8 shot dead and several gunshot injuries at Fed-Ex facilities

[RestoreTheJoy]

Nevermind, I guess I am going to repeat what has been said a million times already.

Ever notice that we don't have a continued problem of mass grenading? Ever wonder why that is?

Nobody thinks we can simply stop all bad people from getting weapons forever, 100%. That's not why we do something. We don't say, "Well, I guess people will still murder even if murder is illegal, so we should just legalize murder." You know why? Because that's dumb.

You know what making it harder for bad people to get guns does do? It makes it harder for bad people to get guns, that's what.

-CryptoLutheran

It is not hard for "bad people' to get guns. They buy them off the street. They don't go to gun stores and get background checks.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It is not hard for "bad people' to get guns. They buy them off the street. They don't go to gun stores and get background checks.

I'm going to go ahead and say that it's probably easier for Bob, a suburban guy, to walk into his local gun store, say, "Hey Fred, I'd like to buy a blah blah". Bob and Frank have a bit of a chat, friendly exchange, and Bob ends up the satisfied owner of his brand new firearm. Now what Frank doesn't know, and what nobody but Bob himself knows, is that Bob wanted to buy a gun to kill his wife. See Bob and Betty have been having things rough lately, their marriage has been rocky since Bob failed to get a raise at work, which has gotten Bob down. And since Bob's been feeling pretty crummy. And to top that all off, Bob discovered that Betty's been having an affair for several months. With Bob's best friend Roy no less. So Bob figures that life probably isn't going to get much better, so he'll just do what he has to do. So he went down to Frank's Gun Shop, legally became the owner of a brand new firearm. Then Bob shot his wife and best friend, while their son Jimmy watched.

Now that incident made it to all the major news networks, it's everywhere. And we, as a nation, mourn yet again.

Imagine how things could have been different if only Bob wasn't able to go down to Frank's and buy that gun.

Could Bob have still gotten his hands on a gun? Oh it's certainly possible. But I'm betting that Bob probably doesn't have many contacts in black market gun sales, so that would make it pretty hard for him to purchase a gun. In fact it may be enough to sway Bob from actually going through with his deranged plan.

And yes, Bob certainly could have still used any infinite number of ways to commit murder. A knife, poison, drug overdose, drowning, I mean all kinds of options, we've seen the movies. So simply not making it possible for Bob to buy a gun doesn't guarantee that Bob wouldn't still find a way. But it does mean that there was one less, very easy and accessible, way for Bob to carry out the act. Making it harder, even perhaps substantially so, for a tragedy to be carried out.

And you know what, I think I'd like to make it harder for Bob to kill Betty and Roy if it's possible.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I'm going to go ahead and say that it's probably easier for Bob, a suburban guy, to walk into his local gun store, say, "Hey Fred, I'd like to buy a blah blah". Bob and Frank have a bit of a chat, friendly exchange, and Bob ends up the satisfied owner of his brand new firearm. Now what Frank doesn't know, and what nobody but Bob himself knows, is that Bob wanted to buy a gun to kill his wife. See Bob and Betty have been having things rough lately, their marriage has been rocky since Bob failed to get a raise at work, which has gotten Bob down. And since Bob's been feeling pretty crummy. And to top that all off, Bob discovered that Betty's been having an affair for several months. With Bob's best friend Roy no less. So Bob figures that life probably isn't going to get much better, so he'll just do what he has to do. So he went down to Frank's Gun Shop, legally became the owner of a brand new firearm. Then Bob shot his wife and best friend, while their son Jimmy watched.

Now that incident made it to all the major news networks, it's everywhere. And we, as a nation, mourn yet again.

Imagine how things could have been different if only Bob wasn't able to go down to Frank's and buy that gun.

Could Bob have still gotten his hands on a gun? Oh it's certainly possible. But I'm betting that Bob probably doesn't have many contacts in black market gun sales, so that would make it pretty hard for him to purchase a gun. In fact it may be enough to sway Bob from actually going through with his deranged plan.

And yes, Bob certainly could have still used any infinite number of ways to commit murder. A knife, poison, drug overdose, drowning, I mean all kinds of options, we've seen the movies. So simply not making it possible for Bob to buy a gun doesn't guarantee that Bob wouldn't still find a way. But it does mean that there was one less, very easy and accessible, way for Bob to carry out the act. Making it harder, even perhaps substantially so, for a tragedy to be carried out.

And you know what, I think I'd like to make it harder for Bob to kill Betty and Roy if it's possible.

-CryptoLutheran

And I'm going to say that it is no easier for Bob to get the gun at the dealer than it is for Bob (or someone Bob sends) down on any corner in the right neighborhoods, hitting up the right guys, which are pretty easy to find with some money crossing hands. You must not have a lot of experience with the justice system.

Your emotional story just does not reflect reality. It's an outlier situation. A large portion of the crime is done by guys with no permits and who aren't getting background checks. And they won't be handing in their guns either when the powers that be push that; only the law abiding citizens will do this.

 

[ViaCrucis]

And I'm going to say that it is no easier for Bob to get the gun at the dealer than it is for Bob (or someone Bob sends) down on any corner in the right neighborhoods, hitting up the right guys, which are pretty easy to find with some money crossing hands. You must not have a lot of experience with the justice system.

Your emotional story just does not reflect reality. It's an outlier situation. A large portion of the crime is done by guys with no permits and who aren't getting background checks. And they won't be handing in their guns either when the powers that be push that; only the law abiding citizens will do this.

Ah, you're right, my story doesn't reflect reality. These kinds of tragedies never happen in America.

Except, you know, that they seem to happen every day.

https://news.google.com/search?q=man shoots wife&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en

But go on, let's pretend there's no problem that needs to be fixed.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Ah, you're right, my story doesn't reflect reality. These kinds of tragedies never happen in America.

Except, you know, that they seem to happen every day.

https://news.google.com/search?q=man shoots wife&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en

But go on, let's pretend there's no problem that needs to be fixed.

-CryptoLutheran

Sure, guys killing their wives - and every other kind of insane murder or attack, regardless of weapon, needs to be fixed. It's not the weapons. It's the people. What have we (society, systems, whatever it is) done to them?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Sure, guys killing their wives - and every other kind of insane murder or attack, regardless of weapon, needs to be fixed. It's not the weapons. It's the people. What have we (society, systems, whatever it is) done to them?

Do you believe that there should be any laws, whatsoever, restricting regular people from possessing certain deadly things? For example, should people be able to buy Anthrax at their local Walmart, how about military grade explosives?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you probably don't support people being able to buy biological weapons at their local general store.

Which means we both agree that certain things are simply too dangerous for regular people to have easy access too. Yes? Or am I mistaken on my assumption?

If we are in agreement here, then you actually do agree that, in at least certain cases, it is the weapons. Or at the very least, the weapons can't be dismissed out of hand as irrelevant; as they clearly aren't irrelevant. If someone got their hands on a biological weapon, that biological weapon actually would be quite relevant, and we would want to know how someone got their hands on it, and we would want to try and make it harder for that to happen again. Yes? Or at least, I'm hoping we can agree on this baseline principle.

The issue, then, isn't whether weapons matter or not--they do. The issue then isn't people should have access to all weapons, because they clearly shouldn't. So then, the question is, where do we draw the line?

Because if someone wants to buy a hunting rifle because they go hunting, I really don't have a problem with that.

So maybe in the same way that we don't let Joe Neighbor buy Anthrax or weapons grade plutonium we also keep assault weapons out of the hands of the general public.

Or is that just too insane of an idea?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Belk]

Sure, guys killing their wives - and every other kind of insane murder or attack, regardless of weapon, needs to be fixed. It's not the weapons. It's the people. What have we (society, systems, whatever it is) done to them?

So you believe that instead of controlling the weapons that make killing easier we should concentrate on changing human nature?

 

[Whyayeman]

'It's not the weapons. It's the people.'

That old NRA line, again.

There were rules to keep weapons out of this sick boy's hands. They did not work because they are feeble and poorly applied.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Do you believe that there should be any laws, whatsoever, restricting regular people from possessing certain deadly things? For example, should people be able to buy Anthrax at their local Walmart, how about military grade explosives?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you probably don't support people being able to buy biological weapons at their local general store.

Which means we both agree that certain things are simply too dangerous for regular people to have easy access too. Yes? Or am I mistaken on my assumption?

If we are in agreement here, then you actually do agree that, in at least certain cases, it is the weapons. Or at the very least, the weapons can't be dismissed out of hand as irrelevant; as they clearly aren't irrelevant. If someone got their hands on a biological weapon, that biological weapon actually would be quite relevant, and we would want to know how someone got their hands on it, and we would want to try and make it harder for that to happen again. Yes? Or at least, I'm hoping we can agree on this baseline principle.

The issue, then, isn't whether weapons matter or not--they do. The issue then isn't people should have access to all weapons, because they clearly shouldn't. So then, the question is, where do we draw the line?

Because if someone wants to buy a hunting rifle because they go hunting, I really don't have a problem with that.

So maybe in the same way that we don't let Joe Neighbor buy Anthrax or weapons grade plutonium we also keep assault weapons out of the hands of the general public.

Or is that just too insane of an idea?

-CryptoLutheran

You are using the false dilemma fallacy here. No, the Constitution does not protect one from the government imposing any laws restricting deadly toxins or explosives or biological weapons. The ones loosing those are under little scrutiny.

NO ONE or government should be keeping biological weapons to kill millions, actually. But they are. Why isn't your outrage directed at that?

The Constitution prohibits the government from infringing on the right to "keep and bear arms" so that a free state may be protected.

You realize that what the media tells you is an "assault weapon" rarely is, right? Machine guns are assault weapons, and there aren't a whole lot of people running around with them.

Mild mannered, law abiding Joe with his hunting rifle or handgun he takes to the range once in awhile is NOT your problem. He doesn't have a machine gun. The guys who don't obey laws are the problem and no laws -obviously- is going to stop them from getting them on the streets.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

'It's not the weapons. It's the people.'

That old NRA line, again.

There were rules to keep weapons out of this sick boy's hands. They did not work because they are feeble and poorly applied.

Why can you not understand that entire generations grew up with guns in the home? There have been guns in homes (in the states) - and wagons - since Pioneer Days.

Our Dads were veterans (and hunters)? NO one was killing anyone in those days. No kids were shooting up schools. Mass shootings weren't happening regularly.

Today they are. What has changed? There is your problem. Mental illness, most likely - and why? What have we done to the young people? It's not the guns; the guns have always been there.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You are using the false dilemma fallacy here. No, the Constitution does not protect one from the government imposing any laws restricting deadly toxins or explosives or biological weapons. The ones loosing those are under little scrutiny.

NO ONE or government should be keeping biological weapons to kill millions, actually. But they are. Why isn't your outrage directed at that?

When governments or people use biological weapons I am outraged by that. I'm quite capable of being outraged by both the violation of the Geneva Conventions as well as by mass shootings.

The Constitution prohibits the government from infringing on the right to "keep and bear arms" so that a free state may be protected.

And one can safely imagine that the framers of the Constitution probably didn't envision semi-automatic weapons. And the beauty of the US Constitution is that it is a living documented that can, when needs be, amended and altered. Which has been happening almost as long as we've had the Constitution to begin with.

It may be time that we look to amending the 2nd Amendment.

You realize that what the media tells you is an "assault weapon" rarely is, right? Machine guns are assault weapons, and there aren't a whole lot of people running around with them.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the media", as I don't get my definition of assault weapons from "the media".

Mild mannered, law abiding Joe with his hunting rifle or handgun he takes to the range once in awhile is NOT your problem. He doesn't have a machine gun. The guys who don't obey laws are the problem and no laws -obviously- is going to stop them from getting them on the streets.

And law-abiding Joe with his hunting rifle isn't my problem.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why can you not understand that entire generations grew up with guns in the home? There have been guns in homes (in the states) - and wagons - since Pioneer Days.

Our Dads were veterans (and hunters)? NO one was killing anyone in those days. No kids were shooting up schools. Mass shootings weren't happening regularly.

Today they are. What has changed? There is your problem. Mental illness, most likely - and why? What have we done to the young people? It's not the guns; the guns have always been there.

Well, when my dad was growing up in South Dakota, my grand dad wasn't driving around with an AR-15 in his truck.

Also, those pioneers, they were doing a lot of killing.

It's how this:

became this:

Thanks to this:

The road to modern America was paved with the blood of those murdered in mass shootings.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

When governments or people use biological weapons I am outraged by that. I'm quite capable of being outraged by both the violation of the Geneva Conventions as well as by mass shootings.



And one can safely imagine that the framers of the Constitution probably didn't envision semi-automatic weapons. And the beauty of the US Constitution is that it is a living documented that can, when needs be, amended and altered. Which has been happening almost as long as we've had the Constitution to begin with.

It may be time that we look to amending the 2nd Amendment.



I'm not sure what you mean by "the media", as I don't get my definition of assault weapons from "the media".



And law-abiding Joe with his hunting rifle isn't my problem.

-CryptoLutheran

You provide the way to remove automatics/semi-automatics from criminals on the streets - those who will laugh at any "legal restrictions", and then talk to me about asking mild mannered Joe to hand in his weapons, some of which may actually include automatics that he owns but doesn't use.

First things first. What can never happen is that we disarm the people first and let the criminals keep all the guns, which they will, because, being criminals, they are by nature not law-abiding.

Solve that. Then I'm all ears about what to do about the law-abiding permit holders.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Well, when my dad was growing up in South Dakota, my grand dad wasn't driving around with an AR-15 in his truck.

Also, those pioneers, they were doing a lot of killing.







The road to modern America was paved with the blood of those murdered in mass shootings.

-CryptoLutheran

Your own photos make it clear that grand dad COULD have had a semi-automatic in his truck. Unless you were there, you don't know if he did or not.

The first one, the Henry repeating rifle, was made in the 1860s.

And who cares if your great grandad did have a repeating rifle, so long as he didn't shoot people? I'm sure he wasn't like one of today's criminals who can get an automatic or semi on any street corner one night with some cash.

 

[Whyayeman]

And who cares if your great grandad did have a repeating rifle, so long as he didn't shoot people? I'm sure he wasn't like one of today's criminals who can get an automatic or semi on any street corner one night with some cash.

Actually in many parts of the USA criminals can and do buy such weapons legally - at gun fairs and by private sales. The laws are much too lax.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Your own photos make it clear that grand dad COULD have had a semi-automatic in his truck. Unless you were there, you don't know if he did or not.

The first one, the Henry repeating rifle, was made in the 1860s.

And who cares if your great grandad did have a repeating rifle, so long as he didn't shoot people? I'm sure he wasn't like one of today's criminals who can get an automatic or semi on any street corner one night with some cash.

That's what you got out of my post eh.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Actually in many parts of the USA criminals can and do buy such weapons legally - at gun fairs and by private sales. The laws are much too lax.

I'm guessing you haven't been to one lately. Unless you find some old guy at a garage sale who will just sell you his gun - which almost NEVER happens, you aren't getting one anywhere official - including a gun show - without filling out the paperwork and getting it from a dealer who is bound to follow the laws.

So yeah...criminals are not filling out paperwork at gun shows.

You can't get a spot at gun shows as a dealer unless you are federally licensed. You can't sell as a private seller unless someone will give you a table. Private sellers are those who sell fewer than FOUR.

The “gun show loophole” refers to the fact that most states do not require background checks for firearms sold or traded at gun shows by private individuals. Federal law requires background checks on guns sold by federally licensed dealers only.The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 defined “private sellers” as anyone who sold fewer than four firearms during any 12-month period.

(These people who want to sell 4 are not getting tables at gun shows to sell to anyone; it would not be financially feasible).

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

That's what you got out of my post eh.

-CryptoLutheran

Yes, because that is what it demonstrated. Except that you may not have known that great granddad could have indeed have had a repeating rifle because they were already in existence.

 

[Whyayeman]

Private sellers are those who sell fewer than FOUR.

This confirms that it is possible to buy firearms at a fair even with a criminal record.

The main point remains. Anybody who wants to obtain firearms can do so easily. There is no real pressure to make it difficult for criminals - or the mentally ill.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

This confirms that it is possible to buy firearms at a fair even with a criminal record.

The main point remains. Anybody who wants to obtain firearms can do so easily. There is no real pressure to make it difficult for criminals - or the mentally ill.

Sure....IF they can get anyone to give them a table at a gun show (almost an impossibility, as already stated).

There is NO "doing it easily". Not today. Unless, you have hundreds or thousands to throw around down on the street corner, as I previously stated.