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

[MakeDigitalLove]

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2013, 33,804 people died from motor vehicle traffic accidents — and 33, 636 died from firearms.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Should we also ban cars?

This comparison is always bad at best. Cars were not designed to kill or harm people, they were designed for an easier means to travel. Guns were designed to hurt or kill living beings, that is literally the only purpose they serve.

Whenever I see any comparison made against guns such as this I am dumbfounded people make them in the first place.

 

[Kulindahr]

At least cars have some utility other than killing.
Can't even successfully use a good rifle as a bottle opener.

Actually, many bolt-action rifles have a breech that serves nicely as a bottle opener, and the magazine port on some semi-auto rifles will serve. The trigger guard on many will make do, but it's awkward.

As can openers, though, they're really messy.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, I don't want to penalize anyone who does not pose a threat. Background checks are not a penalty, I understand that there are ways around them, such as gun shows. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Gun-Shows.htm

Perhaps requiring a hand gun owner to certify once a year that he is still in possession of his gun and didn't sell it to a criminal or minor might avert "straw man" sales.

I used the term "assault weapon" because the style of these weapons is appealing to the sort of person that would hunt people.

Gun shows aren't a "way around" background checks; it's possible to buy a gun there without one but very, very difficult.

But the problem with background checks is that they do not apply to criminals -- period. As I said, the courts have ruled over and over that criminals cannot be required to incriminate themselves (that's a constitutional protection for all of us), so they cannot be required to engage in background checks. Thus, background checks can't catch criminals.

"Certify once a year"? That's a registration scheme, which historically has always been a step toward confiscation. How would you feel about having to certify once a year that you're still gay -- remembering that some future GOP administration might decide to use that to persecute you under color of law?

 

[Kulindahr]

This comparison is always bad at best. Cars were not designed to kill or harm people, they were designed for an easier means to travel. Guns were designed to hurt or kill living beings, that is literally the only purpose they serve.

Whenever I see any comparison made against guns such as this I am dumbfounded people make them in the first place.

The dumbfounding thing is that people can say with a straight face that "to hurt or kill living beings... is literally the only purpose they serve".

Literally billions of rounds of ammunition are sold and used in the United States annually. Most are fired with no more thought of ever harming any living being than is in the mind of a golf player going for a birdie.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

Please explain to me what guns were designed for then, please explain to me other purposes guns have if not for what I stated. Let's refrain from making poor comparisons in attempt to make guns sounds less worse.

 

[thewiz]

1. I would heartily disagree that more people with guns is not the solution; it is the reason for the current carnage. When I first started in law enforcement in 1979 in Michigan, it was rare if we found someone with a concealed weapon permit and still more rare to find someone actually with a weapon (I remember 1 in 16 years and we stopped/arrested lots in my traffic unit). Today, that is just reversed and it is getting more rare to NOT find weapons. We now have at least one gun for every person in the United States and how safe has that made us? Want to be a police officer going into a shooting situation when everyone has a gun? You'd likely find more dead because the shoot-outs in the wild west usually killed bystanders.

2. Treatment for mental health is beyond sad in this country. I live in Washington, DC -- the nation's capital. It is not unusual on my morning run around the capitol to find people talking to light poles, yelling at non-existent beings (and no, these are not Congressmen but could be Republicans), and sleeping wherever they might find a spot. With colder weather, they'll be on grates, in doorways, and on benches. Ronald Reagan ushered out the era where good mental health care was provided; today, many are returning Veterans with horrible issues left from their war exposure. They are throw-aways. No one should live worse than a dog on the street but many, many do. It is cheaper to set up affordable housing and better for society; unfortunately Republicans don't see this as a "problem" unless one of those folks attack them or set up camp in their doorway.

3. We need a national registration and a national background check. Folks on anti-depression medication and with mental health issues need to be flagged and unable to purchase/possess weapons. Just throwing up our hands and saying "stuff happens" is beyond idiotic and borders on insane. The person making that statement probably is both.

4. Carrying concealed weapons should be limited. There is no reason to be packing in bars, churches, schools, and many other places. I have a right to carry and I don't; it is stupid.

 

[kallipolis]

This comparison is always bad at best. Cars were not designed to kill or harm people, they were designed for an easier means to travel. Guns were designed to hurt or kill living beings, that is literally the only purpose they serve.

Whenever I see any comparison made against guns such as this I am dumbfounded people make them in the first place.

I was being provocative....here in Greece weekend hunters, and farmers continue to shoot wild life, to feed their families....particularly so, in the country side where hunting wildlife such as rabbits, and birds ensures a family living on a small income is well fed.

In Greece gun crime is very, very low and usually limited to criminals, killing other criminals....occasionally there are reports of a domestic dispute that is resolved with a shotgun....rifles are banned in Greece.

There is no ready solution to the American love affair with guns.....and my reference to the American love affair, with cars just adds to the sense of desperation felt by many people when viewing the evening TV news reporting on another massacre.

 

[rareboy]

I was talking to my cousin in Europe today...we agree that it is agonizing and frustrating that every few months or so, there is another mass shooting in the US and then there there is a floood of hand-wringing and questioning and incredibly superficial self-examination that will last for about 5-7 days and then this will just get filed on the shelf with all the other gun related mass murders and the US will get on with something else.

Seriously folks. Britain, Australia and Canada all managed to effect some real change in gun regulations after atrocities like these....what the fuck is the problem with the US that it can continue to absorb these events and the most likely outcome will be that most jurisdictions only relax their gun laws further?

Does the US even bother to check in with the rest of the civilized western world any more?

 

[thewiz]

I was talking to my cousin in Europe today...we agree that it is agonizing and frustrating that every few months or so, there is another mass shooting in the US and then there there is a floood of hand-wringing and questioning and incredibly superficial self-examination that will last for about 5-7 days and then this will just get filed on the shelf with all the other gun related mass murders and the US will get on with something else.

Seriously folks. Britain, Australia and Canada all managed to effect some real change in gun regulations after atrocities like these....what the fuck is the problem with the US that it can continue to absorb these events and the most likely outcome will be that most jurisdictions only relax their gun laws further?

Does the US even bother to check in with the rest of the civilized western world any more?

Republicans have no thirst for facts, science, or concern for their fellow citizens. Just like Jeb!.....stuff happens and that is their take on all of this. I guess with all the school and college shootings, folks like Benvolio hope the Democrat population is culled. Sadly, the intelligence level and spinal strength of the Congress is not such that it can pass a budget or understand Planned Parenthood so I hold out little hope until it is replaced that something meaningful takes place on mass killings and gun violence.

 

[TX-Beau]

Gun shows aren't a "way around" background checks; it's possible to buy a gun there without one but very, very difficult.

But the problem with background checks is that they do not apply to criminals -- period. As I said, the courts have ruled over and over that criminals cannot be required to incriminate themselves (that's a constitutional protection for all of us), so they cannot be required to engage in background checks. Thus, background checks can't catch criminals.

"Certify once a year"? That's a registration scheme, which historically has always been a step toward confiscation. How would you feel about having to certify once a year that you're still gay -- remembering that some future GOP administration might decide to use that to persecute you under color of law?

BUT BUT BUT IF YOU BAN GUNS ONLY CRIMINALS WILL HAVE GUNS!!

No shit. Back here in the land of sanity, regulation of firearms does work, which is why every time the subject comes up that whore LaPierre and his drooling followers bawl and weep and tear at their hair.

Regulation of firearms is ALREADY CONSTITUTIONAL!

I demand my right to freedom from idiots who think they're Rambo killing kids at a mini-mart because he didn't like their music.

REGULATE!

 

[TX-Beau]

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...

 

[Mitchymo]

But the problem with background checks is that they do not apply to criminals -- period. As I said, the courts have ruled over and over that criminals cannot be required to incriminate themselves (that's a constitutional protection for all of us), so they cannot be required to engage in background checks.

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".

"Certify once a year"? That's a registration scheme, which historically has always been a step toward confiscation.

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.

 

[jbrown329]

What total nonsense. Republicans appear to pay most of the taxes. White tend to have higher incomes and tend to vote Republican. Blacks and hispanics tend to have lower incomes, and vote democrat. Republicans resist tax increases, democrats get elected by promising to raise taxes on others and to indeed raise taxes whenever they get the chance. While Republican states get welfare, democrats like to forget that those states have large minority populations, which receive more welfare and which tend to vote democrat.
It is democrats who want more welfare, while Republicans resist: medicaid, food stamps, earned income "credit", unemployment insurance and extensions, affirmative action (another form of welfare) etc.

Uh, bullshit. Read and LEARN

 

[jbrown329]

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2013, 33,804 people died from motor vehicle traffic accidents — and 33, 636 died from firearms.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Should we also ban cars?

Over 360,000 Gun Deaths Since 9/11 -- From the Outside It Looks Like America Is a Country Gripped by Civil War
AlterNet And those numbers are from 2013.

 

[opinterph]

Courts from SCOTUS right on down have ruled repeatedly that criminals cannot be required to participate in actions which would incriminate them, and that has been specifically applied to firearms.

Are you speaking about “registration” of certain types of firearms possessed by convicted felons – OR – are you suggesting that convicted felons are somehow legally exempt from background checks?

 

[peeonme]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

If this were going on in another country, wouldn't we be seeking UN intervention on behalf of it's citizens? We would toss in that the poor souls don't even have national health care to mend the wounded. We would seek a peace keep force and over throw the irresponsible government.

 

[peeonme]

Gun shows aren't a "way around" background checks; it's possible to buy a gun there without one but very, very difficult.

But the problem with background checks is that they do not apply to criminals -- period. As I said, the courts have ruled over and over that criminals cannot be required to incriminate themselves (that's a constitutional protection for all of us), so they cannot be required to engage in background checks. Thus, background checks can't catch criminals.

"Certify once a year"? That's a registration scheme, which historically has always been a step toward confiscation. How would you feel about having to certify once a year that you're still gay -- remembering that some future GOP administration might decide to use that to persecute you under color of law?

A background check would reveal from public record if the purchaser of a gun had committed and been convicted of a crime that should keep him from buying a gun. I see no self incrimination here at all.

I register my car every year, they have yet to come for it. As I understand it, when you buy a hand gun the purchase of it is a matter of record, public record. If it's found being used in a crime, law enforcement will run the serial number and your name will pop out.
Verifying annually that you still own the gun keeps you from selling it to a criminal.
If it's lost or stolen an owner should be required to notify the authorities as soon as he is aware of it.

 

[Kulindahr]

A background check would reveal from public record if the purchaser of a gun had committed and been convicted of a crime that should keep him from buying a gun. I see no self incrimination here at all.

I register my car every year, they have yet to come for it. As I understand it, when you buy a hand gun the purchase of it is a matter of record, public record. If it's found being used in a crime, law enforcement will run the serial number and your name will pop out.
Verifying annually that you still own the gun keeps you from selling it to a criminal.
If it's lost or stolen an owner should be required to notify the authorities as soon as he is aware of it.

Attempting to buy a gun when you have committed a crime that puts you on the prohibited list is a federal felony. So participating in a background check is self-incrimination, either by admitting you are committing the crime or by lying and thus committing a crime. So courts have already ruled that criminals don't have to engage in background checks.

And they don't: criminals get their guns from sources where they don't have to do a background check, like stealing them, buying them from other criminals, or "borrowing" them from family.

Buying a handgun is NOT a matter of public record -- it can't be, by law. In fact, when a newspaper managed to get its hand on a list of people who had bought handguns, do you know what the result was? An increase in burglary at the addresses of the people the paper published! Making the ownership of guns a matter of public record is an invitation to criminals, making it easier for criminals to get guns.

Verifying annually that you own the gun means the government can come round up the guns. That's been the result historically every time there's been such a law, or any other form of registration. Gun registration is an invitation to a police state, and we're building that too fast already. Even when it wasn't government that held the registration, governments took the information anyway and used it to take people's guns and establish a police state.

Besides which, there's no authorization of such a law in the Constitution. There is authorization for laws which could have an effect, e.g. safe storage of any firearm not in use; that could be done under Article I Section 8 -- for that matter, a law penalizing negligent storage that allowed a criminal to easily take your gun(s) might work (definitely so if a tax credit was given for the cost of safe storage, an expense which would arguably come under Congress' authority to provide for the arming of the militia, on the argument that making sure the militia's arms stay in the possession of their owners is part of arming them, since the loss of their guns would mean they got disarmed).

 

[Kulindahr]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

If this were going on in another country, wouldn't we be seeking UN intervention on behalf of it's citizens? We would toss in that the poor souls don't even have national health care to mend the wounded. We would seek a peace keep force and over throw the irresponsible government.

No, we wouldn't. The gun violence in the United States, which decreased again last year even as the number of people owning guns and the number of guns per owner -- and the number of people carrying guns in public -- grew again, is negligible compared to most of the countries in the world.

 

[Kabluey]

Attempting to buy a gun when you have committed a crime that puts you on the prohibited list is a federal felony. So participating in a background check is self-incrimination, either by admitting you are committing the crime or by lying and thus committing a crime. So courts have already ruled that criminals don't have to engage in background checks.

And they don't: criminals get their guns from sources where they don't have to do a background check, like stealing them, buying them from other criminals, or "borrowing" them from family.

Buying a handgun is NOT a matter of public record -- it can't be, by law. In fact, when a newspaper managed to get its hand on a list of people who had bought handguns, do you know what the result was? An increase in burglary at the addresses of the people the paper published! Making the ownership of guns a matter of public record is an invitation to criminals, making it easier for criminals to get guns.

Verifying annually that you own the gun means the government can come round up the guns. That's been the result historically every time there's been such a law, or any other form of registration. Gun registration is an invitation to a police state, and we're building that too fast already. Even when it wasn't government that held the registration, governments took the information anyway and used it to take people's guns and establish a police state.

Besides which, there's no authorization of such a law in the Constitution. There is authorization for laws which could have an effect, e.g. safe storage of any firearm not in use; that could be done under Article I Section 8 -- for that matter, a law penalizing negligent storage that allowed a criminal to easily take your gun(s) might work (definitely so if a tax credit was given for the cost of safe storage, an expense which would arguably come under Congress' authority to provide for the arming of the militia, on the argument that making sure the militia's arms stay in the possession of their owners is part of arming them, since the loss of their guns would mean they got disarmed).

If they made it a felony to sell a gun to someone who wouldn't pass a background check, then the transaction that would cause the buyer to be an offender need never happen.

A simple procedural clarification would suffice, but gun shops naturally wouldn't like that.