- Joined
- Apr 22, 2019
- Messages
- 59,932
- Reaction score
- 30,600
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
I'm not sure what you're asking. I guess it's a legitimate question, though as I said I don't see that there's an answer.
I was asking if it's a legitimate question. I should've put the question as the title. Maybe a few people would've answered the question.
Wow, Come on man. That's a great plan. We all know that revolvers, shotguns and bolt actions cannot kill anyone. What a wonderful plan you have. Ever heard of a speed loader.
The question I asked is: Is asking "What gun control law(s) would've prevented this shooting?" a legitimate question?I'm not sure what you're asking. I guess it's a legitimate question, though as I said I don't see that there's an answer.
that isn't true because none of those countries have our history of gun ownershipThe laws that prevent it in all other developed countries.
so you want to give felons an edge over law-abiding people. This is common among gun banners. They have a warm fuzzy for criminals. When I see proposals this stupid, I believe they are based on dishonestyPersonally, I believe someone with balls will have to make a bold move, then let the lawsuits move through the courts.
I would ban all semi-autos, and only make revolvers, shotguns, and bolt action rifles available.
I believe this fulfills 2A. I wouldn't do a gun grab. I'd support a buyback program, and a 10-year sunset on grandfathered weapons.
Confiscate everything used in crimes, no serials, black market, gang weapons, etc.
when a seller runs a background check, they are doing this. You cannot force a private seller to do that, nor enforce it if a law is passed requiring itSo my understanding is that the FBI took his gun because he was insane. Maybe a law that compelled gun sellers to insure that their customers aren't on a mentally ill list might have stopped this.
disarming poor people has always been one of the main motivations of gun control advocates. Your silly suggestions assume there aren't 400 million unregistered firearms already in the USA and a border that leaks like fishnetRegister gun owners federally similar to concealed carry. Only gun owners can buy or be in possession of guns. Must be 21 and take classes and pass all background checks. Anyone in possession of a firearm not a registered gun owner is guilty of a felony and subject to instant arrest and prosecution. Gun owners must post a $5000 dollar bond subject to forfeit if they fail to secure their guns from non-gunowners including theft. This will replace other existing gun laws.
This would have prevented many of the latest shooting. The shooters are young and will not go through the process of being registered and post a $5000 bond. It will also prevent many illegal street sales and reduce gun thefts because gun owners will have some liability and the penalty of having a gun and not be a registered gun owner will be significant and easily confirmed by law enforcement.
well most of the anti gun posters are motivated by a desire to harass people who don't buy into their agenda, so what else is new?Another way to put it is that filthy leftists support arresting and imprisoning people who have harmed no one.
we couldn't have a federal war on drugs but for FDR's expansion of the commerce clause.They've been doing that for decades to anyone walking down the street smoking a joint. And it wasn't leftists doing it.
unconstitutionalA law that require an extensive mental health check before the applicant could purchase weapons, ammunition or reload supplies.
This would be done by a psychiatrist.
You've got crazy people buying guns cause the little green men are telling them to kill everyone.
And you've got suicidal people who want to take out as many others as possible before the cops shoot them or they blow their brains out. Many of the latter have some kind of grudge.
A good shrink would screen out both of those defects.
.
the only people who don't have access to a gun are those in well guarded prisons or are medically incapacitated"According to a study published in April in the journal Preventive Medicine, people who have access to a gun are more than 18 times as likely to threaten someone, compared with those without gun access. And certain personality traits, including impulsivity and excessive anger — especially when a person displays outbursts of anger in public settings or at work — could make a person who has access to a gun more likely to use it in a violent crime.
The research, from the University of Texas Medical Branch, found that people who are prone to hostility were more than three times more likely to threaten someone with a gun.
The study also looked at how mental health symptoms relate to gun violence. “The majority of mental health symptoms we examined, including anxiety, depression, stress, PTSD, and borderline personality disorder, were unrelated to gun violence,” said lead study author Yu Lu, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Texas Medical Branch."
Mental illness isn’t a major risk factor for gun violence, but here’s what is
People who have a history of risky or dangerous behavior are far more likely to commit gun violence than a person diagnosed with mental illness.www.nbcnews.com
like what? it sounds as if you confuse the limitations on what the government can do, with your hatred of the NRAThere are more NRA loopholes in gun regulations than there are holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall.
yeah, burn them at the stake, if you can find all the pieces?I think there needs to be stiffer penalties for mass shooters.
I also think there should be stiffer penalties for suicide bombers.
so you want to give felons an edge over law-abiding people. This is common among gun banners.
They have a warm fuzzy for criminals.
When I see proposals this stupid, I believe they are based on dishonesty
no one has claimed that people have a right to keep and bear nukes etc.*shrug*
Personally, I think we should build better prisons.
The only dishonesty is the claim that Americans have the right to bear "any weapon that can be imagined and manufactured".
It's simply my view that civilians have no business being in the possession of such powerful weapons of war and human conflict.
Amen. What is going on now is certainly not working. So many of these mass murderers the FBI was alerted about them yet nothing done to keep them from doing the unthinkable. Most of these mass murderers have a history of some type of mental illness and violent behavior. Most of them are young men from their teens to their 30's. It is time to find out why.Bring back mental institutions for the criminally insane. Keep them locked up until they pose no danger to themselves and others.
I don't think any would have. This isn't a gun issue it's a person issue.The question I asked is: Is asking "What gun control law(s) would've prevented this shooting?" a legitimate question?
Laws do not prevent crime at all. 100% of all crime is illegal. If laws prevented it, it wouldn't exist.It's a bogus question that gun proponents ask so they can say "that won't work." They also frequently say that gun laws don't work, but are often big proponents of law and order. They won't answer "What murder laws prevent murder?" or "What laws prevent all of the crime they target?"
It's a bogus question that gun proponents ask so they can say "that won't work." They also frequently say that gun laws don't work, but are often big proponents of law and order. They won't answer "What murder laws prevent murder?" or "What laws prevent all of the crime they target?"
The question is absurd. Basically it's "what laws prevent crime?" None do. 100% of crime is already illegal by virtue of it being crime. If laws prevented it there wouldn't be any.Context matters; if right-wing figures ask, or you ask, I look at the question as a different one. Though I haven't really seen them ask that. I mostly just see them argue against any gun laws.
The question is not mine. Even though I think the question is disingenuous, it's not absurd because laws do try to deter unwanted behavior. One would think that someone that claims they were a police cadet (and the one who liked your comment that claims they were a DoJ prosecutor) might have a rudimentary understanding of that.I don't think any would have. This isn't a gun issue it's a person issue.
Laws do not prevent crime at all. 100% of all crime is illegal. If laws prevented it, it wouldn't exist.
Your question seems a bit absurd when you think about it. What laws will prevent breaking laws? None.
passing laws restricts the behavior of those who follow the law. Enforcing the laws with criminal sentences and incarceration, restricts the behavior of those who break the law. Gun banners are all about restricting the rights of law abiding gun owners by criminalizing harmless actions that are no legal, while avoiding actually punishing and prosecuting criminals who engage in harmful actions which are already in violation of existing law.The question is not mine. Even though I think the question is disingenuous, it's not absurd because laws do try to deter unwanted behavior. One would think that someone that claims they were a police cadet (and the one who liked your comment that claims they were a DoJ prosecutor) might have a rudimentary understanding of that.
Good point.Context matters; if right-wing figures ask, or you ask, I look at the question as a different one.
It's one of many oft-repeated bogus tactics of gun proponents.Though I haven't really seen them ask that. I mostly just see them argue against any gun laws.
who has ever argued against an armed robber getting more time since he used a firearm to facilitate his crime?Good point.
It's one of many oft-repeated bogus tactics of gun proponents.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?