Mass shooting on campus in Oregon

Unwittingly is correct. I used the word "loophole" because it's the word you used in your post that I quoted, and I still believe it IS a loophole.

loop·hole ˈlo͞opˌ(h)ōl/
noun loophole; plural noun: loopholes
1.an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.

I have not listened to more than 10 words that Clinton or Obama have spoken in months. I read two papers every day and poke around online and read a lot of the links posted here and elsewhere. I am lucky to have two papers that are about as diametrically opposed as they could be when it comes to politics. I don't watch any national news channels usually unless there is major news happening.

You were absolutely right I should have taken a breath and stepped away. I was getting really pissed off because I think this is one of the most important issues we are facing, and it is getting worse every day. I also am agreeing more and more with the idea that some (many?) of these are copycat incidents and really think we should think twice about naming any of the shooters, as much as that goes against my instinct.

I just cannot wrap my mind around why so many people think ANY change in our laws is a violation of the Second Amendment. I am FOR gun rights, I have had many friends over the years who are hunters and have been in a gun shop/shooting range. While I prefer not to own a weapon, I support every American's right to do so. Well, Americans who are proven to be law-abiding and mentally stable (however that is to be determined). I don't support the rights to own ANY type of weapon. I see no reason people should own assault rifles, high-capacity magazines or police/military style gear. And JayFarrar IS correct in saying EVERY gun purchase should require ID and a background check. If it is truly private sale between family/friends, the gun should be registered. ALL guns should be registered, as many things in this country are. Shit, I have to register my freaking dogs! And while you are correct that the "gun-show loophole" phrasing is incorrect, I don't know the numbers (since there's no way to track it), but would venture that private sales happen FAR more frequently at gun shows than between friends/family. And no, I don't believe it's anywhere near 40 percent. And this idea that we shouldn't make any changes because they simply won't work is a total cop-out and aggravates me more than probably any argument in this discussion. We won't know until we try, and I think we should be trying very hard to fix this.

As for the mental health side of the argument, there is no doubt that this is a big part of the problem with the mass shootings. But it is far more difficult to get a handle on that, given the wide range of diagnosis and the differing behaviors of people with the same diagnosis. As has been said, a pretty small percentage of the mentally ill are actually dangerous. And the difficulty of family members or the person themselves being willing to address it might be the biggest issue. And I don't know how we could fix that. But we certainly need to work on that side of it, as well.

But, each problem can be addressed without interfering with the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens.

Please, stop saying this. No rational person is asking that law-abiding citizens' rights be infringed. If they register the gun and pass the background check, fine. I don't see how limiting the type of weapons widely available and doing checks in any way violates the Second Amendment.
As for the difference in mass shootings and the large number of African Americans being killed in our major cities, which should upset liberals and conservatives, the obvious difference is that most of these mass shooting have apparently been done with "legally" purchased weapons. I would venture that a huge proportion of the gang/drug shootings are not.

 

The most up-to-date numbers on how many guns President Obama has confiscated:

http://www.politicalgarbagechute.com/obamas-gun-confiscation-count-week-349/

 

Responsible gun owners should push for serious regulation, says former cop Mark Carman.

In speaking about the issue, Carman directly aims his message at “responsible gun owners,” who he asserts will have to be engaged in fixing the problem. Carman advocates in the video for better screening policies and expresses his belief that firearms sales conducted without a background check should be made illegal. He directly references the double standard that forces brick-and-mortar gun stores to conduct background checks, while private sales aren’t subject to such regulation. ...

Carman goes on to directly tackle some of the arguments surrounding Second Amendment rights, asserting that the establishment of basic rules governing the use and ownership of guns isn’t an infringement of those rights. Comparing gun ownership to car and plane operation, Carman suggests that not only licensing requirements, but also written and practical tests used to prove competence should be implemented, and perhaps even required on an ongoing basis.

Self-Described ‘Gun Lover’ Mark Carman Releases Plea To ‘Responsible Gun Owners’

 

For the life of me I can't figure out why we bother discussing the "tough" gun laws in some cities when all someone has to do is travel 10 miles out of the city, buy his gun and bring it back into his city.

 

You raise a key point. While New York and surrounding states support NYC with stronger gun laws, Chicago gangs, for example, have little barrier to importing guns from surrounding areas. Indiana and Tennessee seem to be big supplier states.

 

Right. Which perfectly illustrates the idea that gun control laws only prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns.

 

It tells me that EVERYONE needs to be on board for it to mean anything.

If Indiana and the other states surrounding Illinois had tougher gun laws, it would be tougher for everyone.

Let's say that tomorrow heroin became legal to sell in Newark. Dontcha think that might cause a heroin problem in NYC?

 

If only some big brain could come up with something that could end this, I don't what you would call it, maybe a loophole that exploits the differences between federal and local laws.

It seems that unregulated sales are a problem but it is hard to tell since federal researchers are not legally allowed to research gun violence.

So the issue falls to others who don't have the resources to do big, in-depth studies and polling.

 

I have written and deleted some form of BDC99's post several times in various places over the past few days. It's the "no regulation whatsoever" argument that I simply can't understand -- and which constitutionally doesn't hold water. The sad truth is there isn't enough political courage on the left side of the senate and house to take that point and run with it. Plenty of Demcrats either take NRA money or are terrified of the primary challenge the NRA would fund if they take a stance.

Mental illness is only a factor in that mentally ill people can too easily access guns.

 

Longest post Ive written in the many years ive been here H_P. I do not get it.