• The KillerFrogs

The Harris/Biden Administration: Coming Together to Build Back Better

LVH

Active Member
Well this guy was on multiple lists, so a background check that incorporates those lists seems pretty straight forward.
Lists can be abused. No doubt at some point these lists you speak of would be curated and political viewpoints would be a criteria used to put people on said list and therefore prevent them from owning a gun. No doubt about it.
 

LVH

Active Member
Bingo, but thats the case for both sides. Why republicans never decrease the deficit and democrats never do anything meaningful? people gotta stay mad to vote.
Republicans don't reduce the deficit because they use taxpayer money inserted into pork bills to get themselves re-elected and pay off their donors, cronies and special interests. See: Kay Granger. I can't stand that fossil hag. She loves voting for massive pork filled spending bills and retards of Fort Worth gladly send her back to Washington every 2 years.
 

Whiskey Frog

Active Member
If you can sign up for the military at 18 and get your face blown off in one of the military industrial complex's stupid wars, you should be able to buy a gun at 18. Constitutional rights should not have an age limit anyway.
That wasn't the questioned posed. He asked for the law that would have stopped the shooting. I provided one. You may disagree with that law, but it would have stopped the shooting in this instance.
 

LVH

Active Member
That wasn't the questioned posed. He asked for the law that would have stopped the shooting. I provided one. You may disagree with that law, but it would have stopped the shooting in this instance.
There is a thing call the black market.

Just like the war on drugs doesn't work, neither will gun control. People who truly want to get a gun will find a way one way or another.
 

FrogUltimate

Active Member
Lists can be abused. No doubt at some point these lists you speak of would be curated and political viewpoints would be a criteria used to put people on said list and therefore prevent them from owning a gun. No doubt about it.
I have no doubt the lists would be abused. There's a small portion of people who would unfairly get caught up on a list. That's life. Small price to pay IMO.
 
Yes, the left loves platitudes about gun control. They tug at people's heartstrings and score some political points.

Then they do nothing. If they actually solved the problem, there would be one less issue to get people to vote for them.
I mean they passed a bill in the House that has stalled in the Senate, so I don't think it is fair to say they "do nothing".

Some degree of increased gun control is pretty popular across the political spectrum. Lots of places to point fingers on why nothing changes, but seems like "let's not change anything" lobby is at least a part of the reason nothing has changed in terms of gun laws.
 

FrogUltimate

Active Member
There is a thing call the black market.

Just like the war on drugs doesn't work, neither will gun control. People who truly want to get a gun will find a way one way or another.
I do agree that we are at the point where this is likely the case here in the States. I think immediately funding enhanced security at every school in America in the next three months (conveniently summer is starting now) should be a HUGE priority. And yes, we are going to pay for it via higher inflation.
 

Whiskey Frog

Active Member
There is a thing call the black market.

Just like the war on drugs doesn't work, neither will gun control. People who truly want to get a gun will find a way one way or another.
Once again, in this instance the 18 year old bought two legal guns and shot up a school. The law that would have prevented this shooting, would have been to make it illegal for him to have purchased the gun. Would he have found another way? Perhaps, but neither of us have anyway of knowing that.
 

Whiskey Frog

Active Member
In a state that carries out the death penalty more than any other.

But yeah, a law against owning a gun would have totally stopped this.
Based on the evidence we have so far, it would have. But, again its not the only solution, there are plenty. Doing nothing based on the idea that they might have found another way, seems misguided to me personally.
 

TCURiggs

Active Member
Once again, in this instance the 18 year old bought two legal guns and shot up a school. The law that would have prevented this shooting, would have been to make it illegal for him to have purchased the gun. Would he have found another way? Perhaps, but neither of us have anyway of knowing that.

I think you’re reaching by implying that the psychotic child-killer just wouldn’t have gotten a gun until he’s 21 because of a law. I really don’t care if it’s 18 or 21, honestly, but to act like people like this care about any of that is the biggest stretch. This has happened far too many times with the 21 age requirement in place as well. A few arbitrary years didn’t cause this.
 

Whiskey Frog

Active Member
I think you’re reaching by implying that the psychotic child-killer just wouldn’t have gotten a gun until he’s 21 because of a law. I really don’t care if it’s 18 or 21, honestly, but to act like people like this care about any of that is the biggest stretch. This has happened far too many times with the 21 age requirement in place as well. A few arbitrary years didn’t cause this.
It isn't a reach, its reality. Why purchase the guns legally if he could have avoided the background check and gotten the gun on the black market? Limiting access to impulsive teenagers is in my opinion, a decent idea that doesn't effect the majority of people wanting to buy guns. But you are correct, a few arbitrary years did not cause this. They did however allow easy access to guns.
 

FrogUltimate

Active Member
Well, it’s against the law to murder someone and that didn’t seem to stop him.
The law against murder is a passive moral law, a law against buying a gun at 18, on a list, etc is an active barrier law that forces someone to take a different action. Little bit of a difference there.
 

FrogUltimate

Active Member
I’m having trouble finding much background on the shooter, other than a diagnosis of a mental illness. What lists was he on?
He was known to both the FBI and CIA (at least from one news article I've read). Most of these people have been.

At the very least, the police were frequent visitors to his house where he lived with his drug addict mother where he got into violent arguments/confrontations regularly.
 

TCURiggs

Active Member
It isn't a reach, its reality. Why purchase the guns legally if he could have avoided the background check and gotten the gun on the black market? Limiting access to impulsive teenagers is in my opinion, a decent idea that doesn't effect the majority of people wanting to buy guns. But you are correct, a few arbitrary years did not cause this. They did however allow easy access to guns.

For the record, I'm pretty certain that it's always been 18 for long guns. Care to show your work on how that changed?
 

Wexahu

Full Member
The law against murder is a passive moral law, a law against buying a gun at 18, on a list, etc is an active barrier law that forces someone to take a different action. Little bit of a difference there.
I think it’s extremely naive to suggest what happened yesterday wouldn’t have happened if there was simply another law in place.
 

FrogUltimate

Active Member
I think it’s extremely naive to suggest what happened yesterday wouldn’t have happened if there was simply another law in place.
I don't disagree to be honest. I think the ship has sailed on meaningful weapon laws here. There are way too many options on the black market. Although I think starting now to reduce new supply isn't a bad idea, at least force every crazy to go through that alternate path instead of walking into Academy.

After thinking on it overnight, I feel the path forward is through significant changes to school safety/security.
 
Top