term used to describe those who cannot purchase, own, possess, sell,
>>> trade, swap, carry a firearm.
>>
>> The term in english says possessors who are prohibited.
>> (Why do yanks persist in making up terms that they use to cover other
>> than what they describe?)
>
> We do that so all you islanders will have something to talk about when
> discussing our gun laws. ;) What the term means to us here is that
> those people are prohibited from possessing a firearm.
What you yanks seem always to miss is that the language and the words
actually have meaning of their own, or in other words it is not a code.
>
>>> The group includes all felons (criminals
>>> convicted of felonious behaviour), drug dealers, misdemeanor spousal
>>> abuse, dishonorable discharges from the military, adjudicated
>>> mentally deficients, and those under indictment for a crime that
>>> carries a potential incarceration of one year or longer.
>>>
>>> When released from prison, and after a period of time, felons can
>>> petition the court to get their rights restored. This does not
>>> happen that often.
>>>
>>>>> Virginia did not pass their information (read court
>>>>> decision) on Cho to that database, ergo, he passed the background
>>>>> check. The Governor of Virginia issued an Executive Order on
>>>>> Monday to close that loophole.
>>
>> Don't you think it's silly to ask only the individual applicant if
>> they are liars or have mental problems?
>
> Huh? You don't know how the system works, do you. Let me give you a
> brief overview. The purchaser fills out a form 4473. On that form,
> he/she is asked questions about their background including ones that will
> prevent them purchasing a firearm as it would make them a prohibited
> possessor (I know, I know). If they answer that they are, the deal goes
> no further.
That's very much a reason to lie, particularly if one knows that a
truthful answer will stom one from obtaining that which one desires!
> The dealer won't even run them through NICS. If their
> answers indicate that they are not prohibied possessors, then the dealer
> runs them through the background check system to verify that. If they
> pass, the sale goes through. If they do not, it doesn't.
ok.
> BTW, lying on
> the form is a federal felony, punishable with a five year prison
> sentence. (Unless you are a criminal, then due to your Fifth Amendment
> rights you are only guilty of misdemeanor falsifying a document. ;(
> Yep, our US Supreme Court at work. Haynes v US - 1968) Any, the answers
> are checked for veracity.
So if you are a law abiding citizen and make a mistake you go to prison
for five years - If you are of criminal intent you are guilty of a
misdemenor and get a slap on the wrist???
>
>> Ask any group of 100 people if they are liars and you are guarenteed
>> to get 100 "Nos".
>> Any "yes" calls the next answer into question.
>
> See above, now that you may understand it better. A dealer just doesn't
> take their word for it.
>
>> Ask anyone if they have mental problems - those with no problems will
>> answer "No", those with problems but who want a gun will answer "No"
>> and those who don't remember or who blame the world will answer "no".
>> Having the test administered by the person who will make the profit
>> from the gun sale guarentees everyone will pass.
>>
>
> Wrong. If he sells (and continues to sell) to those who fail the NICS
> background check, he will lose his license, can no longer legally sell as
> a dealer, his livelihood is gone and he may well be facing time in a
> federal prison. That is tracked by the BATF whose responsibility it is
> to oversee all federal firearms licensees.
I'm sure gun dealers are aware of the pitfalls!
>
>>>> He was only 32 deaths too late!
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>>
>>>>> States were required to enter that data by Congress in 1993. In
>>>>> 1997, the US Supreme Court overruled that and made it voluntary
>>>>> for the states to enter that data.
>>>>
>>>> Crazy!
>>>
>>> This is where some of those gun problems come from. Many of the same
>>> people who wish to see the sale of guns curtailed, lead the charge
>>> for medical privacy, etc.. which prevents those folks from being in
>>> that database which would prevent them from purchasing through a
>>> dealer. Rather paradoxical, in my opinion.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry. Blame it on Cho....or VT's ban on guns on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> campus preventing anyone from lawfully carrying a gun
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on campus and possibly stopping the carnage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I blame it on the idiots like you who demand that
>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone should be allowed a gun to offend as they see
>>>>>>>>>>>> fit.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Where have I ever demanded that? You are a dishonest
>>>>>>>>>>> liar, mon ami.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you have a gun then everyone (within range) needs a gun
>>>>>>>>>> to defend themselves from you -
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Damn, in over 50 years, I haven't had anyone who needed to
>>>>>>>>> defend themselves from me. Am I doing it wrong? You used to
>>>>>>>>> be good at debating, lately you simply seem to be a knee
>>>>>>>>> jerk moron.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You only have to have one bad day and someone's dead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Haven't had one in over 50 years and I don't think that will
>>>>>>> change tomorrow. ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We never do!
>>>>>
>>>>> So far....so good. You see, I am not the problem. The criminal
>>>>> is.
>>>>
>>>> Can you somehow demonstrate that you are not a potential criminal?
>>>> Cho wasn't a criminal.
>>>
>>> Let me see. Are you about to go off and rape someone?
>>
>> Would you be surprised if I answered "No". Would you be any the wiser
>> from me answering that question?
>
> ;)
>
>>> How can you prove
>>> that?
>>
>> It's unprovable. However, given that I haven't in my 44 years since
>> puberty, that I have no criminal record, that I have no record of
>> mental instability or mental deficiency, you can with 99.99...%%
>> certainty assume that I won't in the future.
>
> Same with me and firearms.
>
> There's still that
>>
0.0..1%% chance that I might.
>
> Yep, and we pose no penalties for you based on that
0.0..1%% chance. We
> do not hold you to particular position or inconvenience on that chance.
> There are no pre-chance penalties or hoops.
So more groups of students are going to die in the future!
>
>> Now, if I apply for a hand-gun that
>> percentage moves up a point or two
>
> And why is that? Do you think that inanimate objects like guns talk to
> you over your bowl of Rice Krispies?
Concealable hand-guns are for use against humans - most animals can't
tell a gun from a stick.
>
> ? and the chances that I will get in
>> to an armed confrontation moves up from zero to a real number.
>
> Why would that be? If your tendencies were to avoid confrontation before
> you got a firearm, why would you change those tendencies after you bought
> one?
Because you now have the means by which you no longer need to avoid
confrontation.
>
>> As you
>> may well know, any number divided by zero is infinity.
>>
>>> How about if we castrate you or remove your penis just to be safe?
>>
>> The problem there is that castration and/or penis removal doesn't stop
>> sexual abuse.
>
> And banning or removal of guns does not stop murder or mayhem. It will
> occur anyway, just like it did before the invention of gunpowder.
Sure it won't stop said, but there's a very good chance it will reduce
it drastically.
>
>>> Does your wife, girlfriend or daughter have the potential to be a
>>> prostitute? Perhaps, we should address that right up front, just in
>>> case.
>>
>> Well, around here prostitution isn't a crime.
>
> You do understand the point, however.
Of course.
Money would be the incentive -female parts the tool.
>
>>> Cho was an exception, not the rule and if the items discussed above
>>> had been in place.....perhaps.
>>
>> Sure he's the exception, but 32 innocent people have lost their rights
>> because of that exception.
>
> Yep.
>
>> Here in NZ we're happy to trade off an unwanted and unneeded "right"
>> to carry concealed weapons against innocent peoples' right to live.
>
> Your choice. I have no problem with that. If you don't wish to own a
> firearm, then simply don't do so. I only ask that you don't attempt to
> make that choice for me.
Well, it's not that simple - a bit like nuclear weapons. If you have
weapons to threaten me with then I need weapons with which to defend
myself - unless of course I have total trust in you, which I can't
because you feel the need to own said weapon.
> You see, you have to live with the results of
> your decision and face responsibility for it. If you make that decision
> for me, you don't have to live with the results nor do you have to face
> any responsibility or accountability for it. That makes you a hypocrite.
Not at all - I stand by my decision. You on the other hand deny the
effect of your decision on me.
>
>>> Or perhaps, if the medical folks had paid
>>> more attention, he may have been secured in some place where he would
>>> have gotten the attention to his problems that he needed.
>>
>> It's ok, we have the same sort of medical mistakes here. There have
>> been several cases where those mistakes have led to deaths of the
>> individual and (at least) one where the individual shot his mother. If
>> we had had hand-guns mixed into the situation we might well have had
>> our own "Virginia Tech".
>
> Yep, or you may have your own bombing of school or arson in a nightclub
> or your own David Gray or your own Stanley Graham or David Bain.
Sure, and our decision to ban concealable weapons makes such events much
more difficult for the Chos of this world to achieve.
>
>>>>> If
>>>>> you would start trying to come up with something that will affect
>>>>> the criminal without punishing the honest citizen, you would find
>>>>> all of us on your side.
>>>>
>>>> Virginia punished 31 non-criminals with the death penalty.
>>>
>>> Not really. US culture, do gooders, folks not doing their job and
>>> others who ignored signs all punished 31 students and one teacher.
>>
>> Ok, we'll agree on 32 people losing all their rights. ;-)
>
> Interesting how you wish to skip over the causes of those deaths.
Of course I wish to skip over the causes behind those deaths, because we
can't know the causes. We do on ther other hand know the means by which
those deaths occured.
>
>>>>>>>>>> see your argument re the 31 dead who might still
>>>>>>>>>> be alive if they had had guns!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I stated if someone other than Cho had a gun. If you are
>>>>>>>>> going to make claims about what I said, please try to get it
>>>>>>>>> right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Take away the gun-ban fron the Virginian Tech - does that
>>>>>>>> guarentee that someone besides Cho would have been carrying a
>>>>>>>> hand-gun to
>>>>> class?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, but I doubt that the outcome would have been any worse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True, but you might end up having outcomes more often.
>>>>>
>>>>> I rather doubt it. History has shown CCW holders to be more law
>>>>> abiding than the general population.
>>>>
>>>> So issue everyone with a CCW.
>>>
>>> Not everyone can qualify (or has the interest) for a CCW.
>>
>>
>> Sorry, that was a bad joke on spurious logic.
>
> Fair enough.
>
>>> It includs a
>>> background check (fingerprint not just name), training on the laws
>>> regarding use of deadly force, some situational awareness and some
>>> modicum of gun handling demonstrated on the range.
>>>
>>> Now, I would be in favor of teachers, faculty, etc.. on campuses who
>>> *wished* to get a CCW and carry being allowed to do so. A couple of
>>> school shootings were already stopped in progress by someone carrying
>>> a firearm and preventing further deaths. One was a vice principal
>>> who got a gun out of his car, one was an off duty police officer who
>>> was armed and another incident was two students who had CCW and
>>> happened to be on campus where that possession was not outlawed as a
>>> policy. At Virginia Tech guns were prohibited on campus although
>>> state law allows CCW.
>>
>> Yeah, we rely on the minimal number of concealable weapons in
>> circulation and the quick turnout of armed police in such situations -
>> it works for us.
>
> The turnouts of the police are usually quick, but the response once on
> the scene are not. At least, a CCW holder is already there, among the
> ones who are looked at possible victims, knows as soon as it starts to go
> down who the bad guy(s) are and has the possible advantage of surprize.
True, but your police grabbed a suspect and put all their efforts intoi
him.
>
>> I'll admit it wouldn't work well in say a situation
>> where a group of terrorists targetted a densely peopled place such as
>> a school, railway station, market ... but there is very little that
>> does.
>
> Correct, but I want as many things in my favor as I can get.
Me too - however the allowing of concealed weapons is more in favour of
the nutter than me.
>
>>>>> One doesn't go through the hoops to legally
>>>>> carry concealed simply so one can shoot up a mall or a school.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously some people do!
>>>
>>> I assume by your statement that you have a cite of someone with a CCW
>>> shooting up a mall or school. Or are you simply venting? I don't
>>> know of one.
>>
>> Cho.
>
> Cho did *NOT* have a concealed carry permit (CCW), he had a pair of guns.
> Don't confuse someone who owns a firearm to someone with a CCW.
Ok - you see around here one cannot purchase a firearm without having
the requisite licence.
>
>>>> Others spend 25 odd years growing up and
>>>> working towards good qualifications just to be murdered by gun
>>>> owners.
>>>
>>> Bullshit. They got murdered by a psycho who should have been locked
>>> up for his own and humanity's good.
>>
>> He was a gun-owner.
>
> Yep....but if he had borrowed the guns, the folks would have been just as
> dead. The fact that he owned the guns was not the problem.
The problem was that he had the weapons.
> The problems
> were many, not a singular one. He should not have been able to legally
> buy a firearm, he should have been committed (even his granma says he was
> bonkers when he was a kid), the state of Virginia should have been more
> vigilant in getting information to NICS, those who knew him should have
> been more vocal about his idiosynchrocies, the media should not have
> glorified Dylan and Klebold (or other mass killers) as much as they did,
> the cultures need to change from some of their current killing as a
> problem solutions, etc.. Hell, there is enough blame there for a lot of
> folk and a lot of situations. It is, definitely not a simple problem
> with a simple solution being attached to an inanimate object.
Very true, but as I said umpteen posts ago, if he had been armed with a
feather duster he would have taken a much longer time to kill 32 people!
Regards,
Greg.P.
