Exactly. The morons in government think they are so smart that they have every scenario covered. They aren't. They try to word everything just right to cover every scenario. They say you can transfer your gun to someone to defend themselves but only as long as necessary. Who the fuck decides how long that is? The whole thing reeks of a bunch of liberals trying to avoid the constitution, you know. ..that silly thing that got us where we are today.
You didn't say there were 42 homicides with firearms, you said 42 people died from firearms. I don't know, is that the whole point? I don't think it should be - maybe there is a reason to try to save those other 395 people from dying too, not just the murder victims. Don't know about that. Might be to try to prevent suicidal people from getting their hands on guns too. Might be to try to prevent people that are incompetent from getting guns. Might even be to keep people from wounding other people with guns, or threatening or robbing other people with guns. Not sure murder is really the whole story here. barfo
I can't think of a law out there that covers every scenario, as hard as they try. . . they should just give up and get rid of laws.
Call me an insensitive bastard, but why do we value one life more than another? Why do we care more about someone killed by a gun, rather than someone killed by a knife, a car, or being thrown from a cliff? We're talking about 42 people in 2012. That's not even a hundredth of a percent of the population of this state. It's sad when someone dies, but people die all the time. Every day. Every minute. Every second. People die. People are killed. We accept one death as being part of life, but another death is somehow more tragic or more worthy of our time and attention? Why? What is it about guns that make their use so much more egregious than a knife, or a rock, or your bare hands? I'm genuinely curious. Generally speaking, someone who is shot dies a more humane death than someone who is gutted by a knife or beaten to death with a blunt object. If someone was planning on killing me, I would rather they shoot me in the head, rather than stab me 20 times.
That's exactly right. No law is perfect, therefore we should not have laws. Well, fuck them for trying to get it right! What assholes! Is the constitution perfect? If not we should get rid of it too. barfo
I can't think of a law that tries to negate the constitution without repealing it. Let's pretend the constitution said I could drive 150 mph wherever I wanted because they had no idea back then that cars could ever go that fast. Would it be better to... A. Change the constitution to reflect modern technology or B. Pass some bogus law that says you can only drive 150 when there are fewer than ten cars on the road at night while school is in session every othet Tuesday and Primus is in concert at La Luna.
When I look around the US and at mass murder situations, I often see guns involved. I don't want to wait until someone goes into one of our kindergartens and shoots kids before Oregon acts. Would rather try to stop it before it happens. Proactive rather than reactive. Oregon got lucky with the attempted mass murder at the mall. If there is an idea that may reduce the chances of someone going into a school and shooting kids, they got my attention.
You are an insensitive bastard. Who says we do? We spend lots and lots of money on fences and guardrails near cliffs. We spend lots of money (and make lots of laws) trying to improve auto safety. It's hard to see what to do about knives, but if you have any suggestions... barfo
Without the constitution what is to stop me from killing you with my bare hands? I could certainly do it if I felt like it. They aren't trying to get anything "right" They are trying to work around something that they don't have the ability to change. There are people selling tools that drop by the shop I work at. One has sold huge serrated edge machetes with his tool brand name on them to two of my co workers. Either guy could kill 10 people in minutes with one. What law will stop them?
Sorry, I phrased my point wrong. I was talking about homicides, because in my opinion, someone who is set on killing themselves is going to find a way. That mother from Dundee used sleeping pills. But seriously, what is this going to do? Or is the point of this just to make people feel better about themselves? As I said, many of the notable shootings involved stolen guns from people who legally purchased them. So how is this going to stop someone from acquiring a gun to hurt themselves or someone else? I can walk into any gun shop in Oregon and buy a handgun, same day. Why would background checks slow me down?
Great idea. But why stop there? Let's write separate unconstitutional laws to blur or reverse the intent of every Amendment. Let us shut people up, take away women's vote, make blacks slaves, restrict the physical movements of citizens, open all homes and property to search and seizure, bring back lynchings and witch burnings... You're one of those "progressives" aren't you?
Did you see where that girl in Utah was killed sunbathing in her driveway? We should pass a law that driveways should be made out of Tempurpedic mattresses so that never happens again.
Yes we are so close to that point. I just feel like I can't do anything in this country and am constantly being oppressed by the government. I don't know if I'm a progressive . . . I know I'm not a fictional message board character.
School and mall murders are the direct RESULT of gun control. They never occurred until schools and malls were designated "gun-free zones, along with government buildings. The reason government buildings don't have murders is because many of the employees are armed and all government buildings have armed guards. Only the public it serves are denied the right to carry. Schools and malls have no armed guards. This is on purpose. The feds want mass shootings to scare citizens into agreeing to more gun control and eventual nationwide confiscation of all guns held by Real Americans.
The fact that you are a sweet guy and you'd never imagine doing such a thing. You said they were. That's called 'living in the real world'. barfo
How many mass murders are there? What do you define as a mass murder? How is this proactive? The mass murders you mentioned, or attempted mass murders, were with stolen weapons. That, right there, pokes a huge hole in this legislation. The guns were acquired illegally. So why would background checks help? If we've learned anything, it's that criminals have a complete disregard for the law. If someone is planning on breaking the law, they're not going to give a shit about background checks. They're going to acquire the guns, legally or illegally. The laws in place did their jobs, and they still failed. The kid who did the Newtown shooting was denied. He tried to buy guns and was turned away, so he stole them. Take the money that's spent every year on anti-gun legislation, propaganda, and lobbying, and then put that towards security measures. Put armed security in the schools. Have we not learned the way of the world? People prey on the weak. That's the way things work. Someone will target a place that is unarmed, rather than try their luck going after a place that is. Stop giving these assholes the publicity they want. Stop making them household names. That asshole down in California got his message out, but all anyone talked about was the shooting. He started his rampage by stabbing three people to death. Nobody cared about that though. They care about the people he shot because that's the hot topic.
They shouldn't, if your background is clean. If your background isn't clean then they should prevent you from buying a gun. That's the point of background checks, isn't it? barfo
A long term gov't conspiracy. The feds want innocent Americans killed by the dozens so they can take away guns from real Americans. Interesting theory, it may take couple of centuries but none the less I would expect nothing less from from "MARIS61" Hopefully someone can clue in real Americans before it's too late . . . or is it already too late?