America's Gun Violence

1251252254256257265

Comments

  • HesCalledDyerHesCalledDyer MarylandPosts: 9,375
    Shark attacks on the rise...

    Australia: Let's put up nets to protect citizens at the beach.

    USA: Everyone buy a shark to protect you from the other sharks.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 12,010
    Shark attacks on the rise...

    Australia: Let's put up nets to protect citizens at the beach.

    USA: Everyone buy a shark to protect you from the other sharks.
    :rofl:
    1 day.......
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,656
    edited November 14
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:

    Flea markets. You can buy a gun at a flea market for gawds sakes.

    "I came across this beauty at the flea market by the Trump rally!" bragged Cletus brandishing his new gun to Jethro. "It was only $50."

    "She's a peach" replied Jethro admiring the weapon while kicking at a turd.

    Normally obtuse to non verbal cues, Cletus noted Jethro's admiration: "You wanna shoot that turd with my new gun?" he asked. 

    "Could I?" Jethro asked in disbelief at his exceptional stroke of great fortune.

    Cletus smiled- betraying tooth decay- and handed Jethro the gun. Jethro felt a stirring in his pants as he reached for the gun. Once it was in his hands, he felt three feet taller and 50 pounds of muscle heavier. "Prepare to die, turd" he exulted and took aim. 

    Not in every state. I agree guns should not be sold at flea markets, and that is a law states should pass. Or even federal law to enter a federal data base.

    And the rest is a good example of why little ever changes. 
    When one group insults another, they become more protective. When gun owners are compared to simple-minded rednecks, it strengthens their belief that the second amendment will go away.
    For the record I don't believe that will happen. But when reading through these posts with the anti-gun comments I can justify why some do.
    And if that is your interpretation of a typical gun owner, why wouldn't you want to ban guns? Fortunately, that is not very accurate.
    Just keep throwing out that irrational fear that guns will be "banned" en mass. Only 6 states require background checks at gun shows and you still claim its the State's fault and not a "loophole" while trying to make a comparison with coin shops. Meanwhile, comparing your personal experience with gun shows as if that is somehow the norm, despite evidence to the contrary. I think you reside in California, one of the 6 states with background checks for gun shows. This is why nothing changes, not because of a post on a band's message board poking fun at gun owners. Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.
    If the states allow it, how is it not the state's fault? Whose fault is it that background checks are not required if it is not the state that makes the laws? You can't blame a gun show for the state's laws, or lack of.
    And all i said about the loophole was calling it a "gun show loophole" simply implies its a loophole that only applies to gun shows. Its not. Its not even a loophole in my opinion, because you're not going around anything. In most of those other states background checks are not required for private party transfers.  A "loophole" would be if all private party transfers require a background check, unless the purchase is at a gun show. That's a loophole. 
    Geez, I even agree with you for the most part and you argue back. The only thing i don;t agree on is the technicality of referring to a gun show when talking about the "loophole" because that gives the false impression all you have to do to avoid a background check is attend a gun show, when in fact it is much easier than that in some states. 
    I would be all for background checks ona ll purchases, I really have no clue what about my stance has got you so worked up.
    26 dead in sandy hook elementary has got me worked up. 
     32 dead at Virginia Tech has got me worked up. 48 dead at the pulse nightclub has got me worked up. 58 dead and 546 injured, 546 injured, 546 injured in Las Vegas has got me worked up. 13 dead at Columbine High School has me worked up. 12 dead at the Aurora movie theater has me worked up. 26 dead in a church in Texas has got me worked up. 
     9 dead in a church in South Carolina has got me worked up. Never mind the daily carnage that occurs because every gun starts out “legal” and every gun owner is “responsible” until they’re not and “responsible” gun owners like yourself throw out the term “ban” , make excuses and compare shopping for guns to coin collecting. I wonder if it was your family member(s) or friend(s) who were gunned down going about their day, if your opinion would change? I somehow doubt it.
    My opinion on what?
    Do you even read anything I write, or do you just lump me in some group because I said I am a gun owner?
    I have said I would like background checks, agree with safety regulations, agree with magazine limits and regulating (even essentially banning) assault rifles. That all guns should be registered, even private party transfers need to go through a licensed dealer and be registered. I have said I don't believe I will ever see a ban on guns in my lifetime and that fear has zero influence on me (but you keep bring it up....?). 
    So what is it exactly that you would like my opinion to change on?
    I didn't compare coin collecting to buying guns. I compared a coin show to a gun show (and I've been to both) in terms of number of vendors and simply that the reason a person goes to a gun show is the same reason one would go to a coin show, and not that they are some gun nut trying to get some illegal guns or trying to avoid registration or something like that. But i never said collecting coins and guns are the same.
    So I'm willing to listen. What gun stance do I have that you disagree with?  Which of my opinions would you like to change?
    I'm still trying to figure out why you blame the "gun show loophole" on the gun show and don't hold the state, that makes the laws, responsible at all?
    This makes you a moderate and part of the solution in my mind.

    Is it fair to say you have swung further to the need for these items in recent times given the magnitude of the developing problem? I don't recall you always holding these opinions (although I could be wrong). Either way is fine though provided you're sincere.
    I have switched, but that was before coming on these forums. I really didn't start participating until last election when there was non-stop entertainment on here, coming to try and figure out who got banned the night before
    My parents are very conservative, my dad is a retired cop so I grew up knowing and respecting guns.
    My dad is the type that will talk about the stats, and that out of the 30,000 gun deaths a year, over half are suicides, and only about 5,000 are murder victims. And tell you if you really want to save lives, start a program informing people to not eat fast food 3 times a week and add 20 years to your life, or that second hand smoke kills more than guns.
    For several years now I've believed in stronger gun control. I can have a conversation like that, and I will completely agree. They are societal factors that kill more than guns and go completely ignored. Its okay to kill your kids with second hand smoke in this country, or slowly fatten them to death by McDonalds.
    That can all be true, but that doesn't change the fact there are still things we can do to lessen gun violence. I can agree there is no practical need for an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine. So if making you reload every 5 shots can save just 10 lives a year, to me that's still worth it.

    I have, and still do, criticize some of the existing gun laws. Ones that I feel don't reduce the risk of danger at all and are in my opinion there to just limit the number of guns available in some states as another form of gun control.
    Post edited by mace1229 on
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 3,113
    Shark attacks on the rise...

    Australia: Let's put up nets to protect citizens at the beach.

    USA: Everyone buy a shark to protect you from the other sharks.
    Counterpoint:


    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 6,001
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:

    Flea markets. You can buy a gun at a flea market for gawds sakes.

    "I came across this beauty at the flea market by the Trump rally!" bragged Cletus brandishing his new gun to Jethro. "It was only $50."

    "She's a peach" replied Jethro admiring the weapon while kicking at a turd.

    Normally obtuse to non verbal cues, Cletus noted Jethro's admiration: "You wanna shoot that turd with my new gun?" he asked. 

    "Could I?" Jethro asked in disbelief at his exceptional stroke of great fortune.

    Cletus smiled- betraying tooth decay- and handed Jethro the gun. Jethro felt a stirring in his pants as he reached for the gun. Once it was in his hands, he felt three feet taller and 50 pounds of muscle heavier. "Prepare to die, turd" he exulted and took aim. 

    Not in every state. I agree guns should not be sold at flea markets, and that is a law states should pass. Or even federal law to enter a federal data base.

    And the rest is a good example of why little ever changes. 
    When one group insults another, they become more protective. When gun owners are compared to simple-minded rednecks, it strengthens their belief that the second amendment will go away.
    For the record I don't believe that will happen. But when reading through these posts with the anti-gun comments I can justify why some do.
    And if that is your interpretation of a typical gun owner, why wouldn't you want to ban guns? Fortunately, that is not very accurate.
    Just keep throwing out that irrational fear that guns will be "banned" en mass. Only 6 states require background checks at gun shows and you still claim its the State's fault and not a "loophole" while trying to make a comparison with coin shops. Meanwhile, comparing your personal experience with gun shows as if that is somehow the norm, despite evidence to the contrary. I think you reside in California, one of the 6 states with background checks for gun shows. This is why nothing changes, not because of a post on a band's message board poking fun at gun owners. Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.
    If the states allow it, how is it not the state's fault? Whose fault is it that background checks are not required if it is not the state that makes the laws? You can't blame a gun show for the state's laws, or lack of.
    And all i said about the loophole was calling it a "gun show loophole" simply implies its a loophole that only applies to gun shows. Its not. Its not even a loophole in my opinion, because you're not going around anything. In most of those other states background checks are not required for private party transfers.  A "loophole" would be if all private party transfers require a background check, unless the purchase is at a gun show. That's a loophole. 
    Geez, I even agree with you for the most part and you argue back. The only thing i don;t agree on is the technicality of referring to a gun show when talking about the "loophole" because that gives the false impression all you have to do to avoid a background check is attend a gun show, when in fact it is much easier than that in some states. 
    I would be all for background checks ona ll purchases, I really have no clue what about my stance has got you so worked up.
    26 dead in sandy hook elementary has got me worked up. 
     32 dead at Virginia Tech has got me worked up. 48 dead at the pulse nightclub has got me worked up. 58 dead and 546 injured, 546 injured, 546 injured in Las Vegas has got me worked up. 13 dead at Columbine High School has me worked up. 12 dead at the Aurora movie theater has me worked up. 26 dead in a church in Texas has got me worked up. 
     9 dead in a church in South Carolina has got me worked up. Never mind the daily carnage that occurs because every gun starts out “legal” and every gun owner is “responsible” until they’re not and “responsible” gun owners like yourself throw out the term “ban” , make excuses and compare shopping for guns to coin collecting. I wonder if it was your family member(s) or friend(s) who were gunned down going about their day, if your opinion would change? I somehow doubt it.
    My opinion on what?
    Do you even read anything I write, or do you just lump me in some group because I said I am a gun owner?
    I have said I would like background checks, agree with safety regulations, agree with magazine limits and regulating (even essentially banning) assault rifles. That all guns should be registered, even private party transfers need to go through a licensed dealer and be registered. I have said I don't believe I will ever see a ban on guns in my lifetime and that fear has zero influence on me (but you keep bring it up....?). 
    So what is it exactly that you would like my opinion to change on?
    I didn't compare coin collecting to buying guns. I compared a coin show to a gun show (and I've been to both) in terms of number of vendors and simply that the reason a person goes to a gun show is the same reason one would go to a coin show, and not that they are some gun nut trying to get some illegal guns or trying to avoid registration or something like that. But i never said collecting coins and guns are the same.
    So I'm willing to listen. What gun stance do I have that you disagree with?  Which of my opinions would you like to change?
    I'm still trying to figure out why you blame the "gun show loophole" on the gun show and don't hold the state, that makes the laws, responsible at all?
    This makes you a moderate and part of the solution in my mind.

    Is it fair to say you have swung further to the need for these items in recent times given the magnitude of the developing problem? I don't recall you always holding these opinions (although I could be wrong). Either way is fine though provided you're sincere.
    I have switched, but that was before coming on these forums. I really didn't start participating until last election when there was non-stop entertainment on here, coming to try and figure out who got banned the night before
    My parents are very conservative, my dad is a retired cop so I grew up knowing and respecting guns.
    My dad is the type that will talk about the stats, and that out of the 30,000 gun deaths a year, over half are suicides, and only about 5,000 are murder victims. And tell you if you really want to save lives, start a program informing people to not eat fast food 3 times a week and add 20 years to your life, or that second hand smoke kills more than guns.
    For several years now I've believed in stronger gun control. I can have a conversation like that, and I will completely agree. They are societal factors that kill more than guns and go completely ignored. Its okay to kill your kids with second hand smoke in this country, or slowly fatten them to death by McDonalds.
    That can all be true, but that doesn't change the fact there are still things we can do to lessen gun violence. I can agree there is no practical need for an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine. So if making you reload every 5 shots can save just 10 lives a year, to me that's still worth it.

    I have, and still do, criticize some of the existing gun laws. Ones that I feel don't reduce the risk of danger at all and are in my opinion there to just limit the number of guns available in some states as another form of gun control.
    Suicide rate also will lower along with the gun homicide rate if it’s more difficult to get a gun. 

  • mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:

    Flea markets. You can buy a gun at a flea market for gawds sakes.

    "I came across this beauty at the flea market by the Trump rally!" bragged Cletus brandishing his new gun to Jethro. "It was only $50."

    "She's a peach" replied Jethro admiring the weapon while kicking at a turd.

    Normally obtuse to non verbal cues, Cletus noted Jethro's admiration: "You wanna shoot that turd with my new gun?" he asked. 

    "Could I?" Jethro asked in disbelief at his exceptional stroke of great fortune.

    Cletus smiled- betraying tooth decay- and handed Jethro the gun. Jethro felt a stirring in his pants as he reached for the gun. Once it was in his hands, he felt three feet taller and 50 pounds of muscle heavier. "Prepare to die, turd" he exulted and took aim. 

    Not in every state. I agree guns should not be sold at flea markets, and that is a law states should pass. Or even federal law to enter a federal data base.

    And the rest is a good example of why little ever changes. 
    When one group insults another, they become more protective. When gun owners are compared to simple-minded rednecks, it strengthens their belief that the second amendment will go away.
    For the record I don't believe that will happen. But when reading through these posts with the anti-gun comments I can justify why some do.
    And if that is your interpretation of a typical gun owner, why wouldn't you want to ban guns? Fortunately, that is not very accurate.
    Just keep throwing out that irrational fear that guns will be "banned" en mass. Only 6 states require background checks at gun shows and you still claim its the State's fault and not a "loophole" while trying to make a comparison with coin shops. Meanwhile, comparing your personal experience with gun shows as if that is somehow the norm, despite evidence to the contrary. I think you reside in California, one of the 6 states with background checks for gun shows. This is why nothing changes, not because of a post on a band's message board poking fun at gun owners. Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.
    If the states allow it, how is it not the state's fault? Whose fault is it that background checks are not required if it is not the state that makes the laws? You can't blame a gun show for the state's laws, or lack of.
    And all i said about the loophole was calling it a "gun show loophole" simply implies its a loophole that only applies to gun shows. Its not. Its not even a loophole in my opinion, because you're not going around anything. In most of those other states background checks are not required for private party transfers.  A "loophole" would be if all private party transfers require a background check, unless the purchase is at a gun show. That's a loophole. 
    Geez, I even agree with you for the most part and you argue back. The only thing i don;t agree on is the technicality of referring to a gun show when talking about the "loophole" because that gives the false impression all you have to do to avoid a background check is attend a gun show, when in fact it is much easier than that in some states. 
    I would be all for background checks ona ll purchases, I really have no clue what about my stance has got you so worked up.
    26 dead in sandy hook elementary has got me worked up. 
     32 dead at Virginia Tech has got me worked up. 48 dead at the pulse nightclub has got me worked up. 58 dead and 546 injured, 546 injured, 546 injured in Las Vegas has got me worked up. 13 dead at Columbine High School has me worked up. 12 dead at the Aurora movie theater has me worked up. 26 dead in a church in Texas has got me worked up. 
     9 dead in a church in South Carolina has got me worked up. Never mind the daily carnage that occurs because every gun starts out “legal” and every gun owner is “responsible” until they’re not and “responsible” gun owners like yourself throw out the term “ban” , make excuses and compare shopping for guns to coin collecting. I wonder if it was your family member(s) or friend(s) who were gunned down going about their day, if your opinion would change? I somehow doubt it.
    My opinion on what?
    Do you even read anything I write, or do you just lump me in some group because I said I am a gun owner?
    I have said I would like background checks, agree with safety regulations, agree with magazine limits and regulating (even essentially banning) assault rifles. That all guns should be registered, even private party transfers need to go through a licensed dealer and be registered. I have said I don't believe I will ever see a ban on guns in my lifetime and that fear has zero influence on me (but you keep bring it up....?). 
    So what is it exactly that you would like my opinion to change on?
    I didn't compare coin collecting to buying guns. I compared a coin show to a gun show (and I've been to both) in terms of number of vendors and simply that the reason a person goes to a gun show is the same reason one would go to a coin show, and not that they are some gun nut trying to get some illegal guns or trying to avoid registration or something like that. But i never said collecting coins and guns are the same.
    So I'm willing to listen. What gun stance do I have that you disagree with?  Which of my opinions would you like to change?
    I'm still trying to figure out why you blame the "gun show loophole" on the gun show and don't hold the state, that makes the laws, responsible at all?
    This makes you a moderate and part of the solution in my mind.

    Is it fair to say you have swung further to the need for these items in recent times given the magnitude of the developing problem? I don't recall you always holding these opinions (although I could be wrong). Either way is fine though provided you're sincere.
    I have switched, but that was before coming on these forums. I really didn't start participating until last election when there was non-stop entertainment on here, coming to try and figure out who got banned the night before
    My parents are very conservative, my dad is a retired cop so I grew up knowing and respecting guns.
    My dad is the type that will talk about the stats, and that out of the 30,000 gun deaths a year, over half are suicides, and only about 5,000 are murder victims. And tell you if you really want to save lives, start a program informing people to not eat fast food 3 times a week and add 20 years to your life, or that second hand smoke kills more than guns.
    For several years now I've believed in stronger gun control. I can have a conversation like that, and I will completely agree. They are societal factors that kill more than guns and go completely ignored. Its okay to kill your kids with second hand smoke in this country, or slowly fatten them to death by McDonalds.
    That can all be true, but that doesn't change the fact there are still things we can do to lessen gun violence. I can agree there is no practical need for an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine. So if making you reload every 5 shots can save just 10 lives a year, to me that's still worth it.

    I have, and still do, criticize some of the existing gun laws. Ones that I feel don't reduce the risk of danger at all and are in my opinion there to just limit the number of guns available in some states as another form of gun control.
    Cheers.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 12,010
    mace1229 said:
    I have switched, but that was before coming on these forums. I really didn't start participating until last election when there was non-stop entertainment on here, coming to try and figure out who got banned the night before
    My parents are very conservative, my dad is a retired cop so I grew up knowing and respecting guns.
    My dad is the type that will talk about the stats, and that out of the 30,000 gun deaths a year, over half are suicides, and only about 5,000 are murder victims. And tell you if you really want to save lives, start a program informing people to not eat fast food 3 times a week and add 20 years to your life, or that second hand smoke kills more than guns.
    For several years now I've believed in stronger gun control. I can have a conversation like that, and I will completely agree. They are societal factors that kill more than guns and go completely ignored. Its okay to kill your kids with second hand smoke in this country, or slowly fatten them to death by McDonalds.
    That can all be true, but that doesn't change the fact there are still things we can do to lessen gun violence. I can agree there is no practical need for an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine. So if making you reload every 5 shots can save just 10 lives a year, to me that's still worth it.

    I have, and still do, criticize some of the existing gun laws. Ones that I feel don't reduce the risk of danger at all and are in my opinion there to just limit the number of guns available in some states as another form of gun control.
    I will note I applaud your swinging more to the middle. we need more like you. the problem with your equivalencies listed, there, however, are mostly personal accountability. you can't kill someone else with a big mac. you only kill yourself. and second hand smoke laws have been made in recent years. it's illegal here to smoke in your car with a kid underage. and in restaurants and bars, etc. yes, they are issues, but they don't take away from the fact that needless gun ownership kills a LOT of people. 

    it's like having a discussion about vehicle safety and an anti-seat belter jump up and say "well, but what about your icy sidewalk!". it has nothing to do with it. 
    1 day.......
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 6,533
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    There's a lot of bashing about gun shows, and its always a main point when politicians debate gun control.

    Can anyone explain to me the issue? I've been to lots of gun shows, and I have never seen a "loophole" for them, and never heard hard of it outside a political debate.
    Gun shows are required to follow state laws. If a state requires a dealer to complete the transfer and  waiting period, buying a gun at a gun show doesn't prevent that.
    If you can go to a gun show and walk out with a gun without any background check, then it is state law that permits private party transfers like that, and no loophole with the gun show. And that same "loop hole" would exist for any private party transfer whether at a gunshow or not.

    Sales at gun shows are very professional, at least in my experience. There's no guys selling guns out of the trunk of their cars, people selling guns illegally, its all by the books. If you have a problem then it is with the state law and not the gun show.

    No one is arguing that they are breaking state laws; in fact, exactly the opposite - they are following state laws that are far too lax. The concern is that private sellers without a federal license don't need to follow the usual background check rules. This applies at gun shows but also other venues, yes; it's just more visible and blatant at gun shows.

    Would it make you feel better if we simply called it the "private sale loophole"? Because that's what it is. It's still ridiculous.

    Flea markets. You can buy a gun at a flea market for gawds sakes.

    "I came across this beauty at the flea market by the Trump rally!" bragged Cletus brandishing his new gun to Jethro. "It was only $50."

    "She's a peach" replied Jethro admiring the weapon while kicking at a turd.

    Normally obtuse to non verbal cues, Cletus noted Jethro's admiration: "You wanna shoot that turd with my new gun?" he asked. 

    "Could I?" Jethro asked in disbelief at his exceptional stroke of great fortune.

    Cletus smiled- betraying tooth decay- and handed Jethro the gun. Jethro felt a stirring in his pants as he reached for the gun. Once it was in his hands, he felt three feet taller and 50 pounds of muscle heavier. "Prepare to die, turd" he exulted and took aim. 

    Not in every state. I agree guns should not be sold at flea markets, and that is a law states should pass. Or even federal law to enter a federal data base.

    And the rest is a good example of why little ever changes. 
    When one group insults another, they become more protective. When gun owners are compared to simple-minded rednecks, it strengthens their belief that the second amendment will go away.
    For the record I don't believe that will happen. But when reading through these posts with the anti-gun comments I can justify why some do.
    And if that is your interpretation of a typical gun owner, why wouldn't you want to ban guns? Fortunately, that is not very accurate.
    Just keep throwing out that irrational fear that guns will be "banned" en mass. Only 6 states require background checks at gun shows and you still claim its the State's fault and not a "loophole" while trying to make a comparison with coin shops. Meanwhile, comparing your personal experience with gun shows as if that is somehow the norm, despite evidence to the contrary. I think you reside in California, one of the 6 states with background checks for gun shows. This is why nothing changes, not because of a post on a band's message board poking fun at gun owners. Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.
    If the states allow it, how is it not the state's fault? Whose fault is it that background checks are not required if it is not the state that makes the laws? You can't blame a gun show for the state's laws, or lack of.
    And all i said about the loophole was calling it a "gun show loophole" simply implies its a loophole that only applies to gun shows. Its not. Its not even a loophole in my opinion, because you're not going around anything. In most of those other states background checks are not required for private party transfers.  A "loophole" would be if all private party transfers require a background check, unless the purchase is at a gun show. That's a loophole. 
    Geez, I even agree with you for the most part and you argue back. The only thing i don;t agree on is the technicality of referring to a gun show when talking about the "loophole" because that gives the false impression all you have to do to avoid a background check is attend a gun show, when in fact it is much easier than that in some states. 
    I would be all for background checks ona ll purchases, I really have no clue what about my stance has got you so worked up.
    So we have switched from arguing over whether or not an assault rifle is an assault rifle to whether there is a gun show loophole?

    The gun show loophole refers to secondary market sales.  Gun shows allow like minded gun worshippers an easy place to buy on that market.  

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

    The term refers to the concept that a loophole in federal law exists, under which "[a]ny person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the state where they reside, as long as they do not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms".[2][3][4]

    I agree that's what it is. My point was just that I don't think the average person who doesn't follow this topic closely realizes that. They see Clinton or anyone else talking about the gunshow loophole in a debate, and I don't think they realize its a flaw in the federal and/or state law. They just inherently think that gunshows are therefore bad, and are some magical place where the gun laws don't apply. They hear news reports about guns purchased at a gunshow and believe it would not have been a legal purchase if gunshows were banned. I don't even care that we call it a "gun show loophole," I only said that doesn't seem correct to me because that term doesn't address the issue and seems to mislead as to what the issue really is (federal and/or state law).
    I no longer live in California, but did most of my life. The LA county gunshow, probably the country's largest, was dismantled about 10 years ago. Many others are struggling to continue because of all the pushback they have. And when you talk to some of those people, some believe that anyone can walk into a gunshow and walk out with an arsenal of weapons at the end of the day. That isn't true in California, and the states where it is true, it has nothing to do with the fact it is a gun show.
    not saying you're wrong...but I never viewed the "gun show loophole" that way.  I think most of us realize that there are a lack of reasonable regulations nationwide.
    Former BernieBro, turned Hillary rotten Clinton #1 Fanboy

    1998: Noblesville
    2003: Noblesville
    2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville
    2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago
    2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 3,113
    edited November 14
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 4,032
    Guns don't  kill people....

    At Least 3 Reported Dead After Shooting At School, Other Locations In California http://n.pr/2mreBZF
  • KC138045KC138045 Columbus, OHPosts: 1,767
    Guns don't  kill people....

    At Least 3 Reported Dead After Shooting At School, Other Locations In California http://n.pr/2mreBZF
    And It happened in California which has some of the strictest gun laws.
    Columbus-2000
    Columbus-2003
    Cincinnati-2006
    Columbus-2010
    Wrigley-2013
    Cincinnati-2014
    Lexington-2016
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 6,001
    KC138045 said:
    Guns don't  kill people....

    At Least 3 Reported Dead After Shooting At School, Other Locations In California http://n.pr/2mreBZF
    And It happened in California which has some of the strictest gun laws.
    And you’ll find states with stricter gun laws tend to have a lower gun homicide rate. Single eposodes of anything aren’t evidence. 
  • KC138045KC138045 Columbus, OHPosts: 1,767
    KC138045 said:
    Guns don't  kill people....

    At Least 3 Reported Dead After Shooting At School, Other Locations In California http://n.pr/2mreBZF
    And It happened in California which has some of the strictest gun laws.
    And you’ll find states with stricter gun laws tend to have a lower gun homicide rate. Single eposodes of anything aren’t evidence. 
    I'm not saying this is evidence for one side or the other I just don't know what the answer is to stop or limit these events.  The story on Yahoo had a quote from a neighbor that the shooter had been firing off a lot of rounds lately and had threatened them.  It didn't say if they reported it or anything but this is a definite red flag.  Another mentally disturbed individual who shouldn't of had gun in the first place.

    From the article:

    Another witness, Brian Flint, told KCRA-TV that the suspected gunman stole his truck after killing his roommate.

    Flint said he and his roommate lived near the suspect, who he only knew as Kevin.

    “The crazy thing is that the neighbor has been shooting a lot of bullets lately, hundreds of rounds, large magazines,” Flint said. “This guy has been crazy, and he’s been threatening us and everything. I just feel like there maybe should have been more effort put into stopping things like this.”

    Columbus-2000
    Columbus-2003
    Cincinnati-2006
    Columbus-2010
    Wrigley-2013
    Cincinnati-2014
    Lexington-2016
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 12,010
    KC138045 said:
    Guns don't  kill people....

    At Least 3 Reported Dead After Shooting At School, Other Locations In California http://n.pr/2mreBZF
    And It happened in California which has some of the strictest gun laws.
    And you’ll find states with stricter gun laws tend to have a lower gun homicide rate. Single eposodes of anything aren’t evidence. 
    but but but but.....CHICAGO!
    1 day.......
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 6,533
    Guns don't  kill people....

    At Least 3 Reported Dead After Shooting At School, Other Locations In California http://n.pr/2mreBZF
    Come one, it was only 3.  He could have killed 3 people with a fork.

    Are you going to outlaw forks now?  WELL...ARE YOU??!!!1
    Former BernieBro, turned Hillary rotten Clinton #1 Fanboy

    1998: Noblesville
    2003: Noblesville
    2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville
    2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago
    2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1
  • Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

    Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 2,965
    KC138045 said:
    KC138045 said:
    Guns don't  kill people....

    At Least 3 Reported Dead After Shooting At School, Other Locations In California http://n.pr/2mreBZF
    And It happened in California which has some of the strictest gun laws.
    And you’ll find states with stricter gun laws tend to have a lower gun homicide rate. Single eposodes of anything aren’t evidence. 
    I'm not saying this is evidence for one side or the other I just don't know what the answer is to stop or limit these events.  The story on Yahoo had a quote from a neighbor that the shooter had been firing off a lot of rounds lately and had threatened them.  It didn't say if they reported it or anything but this is a definite red flag.  Another mentally disturbed individual who shouldn't of had gun in the first place.

    From the article:

    Another witness, Brian Flint, told KCRA-TV that the suspected gunman stole his truck after killing his roommate.

    Flint said he and his roommate lived near the suspect, who he only knew as Kevin.

    “The crazy thing is that the neighbor has been shooting a lot of bullets lately, hundreds of rounds, large magazines,” Flint said. “This guy has been crazy, and he’s been threatening us and everything. I just feel like there maybe should have been more effort put into stopping things like this.”

    Are you insinuating this is a mental health issue? He was crazy or is now clearly crazy based on his actions?
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,656
    Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

    Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
    That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
    I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in. 
    What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want. 
    I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 4,032
    Guns don't  kill people....

    At Least 3 Reported Dead After Shooting At School, Other Locations In California http://n.pr/2mreBZF
    Come one, it was only 3.  He could have killed 3 people with a fork.

    Are you going to outlaw forks now?  WELL...ARE YOU??!!!1
    Up to 4 now plus the gunman. I mean well armed citizen.
    And had he been armed with a fork or a knife  or a spoon or all 3 I'd be ready. I got a spork  and I know how to use it.
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 3,113
    Guns don't  kill people....

    At Least 3 Reported Dead After Shooting At School, Other Locations In California http://n.pr/2mreBZF
    Come one, it was only 3.  He could have killed 3 people with a fork.

    Are you going to outlaw forks now?  WELL...ARE YOU??!!!1
    Up to 4 now plus the gunman. I mean well armed citizen.
    And had he been armed with a fork or a knife  or a spoon or all 3 I'd be ready. I got a spork  and I know how to use it.
    You mean well-regulated militia-man
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
  • mace1229 said:
    Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

    Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
    That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
    I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in. 
    What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want. 
    I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?
    No, directed at gun owners who claim they support further gun restrictions but don’t acknowledge the carnage guns cause or dismiss fact based evidence to the contrary while throwing out the term “ban” as in ban guns or gee, I’d hate to see gun shows banned because of the in exact terminology or definition of “loophole” that’s being used. It’s an underhanded way to delegitimize the issue and undermine the need for reform. Then to compare the insignificant numbers of gun deaths to cancer or deaths from second hand smoke and eating fast food, two activities or products, that have seen and continue to see further regulation in an effort to lessen their harm, further exhibits your skepticism and inability to come across as a serious proponent of better, more effective gun control. It’s the yea, I’m for it but what if, what if, what if argument (don’t get mad at the gun show, get mad at state laws that don’t require background checks). And because you claim to have attended well run and regulated gun shows, you’d have us believe that all gun shows are on the up and up and everything is legal. Again, despite evidence presented to the contrary. Your reply? But, but, but.......I’m sick and tired of the reality that only gets worse. Did you read the definition of gun show loophole another poster put up and what the seller’s requirement is? It’ll answer your question. “Gee, I asked him if he was a convicted felon not allowed to possess a gun and he said no, shrugs shoulders as he puts money in his pocket.” Also, to claim that the reason nothing changes is because a poster poked fun at gun owners on a band’s web page forum is just deflecting responsibility.

    Is it too soon to talk about the latest mass shooting that occurred in CA today?
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 3,113


    Is it too soon to talk about the latest mass shooting that occurred in CA today?
    Yes, but too late to talk about Vegas.  Not sure where we stand on that other shooting that I've already depressingly forgot the details about, but definitely not time to talk about that either.


    oh right, the church thing in texas....that's what it was
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 6,001
    CM189191 said:


    Is it too soon to talk about the latest mass shooting that occurred in CA today?
    Yes, but too late to talk about Vegas.  Not sure where we stand on that other shooting that I've already depressingly forgot the details about, but definitely not time to talk about that either.


    oh right, the church thing in texas....that's what it was
    You can’t talk about the Texas shooting since we’re now in the blackout from today’s shooting. 
  • Guns don't  kill people....

    At Least 3 Reported Dead After Shooting At School, Other Locations In California http://n.pr/2mreBZF
    Come one, it was only 3.  He could have killed 3 people with a fork.

    Are you going to outlaw forks now?  WELL...ARE YOU??!!!1
    Up to 4 now plus the gunman. I mean well armed citizen.
    And had he been armed with a fork or a knife  or a spoon or all 3 I'd be ready. I got a spork  and I know how to use it.

    Got a spork.
    Fact I got two.
    That's okay man, cuz I love God.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • KC138045KC138045 Columbus, OHPosts: 1,767
    tbergs said:
    KC138045 said:
    KC138045 said:
    Guns don't  kill people....

    At Least 3 Reported Dead After Shooting At School, Other Locations In California http://n.pr/2mreBZF
    And It happened in California which has some of the strictest gun laws.
    And you’ll find states with stricter gun laws tend to have a lower gun homicide rate. Single eposodes of anything aren’t evidence. 
    I'm not saying this is evidence for one side or the other I just don't know what the answer is to stop or limit these events.  The story on Yahoo had a quote from a neighbor that the shooter had been firing off a lot of rounds lately and had threatened them.  It didn't say if they reported it or anything but this is a definite red flag.  Another mentally disturbed individual who shouldn't of had gun in the first place.

    From the article:

    Another witness, Brian Flint, told KCRA-TV that the suspected gunman stole his truck after killing his roommate.

    Flint said he and his roommate lived near the suspect, who he only knew as Kevin.

    “The crazy thing is that the neighbor has been shooting a lot of bullets lately, hundreds of rounds, large magazines,” Flint said. “This guy has been crazy, and he’s been threatening us and everything. I just feel like there maybe should have been more effort put into stopping things like this.”

    Are you insinuating this is a mental health issue? He was crazy or is now clearly crazy based on his actions?
    I'm not saying this is a mental health issue but if your neighbor was firing off full clips and threatening you wouldn't you report it?

    That being said history of mental health should be part of background checks before a gun is purchased. 
    Columbus-2000
    Columbus-2003
    Cincinnati-2006
    Columbus-2010
    Wrigley-2013
    Cincinnati-2014
    Lexington-2016
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 2,965
    KC138045 said:
    tbergs said:
    KC138045 said:
    KC138045 said:
    Guns don't  kill people....

    At Least 3 Reported Dead After Shooting At School, Other Locations In California http://n.pr/2mreBZF
    And It happened in California which has some of the strictest gun laws.
    And you’ll find states with stricter gun laws tend to have a lower gun homicide rate. Single eposodes of anything aren’t evidence. 
    I'm not saying this is evidence for one side or the other I just don't know what the answer is to stop or limit these events.  The story on Yahoo had a quote from a neighbor that the shooter had been firing off a lot of rounds lately and had threatened them.  It didn't say if they reported it or anything but this is a definite red flag.  Another mentally disturbed individual who shouldn't of had gun in the first place.

    From the article:

    Another witness, Brian Flint, told KCRA-TV that the suspected gunman stole his truck after killing his roommate.

    Flint said he and his roommate lived near the suspect, who he only knew as Kevin.

    “The crazy thing is that the neighbor has been shooting a lot of bullets lately, hundreds of rounds, large magazines,” Flint said. “This guy has been crazy, and he’s been threatening us and everything. I just feel like there maybe should have been more effort put into stopping things like this.”

    Are you insinuating this is a mental health issue? He was crazy or is now clearly crazy based on his actions?
    I'm not saying this is a mental health issue but if your neighbor was firing off full clips and threatening you wouldn't you report it?

    That being said history of mental health should be part of background checks before a gun is purchased. 
    Gotcha. I think there's been a lot of misrepresentation with the mental health angle. It seems that the term is now used for anyone who is involved in a shooting because the obvious observation is that the person must be "insane in the membrane" to even commit such an act. Where there needs to be a distinction made is between mentally unstable (devious, heinous thoughts/acts) and suffering from a mental illness that has been clinically diagnosed (depression, bipolar, schizophrenia). Unfortunately, only the mental illnesses can be screened unless the unstable individual has a criminal record. No background, thorough or not, will stop the unstable person from purchasing a gun even if they've displayed anger, made threatening statements or is verbally abusive if there's nothing on record.

    I agree that a mental health check should be a component of the background, but it's only one of many things that should be considered. If you want to own more than a single handgun and a hunting rifle, you should be required to complete a psychological assessment on top of a basic requirement for all gun owners to pass a thorough background check and gun safety/owner course.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • RYMERYME Wisconsin Posts: 725
    mace1229 said:
    Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

    Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
    That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
    I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in. 
    What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want. 
    I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

    Mace 1229,
    You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
    What I don't get is some of the opposition.  Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
    He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
    How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
  • RYME said:
    mace1229 said:
    Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

    Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
    That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
    I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in. 
    What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want. 
    I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

    Mace 1229,
    You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
    What I don't get is some of the opposition.  Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
    He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
    How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
    Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,656
    RYME said:
    mace1229 said:
    Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

    Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
    That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
    I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in. 
    What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want. 
    I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

    Mace 1229,
    You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
    What I don't get is some of the opposition.  Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
    He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
    How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
    Yeah, I've come to the conclusion some just don't want to have a rational conversation about guns. I didn't compare gun deaths to smoking, I don't fear a ban, but keeps bringing it up multiple times that I have for some reason.
    I've never said it is too late or too early to talk about gun control. I was on here the day after the vegas shooting talking about it.
    Its amusing at this point how he keeps bringing those up over and over and hasn't answered a single one of my questions.
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,889
    RYME said:
    CM189191 said:
    RYME said:
    CM189191 said:
    unsung said:
    unsung said:

    It used to be part of school curriculum.   Bring gun safety classes back, totally agree.
    So who best to regulate that other than the state?  Issue state licenses for gun owners that reflect basic competency.  

    If run through the DMV you wouldn't have much more admin cost since the brick and mortar already exists.
    Some States already do, Illinois being one, Chicago is just getting worse.  Guns can’t be blamed, that is just a cop-out.  Nothing will change until people value life.  How do we get that done?

    Yes, that's obviously the most reasonable explanation.  Other countries just value life more than the US does. 

    Fun fact: The Second Amendment was ratified to preserve slavery

    There is literally a direct line from the 2nd Amendment to devaluation of human life.
    https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/people/indian-killer-andrew-jackson-deserves-top-spot-on-list-of-worst-us-presidents/
    Read about the original founding days of the Democrat party.  Above
    That is wrong sir the second amendment was not to ratify slavery, rather it was a put in place to allow the citizenry to be able to fight back against a tyrannical government.  Please read what the second amendment was actually for.
    https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

    Neither of the links you provide appear to be relevant to your point.

    Also, your point is wrong. 
    I can multitask.
    The second amendment was to give the citizenry the right to keep and bear arms, so that they could fight back against a tyrannical government if need be.  The Second Amendment had nothing to do with preserving slavery. That fun fact listed above is simply wrong and was made up.
    I mentioned Andrew Jackson simply because he was the founder of the Democrat Party, a big-time slave owner and a big-time Indian killer.
    He should never have been put on the $20 bill.  Just ask any Native American what they think of him, and any African Americans who know the true history about slavery, who was for it and who was against it at the time, and who implemented it.
    The "tyrannical government" argument is old and ridiculous.

    Back then the TG would come at you with similar weapons.  Now the TG has tanks...tactical nukes...drones, etc.

    Give that argument up.  Your pussy ass AR-15 isn't going to help you if the TG comes at you.
    How is that working in Afghanistan?  How did it work in Vietnam?  Stupid to even bring up nukes, like the govt would use one at home.
Sign In or Register to comment.