Another mass shooting in America on Thursday, this time at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. At least 10 are confirmed dead, another 20 are injured, and the gunman, also deceased, has been identified only as a 20-year-old male. [UPDATE: The Douglas County Sheriff's
Your sociopathic idiocies are not impressive and are just cut and paste from the nearest putrid shithole that is full of chicken shit little toddlers too fucking scared of their own shadows to go out in the sun. Why am I beginning like this by ranting? Because humans have died and have been injured and your only response as a dead brained Moran is to imply that the shooter was, somehow an unstoppable force of nature. Bullshit.
Check Australia - a country explicitly reference by a President you seem to regard as some sort of escaped slave - they used to have high gun ownership. They had a massacre, they enacted sensible gun laws and, oh look! gun violence is way down and they have not had a similar massacre since.
What about the UK where the IRA and the Prods (both largely funded by US fools like yourself) were active using guns mainly produced by US owned companies and shipped into the Province using US supplied funds. Even at the height of the Troubles murder rated due to guns were lower than in the USA.
Despite Criminals and terrorists GUN LAWS WORK you sick little shitbag
What laws would have stopped this shooting? Well, laws that would have restricted the criminal's access to guns would be good, because if you don't have a gun you cannot shoot people and if guns are controlled the price of illegal guns goes up. Or are you saying that the criminals have warehouses full of guns?
Tell you what, you make a ridiculous claim about your "sister," who I'm so glad to find out survived the duggaring you no doubt gave her, let's put that nice fiction really true story (just like those about Chemtrails and Jade Helm and HAARP) you have just vomited forth into another contex. I would guess you have a gun. Let's say one night your sister a mad misandrist lesbian broke into your house, crept up to your bedroom and hit you with a baseball bat; would your gunz save you then?
Obviously America needs a many pronged approach to mitigate the worship of violence and specifically gun fetishism in this country.
A) Mandatory education for children about anger management and how to deal with stress. Also, why it's important to share one's feelings with your teachers or counsellors. As well as encouraging children to share information with parents, teachers, counselors if a friend expresses the desire to hurt themselves, hurt others, or to obtain a weapon, or bring a weapon to school, party, sporting event, movie theatre etc...Mandatory prison sentence and fine for anyone who purchases a gun on another's behalf.
B) Gun law reform. Things like mandatory licensing for all gun owners. Mandatory ID checks, mental health and criminal background checks. No guns for those with felonies, or the mentally ill. Close all gun show loop holes. Mandatory firearm training for all gun owners. I also think there should be insurance policies for private gun owners and businesses which permit guns on the premises.
I don't know if this would work but what if President Obama signed an executive order penalizing states that have recurring mass murders and domestic violence killings by firearm? Wouldn't that force states to take serious steps to reform their own gun laws and mental health services?
C) More gun deaths happen in domestic violence situations than by mass murder. I think educating children (especially boys) about anger management and how to handle life stressors could make a positive difference. As well as tougher laws on those who harrass, stalk, threaten lives of others. Stricter domestic abuse laws
That's correct (the first part). Are you inferring (while offering no solution to my question) that I'm stupid for NOT resorting to gun violence? I work in Flint, MI. Often at night (I'm a FF/Medic- 24hr shifts) It's not a pretty city at the moment, but being robbed but not killed is far far more likely than being murdered. And no, you're not correct in your assessment of what I "save" my gun for. I do not own, nor carry, a firearm to protect my wallet, credit cards, cash, truck, or possessions. I carry a gun to protect my LIFE. I was taught, continue to train for, and thoroughly believe, that my firearm is only to be used when I am in fear of loss of life (or debilitating bodily harm). When a person approached me, after I'd scanned my card at a gas pump (but before I'd put my wallet away), and the FIRST thing out of his mouth was, "Yo fire, I ain't no killer, I ain't no "shanker" (i think), and I ain't here to hurt you, but I do what I gotta do to get that (my wallet) and phone (it was actually a fire radio), sup to you".... I did not feel in fear for my life. I'll be honest, had he not made it explicitly clear that he had no intention to hurt me, I may have done something different, and either way, I COULD have shot him, and in the eyes of the law, would have had no problems. But I made the decision long ago (just as he had in his own way I guess), that I do not ever WANT to take a life....of anyone...., even a criminal thug. The world is full of shades of gray. I've watched my dad (cop) break the law (not wearing a seatbelt occasionally, speeding etc), but he's still my hero, and that guy is probably a very young, naive child's hero too. I don't want to spend the rest of my life knowing that I took a kid's Father for a few hundred bucks. So being next to certain that if I cooperated, I'd not be harmed, I made what I feel was the right call. I could have killed him, but why? Cause he "deserves" it? Fuck that. This isn't the wild west. Plus, when your training kicks in, you think, all in 2 seconds, "who's behind him? A woman pumping gas? A kid? Another thug with a gun?" (Surveillance later showed nobody). So yes, I am proud of the decision. It turned out well. He was identified by the video, and another video a month later robbing a 73 YO woman in broad daylight (this time with a gun supposedly under his shirt), and pulled over for an unrelated issue almost year later, and is now hanging out for a minimum of 10 years in prison, meanwhile I was lauded and THANKED publicly by the Police Chief for being a "responsibly armed" citizen who showed restraint because his "guys can't be everywhere all the time".... What's so crazy about that??
Do you mind drunk driving laws? Seat belt laws? Or speed limit laws? What about the law that requires drivers of wheeled carriages and steel horses to be licensed and insured? Or these laws and regulations ok with you? Some inconsiderate assholes drive drunk and kill people. This happens all the time but much less than in before the law enacted. I know because my friend in high school - his mother was killed by a drunk driver and it made him very very sad. Because DDL don't prevent all dd accidents and fatalities does that mean the law is a failure? NO. OF course not.
Are you happy or :-( the U.S. has the Clean Water Act? How about the Clean Air Act? Happy or Sad? Or is it just another sodomizations of our freedumbs by librrrrull politickings? Since all pollution cannot be stopped from getting into our water and air supply does that mean we don't need these laws and regulations? NO. These laws have made our water cleaner and our air quality better.
How about Child Labor Laws? Bueno o no bueno? Mimimmm Wage Law? Do you like that one? What about the 5-day work week and overtime regulations? CLL has saved a lot of kids lives and has given children a childhood. But some kids, even in the U.S, are forced into labor or are the working poor and legally working (usually in agriculture). Does this mean that because CLL don't prevent every kid from exploitation the laws should be scrapped? NO it means we need to work harder as a society to prevent employers and sometimes a child's own family from exploiting them. It means we need to change the laws which currently exist about agricultural workers so that children are not working on farms and ranchs. Other laws protect workers from negligent or exploitative employers. Although some employers break these laws it doesn't mean that labor laws aren't protecting most workers.
What about regulations requiring construction companies and contractors to have current up to date licenses for building/repairing/renovating/machine operation and to be bonded and insured? Are these necessary requirements or are you ok with anyone building a structure? Anyone using a crane? Anyone doing electrical work? A couple of years ago a crane crashed into a retail shop in my home city and killed a few employees and customers. It was discovered that the company hired to demolish a building next to the store was not licensed to do demolition work. Someone fucked up big time not catching that before the tragedy. But that doesn't mean these rules, regulations, and laws are not protecting society 99% of the time.
What about laws that require purchasers and drinkers of fermented beverages to be of a certain age? Are those laws good to have on the books? Yes they are. Kids need boundaries and guidelines and their little soft brains are not yet fully formed. It's dangerous for them to consume alcohol. This is something that even medical professional didn't know just 80 years ago.
What about laws which require the childrenz to be enrolled in school or homeskoold? Are these laws beneficial to society? Yes because an educated society is a productive and healthy society. Some kids fall through the cracks because of dysfunctional family dynamics, poorly managed school districts but this is the exception to the rule. We have more children graduating from HS than ever before.
How about the laws which require doctors and health care professionals to be licensed in the state they operate? Do you believe these laws and protections good for society or do you think it unnecessary and anyone should be able to practice medicine, psychology, dentistry, plastic surgery? Do some licensed physicians do bad things - yes. Does this mean that licensing and regulations are not necessary because they do not work 100% of the time?
U.S. public school teachers also too must have a teaching certificate. Do you think this a necessary requirement or just libral moronz making life difficult? Some kids learn good and some kidz don't. A lot of teachers are excellent and a lot are not. Since everyone is not adequately learning and some teachers suck, should we allow those without certification to teach? I don't believe so.
Are you ok that the FDA checks out drugs before they go to market? Or is that stoopid? Do some drugs get pulled after they're taken by a march larger population than the study groups? Yes all of the time. Does that mean we should forgo drug testing and get rid of the FDA - no.
Like any civil society we have laws and regulations which benefit society as a whole even if, for instance, I don't like wearing my seat belt for a few reasons, but I do it anyway because now that it's been the law for several decades we have evidence that this law has saved many lives. Does everyone who wears their seat belt survive an accident - no. Does that mean because sometimes people die we should not have this law - no.
Your argument that gun laws will not stop all bad events from happening doesn't make sense to me because NO laws can prevent bad things from happening. To keep using that argument is disingenuous and just a waste of time.
I see and understand your point. It's well articulated, and only a little bit rude. So thank you. I see a very big difference in those laws though. If you're saying that more gun laws would prevent the accidental discharge of weapons by children, or the "good citizen" who pops off an undercover police officer trying to make an arrest because he thinks someone's being assaulted.... than YES, your theory makes sense to me. You have my agreement there. And I told you I carry a gun, but I'm not a bleeding red Republican 2nd amendment crazy. I've no problem with background checks...hell even MORE background checks. I've no problem with not wanting people to own Assault Weapons etc etc. What I'm asking though, is in reference to this article I just read, and mass shootings in general (which is the precursor to all these politicians speeches). What law could stop this guy? This isn't me, this isn't you. This isn't a man who would normally have 4 drinks who says "i don't need a DUI, I'm only going to have one"... I've yet to see a man who wants to drink and drive soooo bad, that he's willing to spend life in prison, take a lethal injection, or guarantee that his life will end today (from a cop's bullet or his own) to do it. This isn't a factory owner who wants to stay in business and continue to make money who's deciding whether or not he should break the law. Can you at least admit that we're talking about a "different kind of person" than the type of person that a Clean Air Act, or a DUI law is targeted at, or is going to dissuade?? We're talking about a person so fucking crazed, that they are willing to not only procure an illegal gun through theft or street buying (many- NOT ALL- mass shooters are prohibited persons anyway), then take that illegal gun into an illegal area (pistol free zone), then spray bullets randomly into a crowd of move-goers, or put it to the head of the first 7 year old child, college student, government worker, single mother, whatever that they see... and pull the trigger. Then move on to the next person, committing murder after murder after murder after murder after murder after murder after murder, almost always planning to die at the end. The people who commit these aimless mass murders 99% of the time (I say 99% because I'VE never seen one, but it may have happened) are not CCW holders who live in your neighborhood, who've never committed a crime, who've taken the state required training, who've gotten fingerprinted, who've gone through the background check, who've gone through the waiting period (if the state has one) and just want to protect their family FROM these fuckers specifically. These folks don't just come home from the office Friday and decide to skip their kids cub scout meeting to go shoot up a school. These are mentally ill fucks, often diagnosed with previous illness, who want to see death, who want to be famous and would murder their own mother, father whatever, take their guns, and go shoot up that cub scout meeting....., What kind of law stops that man??? What gun law stops the man who already can't own guns, and leaves his home committed to go and blow as much 7 year old brain onto the chalk boards as he possibly can??
If you're right, how do you explain that these violent events rarely happen in other civilized nations? Or you think it's a fluke that when we compare Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, England, Ireland, Austria, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Greece, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada with the U.S. we're way in the lead. Is that by accident? It doesn't have anything to do with U.S.'s weak gun laws? Ease and availability of guns?
There are bad people in every culture and country. There are mentally ill in every nation. And yet the U.S.'s murder by gun stats and mass killings by gun and spree murder by gun are off the charts. You're saying there's no causation? U.S.'s numbers are just abnormally high for no apparent reason?
I disagree with nothing you just said there. Specifically regarding your "B" section though- maybe I just live in my closed little loop of Michigan, but here, we have almost all of those things. A person in Michigan who has EVER had ANY felony (doesn't matter if it's violent or not) is prohibited for life (this is also a national law), you also must have a background check to purchase a handgun from anyone but a Family member (let's close that loophole, that's cool). To carry any firearm you must have mandatory training (and continuing training every renewal), criminal background checks, AND mental health checks. Which by the way, that last one is a tough one. The reason I say that is because if you've EVER been diagnosed with simple "depression" (even 45 years ago for 2 months) or ever been "addicted" to anything (again, even 30 years ago), than you're prohibited, and there's no system to get that right back. This has the unforeseen consequence of making people (even if they are feeling a little "down") ALWAYS ALWAYS check "no" on the doctors forms that say "Have you ever felt depressed or angry".... So, I guess in conclusion, I agree with everything you've said, and maybe I just see the system through "Michigan colored glasses" and assume it's the same everywhere?? By the way, almost ALL gun owners I've met (I don't hang out with zealots from either party) would be ok with all that as well. We don't mind background checks and we don't need loopholes. I think the fear is, that with the Federal Government, if you let them take a little like that, and the shootings continue, they'll come for more next time, until good people can't defend their home and family, and I do understand the "slippery slope" idea because even after everything above is accomplished, when there's another mass shooting, the politicians CAN'T just stand there and say, "well we did everything we could" sorry y'all... They have to do more and more each time. I think that's the fear. I personally like, and have no problem with your approach above though
I stopped reading after the third sentence. You're a disgrace to your political party, and only serve to very quickly and very efficiently push moderate people like me towards the other side. Votes win in America, and you're generating more for the "right". You're also a moron on a personal level. I was nothing but decent in my post.... buh bye
Maybe shoes instead of crosses. Baby shoes.
There are no gun-free zones in Oregon community colleges. They don't have the power to declare them. Another Faux "News" talking point, defused.
Dear Mr Wally Text
Your sociopathic idiocies are not impressive and are just cut and paste from the nearest putrid shithole that is full of chicken shit little toddlers too fucking scared of their own shadows to go out in the sun. Why am I beginning like this by ranting? Because humans have died and have been injured and your only response as a dead brained Moran is to imply that the shooter was, somehow an unstoppable force of nature. Bullshit.
Check Australia - a country explicitly reference by a President you seem to regard as some sort of escaped slave - they used to have high gun ownership. They had a massacre, they enacted sensible gun laws and, oh look! gun violence is way down and they have not had a similar massacre since.
What about the UK where the IRA and the Prods (both largely funded by US fools like yourself) were active using guns mainly produced by US owned companies and shipped into the Province using US supplied funds. Even at the height of the Troubles murder rated due to guns were lower than in the USA.
Despite Criminals and terrorists GUN LAWS WORK you sick little shitbag
What laws would have stopped this shooting? Well, laws that would have restricted the criminal's access to guns would be good, because if you don't have a gun you cannot shoot people and if guns are controlled the price of illegal guns goes up. Or are you saying that the criminals have warehouses full of guns?
Tell you what, you make a ridiculous claim about your "sister," who I'm so glad to find out survived the duggaring you no doubt gave her, let's put that nice fiction really true story (just like those about Chemtrails and Jade Helm and HAARP) you have just vomited forth into another contex. I would guess you have a gun. Let's say one night your sister a mad misandrist lesbian broke into your house, crept up to your bedroom and hit you with a baseball bat; would your gunz save you then?
Now piss off and learn to write.
clean-up in Aisle 1 Dok
You were robbed at knife point but didn't feel the need to use the gun you bought to protect yourself? Do you save it just for gunfights?
We're going to need a bigger boat.
Now they're targeting Christians - first Charleson now Oregon. Mebbe that will scare our sociopath GOP Congresscritters? One can hope.
Maybe if POTUS suggested a community gun, bought with funds from defunding ACORN, it would go over much better.
Obviously America needs a many pronged approach to mitigate the worship of violence and specifically gun fetishism in this country.
A) Mandatory education for children about anger management and how to deal with stress. Also, why it's important to share one's feelings with your teachers or counsellors. As well as encouraging children to share information with parents, teachers, counselors if a friend expresses the desire to hurt themselves, hurt others, or to obtain a weapon, or bring a weapon to school, party, sporting event, movie theatre etc...Mandatory prison sentence and fine for anyone who purchases a gun on another's behalf.
B) Gun law reform. Things like mandatory licensing for all gun owners. Mandatory ID checks, mental health and criminal background checks. No guns for those with felonies, or the mentally ill. Close all gun show loop holes. Mandatory firearm training for all gun owners. I also think there should be insurance policies for private gun owners and businesses which permit guns on the premises.
I don't know if this would work but what if President Obama signed an executive order penalizing states that have recurring mass murders and domestic violence killings by firearm? Wouldn't that force states to take serious steps to reform their own gun laws and mental health services?
C) More gun deaths happen in domestic violence situations than by mass murder. I think educating children (especially boys) about anger management and how to handle life stressors could make a positive difference. As well as tougher laws on those who harrass, stalk, threaten lives of others. Stricter domestic abuse laws
D) Overhaul of mental health system.
That's correct (the first part). Are you inferring (while offering no solution to my question) that I'm stupid for NOT resorting to gun violence? I work in Flint, MI. Often at night (I'm a FF/Medic- 24hr shifts) It's not a pretty city at the moment, but being robbed but not killed is far far more likely than being murdered. And no, you're not correct in your assessment of what I "save" my gun for. I do not own, nor carry, a firearm to protect my wallet, credit cards, cash, truck, or possessions. I carry a gun to protect my LIFE. I was taught, continue to train for, and thoroughly believe, that my firearm is only to be used when I am in fear of loss of life (or debilitating bodily harm). When a person approached me, after I'd scanned my card at a gas pump (but before I'd put my wallet away), and the FIRST thing out of his mouth was, "Yo fire, I ain't no killer, I ain't no "shanker" (i think), and I ain't here to hurt you, but I do what I gotta do to get that (my wallet) and phone (it was actually a fire radio), sup to you".... I did not feel in fear for my life. I'll be honest, had he not made it explicitly clear that he had no intention to hurt me, I may have done something different, and either way, I COULD have shot him, and in the eyes of the law, would have had no problems. But I made the decision long ago (just as he had in his own way I guess), that I do not ever WANT to take a life....of anyone...., even a criminal thug. The world is full of shades of gray. I've watched my dad (cop) break the law (not wearing a seatbelt occasionally, speeding etc), but he's still my hero, and that guy is probably a very young, naive child's hero too. I don't want to spend the rest of my life knowing that I took a kid's Father for a few hundred bucks. So being next to certain that if I cooperated, I'd not be harmed, I made what I feel was the right call. I could have killed him, but why? Cause he "deserves" it? Fuck that. This isn't the wild west. Plus, when your training kicks in, you think, all in 2 seconds, "who's behind him? A woman pumping gas? A kid? Another thug with a gun?" (Surveillance later showed nobody). So yes, I am proud of the decision. It turned out well. He was identified by the video, and another video a month later robbing a 73 YO woman in broad daylight (this time with a gun supposedly under his shirt), and pulled over for an unrelated issue almost year later, and is now hanging out for a minimum of 10 years in prison, meanwhile I was lauded and THANKED publicly by the Police Chief for being a "responsibly armed" citizen who showed restraint because his "guys can't be everywhere all the time".... What's so crazy about that??
Dave,
Do you mind drunk driving laws? Seat belt laws? Or speed limit laws? What about the law that requires drivers of wheeled carriages and steel horses to be licensed and insured? Or these laws and regulations ok with you? Some inconsiderate assholes drive drunk and kill people. This happens all the time but much less than in before the law enacted. I know because my friend in high school - his mother was killed by a drunk driver and it made him very very sad. Because DDL don't prevent all dd accidents and fatalities does that mean the law is a failure? NO. OF course not.
Are you happy or :-( the U.S. has the Clean Water Act? How about the Clean Air Act? Happy or Sad? Or is it just another sodomizations of our freedumbs by librrrrull politickings? Since all pollution cannot be stopped from getting into our water and air supply does that mean we don't need these laws and regulations? NO. These laws have made our water cleaner and our air quality better.
How about Child Labor Laws? Bueno o no bueno? Mimimmm Wage Law? Do you like that one? What about the 5-day work week and overtime regulations? CLL has saved a lot of kids lives and has given children a childhood. But some kids, even in the U.S, are forced into labor or are the working poor and legally working (usually in agriculture). Does this mean that because CLL don't prevent every kid from exploitation the laws should be scrapped? NO it means we need to work harder as a society to prevent employers and sometimes a child's own family from exploiting them. It means we need to change the laws which currently exist about agricultural workers so that children are not working on farms and ranchs. Other laws protect workers from negligent or exploitative employers. Although some employers break these laws it doesn't mean that labor laws aren't protecting most workers.
What about regulations requiring construction companies and contractors to have current up to date licenses for building/repairing/renovating/machine operation and to be bonded and insured? Are these necessary requirements or are you ok with anyone building a structure? Anyone using a crane? Anyone doing electrical work? A couple of years ago a crane crashed into a retail shop in my home city and killed a few employees and customers. It was discovered that the company hired to demolish a building next to the store was not licensed to do demolition work. Someone fucked up big time not catching that before the tragedy. But that doesn't mean these rules, regulations, and laws are not protecting society 99% of the time.
What about laws that require purchasers and drinkers of fermented beverages to be of a certain age? Are those laws good to have on the books? Yes they are. Kids need boundaries and guidelines and their little soft brains are not yet fully formed. It's dangerous for them to consume alcohol. This is something that even medical professional didn't know just 80 years ago.
What about laws which require the childrenz to be enrolled in school or homeskoold? Are these laws beneficial to society? Yes because an educated society is a productive and healthy society. Some kids fall through the cracks because of dysfunctional family dynamics, poorly managed school districts but this is the exception to the rule. We have more children graduating from HS than ever before.
How about the laws which require doctors and health care professionals to be licensed in the state they operate? Do you believe these laws and protections good for society or do you think it unnecessary and anyone should be able to practice medicine, psychology, dentistry, plastic surgery? Do some licensed physicians do bad things - yes. Does this mean that licensing and regulations are not necessary because they do not work 100% of the time?
U.S. public school teachers also too must have a teaching certificate. Do you think this a necessary requirement or just libral moronz making life difficult? Some kids learn good and some kidz don't. A lot of teachers are excellent and a lot are not. Since everyone is not adequately learning and some teachers suck, should we allow those without certification to teach? I don't believe so.
Are you ok that the FDA checks out drugs before they go to market? Or is that stoopid? Do some drugs get pulled after they're taken by a march larger population than the study groups? Yes all of the time. Does that mean we should forgo drug testing and get rid of the FDA - no.
Like any civil society we have laws and regulations which benefit society as a whole even if, for instance, I don't like wearing my seat belt for a few reasons, but I do it anyway because now that it's been the law for several decades we have evidence that this law has saved many lives. Does everyone who wears their seat belt survive an accident - no. Does that mean because sometimes people die we should not have this law - no.
Your argument that gun laws will not stop all bad events from happening doesn't make sense to me because NO laws can prevent bad things from happening. To keep using that argument is disingenuous and just a waste of time.
I see and understand your point. It's well articulated, and only a little bit rude. So thank you. I see a very big difference in those laws though. If you're saying that more gun laws would prevent the accidental discharge of weapons by children, or the "good citizen" who pops off an undercover police officer trying to make an arrest because he thinks someone's being assaulted.... than YES, your theory makes sense to me. You have my agreement there. And I told you I carry a gun, but I'm not a bleeding red Republican 2nd amendment crazy. I've no problem with background checks...hell even MORE background checks. I've no problem with not wanting people to own Assault Weapons etc etc. What I'm asking though, is in reference to this article I just read, and mass shootings in general (which is the precursor to all these politicians speeches). What law could stop this guy? This isn't me, this isn't you. This isn't a man who would normally have 4 drinks who says "i don't need a DUI, I'm only going to have one"... I've yet to see a man who wants to drink and drive soooo bad, that he's willing to spend life in prison, take a lethal injection, or guarantee that his life will end today (from a cop's bullet or his own) to do it. This isn't a factory owner who wants to stay in business and continue to make money who's deciding whether or not he should break the law. Can you at least admit that we're talking about a "different kind of person" than the type of person that a Clean Air Act, or a DUI law is targeted at, or is going to dissuade?? We're talking about a person so fucking crazed, that they are willing to not only procure an illegal gun through theft or street buying (many- NOT ALL- mass shooters are prohibited persons anyway), then take that illegal gun into an illegal area (pistol free zone), then spray bullets randomly into a crowd of move-goers, or put it to the head of the first 7 year old child, college student, government worker, single mother, whatever that they see... and pull the trigger. Then move on to the next person, committing murder after murder after murder after murder after murder after murder after murder, almost always planning to die at the end. The people who commit these aimless mass murders 99% of the time (I say 99% because I'VE never seen one, but it may have happened) are not CCW holders who live in your neighborhood, who've never committed a crime, who've taken the state required training, who've gotten fingerprinted, who've gone through the background check, who've gone through the waiting period (if the state has one) and just want to protect their family FROM these fuckers specifically. These folks don't just come home from the office Friday and decide to skip their kids cub scout meeting to go shoot up a school. These are mentally ill fucks, often diagnosed with previous illness, who want to see death, who want to be famous and would murder their own mother, father whatever, take their guns, and go shoot up that cub scout meeting....., What kind of law stops that man??? What gun law stops the man who already can't own guns, and leaves his home committed to go and blow as much 7 year old brain onto the chalk boards as he possibly can??
He's got it in the bag. ISIL and the Muslim Brotherhood will make sure Barack Hussein Obama wins his 3rd Sharia Law term.
If you're right, how do you explain that these violent events rarely happen in other civilized nations? Or you think it's a fluke that when we compare Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, England, Ireland, Austria, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Greece, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada with the U.S. we're way in the lead. Is that by accident? It doesn't have anything to do with U.S.'s weak gun laws? Ease and availability of guns?
There are bad people in every culture and country. There are mentally ill in every nation. And yet the U.S.'s murder by gun stats and mass killings by gun and spree murder by gun are off the charts. You're saying there's no causation? U.S.'s numbers are just abnormally high for no apparent reason?
I disagree with nothing you just said there. Specifically regarding your "B" section though- maybe I just live in my closed little loop of Michigan, but here, we have almost all of those things. A person in Michigan who has EVER had ANY felony (doesn't matter if it's violent or not) is prohibited for life (this is also a national law), you also must have a background check to purchase a handgun from anyone but a Family member (let's close that loophole, that's cool). To carry any firearm you must have mandatory training (and continuing training every renewal), criminal background checks, AND mental health checks. Which by the way, that last one is a tough one. The reason I say that is because if you've EVER been diagnosed with simple "depression" (even 45 years ago for 2 months) or ever been "addicted" to anything (again, even 30 years ago), than you're prohibited, and there's no system to get that right back. This has the unforeseen consequence of making people (even if they are feeling a little "down") ALWAYS ALWAYS check "no" on the doctors forms that say "Have you ever felt depressed or angry".... So, I guess in conclusion, I agree with everything you've said, and maybe I just see the system through "Michigan colored glasses" and assume it's the same everywhere?? By the way, almost ALL gun owners I've met (I don't hang out with zealots from either party) would be ok with all that as well. We don't mind background checks and we don't need loopholes. I think the fear is, that with the Federal Government, if you let them take a little like that, and the shootings continue, they'll come for more next time, until good people can't defend their home and family, and I do understand the "slippery slope" idea because even after everything above is accomplished, when there's another mass shooting, the politicians CAN'T just stand there and say, "well we did everything we could" sorry y'all... They have to do more and more each time. I think that's the fear. I personally like, and have no problem with your approach above though
I stopped reading after the third sentence. You're a disgrace to your political party, and only serve to very quickly and very efficiently push moderate people like me towards the other side. Votes win in America, and you're generating more for the "right". You're also a moron on a personal level. I was nothing but decent in my post.... buh bye