No. He had a history of mental illness including being involuntarily committed by his family. The existing infrastructure for background checks failed allowing him to purchase the gun.Originally Posted by garrett
No. He had a history of mental illness including being involuntarily committed by his family. The existing infrastructure for background checks failed allowing him to purchase the gun.
i can understand how your opinion could be shaped
the stories that go national or worldwide are the ones involving several victims...uses of guns that end without bloodshed or a single victim (most often the bad guy) rarely get reported beyond the town they happen in....visit http://gunssavelives.net/ for a collection of stories telling the positive used of gun to save innocents
also, you asked about about an incident of a licensed carry person stopping a mass shooting? read about Jennie Assam, a former police officer that ended a mass shooting at a church in Arvada, Colorado on one Sunday in 2007...Ms Assam was there because she was a member of the church https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_C...Life_shootings
and you can watch this famous video of 63 year old Samuel Williams stopping an armed robbery with his measly concealed carry .380 acp semi-auto
(young thugs are usually not skilled with handguns--they don't have the money or place to practice whereas a person with a concealed permit is required usually to have some instruction in gun handling and safety, plus he usually has significant time on at the range)
you do a little searching, you will find the stories of guns heading off or minimizing lives lost
one other point...i don't believe statistics about violent crime (with or without guns) are comparable across countries...England, France, Canada, USA as well as other countries all have their own schemes of classifying a crime as violent felony or merely a misdemeanor...so country v country comparisons are not as simple or trustworthy as critics claim.
Last edited by GrenadaRoger; 07-24-2015 at 08:55 PM.
(long before there was a PFA i had my Grenade & Crossbones avatar at DD)
That wasn't the question.No. He had a history of mental illness including being involuntarily committed by his family. The existing infrastructure for background checks failed allowing him to purchase the gun.
"The founding fathers did not like the idea of the tyranny of the majority ruling the country"
Dan Druff
“I don't know what weapons World War III will be fought with, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
Albert Einstein
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today if a gift
and that is why it's called the present"
Eleanor Roosevelt
no, the Chattanooga shooter would not be considered law abiding...he was seeing a psychiatrist for depression and drug addiction....that established, his mere possession of a firearm made him a law breaker under Tennessee lawThat wasn't the question.
Those prohibited or disqualified under state gun law or federal junctures to be in possession of a firearm:
Convicted of a crime punishable by a year or more of prison time.
Is not considered to be an addict of alcohol, drugs, or controlled substances.
Has not been convicted of two or more DUI charges within ten years by any state.
Is not a legal resident of the United States.
Convictions of domestic violence on file.
http://gun.laws.com/state-gun-laws/tennessee-gun-laws
(long before there was a PFA i had my Grenade & Crossbones avatar at DD)
There would be less gun deaths if 20 year old girls put out more.
"You run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole; you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole."
in after guns dont kill people
Slava Ukraini!
In any case, my response was actually wrong anyway. I was referring to the Louisiana shooter not the Tennessee shooter. My bad for not reading your post correctly.
It is a nice argument that you always seem to hear from people outside of the US that live in places like Australia and the UK, that their gun laws are working and we should mimic what they do, yada, yada, yada. I actually agree that in theory they are most likely correct in that over time it would solve a lot of our issues, but to anyone from the US it is basically a moot point.
THE UNITED STATES CITIZENS WILL NEVER GIVE UP THEIR GUNS, OR THE RIGHTS TO OWN THEM!!!! NEVER!!!!! This is why guys like Piers Morgan get run out of here, because in reality to any American it is pretty much a retarded suggestion that we could even attempt to mimic a gun buy back program or strict gun laws like the UK. That ship has sailed, a long, long time ago.
FTR, I support stricter gun laws, back ground checks, etc.. The reality of the situation is though, when it comes to these mass shootings, it is 99.9% of the time a mental health issue, not a gun issue. Try getting to the root of the problem instead of trying to cut off some branches thinking it will solve the issues. It is a systemic mental health problem, period.
Personally I think it is too big of a problem now and will take decades, if not a century to fix. Way too many variables at this point.
That's retarded. But I kid the Jews, :rimshot
I get it, no one is tellin any American what to do. Take cross checking out of the game? Pfffftttttt.
However, if you wear a mouth guard you won't loose as many teeth = endassault rifles.com
"The founding fathers did not like the idea of the tyranny of the majority ruling the country"
Dan Druff
“I don't know what weapons World War III will be fought with, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
Albert Einstein
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today if a gift
and that is why it's called the present"
Eleanor Roosevelt
That's a really ineffective poster imo if you're trying to scare people about shooting sprees. 377 spree deaths in 25 years? I would have thought there were many more than that. Every life is significant, but there's been roughly 1500 struck by lightning deaths in that timeframe. It's basically 1.5 airplane crashes in 25 years. It isn't like I'm walking around worried about getting struck by lightning. In a country of 300 million, that's not a lot. Norway has what, 5million people, and that one guy killed like 20% of our spree death total over the last 25 years in one afternoon?
I'm for increased common sense gun control because of our normal murder rate, but if other countries think we're getting shook about 377 random deaths over 25 years, it isn't happening. We probably have 300 unicycle deaths over the last 25 years. We got a murder problem in our cities, but that random whack job isn't even newsworthy at this point. We're way too desensitized for that shit
FYP
Also, yeah that is the sad reality of the situation. You got people that think guns are going to protect them, in fact in all likelihood it's not going to protect you from anything. You also have paranoid people like 4D that think it'll protect them from a "government takeover" which the reality is there's going to be about 10000x more dead people that own guns than the government that is trying to take them by force. Basically if it really came down to that it would go "knock knock" "who's there" "the government we're here for the guns. No? Ok that's fine" 5 minutes later there's going to be a swat team kicking down your door and your gun ain't going to save you. No "organized" (LOL) militia of the people would ever be able to stop a government in this day in age from taking their weapons.
Regardless, I just find it laughable that people go "yeah gun deaths will decrease but other weapons will increase." The other increase doesn't even come close to comparing the amount of lives saved by there being no guns but just like religion and everyone wanting to think they have some special place they go when they die everyone likes to think that their gun is going to save them which it's just not. It's a silly notion.
It always happens in a "Gun free" zone meaning if you carry a gun there, you go to jail. Of course criminals don't care about "gun free" zones or gun control laws.
The gun lobby has bribed congress so guns are never going away. If you accept that premise, the answer is more guns on well adjusted people to shoot the assholes that think it makes sense to randomly inflict harm with a firearm.
Decriminalizing Marijuana and prostitution would help too, in theory. A community of people getting high and getting laid sounds like a decent place to live from a safety standpoint.
Population in the United States - 318 million, people of all ages
Gun owners in US - 110 million (estimated by NRA): that is people of at least voting age, thus the percentage of voting age people that own guns would be well above 1/3
given that, I believe there is no way guns can be outlawed completely short term--but a long-term program of chewing away may curtail types of guns and places one may carry
(long before there was a PFA i had my Grenade & Crossbones avatar at DD)
People from Europe and Australia simply do not understand the gun/crime issues America faces because they don't live here.
America is unique in that it is a geographically large, highly-populated, powerful, first-world country which quickly sprung from nothing a few hundred years ago, and achieved independence less than 250 years ago. That independence was also achieved through a bloody war, and the country fought other wars on its home turf in its early days, including a huge civil war.
By the time the industrial revolution came around and America started to solidify itself as a real force in the world, guns had already long cemented themselves as part of the culture. Sadly, the chaos in the early days of America (made even worse by the importation of slaves) also gave way to a culture of violent crime.
It's important to understand this. Long before any of us were born, the United States already had a culture of violent crime (much higher than other first-world countries) and gun ownership. The two, of course, are tied together. Some of the gun ownership caused the violent crime, but most of it was in response to the threat of violent crime.
The problem is that many liberals (and people in other countries who don't truly understand the issue) think that you can solve this situation by just outlawing gun sales to private citizens, and by forcing citizens to turn in their guns. Sure, they concede that criminals probably won't turn in their guns, but they feel that it will still be a net win for American society, and that the lives saved by the severe reduction of guns will eclipse those lost by violence by criminals who feel more empowered.
That's false.
The US has seen a sharp decline in violent crime since 1990. This includes gun murders.
Americans are very opportunistic, and that includes the criminals. Once it is known that private citizens are not armed, home invasion robberies will go WAY up, as will robberies at places of business.
Picture yourself as an armed criminal. You happen upon a home you want to break in, or a business you want to hold up. Today if you attempt this, you know you might be facing a gun on the other end, and are risking your life. There is a good chance this would deter you, and instead you will look for "softer" targets where no human beings are currently present. If you attempt this AFTER gun control, you can do it with confidence knowing you will hugely have the upper hand, and can basically take what you want with little resistance.
So you Euros/Aussies are basically asking a country with a long-ingrained cultures of guns and violence to give up our one form of defense, and to also let the criminals know that we are defenseless.
No thanks.
But keep saying, "It worked here, so it will work there" over and over, if it makes you feel better.
Whenever one of my Brit/Euro friends starts railing against "American gun insanity", I ask them when the last time they woke up to strangers in their house was.
America doesnt have a gun problem, it has a dirtbag problem, and guns may not be the solution but they do help level the playing field.
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky
"America is not so much a nightmare as a non-dream. The American non-dream is precisely a move to wipe the dream out of existence. The dream is a spontaneous happening and therefore dangerous to a control system set up by the non-dreamers." -- William S. Burroughs
Dear Prime,
Basically what Abrown was trying to write is n-words ruin everything. He's fucking right. How about we ship you over a couple million, see what happens? Now go eat fluffers ass.
Warm regards.
You know what also would stop people going into gun free zones with guns? If they don't have guns at their fingertips?It sometimes happens in a "Gun free" zone meaning if you carry a gun there, you go to jail. Of course criminals don't care about "gun free" zones or gun control laws.
The gun lobby has bribed congress so guns are never going away. If you accept that premise, the answer is more guns on well adjusted people to shoot the assholes that think it makes sense to randomly inflict harm with a firearm.
Decriminalizing Marijuana and prostitution would help too, in theory. A community of people getting high and getting laid sounds like a decent place to live from a safety standpoint.
Yeah...
This is my local news. Jealous, aren't you? I mean, these people could be at my house in 20 minutes, and I'm not supposed to shoot them? The freedom shirt on Kid Rock's little brother is a nice touch.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
