Dem. lawmaker: To get gun control, Obama must exploit shooting

http://www.theonion.com/articles/right-to-own-handheld-device-that-shoots-deadly-me,30742/

damn even the onion agrees with me

[QUOTE="dave123321"]The baseball analogy doesn't really fitairshocker

Sorry, your opinion doesn't count. < 3

This is all too predictable. Obama's crocodile tears at the post-shooting press conference were sickening. His comment about needing to take some sort of action was all I needed to know that dems would head in this direction. They may have orchestrated this one, just like the Aurora and Sikh Temple shootings.

hartsickdiscipl

1) why not 2) then please try to balance the scales for me and explain why any attempts to protect the safety of the general populace and reduce gun crime are outweighed by whatever inconvenience this may cause you 3) if it came bundled with more rigorous mandatory training and safety lessons, it could have. but you're ignoring that this would help in a lot of other areas.Abbeten

1) Any type of system like that would be prohibitively expensive. If you knew anything about the process to actually obtain a license for a handgun you would also know it's unnecessary in most states. Who is going to go house to house to inspect weapons? That's assuming that it gets held up in court. Who is going to pay for it? Will police officers be doing it? If so, who is going to train them/pay for the training to indentify illegal parts in a firearm?

2) Why do the scales need to be balanced? Legal gun owners aren't the problem. We didn't do anything wrong.

3) Prove it. We don't even know if the guns were locked up or not. If they were locked up and the son simply knew the code to get them, how did the mother do anything wrong and by extension, why should the entire gun community be punished for it?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="wolverine4262"]again, same argumentwolverine4262

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]What good is safety if one doesn't have liberty?LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]but y datairshocker

Because

1) Neither are feasible.

2) It's not fair.

3) It's not addressing the actual problem. Gun owners aren't the problem. This shooter stole the weapons. None of what you suggest would have helped.

The shooter stole the weapons in this case. In most other cases the shooter had mental health issues and purchased the guns legally however.worlock77

And the background check system worked as it should have. In the case with the Aurora shooting, the information that the guy was a nutcase didn't get put on his record. That's not the fault of NICS.

Perhaps before you guys go on your crusade for more gun control, you should make sure that the rest of your beloved system works first.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]but y datworlock77

Because

1) Neither are feasible.

2) It's not fair.

3) It's not addressing the actual problem. Gun owners aren't the problem. This shooter stole the weapons. None of what you suggest would have helped.

[QUOTE="wolverine4262"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Right because you keep making up assumptions which is not supported by the evidence. But then accepting evidence means you're totally clueless and I can see where that would harm your stance. No worries. Enjoy the unicorns in your make believe world....LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]1) why not 2) then please try to balance the scales for me and explain why any attempts to protect the safety of the general populace and reduce gun crime are outweighed by whatever inconvenience this may cause you 3) if it came bundled with more rigorous mandatory training and safety lessons, it could have. but you're ignoring that this would help in a lot of other areas.airshocker

1) Any type of system like that would be prohibitively expensive. If you knew anything about the process to actually obtain a license for a handgun you would also know it's unnecessary in most states. Who is going to go house to house to inspect weapons? That's assuming that it gets held up in court. Who is going to pay for it? Will police officers be doing it? If so, who is going to train them/pay for the training to indentify illegal parts in a firearm?

2) Why do the scales need to be balanced? Legal gun owners aren't the problem. We didn't do anything wrong.

3) Prove it. We don't even know if the guns were locked up or not. If they were locked up and the son simply knew the code to get them, how did the mother do anything wrong and by extension, why should the entire gun community be punished for it?

2) the scales need to be balanced because i need to know why your convenience takes precedence over the lives and safety of the general populace. this isn't about punishment. i'm not your parent, i'm not trying to instill some moral in you or something. i'm trying to bring a solution to gun violence.

3) you know very well i can prove nothing, seeing as how i'm not an investigator. this is why i said 'could have.' if they were locked up and the son knew the code, then the mother was at fault for divulging the code to other people.

[QUOTE="Kamekazi_69"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

I guess I'm not a fan of being punished for the actions of others.

Aljosa23

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="wolverine4262"]I accept that those are facts. I'm saying its not enough to say he stole them from her. wolverine4262

I am sorry I was short with you abbetendave123321

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]1) why not 2) then please try to balance the scales for me and explain why any attempts to protect the safety of the general populace and reduce gun crime are outweighed by whatever inconvenience this may cause you 3) if it came bundled with more rigorous mandatory training and safety lessons, it could have. but you're ignoring that this would help in a lot of other areas.Abbeten

1) Any type of system like that would be prohibitively expensive. If you knew anything about the process to actually obtain a license for a handgun you would also know it's unnecessary in most states. Who is going to go house to house to inspect weapons? That's assuming that it gets held up in court. Who is going to pay for it? Will police officers be doing it? If so, who is going to train them/pay for the training to indentify illegal parts in a firearm?

2) Why do the scales need to be balanced? Legal gun owners aren't the problem. We didn't do anything wrong.

3) Prove it. We don't even know if the guns were locked up or not. If they were locked up and the son simply knew the code to get them, how did the mother do anything wrong and by extension, why should the entire gun community be punished for it?

Airshocker, is there anything you can think of that in your eyes would be a fair and effective way to cut down on these incidents? This no to everything "cuz rights" doesnt cut it for me.

[QUOTE="Kamekazi_69"]

Pretty Foolish. These casese are beyond help from gun control. This is a social problem correlating with the mental health of this nation. The most medicated nation in the world where you must heavily medicate a child in order to coat the problem and not approach it rationally in the norm now a days. Conneticut enforces strict gun control, the original owner had her weapons stole, the school enforced more security with locked doors which clearly failed. Gun control doesn't necessarily work at all.

tenaka2

lol and if the women wasnt allowed guns? Of course gun control works, if you remove the guns people will not get shot, why so many people in the US refuse to acknowlege this is beyond me.

No guns = No mass shootings. Its simple logic.

Wow, you're more dense than I thought. You aren't going to eliminate all of the guns from the world. People in this country who want guns will still obtain them illegally. Criminals will find a way to do criminal things. You can't pass laws to stop that.

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

1) Any type of system like that would be prohibitively expensive. If you knew anything about the process to actually obtain a license for a handgun you would also know it's unnecessary in most states. Who is going to go house to house to inspect weapons? That's assuming that it gets held up in court. Who is going to pay for it? Will police officers be doing it? If so, who is going to train them/pay for the training to indentify illegal parts in a firearm?

2) Why do the scales need to be balanced? Legal gun owners aren't the problem. We didn't do anything wrong.

3) Prove it. We don't even know if the guns were locked up or not. If they were locked up and the son simply knew the code to get them, how did the mother do anything wrong and by extension, why should the entire gun community be punished for it?

LJS9502_basic

Airshocker, is there anything you can think of that in your eyes would be a fair and effective way to cut down on these incidents? This no to everything "cuz rights" doesnt cut it for me.

DaJuicyMan

Airshocker, is there anything you can think of that in your eyes would be a fair and effective way to cut down on these incidents? This no to everything "cuz rights" doesnt cut it for me.

DaJuicyMan

1) hardly prohibitively expensive. never said it would necessitate a house call, though that's a potential option. police officers could be doing it, or inspectors separate from the law enforcement. i imagine a training program could be set up for them, which would hardly be an unprecedented step for anything ever. it would be paid for by a gun tax.

2) the scales need to be balanced because i need to know why your convenience takes precedence over the lives and safety of the general populace. this isn't about punishment. i'm not your parent, i'm not trying to instill some moral in you or something. i'm trying to bring a solution to gun violence.

3) you know very well i can prove nothing, seeing as how i'm not an investigator. this is why i said 'could have.' if they were locked up and the son knew the code, then the mother was at fault for divulging the code to other people.

Abbeten

1) So a psychological exam for every person trying to get a license, plus annual exams, won't be prohibitively expensive. :lol: Okay, you pay for it then, if that's the case.

2) Because you already have a system in which I'm inconvenienced enough and provides for your safety. You haven't given a solution.

3) Which is why you shouldn't even be talking about gun control with regards to what happened in CT. Gun control had nothing to do with it.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Kamekazi_69"]

Pretty Foolish. These casese are beyond help from gun control. This is a social problem correlating with the mental health of this nation. The most medicated nation in the world where you must heavily medicate a child in order to coat the problem and not approach it rationally in the norm now a days. Conneticut enforces strict gun control, the original owner had her weapons stole, the school enforced more security with locked doors which clearly failed. Gun control doesn't necessarily work at all.

hartsickdiscipl

lol and if the women wasnt allowed guns? Of course gun control works, if you remove the guns people will not get shot, why so many people in the US refuse to acknowlege this is beyond me.

No guns = No mass shootings. Its simple logic.

Wow, you're more dense than I thought. You aren't going to eliminate all of the guns from the world. People in this country who want guns will still obtain them illegally. Criminals will find a way to do criminal things. You can't pass laws to stop that.

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]

1) hardly prohibitively expensive. never said it would necessitate a house call, though that's a potential option. police officers could be doing it, or inspectors separate from the law enforcement. i imagine a training program could be set up for them, which would hardly be an unprecedented step for anything ever. it would be paid for by a gun tax.

2) the scales need to be balanced because i need to know why your convenience takes precedence over the lives and safety of the general populace. this isn't about punishment. i'm not your parent, i'm not trying to instill some moral in you or something. i'm trying to bring a solution to gun violence.

3) you know very well i can prove nothing, seeing as how i'm not an investigator. this is why i said 'could have.' if they were locked up and the son knew the code, then the mother was at fault for divulging the code to other people.

airshocker

1) So a psychological exam for every person trying to get a license, plus annual exams, won't be prohibitively expensive. :lol: Okay, you pay for it then, if that's the case.

2) Because you already have a system in which I'm inconvenienced enough and provides for your safety. You haven't given a solution.

3) Which is why you shouldn't even be talking about gun control with regards to what happened in CT. Gun control had nothing to do with it.

Airshocker, is there anything you can think of that in your eyes would be a fair and effective way to cut down on these incidents? This no to everything "cuz rights" doesnt cut it for me.

DaJuicyMan

I'm pretty realistic. People will kill each other. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop that. I'm of the mind that there should be armed security at every school. A portion of the budget should be spent on ensuring a full-time position for a retired police officer, or anybody else with a background in security.

Aside from that, we already have NICS which is run by the FBI. That system can only work so long as troubled people are identified. I don't see what else can be done that won't punish responsible gun owners like myself.

But obviously that's not good enough for you because you could care less about freedom.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

lol and if the women wasnt allowed guns? Of course gun control works, if you remove the guns people will not get shot, why so many people in the US refuse to acknowlege this is beyond me.

No guns = No mass shootings. Its simple logic.

Kamekazi_69

Wow, you're more dense than I thought. You aren't going to eliminate all of the guns from the world. People in this country who want guns will still obtain them illegally. Criminals will find a way to do criminal things. You can't pass laws to stop that.

Bloody idiots.

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]

1) hardly prohibitively expensive. never said it would necessitate a house call, though that's a potential option. police officers could be doing it, or inspectors separate from the law enforcement. i imagine a training program could be set up for them, which would hardly be an unprecedented step for anything ever. it would be paid for by a gun tax.

2) the scales need to be balanced because i need to know why your convenience takes precedence over the lives and safety of the general populace. this isn't about punishment. i'm not your parent, i'm not trying to instill some moral in you or something. i'm trying to bring a solution to gun violence.

3) you know very well i can prove nothing, seeing as how i'm not an investigator. this is why i said 'could have.' if they were locked up and the son knew the code, then the mother was at fault for divulging the code to other people.

airshocker

1) So a psychological exam for every person trying to get a license, plus annual exams, won't be prohibitively expensive. :lol: Okay, you pay for it then, if that's the case.

2) Because you already have a system in which I'm inconvenienced enough and provides for your safety. You haven't given a solution.

3) Which is why you shouldn't even be talking about gun control with regards to what happened in CT. Gun control had nothing to do with it.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]The shooter stole the weapons in this case. In most other cases the shooter had mental health issues and purchased the guns legally however.airshocker

And the background check system worked as it should have. In the case with the Aurora shooting, the information that the guy was a nutcase didn't get put on his record. That's not the fault of NICS.

Perhaps before you guys go on your crusade for more gun control, you should make sure that the rest of your beloved system works first.

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]

1) hardly prohibitively expensive. never said it would necessitate a house call, though that's a potential option. police officers could be doing it, or inspectors separate from the law enforcement. i imagine a training program could be set up for them, which would hardly be an unprecedented step for anything ever. it would be paid for by a gun tax.

2) the scales need to be balanced because i need to know why your convenience takes precedence over the lives and safety of the general populace. this isn't about punishment. i'm not your parent, i'm not trying to instill some moral in you or something. i'm trying to bring a solution to gun violence.

3) you know very well i can prove nothing, seeing as how i'm not an investigator. this is why i said 'could have.' if they were locked up and the son knew the code, then the mother was at fault for divulging the code to other people.

airshocker

1) So a psychological exam for every person trying to get a license, plus annual exams, won't be prohibitively expensive. :lol: Okay, you pay for it then, if that's the case.

2) Because you already have a system in which I'm inconvenienced enough and provides for your safety. You haven't given a solution.

3) Which is why you shouldn't even be talking about gun control with regards to what happened in CT. Gun control had nothing to do with it.

2) so this proportionally mild inconvenience is not worth the lives and safety of others. okay.

3) with better training, perhaps she would have kept it locked up with a code only she knew. maybe not. luckily, this proposal doesn't only seek to address this particular instance!

I'm not crusading for more gun control, I was merely point out a fact you seemed to ignore. Though I don't think undergoing a psych evaluation to get a firearm permit is a bad thing necessarily.worlock77

So long as you pay for it, I'll take whatever test you want me to.

1) i never said annual. i said recurring. and i guess this depends on your definition of 'prohibitively expensive.' given that guns intentionally kill perhaps 13,000 people annually, and the dollar value of a human life is lowballed in the court system at $6 million, that's $78,000,000,000 of damages every year. and that's not including injuries and such. just death. how much do you think would be spending too much in order to reduce this figure?

2) so this proportionally mild inconvenience is not worth the lives and safety of others. okay.

3) with better training, perhaps she would have kept it locked up with a code only she knew. maybe not. luckily, this proposal doesn't only seek to address this particular instance!

Abbeten

1) Okay, when you pay for it I'll take your test.

2) Have you ever bought a firearm, Abbeten?

3) What better training? If someone doesn't have the common sense to lock up their guns that's their fault. Not the fault of responsible gun owners like myself.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]I'm not crusading for more gun control, I was merely point out a fact you seemed to ignore. Though I don't think undergoing a psych evaluation to get a firearm permit is a bad thing necessarily.airshocker

So long as you pay for it, I'll take whatever test you want me to.

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]

1) i never said annual. i said recurring. and i guess this depends on your definition of 'prohibitively expensive.' given that guns intentionally kill perhaps 13,000 people annually, and the dollar value of a human life is lowballed in the court system at $6 million, that's $78,000,000,000 of damages every year. and that's not including injuries and such. just death. how much do you think would be spending too much in order to reduce this figure?

2) so this proportionally mild inconvenience is not worth the lives and safety of others. okay.

3) with better training, perhaps she would have kept it locked up with a code only she knew. maybe not. luckily, this proposal doesn't only seek to address this particular instance!

airshocker

1) Okay, when you pay for it I'll take your test.

2) Have you ever bought a firearm, Abbeten?

3) What better training? If someone doesn't have the common sense to lock up their guns that's their fault. Not the fault of responsible gun owners like myself.

Using that logic then should I also have to pay for the cost of your driver's exam?worlock77

I didn't have to pay for my driver's exam?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]Using that logic then should I also have to pay for the cost of your driver's exam?airshocker

I didn't have to pay for my driver's exam?

From Wiki, Russia has less than half the population of the US. The gun rate in the US is 88.8, for Russia it's 8.9. That's 10X more for the US. Russia has 2.5X the murder rate and a higher total murders than the US. Honduras has the highest murder rate at 91.6 (more than 20X the US) and their gun rate is 6.2 (US is about 15X that). Serbia has the second highest gun rate followed by Yemen, Switzerland and Cyprus. Rates for the top 5 country with the highest gun rate is US 4.2, Yemen 4.2, Switzerland .7 and Cyprus 1.7. Seems that less guns really does mean less murder and crime:|

Mexico has a 3rd of our population, 1/6 the gun rate and 4 times the murder rate. About 2X the total murders compared to the US.

I'd be fine with some federal discretionary spending making up the difference between the cost of the law and whatever revenue a reasonable gun tax would generate. it is absurd to think that and equal share or the entire share should be shouldered by people who don't own gun, though. that is akin to saying that people who don't own a car should pay for the roads. and no, i have notAbbeten

Now maybe you understand why responsible gun owners don't think we should have to pay for what criminals do. The vast majority of gun owners don't commit crimes with their firearms. I get a briefing every year from the Sheriffs Department that shows us out of 90k+ pistol license holders in the county of Rockland, only three in 2011 committed a crime WITH their gun. I think that speaks volumes towards the character of gun owners.

Maybe you should apply for a license and see what we have to go through.

[QUOTE="DaJuicyMan"]

Airshocker, is there anything you can think of that in your eyes would be a fair and effective way to cut down on these incidents? This no to everything "cuz rights" doesnt cut it for me.

airshocker

I'm pretty realistic. People will kill each other. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop that. I'm of the mind that there should be armed security at every school. A portion of the budget should be spent on ensuring a full-time position for a retired police officer, or anybody else with a background in security.

Aside from that, we already have NICS which is run by the FBI. That system can only work so long as troubled people are identified. I don't see what else can be done that won't punish responsible gun owners like myself.

But obviously that's not good enough for you because you could care less about freedom.

And who says you'll have to pay for this psych evaluation?worlock77

You'd have to come up with the money to give me one. The most logical way to do it would be to burden prospective licensees with another fee that covers it, or create a gun tax, like Abbeten said. I mean, because spending $100 just to see the pistol clerk, then another $100 at the Sheriffs department for a fingerprinting/state background check is chump change. What's another 100-150?

Why get all agressive at the end? I just wanted to hear input you had because I hadn't heard you suggest anything, your post was fine until the end. Ease up man, its a forum.DaJuicyMan

And you hold an opinion that would, quite literally, destroy a great pleasure in my life. Why shouldn't I be angry with you...?

Something needs to be done because mass shootings are the leading cause of preventable death in this country by far. . . . Glad that people always use logic and focus on the real problems and not the outliers.

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]I'd be fine with some federal discretionary spending making up the difference between the cost of the law and whatever revenue a reasonable gun tax would generate. it is absurd to think that and equal share or the entire share should be shouldered by people who don't own gun, though. that is akin to saying that people who don't own a car should pay for the roads. and no, i have notairshocker

Now maybe you understand why responsible gun owners don't think we should have to pay for what criminals do. The vast majority of gun owners don't commit crimes with their firearms. I get a briefing every year from the Sheriffs Department that shows us out of 90k+ pistol license holders in the county of Rockland, only three in 2011 committed a crime WITH their gun. I think that speaks volumes towards the character of gun owners.

Maybe you should apply for a license and see what we have to go through.

[QUOTE="DaJuicyMan"]Why get all agressive at the end? I just wanted to hear input you had because I hadn't heard you suggest anything, your post was fine until the end. Ease up man, its a forum.airshocker

And you hold an opinion that would, quite literally, destroy a great pleasure in my life. Why shouldn't I be angry with you...?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]And who says you'll have to pay for this psych evaluation?airshocker

You'd have to come up with the money to give me one. The most logical way to do it would be to burden prospective licensees with another fee that covers it, or create a gun tax, like Abbeten said. I mean, because spending $100 just to see the pistol clerk, then another $100 at the Sheriffs department for a fingerprinting/state background check is chump change. What's another 100-150?