Terminalcoffee discussion

We have an official state firearm!

The laws are simple. To purchase a firearm in Utah, you must pass an "instant background check." This step is skipped if you have a valid concealed carry permit. Handgun purchasers must also show a valid Utah ID, though rifles and shotguns are available to anyone.


To get a concealed carry permit you fill out a form, have an instructor sign a card saying you know which end the bullet comes out, and pay $46 ($51 for out of state).

Open carry is fine in Utah, as long as the weapon is two actions from firing.

For concealed carry:

Applicant must be at least 21 years of age
Proof of good character...whereas the applicant;
has not been convicted of a felony;
has not been convicted of any crime of violence;
has not been convicted of any offense involving the use of alcohol;
has not been convicted of any offenses involving the unlawful use of narcotics or other controlled substances;
has not been convicted of any offenses involving moral turpitude;
has not been convicted of any offense involving domestic violence;
has not been adjudicated by a court of a state or of the United States as mentally incompetent, unless the adjudication has been withdrawn or reversed

*A criminal background check is conducted for all applicants.

Better, Phil. If you have a permit in your own state, Oregon for us. You take a 4 hr class (I've been in it, but didn't bother to get Utah personally) and send a check to Utah. 60-ish days later you get a Utah permit. The benefit is, Utah permit holders have reciprocal agreements with 37 (I think that is correct. It is for sure 30-something) other states. So, say I had Oregon and Washington, then got Utah. I could carry in nearly 40 states, concealed, for the time investment of 4 hrs and less than 500 bucks.

I bought a gun in Michigan for my dad. He requested it as a gift. They did a background check on me while in the store. I walked out of the store with gun and bullets.

I am not sure on Georgia's gun laws, however, they must be fairly lax. I have been told I live in a "gun county" and that the majority of my neighbors have guns.

Oregon is concealed carry with a permit, the aforementioned 4 hr class. I think it cost me $85 or something. They give you a certificate at the end (no test...just for being there and listening) and you take that to your county sheriff's office within one year and they give you your CCW.

Pretty much the same background check as Utah as far as not being a convicted felon etc.

Oregon does have open carry, but the instructor said not to do it. Someone is liable to freak out and if the cops get called they will still charge you with "Disturbing the Peace" or some similar charge.

When the Mr. was hiking a lot at night, he always open carried the 44 mag in a shoulder holster. He has seen bears, cougars and meth-heads up in the gorge, it was good to have, but luckily never needed.

We're not gun nuts, but my family have always been gun owners. We have a lot of military in our family.

I don't like guns, I would never use one myself...but I also wouldn't try to deny others the right to own them.

Just don't bring them around me is all I ask :)

I'm with Barb.

Also I congratulate Bob Costas for using his halftime NFL commentary to promote gun control.

The NBC sportscaster, who frequently delivers commentary at halftime of the weekly NFL showcase, addressed the weekend's murder-suicide involving Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher.

Costas said that the shooting has invoked the "mindless sports cliche" that "something like this really puts it all in perspective."

"Please," he said. "Those who need tragedies to continually recalibrate their sense of proportion about sports would seem to have little hope of ever truly achieving perspective."

He then paraphrased and quoted extensively from a piece by Fox Sports columnist Jason Whitlock.

After praising the column, Costas said: "In the coming days, Jovan Belcher's actions and their possible connection to football will be analyzed. Who knows? But here, wrote Jason Whitlock, is what I believe. If Jovan Belcher didn't possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today."

-----

"You tune in for a football game and end up listening to Bob Costas spewing sanctimonious dreck," tweeted Herman Cain, the former GOP presidential candidate.

Above a headline "Advocacy Gone Awry?" the hosts of Fox's morning show "Fox & Friends" read letters from viewers criticizing Costas' stance. On Megyn Kelly's afternoon show, there was a debate on whether Costas should be fired.

Rock star and gun advocate Nugent was quick to criticize via Twitter: "Hey Bob Costas we all kno (sic) that obesity is a direct result of the proliferation of spoons and forks. Get a clue."

I thought Bob Costas was way off base too and I'm not a gun nut.

I see no problem with owning a gun if you are able to follow the laws that come with gun ownership.

Jovan Belcher was unable to follow the law. Should he still have owned one?

If no laws were broken prior to the shooting then, yes he has the right to own a gun. Belcher killed that woman not the gun. Who's to say he wouldn't have stabbed her to death if he didn't have a gun?

So Costas was "way off base" because he stated his opinion about something that he felt was important?

Somehow it has come to be that the 2nd Amendment now takes absolute precedence over even freedom of speech. No, we can't even whisper anything about the remote possibility that the NRA has twisted the 2nd Amendment into the absolute right of firearm manufacturers and sellers to make huge amounts of money.

We must all tiptoe around Ted Nugent and the NRA.

Gail wrote: "Christopher wrote: "I don't like guns, I would never use one myself... I am happy to deny others the right to own them.

Don't bring them around me is all I ask :)"

With a little modification Chri..."

.....not sure I understand what you're saying, but it seems as though words are being put into my mouthy that I didn't say.

Dennis wrote: "If no laws were broken prior to the shooting then, yes he has the right to own a gun. Belcher killed that woman not the gun. Who's to say he wouldn't have stabbed her to death if he didn't have a gun?"

Nothing at all. He very well might have. But knives are also used for other things, and handguns are only used to kill people. Therefore it makes a whole lot of sense to restrict handgun sale and use, but not knife sale and use.

Dennis wrote: "I see no problem with owning a gun if you are able to follow the laws that come with gun ownership."

Even as someone who has had guns pulled on me more than a few times, I must agree.

^ those damn typos get me every time ;)

Zardoz is in the Tardis wrote: "Dr. Detroit wrote: "Dennis wrote: "I see no problem with owning a gun if you are able to follow the laws that come with gun ownership."

Even as someone who has had guns pulled on me more than a fe..."

Agreed.

I don't understand any of this . Why does everyone need a gun?

Becuz the gummint gonna take away yer rites! Theys gunna let that you-enn control us all. Thank jesus our boys din't sine that treety this week. Its a slipry slope.

Kyle ~Special K: Rebel Leader~ wrote: "evie wrote: "I don't understand any of this . Why does everyone need a gun?"

I'm with you, Evie. I don't get the whole mentality of this gun crazed country of ours."

I agree with the both of you.

As for Heston....if I may speak bluntly, I'm glad the Nazi bastard is no longer among the living. That blob of protoplasm was a disgrace and did more damage to gun supporters than anyone else. What he did during the Columbine tragedy was completely insensitive to the victims and their families.

Christopher wrote: "I agree with the both of you.....but don't let Gail see these posts or else she'll swoop in and alter your words to make you look like a fanatic. *rolls eyes*"

Christopher, I hope you're not looking for support in this renewed attack on Gail. Most of us here are good friends with Gail, and know that the motive you appear to be attributing to her is not at all in her nature.

What Gail did with your post is something several of us do occasionally. She changed a couple of words in your post to demonstrate that her view was 180 degrees opposed on that specific point.

Generally when this is done we leave the old text in place, but put it in a strikeout font. By omitting that step it made it look like you had said something you hadn't. Oops. Boo-boo. But deserving of continued scorn? Not even close.

So now, please stop fucking with my friend can we at least have a truce?

....it would seem that I have offended a great many people then by defending myself.

Granted it may have been a mistake, but a simple mea culpa or acknowledgement of that would have been nice.

As it stood, I felt I was merely defending myself from having words put in my mouth. I saw nothing wrong with my original post explaining my thoughts. I am against guns, but I never once damned or insulted gun supporters.

I would love a truce...but I sure as hell am NOT going to feel like a heel or an ass here because I defended my original argument....quite frankly I find the whole thing fucking ridiculous that someone can't have an opposing viewpoint and argue the pros and cons about it without becoming butthurt and altering someone's words (and yeah yeah I know it was to make a point...again, not my fault it came out the way it did)

You want a truce or to drop it....fine....but if you have a problem, bring it to my attention privately rather than broadcast it on the forum for everyone to see....that just smells of trying to garner attention.

And before I get called out for doing the same thing in this post....I was not aware of the circumstances surrounding Gail's meaning. So, I apologize for my previous words, but as I said...an acknowledgement of the mistake would have saved a lot of misunderstanding.

*steps outside to smoke and hopefully will come back and not be the group pariah*

Really.

Handguns were illegal in Chicago up until a couple years ago. They are now legal. We have a patchwork of firearms laws across the state, so that if you traveled from one end of Illinois to the other with a firearm, you could be certain of violating the law somewhere.

Illinois is the only state that has no provisions for concealed carry. To legally own a firearm you must have a FOID card issued by the state police. You must be 21, not have any felony or domestic violence convictions, not have resided in a mental institution in the past 5 years, not be an undocumented immigrant. When you are transporting a weapon it must be unloaded and inside a weapons case. Automatic weapons, and short-barreled rifles are illegal. Assault weapons are banned in Chicago and Cook County (Chicago being within Cook County).

The city of Chicago requires you to undergo a firearm training and safety course, undergo a background check, and be fingerprinted. Permit is $100 and has to be renewed every 3 years. Also, sale of firearms is prohibited within the city of Chicago.

My nephew had to take a safety course before hunting this year. It was three days long. He will be 16 in January.

::begins to freshen cheese plate, fluff pillows and refill drinks::

Are you hosting the local gun club luncheon?

Thanks Bdubs. :) At least it was a subtle attempt.

I don't own a gun.

I wish my nephew didn't hunt.

I wouldn't mind at all taking up shooting as a sport. Target shooting in a gallery, skeet shooting. I wouldn't mind it, I think it might be fun, but I'm also not willing to devote the time and money to it when there are other things I find more enjoyable.

Oh, I think target shooting with a gun would be great fun. I use to (try) to shoot at a target with my dad's bow.

Yay to Kyle!

MERCER, Pa. — A 7-year-old boy had been buckling himself into his safety seat in the back of his father’s truck when he was shot to death after a handgun accidentally went off as his father got in the front seat, police said Sunday.

Joseph V. Loughrey, 44, told police he had been trying to sell the guns Saturday at Twigs Reloading Den in East Lackawannock Township, 60 miles north of Pittsburgh. He unloaded the magazine at home, but didn’t realize a bullet was still in the chamber...

Gun safety training is not required in Pennsylvania.

I just took up trap shooting. I used to hunt, but just quit enjoying it. Not sure why there is a need to own a handgun, but I have no problem with people owning them if they have taken the proper course. I see no need what so ever for any one to own an assault rifle, or any gun with a clip that holds more then ten rounds of ammunition. Those are not for hunting or protection, those guns are made for killing. These are just my opinions not being stated as any fact.

Guns don't kill people - people do. By the same token, planes don't kill people - people flying them into buildings do. And yet, I recall that we immediately and decisively worked to keep deranged people from gaining possession of planes when a handful of those people used them as tools of mass murder; indeed, we made it much more difficult for the overwhelming majority of peaceful, law-abiding citizens to board a plane. - commenter on The Dish

The defense of "Guns don't kill people. People kill people" needs to be retired. It's as idiotic as "Fried food doesn't make you fat ... unless you eat it."

Try to see things from the perspective of the victims, not the unaffected. - commenter on The Dish

"Now is not the time to talk about gun policy in the US" - Random talking head on television following the mass shooting at a CT school

WRONG! Wrong, wrong, wrong!

Now is the PERFECT time to talk about it, you ignorant fuckwit. RIGHT NOW, as you watch them carry those tiny bodies out of their kindergarten classroom. As you watch while the distraught parents remain inconsolable and everyone is asking "why? why? and how could such a horrible thing happen?"

Fuck you, Mr. "It's Not Time." I don't give a shit if you're not talking, but others are, and they're right.

"...epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/...

Makes sense. If I were rampaging with a gun I'd be sure to shoot first at anyone else who had one.

Bushmaster's Shockingly Awful "Man Card" Campaign

"The company that produces the semiautomatic rifle used in the Newtown, CT, shootings is currently running an online campaign based around virtual cards that “prove” the bearer's manliness. One specifically talks about how unmanly it is to be afraid of elementary-school kids."

Lots of language about "revoking mancards"....

http://www.buzzfeed.com/scott/bushmas...

...there is broader support among Americans for incremental changes to gun laws. Polls by CNN and YouGov earlier this year found overwhelming support for several specific gun control policies: background checks, bans on gun sales to those with mental health problems, waiting periods before gun purchases and a national registry of gun ownership. (HuffPo)

More then three in four, or 76%, of Americans want laws "requiring gun owners to register their guns with the local government". And 60% of Americans are against "high-capacity or extended ammunition clips". Gun control advocates would be wise to push proposals that implement these two gun control policies. They have majority support that can only grow after Newtown. It would be more difficult for Republican senators to oppose them – as they did with a bill to ban high-capacity clips this past July, when Democratic senators introduced legislation. (The Guardian)

"Where's the DMV for guns?"

"...getting a gun should be at least as hard as getting a driver's license. A citizen who wants a gun and a concealed carry permit should go through exactly the same training and recertification as a cop would... it's easier to get a gun as a citizen than as a cop." (TheWeek.com)

As of today, there have been 70 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, leaving 543 people dead (assuming the reports of 27 fatalities from today's shootings are correct.) Seven of those 70 shootings occurred this year. Sixty-eight of those 543 victims were killed this year. If the scenes of horror and heartbreak are now familiar, it's because the past six years have been particularly bloody. Fully 45% of the victims of mass shootings in America over the past three decades were killed since 2007. That is a crisis. (The New Republic)

President Obama in Newtown: "Are we prepared that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?"

Dish commenter:
But freedom is not even what needs to be traded to win better control over gun safety. This is the way the gun lobby wants to frame it, in terms of freedom. But really it is merely the convenience and pleasure of gun hobbyists - not a glorious noble freedom - that is being preserved at the cost of these awful innocent deaths.

Nobody complains that their automotive freedom is under threat, yet automobile owners tolerate a host of limitations in the power of their equipment, licensing, registration and insurance requirements, safety standards, and rules of the road when enjoying the freedom of personal transportation. In both cases we entrust adults to own and operate dangerous equipment, but only gun owners scream and howl at the tiniest burden of inconvenience for the sake of safety and aid to law enforcement investigators. It does not kill the freedom to own guns to ask owners to comply with standards for safety reasons. It only adds a little to the cost of that freedom. What we must ask is if that small cost is worth the lives of these innocent babes.

I was freaked out when I heard about the school system that was arming its teachers.

Who really knows about the mental health of the teachers? An unbalanced teacher with a gun is a possibility.

And then there's the threat that high school students who know the teacher has a gun will get control of it and use it. They don't have to bring a gun into the school: it's already there.

When citizens carry guns (unless they're law enforcement officers), they can introduce violence into situations where it's not called for.

That's not to say that I don't believe people have a right to have guns to protect their homes from the bad guys who also have them. I have a shotgun beside my bed.

The man who just killed two firefighters (and injured two others) had, in 1980, been convicted of killing his grandmother with a hammer. He served an 18 year sentence. When caught (after killing himself), he was found to have a .223 Bushmaster (exactly what was used in CT), a revolver and a shotgun.

See the story here.

THREE HUNDRED MILLION GUNS in this country.

The NRA blames everything BUT guns for the violence. They fail to mention that people in other countries play violent video games, listen to the same music and watch the same movies, all WITHOUT picking up guns and killing people.

Fuck the NRA.

In the comment section of the story I linked above I found the following. I like the thinking here, though I disagree that the tobacco industry was "brought down." Their influence certainly was weakened, though.

Public education and taxes brought down the tobacco industry, and could do the same for the gun industry (we could do a norquist and call them the death industry). I am sure there is a majority opinion to get rid of all of those that can kill 20 children in a few minutes (in fact let's use this terminology instead of arguing about assault/automatic/semi-automatic). Let's start with huge taxes on their sale, registration and ammo. Let's have a billboard in Times square that keeps a running count of gun deaths since Newtown. Let's require every gun sold to have a sticker that gives the number of people killed in gun accidents/per year, and have a federal advertising campaign that brings the number to the forefront of every gun owners mind. Eventually Scalia et al will go and we may get Justices that read all of the 2nd Amendment.

I'd take all the guns. Toss 'em in a pit and fire up the smelter.

It is amazing the number of people who want others to give up a natural right when the very ability to express that desire would be unavailable to them by the same arguments.

Did the founding fathers really intend for us to have free speech in this day and age of the Web?

Do we need jury trials now that we have DNA evidence?

Religion. Well just see the extreme right Capital E Evangelical movement, etc. Don't really need that now do we?

Oh what about having dinner with friends and not having to worry that it can be used against you in a court of law?

Ever write a letter to the editor or post a comment on a news page about a story? Lets just throw that out too. It will save bandwidth and not rile up any people who might take offense. To say nothing of writing reviews on Goodreads.

It being the Holiday season I'm sure you won't mind if on the way to Mom & Dad's house your Christmas presents are seized from the trunk of your car. After all as a matter of routine security since they were wrapped they conceal potential contraband.

No one has to own a gun, firearm, etc. But if I choose to do so, I'd rather do that than have a member of the military or law enforcement staying in my house at my expense 'for my protection'.

That pesky old problem of freedom. Of course if all the law enforcement people would give up their carry privileges a few more citizens might rethink their rights. Notice, privileges. Law enforcement doesn't have any special 'right to carry'. That is why it is more complex and difficult for them to become fully sworn officers of the law. It may be a better way to go, but it is a ways off.

We had a real bad experience with Amending the Constitution in the 20th century. It was repealed. And it was not even apart of the original Constitution nor a right that was curtailed.

Oh, yeah it doesn't matter whether we can go have a beer. We are going to give up the right to free assembly. Guess everyone will just have to drink alone.

Happy New Year

::fires up the smelter::

Anyone need a ploughshare?

Discussions of guns and gun control seems to always be based on the assumption that "guns = freedom." I don't believe that's true and I won't concede that as a starting point. It's bullshit.

Several contributors in this forum live in Australia, a country with some of the most restrictive gun laws in a first-world country. Are the citizens there captives of government? Are they any less free for not having unfettered access to handguns?

Gun laws in the U.K. are also tight. See a lot of gun crimes or mass killings? Are English folk less free for not packing heat?

Country after country with severe restrictions on firearms evidence a lack of truth in the gun=freedom argument, yet it's dragged out as a given nearly every time the subject comes up.

It's bullshit.

All this endless talk about freedom and rights of gun owners never makes sense to me.

Don't 7 year olds and movie goers have a right to life?
Why is the right of gun owners more important than the right to go about life without the fear of being shot?

We ban, license and limit all kinds of things in the name of public safety. There is no logical, legal or constitutional reason why guns are not more tightly controlled and limited.

By the way, I was taught to target shoot and trap shoot when I was a little kid. I have shot all kinds of guns. All of this nonsense about arming teachers must come from people who have never shot a gun. Its not like in the movies.