Out of respect for SW Oregonians, let's debate the issues here and leave the other thread for grieving, non-political developments in the case, and funeral notices.
Actually onus is on those that want to take our right away. It seems what's used right now in strict zones aren't working. If you have any suggestions, feel free to write your congress.
It seems to me that if you start labeling groups that are not allowed to have guns (because that's where all this is going--what's the point of a "background check" if there aren't groups of people that you're going to prevent from legally buying arms?), and it starts to deviate from the "common sense" groups like "felons", "domestic violence offenders", etc...then you will start infringing on people's rights. Are you going to stop people who have ever been prescribed behavioral medication from legally purchasing a firearm, because they're a high-risk group for violent crime? What about ethnic background? Sex? Education? Is there a threshold that includes or excludes groups? Personally, I have no problem with background checks, with the caveats stated above--but that could be because I'm a college-educated, intra-racially married white male in his 30's with previous military experience and no criminal record or behavioral modification medication or counseling prescriptions. I'm about as unlikely to commit a violent act with a firearm (statistically) as they come. But if I wasn't, I'd be very careful about setting up wickets in a background check. I also have little problem with "gun fingerprinting". I do have a problem with registration. Honestly, I don't even have a problem with required classes, but it seems to set a precedent that constitutional rights come with homework and paying for it, which many people seem opposed to. Wanna buy a firearm? Pay $100 and pass these classes. Wanna vote? Pay $100 and pass this civics exam. Want to demonstrate peaceably? Pass this background check for previous arrests and pay for a license. Since our country will never, EVER repeal the rights of (some?) citizens to purchase, own and use firearms, what recommendations are there from the "gun control" people that you think would help solve the problem? As someone (I think Nate) pointed out in the other thread, Oregon just passed one of the more robust weapons control laws in the country. CA laws are so stringent and illogical that I was not allowed to purchase a Beretta 92FS (the weapon I used on both of my deployments to AFG) due to not having a CA driver's license (though I had a valid out-of-state license, ID card, and orders moving my home of record). So what manner of stringent gun laws are you proposing wherein the Umpqua shooter can purchase 13 of them (in CA and/or OR) in two of the more stringent law states, but I cannot?
I own multiple guns im still waiting for them to possess me to shoot people, maybe mine are broken cause I've never had the urge? As a matter of fact, the only person id consider killing is the kind of person who would show up and start killing people. There are millions of guns in this country. Criminals can get them through illegal avenues. Making guns illegal for law abiding citizens will not change this. I dont get why gun grabbers cant logically see that. The best thing to do is allow law abiding citizens, teachers for instance, to fucking defend themselves against scumbags. If im a teacher and im offered say a 5% bonus to conceal carry on campus and TAKE TRAINING COURSES. It's a no brains to me. And this is far better use of tax dollars than buying a drug dealer some food and pay in his electricle bill so he can use his drug money to buy illegal firearms.
Every State has its own decree on this issue. Furthermore, I believe the region is more indicitive of which politician steers their State into restrictive control. For example, Texas and Florida are totally different then NY and NJ.
No. People with mental health issues are killing us. I have 3 guns, and none of them have killed anyone
I think that firearm legislation should be done at a federal level instead of state by state. It does no good to have strict laws in one state and loose laws in the state next to it, standardization is the first step to being able to adequately enforce the laws we currently have. After that I hate the idea of any guns in schools, but I think the best compromise is rasheedfans suggestion of allowing the option of concealed weapons carry for teachers. Concealed so its not a focus during daily activities. and secret so no one knows if or who has a gun. I defiantly do not want open carry or some sort of gun free for all in the class room. This is probably asking for too much and if I could get everything else I would concede these points, but I would also like to see gun licenses for all gun owners, required training and possibly even mandatory hazard insurance. Next I would like to see a single payer healthcare system. I would like one of our main focuses to be mental health care and drug rehabilitation. Instead of arguing over the politics of obamacare, we should be fighting together against the insurance companies and industry corruption. I would also change our national drug policy to model more like Portugal's, where we decriminalize all drugs and treat addiction like a social issue instead of a criminal one. This is not a free for all, its a change of mindset, hard drugs are prescribed and addiction is managed through doctors. This alone would take a lot of away from what gangs are fighting over.
First of all, it's people who kill by whatever means but I think we can limit the capacity for mass killings by regulating assault weapons and large magazine capacities for automatic weapons. If we're going to have guns and I believe we always will, there needs to be education starting at a very young age. A lot of folks could build a gun out of hardware store parts if they couldn't buy one. Mental health is the biggest issue concerning senseless murder...we may want to look into the effect recreational killing software has on violent crime in the gaming world for those who are easily influenced.
As others have suggested, it's at least as much a mental health issue as it is a gun control issue. We have no problem making sure the military and law enforcement have all the latest and greatest weaponry and other "toys", but when it comes to mental health issues, funding is static at best, non existent at worst. My community once was home to the state mental facility. But every budget cycle there was less and less money to go around. And guess who always ended up sucking hind tit. So our wise politicians decided to close the place and sell the property to the highest bidder (more money for them to waste!) A very large portion of the patients were put out on the streets where they remain to this day. We need to quit spending money on senseless wars and other boondoggles and start putting it where it is needed most. The only time we really even collectively ponder mental health issues at all is when tragedies like Roseburg happen. And then we scratch our heads and wonder why. Maybe us supposedly "sane" folks are actually the crazy ones. Personally, if it was up to me, all guns would be confiscated and destroyed. But I'm also a realist. So fuck gun control. That horse is already out of the barn and rabid gun owners like Mags (and I know too many people like him) would rather stoop to anarchy than surrender a "right". Let's quit chasing the unachievable and start treating the root of the problem while we still might have time.
Reasonable limits and background checks and waiting periods, for example, do not infringe on your rights. But even that is too much for you, as seen in this thread. So I challenge you again - you don't like those solutions? OK. What is yours? Because 100% unfettered gun rights has created a national epidemic. This path we are on is insanity.
The internet has created this epidemic. I'm on a bike ride sitting outside of Whole Foods waiting for my wife. Guns have been around forever, I think that is evidence that guns aren't the problem. Hell, we should outlaw body armor before guns. Nutjob plus gun plus body armor...not good. Take away his feeling of invincibility at least.
I hope that isn't directed at me. I have absolutely no problem with reasonable background checks and waiting limits. I'd love them to be even more onerous. But my point is, every time stricter "control" rules are proposed, the gun lobby raises a hue and cry that obscures reason and diverts attention from the other pieces of the problem. Let's do something different and try approaching it from a mental health angle. Because the Mags of the world are never, ever going to give in. Maybe we can even alleviate two problems at once?
Bloomberg has privately financed disarming Americans. Some say he has spent several hundred million dollars, some say over 1 billion, in states he has no vote in and likely never even visits. He spent over $50 million alone to pass the Oregon law. He is purchasing our slavery. and no state's population has the money to fight him.
How many guns have you lost because of Oregon's new law? Any of your friends had guns taken away because of the law?
Some folks have been understandably confused about when Oregon's new law takes effect requiring that background checks be conducted for private firearms sales. That's because the language of Senate Bill 941 says the measure becomes law the moment it was signed by Gov. Kate Brown, which occurred on Monday. However, it's not as simple as that. The section requiring the new background checks doesn't take effect for 90 days, explained Jeff Rhoades, counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. "We gave the state police 90 days to ramp up" so that it will be able to conduct the additional background checks, said Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, the bill's sponsor. That is Aug. 9, for those who are keeping count. On that date, if you're conducting a private firearm sale, you will have to go through a federally licensed dealer to get a background check. The check is meant to determine whether someone is legally prohibited from owning a gun. Among the legal prohibitions: felony convictions, commitments to a mental hospital or misdemeanor domestic violence convictions. One key provision that does take immediate effect deals with mental illness, a major issue in the debate over gun violence. This provision requires judges who have ordered someone to undergo outpatient mental health treatment to rule on whether that person should have their gun rights suspended during treatment. http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2015/05/oregon_gun_background_checks_i.html Background checks on private gun sales and no gun sales to crazy people?!? I can see why Maris is so upset.
These unconstitutional INFRINGEMENTS already exist, have for some time, and have caused more mass shootings, while preventing none. Your post is nonsense. Like all gungrabbers, you refuse to acknowledge the true problem, which is untreated and ignored mental illness. It is an epidemic in America and our president and both parties, AND YOU, have deliberately ignored the problem for their own ends. 70% of all gun deaths in America are suicides. That was 6,900 people in 2013. Twice the Twin Towers death total every year. Pretty sure the only problem here is our leaders turning their backs on our sickest, most helpless citizens, a crime that voters are co-conspirators in. Until you and all other Americans demand that we help these people, rather than use them as pawns for disarmament, I consider you to be mass murderers by proxy.
Suicide is illegal. Except in Oregon right? It seems that Oregon has turned their backs on its sickest, most helpless citizens.
I'm not sure why killing yourself is being compared to killing people who had nothing to do with you. honest to god, I'd rather the guy @ UCC kill himself first and NOT kill 9 innocent people.
