Days Since Last Shooting II

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

Nazi.

If they're Antifaschistiche, maybe it'll help to use a language they might understand.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

I would prefer it if murderers just stayed home alone.

Just don't pretend that your self defense (or your ability to raise the stakes by pulling out a gun in a conflict) is guaranteed by the Second Amendment, cause its not.

[joecct]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

Oops

@AP: BREAKING: Officials: Air Force didn't submit Texas church shooter's criminal history to FBI, as required by Pentagon rules.

[ScoobyDoo]

Oops

@AP: BREAKING: Officials: Air Force didn't submit Texas church shooter's criminal history to FBI, as required by Pentagon rules.

****ing liberals.

[Drew S.]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

Oops

@AP: BREAKING: Officials: Air Force didn't submit Texas church shooter's criminal history to FBI, as required by Pentagon rules.

If there was more regulation this never would have happened.

[dave122793]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...?smid=tw-share

A very solid read on what could be done to reduce gun deaths (but of course we won't). Some very telling statistics, especially for those who make the cars vs. guns argument which show just how much regulation has decreased the death rate per 100 million miles traveled (spoiler alert, they've dropped dramatically in the last 60 years or so).

[bronconick]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

Oops

@AP: BREAKING: Officials: Air Force didn't submit Texas church shooter's criminal history to FBI, as required by Pentagon rules.

Maybe they should take away a few F-35's until they remember to do their homework.

Not like the things work anyway.

[alfablue]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

It's amusing to hear the excuse of being able to fight a tyrannical government. (which is incredibly unrealistic, and delusional) Which justifies the 2nd be 100% unhindered.

But the same people are ok with restrictions put on other Amendments. Or even them being totally ignored. Say the poll tax- where it's prohibited to charge a tax to vote. But somehow the IDs that are required and that you HAVE to pay for are ok. Curious. Or Government paying for various CHRISTIAN things- from crosses to Christmas celebrations to even a community paying for an Ark museum- that's all ok. Sik and flaggy have both posted things that these things are ok- clearly violations of Amendments. Somehow, though, guns have to be protected at all costs in any form what so ever.

Based on that, it's pretty clear to me that one should just 100% dismiss their BS as being 100% self serving, just like the abuse of the other amendments for their self serving.

We CAN go back to reasonable arms restrictions. Again, the assault weapons ban was legal. Perhaps not well written, and that can be better clarified. But legal. And during the entire time that the ban was in place, we had the lowest mass shooting rates.

The very obvious reply is that criminals will still be able to get these guns. The Texas AG even mentioned that- there will be a black market for these weapons. And I call BS on that claim. 1) as the AG- DO YOUR JOB. The only arms industry who makes arms is here in the US. So regulating making these mass killers from being made is easy. Which leaves the weapons out right now. If you let your state generate this massive black market, you are a very bad AG. 2)- so lets put background checks on ALL sales. require some kind of documentations for these things. This isn't draconian- if they can keep track of every car, and there are equal number of total guns, AND the number of weapons that shoot fast and have large magazines is a subset of that- keeping track of some of them should be easy. For those who don't want to do that (mind you, some already are being tracked)- it's highly unlikely that they will turn to the black market to sell these guns- they will get more money legally selling them. Or they will just keep their stockpile.

This is a more realistic idea than us pretending that we can address these mass killings via a mental health path.

Has anyone actually posted a useful and probable idea to 1)define who is not mentally healthy enough to get a gun? 2) a solid plan to not let them have a gun? Drew railed on the idea that mentally challenged people could not get a gun not too long ago- so the "logic" and "reason" part of the NRA does not actually exist. This seems very unrealistic.

A gun restriction has been in place before AND IT WORKED.

[Drew S.]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

It's amusing to hear the excuse of being able to fight a tyrannical government. (which is incredibly unrealistic, and delusional) Which justifies the 2nd be 100% unhindered.

But the same people are ok with restrictions put on other Amendments. Or even them being totally ignored. Say the poll tax- where it's prohibited to charge a tax to vote. But somehow the IDs that are required and that you HAVE to pay for are ok. Curious. Or Government paying for various CHRISTIAN things- from crosses to Christmas celebrations to even a community paying for an Ark museum- that's all ok. Sik and flaggy have both posted things that these things are ok- clearly violations of Amendments. Somehow, though, guns have to be protected at all costs in any form what so ever.

Based on that, it's pretty clear to me that one should just 100% dismiss their BS as being 100% self serving, just like the abuse of the other amendments for their self serving.

We CAN go back to reasonable arms restrictions. Again, the assault weapons ban was legal. Perhaps not well written, and that can be better clarified. But legal. And during the entire time that the ban was in place, we had the lowest mass shooting rates.

The very obvious reply is that criminals will still be able to get these guns. The Texas AG even mentioned that- there will be a black market for these weapons. And I call BS on that claim. 1) as the AG- DO YOUR JOB. The only arms industry who makes arms is here in the US. So regulating making these mass killers from being made is easy. Which leaves the weapons out right now. If you let your state generate this massive black market, you are a very bad AG. 2)- so lets put background checks on ALL sales. require some kind of documentations for these things. This isn't draconian- if they can keep track of every car, and there are equal number of total guns, AND the number of weapons that shoot fast and have large magazines is a subset of that- keeping track of some of them should be easy. For those who don't want to do that (mind you, some already are being tracked)- it's highly unlikely that they will turn to the black market to sell these guns- they will get more money legally selling them. Or they will just keep their stockpile.

This is a more realistic idea than us pretending that we can address these mass killings via a mental health path.

Has anyone actually posted a useful and probable idea to 1)define who is not mentally healthy enough to get a gun? 2) a solid plan to not let them have a gun? Drew railed on the idea that mentally challenged people could not get a gun not too long ago- so the "logic" and "reason" part of the NRA does not actually exist. This seems very unrealistic.

A gun restriction has been in place before AND IT WORKED.

Perhaps you dislike them for whatever reason, but people with 'mental illness' are much more likely to be victims of a crime then commit one.

You obviously have a lot of faith in the government for whatever reason, me and many others on the other hand do not. If you objectively look at what happened yesterday you can see the government completely bottled the background check and it took a law abiding citizen with a gun to end the threat. As the old saying goes when seconds matter the police are minutes away.

[alfablue]

Perhaps you dislike them for whatever reason, but people with 'mental illness' are much more likely to be victims of a crime then commit one.

You obviously have a lot of faith in the government for whatever reason, me and many others on the other hand do not. If you objectively look at what happened yesterday you can see the government completely bottled the background check and it took a law abiding citizen with a gun to end the threat. As the old saying goes when seconds matter the police are minutes away.

So you are ok wth all of these mass shootings, then. You have proposed nothing to prevent or lessen this in the future.

As for trust, I certainly have more trust in them vs trusting people like you. No question about that.

[dave122793]

If you objectively look at what happened yesterday you can see the government completely bottled the background check and it took a law abiding citizen with a gun to end the threat. As the old saying goes when seconds matter the police are minutes away.

While I think it’s great some people came to help, let’s take a minute to remember that the guy fired off 15 magazines of 30 rounds each. By the time he walked out of that church the damage was done.

[The Rube]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

Has anyone actually posted a useful and probable idea to 1)define who is not mentally healthy enough to get a gun? 2) a solid plan to not let them have a gun?

I have, a few times. But apparently it's not the answer you want to hear.

I would like 2 independent doctors to give a full mental health clearance. Basics would include no depression, anger, bi-polar, etc issues. Add to that, no domestic violence/violent crime history (doesn't even have to be a felony).

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

I have, a few times. But apparently it's not the answer you want to hear.

I would like 2 independent doctors to give a full mental health clearance. Basics would include no depression, anger, bi-polar, etc issues. Add to that, no domestic violence/violent crime history (doesn't even have to be a felony).

That seems fair.

[The Rube]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

That seems fair.

I figure, with all the gun trafficking (which MNS brought up), let's focus on the buyers of the guns, rather then the guns themselves. I might also add the obvious closing the loopholes in private sales/etc. which has been brought up many times before.

I'm willing to work for a compromise. I hope others follow suit.

[Handyman]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

It is so cute that, once again, mental illness is being bandied about like as the pivot point. Why is it when white dude shoots up a church or a concert in Vegas there always has to be something mentally wrong with him? No one was asking these questions about the Uzbek Muslim who killed people in NY? What he doesnt have a mental illness because he believed in Allah? Why do we look for excuses?

And the problem with guns in this country isnt mental illness, it is the fact that people cant be trusted. People are stupid, violent, irrational and emotional and you give them the ability to inflict bodily harm and the right set of circumstances and they are going to do it. Not all of them are messed up emotionally or mentally and it is flipping disingenuous on both sides to pretend that is where the issue lies. Millions of people have mental illness and dont mass murder people. Lots of people murder people and are sound in mind and body. The problem with gun culture is the guns and the fact that too many men have too small of dicks (and never had the sack to join the military in many cases) and have to shoot off big guns to try and pretend they arent pathetic small dicked losers. Well you know what, save up, get a toupee and a sports car and have a mid life crisis that way because then maybe the only person you will harm is yourself.

I am sorry I am not going to play nice about this crap anymore. Every other day people are being shot en mass and yet we blame everything but the weapon. It is the biggest load of crap I have seen since liquor and beer commercials started telling us to drink responsibly.