Breaking" High School shooting at Wash State High School

[2aguy]

Right Wing states have more violence due to lack of education due to voting for less education. Read more, type less.

This post is what happens when you allow the left to control the education system...

 

[asaratis]

To me, the bottom line is that if we look at other countries with strict gun laws, they have a great deal less gun violence, and they do not have, as a regular event, these school, mall, cinema, etc., shootings. The US must impose much stricter gun laws if we are ever to have a reality that does not include our children being shot down at school.

So, do you want to take guns away from just the criminals or EVERYBODY?

I would use the guns laws of a country that has them strict enough to prevent the type of gun violence we have in the US. Use their laws as a model and impose them on America. It makes sense: if something works, it's a good model. Obviously, the gun laws we have in the US are not working.

So, you're gonna start with a country that has over 300,000,000 firearms in the possession of a population that has a constitutional protection to have those arms and you're gonna pass a law similar to one in a country that restricts gun ownership?

Only 39% of American households own all those guns. You are in a relatively small minority. If guns laws are voted into being by the majority of the American public, you will need to adhere to those laws. End of.

First you'll have to get past that pesky old Constitution. Good luck with that! Then you'll have to get the criminals to obey the law! Good luck with that!


It's a common fallacy in liberal thinking....that if we pass a silly law, all people will obey it.

 

[Impenitent]

To me, the bottom line is that if we look at other countries with strict gun laws, they have a great deal less gun violence, and they do not have, as a regular event, these school, mall, cinema, etc., shootings. The US must impose much stricter gun laws if we are ever to have a reality that does not include our children being shot down at school.

So, do you want to take guns away from just the criminals or EVERYBODY?

I would use the guns laws of a country that has them strict enough to prevent the type of gun violence we have in the US.

Gun control laws cannot prevent gun-related violence, if for no other reason that it is impossible to enact a law that will prevent people from breaking the law.

For example lets look at CA, with the strictest gun laws of any state:

CA gun laws require that:
-All transfers must be through a dealer, thus...
-All transfers undergo a background check
-All transfers undergo a 10-day waiting period (ruled unconstitutional 8/2014)
-All firearms must be registered
-Handgun purchases require a handgun safety certificate-– a permit.that requires training and a test
-Ban on ‘assault weapons’, effective 1 JUN 1989
-Ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds
-Ban on NFA machineguns
Gun laws in California - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

% of murders in US committed with a firearm: 69.36 (8855/12765)
% of murders in CA committed with a firearm: 69.39 (1304/1879)
FBI mdash Expanded Offense

% US population in CA: 12.12% California QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau
% US murders in CA: 14.71
% US murders with a gun in CA 14.72

Thus gun control laws are useless. We should concentrate on controlling voters, after all the 300 or so school shooting deaths in the last 30 years are easily overshadowed by the 10 voter impersonation convictions during the same period,

 

[Vandalshandle]

I don't think that this kid was an outright psycho. He just seemed to have gone over the edge because of hormonal changes that happen to 14 year old boys, so background checks would not have helped in this instance.

However, I can't for the life of me see what the hell the Right has against background checks. I have bought three guns in 4 years, and had background checks. they cost $25, and take 5 minutes. We also do background checks on people who want to join the Sheriff's auxiliary where I volunteer. Amazingly enough, we turn down about 4 applicants per year who have felony convictions, who, for some reason, don't think that we will notice.

Hormonal changes??

Man, we were all 14, once, and how many of us shot up the school?

That is just absurd.

He shot up the schools because he was a self-centered little bastard, a "me generation" little ****.

Well, we will put that category down in the national statistics database:

"Number of firearm murders motivated because the shooter was a self-centered 'me generation' ****'" 1.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I don't think that this kid was an outright psycho. He just seemed to have gone over the edge because of hormonal changes that happen to 14 year old boys, so background checks would not have helped in this instance.

However, I can't for the life of me see what the hell the Right has against background checks.

Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where the state denies you the exercise of your right until such a time that the state determines that your desired exercise doe not violate any of the restrictions the state placed on said exercise. Prior restraint is always an infringement on the exercise of a right, and except under very specific circumstances, always violates the constitution.,

In other words, you can not pass a background check.

Just what have you got in your background that would keep you from buying a firearm, M14?

 

[Jackson]

All guns should be locked up when not in use. The keys are not to be free to anyone but the adults in they family.

That isn't so hard to understand. That's where the laws should be made.

 

[2aguy]

In other words, you can not pass a background check.

From his post that is what you got...well...you were obviously the top of your class at whatever government controlled, democrat run public school you went to...

 

[2aguy]

All guns should be locked up when not in use. The keys are not to be free to anyone but the adults in they family.
That isn't so hard to understand. That's where the laws should be made.

That might make sense...and to enforce this we should allow police to search homes whenever they want for this very reason without warrants and without court supervision...because if you make this a law...careless people will still break it...and kids with mental problems will steal those keys and/or kill their parents to get those keys...right?

 

[Iceweasel]

All guns should be locked up when not in use. The keys are not to be free to anyone but the adults in they family.

That isn't so hard to understand. That's where the laws should be made.

Lock yours up if you want. I want mine to be freely available.

 

[Geaux4it]

All guns should be locked up when not in use. The keys are not to be free to anyone but the adults in they family.

That isn't so hard to understand. That's where the laws should be made.

No they shouldn't. Guns need to be available at the ready.

-Geaux

 

[2aguy]

You know, I don't think you have to worry about this girl breaking into the gun cabinet or safe...and murdering her parents...and she can out shoot most soldiers and police with an AR-15, Shotgun and pistol...

Video 10 Year Old Girl is 3-Gun Shooting Prodigy Hopes to be an 8220 Inspiration to Other Kids 8221

Shyanne Roberts is a 3-gun competition shooter. Seeing a girl competing in 3-gun competitions isn’t very unusual in 2014. Female competition shooting is one of the fastest growing segments of the gun world.

However, Shyanne has something pretty unique going for her. She’s a 10 year old girl who has competed well enough to earn a spot to compete in a national competition with adult competitors.

 

[Vandalshandle]

In other words, you can not pass a background check.

From his post that is what you got...well...you were obviously the top of your class at whatever government controlled, democrat run public school you went to...

Well, his argument is either based on the fact that he would be unable to buy a gun if background checks are required, or his argument is that the government has no authority to stop felons from buying guns. It is either one or the other. I am just trying to figure out which his argument is.

 

[2aguy]

Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where the state denies you the exercise of your right until such a time that the state determines that your desired exercise doe not violate any of the restrictions the state placed on said exercise. Prior restraint is always an infringement on the exercise of a right, and except under very specific circumstances, always violates the constitution.,

Well...seems to me he was just discussing the concept of prior restraint and rights...

Well, his argument is either based on the fact that he would be unable to buy a gun if background checks are required, or his argument is that the government has no authority to stop felons from buying guns. It is either one or the other. I am just trying to figure out which his argument is.

You might want to re read his post...

 

[Vandalshandle]

Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where the state denies you the exercise of your right until such a time that the state determines that your desired exercise doe not violate any of the restrictions the state placed on said exercise. Prior restraint is always an infringement on the exercise of a right, and except under very specific circumstances, always violates the constitution.,

Well...seems to me he was just discussing the concept of prior restraint and rights...

Well, his argument is either based on the fact that he would be unable to buy a gun if background checks are required, or his argument is that the government has no authority to stop felons from buying guns. It is either one or the other. I am just trying to figure out which his argument is.

You might want to re read his post...

Oh, but I have read it. So, giving him the benefit of doubt, it would appear that he is in favor of allowing gun sales to the mentally ill and to people who have committed felonies.

Such a position need not be dignified with further argument.

 

[2aguy]

it would appear that he is in favor of allowing gun sales to the mentally ill and to people who have committed felonies.

Again...your reading comprehension needs a lot of work...nowhere does he really address either issue other than in this point...

Prior restraint is always an infringement on the exercise of a right, and except under very specific circumstances, always violates the constitution.,

So...instead of accusing him of saying things he didn't say...you could have a conversation and...well...ask him...

 

[Vandalshandle]

it would appear that he is in favor of allowing gun sales to the mentally ill and to people who have committed felonies.

Again...your reading comprehension needs a lot of work...nowhere does he really address either issue other than in this point...

Prior restraint is always an infringement on the exercise of a right, and except under very specific circumstances, always violates the constitution.,

So...instead of accusing him of saying things he didn't say...you could have a conversation and...well...ask him...

Why, Of course! And it would be unconstitutional to infringe on free speech by forbidding people from yelling "FIRE" in a crowed theater, too! So, no matter how ridicules the results would be, then there should be no restraints on gun sales. Then, it stands to reason that, in addition to the mentally ill, and convicted felons, we should allow incarcerated US citizens to bear arms as well.

One reaches a point in any conversation with gun nuts when one realizes that one is arguing with a STOP sign, and therefore, one is wasting his time.

 

[M14 Shooter]

To me, the bottom line is that if we look at other countries with strict gun laws, they have a great deal less gun violence, and they do not have, as a regular event, these school, mall, cinema, etc., shootings. The US must impose much stricter gun laws if we are ever to have a reality that does not include our children being shot down at school.

So, do you want to take guns away from just the criminals or EVERYBODY?

I would use the guns laws of a country that has them strict enough to prevent the type of gun violence we have in the US.

Gun control laws cannot prevent gun-related violence, if for no other reason that it is impossible to enact a law that will prevent people from breaking the law.

For example lets look at CA, with the strictest gun laws of any state:

CA gun laws require that:
-All transfers must be through a dealer, thus...
-All transfers undergo a background check
-All transfers undergo a 10-day waiting period (ruled unconstitutional 8/2014)
-All firearms must be registered
-Handgun purchases require a handgun safety certificate-– a permit.that requires training and a test
-Ban on ‘assault weapons’, effective 1 JUN 1989
-Ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds
-Ban on NFA machineguns
Gun laws in California - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

% of murders in US committed with a firearm: 69.36 (8855/12765)
% of murders in CA committed with a firearm: 69.39 (1304/1879)
FBI mdash Expanded Offense

% US population in CA: 12.12% California QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau
% US murders in CA: 14.71
% US murders with a gun in CA 14.72

Thus gun control laws are useless.

Gun control laws intended to "prevent" crime are useless. yes, as they can do no such thing.
Good of you to agree.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't think that this kid was an outright psycho. He just seemed to have gone over the edge because of hormonal changes that happen to 14 year old boys, so background checks would not have helped in this instance.

However, I can't for the life of me see what the hell the Right has against background checks.

Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where the state denies you the exercise of your right until such a time that the state determines that your desired exercise doe not violate any of the restrictions the state placed on said exercise. Prior restraint is always an infringement on the exercise of a right, and except under very specific circumstances, always violates the constitution.,

In other words, you can not pass a background check.

Ahh.... you understand you have no sound counterargument to what I said. Very good.
Don't feel bad - no such counterargument exists.

 

[M14 Shooter]

All guns should be locked up when not in use. The keys are not to be free to anyone but the adults in they family.
That isn't so hard to understand. That's where the laws should be made.

And how do you enforce this law, a law designed to prevent teenagers from getting their parents' guns?

 

[M14 Shooter]

In other words, you can not pass a background check.

From his post that is what you got...well...you were obviously the top of your class at whatever government controlled, democrat run public school you went to...

Well, his argument is either based on the fact that he would be unable to buy a gun if background checks are required, or his argument is that the government has no authority to stop felons from buying guns.

False dilemma - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
My argument is based on, well, exactly what I said.
You simply know you have no way to argue against it.