Mass shooting on campus in Oregon

So can a Red Ryder BB gun.

 

Please stop fucking saying this. If it does ANYTHING to fix the problems, it's a step forward. Damn. I can't fathom the idea that people don't think it's a good idea to make guns tougher to get our hands on. If you are a law-abiding, stable person, what the fuck is the problem? "Well-regulated."

This. Jesus.

 

Good gosh. Please tell me you aren't going to make an "if it will save one life" argument.

I could save more lives by lowering the federal speed limit back to 55. Want to save more lives? Go to 50MPH.

Why don't we mandate that every bathtub in America must have a sticky mat on the bottom? That would save lives!

 

My guess would be it will save a hell of a lot more than one life. The argument that we shouldn't make laws or enact regulations because it just won't work, when we don't know that it won't, is fucking absurd. Will criminals and some mentally ill folks still be able to get their hands on guns on the black market or through friends/family? Of course, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make it more difficult. Fuck. It's not that complicated to comprehend.

 

Closing the "gun show loophole" is going to do anything to prevent mentally ill folks from getting guns?

What proposals are out there to prevent the mentally ill from purchasing a gun? I'm all for taking such measures, but only if they actually address the mentally ill, and don't instead make it harder for everyone else.

 

I must have missed the press release where the NRA or gun control opponents said citizens need to have guns so they can respond in an instant to an active shooting scene and kill the gunman. I'm not too up on NRA statements, but wouldn't the NRA be more concerned with making sure citizens can bear arms in case someone breaks into their house or attempts to carjack them, rather than responding to an active shooting scene which will likely be labeled a gun-free zone?

 

Closing ANY loophole, including the time limit to respond to a background check that apparently allowed Dylann Roof to buy his gun, would be a start, yes. Do we need to address mental illness as well? Yes. But this idea that we need to protect the law-abiding gun owner is ridiculous. Almost nobody is advocating taking their guns away.

 

More details were released yesterday. Here's a copy-and-paste from an e-mail:

 

Let's not ignore this part. Any "good guy with a gun" might not have been so disciplined.

And in other news ....
'Heroic' Vet Who Was Shot Repeatedly During Rampage Leaves Hospital

 

No one called what happened in the Dylann Roof case to be a "loophole" until the other day.

The FBI didn't blame a loophole:

The man accused of killing nine people in a historically black church in South Carolina last month was able to buy the gun used in the attack because of a breakdown in the federal gun background check system, the F.B.I. said Friday.

Despite having previously admitted to drug possession, the man, Dylann Roof, 21, was allowed to buy the .45-caliber handgun because of mistakes by F.B.I. agents, a failure by local prosecutors to respond to a bureau request for more information about his case, and a weakness in federal gun laws.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/us/background-check-flaw-let-dylann-roof-buy-gun-fbi-says.html

But, let's look at it your way. What should the time limit be? Should there even be one, or should we just wait?

Maybe it can be handled the way the government handles FOIA requests, or how the IRS handled tax exempt applications from conservative organizations. Then, rights can be denied by just doing nothing.

And, seriously, what steps should we take to keep guns from the mentally ill.

Should we have mandatory reporting for mental health providers? I think we should. If a mental health provider thinks someone is a threat to himself, or others, they should have to report that to authorities. If the person has a gun, it should be removed. If he applies for a gun, it should be denied.

Talking certain psychotropic drugs should also mean you cannot posses a gun. Do you support that?

My suggestion could have stopped the Aurora movie theater shooting:

A psychiatrist who treated accused Colorado theater gunman James Holmes rejected a law enforcement offer to involuntarily confine him for 72 hours after he told her six weeks before the shooting that he fantasized about killing "a lot of people," the Denver Post reported on Wednesday.

Citing an unnamed source, the newspaper said that Holmes made the remark to his therapist, Lynne Fenton, on June 11. But when a University of Colorado police officer asked whether to detain Holmes on a psychiatric hold, Fenton said no.

Holmes Fantasized About Killing 'A Lot Of People' Weeks Before Shooting

Do all of the liberals who want to "do something" support mandatory reporting in instances like this?

 

Oh, for fuck's sake. OK, so a breakdown then. I know what happened. I would consider a three-day wait and then you're free to buy the gun a loophole. You knew damn well what I meant. We need to fix it so this kind of shit doesn't happen. And mandatory reporting if you tell someone you fantasize about killing someone? Uh, yes. I support all of the above, with restrictions to be determined. I am not an expert on mental illness, but there should be restrictions.

 

Well, if it prevents one mentally ill person from buying a gun, too bad if it makes it more difficult for anyone else.

As one previous poster's meme said, why not make it hard for anyone to buy a gun? Only allow 1 or 2 places in the state to sell them, require the buyer to travel to those places to buy the gun, make them fill out multiple forms, have a background check, make them watch a video on gun violence, make them look at photos of gunshot victims as the gun buyer describes what happens to them, make them go through either a vaginal or rectal probe to make sure they're physically healthy enough to own one, then after all that, make them wait 72 hours until they actually purchase the gun so that they really, really know that they want one. Sound good?