Obama urges gun control after Colorado Springs shooting: 'Enough is enough'

a reply to: ketsuko

So in other words you'd sell him the car.

a reply to: chuck258

I really dont know much about guns, but i sure know that obama has taken zero guns from americans, he better act quick, cause hes leaving office soon.

a reply to: ketsuko
Obviously....jeez. so you answered your own question from earlier then, right?

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: ketsuko

So in other words you'd sell him the car.

Absent a valid reason not to beyond nanny impulses? Yes, if he can buy the car, then he can buy the car.

In the end, I have no way of knowing what he will or won't be like behind the wheel, and he isn't going to be any more or less potentially dangerous than the average person who can't keep their hands off their smartphone.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: ketsuko
Obviously....jeez. so you answered your own question from earlier then, right?

The point I was making is that calling it "free" is a complete misnomer. Geez!

originally posted by: wantsome
This mental illness stuff is BS and an excuse. I have paranoid schizophrenia and when I became ill from it at age 17 not once did it cross my mind to hurt someone. By age 20 I was so far gone the doctors told my mom that I would have to be institutionalized. My prognoses was very poor they didn't expect me to recover. No matter how far gone I was I still knew that harming another person was bad. I couldn't tie my shoes let alone plan a shooting spree.

If they're going to blame this on mental illness they might as well say most murders are caused by it. Because as far as I'm concerned you have to be pretty sick in the head to murder someone.

This.

I honestly believe being a male is the greatest danger. A male who's experiencing stress and rejection. Not most of them, but a few. 97% of all mass shootings are male. 79% are white, but 77% of the population is white. I think living in a republican/conservative or independent household might be a factor, since they're almost twice as likely to have a gun in the house than democrats/liberals are--according to polls. Maybe it's more likely in broken families or something. I don't know. We need to figure it out.

If we decided to stop mentally ill people from owning guns, we got work to do. I remember reading about some of hte mass shooters and in many cases they were able to get a gun even after having mental health concerns. Jared Loughner, for exmaple, got kicked out of school because of irratic outbursts and to return he was required to take a mental health exam. Jared did not return. He later killed 6 people, badly injuring Gabby Giffords.

There's a lot of problems with "background checks," regarding mental health. One of the main issues is having them clinically examined BEFORE they go on their killing spree. In some states this wouldn't help since their gun control laws are so relaxed. At least in August 28 2014, only 38 states updated NICS with severe mental health records (as judged by courts). Additionally, only 30 percent of mental health records going back two decades in the country were available to NICS (circa 2012). And of course gun control in general can be very weak. Arizona, for example, at least in 2012, was tied with the worst gun control in the country.

Some links:
www.motherjones.com - A Guide to Mass Shootings in America...
www.motherjones.com - Mass Shootings: Maybe What We Need Is a Better Mental-Health Policy...

What had begun as a friendly public meeting hosted by Giffords on a mild southern Arizona morning turned ghastly when Loughner squeezed off 31 bullets in less than 30 seconds, wielding a 9 mm Glock with high-capacity magazines. For several years prior, Loughner had displayed signs of serious mental illness, including outbursts during his high school classes and complaints about voices in his head. Nevertheless, he was able to stroll into a Sportsmen's Warehouse in Tucson and purchase a weapon and ammunition legally. One of the bystanders who helped subdue Loughner after he'd paused to reload was Patricia Maisch; as she told the court on Thursday: "That beautiful day, our mental-health system failed us."

What few people realize is just how many times this has happened, before and since. Mass shootings generate sensational media coverage, yet most media have failed to connect the dots with regard to mental health. It is a crucial factor in these events, as our in-depth investigation into mass shootings at Mother Jones shows. After another young man unleashed horror inside a Colorado movie theater this July, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them—25 in the last seven years alone.

a reply to: angeldoll

Little tired, that one.

Then stop repeating it. It doesn't make any sense. Guns do NOT kill people. People do. Not just with guns, but with knives, bats, cars, poison, explosives, and hands / feet(which are attributed with more deaths than any rifle).

Oh dear. I thought I made it clear I know very little about guns. I wouldn't dream of challenging your knowledge about weaponry, and can't imagine why would make such a statement to me. ????

Because of this:

I've always thought you have a good brain. Do you really want psycho's to be able to buy machine guns? Or whatever they call those things, those mass-murdering weapons used in wars?

It's also why I said stop with the hysterics. Because that's what it sounds like.

It would probably behoove you and your arguments to become familiar with what you're talking about.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: chuck258

I really dont know much about guns, but i sure know that obama has taken zero guns from americans, he better act quick, cause hes leaving office soon.

You might want to have a chat with the veterans who have had their guns snatched by Obama's VA because they had issues balancing a check book and had to have someone assigned to help them.


You're right, he hasn't snatched much more than that yet, but only because doing so would be political (and likely actual) suicide. (As in assassination attempts) You can be damned sure that afforded the opportunity, Obama would snatch every gun from every law abiding citizens possession. He has however, used his position to stoke an anti gun sentiment among Liberals that has served to set the stage for the next Progressive to take it one step further. Death by a thousand cuts. It's dumb to simply wait for something to happen before attempting to put a stop to it. That seems to be a common theme with Liberals when it comes to stuff they don't like.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

This is what's going to happen...

There will be another shooting and responsible gun owners will have to defend their rights as respectable gun owning citizens. Two weeks later, another shooting occurs and once again the responsible gun owners will have to defend their rights as respectable gun owning citizens.

Four years later and countless deaths later, responsible gun owners will have to defend their rights as respectable gun owning citizens.

Hopefully both sides can agree that something needs to be done, otherwise innocent people will continue to die and the innocent gun enthusiasts will continue to be blamed.

Enjoy your guns, but please help stop them falling in the wrong hands-please.

a reply to: projectvxn

Oh my goodness. It's not possible to have an exchange of dialogue with you that's not insulting. I'll stop trying.

Again, thank you for your service, and you have a great weekend.

a reply to: angeldoll

Oh my goodness. It's not possible to have an exchange of dialogue with you that's not insulting. I'll stop trying.

You have a lack of knowledge and yet you seem to have such strong opinions about something you know nothing about, like most anti gun people. You're using fallacies, strawman arguments, and hysterics as a dialogue.

I'm not insulting you, I'm pointing out the problem you and so many other anti-gun folks seem to have when it comes to these debates.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

There is a gun control problem and a mental health problem. Both have to be dealt with. There needs to be better mental health care and easier access to it . There needs to be less guns and more difficult access to them.

I don't know why this sounds unreasonable or makes President Obama a Muppet.

a reply to: reldra

here needs to be less guns and more difficult access to them

Tell that to criminal gangs who make up the vast majority of so-called "mass shootings".

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: angeldoll

Oh my goodness. It's not possible to have an exchange of dialogue with you that's not insulting. I'll stop trying.

You have a lack of knowledge and yet you seem to have such strong opinions about something you know nothing about, like most anti gun people. You're using fallacies, strawman arguments, and hysterics as a dialogue.

I'm not insulting you, I'm pointing out the problem you and so many other anti-gun folks seem to have when it comes to these debates.

Here we go again. Where did I say I was anti-gun?

Let me simplify this for you.

I want people to have guns.

I don't want crazy people to have guns.

I can't make myself any clearer, and please discontinue the strawman arguments.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: angeldoll

Little tired, that one.

Then stop repeating it. It doesn't make any sense. Guns do NOT kill people. People do. Not just with guns, but with knives, bats, cars, poison, explosives, and hands / feet(which are attributed with more deaths than any rifle).

Oh dear. I thought I made it clear I know very little about guns. I wouldn't dream of challenging your knowledge about weaponry, and can't imagine why would make such a statement to me. ????

Because of this:

I've always thought you have a good brain. Do you really want psycho's to be able to buy machine guns? Or whatever they call those things, those mass-murdering weapons used in wars?

It's also why I said stop with the hysterics. Because that's what it sounds like.

It would probably behoove you and your arguments to become familiar with what you're talking about.

People with guns kill people. True, that man may have been able to kill people with his bare hands, but he would have killed less and a lot less resources would have been needed to stop him.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: reldra

here needs to be less guns and more difficult access to them

Tell that to criminal gangs who make up the vast majority of so-called "mass shootings".

I don't think that me contacting gangs will work. Now you are just being silly, possibly hysterical or using a strawman argument.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

You can't tell ,when reported the legal carrier STOPPED the shooting and the press doesn't report them the same,because the shooter was stopped by a logical and effective use of a gun for self protection.
They got no time for that.

a reply to: reldra

It's a perfectly rational argument.

You think gun control will stop mass shootings.

No where in all of these proposals have I heard an effective way of dealing with the issue of removing guns from the people MOSTLY responsible for the nation's criminal gun use. Only the law abiding will be restricted.

So how are you gonna restrict access to guns from the criminal gangs who are responsible for most of the gun related violence?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

THE PURGE!
Only THIS time without guns!