Another mass shooting, three or four hours ago.

by James Mixon 238 Replies latest social current

  • freemindfade

    It's implied to often that America has all the same gun laws across the board and you can just walk in anywhere and anyone can buy anything (gun wise) and that simply is not true. Let's take this instance, it was in California. Not Florida or Texas.

    The gun laws of California are some of the most restrictive in the United States.

    A Firearm Safety Certificate, obtained by passing a written test, is required for gun purchases. Handguns sold by dealers must be "California legal" by being listed on the state's Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale. This roster, which requires handgun manufacturers to pay a fee and submit specific models for safety testing, has become progressively more stringent. Private sales of firearms must be done through a licensed dealer. All firearm sales are recorded by the state, and have a ten-day waiting period. Unlike most other states, California has no provision in its state constitution that explicitly guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. The California Supreme Court has maintained that most of California's restrictive gun laws are constitutional, based on the fact that the state's constitution does not explicitly guarantee private citizens the right to purchase, possess, or carry firearms.

    Semi-automatic firearms that the state has classified as assault weapons, .50 BMG caliber rifles, and magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition may not be sold in California. Possession of automatic firearms, and of short-barreled shotguns and rifles, is generally prohibited.

  • Simon
    One solution: Arming the population. All it takes is one person with a gun, and when the mass shooter starts, that scumbag gets shot back and taken out.

    This is nonsense. All these mass shootings are happening in the country with the most access to guns. Having guns isn't helping.

    Here is why this argument should be shot in the back of the head once and for all:

    Simply having a gun nearby or on your person is no protection. The police and soldiers have guns. They still get shot.

    They still get shot when they are trained, alert and on guard with weapons drawn. And sometimes because weapons are drawn and ready the wrong people get shot.

    This is trained people.

    What would happen when untrained people are all pulling guns and shooting? They will all die. All a mass shooter would have to do it fire the first few shots in a theatre and then slip out the door while everyone else killed each other.

  • Simon
    the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia

    i.e. the only ones that have the right to bear arms.

    2nd amendment doesn't need to be rewritten or changed, just applied as intended instead of being perverted by the gun lobby.

  • Simon

    Proof that limiting guns prevents shootings:

    Places that don't allow anyone to have guns (courts, airports etc...) have significantly less shooting incidents.

    It's really simple isn't it?

    Most proposals won't solve things:

    No amount of background checking will protect against someone who hasn't committed any crime ... yet.

    No amount of after-the-fact punishments will protect against someone who doesn't care that they will die too.

    The only solution is to make it more difficult to own a gun and I think most responsible gun owners want this.

  • adjusted knowledge
    adjusted knowledge
    I once viewed having guns was for personal protection. However I keep my guns locked, unloaded, and key to safe hidden and not in same room. I am a lousy shot. So the reality of me using my gun in defense during a home invasion is probably nill. but it still gives me some sense of security.
  • freemindfade
    The only solution is to make it more difficult to own a gun and I think most responsible gun owners want this.

    They do, that is true. What will that accomplish?

    • This will decrease gun deaths overall in the country
    • It will not stop rampage shootings, at best it will cost the perpetrator(s) more money and maybe save them time.

    There are two issues here, you can't roll rampage shooting into the big "american gun-death picture". Lets call them what they are.

    When you see a staged, planned, rampage shooting make the news everyone says "See! This is why we need tighter gun control."

    Its not why. Thousands more die from other shooting that are not high profile premeditated rampage shootings, and reality is gun laws will do little to affect a rampage shooter especially if they are religious extremists. Even if you could make all the guns disappear tomorrow they are going to build big bombs. They are determined to die and take others along.

    My contention is not with tighter gun control, its making Rampage shootings the face of gun control. I think that diminishes the other issues at play. Some rampage shooters buy guns legally, others don't. The only reason some do it legally is because they can, if they can't they still will do it illegally if need be. Just like making drugs illegal, it doesn't make them impossible to get, just more expensive.

    terrorism and rampage shootings are complex and should be treated as such. The Paris attackers seemed to have no trouble walking into a major city and pulling out bombs and AK's. They don't care about laws and politics and people's feelings. They just want to kill people by any means.

  • LoveUniHateExams

    According to The Guardian, police at the criminals' house found rounds of ammo and 12 pipe bomb type devices.

    It will be interesting to discover their motive. No doubt the police are searching laptops, text messages, etc.

  • truthseeker100

    Simon:The only solution is to make it more difficult to own a gun and I think most responsible gun owners want this.

    Simon you are living in North America now. not Britain Remember many Canadians gave up their lives for people just like you! Don't ever forget that!

  • the girl next door
    the girl next door
    "Syed Rizwan Farook -- one-half of the couple behind the San Bernardino shooting massacre -- was apparently radicalized and in touch with people being investigated by the FBI for international terrorism, law enforcement officials said Thursday.

    Farook's apparent radicalization contributed to his role in the mass shooting, with his wife Tashfeen Malik, of 14 people Wednesday during a holiday party for the San Bernardino County health department, where Farook worked, sources said"

  • Simon
    Simon you are living in North America now. not Britain Remember many Canadians gave up their lives for people just like you! Don't ever forget that!

    WTF has that got to do with the price of milk?

    Many people from the UK and commonwealth and America gave up their lives.

    You know who gave the most? Russia - "don't ever forget that!"

Share this