Well I'm sure if it was harder to get a gun in america perhaps this racist wouldn't have been able to commit the crime he's accused of...
You mean we need to find a way to make it more difficult for a father to give his son a gift?
No we need to find a way to make it more difficult for that gift to be a gun.
I don't think it's unreasonable for police to pay visits to registered gun owners to ensure they are the ones that possess the weapon, haven't made illegal modifications, and load it with legal ammunition.
You're a minority in thinking that isn't unreasonable. What you're proposing is treating all gun owners as though they are on probation.
This feels like another "Gun exceptionalism" thing. Commercial businesses are often inspected by regulators to ensure they are complying with various laws and regulations. I have to go out of my way to have my vehicle inspected once a year to ensure it is complying with various laws and regulations. Child Protective Services (and accompanying police officer) can conduct a visit of my home and interview my children without me at any time.
All of those are good things and very accepted in American society. But if you were to do the same thing with guns, suddenly we're treating people like they are on probation. Because guns are exceptional, or something.
This belongs more in the gun control thread but it is my understanding that CPS needs an accusation to be able to show up to your house. It is not a random monitoring situation like it would be for a gun legislation. This sentiment belongs to extending licensing to and within private property. That is shaky ground even for traffic violations. In the end the less goosey thing to do would be set up a outside secondary site where the gun would have to be inspected. It would violate less personal rights and I think more reasonable gun owners would be supportive of it.
In SC, it's illegal to possess a gun while awaiting trial on a felony charge. That didn't seem to stop his father from illegally giving him a gun.
I'd like to know what sort of gun law would stop a father, who presumably isn't otherwise a criminal, from illegally giving a gun to his son, who is already prohibited from possessing it.
It's also illegal in SC to carry a gun into a church, even with a valid permit, without special permission. So that's yet another mass shooting in a gun-free zone. So..... :?
A given law failing to prevent this incident is not reason to fail to enact any meaningful gun control legislation.
I think the point is that in this specific situation, no amount of meaningful gun control legislation wouldn't made a difference short of an all out ban on all firearms and a subsequent forced collection program followed by their destruction.
This was a man who received a handgun from his father. It's not possible to legislate that away.
Okay? Can we still look at legislation that might prevent other situations unlike this one in the future?
The only thing that will happen by turning this into another gun control debate is to allow the people who don't want to talk about the obvious racism issue in this country an easy out.
Do you mean in this thread or the public in general? In the scope of this thread I'm comfortable leaving the gun control side out of it if that's the general preference. My point to TheZK's post was that being unable to legislate a single situation away shouldn't proclude any future legislation on gun control because it wouldn't have been effective here. I obviously don't want it to distract from the other causes.
If you acknowledge that gun control legislation couldn't have stopped this particular situation, but still want to use it to push for gun control anyway, you're literally falling into that "you're just exploiting a tragedy" trap that people who neither want to face this country's racist issues or gun issues want you to fall for. The gun control debate is an important one, but taking the general discussion of this heinous event away from the obvious racist motivations doesn't help.
Other people in this thread are talking about how everyone in his community more or less brushed off the warning signs, yet we've also seen arguments for expanded mental health care, as it's a possible contributing factor. Is that exploitative of the tragedy? Only discussing retroactive solutions to this specific tragedy seems awfully short sighted. I've said before I don't want any single factor to completely detract from what seems to be the main driving issue behind the event, which was quite obviously racism. We can talk about other causes, and means to prevent future tragedies in general, no?
Since the only way mental health care could have helped prevent this is to make being a giant racist asshole a mental disorder and a PR campaign designed to convince everyone to start turning their racist asshole friends & family in for mental health screenings, no, I don't think it's helpful in this situation. This attack is a result of the pervasive racism issue in this country. Trying to make it about gun control and mental health is confusing the issue and allowing the people who least want to discuss racism an easy way to deflect the conversation.
So essentially yes, you only want to discuss what would have solved this situation.
EDIT: Calming my post down a little bit, I am coming across too hostile, I apologize.
I think you may be misunderstanding why I feel this way. Of course we need a serious discussion of mental health in this country. And of course we need a serious discussion of gun control. Those are both huge issues that deserve our attention. But in this situation (given what we currently know about it), neither of those topics seem to be all that helpful in understanding why and how this happened. The why and how of this particular tragedy is pretty clearly racism. So that's where the conversation needs to focus. By turning this into another gun control debate, you're giving the people who want to continue to ignore the real issue an easy way out. Nothing is going to end a discussion of the racial problems this country has faster than "you libby libs will exploit any tragedy to try to steal all our guns". I'd just like to see atleast the start of a meaningful discussion in the wake of another abhorrent "isolated incident". And the only way that's going to happen is if the discussion stays focused on the obvious cause.
Why did this happen: Racism
How did this happen: With a gun
One of these things we can solve with social activism and the other requires involvement from a governing body that couldn't give less of a shit. One of these things can be reduced enough to not be an issue in many communities while the other will be replaced by something worse.
I'm pro-gun control but even I realize the laws can only go so far. If we can't figure out a way to solve the endemic problems infesting American Culture then no amount of gun control will do anything. Gangs, serial killers and other criminals will do what they have always done and grab it illegally. As we've seen it ain't that hard to smuggle illegal shit over the border.
The issue of course is that racism picked his target, the gun let him do it. Sure there is the "swimming pools, cars, seatbelts, asteroids Kill *blank* amount of people" argument, but without a pistol I doubt this brain surgeon kills anyone aside from himself making a bomb.
We have no reason to believe that he'd have a target at all if not for racism. And having people sitting around who would totally be willing to commit murder if only they weren't prevented from getting a weapon is still really, really bad.
In SC, it's illegal to possess a gun while awaiting trial on a felony charge. That didn't seem to stop his father from illegally giving him a gun.
I'd like to know what sort of gun law would stop a father, who presumably isn't otherwise a criminal, from illegally giving a gun to his son, who is already prohibited from possessing it.
It's also illegal in SC to carry a gun into a church, even with a valid permit, without special permission. So that's yet another mass shooting in a gun-free zone. So..... :?
A given law failing to prevent this incident is not reason to fail to enact any meaningful gun control legislation.
I think the point is that in this specific situation, no amount of meaningful gun control legislation wouldn't made a difference short of an all out ban on all firearms and a subsequent forced collection program followed by their destruction.
This was a man who received a handgun from his father. It's not possible to legislate that away.
Okay? Can we still look at legislation that might prevent other situations unlike this one in the future?
The only thing that will happen by turning this into another gun control debate is to allow the people who don't want to talk about the obvious racism issue in this country an easy out.
Do you mean in this thread or the public in general? In the scope of this thread I'm comfortable leaving the gun control side out of it if that's the general preference. My point to TheZK's post was that being unable to legislate a single situation away shouldn't proclude any future legislation on gun control because it wouldn't have been effective here. I obviously don't want it to distract from the other causes.
If you acknowledge that gun control legislation couldn't have stopped this particular situation, but still want to use it to push for gun control anyway, you're literally falling into that "you're just exploiting a tragedy" trap that people who neither want to face this country's racist issues or gun issues want you to fall for. The gun control debate is an important one, but taking the general discussion of this heinous event away from the obvious racist motivations doesn't help.
Other people in this thread are talking about how everyone in his community more or less brushed off the warning signs, yet we've also seen arguments for expanded mental health care, as it's a possible contributing factor. Is that exploitative of the tragedy? Only discussing retroactive solutions to this specific tragedy seems awfully short sighted. I've said before I don't want any single factor to completely detract from what seems to be the main driving issue behind the event, which was quite obviously racism. We can talk about other causes, and means to prevent future tragedies in general, no?
Since the only way mental health care could have helped prevent this is to make being a giant racist asshole a mental disorder and a PR campaign designed to convince everyone to start turning their racist asshole friends & family in for mental health screenings, no, I don't think it's helpful in this situation. This attack is a result of the pervasive racism issue in this country. Trying to make it about gun control and mental health is confusing the issue and allowing the people who least want to discuss racism an easy way to deflect the conversation.
So essentially yes, you only want to discuss what would have solved this situation.
EDIT: Calming my post down a little bit, I am coming across too hostile, I apologize.
I think you may be misunderstanding why I feel this way. Of course we need a serious discussion of mental health in this country. And of course we need a serious discussion of gun control. Those are both huge issues that deserve our attention. But in this situation (given what we currently know about it), neither of those topics seem to be all that helpful in understanding why and how this happened. The why and how of this particular tragedy is pretty clearly racism. So that's where the conversation needs to focus. By turning this into another gun control debate, you're giving the people who want to continue to ignore the real issue an easy way out. Nothing is going to end a discussion of the racial problems this country has faster than "you libby libs will exploit any tragedy to try to steal all our guns". I'd just like to see atleast the start of a meaningful discussion in the wake of another abhorrent "isolated incident". And the only way that's going to happen is if the discussion stays focused on the obvious cause.
I think the way the thread has turned does kinda show that the libby libs will exploit any tragedy to try and steal all our guns. When it's admitted no reasonable laws would have prevented this, but it's used it to push for more laws anyways (like warrentless searches and bringing them all to the police station yearly), that's what we're doing.
I know this'll play really well on this forum, but jeez, guys.
I agree that issues of mental health and gun control are sort of peripheral to this event. They aren't entirely unrelated, but as others have pointed out, it's hard to see how specific improvements in either area would have mitigated the chances of something like this occurring. The core issue here is racism/white supremacy. It's a pretty hard issue to resolve - someone mentioned "dismantling white supremacy" earlier, and I agree that that should be the goal, but how exactly do you accomplish something like that?
The most productive routes I've been able to think of are publicly arguing with racists, refuting the right wing media's portrayal of events, and opposing or attempting to dismantle racist institutions, such as the police and prison systems and the War on Drugs.
Maybe the reason the peripheral issues keep coming up is that we're mostly agreement on racism being bad and on how to oppose it, so there's not much debate to be had unless we turn to things like gun control or mental health.
Reading this thread has been an interesting experience for the D&D crew I see in other threads. In other threads we argue that mentally illness is a rather large facet that needs to be addressed. In this thread there are bits and pieces of "he must be thrown in a hole" sentiment because of "racism". To me he is obviously mentally ill. And, I also believe, he should not smell free air for a long time. The two statements are intertwined to each other. But because of a past incidents where a situation such as this could be grounds for "getting off".
In the end, from what I have seen, can we just call the mentally ill argument as: Some of us believe he is mentally ill and should still be penalized heavily. And some of us don't want that moniker because it denotes a lessening of accountability.
So, here's the thing - why do you believe that he is mentally ill?
Because he's racist? That's a VERY problematic argument.
Because he killed 9 people? This is still a problematic argument, though not nearly as bad as the previous. But still, there are issues with treating the capacity to kill as being a sign of mental illness alone
And this is where I think the problem is with trying to argue that such atrocities are signs of mental illness - it's an argument that those who do so are "different", are "defective". Because we are scared to contemplate the idea of but there for the grace of God go I.
Calling someone who kills a bunch of black people cause he's a white supremacist "crazy" is basically expanding the definition of mental illness to the point where it applies to anyone that commits a crime.
Nope. There can and often are a myriad of reasons people commit crimes. Because they're "broken" or "bad" is never one of them.
Yes. Just like with this act of terrorism.
Okay? So then you do agree that mental illness played a part?
No. Just like your last post said it didn't.
There's literally no reason to think this has anything to do with mental illness beyond "only a crazy person would do this" which applies to basically every crime.
Okay, I'm not convinced by the "if someone murders people they must be mentally ill" argument, but the bolded is nonsense. I've committed countless crimes and I don't consider myself crazy. The state of mind required to murder nine people at church is very different from the state of mind required to shoplift/share files on the internet/possess or sell controlled substances/speed/trespass/vandalize etc. I can see why someone would see the former and think "that guy/girl must be crazy" and not have the same reaction to the latter, though I'm not sure the reaction to the former is necessarily correct.
The issue of course is that racism picked his target, the gun let him do it. Sure there is the "swimming pools, cars, seatbelts, asteroids Kill *blank* amount of people" argument, but without a pistol I doubt this brain surgeon kills anyone aside from himself making a bomb.
We have no reason to believe that he'd have a target at all if not for racism. And having people sitting around who would totally be willing to commit murder if only they weren't prevented from getting a weapon is still really, really bad.
True. They were in a church right? Gasoline, molotov cocktails and block the doors. Boom. Mass murder and the historic church turned to cinders. A gun was just the easiest option available to him at the moment.
In SC, it's illegal to possess a gun while awaiting trial on a felony charge. That didn't seem to stop his father from illegally giving him a gun.
I'd like to know what sort of gun law would stop a father, who presumably isn't otherwise a criminal, from illegally giving a gun to his son, who is already prohibited from possessing it.
It's also illegal in SC to carry a gun into a church, even with a valid permit, without special permission. So that's yet another mass shooting in a gun-free zone. So..... :?
A given law failing to prevent this incident is not reason to fail to enact any meaningful gun control legislation.
I think the point is that in this specific situation, no amount of meaningful gun control legislation wouldn't made a difference short of an all out ban on all firearms and a subsequent forced collection program followed by their destruction.
This was a man who received a handgun from his father. It's not possible to legislate that away.
Okay? Can we still look at legislation that might prevent other situations unlike this one in the future?
The only thing that will happen by turning this into another gun control debate is to allow the people who don't want to talk about the obvious racism issue in this country an easy out.
Do you mean in this thread or the public in general? In the scope of this thread I'm comfortable leaving the gun control side out of it if that's the general preference. My point to TheZK's post was that being unable to legislate a single situation away shouldn't proclude any future legislation on gun control because it wouldn't have been effective here. I obviously don't want it to distract from the other causes.
If you acknowledge that gun control legislation couldn't have stopped this particular situation, but still want to use it to push for gun control anyway, you're literally falling into that "you're just exploiting a tragedy" trap that people who neither want to face this country's racist issues or gun issues want you to fall for. The gun control debate is an important one, but taking the general discussion of this heinous event away from the obvious racist motivations doesn't help.
Other people in this thread are talking about how everyone in his community more or less brushed off the warning signs, yet we've also seen arguments for expanded mental health care, as it's a possible contributing factor. Is that exploitative of the tragedy? Only discussing retroactive solutions to this specific tragedy seems awfully short sighted. I've said before I don't want any single factor to completely detract from what seems to be the main driving issue behind the event, which was quite obviously racism. We can talk about other causes, and means to prevent future tragedies in general, no?
Since the only way mental health care could have helped prevent this is to make being a giant racist asshole a mental disorder and a PR campaign designed to convince everyone to start turning their racist asshole friends & family in for mental health screenings, no, I don't think it's helpful in this situation. This attack is a result of the pervasive racism issue in this country. Trying to make it about gun control and mental health is confusing the issue and allowing the people who least want to discuss racism an easy way to deflect the conversation.
So essentially yes, you only want to discuss what would have solved this situation.
EDIT: Calming my post down a little bit, I am coming across too hostile, I apologize.
I think you may be misunderstanding why I feel this way. Of course we need a serious discussion of mental health in this country. And of course we need a serious discussion of gun control. Those are both huge issues that deserve our attention. But in this situation (given what we currently know about it), neither of those topics seem to be all that helpful in understanding why and how this happened. The why and how of this particular tragedy is pretty clearly racism. So that's where the conversation needs to focus. By turning this into another gun control debate, you're giving the people who want to continue to ignore the real issue an easy way out. Nothing is going to end a discussion of the racial problems this country has faster than "you libby libs will exploit any tragedy to try to steal all our guns". I'd just like to see atleast the start of a meaningful discussion in the wake of another abhorrent "isolated incident". And the only way that's going to happen is if the discussion stays focused on the obvious cause.
Why did this happen: Racism
How did this happen: With a gun
One of these things we can solve with social activism and the other requires involvement from a governing body that couldn't give less of a shit. One of these things can be reduced enough to not be an issue in many communities while the other will be replaced by something worse.
I'm pro-gun control but even I realize the laws can only go so far. If we can't figure out a way to solve the endemic problems infesting American Culture then no amount of gun control will do anything. Gangs, serial killers and other criminals will do what they have always done and grab it illegally. As we've seen it ain't that hard to smuggle illegal shit over the border.
Well I'm sure if it was harder to get a gun in america perhaps this racist wouldn't have been able to commit the crime he's accused of...
You mean we need to find a way to make it more difficult for a father to give his son a gift?
No we need to find a way to make it more difficult for that gift to be a gun.
I don't think it's unreasonable for police to pay visits to registered gun owners to ensure they are the ones that possess the weapon, haven't made illegal modifications, and load it with legal ammunition.
You're a minority in thinking that isn't unreasonable. What you're proposing is treating all gun owners as though they are on probation.
This feels like another "Gun exceptionalism" thing. Commercial businesses are often inspected by regulators to ensure they are complying with various laws and regulations. I have to go out of my way to have my vehicle inspected once a year to ensure it is complying with various laws and regulations. Child Protective Services (and accompanying police officer) can conduct a visit of my home and interview my children without me at any time.
All of those are good things and very accepted in American society. But if you were to do the same thing with guns, suddenly we're treating people like they are on probation. Because guns are exceptional, or something.
I would be all for some kind of regularly scheduled thing to make sure that all the firearms registered to someone are still in their possession and are still in legal condition, and that if they were given to someone else there is a proper paper trail of it.
What was suggested was something that implied police could show up to people's homes and search it to make sure that everything is still above-board, simply because they owned a weapon.
I mean, no that wasn't really suggested. It was certainly open for you to read that into it though!
In SC, it's illegal to possess a gun while awaiting trial on a felony charge. That didn't seem to stop his father from illegally giving him a gun.
I'd like to know what sort of gun law would stop a father, who presumably isn't otherwise a criminal, from illegally giving a gun to his son, who is already prohibited from possessing it.
It's also illegal in SC to carry a gun into a church, even with a valid permit, without special permission. So that's yet another mass shooting in a gun-free zone. So..... :?
A given law failing to prevent this incident is not reason to fail to enact any meaningful gun control legislation.
I think the point is that in this specific situation, no amount of meaningful gun control legislation wouldn't made a difference short of an all out ban on all firearms and a subsequent forced collection program followed by their destruction.
This was a man who received a handgun from his father. It's not possible to legislate that away.
Okay? Can we still look at legislation that might prevent other situations unlike this one in the future?
The only thing that will happen by turning this into another gun control debate is to allow the people who don't want to talk about the obvious racism issue in this country an easy out.
Do you mean in this thread or the public in general? In the scope of this thread I'm comfortable leaving the gun control side out of it if that's the general preference. My point to TheZK's post was that being unable to legislate a single situation away shouldn't proclude any future legislation on gun control because it wouldn't have been effective here. I obviously don't want it to distract from the other causes.
If you acknowledge that gun control legislation couldn't have stopped this particular situation, but still want to use it to push for gun control anyway, you're literally falling into that "you're just exploiting a tragedy" trap that people who neither want to face this country's racist issues or gun issues want you to fall for. The gun control debate is an important one, but taking the general discussion of this heinous event away from the obvious racist motivations doesn't help.
Other people in this thread are talking about how everyone in his community more or less brushed off the warning signs, yet we've also seen arguments for expanded mental health care, as it's a possible contributing factor. Is that exploitative of the tragedy? Only discussing retroactive solutions to this specific tragedy seems awfully short sighted. I've said before I don't want any single factor to completely detract from what seems to be the main driving issue behind the event, which was quite obviously racism. We can talk about other causes, and means to prevent future tragedies in general, no?
Since the only way mental health care could have helped prevent this is to make being a giant racist asshole a mental disorder and a PR campaign designed to convince everyone to start turning their racist asshole friends & family in for mental health screenings, no, I don't think it's helpful in this situation. This attack is a result of the pervasive racism issue in this country. Trying to make it about gun control and mental health is confusing the issue and allowing the people who least want to discuss racism an easy way to deflect the conversation.
So essentially yes, you only want to discuss what would have solved this situation.
EDIT: Calming my post down a little bit, I am coming across too hostile, I apologize.
I think you may be misunderstanding why I feel this way. Of course we need a serious discussion of mental health in this country. And of course we need a serious discussion of gun control. Those are both huge issues that deserve our attention. But in this situation (given what we currently know about it), neither of those topics seem to be all that helpful in understanding why and how this happened. The why and how of this particular tragedy is pretty clearly racism. So that's where the conversation needs to focus. By turning this into another gun control debate, you're giving the people who want to continue to ignore the real issue an easy way out. Nothing is going to end a discussion of the racial problems this country has faster than "you libby libs will exploit any tragedy to try to steal all our guns". I'd just like to see atleast the start of a meaningful discussion in the wake of another abhorrent "isolated incident". And the only way that's going to happen is if the discussion stays focused on the obvious cause.
Why did this happen: Racism
How did this happen: With a gun
One of these things we can solve with social activism and the other requires involvement from a governing body that couldn't give less of a shit. One of these things can be reduced enough to not be an issue in many communities while the other will be replaced by something worse.
I'm pro-gun control but even I realize the laws can only go so far. If we can't figure out a way to solve the endemic problems infesting American Culture then no amount of gun control will do anything. Gangs, serial killers and other criminals will do what they have always done and grab it illegally. As we've seen it ain't that hard to smuggle illegal shit over the border.
Mexico, Uruguay, Panama, Brazil, South Africa, Colombia, Swaziland, Guatemala, El Salvador, Jamaica, Venezuela and Honduras.
So? What I'm arguing is that you can't use this specific situation to try to advocate for more gun control laws because it doesn't apply. Like I said I'm pro gun control but more gun control doesn't solve every problem. When you try to use unrelated situations to argue your point all you're doing is giving ammo to conservatives. Trust me when a situation arises where more gun control would've actively prevented the situation then I'll be right behind you.
Edit: Since you seem to be supporting total banning of guns then how do you plan for us to get that through Congress in my life lifetime or my grandkids lifetime? I also want to know how we're going to combat the Mexican cartels who will likely take a national Gun Prohibition to profit like they do with drugs now.
Yes just like Sandy Hook we can drill down that no actual law on the books can prevent this specific action and thus no amount of gun control is ever needed. In fact because church's are gun free zones in south carolina totally we should change that and have them be gun mandatory zones.
And that's what is going to happen because FREEEEEEEEDOMM!!!
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Yes just like Sandy Hook we can drill down that no actual law on the books can prevent this specific action and thus no amount of gun control is ever needed. In fact because church's are gun free zones in south carolina totally we should change that and have them be gun mandatory zones.
And that's what is going to happen because FREEEEEEEEDOMM!!!
Are you pointing that at the media or me? Because the dad was already breaking two laws as is and I really would love to see how more gun control laws would've prevented this.
In SC, it's illegal to possess a gun while awaiting trial on a felony charge. That didn't seem to stop his father from illegally giving him a gun.
I'd like to know what sort of gun law would stop a father, who presumably isn't otherwise a criminal, from illegally giving a gun to his son, who is already prohibited from possessing it.
It's also illegal in SC to carry a gun into a church, even with a valid permit, without special permission. So that's yet another mass shooting in a gun-free zone. So..... :?
A given law failing to prevent this incident is not reason to fail to enact any meaningful gun control legislation.
I think the point is that in this specific situation, no amount of meaningful gun control legislation wouldn't made a difference short of an all out ban on all firearms and a subsequent forced collection program followed by their destruction.
This was a man who received a handgun from his father. It's not possible to legislate that away.
Okay? Can we still look at legislation that might prevent other situations unlike this one in the future?
The only thing that will happen by turning this into another gun control debate is to allow the people who don't want to talk about the obvious racism issue in this country an easy out.
Do you mean in this thread or the public in general? In the scope of this thread I'm comfortable leaving the gun control side out of it if that's the general preference. My point to TheZK's post was that being unable to legislate a single situation away shouldn't proclude any future legislation on gun control because it wouldn't have been effective here. I obviously don't want it to distract from the other causes.
If you acknowledge that gun control legislation couldn't have stopped this particular situation, but still want to use it to push for gun control anyway, you're literally falling into that "you're just exploiting a tragedy" trap that people who neither want to face this country's racist issues or gun issues want you to fall for. The gun control debate is an important one, but taking the general discussion of this heinous event away from the obvious racist motivations doesn't help.
Other people in this thread are talking about how everyone in his community more or less brushed off the warning signs, yet we've also seen arguments for expanded mental health care, as it's a possible contributing factor. Is that exploitative of the tragedy? Only discussing retroactive solutions to this specific tragedy seems awfully short sighted. I've said before I don't want any single factor to completely detract from what seems to be the main driving issue behind the event, which was quite obviously racism. We can talk about other causes, and means to prevent future tragedies in general, no?
Since the only way mental health care could have helped prevent this is to make being a giant racist asshole a mental disorder and a PR campaign designed to convince everyone to start turning their racist asshole friends & family in for mental health screenings, no, I don't think it's helpful in this situation. This attack is a result of the pervasive racism issue in this country. Trying to make it about gun control and mental health is confusing the issue and allowing the people who least want to discuss racism an easy way to deflect the conversation.
So essentially yes, you only want to discuss what would have solved this situation.
EDIT: Calming my post down a little bit, I am coming across too hostile, I apologize.
I think you may be misunderstanding why I feel this way. Of course we need a serious discussion of mental health in this country. And of course we need a serious discussion of gun control. Those are both huge issues that deserve our attention. But in this situation (given what we currently know about it), neither of those topics seem to be all that helpful in understanding why and how this happened. The why and how of this particular tragedy is pretty clearly racism. So that's where the conversation needs to focus. By turning this into another gun control debate, you're giving the people who want to continue to ignore the real issue an easy way out. Nothing is going to end a discussion of the racial problems this country has faster than "you libby libs will exploit any tragedy to try to steal all our guns". I'd just like to see atleast the start of a meaningful discussion in the wake of another abhorrent "isolated incident". And the only way that's going to happen is if the discussion stays focused on the obvious cause.
Why did this happen: Racism
How did this happen: With a gun
One of these things we can solve with social activism and the other requires involvement from a governing body that couldn't give less of a shit. One of these things can be reduced enough to not be an issue in many communities while the other will be replaced by something worse.
I'm pro-gun control but even I realize the laws can only go so far. If we can't figure out a way to solve the endemic problems infesting American Culture then no amount of gun control will do anything. Gangs, serial killers and other criminals will do what they have always done and grab it illegally. As we've seen it ain't that hard to smuggle illegal shit over the border.
Mexico, Uruguay, Panama, Brazil, South Africa, Colombia, Swaziland, Guatemala, El Salvador, Jamaica, Venezuela and Honduras.
So? What I'm arguing is that you can't use this specific situation to try to advocate for more gun control laws because it doesn't apply. Like I said I'm pro gun control but more gun control doesn't solve every problem. When you try to use unrelated situations to argue your point all you're doing is giving ammo to conservatives. Trust me when a situation arises where more gun control would've actively prevented the situation then I'll be right behind you.
Edit: Since you seem to be supporting total banning of guns then how do you plan for us to get that through Congress in my life lifetime or my grandkids lifetime? I also want to know how we're going to combat the Mexican cartels who will likely take a national Gun Prohibition to profit like they do with drugs now.
Where did I say that I supported the total banning of guns?
Are there any indications that this guy actually has a mental illness, by the way?
His words and actions show he was a racist murderous person. I don't know what facts have been revealed that support him having a mental illness.
Several of us consider killing nine people on its own to not be the actions of a mentally healthy person.
Which is not to say racism didn't also play a huge part or that he wasn't aware of what he was doing. This has actually been talked about in some detail in the last few pages.
I too do not believe that racism is a healthy mindset for anyone. That's not the same as having a mental illness. I was asking if there were any further facts that support him having a mental illness of some type, doesn't seem like there are.
There's the nine he killed. Seems like maybe he might also have issues with violence.
I'm not sure you need to be mentally ill to kill people your culture is dehumanizing and telling you are violent threats taking over your society.
Which is part of the problem with embracing the idea that because he murdered 9 innocent people that he must be mentally ill. From what he'd been taught, they weren't 9 innocent people, they were a members of a collective of raping monsters overrunning the country.
One of these things we can solve with social activism and the other requires involvement from a governing body that couldn't give less of a shit. One of these things can be reduced enough to not be an issue in many communities while the other will be replaced by something worse.
I'm pro-gun control but even I realize the laws can only go so far. If we can't figure out a way to solve the endemic problems infesting American Culture then no amount of gun control will do anything. Gangs, serial killers and other criminals will do what they have always done and grab it illegally. As we've seen it ain't that hard to smuggle illegal shit over the border.
Laws do only go so far, that doesn't mean they're not useful in preventing harm to the populace. Criminals will have easier access to anything illegal, but we still have laws that make it harder for them to get dangerous items and are prosecuted harsher for doing it. Laws are also good at preventing them from getting their hands on deadlier materials like uranium and rocket launchers, that's why they get guns - it's the path of least resistance. When that is more difficult for them to get then they'll have to figure out something else that's simpler to get. Despite the limitations on what we have right now, it's amazingly simple for any criminal or gang to get access to weaponry they shouldn't have with the laughable restrictions or lack thereof at gun shows (they also have straw purchasers) and how anyone can sell a gun without a paper trail or government supervision of the process. With the border Mexico's problems come from America smuggling guns to them, not vice versa.
Then there's the criminals who aren't career criminals who don't have the connections and are acting on impulse and wouldn't be so dangerous if they had to cool down before getting a gun legally or not being able to get a gun since they don't know how.
No law is perfect, but what we have for "gun control" in America is a fig leaf compared to every other western country on the subject.
The issue of course is that racism picked his target, the gun let him do it. Sure there is the "swimming pools, cars, seatbelts, asteroids Kill *blank* amount of people" argument, but without a pistol I doubt this brain surgeon kills anyone aside from himself making a bomb.
I'm not so sure. Tons of people make bombs without access to advanced manufacturing and use them to slaughter people. DIY bombs are far easier to make than guns and can possess far more destructive power.
The issue of course is that racism picked his target, the gun let him do it. Sure there is the "swimming pools, cars, seatbelts, asteroids Kill *blank* amount of people" argument, but without a pistol I doubt this brain surgeon kills anyone aside from himself making a bomb.
You think? Tons of people make bombs without access to advanced manufacturing and use them to slaughter people. DIY bombs are far easier to make than guns and can possess far more destructive power.
In SC, it's illegal to possess a gun while awaiting trial on a felony charge. That didn't seem to stop his father from illegally giving him a gun.
I'd like to know what sort of gun law would stop a father, who presumably isn't otherwise a criminal, from illegally giving a gun to his son, who is already prohibited from possessing it.
It's also illegal in SC to carry a gun into a church, even with a valid permit, without special permission. So that's yet another mass shooting in a gun-free zone. So..... :?
A given law failing to prevent this incident is not reason to fail to enact any meaningful gun control legislation.
I think the point is that in this specific situation, no amount of meaningful gun control legislation wouldn't made a difference short of an all out ban on all firearms and a subsequent forced collection program followed by their destruction.
This was a man who received a handgun from his father. It's not possible to legislate that away.
Okay? Can we still look at legislation that might prevent other situations unlike this one in the future?
The only thing that will happen by turning this into another gun control debate is to allow the people who don't want to talk about the obvious racism issue in this country an easy out.
Do you mean in this thread or the public in general? In the scope of this thread I'm comfortable leaving the gun control side out of it if that's the general preference. My point to TheZK's post was that being unable to legislate a single situation away shouldn't proclude any future legislation on gun control because it wouldn't have been effective here. I obviously don't want it to distract from the other causes.
If you acknowledge that gun control legislation couldn't have stopped this particular situation, but still want to use it to push for gun control anyway, you're literally falling into that "you're just exploiting a tragedy" trap that people who neither want to face this country's racist issues or gun issues want you to fall for. The gun control debate is an important one, but taking the general discussion of this heinous event away from the obvious racist motivations doesn't help.
Other people in this thread are talking about how everyone in his community more or less brushed off the warning signs, yet we've also seen arguments for expanded mental health care, as it's a possible contributing factor. Is that exploitative of the tragedy? Only discussing retroactive solutions to this specific tragedy seems awfully short sighted. I've said before I don't want any single factor to completely detract from what seems to be the main driving issue behind the event, which was quite obviously racism. We can talk about other causes, and means to prevent future tragedies in general, no?
Since the only way mental health care could have helped prevent this is to make being a giant racist asshole a mental disorder and a PR campaign designed to convince everyone to start turning their racist asshole friends & family in for mental health screenings, no, I don't think it's helpful in this situation. This attack is a result of the pervasive racism issue in this country. Trying to make it about gun control and mental health is confusing the issue and allowing the people who least want to discuss racism an easy way to deflect the conversation.
So essentially yes, you only want to discuss what would have solved this situation.
EDIT: Calming my post down a little bit, I am coming across too hostile, I apologize.
I think you may be misunderstanding why I feel this way. Of course we need a serious discussion of mental health in this country. And of course we need a serious discussion of gun control. Those are both huge issues that deserve our attention. But in this situation (given what we currently know about it), neither of those topics seem to be all that helpful in understanding why and how this happened. The why and how of this particular tragedy is pretty clearly racism. So that's where the conversation needs to focus. By turning this into another gun control debate, you're giving the people who want to continue to ignore the real issue an easy way out. Nothing is going to end a discussion of the racial problems this country has faster than "you libby libs will exploit any tragedy to try to steal all our guns". I'd just like to see atleast the start of a meaningful discussion in the wake of another abhorrent "isolated incident". And the only way that's going to happen is if the discussion stays focused on the obvious cause.
Why did this happen: Racism
How did this happen: With a gun
One of these things we can solve with social activism and the other requires involvement from a governing body that couldn't give less of a shit. One of these things can be reduced enough to not be an issue in many communities while the other will be replaced by something worse.
I'm pro-gun control but even I realize the laws can only go so far. If we can't figure out a way to solve the endemic problems infesting American Culture then no amount of gun control will do anything. Gangs, serial killers and other criminals will do what they have always done and grab it illegally. As we've seen it ain't that hard to smuggle illegal shit over the border.
Mexico, Uruguay, Panama, Brazil, South Africa, Colombia, Swaziland, Guatemala, El Salvador, Jamaica, Venezuela and Honduras.
So? What I'm arguing is that you can't use this specific situation to try to advocate for more gun control laws because it doesn't apply. Like I said I'm pro gun control but more gun control doesn't solve every problem. When you try to use unrelated situations to argue your point all you're doing is giving ammo to conservatives. Trust me when a situation arises where more gun control would've actively prevented the situation then I'll be right behind you.
Edit: Since you seem to be supporting total banning of guns then how do you plan for us to get that through Congress in my life lifetime or my grandkids lifetime? I also want to know how we're going to combat the Mexican cartels who will likely take a national Gun Prohibition to profit like they do with drugs now.
Where did I say that I supported the total banning of guns?
Well that's what I inferred from your posts though I am willing to admit I'm wrong. The thing is you've been arguing that we need to be doing something about gun control without putting any type of suggestion to build a debate off of. I'm grasping at straws at the moment for what you point you're trying to get across.
Bombs arn't seen by some in the US as a cornerstone of their culture.
Existing laws need to be enforced, and that includes indicting the father. But ultimately the issue with guns in America is a cultural issue that the American Gun Culture has no interest in addressing.
Laws do only go so far, that doesn't mean they're not useful in preventing harm to the populace. Criminals will have easier access to anything illegal, but we still have laws that make it harder for them to get dangerous items and are prosecuted harsher for doing it. Laws are also good at preventing them from getting their hands on deadlier materials like uranium and rocket launchers, that's why they get guns - it's the path of least resistance. When that is more difficult for them to get then they'll have to figure out something else that's simpler to get. Despite the limitations on what we have right now, it's amazingly simple for any criminal or gang to get access to weaponry they shouldn't have with the laughable restrictions or lack thereof at gun shows (they also have straw purchasers) and how anyone can sell a gun without a paper trail or government supervision of the process. With the border Mexico's problems come from America smuggling guns to them, not vice versa.
Then there's the criminals who aren't career criminals who don't have the connections and are acting on impulse and wouldn't be so dangerous if they had to cool down before getting a gun legally or not being able to get a gun since they don't know how.
No law is perfect, but what we have for "gun control" in America is a fig leaf compared to every other western country on the subject.
By the way if you noticed this post acting weird it was because I was dicking around in an attempt to quote Harry without making a huge comment chain. Sorry about that.
Again I am not advocating a free-for-all where anyone can grab a gun. I just want to figure out how any type of new gun law would've prevented the situation at hand? If we're talking about a general gun control situation then hell yeah I am in total support of closing each and every loophole currently built into the system.
And we already have laws against murder so clearly no new laws regarding that should ever be put on the books.
Yeah you've lost me. Elaborate please?
You're using the concept of "no specific gun law would have prevented this crime therefore we shouldn't put any more on the books." And you could use that same ridiculous concept with regards to murder/assault/literally any crime because one law does not prevent that crime from happening we should never expand those laws or increase protections because sometimes someone really wants to kill someone else.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
And we already have laws against murder so clearly no new laws regarding that should ever be put on the books.
Yeah you've lost me. Elaborate please?
You're using the concept of "no specific gun law would have prevented this crime therefore we shouldn't put any more on the books." And you could use that same ridiculous concept with regards to murder/assault/literally any crime because one law does not prevent that crime from happening we should never expand those laws or increase protections because sometimes someone really wants to kill someone else.
I don't think that's the exact argument being made.
In fact I'd say the argument being made is that no more would have prevented it rather than none at all.
And we already have laws against murder so clearly no new laws regarding that should ever be put on the books.
Obviously the answer is to just make murder more illegal.
Think about this - what if a gun used in a crime was an automatic 20 year sentence?
edit: Gun control isn't just about punishing criminals, its preventing criminals getting guns as easily as they do now and prevent and make it harder for non-career criminals.
And we already have laws against murder so clearly no new laws regarding that should ever be put on the books.
Obviously the answer is to just make murder more illegal.
Think about this - what if a gun used in a crime was an automatic 20 year sentence?
edit: Gun control isn't just about punishing criminals, its preventing criminals getting guns as easily as they do now and prevent and make it harder for non-career criminals.
Welcome to Florida.
Edit: To elaborate, here in Florida it is an automatic 10 for use of a firearm in the commission of a crime, 20 if you discharge it, 25 to life if you actually hit someone with it.
And we already have laws against murder so clearly no new laws regarding that should ever be put on the books.
Obviously the answer is to just make murder more illegal.
Think about this - what if a gun used in a crime was an automatic 20 year sentence?
edit: Gun control isn't just about punishing criminals, its preventing criminals getting guns as easily as they do now and prevent and make it harder for non-career criminals.
Then are prison problem would skyrocket to levels that make the current situation nostalgia worthy. I mean have you seen our incarceration rates for drugs? How would an automatic sentencing solve anything?
And we already have laws against murder so clearly no new laws regarding that should ever be put on the books.
Yeah you've lost me. Elaborate please?
You're using the concept of "no specific gun law would have prevented this crime therefore we shouldn't put any more on the books." And you could use that same ridiculous concept with regards to murder/assault/literally any crime because one law does not prevent that crime from happening we should never expand those laws or increase protections because sometimes someone really wants to kill someone else.
I don't think that's the exact argument being made.
In fact I'd say the argument being made is that no more would have prevented it rather than none at all.
If that's not the argument they are making it sure as hell looks like it is. "The dad broke the law to get him a gun, therefore this isn't a gun control situation" Except of course 9 dead people to gun violence.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
In SC, it's illegal to possess a gun while awaiting trial on a felony charge. That didn't seem to stop his father from illegally giving him a gun.
I'd like to know what sort of gun law would stop a father, who presumably isn't otherwise a criminal, from illegally giving a gun to his son, who is already prohibited from possessing it.
It's also illegal in SC to carry a gun into a church, even with a valid permit, without special permission. So that's yet another mass shooting in a gun-free zone. So..... :?
A given law failing to prevent this incident is not reason to fail to enact any meaningful gun control legislation.
I think the point is that in this specific situation, no amount of meaningful gun control legislation wouldn't made a difference short of an all out ban on all firearms and a subsequent forced collection program followed by their destruction.
This was a man who received a handgun from his father. It's not possible to legislate that away.
Okay? Can we still look at legislation that might prevent other situations unlike this one in the future?
The only thing that will happen by turning this into another gun control debate is to allow the people who don't want to talk about the obvious racism issue in this country an easy out.
Do you mean in this thread or the public in general? In the scope of this thread I'm comfortable leaving the gun control side out of it if that's the general preference. My point to TheZK's post was that being unable to legislate a single situation away shouldn't proclude any future legislation on gun control because it wouldn't have been effective here. I obviously don't want it to distract from the other causes.
If you acknowledge that gun control legislation couldn't have stopped this particular situation, but still want to use it to push for gun control anyway, you're literally falling into that "you're just exploiting a tragedy" trap that people who neither want to face this country's racist issues or gun issues want you to fall for. The gun control debate is an important one, but taking the general discussion of this heinous event away from the obvious racist motivations doesn't help.
Other people in this thread are talking about how everyone in his community more or less brushed off the warning signs, yet we've also seen arguments for expanded mental health care, as it's a possible contributing factor. Is that exploitative of the tragedy? Only discussing retroactive solutions to this specific tragedy seems awfully short sighted. I've said before I don't want any single factor to completely detract from what seems to be the main driving issue behind the event, which was quite obviously racism. We can talk about other causes, and means to prevent future tragedies in general, no?
Since the only way mental health care could have helped prevent this is to make being a giant racist asshole a mental disorder and a PR campaign designed to convince everyone to start turning their racist asshole friends & family in for mental health screenings, no, I don't think it's helpful in this situation. This attack is a result of the pervasive racism issue in this country. Trying to make it about gun control and mental health is confusing the issue and allowing the people who least want to discuss racism an easy way to deflect the conversation.
So essentially yes, you only want to discuss what would have solved this situation.
EDIT: Calming my post down a little bit, I am coming across too hostile, I apologize.
I think you may be misunderstanding why I feel this way. Of course we need a serious discussion of mental health in this country. And of course we need a serious discussion of gun control. Those are both huge issues that deserve our attention. But in this situation (given what we currently know about it), neither of those topics seem to be all that helpful in understanding why and how this happened. The why and how of this particular tragedy is pretty clearly racism. So that's where the conversation needs to focus. By turning this into another gun control debate, you're giving the people who want to continue to ignore the real issue an easy way out. Nothing is going to end a discussion of the racial problems this country has faster than "you libby libs will exploit any tragedy to try to steal all our guns". I'd just like to see atleast the start of a meaningful discussion in the wake of another abhorrent "isolated incident". And the only way that's going to happen is if the discussion stays focused on the obvious cause.
Why did this happen: Racism
How did this happen: With a gun
One of these things we can solve with social activism and the other requires involvement from a governing body that couldn't give less of a shit. One of these things can be reduced enough to not be an issue in many communities while the other will be replaced by something worse.
I'm pro-gun control but even I realize the laws can only go so far. If we can't figure out a way to solve the endemic problems infesting American Culture then no amount of gun control will do anything. Gangs, serial killers and other criminals will do what they have always done and grab it illegally. As we've seen it ain't that hard to smuggle illegal shit over the border.
Mexico, Uruguay, Panama, Brazil, South Africa, Colombia, Swaziland, Guatemala, El Salvador, Jamaica, Venezuela and Honduras.
So? What I'm arguing is that you can't use this specific situation to try to advocate for more gun control laws because it doesn't apply. Like I said I'm pro gun control but more gun control doesn't solve every problem. When you try to use unrelated situations to argue your point all you're doing is giving ammo to conservatives. Trust me when a situation arises where more gun control would've actively prevented the situation then I'll be right behind you.
Edit: Since you seem to be supporting total banning of guns then how do you plan for us to get that through Congress in my life lifetime or my grandkids lifetime? I also want to know how we're going to combat the Mexican cartels who will likely take a national Gun Prohibition to profit like they do with drugs now.
Where did I say that I supported the total banning of guns?
Well that's what I inferred from your posts though I am willing to admit I'm wrong. The thing is you've been arguing that we need to be doing something about gun control without putting any type of suggestion to build a debate off of. I'm grasping at straws at the moment for what you point you're trying to get across.
To obtain a firearm certificate, the police must be satisfied that a person has "good reason" to own each firearm, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace". Under Home Office guidelines, firearms certificates are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting, collecting, or work-related reasons for ownership. Since 1968, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a firearm.[42] The current licensing procedure involves: positive verification of identity, two referees of verifiable good character who have known the applicant for at least two years (and who may themselves be interviewed and/or investigated as part of the certification), approval of the application by the applicant's own family doctor, an inspection of the premises and cabinet where firearms will be kept and a face-to-face interview by a Firearms Enquiry Officer (FEO) also known as a Firearms Liaison Officer (FLO). A thorough background check of the applicant is then made by Special Branch on behalf of the firearms licensing department. Only when all these stages have been satisfactorily completed will a licence be issued, which must be renewed every 5 years.
And we already have laws against murder so clearly no new laws regarding that should ever be put on the books.
Yeah you've lost me. Elaborate please?
You're using the concept of "no specific gun law would have prevented this crime therefore we shouldn't put any more on the books." And you could use that same ridiculous concept with regards to murder/assault/literally any crime because one law does not prevent that crime from happening we should never expand those laws or increase protections because sometimes someone really wants to kill someone else.
Um no. Look if we're talking about the national situation and not the SC killing can someone please just tell me?
And we already have laws against murder so clearly no new laws regarding that should ever be put on the books.
Obviously the answer is to just make murder more illegal.
Think about this - what if a gun used in a crime was an automatic 20 year sentence?
Before you go down this road, you should know that the 'law-and-order' faction of the right will love this shit, and pushes for this exact thing in several states. Liberals seem to not like it when armed robbery gets people life sentences, though.
Are there any indications that this guy actually has a mental illness, by the way?
His words and actions show he was a racist murderous person. I don't know what facts have been revealed that support him having a mental illness.
Several of us consider killing nine people on its own to not be the actions of a mentally healthy person.
Which is not to say racism didn't also play a huge part or that he wasn't aware of what he was doing. This has actually been talked about in some detail in the last few pages.
I too do not believe that racism is a healthy mindset for anyone. That's not the same as having a mental illness. I was asking if there were any further facts that support him having a mental illness of some type, doesn't seem like there are.
There's the nine he killed. Seems like maybe he might also have issues with violence.
I'm not sure you need to be mentally ill to kill people your culture is dehumanizing and telling you are violent threats taking over your society.
Which is part of the problem with embracing the idea that because he murdered 9 innocent people that he must be mentally ill. From what he'd been taught, they weren't 9 innocent people, they were a members of a collective of raping monsters overrunning the country.
Literally millions of other people grew up in the same culture and, while racist, have no desire to shoot up churches as far as I know.
The issue of course is that racism picked his target, the gun let him do it. Sure there is the "swimming pools, cars, seatbelts, asteroids Kill *blank* amount of people" argument, but without a pistol I doubt this brain surgeon kills anyone aside from himself making a bomb.
You think? Tons of people make bombs without access to advanced manufacturing and use them to slaughter people. DIY bombs are far easier to make than guns and can possess far more destructive power.
Then why aren't they more common with crime?
They are in some countries, unfortunately. As to why more psychos don't make/use bombs in the US, that's an interesting question, I'm not really sure.
Kaputa on
+1
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
The issue of course is that racism picked his target, the gun let him do it. Sure there is the "swimming pools, cars, seatbelts, asteroids Kill *blank* amount of people" argument, but without a pistol I doubt this brain surgeon kills anyone aside from himself making a bomb.
You think? Tons of people make bombs without access to advanced manufacturing and use them to slaughter people. DIY bombs are far easier to make than guns and can possess far more destructive power.
Then why aren't they more common with crime?
They are in some countries, unfortunately. As to why more psychos don't make/use bombs in the US, that's an interesting question, I'm not really sure.
because it's easier to get a gun and you're not as likely to get picked up by the FBI for buying bomb making components
The issue of course is that racism picked his target, the gun let him do it. Sure there is the "swimming pools, cars, seatbelts, asteroids Kill *blank* amount of people" argument, but without a pistol I doubt this brain surgeon kills anyone aside from himself making a bomb.
You think? Tons of people make bombs without access to advanced manufacturing and use them to slaughter people. DIY bombs are far easier to make than guns and can possess far more destructive power.
Then why aren't they more common with crime?
They are in some countries, unfortunately. As to why more psychos don't make/use bombs in the US, that's an interesting question, I'm not really sure.
because it's easier to get a gun and you're not as likely to get picked up by the FBI for buying bomb making components
That's a bingo! Unless of course the bomb making components you are using is simple gun powder because haha gun control in merica? NEVER!
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Laws do only go so far, that doesn't mean they're not useful in preventing harm to the populace. Criminals will have easier access to anything illegal, but we still have laws that make it harder for them to get dangerous items and are prosecuted harsher for doing it. Laws are also good at preventing them from getting their hands on deadlier materials like uranium and rocket launchers, that's why they get guns - it's the path of least resistance. When that is more difficult for them to get then they'll have to figure out something else that's simpler to get. Despite the limitations on what we have right now, it's amazingly simple for any criminal or gang to get access to weaponry they shouldn't have with the laughable restrictions or lack thereof at gun shows (they also have straw purchasers) and how anyone can sell a gun without a paper trail or government supervision of the process. With the border Mexico's problems come from America smuggling guns to them, not vice versa.
Then there's the criminals who aren't career criminals who don't have the connections and are acting on impulse and wouldn't be so dangerous if they had to cool down before getting a gun legally or not being able to get a gun since they don't know how.
No law is perfect, but what we have for "gun control" in America is a fig leaf compared to every other western country on the subject.
By the way if you noticed this post acting weird it was because I was dicking around in an attempt to quote Harry without making a huge comment chain. Sorry about that.
Again I am not advocating a free-for-all where anyone can grab a gun. I just want to figure out how any type of new gun law would've prevented the situation at hand? If we're talking about a general gun control situation then hell yeah I am in total support of closing each and every loophole currently built into the system.
IIRC making it harder for the dad to buy the gun with Dylann living in the same house since he had convictions and making it illegal for him to sell it as a gift. If the dad was law abiding the latter takes the gun out of his reach.
And we already have laws against murder so clearly no new laws regarding that should ever be put on the books.
Obviously the answer is to just make murder more illegal.
Think about this - what if a gun used in a crime was an automatic 20 year sentence?
edit: Gun control isn't just about punishing criminals, its preventing criminals getting guns as easily as they do now and prevent and make it harder for non-career criminals.
Then are prison problem would skyrocket to levels that make the current situation nostalgia worthy. I mean have you seen our incarceration rates for drugs? How would an automatic sentencing solve anything?
That's a separate subject altogether. Gun control laws wouldn't solve that, it doesn't mean it can't solve some problems.
Laws do only go so far, that doesn't mean they're not useful in preventing harm to the populace. Criminals will have easier access to anything illegal, but we still have laws that make it harder for them to get dangerous items and are prosecuted harsher for doing it. Laws are also good at preventing them from getting their hands on deadlier materials like uranium and rocket launchers, that's why they get guns - it's the path of least resistance. When that is more difficult for them to get then they'll have to figure out something else that's simpler to get. Despite the limitations on what we have right now, it's amazingly simple for any criminal or gang to get access to weaponry they shouldn't have with the laughable restrictions or lack thereof at gun shows (they also have straw purchasers) and how anyone can sell a gun without a paper trail or government supervision of the process. With the border Mexico's problems come from America smuggling guns to them, not vice versa.
Then there's the criminals who aren't career criminals who don't have the connections and are acting on impulse and wouldn't be so dangerous if they had to cool down before getting a gun legally or not being able to get a gun since they don't know how.
No law is perfect, but what we have for "gun control" in America is a fig leaf compared to every other western country on the subject.
By the way if you noticed this post acting weird it was because I was dicking around in an attempt to quote Harry without making a huge comment chain. Sorry about that.
Again I am not advocating a free-for-all where anyone can grab a gun. I just want to figure out how any type of new gun law would've prevented the situation at hand? If we're talking about a general gun control situation then hell yeah I am in total support of closing each and every loophole currently built into the system.
IIRC making it harder for the dad to buy the gun with Dylann living in the same house since he had convictions and making it illegal for him to sell it as a gift. If the dad was law abiding the latter takes the gun out of his reach.
Yes just like Sandy Hook we can drill down that no actual law on the books can prevent this specific action and thus no amount of gun control is ever needed. In fact because church's are gun free zones in south carolina totally we should change that and have them be gun mandatory zones.
And that's what is going to happen because FREEEEEEEEDOMM!!!
An academic friend of mine posted something about this whole situation on Facebook, and a conservative acquaintance of his immediately trolled him by calling out gun free zones as the problem (intentionally to agitate the OP).
Posts
This belongs more in the gun control thread but it is my understanding that CPS needs an accusation to be able to show up to your house. It is not a random monitoring situation like it would be for a gun legislation. This sentiment belongs to extending licensing to and within private property. That is shaky ground even for traffic violations. In the end the less goosey thing to do would be set up a outside secondary site where the gun would have to be inspected. It would violate less personal rights and I think more reasonable gun owners would be supportive of it.
One of these things we can solve with social activism and the other requires involvement from a governing body that couldn't give less of a shit. One of these things can be reduced enough to not be an issue in many communities while the other will be replaced by something worse.
I'm pro-gun control but even I realize the laws can only go so far. If we can't figure out a way to solve the endemic problems infesting American Culture then no amount of gun control will do anything. Gangs, serial killers and other criminals will do what they have always done and grab it illegally. As we've seen it ain't that hard to smuggle illegal shit over the border.
We have no reason to believe that he'd have a target at all if not for racism. And having people sitting around who would totally be willing to commit murder if only they weren't prevented from getting a weapon is still really, really bad.
I think the way the thread has turned does kinda show that the libby libs will exploit any tragedy to try and steal all our guns. When it's admitted no reasonable laws would have prevented this, but it's used it to push for more laws anyways (like warrentless searches and bringing them all to the police station yearly), that's what we're doing.
I know this'll play really well on this forum, but jeez, guys.
The most productive routes I've been able to think of are publicly arguing with racists, refuting the right wing media's portrayal of events, and opposing or attempting to dismantle racist institutions, such as the police and prison systems and the War on Drugs.
Maybe the reason the peripheral issues keep coming up is that we're mostly agreement on racism being bad and on how to oppose it, so there's not much debate to be had unless we turn to things like gun control or mental health.
Okay, I'm not convinced by the "if someone murders people they must be mentally ill" argument, but the bolded is nonsense. I've committed countless crimes and I don't consider myself crazy. The state of mind required to murder nine people at church is very different from the state of mind required to shoplift/share files on the internet/possess or sell controlled substances/speed/trespass/vandalize etc. I can see why someone would see the former and think "that guy/girl must be crazy" and not have the same reaction to the latter, though I'm not sure the reaction to the former is necessarily correct.
How did this happen? We haven't banned the friends and family of a person facing a felony from purchasing a handgun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Look at that list.
The countries that are above us on that list are
Mexico, Uruguay, Panama, Brazil, South Africa, Colombia, Swaziland, Guatemala, El Salvador, Jamaica, Venezuela and Honduras.
I mean, no that wasn't really suggested. It was certainly open for you to read that into it though!
So? What I'm arguing is that you can't use this specific situation to try to advocate for more gun control laws because it doesn't apply. Like I said I'm pro gun control but more gun control doesn't solve every problem. When you try to use unrelated situations to argue your point all you're doing is giving ammo to conservatives. Trust me when a situation arises where more gun control would've actively prevented the situation then I'll be right behind you.
Edit: Since you seem to be supporting total banning of guns then how do you plan for us to get that through Congress in my life lifetime or my grandkids lifetime? I also want to know how we're going to combat the Mexican cartels who will likely take a national Gun Prohibition to profit like they do with drugs now.
And that's what is going to happen because FREEEEEEEEDOMM!!!
pleasepaypreacher.net
Are you pointing that at the media or me? Because the dad was already breaking two laws as is and I really would love to see how more gun control laws would've prevented this.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yeah you've lost me. Elaborate please?
Where did I say that I supported the total banning of guns?
I'm not sure you need to be mentally ill to kill people your culture is dehumanizing and telling you are violent threats taking over your society.
Which is part of the problem with embracing the idea that because he murdered 9 innocent people that he must be mentally ill. From what he'd been taught, they weren't 9 innocent people, they were a members of a collective of raping monsters overrunning the country.
Laws do only go so far, that doesn't mean they're not useful in preventing harm to the populace. Criminals will have easier access to anything illegal, but we still have laws that make it harder for them to get dangerous items and are prosecuted harsher for doing it. Laws are also good at preventing them from getting their hands on deadlier materials like uranium and rocket launchers, that's why they get guns - it's the path of least resistance. When that is more difficult for them to get then they'll have to figure out something else that's simpler to get. Despite the limitations on what we have right now, it's amazingly simple for any criminal or gang to get access to weaponry they shouldn't have with the laughable restrictions or lack thereof at gun shows (they also have straw purchasers) and how anyone can sell a gun without a paper trail or government supervision of the process. With the border Mexico's problems come from America smuggling guns to them, not vice versa.
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/firearms-trafficking-u-s-mexico-border
Then there's the criminals who aren't career criminals who don't have the connections and are acting on impulse and wouldn't be so dangerous if they had to cool down before getting a gun legally or not being able to get a gun since they don't know how.
No law is perfect, but what we have for "gun control" in America is a fig leaf compared to every other western country on the subject.
Then why aren't they more common with crime?
Well that's what I inferred from your posts though I am willing to admit I'm wrong. The thing is you've been arguing that we need to be doing something about gun control without putting any type of suggestion to build a debate off of. I'm grasping at straws at the moment for what you point you're trying to get across.
Existing laws need to be enforced, and that includes indicting the father. But ultimately the issue with guns in America is a cultural issue that the American Gun Culture has no interest in addressing.
Obviously the answer is to just make murder more illegal.
By the way if you noticed this post acting weird it was because I was dicking around in an attempt to quote Harry without making a huge comment chain. Sorry about that.
Again I am not advocating a free-for-all where anyone can grab a gun. I just want to figure out how any type of new gun law would've prevented the situation at hand? If we're talking about a general gun control situation then hell yeah I am in total support of closing each and every loophole currently built into the system.
You're using the concept of "no specific gun law would have prevented this crime therefore we shouldn't put any more on the books." And you could use that same ridiculous concept with regards to murder/assault/literally any crime because one law does not prevent that crime from happening we should never expand those laws or increase protections because sometimes someone really wants to kill someone else.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I don't think that's the exact argument being made.
In fact I'd say the argument being made is that no more would have prevented it rather than none at all.
Think about this - what if a gun used in a crime was an automatic 20 year sentence?
edit: Gun control isn't just about punishing criminals, its preventing criminals getting guns as easily as they do now and prevent and make it harder for non-career criminals.
Welcome to Florida.
Edit: To elaborate, here in Florida it is an automatic 10 for use of a firearm in the commission of a crime, 20 if you discharge it, 25 to life if you actually hit someone with it.
Then are prison problem would skyrocket to levels that make the current situation nostalgia worthy. I mean have you seen our incarceration rates for drugs? How would an automatic sentencing solve anything?
If that's not the argument they are making it sure as hell looks like it is. "The dad broke the law to get him a gun, therefore this isn't a gun control situation" Except of course 9 dead people to gun violence.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I'll just steal something from the British then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Firearm_licensing
Before you go down this road, you should know that the 'law-and-order' faction of the right will love this shit, and pushes for this exact thing in several states. Liberals seem to not like it when armed robbery gets people life sentences, though.
Literally millions of other people grew up in the same culture and, while racist, have no desire to shoot up churches as far as I know.
because it's easier to get a gun and you're not as likely to get picked up by the FBI for buying bomb making components
That's a bingo! Unless of course the bomb making components you are using is simple gun powder because haha gun control in merica? NEVER!
pleasepaypreacher.net
IIRC making it harder for the dad to buy the gun with Dylann living in the same house since he had convictions and making it illegal for him to sell it as a gift. If the dad was law abiding the latter takes the gun out of his reach.
That's a separate subject altogether. Gun control laws wouldn't solve that, it doesn't mean it can't solve some problems.
It is already illegal to do this.
An academic friend of mine posted something about this whole situation on Facebook, and a conservative acquaintance of his immediately trolled him by calling out gun free zones as the problem (intentionally to agitate the OP).
Fuck everything.