How do you explain the shootings at military bases then? Surely there were some armed people there? barfo
How many of the people who shot themselves or others had clean backgrounds? I just don't think you're getting the point. You aren't addressing the right symptom. If it's a gun that was legally purchased, your background checks did nothing, and if it's a gun that was illegally acquired, your background checks were ineffective. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The answer is simply that if someone is willing to die, almost no amount of security will stop them before they kill. The hope is that security will make someone think twice, but in reality they will probably just pick a softer target. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How do you know the legislation hasn't worked. Perhaps it has stopped someone from buying a gun and going on a shooting spree. I don't think any legislation is going to completely stop it, but I do think trying to control guns in our society is a good thing. I get you are skeptical and really don't like the idea of legislation that control guns. I can't disagree more. I personally don't feel the limitations that others here feel about owning guns. What country can I go to that I get more access to guns than here in the US? Searching on line and just reading the threads here, I just don't feel like I'm being inhibited when it comes to owning guns. So I don't have any problem with the Washington measure that Allen and others are supporting. But I do believe in our system and leaving it to the people to vote on it. If the measure fails and people in Washington believe it is too restrictive or if it gets shot down by some who challenges it on a constitutional level, I can live with that without bitching.
I don't have the statistics, but probably a lot, but not all. What about guns that background checks prevented from being purchased? Granted. Background checks do not solve every problem. They may not even solve very many problems. But they might prevent someone, somewhere, from getting shot. Why are you against that? barfo
Excellent question. Even if you call any murder of 4 or more people at one time a mass murder, it's by far the rarest murder category, accounting for the fewest total deaths. Let's forget about the extremely rare occurrence of mass murder and go after a group where we can really make a difference in the death count. That's the supposed goal here (wink wink). Murder by spouse is big, as is murder for profit. *edited* Cops murder more innocent citizens every year than all the mass murders in our country's history added together. Disarm the cops?
What about Columbine, the UC Santa Barbara killings and others? That's why asked for stats. Reeling off three events isn't all that compelling when there are tons of shootings in this country. I never suggested that every shooting is done with legally acquired guns. My point was that when you go out and shoot up a major area (especially when you shoot yourself at the end), evading detection isn't a big issue. Whether your gun is legal or illegal is only useful (as far as I know--let me know if there's some other reason) in avoiding being tracked down.
My point is that these measures aren't actually doing anything. You bring up columbine, but those students were under 18 so the guns were illegally acquired. Uc Santa Barbara started with the murder of three people by stabbing and then he went out and shot 3 people. Nobody wants to talk about the three people he stabbed though. When we are talking about adding more background checks, it is relevant to discuss specifically how background checks are ineffective in preventing the very issues that seem to drive the anti-gun movement. For me it's frustrating because I feel like its ineffective towards actually making a difference and only punishes the people who actually follow the laws. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm not sure that's a crucial point, though. They were legally acquired by their parents or wherever they got them (I assume). The point is that legally acquired firearms being so prevalent make these things more likely. I'm not, here, advocating that their parents shouldn't have been able to buy the guns, but I don't really buy the argument that the only guns that murder people are unregistered, black market pieces so any and all regulations are doomed to fail in reducing gun violence (which may or may not be what you are arguing, but is commonly argued). What do you feel the downsides of background checks are? They may not prevent most of the shootings, but the thing is, more sweeping regulations are currently impossible due to the hold that the NRA has on a lot of congresspeople. This is a problem you can only chip away at. I agree with you, actually, that background checks, themselves, aren't going to change things much. But a "fix it all or do nothing" approach always means nothing (which is fine, of course, for the people who want nothing done, but obviously not fine for people who want to make a change). You start with low impact and achievable things and move on from there. That's how it always (has to) work, by and large.
I guess my point is that it's a waste of time. That link I gave to the FBI showed that there were almost as many murders from knives/other objects as there were from guns in Oregon in 2012. People are going to kill people. I don't think that will be ending anytime soon. I would rather have harsher punishments for murderers, rather than hopefully somehow prevent them from doing it. I would rather give them pause because they're worried about what might happen if they're caught. My biggest issue is that the money and energy could be better used elsewhere. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree that murders will always happen (until humans fundamentally change--perhaps via replacing their brains with advanced computers?). The problem is not that guns cause murders--they don't...human nature, and human mental disorders, cause murders. Guns simply act as a force multiplier. It's much, much harder to kill a bunch of people with a knife...it's messier, nastier and people can much more easily fight back or overwhelm you as a group. Taken to a (purposeful) extreme, if RPGs or nuclear weapons were widely available, humanity's murderous nature would be even more ruinous to society. I do think that makes guns (and other tools of mass-killing, as opposed to weapons of one-on-one killing like a knife or hammer) a unique problem that needs to be addressed. At the very least, background checks might filter out some people with diagnosed problems (though not people with undiagnosed problems, of course).
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda, have donated $1 million to a Washington state campaign seeking to expand background checks on gun sales, bringing the total amount the campaign has brought in up to nearly $6 million.
Another $6 million dollars that will never be spent on Mental Healthcare. No better way to assure mass killings continue.
Yep. And try and tell black people that Democrats were responsible for Slavery, and they'll look at you with stupid eyes. "But....but Lincoln was a Democrat!" Sigh. Fail. Win. And that's exactly what this law means: ALL loans to friends and family MUST be given a background check. And more fail. Go read the law before you vote for it. Something which the idiot liberals in Washington either did not do, or didn't care to do. Don't be an idiot liberal (not calling you one, just telling you NOT to be one). I own six guns; loaned them out to friends and family before, and I've yet to have a problem going into my 11th year as a gun owner. This law will ONLY punish the law-abiding, and will do NOTHING to curb "gun violence". The only reason this passed was because Billionaires shoved it discreetly under the noses of the ignorant in Washington. Those who weren't ignorant, like me, actually read the law and voted against it. Then I donated to the NRA. But apparently, it wasn't enough. Never mind that dealers, who were already in the business of screwing over gun owners, will get yet another reason to screw over gun owners by charging them ridiculous prices for transfers and background checks. Fucking assholes. Wish idiot billionaires would stay the fuck out of politics.
aaawww, what's wrong Bill? Are you still butthurt from getting your head blown off? Oh, and let's not forget that a PRIVATE SALE is...wait for it...PRIVATE. The Government, and sure as hell nobody besides a customer and the seller, has NO BUSINESS getting involved AT ALL in Private Sales. If I wanted my PERSONAL information put on paper, I'd go to an actual dealer.
If you're fine with laws weakening The Second Amendment then I'm sure you're okay with laws weakening The First Amendment?
Because, after all, the 1st and 2nd amendments are exactly the same. Just like all the other amendments. Why they gave them different numbers is not clear. barfo
Don't live in WA, so can't vote for or against it. But I think the fact that earlier in this thread I quoted from the law (well, proposed law) suggests that maybe I read more of it than you assume. barfo
