Universal background checks... really?

[candycorn]

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

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.

So should the driver of this truck still be able to buy a firearm?



A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[hunarcy]

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

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.

Ah, the "funny" icon...the signal that you have nothing to offer. The FACT is that you know that the real crisis is the mental health crisis in this nation. We didn't have a volume of such incidents until the mental health system failed. NOTHING you suggest will solve the problem. Prohibition failed, the War on Drugs has failed because prohibiting objects does not change behavior.

 

[hunarcy]

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

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.

So should the driver of this truck still be able to buy a firearm?



A simple yes or no will suffice.

The driver of that truck should be institutionalized. Then he wouldn't be able to buy a gun or drive a truck into a building.

 

[candycorn]

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

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.

So should the driver of this truck still be able to buy a firearm?



A simple yes or no will suffice.

The driver of that truck should be institutionalized. Then he wouldn't be able to buy a gun or drive a truck into a building.

So diagnosed mental illness should exclude you from owning a firearm?
Would you also have to agree that she shouldn’t be able to buy a firearm no questions asked?

 

[hunarcy]

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.

So should the driver of this truck still be able to buy a firearm?



A simple yes or no will suffice.

The driver of that truck should be institutionalized. Then he wouldn't be able to buy a gun or drive a truck into a building.

So diagnosed mental illness should exclude you from owning a firearm?
Would you also have to agree that she shouldn’t be able to buy a firearm no questions asked?

The driver should be institutionalized, where there's no chance of buying a gun OR a truck. Did not having a firearm make the driver less of a threat? Would someone who was driven over by the pick up be less injured or less dead? Why don't you want to effectively deal with these things and instead just focus on firearms? Why do you not want them to be forced to receive treatment instead of walking the street, ranting and arguing with street lights or pooping on the sidewalks?

 

[candycorn]

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.

So should the driver of this truck still be able to buy a firearm?



A simple yes or no will suffice.

The driver of that truck should be institutionalized. Then he wouldn't be able to buy a gun or drive a truck into a building.

So diagnosed mental illness should exclude you from owning a firearm?
Would you also have to agree that she shouldn’t be able to buy a firearm no questions asked?

The driver should be institutionalized, where there's no chance of buying a gun OR a truck. Did not having a firearm make the driver less of a threat?

Yes.

Would someone who was driven over by the pick up be less injured or less dead?
f

Not if they were hit directly. However when a bullet passes through soft tissue (or hard tissue as we saw with JFK), two or more people can be hit by the same bullet.

Why don't you want to effectively deal with these things and instead just focus on firearms?

Perhaps you haven’t noticed but we have a lot of INCELS gunning down people in our nation:

El Paso Walmart shooting
Virginia Beach shooting
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting
Thousand Oaks shooting
Pittsburgh synagogue shooting
Santa Fe High School shooting
Las Vegas shooting
Sutherland Springs church shooting
Orlando nightclub shooting
San Bernardino attack
Washington Navy Yard shooting
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Thats a lot of shootings….

Here are more…

Aurora theater shooting
Fort Hood shooting
Binghamton shootings
Geneva County massacre
Virginia Tech shooting
Columbine High School massacre
Luby's shooting

If you want to institutionalize everyone who was diagnosed with anger issues or worse…I think your remedy is a bit more invasive than I’d prefer but sure….anyway…the above is why I’m focusing on guns.

 

[hunarcy]

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.

So should the driver of this truck still be able to buy a firearm?



A simple yes or no will suffice.

The driver of that truck should be institutionalized. Then he wouldn't be able to buy a gun or drive a truck into a building.

So diagnosed mental illness should exclude you from owning a firearm?
Would you also have to agree that she shouldn’t be able to buy a firearm no questions asked?

The driver should be institutionalized, where there's no chance of buying a gun OR a truck. Did not having a firearm make the driver less of a threat?

Yes.

Would someone who was driven over by the pick up be less injured or less dead?
f

Not if they were hit directly. However when a bullet passes through soft tissue (or hard tissue as we saw with JFK), two or more people can be hit by the same bullet.

Why don't you want to effectively deal with these things and instead just focus on firearms?

Perhaps you haven’t noticed but we have a lot of INCELS gunning down people in our nation:

El Paso Walmart shooting
Virginia Beach shooting
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting
Thousand Oaks shooting
Pittsburgh synagogue shooting
Santa Fe High School shooting
Las Vegas shooting
Sutherland Springs church shooting
Orlando nightclub shooting
San Bernardino attack
Washington Navy Yard shooting
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Thats a lot of shootings….

Here are more…

Aurora theater shooting
Fort Hood shooting
Binghamton shootings
Geneva County massacre
Virginia Tech shooting
Columbine High School massacre
Luby's shooting

If you want to institutionalize everyone who was diagnosed with anger issues or worse…I think your remedy is a bit more invasive than I’d prefer but sure….anyway…the above is why I’m focusing on guns.

am glad you agree that the person should be institutionalized.

I would point out that one bullet did not kill 86 people or hurt 458 others as was done with one truck on Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France in 2016.

Most of the shootings you listed were done by people who had previous contact with the police, but no effective action was taken. Of course, there is the occasional terrorist attack, like San Bernardino, but even then, they shockingly did not follow the law and instead used illegally modified weapons and weapons that were purchased by a neighbor. The focus on the firearm does nothing to prevent such incidents.

But, I'm sure you have no problem limiting the rights of EVERYONE because a few refuse to follow the law.

 

[candycorn]

So should the driver of this truck still be able to buy a firearm?



A simple yes or no will suffice.

The driver of that truck should be institutionalized. Then he wouldn't be able to buy a gun or drive a truck into a building.

So diagnosed mental illness should exclude you from owning a firearm?
Would you also have to agree that she shouldn’t be able to buy a firearm no questions asked?

The driver should be institutionalized, where there's no chance of buying a gun OR a truck. Did not having a firearm make the driver less of a threat?

Yes.

Would someone who was driven over by the pick up be less injured or less dead?
f

Not if they were hit directly. However when a bullet passes through soft tissue (or hard tissue as we saw with JFK), two or more people can be hit by the same bullet.

Why don't you want to effectively deal with these things and instead just focus on firearms?

Perhaps you haven’t noticed but we have a lot of INCELS gunning down people in our nation:

El Paso Walmart shooting
Virginia Beach shooting
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting
Thousand Oaks shooting
Pittsburgh synagogue shooting
Santa Fe High School shooting
Las Vegas shooting
Sutherland Springs church shooting
Orlando nightclub shooting
San Bernardino attack
Washington Navy Yard shooting
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Thats a lot of shootings….

Here are more…

Aurora theater shooting
Fort Hood shooting
Binghamton shootings
Geneva County massacre
Virginia Tech shooting
Columbine High School massacre
Luby's shooting

If you want to institutionalize everyone who was diagnosed with anger issues or worse…I think your remedy is a bit more invasive than I’d prefer but sure….anyway…the above is why I’m focusing on guns.

am glad you agree that the person should be institutionalized.

I would point out that one bullet did not kill 86 people or hurt 458 others as was done with one truck on Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France in 2016.

Most of the shootings you listed were done by people who had previous contact with the police, but no effective action was taken. Of course, there is the occasional terrorist attack, like San Bernardino, but even then, they shockingly did not follow the law and instead used illegally modified weapons and weapons that were purchased by a neighbor. The focus on the firearm does nothing to prevent such incidents.

But, I'm sure you have no problem limiting the rights of EVERYONE because a few refuse to follow the law.

When the alternative are monthly blood baths…you’re right….I have no problem limiting the availability of firearms.

Good point about the truck, by the way.

 

[hunarcy]

The driver of that truck should be institutionalized. Then he wouldn't be able to buy a gun or drive a truck into a building.

So diagnosed mental illness should exclude you from owning a firearm?
Would you also have to agree that she shouldn’t be able to buy a firearm no questions asked?

The driver should be institutionalized, where there's no chance of buying a gun OR a truck. Did not having a firearm make the driver less of a threat?

Yes.

Would someone who was driven over by the pick up be less injured or less dead?
f

Not if they were hit directly. However when a bullet passes through soft tissue (or hard tissue as we saw with JFK), two or more people can be hit by the same bullet.

Why don't you want to effectively deal with these things and instead just focus on firearms?

Perhaps you haven’t noticed but we have a lot of INCELS gunning down people in our nation:

El Paso Walmart shooting
Virginia Beach shooting
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting
Thousand Oaks shooting
Pittsburgh synagogue shooting
Santa Fe High School shooting
Las Vegas shooting
Sutherland Springs church shooting
Orlando nightclub shooting
San Bernardino attack
Washington Navy Yard shooting
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Thats a lot of shootings….

Here are more…

Aurora theater shooting
Fort Hood shooting
Binghamton shootings
Geneva County massacre
Virginia Tech shooting
Columbine High School massacre
Luby's shooting

If you want to institutionalize everyone who was diagnosed with anger issues or worse…I think your remedy is a bit more invasive than I’d prefer but sure….anyway…the above is why I’m focusing on guns.

am glad you agree that the person should be institutionalized.

I would point out that one bullet did not kill 86 people or hurt 458 others as was done with one truck on Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France in 2016.

Most of the shootings you listed were done by people who had previous contact with the police, but no effective action was taken. Of course, there is the occasional terrorist attack, like San Bernardino, but even then, they shockingly did not follow the law and instead used illegally modified weapons and weapons that were purchased by a neighbor. The focus on the firearm does nothing to prevent such incidents.

But, I'm sure you have no problem limiting the rights of EVERYONE because a few refuse to follow the law.

When the alternative are monthly blood baths…you’re right….I have no problem limiting the availability of firearms.

Good point about the truck, by the way.

If the firearm was randomly shooting people, I'd agree. But, the problem is human behavior, which your solution does not address at all.

Oh, and thank you.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So should the driver of this truck still be able to buy a firearm?



A simple yes or no will suffice.

The driver of that truck should be institutionalized. Then he wouldn't be able to buy a gun or drive a truck into a building.

So diagnosed mental illness should exclude you from owning a firearm?
Would you also have to agree that she shouldn’t be able to buy a firearm no questions asked?

The driver should be institutionalized, where there's no chance of buying a gun OR a truck. Did not having a firearm make the driver less of a threat?

Yes.

Would someone who was driven over by the pick up be less injured or less dead?
f

Not if they were hit directly. However when a bullet passes through soft tissue (or hard tissue as we saw with JFK), two or more people can be hit by the same bullet.

Why don't you want to effectively deal with these things and instead just focus on firearms?

Perhaps you haven’t noticed but we have a lot of INCELS gunning down people in our nation:

El Paso Walmart shooting
Virginia Beach shooting
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting
Thousand Oaks shooting
Pittsburgh synagogue shooting
Santa Fe High School shooting
Las Vegas shooting
Sutherland Springs church shooting
Orlando nightclub shooting
San Bernardino attack
Washington Navy Yard shooting
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Thats a lot of shootings….

Here are more…

Aurora theater shooting
Fort Hood shooting
Binghamton shootings
Geneva County massacre
Virginia Tech shooting
Columbine High School massacre
Luby's shooting

If you want to institutionalize everyone who was diagnosed with anger issues or worse…I think your remedy is a bit more invasive than I’d prefer but sure….anyway…the above is why I’m focusing on guns.

am glad you agree that the person should be institutionalized.

I would point out that one bullet did not kill 86 people or hurt 458 others as was done with one truck on Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France in 2016.

Most of the shootings you listed were done by people who had previous contact with the police, but no effective action was taken. Of course, there is the occasional terrorist attack, like San Bernardino, but even then, they shockingly did not follow the law and instead used illegally modified weapons and weapons that were purchased by a neighbor. The focus on the firearm does nothing to prevent such incidents.

But, I'm sure you have no problem limiting the rights of EVERYONE because a few refuse to follow the law.

We ain't France. France has got to be the dumbest country in the whole wide world. You want to live in that dumb a country, move there. Otherwise, we try to be smarter.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The driver of that truck should be institutionalized. Then he wouldn't be able to buy a gun or drive a truck into a building.

So diagnosed mental illness should exclude you from owning a firearm?
Would you also have to agree that she shouldn’t be able to buy a firearm no questions asked?

The driver should be institutionalized, where there's no chance of buying a gun OR a truck. Did not having a firearm make the driver less of a threat?

Yes.

Would someone who was driven over by the pick up be less injured or less dead?
f

Not if they were hit directly. However when a bullet passes through soft tissue (or hard tissue as we saw with JFK), two or more people can be hit by the same bullet.

Why don't you want to effectively deal with these things and instead just focus on firearms?

Perhaps you haven’t noticed but we have a lot of INCELS gunning down people in our nation:

El Paso Walmart shooting
Virginia Beach shooting
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting
Thousand Oaks shooting
Pittsburgh synagogue shooting
Santa Fe High School shooting
Las Vegas shooting
Sutherland Springs church shooting
Orlando nightclub shooting
San Bernardino attack
Washington Navy Yard shooting
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Thats a lot of shootings….

Here are more…

Aurora theater shooting
Fort Hood shooting
Binghamton shootings
Geneva County massacre
Virginia Tech shooting
Columbine High School massacre
Luby's shooting

If you want to institutionalize everyone who was diagnosed with anger issues or worse…I think your remedy is a bit more invasive than I’d prefer but sure….anyway…the above is why I’m focusing on guns.

am glad you agree that the person should be institutionalized.

I would point out that one bullet did not kill 86 people or hurt 458 others as was done with one truck on Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France in 2016.

Most of the shootings you listed were done by people who had previous contact with the police, but no effective action was taken. Of course, there is the occasional terrorist attack, like San Bernardino, but even then, they shockingly did not follow the law and instead used illegally modified weapons and weapons that were purchased by a neighbor. The focus on the firearm does nothing to prevent such incidents.

But, I'm sure you have no problem limiting the rights of EVERYONE because a few refuse to follow the law.

When the alternative are monthly blood baths…you’re right….I have no problem limiting the availability of firearms.

Good point about the truck, by the way.

Thanks for the black market
You do realize people can make their own AR15's and AK47'S?

 

[candycorn]

So diagnosed mental illness should exclude you from owning a firearm?
Would you also have to agree that she shouldn’t be able to buy a firearm no questions asked?

The driver should be institutionalized, where there's no chance of buying a gun OR a truck. Did not having a firearm make the driver less of a threat?

Yes.

Would someone who was driven over by the pick up be less injured or less dead?
f

Not if they were hit directly. However when a bullet passes through soft tissue (or hard tissue as we saw with JFK), two or more people can be hit by the same bullet.

Why don't you want to effectively deal with these things and instead just focus on firearms?

Perhaps you haven’t noticed but we have a lot of INCELS gunning down people in our nation:

El Paso Walmart shooting
Virginia Beach shooting
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting
Thousand Oaks shooting
Pittsburgh synagogue shooting
Santa Fe High School shooting
Las Vegas shooting
Sutherland Springs church shooting
Orlando nightclub shooting
San Bernardino attack
Washington Navy Yard shooting
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Thats a lot of shootings….

Here are more…

Aurora theater shooting
Fort Hood shooting
Binghamton shootings
Geneva County massacre
Virginia Tech shooting
Columbine High School massacre
Luby's shooting

If you want to institutionalize everyone who was diagnosed with anger issues or worse…I think your remedy is a bit more invasive than I’d prefer but sure….anyway…the above is why I’m focusing on guns.

am glad you agree that the person should be institutionalized.

I would point out that one bullet did not kill 86 people or hurt 458 others as was done with one truck on Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France in 2016.

Most of the shootings you listed were done by people who had previous contact with the police, but no effective action was taken. Of course, there is the occasional terrorist attack, like San Bernardino, but even then, they shockingly did not follow the law and instead used illegally modified weapons and weapons that were purchased by a neighbor. The focus on the firearm does nothing to prevent such incidents.

But, I'm sure you have no problem limiting the rights of EVERYONE because a few refuse to follow the law.

When the alternative are monthly blood baths…you’re right….I have no problem limiting the availability of firearms.

Good point about the truck, by the way.

If the firearm was randomly shooting people, I'd agree. But, the problem is human behavior, which your solution does not address at all.

Oh, and thank you.

My solution? The solution that goes... That if you want to sell your gun to an individual, you both go down to the courthouse and a background check is done on the buyer won’t keep the hands out of those who shouldn’t have guns? Its effectively the same (and less prosecutorial) as your solution to lock people up so they won’t get firearms.

Will it stop every under-the-table sale? No. But, as most gun owners are honest people, sales will often be done within the confines of the law.

Again, unless one is a whack job who shouldn’t have a gun…I’m not sure why anyone is against such a thing outside of the paranoid schism that somehow it matters to those who drive tanks and APCs that you’re packing a revolver.

 

[candycorn]

So diagnosed mental illness should exclude you from owning a firearm?
Would you also have to agree that she shouldn’t be able to buy a firearm no questions asked?

The driver should be institutionalized, where there's no chance of buying a gun OR a truck. Did not having a firearm make the driver less of a threat?

Yes.

Would someone who was driven over by the pick up be less injured or less dead?
f

Not if they were hit directly. However when a bullet passes through soft tissue (or hard tissue as we saw with JFK), two or more people can be hit by the same bullet.

Why don't you want to effectively deal with these things and instead just focus on firearms?

Perhaps you haven’t noticed but we have a lot of INCELS gunning down people in our nation:

El Paso Walmart shooting
Virginia Beach shooting
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting
Thousand Oaks shooting
Pittsburgh synagogue shooting
Santa Fe High School shooting
Las Vegas shooting
Sutherland Springs church shooting
Orlando nightclub shooting
San Bernardino attack
Washington Navy Yard shooting
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Thats a lot of shootings….

Here are more…

Aurora theater shooting
Fort Hood shooting
Binghamton shootings
Geneva County massacre
Virginia Tech shooting
Columbine High School massacre
Luby's shooting

If you want to institutionalize everyone who was diagnosed with anger issues or worse…I think your remedy is a bit more invasive than I’d prefer but sure….anyway…the above is why I’m focusing on guns.

am glad you agree that the person should be institutionalized.

I would point out that one bullet did not kill 86 people or hurt 458 others as was done with one truck on Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France in 2016.

Most of the shootings you listed were done by people who had previous contact with the police, but no effective action was taken. Of course, there is the occasional terrorist attack, like San Bernardino, but even then, they shockingly did not follow the law and instead used illegally modified weapons and weapons that were purchased by a neighbor. The focus on the firearm does nothing to prevent such incidents.

But, I'm sure you have no problem limiting the rights of EVERYONE because a few refuse to follow the law.

When the alternative are monthly blood baths…you’re right….I have no problem limiting the availability of firearms.

Good point about the truck, by the way.

Thanks for the black market
You do realize people can make their own AR15's and AK47'S?

Sure.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

So should the driver of this truck still be able to buy a firearm?



A simple yes or no will suffice.

The driver of that truck should be institutionalized. Then he wouldn't be able to buy a gun or drive a truck into a building.

So diagnosed mental illness should exclude you from owning a firearm?
Would you also have to agree that she shouldn’t be able to buy a firearm no questions asked?

The driver should be institutionalized, where there's no chance of buying a gun OR a truck. Did not having a firearm make the driver less of a threat?

Yes.

Would someone who was driven over by the pick up be less injured or less dead?
f

Not if they were hit directly. However when a bullet passes through soft tissue (or hard tissue as we saw with JFK), two or more people can be hit by the same bullet.

Why don't you want to effectively deal with these things and instead just focus on firearms?

Perhaps you haven’t noticed but we have a lot of INCELS gunning down people in our nation:

El Paso Walmart shooting
Virginia Beach shooting
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting
Thousand Oaks shooting
Pittsburgh synagogue shooting
Santa Fe High School shooting
Las Vegas shooting
Sutherland Springs church shooting
Orlando nightclub shooting
San Bernardino attack
Washington Navy Yard shooting
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Thats a lot of shootings….

Here are more…

Aurora theater shooting
Fort Hood shooting
Binghamton shootings
Geneva County massacre
Virginia Tech shooting
Columbine High School massacre
Luby's shooting

If you want to institutionalize everyone who was diagnosed with anger issues or worse…I think your remedy is a bit more invasive than I’d prefer but sure….anyway…the above is why I’m focusing on guns.

the gay night club shot up by a Moslem terrorist was an INCEL?
The Moslem married couple in SanBernafdino were INCEL? LOL
Foot Hood Major Hassan was an INCEL?
WHAT WAS THE REPUBLICAN BASEBALL SHOOTING?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The driver should be institutionalized, where there's no chance of buying a gun OR a truck. Did not having a firearm make the driver less of a threat?

Yes.

Would someone who was driven over by the pick up be less injured or less dead?
f

Not if they were hit directly. However when a bullet passes through soft tissue (or hard tissue as we saw with JFK), two or more people can be hit by the same bullet.

Why don't you want to effectively deal with these things and instead just focus on firearms?

Perhaps you haven’t noticed but we have a lot of INCELS gunning down people in our nation:

El Paso Walmart shooting
Virginia Beach shooting
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting
Thousand Oaks shooting
Pittsburgh synagogue shooting
Santa Fe High School shooting
Las Vegas shooting
Sutherland Springs church shooting
Orlando nightclub shooting
San Bernardino attack
Washington Navy Yard shooting
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Thats a lot of shootings….

Here are more…

Aurora theater shooting
Fort Hood shooting
Binghamton shootings
Geneva County massacre
Virginia Tech shooting
Columbine High School massacre
Luby's shooting

If you want to institutionalize everyone who was diagnosed with anger issues or worse…I think your remedy is a bit more invasive than I’d prefer but sure….anyway…the above is why I’m focusing on guns.

am glad you agree that the person should be institutionalized.

I would point out that one bullet did not kill 86 people or hurt 458 others as was done with one truck on Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France in 2016.

Most of the shootings you listed were done by people who had previous contact with the police, but no effective action was taken. Of course, there is the occasional terrorist attack, like San Bernardino, but even then, they shockingly did not follow the law and instead used illegally modified weapons and weapons that were purchased by a neighbor. The focus on the firearm does nothing to prevent such incidents.

But, I'm sure you have no problem limiting the rights of EVERYONE because a few refuse to follow the law.

When the alternative are monthly blood baths…you’re right….I have no problem limiting the availability of firearms.

Good point about the truck, by the way.

Thanks for the black market
You do realize people can make their own AR15's and AK47'S?

Sure.

Works for me 5000.00 a pop all made from a CNC machine no markings in the hands of anyone that wants one.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The driver should be institutionalized, where there's no chance of buying a gun OR a truck. Did not having a firearm make the driver less of a threat?

Yes.

Would someone who was driven over by the pick up be less injured or less dead?
f

Not if they were hit directly. However when a bullet passes through soft tissue (or hard tissue as we saw with JFK), two or more people can be hit by the same bullet.

Why don't you want to effectively deal with these things and instead just focus on firearms?

Perhaps you haven’t noticed but we have a lot of INCELS gunning down people in our nation:

El Paso Walmart shooting
Virginia Beach shooting
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting
Thousand Oaks shooting
Pittsburgh synagogue shooting
Santa Fe High School shooting
Las Vegas shooting
Sutherland Springs church shooting
Orlando nightclub shooting
San Bernardino attack
Washington Navy Yard shooting
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Thats a lot of shootings….

Here are more…

Aurora theater shooting
Fort Hood shooting
Binghamton shootings
Geneva County massacre
Virginia Tech shooting
Columbine High School massacre
Luby's shooting

If you want to institutionalize everyone who was diagnosed with anger issues or worse…I think your remedy is a bit more invasive than I’d prefer but sure….anyway…the above is why I’m focusing on guns.

am glad you agree that the person should be institutionalized.

I would point out that one bullet did not kill 86 people or hurt 458 others as was done with one truck on Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France in 2016.

Most of the shootings you listed were done by people who had previous contact with the police, but no effective action was taken. Of course, there is the occasional terrorist attack, like San Bernardino, but even then, they shockingly did not follow the law and instead used illegally modified weapons and weapons that were purchased by a neighbor. The focus on the firearm does nothing to prevent such incidents.

But, I'm sure you have no problem limiting the rights of EVERYONE because a few refuse to follow the law.

When the alternative are monthly blood baths…you’re right….I have no problem limiting the availability of firearms.

Good point about the truck, by the way.

If the firearm was randomly shooting people, I'd agree. But, the problem is human behavior, which your solution does not address at all.

Oh, and thank you.

My solution? The solution that goes... That if you want to sell your gun to an individual, you both go down to the courthouse and a background check is done on the buyer won’t keep the hands out of those who shouldn’t have guns? Its effectively the same (and less prosecutorial) as your solution to lock people up so they won’t get firearms.

Will it stop every under-the-table sale? No. But, as most gun owners are honest people, sales will often be done within the confines of the law.

Again, unless one is a whack job who shouldn’t have a gun…I’m not sure why anyone is against such a thing outside of the paranoid schism that somehow it matters to those who drive tanks and APCs that you’re packing a revolver.

Why don't we do that with street sells of drugs?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

nothing spells tyrannical like a useless law.

 

[candycorn]

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.

nothing spells tyrannical like a useless law.

If it prevents one bloodbath and kids who are scarred for life even if they’re not hit…well worth the 20 minutes of inconvenience to sell a weapon.

Oh but wait…you have to be human to realize this. Disregard

 

[Rustic]

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.

nothing spells tyrannical like a useless law.

If it prevents one bloodbath and kids who are scarred for life even if they’re not hit…well worth the 20 minutes of inconvenience to sell a weapon.

Oh but wait…you have to be human to realize this. Disregard

Lol
Background checks will not prevent anything....

 

[candycorn]

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.

nothing spells tyrannical like a useless law.

If it prevents one bloodbath and kids who are scarred for life even if they’re not hit…well worth the 20 minutes of inconvenience to sell a weapon.

Oh but wait…you have to be human to realize this. Disregard

Lol
Background checks will not prevent anything....

Sure they do.

Which is why its a good idea to strengthen them.