Ohio gun show patrons fear more laws

Some of the hundreds of people who turned out at a northeast Ohio arena to buy, sell and trade guns over the weekend said they feared more government control over firearms.
Associated Press
Feb 4, 2013

The attraction was the Ohio Gun, Knife and Military Show at the Summit County Fairgrounds in Tallmadge. Many there said the talk about gun control after the tragedy at Newtown, Conn., has become a political obsession and no additional laws are necessary.

The Akron Beacon Journal (http://bit.ly/UQSfLe ) reports that some of the sellers posted fliers asking gun owners to call their legislators to oppose any new gun regulations.

Countering that effort was a similar call that went out this weekend from religious leaders across the nation encouraging people to call their legislators seeking support for additional gun-control legislation.

 

Comments

John Harville

People using guns kill people... recalling Officer Dunn.

beepx22

Officer Dunn was killed by a one of the few guns that wouldn't be banned under the new AWB bill. The guns they're going after by name they're going after for cosmetic features only.

Simple Enough II

Dunn was murdered by a drug user who was not allowed to possess a firearm, what about the woman and her 2 children (strangled to death), the po po uncle who was stabbed to death, the man who was bludgeoned to death in his home, yeah firearms played a big part in those murders didn't they.

luvblues2

"po po"? Really?

arnmcrmn

How many deaths occurred around this area last year from car wrecks? Ban cars.....they kill more innocent people each and every year. Facts don't lie.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

A bit satirical to a real concern, but maybe it let's us step back a second and consider things in a different way:

http://funtimeshad.com/2012/12/n...

wiredmama222

@the Hero Zone....LOLOLOL....now I know why you are successful. LOLOL

John Harville

The movies? SERIOUSLY?
We had the Godfather series - but I don't recall any resulting massacres.
"Little Caesar" didn't increase the sale of tommy guns.
"Bonnie and Clyde"?
"Dillinger"?
"TaxiDriver"?
And all "psycho" did was make people a bit dirtier as they avoided the shower.
"The Untouchables"?
OOOOOPS... we're coming up on that most fateful "St. Valentine's Day"...

Simple Enough II

How about we look at the Antidepressants folks are using, I think that this bears more on these violent acts than a weapon, something is setting these folks in motion and it is not because of a style or caliber of weapon.

wiredmama222

Could it be that people are a little more ANGRY these days and have no where to go with it? So they are acting out in the worst way they can? They pick up a gun and just start shooting?

They know that will get someone's attention!

Simple Enough II

Take a look at the shooters, they all for the most part were mentally unstable and on anti-depressents, do a little homework on it.

wiredmama222

I have read and listened to all of the last few shootings. Yes, each of the last shooters have indeed been mentally unstable and "on" something. If your point is that mental health is a problem, yes it is. But some of this could be caught if the process of purchasing a gun were better prepared by more "informed" background checks, including those at gun shows. I see nothing wrong with that. Even if seller to seller gun sales were done that way, we might be catching someone who should not be buying a gun for that very reason (mental illness) were found before he bought a gun, it would prevent them from shooting someone else.

The other thing is the way guns are secured within a home. That is the responsibility of the gun owners themselves. unfortunately for Sandy Hook, the owner of those guns either didn't have them secured or was unable to keep them secured before the killer got them from her. We will never know the answer to that problem.

wiredmama222

Do they really fear more laws, or do they fear having to do background checks when they haven't been doing them at all before this?

I bet the latter is the problem for most gun show sales.

Simple Enough II

Then don't go to a gunshow.

arnmcrmn

@simple...obviously wiredmama has never been to a gun show.....because they do background checks on the spot. Just like she knew so much about semi automatics and how they shoot bullets faster.

wiredmama222

I have been to many gun shows. Never assume. And I have yet to see all persons who have purchased, including my ex husband, go through a background check when he or his friend, bought guns there. So please do not try and tell me that ALL gun shows do background checks. Right out at Ehove was a perfect example of how they did not do a background check when the two of them bought guns and not a single check was done when they purchased. That is an out and out lie that a background check was ever done....person to person sales does not always do that and you know it.

And lets not go through that semi automatic thing again, as I was right about how fast they eject their bullets. Unless you are calling the head of the NRA a liar as well? Is that the case? You are saying that Wayne Le Pierre does not know what he is talking about when he talks? Ok, then, I will write and tell him what a total liar you say he is on here and include the transcript of this conversation to point it out. I am sure he will be most gratified to know that.

wiredmama222

@ simple enough 11. You guys just assume too much for not knowing someone very well. Why, we intend to go to one as soon as the next one comes back. Or to one in Toledo. In fact, my husband had a wonderful idea about doing background checks to save everyone a problem. Do the background check right at the door when you are entering. Then simply stamp everyone's hand that has had the check. No stamp, no purchase. That way no one can buy the guns without that stamp. It frees up everyone from having to do their own background checks and each person entering has already been cleared to purchase. Without the correct stamp, which cannot be falsefied, no one can buy a gun. No muss, no fuss. Not a bad idea, I must say. better than going to the last gun shoe we visited in AZ.

abigbear

http://minutemennews.com/2013/02...

“I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new ‘litmus test’ in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. ‘The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not.’ Those who will not are being removed.”
Read more: http://MinuteMenNews.com/2013/02...

wiredmama222

Oh, please.

abigbear

xzz

abigbear

The U.S. government is authorized to order the killing of any American citizen who is believed to be a “senior operational” leader of al-Qaeda or “an associated force” regardless of whether that person poses an immediate national security threat, according to a confidential Justice Department memo.

The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, reveals the rationale behind the September 2011 drone strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaeda operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both men were American citizens and had not been indicted or charged with crimes.

Human rights activists and other critics have questioned the Obama administration’s policy of using drone strikes against alleged al-Qaeda operatives, including U.S. citizens. The key question in the debate has to do with whether the federal government is within its power to kill Americans who have not been indicted or charged with any crimes.

Trustafarian

I'm confused. Now we aren't supposed to kill Americans who have vowed to destroy America and wage jihad against our troops?

The Big Dog's back

Wow, a bleeding heart right winger. If you sleep with dogs you might get fleas. If you pal around with terrorists you might get erased.

wiredmama222

@abigbear....I should hope we WOULD be doing just that. Anyone who has taken up arms against AMERICANS, who vows in any way, shape or form to harm the USA, should be shot down, at or destroyed. If these people were Americans and have become traitors to their own country for beliefs that now go contradictory to their own country, then they should be killed.

They ceased to be Americans when they took up the cause for AlQueda or any foreign government. You cannot play both sides against the middle and call yourself an American ever again. They were indicted by their own words and actions. They were activists for Al Quidea and then their families cry foul? Why is that? Pick a side but do not call yourself an American when you pick up a bomb and use it against Americans in a war AGAINST American's on foreign soil. That makes you a traitor just like these young man became. Of course the military went after them and killed them. They were traitors of America and they got what they deserved.

I don't weep for him, I don't spare one tear for a traitor. Not one. Most American's won't. So don't come on here and expect anyone to feel sorry for him either. He was AlQueida through and through. Not Islam, not pure and free. He was a traitorous man without a soul. He deserved to die and die he did.

Speakezy

But, but he has a Nobel piece prize for the peace he might bring to the world!

Simple Enough II

Is that why he received it? Silly me I thought it was for another reason.

reporter54

8 of 9 massacres were committed by mentally ill persons. They would have found other weapons if they had not been able to obtain guns. Making tougher gun laws won't necessarily help and responsible sane citizens should be able to own/carry guns. There are conspiracy theories that suggest the government wants to disarm citizens in order to have more control (as if they don't have enough already) and then you want to call it paranoid? Just look around and count the rights you no longer have.

Simple Enough II

Thank you Reporter54, but some of these folks will not listen to logic or reason and/or suffer from little man syndrome.

whocares

The Government is trying to maintain popularity by only looking at the problem at the surface. People are murdered everyday by a variety of ways. Guns probably make up the least percentage of murders. And yes mental health does play a big part. So does Hollywood and the video industry. I believe you need to give people back the American Dream again. You don't hear this mentioned any more. Give people a chance to earn a living wage and you would probably see things start to change. Its easy to pick on guns because people are affraid of them. Instead of passing new laws we should enforce the ones we have.

looking around

Some thoughts on gun control or the regulation thereof. It seems as though this topic is at the fore front lately. Those in opposition like to say “if guns are outlawed then only criminals will have guns” Lets look at this statement for a minute. Where do outlaws get guns? They steal them from legal gun owners who don’t take necessary precautions to make sure they don’t fall into the wrong hands, these gun owners are irresponsible in the manner they store their weapons and ammunition. They also fail to use technology that would render the weapons useless to those who may gain unauthorized access. The criminal also obtains these weapons by going to states that have little or no control over the sale of guns and ammunition to anyone with the money to purchase them. An unscrupulous person may purchase and re- sell in the interest of profit with no regard for legalities.
Those in opposition of stricter gun control are against background checks and psychological evaluation. How many think that someone hole up in the woods with likeminded individuals suffering delusional paranoia that fear their government, with numerous weapons at the ready with a boat load of ammunition stores for what they feel is an ultimate standoff, could pass a true evaluation to legally purchase and own these weapons and ammunition?
Take a look at the way gun dealers, police, and military safe guard their arsenals and ammunition stores. Why do you think they feel it is necessary to maintain these safe guards?
IMHO the more weapons and ammunition we can keep out of the hands of irresponsible people as described in the beginning of this message, the better chance we have of keeping guns out of criminal hands or out of the hands of those not properly trained in handling them.
What is wrong with regulation that forces the gun owner to take full responsibility for the guns they own? I have two long barrel rifles a shotgun and a revolver. I have trigger locks on all, they are not stored loaded and I keep the ammunition in a lock box in another location of the house. When I’m away for extended periods I entrust another person in my family to lock them up with their guns for safe keeping. If I take a gun out of storage and have it at the ready and loaded, it does not leave my sight and is placed back in safe storage when not needed.
I have no problem with looking at better ways to regulate the ownership and use of weapons and can’t envision any sane person feeling any different.

Pages