• After Las Vegas massacre, Democrats urge gun laws; Republicans silent
    853 replies, posted
[QUOTE]WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sunday’s massacre in Las Vegas spurred a ritual-like response from U.S. politicians following the mass shootings that have left a trail of victims across the country: Democrats renewed demands for tougher gun laws while Republicans offered up prayers but showed no signs of supporting such legislation. One day after the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, which left at least 59 people dead and over 500 injured, House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan, a Republican, said in a statement on Monday: ”The whole country stands united in our shock, in our condolences and in our prayers.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, also a Republican, led his chamber in a moment of silence following the “devastating” massacre and urged “national mourning” and prayer. Democrats were not falling in line. “Thoughts & prayers are NOT enough. Not when more moms & dads will bury kids this week, & more sons & daughters will grow up without parents,” Senator Elizabeth Warren said in a morning tweet. Senator Chris Murphy, whose home state of Connecticut was the scene of a mass shooting in 2012 that killed 20 6-year-olds and six adults, was blunter. “It’s time for Congress to get off its ass and do something,” Murphy said in a statement.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lasvegas-shooting-guncontrol/after-las-vegas-massacre-democrats-urge-gun-laws-republicans-silent-idUSKCN1C72WC?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=59d2dd9104d301416ee5b7f2&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook"]Reuters.[/URL]
I'm curious as to what would be the content/procedure of those stricter background checks.
Longer waiting periods, or some other measures that won't stop someone who seemed like they where prepping for this for a while.
[QUOTE=bdd458;52741826]I'm curious as to what would be the content/procedure of those stricter background checks.[/QUOTE] Besides "oops it got lost in transit wait 30 business days to try again"
Democrats want boilerplate solutions and Republicans don't want any solutions at all. broad, diverse issue requiring extremely nuanced, informed solutions for different potential perpetrators and victims - gun violence is the perfect storm for partisanship and a lot of people dying for no reason.
Ahh, surprised it took them this long to start politicizing that event on official grounds and trying to use it to ramrod shitty knee jerk bills that only inconvenience/restrict law abiding citizens without even so much as denting the actual problem through. I hope the bill fails hard.
I'm all for stricter gun laws, but in this case. The guy was a model citizen was he not? he wasn't known to police and nobody suspected him, I don't think gun laws would have stopped him in this case, seems like maybe a major reform to the mental health network in America is probably needed (maybe in addition to gun laws)
There should be tighter gun controls that are related to mental health issues. Now I know this guy didn't have any mental problems on paper, he was clearly harboring some deep problems that were never properly exposed. I feel like people should be required to have some kind of mental health evaluation before being allowed to purchase. And you should be denied if you have a history of mental health issues like depression, schizophrenia, PTSD, etc. These things aren't toys. They're seriously deadly pieces of equipment that should not be in everyone's hands.
I've always wondered if there should be a limit on the number of guns that a person can own. So far they have found 42 guns this guy had. Why do you need that many? And maybe have a system where the more dangerous guns are kept at a gun range, but I don't know. Guns are a right, but people can be fucking stupid with them. Maybe some sort of test/class owners have to take every year to prove they are competent enough to own their guns.
[QUOTE=Potus;52741916]I've always wondered if there should be a limit on the number of guns that a person can own. So far they have found 42 guns this guy had. Why do you need that many? And maybe have a system where the more dangerous guns are kept at a gun range, but I don't know. Guns are a right, but people can be fucking stupid with them. Maybe some sort of test/class owners have to take every year to prove they are competent enough to own their guns.[/QUOTE] Take everything you just said, then apply it to any other right.
I think whenever people use us as an example, they're forgetting that our healthcare is free and affordable. Mental health is not taboo and you can see a psychiatrist for free using a mental health care plan You don't have that in the US, that needs to be a thing Bottomline as well, I am all for strict gun laws but I think the US is too far into the muck for such a thing to be enforced or even done. Mental health can be done tho
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52741923]Take everything you just said, then apply it to any other right.[/QUOTE] I don't think people should be allowed to have 42 cars.
[QUOTE=Potus;52741916]I've always wondered if there should be a limit on the number of guns that a person can own. So far they have found 42 guns this guy had. Why do you need that many? And maybe have a system where the more dangerous guns are kept at a gun range, but I don't know. Guns are a right, but people can be fucking stupid with them. Maybe some sort of test/class owners have to take every year to prove they are competent enough to own their guns.[/QUOTE] Any legislation limting how many I can own is a non starter. Any legislation saying I cant keep my property ON my property is definitely a non starter.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52741938]I don't think people should be allowed to have 42 cars.[/QUOTE] I agree, that monster Jay Leno must be stopped
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52741938]I don't think people should be allowed to have 42 cars.[/QUOTE] Cars are not a right.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52741938]I don't think people should be allowed to have 42 cars.[/QUOTE] I think everyone should own 42 cars.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52741923]Take everything you just said, then apply it to any other right.[/QUOTE] I mean sure, but I don't think guns should be just like any other right
[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;52741882]I'm all for stricter gun laws, but in this case. The guy was a model citizen was he not? he wasn't known to police and nobody suspected him, I don't think gun laws would have stopped him in this case, seems like maybe a major reform to the mental health network in America is probably needed (maybe in addition to gun laws)[/QUOTE] that's the problem with the way both parties go about the issue - it's a lot more demographically-charged than just a nebulous improvement on mental health, or an all-weapons ban or whatever. there could've been elderly outreach programs, and that might have raised some alarms on this guy. mental healthcare isn't much good if certain shooters can't afford it or don't want it. you can start after-school clubs and scholarships for inner city slums and that might curb [I]local[/I] gang violence. but that's a web of long-term investments across the whole country with no immediately obvious gain, designed by people with a personal stake in and knowledge of the techniques used, at the taxpayer's expense, possibly with an end goal of making guns less commonplace. so fuck that noise.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52741923]Take everything you just said, then apply it to any other right.[/QUOTE] i feel that this line of argument just bottoms out because multiple rights that are enshrined in the constitution already have restrictions, such as the right of assembly and the right of free speech rights aren't simply unregulated, even when they're constitutional the 2nd amendment would actually be an abnormality if it was entirely unrestricted
[QUOTE=evilweazel;52741960]I think everyone should own 42 cars.[/QUOTE] That's an absurd amount of cars. Why do you need all those cars. Do you need to carry each of your 42 guns in every one of them?
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;52741932]I think whenever people use us as an example, they're forgetting that our healthcare is free and affordable. Mental health is not taboo and you can see a psychiatrist for free using a mental health care plan [B]You don't have that in the US, that needs to be a thing[/B] Bottomline as well, I am all for strict gun laws but I think the US is too far into the muck for such a thing to be enforced or even done. Mental health can be done tho[/QUOTE] Boy I wish ! ! !
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52741969]I mean sure, but I don't think guns should be just like any other right[/QUOTE] We have the right to drink booze but last I checked it's pretty fiercely regulated.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52741977]That's an absurd amount of cars. Why do you need all those cars. Do you need to carry each of your 42 guns in every one of them?[/QUOTE] Need vs. want
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52741977]That's an absurd amount of cars. Why do you need all those cars. Do you need to carry each of your 42 guns in every one of them?[/QUOTE] most of the things people own they don't strictly need
Here's a magical idea: stop letting people buy lethal murder weapons designed to be the most efficient lethal murder weapons for like literally no reason other than just for fun.
Also to note, I don't think people propose gun legislation/regulation as a way to say "this will FOR SURE stop EVERY instance of mass shooting that will EVER arise from here on out!" and I think it's silly to assume that anything proposed would do that. Even countries with very stringent gun laws have their incidents. But if certain things can be done to even cut down on that number while not outright depriving people of owning guns if that's a thing they want to do would still be good. I don't think the goal should ever be "let's never have any more gun violence ever again in the history of the country" moreso it should be, "hey, let's curb the number of incidents a little bit".
[QUOTE=Rossy167;52741991]Here's a magical idea: stop letting people buy lethal murder weapons designed to be the most efficient lethal murder weapons for like literally no reason other than just for fun.[/QUOTE] Yeah no, I'll go buy as many as I want and have as much fun as I want because I can.
Honestly it seems this problem will exist for as long as the second amendment exists in it's current fetishistic interpretation, along with the perfect storm of other factors that seem to be caused by problems and attitudes so tightly woven into the fabric of American society that it feels like the entire country needs shaking up. It's broken. Something should have been done, and it should have been done a long time ago. (Apparently) it ain't the guns, because other countries do fine, it ain't the as easy as the mental health, as you see here, and it seems any control but very tight control doesn't do jack.
[QUOTE=Crumpet;52742000]Honestly it seems this problem will exist for as long as the second amendment exists in it's current fetishistic interpretation, and beyond that, the perfect storm of other factors seem to be caused by problems and attitudes so tightly woven into the fabric of American society that it feels like the entire country needs shaking up. It's broken. Something should have been done, and it should have been done a long time ago. It ain't the guns, because other countries do fine, it ain't the as easy as the mental health, as you see here, and it seems any control but very tight control doesn't do jack.[/QUOTE] I think mental health is still an incredibly important aspect of all this. This particular incident was pretty much an anomaly. Most incidents in the past have had some touch of 'this guy was pretty mentally unstable' involved. Paddock in particular was just... weird in that respect. And maybe he did have some issues but it'll be a bit before we know.
[QUOTE=Pascall;52741993]Also to note, I don't think people propose gun legislation/regulation as a way to say "this will FOR SURE stop EVERY instance of mass shooting that will EVER arise from here on out!" and I think it's silly to assume that anything proposed would do that. Even countries with very stringent gun laws have their incidents. But if certain things can be done to even cut down on that number while not outright depriving people of owning guns if that's a thing they want to do would still be good. I don't think the goal should ever be "let's never have any more gun violence ever again in the history of the country" moreso it should be, "hey, let's curb the number of incidents a little bit".[/QUOTE] the problem is that I have yet to see anything to indicate that any of the proposed gun control legislation would actually impact gun crime in any appreciable ways and it isn't like they're just going to repeal the restrictions if it turns out they don't actually do anything
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.