Culture of Shootings , "Thoughts and Prayers" But No Solutions

Yes, of course. Thanks.

 

Thanks Guy. You are right. The police can't take a chance. Divorces can be really ugly.

 

Oh, I dunno...
To stop the guy trying to kill them?
Why should people NOT try to stop the guy trying to kill them?

Mass shooters everywhere agree with you.

 

This time the killer was a 67 yr old College professor, who was upset he didn't get the job he applied for

Its hard to discuss anything with people who always say "let me tell you what you think"

 

given the seething dishonesty of the anti gun movement's activists, it is legitimate to establish what they really are motivated by-using logic. When one pushes for laws that patently and logically won't do much, if anything to stop crime but will harass lawful gun owners, then it is fair to say that those who push those laws are more interested in harassing honest gun owners than criminals. Of course there is an alternative. The advocates are so stupid they don't understand that laws that don't even apply to criminals, won't affect them

 

because the attorneys who represent women tell women to make claims of threats. The Lautenberg amendment was a powerful weapon for those who were married to soldiers, police officers or security guards. The "you better give me what I want (ie support, custody, the house) or I will claim you hit me" became a far more potent weapon when a misdemeanor charge of domestic violence could cause someone to lose their firearms and their jobs-forever.

 

It speaks to REALITY... not unicorns and lollipops.

 

so how do you determine who is not fit?

well if they have violent felonies
if they are fugitives from justice
if they have been adjudicated mentally incompetent
if they are here illegally

what would you add?

 

You establish nothing by making false claims about what people think, especially when you assume everyone thinks the same way. You have told me dozens of times what I think (or want), and you have been wrong every time.

 

well when you want to make everyone undergo a mental health examination before being able to buy a gun, it is FAIR to assert your real goal is delaying gun ownership. AND BTW-you claimed that anyone who opposed your scheme WANTED CRAZIES TO HAVE GUNS so you are even more guilty of such a charge than I ever was.

 

No, its not, - its your biased personal opinion and nothing else.

Its not for you to define other peoples views.

That's how you initially came across, and you objected to my statement, so I asked if your view is that you don't want crazies to have guns, you just don't want to take additional measures to prevent it. You agreed that is indeed your view. The end result is the same, but since you objected, I corrected it. You, in the other hand, keep repeating the same thing over and over after you have been corrected a dozen times

 

I heard on our news that Senile Joe called yet again for "an assault weapon" ban. I just found this on a news blurb about the shooting in Vegas
He was reportedly armed with a handgun and began his attack on the fourth floor before being killed outside the building.

Senile Joe doesn't even care what gun was used. More proof that the goal is not to stop crime but to ban guns

 

well there are two choices when someone claims they want to stop crime and push crap that only harms honest owners
1) that is their goal
2) or they are really stupid

 

For someone who claims to have studied law, it amazes me you don't see the error in that kind it reasoning. In the other hand its typical for someone who thinks he is the only smart person in the room. They say stuff and assume everyone who disagrees is stupid.

Have a nice day.

 

why don't you tell us what motivates those who want to ban firearms that are used in less than 2% of the murders. why don't you tell us what motivates those who call for waiting periods and registration of firearms-laws that ONLY apply to lawful buyers and owners of firearms

 

Gees... I'm so thankful I live in red state where we have Constitutional Carry. None of all this blather about permits, registrations, waiting period, magazine capacity and the rest. Its fun t o watch the blue states go nuts about it though.

TEXAS!!! WHERE FREEDOM LIVES!!!

 

what is your opinion on what motivates those who constantly demand lawful owners register their weapons, be banned from owning 10+ capacity magazines, or wait days or weeks to be able to buy a gun?

 

One of the big reasons I left California when I retired. Its just tyranny.

 

Could their motivation be what they say it is? You literally insist on telling people they are lying, and then you tell them what they "actually think", which is where you insert your "let me tell you what you think".

How about letting people explain themselves? Is that really too much to ask for? And no, everyone else is not an idiot because they disagree with your twisted version of their views.

Try to think critically. Why would anyone be motivated to have you wait another week to buy a gun? It doesn't even make any sense. You just think everyone wants to stick it to you for some unknown reason.

 

Well at least the victims of the publicized mass shootings get thoughts and prayers. About twice as many people are killed by animals annually as in public mass shootings and nobody even hears about those poor schmucks, let alone gives them thoughts and prayers.

But yeh. We have a violence problem in the US for sure.

 

OK so they are stupid if they think banning say the sale of automatics made after May 19, 1986 will decrease crime. Sorry, gun banners are invariably dishonest about their goals. They will never ever say at what point they will stop pushing for additional restrictions. They will never answer why a flash hider or a bayonet lug makes a rifle worthy of banning. You for example never told us how long someone would have to wait to get that mental health examination that you wanted or how much it should cost

 

Or maybe you are dishonest about their goals. You even admit you only ASSUME what they thing and what motivates them

The challenge was to come up with any ideas to keep guns from the mentally ill, and that was my suggestion, while you didn't have any ideas. The answer to "how long" is obvious, - it depends 100% on how its would be implemented.

I also added that maybe a better idea would be to change the 'mental case' adjudication process to weed out the obvious cases like the guy who admitted hearing voices telling him to kill people, and the cops gave him his guns back and he flew over to my hometown and shot 11 people before even leaving the airport. If there are problems, there are solutions, and creative minds will find them, but it seems people like you will oppose any and all ideas saying "this is what your goals are, - you just want to harass me".

 

I told you years ago that my attitude is this-it's better ten wrong people get guns than one good person be improperly disarmed. There are plenty of ways to deal with bad people who have guns. I don't feel a need to hysterical scream for something to BE DONE. IN a free society, there will always be mistakes made where the authorities don't jail or disarm someone who should be. But that's better than giving government the power to disarm people who should be armed. It's the same reason why I oppose the death penalty. I have plenty of ideas of what to do with bad people who use guns improperly. But pushing idiotic demands that someone should have to undergo an unspecified psychiatric exam, performed by unspecified "experts" where the cost and waiting period and recourse for a bad decision is not mentioned, suggests something that is ripe for abuse-indeed your suggestion where you failed to tell us how long someone should wait, what the cost limit should be, what the appeal process would be, and who could perform this exam-appeared to be a not so clever scheme to delay or ban people being able to buy guns

 

I answered that question in the post you replied to: it depends 100% on how things are implemented. Getting a clearance from your GP, would take a phone call.

And then again, I already came up with another suggestion, which I think is better.

The challenge was to come up with ideas, and I had 2 ideas, and you had zero, and instead resorted to the "let me tell you what you think".

Can you just admit that you are not much of a problem solver, or a brain stormer.

 

LoL like we don't see what democrats do when it comes to owning firearms.