Universal background checks... really?

[candycorn]

Deal effectively with people who have not violated the law until they pull the trigger?
Okay….how do you do that?

In a free society, you don't.

And after the victims are dead, it’s too late.

 

[candycorn]

"WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING! So let's create a law that burdens citizens and law enforcement while doing NOTHING to address the problem. THERE WE DID SOMETHING!"

Feel free to share how you would have prevented El Paso, Odessa, Santa Fe, Sutherland Springs, Killeen....

If it prevents one blood bath, it’s well worth it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Deal effectively with people who have not violated the law until they pull the trigger?
Okay….how do you do that?

In a free society, you don't.

And after the victims are dead, it’s too late.

That's how it works in a free society - people retain their rights until such a time as their actions, through due process, warrant their removal.

Don't like it? I'm sure you can find a country where it is impossible to commit mass murder - move there.

 

[candycorn]

Fact:
This does nothing to demonstrate the necessity of background checks.

Another person who does not know what a fact is.

Fact:
You still have not demonstrated the neessity of background checks.

I didn't need to, Seth Ator already did.

I accept your concession of the point.
When you think you can demonstrate the necessity for background checks, let us know.

I didn't make a concession you just keep insisting you made a point.

Was Ator able to buy a gun and circumvent the background check system even though legally he was not allowed to possess one? Yes or no.

The paranoid right wing is sad.

 

[Lesh]

Deal effectively with people who have not violated the law until they pull the trigger?
Okay….how do you do that?

In a free society, you don't.

And after the victims are dead, it’s too late.

That's how it works in a free society - people retain their rights until such a time as their actions, through due process, warrant their removal.

Don't like it? I'm sure you can find a country where it is impossible to commit mass murder - move there.

We don't have a "right" to a machine gun...do we...

 

[HappyJoy]

Another person who does not know what a fact is.

Fact:
You still have not demonstrated the neessity of background checks.

I didn't need to, Seth Ator already did.

I accept your concession of the point.
When you think you can demonstrate the necessity for background checks, let us know.

I didn't make a concession you just keep insisting you made a point.

Was Ator able to buy a gun and circumvent the background check system even though legally he was not allowed to possess one? Yes or no.

The paranoid right wing is sad.

They're morons, I've spent too much time "debating" with a guy who thinks everything he types is a fact, without any proof and another one who just keeps parroting that there is no loophole in the law that allows people to get guns who shouldn't even though that very thing just happened.

I think Trump has dumbed down their game.

 

[candycorn]

Fact:
You still have not demonstrated the neessity of background checks.

I didn't need to, Seth Ator already did.

I accept your concession of the point.
When you think you can demonstrate the necessity for background checks, let us know.

I didn't make a concession you just keep insisting you made a point.

Was Ator able to buy a gun and circumvent the background check system even though legally he was not allowed to possess one? Yes or no.

The paranoid right wing is sad.

They're morons, I've spent too much time "debating" with a guy who thinks everything he types is a fact, without any proof and another one who just keeps parroting that there is no loophole in the law that allows people to get guns who shouldn't even though that very thing just happened.

I think Trump has dumbed down their game.

Nah, they were that dumb before Trump. There are numerous YouTube videos of people buying guns no questions asked. And the response is “More laws won’t stop that” which is true actually. But what laws do in many cases is deter behavior.

• I lived in an area that had water restrictions. You couldn’t water your lawn between 6AM and 6PM or something like that or you’d have to pay a fine. Guess what. I remember putting out the sprinkler at 6:30 and moving it every 30 minutes or so until 9 (it was one of those cheap 8” circle sprinklers). I saw other kids doing the same thing up and down the street.
• I’m old enough to remember the oil embargoes that forced us to only buy gas on days when your plate had an even or odd number. If you bought gas on days when you were not supposed to, you got fined. So we were in line with our cars on the proper days.
• When you try to catch the Bolivar Ferry over in Galveston, Texas, the DPS used to have a flashing sign on the road, “cut in line, pay a fine” is what it read.

Speed limits, sanitation laws for businesses, having to get rid of standing water on your property for code compliance, not shouting “fire” in a movie theater, not being profane at the DMV or in front of the judge. There are all sorts of things the government tries to curtail. Do they all work 100% of the time? No. Do they work some of the time? Yes. If it stops one massacre and saves 20 school kids…its worth it.

Adam Lanza should have never been in a house that had that arsenal. A law that prevents having guns in the house where you have a person who was diagnosed as a mentally unstable adult is just common sense. You don’t have to give up your weapons; you simply can’t keep them in the house...and there will certainly be waivers granted in special circumstances. Not all who are mentally unstable are dangerous, obviously.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They're morons, I've spent too much time "debating" with a guy who thinks everything he types is a fact, without any proof and another one who just keeps parroting that there is no loophole in the law that allows people to get guns who shouldn't even though that very thing just happened.

Its not -my- fault you refuse to understand the definition of loophole, and that said definition runs contrary to your narrative.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Deal effectively with people who have not violated the law until they pull the trigger?
Okay….how do you do that?

In a free society, you don't.

And after the victims are dead, it’s too late.

That's how it works in a free society - people retain their rights until such a time as their actions, through due process, warrant their removal.
Don't like it? I'm sure you can find a country where it is impossible to commit mass murder - move there.

We don't have a "right" to a machine gun...do we...

Can't address the post, so you troll.
Sad.
Typical, but sad.

 

[HappyJoy]

I didn't need to, Seth Ator already did.

I accept your concession of the point.
When you think you can demonstrate the necessity for background checks, let us know.

I didn't make a concession you just keep insisting you made a point.

Was Ator able to buy a gun and circumvent the background check system even though legally he was not allowed to possess one? Yes or no.

The paranoid right wing is sad.

They're morons, I've spent too much time "debating" with a guy who thinks everything he types is a fact, without any proof and another one who just keeps parroting that there is no loophole in the law that allows people to get guns who shouldn't even though that very thing just happened.

I think Trump has dumbed down their game.

Nah, they were that dumb before Trump. There are numerous YouTube videos of people buying guns no questions asked. And the response is “More laws won’t stop that” which is true actually. But what laws do in many cases is deter behavior.

• I lived in an area that had water restrictions. You couldn’t water your lawn between 6AM and 6PM or something like that or you’d have to pay a fine. Guess what. I remember putting out the sprinkler at 6:30 and moving it every 30 minutes or so until 9 (it was one of those cheap 8” circle sprinklers). I saw other kids doing the same thing up and down the street.
• I’m old enough to remember the oil embargoes that forced us to only buy gas on days when your plate had an even or odd number. If you bought gas on days when you were not supposed to, you got fined. So we were in line with our cars on the proper days.
• When you try to catch the Bolivar Ferry over in Galveston, Texas, the DPS used to have a flashing sign on the road, “cut in line, pay a fine” is what it read.

Speed limits, sanitation laws for businesses, having to get rid of standing water on your property for code compliance, not shouting “fire” in a movie theater, not being profane at the DMV or in front of the judge. There are all sorts of things the government tries to curtail. Do they all work 100% of the time? No. Do they work some of the time? Yes. If it stops one massacre and saves 20 school kids…its worth it.

Adam Lanza should have never been in a house that had that arsenal. A law that prevents having guns in the house where you have a person who was diagnosed as a mentally unstable adult is just common sense. You don’t have to give up your weapons; you simply can’t keep them in the house...and there will certainly be waivers granted in special circumstances. Not all who are mentally unstable are dangerous, obviously.

Agree, a 100% solution does not exist, never has in almost every law we have. The aim is to reduce the dangers. I'm not sure why according to them if something is not 100% effective then it's a complete failure. Well, actually I do and it's more about politics than just doing what's right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nah, they were that dumb before Trump. There are numerous YouTube videos of people buying guns no questions asked. And the response is “More laws won’t stop that” which is true actually.

So, wait... you AGREE that the laws you seek won't actually achieve the effect you want.
And yet, you still want to enact the laws.
Further proof the anti-gun loons only want to make it harder for the law abiding to exercise their rights.

But what laws do in many cases is deter behavior.

No one is deterred by a law that cannot be enforced, especially when they are are already willing to commit a felony.

Adam Lanza should have never been in a house that had that arsenal. A law that prevents having guns in the house where you have a person who was diagnosed as a mentally unstable adult is just common sense.

Wait....
Lanza's mother can't have guns because of Lanza?
Tell us: If Lanza lived somewhere else, could her mother keep her guns?
If so, what prevents Lanza from killing her and taking her guns?

You don’t have to give up your weapons; you simply can’t keep them in the house...

The USSC overturned a legal requirement for gun owners to lock their guns up - why do you think it would allow a law that requires you to store them in another building?

 

[candycorn]

Nah, they were that dumb before Trump. There are numerous YouTube videos of people buying guns no questions asked. And the response is “More laws won’t stop that” which is true actually.

So, wait... you AGREE that the laws you seek won't actually achieve the effect you want.
And yet, you still want to enact the laws.
Further proof the anti-gun loons only want to make it harder for the law abiding to exercise their rights.

But what laws do in many cases is deter behavior.

No one is deterred by a law that cannot be enforced, especially when they are are already willing to commit a felony.

Adam Lanza should have never been in a house that had that arsenal. A law that prevents having guns in the house where you have a person who was diagnosed as a mentally unstable adult is just common sense.

Wait....
Lanza's mother can't have guns because of Lanza?
Tell us: If Lanza lived somewhere else, could her mother keep her guns?
If so, what prevents Lanza from killing her and taking her guns?

You don’t have to give up your weapons; you simply can’t keep them in the house...

The USSC overturned a legal requirement for gun owners to lock their guns up - why do you think it would allow a law that requires you to store them in another building?

Have someone read my post to you that can understand English

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nah, they were that dumb before Trump. There are numerous YouTube videos of people buying guns no questions asked. And the response is “More laws won’t stop that” which is true actually.

So, wait... you AGREE that the laws you seek won't actually achieve the effect you want.
And yet, you still want to enact the laws.
Further proof the anti-gun loons only want to make it harder for the law abiding to exercise their rights.

But what laws do in many cases is deter behavior.

No one is deterred by a law that cannot be enforced, especially when they are are already willing to commit a felony.

Adam Lanza should have never been in a house that had that arsenal. A law that prevents having guns in the house where you have a person who was diagnosed as a mentally unstable adult is just common sense.

Wait....
Lanza's mother can't have guns because of Lanza?
Tell us: If Lanza lived somewhere else, could her mother keep her guns?
If so, what prevents Lanza from killing her and taking her guns?

You don’t have to give up your weapons; you simply can’t keep them in the house...

The USSC overturned a legal requirement for gun owners to lock their guns up - why do you think it would allow a law that requires you to store them in another building?

Have someone read my post to you that can understand English

MY English is fine. Yours? Do you not understand my question?
The USSC overturned a legal requirement for gun owners to lock their guns up - why do you think it would allow a law that requires you to store them in another building?
Well?

 

[Lesh]

Fact:
You still have not demonstrated the neessity of background checks.

I didn't need to, Seth Ator already did.

I accept your concession of the point.
When you think you can demonstrate the necessity for background checks, let us know.

I didn't make a concession you just keep insisting you made a point.

Was Ator able to buy a gun and circumvent the background check system even though legally he was not allowed to possess one? Yes or no.

The paranoid right wing is sad.

They're morons, I've spent too much time "debating" with a guy who thinks everything he types is a fact, without any proof and another one who just keeps parroting that there is no loophole in the law that allows people to get guns who shouldn't even though that very thing just happened.

I think Trump has dumbed down their game.

"They're morons, I've spent too much time "debating" with a guy who thinks everything he types is a fact, without any proof and another one who just keeps parroting that there is no loophole in the law that allows people to get guns who shouldn't even though that very thing just happened."

Well said

 

[candycorn]

Nah, they were that dumb before Trump. There are numerous YouTube videos of people buying guns no questions asked. And the response is “More laws won’t stop that” which is true actually.

So, wait... you AGREE that the laws you seek won't actually achieve the effect you want.
And yet, you still want to enact the laws.
Further proof the anti-gun loons only want to make it harder for the law abiding to exercise their rights.

But what laws do in many cases is deter behavior.

No one is deterred by a law that cannot be enforced, especially when they are are already willing to commit a felony.

Adam Lanza should have never been in a house that had that arsenal. A law that prevents having guns in the house where you have a person who was diagnosed as a mentally unstable adult is just common sense.

Wait....
Lanza's mother can't have guns because of Lanza?
Tell us: If Lanza lived somewhere else, could her mother keep her guns?
If so, what prevents Lanza from killing her and taking her guns?

You don’t have to give up your weapons; you simply can’t keep them in the house...

The USSC overturned a legal requirement for gun owners to lock their guns up - why do you think it would allow a law that requires you to store them in another building?

Have someone read my post to you that can understand English

MY English is fine. Yours? Do you not understand my question?
The USSC overturned a legal requirement for gun owners to lock their guns up - why do you think it would allow a law that requires you to store them in another building?
Well?

Whether or not the government or its courts or the powerful PACs that run the GOP acknowledges that mass murder is something we should try to prevent is a different subject.

 

[candycorn]

For example...this guy...,should he be allowed to own a firearm? He clearly has anger issues.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nah, they were that dumb before Trump. There are numerous YouTube videos of people buying guns no questions asked. And the response is “More laws won’t stop that” which is true actually.

So, wait... you AGREE that the laws you seek won't actually achieve the effect you want.
And yet, you still want to enact the laws.
Further proof the anti-gun loons only want to make it harder for the law abiding to exercise their rights.

But what laws do in many cases is deter behavior.

No one is deterred by a law that cannot be enforced, especially when they are are already willing to commit a felony.

Adam Lanza should have never been in a house that had that arsenal. A law that prevents having guns in the house where you have a person who was diagnosed as a mentally unstable adult is just common sense.

Wait....
Lanza's mother can't have guns because of Lanza?
Tell us: If Lanza lived somewhere else, could her mother keep her guns?
If so, what prevents Lanza from killing her and taking her guns?

You don’t have to give up your weapons; you simply can’t keep them in the house...

The USSC overturned a legal requirement for gun owners to lock their guns up - why do you think it would allow a law that requires you to store them in another building?

Have someone read my post to you that can understand English

MY English is fine. Yours? Do you not understand my question?
The USSC overturned a legal requirement for gun owners to lock their guns up - why do you think it would allow a law that requires you to store them in another building?
Well?

Whether or not the government or its courts or the powerful PACs that run the GOP acknowledges that mass murder is something we should try to prevent is a different subject.

Unsurprisingly, you STILL have not answered the question:
The USSC overturned a legal requirement for gun owners to lock their guns up - why do you think it would allow a law that requires you to store them in another building?
Well?

 

[M14 Shooter]

For example...this guy...,should he be allowed to own a firearm? He clearly has anger issues.

Does the law prohibit him from owning a firearm?
No?
Your opinion doesn't matter.

 

[candycorn]

For example...this guy...,should he be allowed to own a firearm? He clearly has anger issues.

Does the law prohibit him from owning a firearm?
No?
Your opinion doesn't matter.

And the is the genesis of the problem we have with the massacre-of-the-month fans….

Driving your truck in anger through the lobby of a hotel is, in your mind, a completely separate issue from what will happen when this dipshit gets his hand on a firearm.

 

[hunarcy]

lol
Shit happens, Only a fool thinks more frivolous gun control laws will save a single soul

There is no way to measure how many lives were saved by the waiting period, the current insufficient background checks, etc…. We should at least try something instead of being resigned to shrugging our shoulders at the massacres.

Ah, so you don't know if anything you suggest would stop anything, but you're determined to do "something".

I suspect it will. I do know the current situation is unacceptable unless you crave violence

lol
Shit happens, Only a fool thinks more frivolous gun control laws will save a single soul

There is no way to measure how many lives were saved by the waiting period, the current insufficient background checks, etc…. We should at least try something instead of being resigned to shrugging our shoulders at the massacres.

Ah, so you don't know if anything you suggest would stop anything, but you're determined to do "something".

I suspect it will. I do know the current situation is unacceptable unless you crave violence

I suspect it will not. Until you and those who think like you accept that you can't solve the problem by controlling an object and instead have to deal effectively with the people who are going to kill innocent people, there will be more and more violence and tragedy.

Deal effectively with people who have not violated the law until they pull the trigger?

Okay….how do you do that? Your thesis…support it.

Candy, you know that these people very rarely have exhibited no warning signs before they committed their murders. They have been in contact with police, mental health workers or their families know they are troubled and need treatment. However, we don't have the mental health framework to help those people anymore. It was dismantled over the last 5 decades in a misguided attempt to "improve" our society. The truth is that these "social justice warriors" merely threw them out into the street where they suffer untreated and are a danger to themselves and the rest of us. To deal effectively with them, our mental health system must be rebuilt.