Another shooting, another 10 youth killed, and where is the Republican reaction?

[MakeDigitalLove]

this image says it all

View attachment 1131720

Been saying this for such a long time. Totally agree.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't see a problem with background checks for "Law Abiding Citizens" because clearly the only problem with a background check is if you are not one.

So you're perfectly happy admitting that background checks aren't going to accomplish anything at all yet to go ahead and waste the time and money of citizens and government both to do them?

Also the "Mental Health Problem" being a driving point by most pro-gun people and Politicians is odd to me because generally most of these folks are against Healthcare being available to everyone. Another problem with Mental Health being a problem is that it is not like it is something people all inherently have. A lot of times these things develop over time and like Mitchymo pointed out, some people just snap.

Yes, sometimes "some people just snap". But that hasn't been the case with very many of these animals who go about shooting people: over and over, there have been warning signs.

Also I'd like to mention that thank god a school shooting plan was stopped by Police in California. It has not even been a fucking week and another one could have already happened.

Well, the "school shooting plan" adopting by Umpqua Community College almost certainly meant more people died; they kept people capable of responding from doing so during the minutes it took law enforcement to respond.

As the mother of one of the victims pointed out, if some of the students in that classroom had been armed, the casualty count would have been small.

 

[jbrown329]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a8UgOvJVol8

 

[billie]

Education and poverty use to be the main issues that prompt this kind of tragedy worldwide. There are a lot of countries where the guns are banned and criminal taxes are pretty much lower than U.S, proof that keeping guns is not that necessary. When my friends and I have this kind of conversations, I always insist in education not in changing laws. Even if we regulate that law, those disturbed young men will continue to hold the grudge against the system. So if guns werent allowed, they would come up with another idea that helps them to achieve their goal (killing innocent lives to attract people attention). I mean, in Spain there were a case where a 13-years-old guy built a crossbow with a bunch of pens, wounded some mates and killed a teacher with it.

http://elpais.com/elpais/2015/04/20/inenglish/1429523188_431705.html

So, that is my opinion in this issue. Goverment can regulate whatever guns they want. Those psychos will find another way. There are a lot things out there that can be use as weapons.

Sorry, if I make mistakes. English is not my first language.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

So you're perfectly happy admitting that background checks aren't going to accomplish anything at all yet to go ahead and waste the time and money of citizens and government both to do them?

I don't see how my post was interpreted that way. Considering there are gun shows to escape getting back ground checks, show that it needs to be more of a thing.

Yes, sometimes "some people just snap". But that hasn't been the case with very many of these animals who go about shooting people: over and over, there have been warning signs.

That is why I said some, which indicates not everyone with mental health problems just snaps. Mental health issues are only a part of the problem and doesn't help very much only focusing on that.

Well, the "school shooting plan" adopting by Umpqua Community College almost certainly meant more people died; they kept people capable of responding from doing so during the minutes it took law enforcement to respond.

As the mother of one of the victims pointed out, if some of the students in that classroom had been armed, the casualty count would have been small.

You can't claim this. This is not math where 2+2 will always equal 4. Cops are trained to do what they do and they even get hurt or killed in the line of duty. Your average citizen with an armed weapon doesn't mean they're going to handle the situation or stop it just because they are armed.

 

[Kulindahr]

I expected you to cite a court case to validate the claim you are promoting. And I expected you to cite Haynes v. United States, (1968).



Mr. LaPierre goes on to say that “universal background checks” are just the first step by gun-ban zealots to destroy our Second Amendment-protected rights.

Umm. Okay, whatever.

BTW~ Haynes v. United States was decided 7-1 – not 8-1. Mr. LaPierre should update his “essay” to correct that error and while he’s at it, maybe he should correct the more obvious error.

After the decision in Haynes v. United States, Congress amended the law to correct its defects revealed by the Court.

I invite you to review United States v. Freed, (1971).​

Do you have some other basis to support your claim that “courts have already ruled that criminals don't have to engage in background checks?”

Freed isn't relevant, as it only applies to a tiny number of weapons*. Haynes is relevant because it invoked a general right to a specific situation; Freed notes that in the situation in question, the law now removes self-incrimination by not allowing the incriminating information to reach prosecuting authorities. Thus, in both cases it is still held that a person cannot be required to provide information that is self-incriminating.



* the National Firearms Act, which was the law of concern, applies only to fully automatic weapons, "sawed-off" shotguns, and "destructive devices" (e.g. bombs); the registration requirement applies only to such items, not to anything else.

 

[Kulindahr]

So, employers are not allowed to ask potential employees if they have a criminal record?? I am confused about this argument that criminals cannot be required to incriminate themselves, can you give a legal example so i can understand better. In my ignorance, it looks like a defence attorney's way of saying "if you plead guilty, i'm out of a job".

Can that employer prosecute you? Are they passing the information to someone who can? It's not just criminals who can't be required to incriminate themselves, it's everyone -- but by engaging in a background check, a law-abiding citizen isn't doing anything incriminating, so arguably they have to provide the information.

Note: this is related to why you should never, ever say anything to the police.

This is why i don't register at the local gym, they quite clearly aren't interest in knowing i'm a member, they just want to start the process of confiscating my jaffa cakes and custard donuts.
I thought the internet had been informed of slippery slope arguments.

Your local gym is a branch of the government? Fascinating!

BTW, it's not a slippery slope argument when it has been always historically true.

 

[Kulindahr]

By the way, background checks, registration, licence requirements, etc

DO NOT STOP LAW ABIDING RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE FROM GETTING A GUN!!!!!!

OOPs, so much for that stupid argument about criminals...

Um, yes they do. They also get law-abiding citizens arrested for things like spilling coffee -- something the BATF has prosecuted for being improperly marking a firearms purchase form -- and making spelling errors.

The main point, though, is that "background checks, registration, licence requirements, etc" have absolutely no effect on the acquisition and/or use of guns by criminals. So why burden citizens with the cost of a system that does nothing?

 

[Kulindahr]

In potential scope for regulation. Is it possibly a good idea to restrict the number of guns that a single person is allowed to own. Maybe something like 3 per person max, regardless of type of weapon. My reasoning is that it would help to cut down gun numbers without affecting a person's right to own. It may be a good idea too since some people hold arsenals of weapons, which is potentially a lot of weapons finding their way into the criminal market should they be robbed.

Maybe we should restrict the number of tools a mechanic can own to a dozen.

Except in the minds of the ignorant media, no one owns "arsenals" of weapons except perhaps some survivalist 'militias' in the mountains, and more than mechanics own "arsenals" of tools.

ANY sensible solutions to cut down mass shootings MUST be focussed on regulations on firearms in general, not simply targetting felons. It is not felons who are typically carrying out these most serious sprees. And on that note, since i expect that mental health care would be used as a diversive to the biggest problem, proliferation, that it is a very good idea to invest in mental health services, but you should also bear in mind that you can't do a lot about mental health issues where the issue is say, anger management. You kinda have to snap BEFORE you're noticed , before that issue is approached upon.

Anger issues show up a long time before most people "snap" enough to decide to go killing people.

Regulating "firearms in general" to get at a very, very tiny number of people is like baking a cake by setting the kitchen on fire rather than just using the oven.

 

[Mitchymo]

As the mother of one of the victims pointed out, if some of the students in that classroom had been armed, the casualty count would have been small.

Crazy talk. That is all it is. If some of the students in that classroom had been armed, maybe it would be easier for them to go on a killing spree themselves. Maybe, because that is as most accurate as you can get when declaring what the outcome may be if students had guns in school. And in any case, you of all people, considering how much you've lambasted me for supposedly only seeing people as statistics, are being a hypocrite for supporting an idea that 'MAY' cut down the casualties, instead of supporting ideas that cut incidents.
For how many years have people been running to the gunstores for a solution, only to see nothing but increases in sprees.
You cannot make an environment safer from guns by using guns, because as you point out often enough, it's not REALLY the guns that are the problem.
You want to fight fire(power) with fire(power). Well water works better.
The ONLY effective ways of cutting gun related deaths, is to either cut the number of guns in society, or cut the numbers of people allowed to possess them.
The ONLY problem, is that some people, seem to place a greater value on their enjoyment of firearms, than on the security of society.

 

[TX-Beau]

Um, yes they do. They also get law-abiding citizens arrested for things like spilling coffee -- something the BATF has prosecuted for being improperly marking a firearms purchase form -- and making spelling errors.

The main point, though, is that "background checks, registration, licence requirements, etc" have absolutely no effect on the acquisition and/or use of guns by criminals. So why burden citizens with the cost of a system that does nothing?

ummm no they don't and you are deluding yourself if you think they do. I've said it before, this is my favorite non-argument on gun control.

The main point, though, is that "background checks, registration, licence requirements, etc" have absolutely no effect on the acquisition and/or use of guns by criminals.

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEPPPPPPPPPPPPPP AMERICA when GUNS are regulated ONLY CRIMINALS WILL HAVE GUNS!!!!!

Debunked by every other first world nation on the planet.

I know you have this knee jerk abhorrent reaction to any kind of common sense on gun control, but really "some people just snap so obviously we do nothing...?"

I'm embarrassed for you.

 

[Kulindahr]

I am near Roseburg right now. It came out today the president will be visiting here on Friday. In person and on my Facebook people are stopping just short of threatening the president for wanting to do something about all of these shootings. It is sad just how much people love their guns.

They love their guns for the same reason that police carry them: to stop threats.

The real issue isn't the president "wanting to do something about all of these shootings", it's that what the president wants to do won't change anything at all about the shootings: not a single thing he or other Democrats have loudly proposed would have impeded any of the animals engaging in these shootings over the past twenty years, with the possible exception of safe storage -- which is always written in proposed laws in ways that would require innocent people to be unable to protect themselves.

An armed citizenry is necessary to the security of a free state. That security begins when I can stop an attack with my use of a firearm -- which I and others I know have done. Obama, so far, opposes the security of a free state.

 

[TX-Beau]

I find it funny that if there is no requirement for a background cheek, any criminal can walk into any gun shop and buy any number of guns - so logically of course if we require background checks, people who'll pass them obviously won't buy one.



- - - Updated - - -

An armed citizenry is necessary to the security of a free state. That security begins when I can stop an attack with my use of a firearm -- which I and others I know have done. Obama, so far, opposes the security of a free state.

Yeah, Europe is a hotbed of failed dictatorships.

 

[Kulindahr]

The cold, dead hands attitude makes those who want to have guns more than a little spooky.

Yeah, all the Founding Fathers were spooky. And the guys at Lexington and Concord should have just put nooses around their own necks and waited for the Regulars.

 

[Mitchymo]

Can that employer prosecute you? Are they passing the information to someone who can? It's not just criminals who can't be required to incriminate themselves, it's everyone -- but by engaging in a background check, a law-abiding citizen isn't doing anything incriminating, so arguably they have to provide the information.

The law is truly crazy then. It appears that you are saying that registering isn't legal, because you have a law that protects people from incriminating themselves (and i want you to read that in context of gun responsibility), and that if someone has done something illegal (read:- misused their gun), the law would hurt them. Fancy that, a law that is unhelpful to criminals, no, mustn't allow such an abuse of people's (criminals) rights. Don't make me laugh.

 

[Kulindahr]

this image says it all

View attachment 1131720

Are you consistent? That is, are you willing to extend the same to all other rights? You want licensing and fees, inspection and testing for your right of free speech, of assembly, of association, of religion, etc.? Do you propose having to pass a test in order to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures? or to not incriminate yourself?

 

[Kulindahr]

Actually we'd repay them with the full faith and credit of the US -- which right now (or at least until the Republicans again cause us to default on our debt) is the best thing in the world. The dollar is still the currency of choice and we still have an economy that people want to invest with. If we actually changed the way the feds financed, the bonds could be converted to having lien on property (air craft carriers, buildings, etc) until repaid. It is what every state and city does but the feds do not.

Start with BLM land.

Though if Congress would get its head out of wherever it's been keeping it, NASA would be towing a metal asteroid into low earth orbit right now, and using the resources from it to pay the national debt, by licensing the metals in it to existing mining companies for about 15% lower than their costs of getting those metals out of the ground. A two-kilometer asteroid would have enough metals to pay off most of the debt before private enterprise caught up and competed the price downward.

 

[TX-Beau]

Yeah, all the Founding Fathers were spooky. And the guys at Lexington and Concord should have just put nooses around their own necks and waited for the Regulars.

Are we living in 1776 again? Otherwise this is just silliness. Buy all the guns you can and become a serious threat to the state and they'll drop a bomb on your head and end of Kuli Problem. All that paranoid whining about "security of the state" is just crap. if The "State" decides to come for you, nothing you buy at the sporting goods store will help you. Period. THAT is reality, if you're really so fearful about black helicopters and such, it's time to look for a new game-plan.

In the meantime the majority of people who don't own guns and a bunch of us who do, are tired of the tantrums and excuses and posturings about "freedom" while people with guns (who generally aren't "criminals") shoot up grade-schools and movie theaters and college campuses.

 

[Kulindahr]

Education and poverty use to be the main issues that prompt this kind of tragedy worldwide. There are a lot of countries where the guns are banned and criminal taxes are pretty much lower than U.S, proof that keeping guns is not that necessary. When my friends and I have this kind of conversations, I always insist in education not in changing laws. Even if we regulate that law, those disturbed young men will continue to hold the grudge against the system. So if guns werent allowed, they would come up with another idea that helps them to achieve their goal (killing innocent lives to attract people attention). I mean, in Spain there were a case where a 13-years-old guy built a crossbow with a bunch of pens, wounded some mates and killed a teacher with it.

http://elpais.com/elpais/2015/04/20/inenglish/1429523188_431705.html

So, that is my opinion in this issue. Goverment can regulate whatever guns they want. Those psychos will find another way. There are a lot things out there that can be use as weapons.

Sorry, if I make mistakes. English is not my first language.

From the aspect of education and poverty, the GOP in the U.S. is a major part of the problem: they insist on crippling education, neglecting the needy, despising the outcasts, and pursuing policies designed to move even more wealth farther up the economic ladder.

Study after study has shown that those with concealed carry permits/licenses are far more law-abiding than the general citizen -- recently, than even the police! What those studies tend to neglect to point out is that the same set of people are better off financially, better educated, with better medical care, than the rest of the population, by a similar amount. So while Wayne La Pierre argues himself raw in the throat that more people carrying concealed would mean a more law-abiding country, he fails to note that given the relative status educationally, financially, etc. of those currently carrying, he may actually be wrong at a certain point, and that the better way to reduce violence would be to get more people better educated, better-off financially, with better medical care, etc.

Even on the blog "The Truth About Guns" it has been recognized recently that holders of concealed carry licenses/permits are better off in these ways, and the question raised whether without those factors changing, more people with guns would be a good idea. The point got sorta lost in the screeching over the latest shooting (in Roseburg, Oregon), and it's one that many of the very right-wing followers of the blog will object to, but historically you're correct, billie: "Education and poverty use to be the main issues that prompt this kind of tragedy worldwide".

Spending on the whole background check system is a feel-good measure, as is most spending on gun laws. We'd do far better to take that as seed money and start working on the other problems (For that matter, noting that the greatest contributors to wildlife conservation funding in the U.S. are hunters, it isn't outside the realm of possibility that a similar "stamp" system to the one supporting wildlife conservation could be devised so that purchase of accessories for firearms (ammunition boxes, rifle slings, paper targets, etc.) could be made to help fund medical care).

 

[Mitchymo]

Maybe we should restrict the number of tools a mechanic can own to a dozen.

I will welcome that...at least i will after 30+ years of ever increasing spanner attacks.

Except in the minds of the ignorant media, no one owns "arsenals" of weapons except perhaps some survivalist 'militias' in the mountains, and more than mechanics own "arsenals" of tools.

There is at least 1 firearm for every American.
A third of households (well 32% at last study) have a firearm in the home.

So, we have 68% of households with zero guns.
The assumption would be that the number with just a single gun could be pretty high, given the huge number that don't even have one. There is not a lot of wiggle room to argue there aren't many people with 'arsenals' of weapons, given that those in that 32% have an average of 3 each, and that most of that 32% likely own just 1 (based on % with zero).
If we took a guess and said that 22% of the 32% had only 1 gun, then the remaining 10% would have their average of 3 guns, plus the remaining 2 guns from that 22% that only have 1, which equates to an extra 4+ guns for that 10%.
So 10% of those with guns have an average of several.
How many guns do you need to protect yourself with. 3 seems reasonable, two adults in the home, one each, and a spare if one is broke. Why several?
How many guns you own Kuli?
What constitutes an arsenal to you? I'd say several constitutes a personal arsenal.