DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on August 26, 2015, 04:04:43 PM
-
How fast do we think that Gov McAuliffe is going to turn this tragedy into another gun control rant??
Not only happening on live TV, but apparenty the shooter was videoing himself in a 1st person format, brandising his gun, that no one apparently saw he had, until he brought it up a 2nd time and started shooting. Very sick fella
-
Imagine a "gun control rant" after a shooting! The governor should have encouraged Virginians to go out and buy MORE GUNS to protect themselves from this sort of thing.
In related news events, no Japanese, French, German, Dutch, Nowegian, Spanish, Taiwanese, Portuguese, Swiss, Italian, Swedish, Danish, Finnish, Icelandic, British, Irish or even Polish people were shot today by gun nuts.
-
Imagine a "gun control rant" after a shooting! The governor should have encouraged Virginians to go out and buy MORE GUNS to protect themselves from this sort of thing.
You're catching on. The only good news to come out of this tragedy is knowing that for these 2 lives taken, 10-20 lives were saved elsewhere in the country, using a firearm
-
Not that you could name even one.
Meanwhile in Japan, no one was shot, no one was prevented from being shot with a gun.
At the end of the year, in a typical year 10.62 deaths per 100,000 in the US, and 0.0 in Japan.
-
Why would I personally need to know someone who was saved? I'm comfortable knowing that in this country, more lives are saved with a firearm, than those who are tragically taken by one, like today
-
Whereas, in fact, you do not know diddly-squat.
You just ASSUME that good gun nuts are saving twenty lives a day, every day.
You ought to personally be able to name at least on in twenty.
Shit, we might as well be discussing how many cavities were prevented by Crest.
-
What I know, is backed up by the facts. I don't assume anything
-
Right on cue.........never let a tragedy go to waste, when pushing a political agenda (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/08/26/gun-control-crowd-already-exploiting-horrific-wdbj7-shooting-n2044046)
-
Imagine a "gun control rant" after a shooting! The governor should have encouraged Virginians to go out and buy MORE GUNS to protect themselves from this sort of thing.
In related news events, no Japanese, French, German, Dutch, Nowegian, Spanish, Taiwanese, Portuguese, Swiss, Italian, Swedish, Danish, Finnish, Icelandic, British, Irish or even Polish people were shot today by gun nuts.
Maybe. But I understand several were shot in a Gypsy camp in northern France yesterday. Did you really confirm this claim, or just make it up out of whole cloth? I suspect you never checked.
-
So once again, what law is being pushed currently that WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS TRAGEDY? He apparently passes the left's vaunted background check demand?
-
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/influence-of-other-killers-on-va-gunman-not-unusual-experts-say/ar-BBm82rz
Pathetic man explains his thinking, pathetically.
Vester Lee Flanagan, who fatally shot himself after killing two local journalists on-air near Roanoke, Va., faxed a 23-page letter to ABC News on Wednesday morning that said he put down a deposit for a gun two days after the Charleston shooting at a historic black church more than two months ago.
In the letter, which ABC released excerpts from and has turned over to authorities, Flanagan referenced comments made by Dylann Roof, the suspect in the Charleston shooting, in which he said he was trying to create a “race war.”
“The church shooting was the tipping point … but my anger has been building steadily,” Flanagan wrote. “I’ve been a human powder keg for a while … just
waiting to go BOOM!!!!”
Flanagan killed Alison Parker, 24, and Adam Ward, 27, both journalists at WDBJ7-TV, where Flanagan worked before being fired for anger issues in 2013.
Flanagan also wrote in the letter that he was influenced by Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech mass gunman who killed 32 people in 2007, calling him “his boy.” He said Cho “got NEARLY double the amount” of people that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed at Columbine High School. Harris and Klebold killed 13 people in 1999.
It’s not unusual for murders to emulate and idolize others, said James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University. He said other people’s actions set a precedent for them. He added media attention is not the main reason for these kind of attacks, though it is a fringe benefit.
“They see themselves as the good guy who’s trying to right a wrong, who’s trying to stand up against racism, against bigotry, against injustice and they...........
-
So once again, what law is being pushed currently that WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS TRAGEDY? He apparently passes the left's vaunted background check demand?
Didn't think so
-
Don't sell guns to people with anger issues.
-
Good luck trying to make a law out of that? Define "anger issues", and who gets to make that legal decision, just for starters?
-
I do not think that it is disputed that he was fired for anger issues.
But I realize that you would support his right to buy a gun.
-
I support everyone's constitutional rights. ..... now explain how he would LEGALLY have had his 2nd Amendment right revoked? Are you supporting that businesses are no longer at risk for being sued for divulging privacy issues of an employee they fire?
-
I am supporting banning people that have anger issues from buying guns.
-
AND HOW DO YOU LEGALLY DO THAT??
-
You see Xo, the way it works here, is we try to hash out ideas, and decipher differences. So, while you can opine that you're all for banning guns from people with anger issues, that's about as practical as me opining that liberals should not have access to voting booths.....meaning its neither practical nor realistic
Is the Government going to pass some legislation that mandates that everyone be graded on an "Angry meter", and anyone above a certified level 9 would be prohibited to purchase a firearm?? ...until they get their grade down to a certified 6??
See what I mean?....your desire isn't practical or realistic. EVERYONE gets angry from time to time. Your beef is that Businesses are impeded from sharing reasons people are fired because of privacy laws. Medical establishments are prevetned from sharing work related mental/anger issues because of HIPPA laws. There's a FAR GREATER fear of people getting sued than getting shot. And if the possible perp happens to be black and/or gay, there's no way anyone is going to pass on concerns of anger, for fear of being labeled, if not sued, for racist/bigoted slander
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sooooo....based on our current state of laws, how would you propose legislating how angry people are banned from legally purchasing a firearm??
-
By changing the laws, of course.
-
Of course.....what? That makes no sense.....change what law(s), and changed to say, what exactly? I don't recall any current laws on the books as it relates to anything not legally allowed for mere anger. What you opine is neither practical or realistic. So, if you're not planning on proposing any new laws, please explain what current laws you would change to keep angry people from legally purchasing a firearm
-
I would change the law that allows people fired for anger issues to buy a firearm, of course.
The fact it no one is going to pass any laws, the whole thing is a huge mess because the second amendment should have been changed 40 years or more ago and now there are so many guns we will always have more people shot with guns than any other modern nation.
-
How do you change a law that doesn't exist?
One more time, guns or the amount there are isn't the issue. There are more guns per capita in Switzerland than here, and there's no problem there. The amount of guns sold here also keeps going up, while violent crime goes down. So its a red herring to try and make this about the amount of guns
So, let's put aside what isn't the problem, and try to come up with legislation that might address what is the problem. Do you favor giving companies the freedom from litigation for sharing to other prospective employers, any and all mental/anger reasons for a person being fired? Even if they're Black and/or Gay?
Or does that allow companies too much potential to abuse such a free legal pass, if they simply don't like a particular employee that they just fired?
-
You do not need to change a law, just to pass one.
There are NOT more guns in civilian hands per capita than in Switzerland.
So long as crazy people do not own guns, I am all for it.
-
Define crazy. That's the point. I personally hate bad drivers, among other forms of stupidity, because bad drivers have a greater potential to cause accidents that kill or maim others than, say, some idiot wearing a white robe and hood and chanting racist epithets. I particularly hate drunk drivers. But I have never pulled a gun and shot one, nor had an overwhelming desire to. Indeed, as a former paramedic/EMT, I have treated many drunk drivers after they have caused wrecks, even after they have sometimes killed innocent people, and worked just as hard to save their lives as I would anyone else. So, since I hate bad drivers and drunk drivers, to the point of absolute rage (which I control and keep to myself), does that make me crazy? Does that meet your definition of an anger issue? How would you define it and set a standard that could be codified into a law?
-
Xo, you are so...all over the ballpark at the moment, that its really hard to know if you're doing it on purpose or have no idea at what straws your grasping at.
Let's start with this qualifier......NO ONE SUPPORTS THE IDEA THAT "CRAZY" PEOPLE SHOULD OWN GUNS. Not me, not the NRA, not even the Founders who drafted the 2nd amendment. (It's a little like the intent of the 14th, being specific towards the children of freed slaves, not illegal immigrants, so as the intent of the 2nd amendment is to bestow the fundamental right of Americans to own/possess firearms, which doesn't translate to a right that certifiably mentally deranged have such a right)
And "crazy" has nothing to do with the number of guns in this country. Whether its 1 gun or a gazillion guns, LEGAL residents still have to go thru all the modern age mechanisms, paperwork, background checks, and waiting periods, for every gun purchased. And if they're certifiably crazy, they have no business having one, in which its a felony for someone to falsify on their application that they are free of any mental disorders, when they do have one or more
Now, before dealing with the elephant in the room...the issue of anger & "craziness" as the main issue in this debate (NOT the # of guns there are), when I 1st asked "anyone" what laws are being proposed that would have prevented what happened in Virginia, 1st there was crickets chirping, then came the prophetic answer "Don't sell guns to people with anger issues."
Wow......amazing.....astounding.....1 problem......HOW is that accomplished LEGALLY? That would require a law. So, I ask, what kind of law would need to be passed to thwart the angry from purchasing a a gun?? Then came the answer upon high "by changing the laws of course.
Wow......I must have missed the law that was passed that made it legal for angry people to purchase a firearm. Meaning, there is no such law to change, that I'm aware of. So...if its a matter of changing some existing law, as YOU answered, I then inquire, which law(s) would that be, that simply need changing? And the mighty Carnac answers.....You do not need to change a law, just to pass one....WHICH IS WHAT I ASKED IN THE 1ST PLACE, when I inquired ....what kind of law would need to be passed to thwart the angry from purchasing a a gun?? As H asks, how would that be codified into law??
I mean, it's like an Abbot & Costello who's on 1st skit ::)
So, if you have no law to propose or an existing one to change, let's get back to the elephant.......Do you favor giving companies the freedom from litigation for sharing to other prospective employers, any and all mental/anger reasons for a person being fired? Even if they're Black and/or Gay?
Hnumpah.....what do you think? Is that something that is supportable or too easily abusable? I'm just trying to find something that's rational and applicable to work on to help prevent these kinds of tragedies, that we can all get behind, vs using it as just another crutch to push political agendas, like the good professor
-
It does not matter what I "support", as I have no way to enact laws. There are too many guns in circulation in this country and every day there will be more.
If the only way to determine who is both crazy and dangerous prior to them going berserk, then all we can hope for is that they go berserk at inanimate objects in public.
By anger issues,. I mean people who are likely to do harm to others, not people who are just pissed off. I get pissed off in traffic like everyone else, but generally I do not even honk. Only when some moron behind me honks a lot when I am already in motion do I very occasionally floor the accelerator, which, my car being a Diesel and all, causes him to vanish into a dark cloud of smoke.
-
It does not matter what I "support", as I have no way to enact laws.
NO ONE HERE DOES....that doesn't preclude us from supporting laws, opining how bad a law is & needs changed or repealed, or proposing new laws. We do it all the time. It doesn't require you to be an elected legislator to answer:
Do you favor giving companies the freedom from litigation for sharing to other prospective employers, any and all mental/anger reasons for a person being fired? Even if they're Black and/or Gay?
There are too many guns in circulation in this country and every day there will be more.
Which is largely irrelevant, since its been demonstrated that's not the problem, as violent crime in this country goes down with this "more"
If the only way to determine who is both crazy and dangerous prior to them going berserk, then all we can hope for is that they go berserk at inanimate objects in public.
So in other words, you're just venting, with no idea what-so-ever, as to what law could be proposed or what current laws be changed, to keep angry people from legally purchasing firearms. Would have saved a lot of time, if you had simply said that to begin with
By anger issues,. I mean people who are likely to do harm to others, not people who are just pissed off.
And how do you legally determine that?? Let me remind you that NO ONE SUPPORTS THE IDEA THAT "CRAZY" PEOPLE SHOULD OWN GUNS. And making fewer guns doesn't make that person any less crazy or dangerous. You have yet to define in legal terms what "crazy" are still having the legal ability to purchase forearms
-
Don't sell guns to people with anger issues.
I could go along with this.
Provided that it is not anti-gun nuts that define "anger issues", we would have to be suspicious that the definition would be very broad .
Supposing that there is discovered a fair and certain way to separate those with delusions and undisciplined anger from the normal, would the loss of rights to buy guns really keep them from being obtained?
Already now, convicted felons are forbidden from buying guns, but I can't think of an occasion that this has demonstrably saved a life.
-
Already now, convicted felons are forbidden from buying guns, but I can't think of an occasion that this has demonstrably saved a life.
==================================================
Just because it has happened does not mean that you have herd or read about it.
Usually when some ex con shoots someone, gun charges are not the ones that the Court focuses on.
-
You haven't heard of such a case either?
Oh well.
It might be nice if it were possible to preempt crime by catching criminals before they ever commit a crime, with the increasing understanding of how the brain works this might become possible someday.
Since we can't do that yet , we remain vulnerable to the zero day event , of a violent persons first known violent act.
Those known to be violent , can submit to an extra rule or two.
But perhaps they won't.
-
While its truly a sympathetic sight to see families grieving over such a heinous & cowardly act, our systemic knee jerk reaction that we must do something, always seems to miss what is behind the cause or prompting of the act. People are killed in many ways, yet you never here the push to legislatively ban.....autos, knives, fists, etc. The movie Minority Report was pure science fiction.
There will never be a time where we can predict with any grain of certainty, when someone is about "to go crazy". Not to mention most acts come about from a slow boil, pushed by combination of both immoral instability and outside influences. Such folks are going to get whatever tool they desire to inflict their desired result. And the WORST thing we can do as a society, is to make it even harder for the law abiding to better defend themselves from such vitriolic hatred or mental disorder
-
All movies, except documentaries, are supposed to be fiction.
-
::) The point was SCIENCE Fiction
There will never be a time where we can predict with any grain of certainty, when someone is about "to go crazy". Not to mention most acts come about from a slow boil, pushed by combination of both immoral instability and outside influences. Such folks are going to get whatever tool they desire to inflict their desired result.
And the WORST thing we can do as a society, is to make it even harder for the law abiding to better defend themselves from such vitriolic hatred or mental disorder
-
(http://s23.postimg.org/5r7ph8ymz/11535864_10153540519214369_3955250572796210218_n.jpg)
-
(http://s18.postimg.org/5s4f02x49/18264_10152715194310197_7258297720946034551_n_jp.jpg)