North Seattle mass shooting, at least 4 dead

Rroff said:
Click to expand...

that is crazy but technically if the law allows them to do it then why not... from their perspective they are exercising their rights though from other people's it might demonstrate a need to modify laws slightly

thing is they're mostly white, middle aged - did find this one of a black guy carrying:


now it would be more impressive with a younger black guy wearing more ghetto type clothes, trousers about to fall down etc..

for the ultimate achievement though they need to get an open carrying Muslim(complete with beard/traditional dress), with an AK47, walking through a white middle class suburb
 
Longbow said:
Enjoy your prison cell then. Law enforcement is there to enforce the law, if they don't like open carry, they can use their First Amendment rights to petition the government to change the law.
Click to expand...

I guess the manner I thought I was framing that in didn't convey over the internet. It was supposed to be slightly ironic given the context.
 
Rroff said:
I think people misunderstand the mentality of a lot of legal gun owners in the US as well - recently there was a video of a couple of people who thought it amusing to use their 2nd amendment rights and open carry status of their state to effectively troll a prison facility (under the pretence of exercising their rights) that got ripped into by a lot of gun owners who saw it as abuse of their rights and infact sacrilege to the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

Those sound like the same idiots who think it's a great idea to go shopping with a rifle or similar over their shoulder "because I can" being the reasoning.

IIRC there is a trend in the US for a small percentage of gun owners to have the bulk of the guns (as in something like 10 firearms or more for personal use), often with a lot of crossover with those have borderline paranoia.
So whilst the numbers of guns that have been legally sold goes up, it's often to people who already have several (I can understand why you might need say a shotgun, hunting rifle and handgun,. but not why you'd need multiples for "protection").
 
Werewolf said:
IIRC there is a trend in the US for a small percentage of gun owners to have the bulk of the guns (as in something like 10 firearms or more for personal use), often with a lot of crossover with those have borderline paranoia.
So whilst the numbers of guns that have been legally sold goes up, it's often to people who already have several (I can understand why you might need say a shotgun, hunting rifle and handgun,. but not why you'd need multiples for "protection").
Click to expand...

You get people who just like collecting weapons as well - there are a number of guns I'd like to own just because I like the look of them or they have interesting technical or mechanical features or innovations.
 
Amp34 said:
Very few people are suggesting a wholesale ban on firearms in the US. In fact the majority that discuss that are those against any "ban". Most people are more sensible and realise that banning won't work any more than the situation at the moment. What is needed is a fresh look at the legislation and a significant tightening up of said legislation.
Click to expand...

That is quite true, when there isn't even a discussion about making it so that you can't buy a gun if you're unable to fly due to the risk you're supposed to be there is obviously something wrong with the system.

Personally it amazes me that people are required to get training and tested before they're allowed to use a car on their own (and then again for different classes of vehicle), yet virtually anyone can walk into a store and buy a weapon that can very easily kill people with the only limit basically being what you can afford.
 
Werewolf said:
That is quite true, when there isn't even a discussion about making it so that you can't buy a gun if you're unable to fly due to the risk you're supposed to be there is obviously something wrong with the system.
Click to expand...

It's been discussed. As there is no judicial process with the no fly list (anyone can be put on it for any reason) and firearms are a right, that's where the discussion ends.
 
And to be fair the no fly list is probably going to make bugger all difference to mass shootings and other gun crime because they are not on any terrorist watch lists...

Not really knowing the requirements for testing to get a firearm in the US I'm not going to propose anything specific but certainly things like psychological testing, interviews, "reasons for needing one" and limits based on requirements seem like good starting points, along with the "gun show loophole", which just seems ripe for abuse.

The term refers to the concept that a loophole in federal law exists, under which "[a]ny person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the State where he resides as long as he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms".
Click to expand...

So basically (in all but 18 states) as long as you aren't a a licensed seller (so a gun shop then?) you can sell or give weapons to anyone without any kind of check, perfectly legally.

Private-party sellers are not legally required by federal law to: ask for identification, complete any forms, or keep any sales records, as long as the sale does not cross state lines.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

Which explains why the government have no idea who has what.
 
Amp34 said:
And to be fair the no fly list is probably going to make bugger all difference to mass shootings and other gun crime because they are not on any terrorist watch lists...

Not really knowing the requirements for testing to get a firearm in the US I'm not going to propose anything specific but certainly things like psychological testing, interviews, "reasons for needing one" and limits based on requirements seem like good starting points, along with the "gun show loophole", which just seems ripe for abuse.



So basically (in all but 18 states) as long as you aren't a a licensed seller (so a gun shop then?) you can sell or give weapons to anyone without any kind of check, perfectly legally.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

Which explains why the government have no idea who has what.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting the part where it's a right.

If they can require psychological tests, interviews, reasons, for gun ownership then they can require those same things for any other right, ie free speech etc...

No thanks.

To be clear, in order to get a 'License to Carry', which I have, in Texas you are required to pass both a State and FBI background investigation which includes any psychiatric records.

Now, as I've said here before, I'd like to fix the 'over the fence' sales problem, but there's just no way to do that without putting the constitution through a shredder. It's not going to happen.

Blaming the gun for gun violence is the same as blaming the car for drunk driving deaths. IOW, it's beyond insane. The problem, as with almost everything, is people. Now, how do we fix that??

Don't ever forget, in America gun ownership is a right. You don't have to like it, but you'd better find a way to deal with it because it's not going anywhere.

Not one single restriction that the anti-gun lobby has managed to push through has had any measurable effect on gun violence. Prove me wrong. (you can't do it, as you can't prove a negative.). But why is that really? It's because the problem isn't guns, it's people.
 
And that is why tens of thousands of Americanswill continue to die due to firearms related incidents each year.

Let's not forget, an amendment can be tables and agreed upon that overwrites an existing amendment, if needed.

And it's not as if the American public as a whole aren't against stricter gun laws.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/06/20/politics/cnn-gun-poll/index.html

The American public want stricter rules, unfortunately the republicans and NRA are too powerful to allow any real change to get onto legislature.
 
To add to the previous post - an example of subsequent amendments removing "rights" written into the US constitution would be the 13th amendment. That amendment in 1867 removed the "right" to own slaves and abolished slavery and forced servitude...

"Rights" written into the constitution at the beginning don't always stand the test of time and can (and have been) modified and removed when they are seen to be not fit for purpose or wrong.
 
DHR said:
Thought exactly the same.
Click to expand...

Problem is we are not allowed to say it anymore on here until it is confirmed a 100% with out the fear of racist or bigot etc etc being thrown about by the usual, who strangely enough are allowed to get away with banding those words around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom