Certainly loose gun restrictions aren't a problem here.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/10/...is-harper-mercers-guns-were-purchased-legally
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/10/...is-harper-mercers-guns-were-purchased-legally
Well what do you know? Oregon shooter obtained all his guns legally
- Thread starter Huey Grey
- Start date
At the pace we're on... the NRA is going to have a record year in terms of membership growth. You know LaPierre loves the media attention. Likely he'll be asked to give the keynote address at the Republican convention next summer.
Why stop there? Technically the Speaker of the House doesn't need to be a member of Congress. The GOP could nominate LaPierre and then things would really start to get interesting.
Hard to say. On one hand you have to think that all these legally obtained guns being used in all these mass shootings will create a change. But on the other hand, not only has change not been affected by all these shootings, but support for loose gun restrictions seems to have grown.
It's a non answer, I know, but I don't see anyway you can accurately predict what will happen from this.
What do you consider to be loose about Oregon's gun laws? What do they need to change that would prevent this from happening again?
According to Wiki, Oregon has no restrictions on assault weapons, no license requirement, no registration requirement, no permit requirment. They are open carry, allow you to transport guns across their state, and have no NFA restrictions.
Off hand, I would say that Oregon has very loose gun laws.
Huey.....NRA wouldn't exist if citizen's felt safe from criminals, our government and Democrat liberals. They believe in freedom, the Constitution and the right to protect themselves.
I really like this commercial......please watch it and give me your reaction/opinion.
http://www.ispot.tv/ad/AkaT/national-rifle-association-freedoms-safest-place-my-rights
Unfortunately, that's the discussion that will never happen, because the NRA shuts down ANY rational discourse on limiting gun access, period.
It doesn't matter what is in place or changed, there are more guns than citizens floating around. Someone, who is motivated, will always find a way.
Hell, the NRA shuts down the ability to even study the subject.
Its crazy that some really think gun laws will change these types of outcomes here (over 300 million guns floating around the US) but those same people think it is impossible to round up 11 million illegals that leave paper trails where ever they go.
Both are unrealistic, reasonable gun laws are important but that will be the smallest of factors in making a difference in these sort of events. Our time and money are better spent examining and trying to prevent these events from a different perspective.
Both are unrealistic, reasonable gun laws are important but that will be the smallest of factors in making a difference in these sort of events. Our time and money are better spent examining and trying to prevent these events from a different perspective.
The U.S. needs to get rid of all guns in civilian hands. Piss on hunting also. Who needs to shoot animals? Nobody. NRA is worthless bunch of hillbillies.
So could you elaborate on how each of these would prevent this same thing from happening again?
Regarding the members of the NRA... yeah, I believe that's what most non gun toting Americans think of them. It certainly seems like a description of those south of the MasonDixon line.
I think we should get rid of free speech while we are at it. Then we wouldn't be subject to moronic posts like this one.
I've purchased all of my guns legally; but yet I've neither killed anyone nor have my guns.
Australia did place some pretty strict limits on the type of guns you can own and what you can do with them. They had very few mass murders before and have had very few since. New Zealand has had pretty much the same rate as Australia both before the restrictions and after. They have made no changes to their gun laws.
As far as if it actually worked in Australia it has, at least until it hasn't. Lots of mass murders by fire there now though.
You're really going to try to say you don't feel safe from "Democrat liberals"?
Do you ever leave the house or is it too scary???
Man, the GOP has it down so well when it comes to scare tactics. "I need so many guns because of librallls". Jesus you people are stupid.
How would we actually know though? We've never tried it. We've never really tried anything remotely "drastic" when it comes to gun control.
All because of genius retorts like the ones above this post like "I have guns and I've never killed people"... In the immortal words of Chris Rock...
"You're not supposed to shoot someone with your guns, you low expectation having motherf*****"
Slieb what you can't seem to fathom is violent people are violent people. Attacking the rights of others over an outlandish claim that regulating guns will stop violent crimes is laughable. If a person wants to kill people using a gun, they will regardless of any additional regulations. Use some common sense already.
Read my post in the other thread. I acknowledge all of these things. You're just refusing to acknowledge that weapons play a role.
Why is that? Why are you afraid to say "yes, guns play a role in this, but I still think we should keep them largely unregulated because _____". I'll give you a hint as to why that is. Because you can't fill in the blank with anything other than some antiquated reading of the 2A or some other platitude about your rights.
I'm all in on changing any and all systems in order to limit all of these tragedies as much as possible. I will listen to suggestions and champion them at any turn if I think they'll help.
Will you? Or are your stupid ass guns that important to you?
When did I say that guns aren't involved in shootings? To say that would be flat out stupid, as it;s pretty obvious that if its a shooting, there is a real good chance a gun was involved.
To fill in your blank is easy; but largely unregulated is a poor term as there are regulations. And my answer has very little to do with 2A.
I had to go through a federal background check, I had to register my weapons at the time of purchase, I purchased all of my weapons through an FFL dealer, I had to complete the required training for my permit to carry.
The point I was making is the violent people that are hell bend on going through with terrible acts such as the Oregon shooting will do it regardless of any additional restrictions to legally obtain firearms.
To fill in your blank is easy; but largely unregulated is a poor term as there are regulations. And my answer has very little to do with 2A.
I had to go through a federal background check, I had to register my weapons at the time of purchase, I purchased all of my weapons through an FFL dealer, I had to complete the required training for my permit to carry.
The point I was making is the violent people that are hell bend on going through with terrible acts such as the Oregon shooting will do it regardless of any additional restrictions to legally obtain firearms.
Except that's just a hypothesis.
If I could walk downstairs to the shop that is in my building and buy a (this will show my ignorance of drugs) gram of cocaine, I would be infinitely more enticed to do cocaine. I still wouldn't, but one major deterrent would be removed. This shooter had a major deterrent removed, as Oregon doesn't require stringent checks. Even if they did, perhaps this tragedy still happens, but wouldn't other tragedies necessarily be caught in that trap?
On top of that, if you went through all of that, why wouldn't you want others to go through that. You don't need to go through that for a number of guns nationwide. You don't have to go through that for any guns in a number of states. Why is this "off the table"?
Why? Why specifically are gun enthusiasts against more regulations? Presumably you will still abide by the requirements to own a gun. Or are they going to be too difficult for you? Is that what you're really trying to sell?
I'll ask you again. I will listen to any suggestions and will champion any of them that I think will help curb this problem. Will you?
I will. But your suggestion in another thread would have no impact on what this idiot did. He systematically singled out each victim one by one and shot them one by one.
Absolutely agree. This isn't meant to be a "prevent the Oregon" situation. This guy beat the mental illness hypothesis, the background checks hypothesis, the high capacity hypothesis, the criminal past hypothesis, etc.
That's why we need all of these things, in some form or other. We may never prevent this type of guy (just as I suspect no one would prevent you or I from doing the same thing). But we can, and should, work to prevent other mass shootings. And a big part of that is limiting weapons in some fashion. That's really all I'm arguing at this point. And it's telling that there are still some pushing back like there is no need, when there is so clearly a need for all of these measures.
In some weird, twisted way, this crime might help society. We have no easy solution. We now have to examine all of them and no one is "right" about their previous suggestions.
Oregon state had recently tightened gun laws
"The US state is above average in terms of gun regulation, according to Laura Cutilletta, a senior attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a leading advocacy group in California.
Local elected officials this year made universal background checks mandatory before the sale of any firearm in Oregon, one of 18 out of 50 states to do so."
http://news.yahoo.com/oregon-state-...348.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory&soc_trk=fb
"The US state is above average in terms of gun regulation, according to Laura Cutilletta, a senior attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a leading advocacy group in California.
Local elected officials this year made universal background checks mandatory before the sale of any firearm in Oregon, one of 18 out of 50 states to do so."
http://news.yahoo.com/oregon-state-...348.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory&soc_trk=fb
This is all an interesting balancing act. This guy bought the guns legally. Had no background problems and if he did, how do you handle that wit the privacy laws?
That's utterly ridiculous. The NRA is powerful because it has a shitload of members who vote. Period.
Anybody want to bring up EXCESSIVELY tough gun laws in the city of Chicago? What's happening there?
All this is leading to getting a foot in the door to get rid of ALL guns accept those held by federal employees.
All this is leading to getting a foot in the door to get rid of ALL guns accept those held by federal employees.
I think its time for the black panthers to be heavily armed with openly carried AR15 or AK 47 rifles criss-crossed on their backs standing by voting places and befriending the NRA just because they can.
Your problem seems to be that you really don't have a clue what you are talking about. All gun dealers is every state has to ru
Do you not understand that Dealers have to do background checks on every gun purchase unless the State has a purchase permit system? On top of that each State can require that all gun transfers go through a licensed dealer if they choose. Did you know that any internet transaction that is made to a different State has to be shipped to a FFL dealer? I can't ship my shotgun to my son in Indiana to use for hunting season without shipping it to an FFL.
Most people I know try to hide their ignorance, you seem to wear yours like a badge of honor.
So what you're saying is that all the bloated laws didn't make a difference?
So you're going to tell me there the is nothing more stringent than what Oregon is doing?
Or are you going to tell me that we couldn't create more stringent national standards?
Hell, let me make it easier for you. Do you think the current system is sufficiently thorough, or do you think we could make improvements?
Most people I know try to hide their stupidity, you seem to wear yours like a badge of honor.
