3 dead after school shooting in California, shooter stopped by deputies

a reply to: neo96

Close enough? I like sticking with actual definitions, not hyperbolic ones but you do you, boo-boo.

Unless you know the state the purchase was made in, you don't know what the laws on private firearms sales are. In my old state it's only illegal for a private owner to sell a firearm to somebody who's already prohibited by state law from purchasing. Other than that, sell all the guns privately you want to.

Ah ,whatever, i know you guys love guns. But just remmember not all others are as sane as you. Can you really say that is ok everyone to have a gun, if you can easilly shoot someone that is attacking you with a knife?

The point at the end is to limit the people that have guns. Only those that will shoot when being attacked to be allowed to hold guns. Not those that willingly will attack others.

...and who could have seen this coming? A shooter thread deteriorating into scared hyperbole advocating stripping of rights against reactionary defense of said under attack rights? The opportunistic rally cry is nothing if not predictable.

a reply to: ZeroFurrbone

Because automatic weapons are difficult to get easily unless you really know what you are doing. Even normal guns are far, far easier to get illegally. Normal guns are also much easier to use.

originally posted by: ZeroFurrbone
Ah ,whatever, i know you guys love guns. But just remmember not all others are as sane as you. Can you really say that is ok everyone to have a gun, if you can easilly shoot someone that is attacking you with a knife?
.

Wait, what? Am I reading you correctly here? Did you just suggest that the problem in a situation where someone is attacking an armed citizen who is breaking no laws with a knife is the firearm the law abiding citizen can use to defend their own life? A smart man always brings a gun to a knife fight, friend. You defend yourself with the most powerful tool you can lay your hands on everytime.

a reply to: ZeroFurrbone

There are a lot things you could say that about.

Is it really OK for everyone to have a car?

a reply to: Shamrock6

We know the state of the topic.

California.

We know the position that was taken. They bad and only good for collecting dust.

The gun laws of California[3][4] are some of the most restrictive in the United States. A 5-year Firearm Safety Certificate, obtained by paying a $25 fee, submission of applicant data to the state, and passing a written test proctored by a DOJ Certified Instructor, is required for the sale, delivery, loan, or transfer of any firearm.[5][6] Handguns sold by dealers must be "California legal" by being listed on the state's Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale.[7] This roster, which requires handgun manufacturers to pay a fee and submit specific models for safety testing, has become progressively more stringent over time and is currently the subject of a federal civil rights lawsuit on the basis that it is a de facto ban on new handgun models.[8] Private sales of firearms must be done through a licensed dealer. All firearm sales are recorded by the state, and have a ten-day waiting period. Unlike most other states, California has no provision in its state constitution that explicitly guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.[1

en.wikipedia.org...

Boo boo.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ZeroFurrbone

There are a lot things you could say that about.

Is it really OK for everyone to have a car?

Hell, is it OK for a rapist to keep his penis for that matter?

a reply to: neo96

Except the question you replied to was about another member purchasing a firearm from his brother in law, and that member hasn't indicated they reside in California.

Try and keep up with conversations you insert yourself in to, boo.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Oops, i am saying that if those that are most likely to commit mass murders, do not have access to weapons such as guns by legal means, it would be much more easy to defend against them if they have a knife for instance. Sorry for not making myself clear.

P.S. As in it would be harder to defend if they have a gun and shooting at you.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Yeah which is ILLEGAL in California.

Also ILLEGAL elsewhere since most states now dictate the federal background check for P2P buyers.

Someone definitely needs to keep up.

a reply to: ketsuko

Idk what you mean but i am strictly against cars. They are even more dangerous than guns. Everyone have acess to them and can use them to kill people, and the cars itself are dangerous for everyone.

originally posted by: ZeroFurrbone
Ah ,whatever, i know you guys love guns. But just remmember not all others are as sane as you. Can you really say that is ok everyone to have a gun, if you can easilly shoot someone that is attacking you with a knife?

The point at the end is to limit the people that have guns. Only those that will shoot when being attacked to be allowed to hold guns. Not those that willingly will attack others.

Tell the Democrats, who filibustered a Republican bill last year that would have improved mental health reporting to NICS, making background checks more effective. It may not have had everything they wanted, but it would've been an improvement, instead they decided to play politics:

The Senate rejected first a Republican proposal to update the background check system for gun purchases, which would have required states to add more information on mental health records to a national database. It also included a provision to alert law enforcement agencies when an individual who was on a government terror watch list in the last five years buys a gun.

The proposal, sponsored by Iowa GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley, failed to get the 60 votes for passage. The vote was 53-47, largely along party lines. Some Senate Democrats warned that the legislation's revised definition of who would be considered mentally ill could potentially still allow those with significant psychological issues to legally purchase guns.

Source: Get-yer-guns.com... just kidding it's CNN

a reply to: neo96

I'm not debating that private purchases are illegal in California. I'm pointing out that vixn asked a specific member about the legal hurdles that specific member went through to purchase their firearm. That member hasn't indicated that they reside in California, so your assertion that it was an illegal purchase without any evidence to support that claim is not valid, at least until such time as that specific member the question was directed at indicates they reside in California.

Yes, you do need to keep up. I'm glad you realize this now.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I am.

Since California is where THIS shooting happened.

a reply to: face23785

True, at least in the U.S.
But a school?
I'm not against guns, but it amazes me how many peeps with a mental problem can get their hands on one.
I would think that severe vetting with a thorough screening program when applying (or renewing every year) for a gun licence would be a step in the right direction.
Another good idea would be to break up the illegal arms dealers like the Hells Angels and such.

OK so we can't break up the CIA but we can start at the bottom of the pile......

originally posted by: playswithmachines
a reply to: face23785

True, at least in the U.S.
But a school?
I'm not against guns, but it amazes me how many peeps with a mental problem can get their hands on one.
I would think that severe vetting with a thorough screening program when applying (or renewing every year) for a gun licence would be a step in the right direction.
Another good idea would be to break up the illegal arms dealers like the Hells Angels and such.

OK so we can't break up the CIA but we can start at the bottom of the pile......

This wasn't a school shooting. It was nothing like Sandy Hook.

a reply to: neo96

Neat. That isn't germane to the question that was asked of a specific member.

But I'm glad you understand that if they reside in California, their purchase was illegal. Gold star for you, buddy.

originally posted by: ZeroFurrbone
a reply to: ketsuko

Idk what you mean but i am strictly against cars. They are even more dangerous than guns. Everyone have acess to them and can use them to kill people, and the cars itself are dangerous for everyone.

So you are also against work?

It is impossible for mass transit to transport everyone to every job from wherever they might live.

Or is it that you are just against freedom?