School shooting in California while Republicans block backgroud check in Senate

[SteveRogers]

Like always this is a combination of lax gun laws and a ed up society. Really makes you think, as a potential future parent, why risk raising your kids here?

Sounds extreme, but there are plenty of other first world countries where this never happens: are you really willing to gamble with your kids life at this point?

there are many many things that are many many times more likely to kill your theoretical future children than getting shot at school.

That’s means nothing to the children who get shot at school, and it’s certainly not an excuse to do nothing to prevent children from being shot at school.

If "doing something" means "doing something that very likely won't actually fix the problem", you should probably rethink your approach.

Again, the current strategy of doing nothing clearly hasn’t worked. Do we not owe it to the victims of gun violence to try a different approach?

[fhtagn]

Like always this is a combination of lax gun laws and a ed up society. Really makes you think, as a potential future parent, why risk raising your kids here?

Sounds extreme, but there are plenty of other first world countries where this never happens: are you really willing to gamble with your kids life at this point?

there are many many things that are many many times more likely to kill your theoretical future children than getting shot at school.

That’s means nothing to the children who get shot at school, and it’s certainly not an excuse to do nothing to prevent children from being shot at school.

If "doing something" means "doing something that very likely won't actually fix the problem", you should probably rethink your approach.

Again, the current strategy of doing nothing clearly hasn’t worked. Do we not owe it to the victims of gun violence to try a different approach?

California already has strict gun laws, what more do you suggest would have stopped what happened today?

[Joe Republic]

It's also worth noting that California already has pretty strict gun laws.

It’s not appropriate to make jokes at a serious time like this.

[Pericles]

Having strict gun control at the state level is an inadequate solution to a lack of gun control at the federal level, states can't combat the problem as effectively as the federal government (and ideally of course both states and the federal government would have responsible gun laws. Why settle for less, especially since you'd be settling for needless loss of life?)

[fhtagn]

Having strict gun control at the state level is an inadequate solution to a lack of gun control at the federal level, states can't combat the problem as effectively as the federal government (and ideally of course both states and the federal government would have responsible gun laws. Why settle for less, especially since you'd be settling for needless loss of life?)

Why have laws at the state level then? Why have state legislators and governors at all? After all, you seem to think that's "settling for less".

If you actually think the federal government is best equipped to combat the problem, I also know a Nigerian prince that needs a loan of $2500 and in exchange will pay you back millions. After all, just like the federal government, you can trust that prince because he promised something in return.

[SteveRogers]

Like always this is a combination of lax gun laws and a ed up society. Really makes you think, as a potential future parent, why risk raising your kids here?

Sounds extreme, but there are plenty of other first world countries where this never happens: are you really willing to gamble with your kids life at this point?

there are many many things that are many many times more likely to kill your theoretical future children than getting shot at school.

That’s means nothing to the children who get shot at school, and it’s certainly not an excuse to do nothing to prevent children from being shot at school.

If "doing something" means "doing something that very likely won't actually fix the problem", you should probably rethink your approach.

Again, the current strategy of doing nothing clearly hasn’t worked. Do we not owe it to the victims of gun violence to try a different approach?

California already has strict gun laws, what more do you suggest would have stopped what happened today?

Well the topic of this thread is universal background checks. I suggest that that would be a good place to start.

[fhtagn]

Like always this is a combination of lax gun laws and a ed up society. Really makes you think, as a potential future parent, why risk raising your kids here?

Sounds extreme, but there are plenty of other first world countries where this never happens: are you really willing to gamble with your kids life at this point?

there are many many things that are many many times more likely to kill your theoretical future children than getting shot at school.

That’s means nothing to the children who get shot at school, and it’s certainly not an excuse to do nothing to prevent children from being shot at school.

If "doing something" means "doing something that very likely won't actually fix the problem", you should probably rethink your approach.

Again, the current strategy of doing nothing clearly hasn’t worked. Do we not owe it to the victims of gun violence to try a different approach?

California already has strict gun laws, what more do you suggest would have stopped what happened today?

Well the topic of this thread is universal background checks. I suggest that that would be a good place to start.

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/#state

Twelve states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington) and the District of Columbia require universal background checks at the point of sale for all sales and transfers of all classes of firearms, whether they are purchased from a licensed dealer or an unlicensed seller.

Edit: Adding in that California also requires background checks when purchasing ammo.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/New-California-gun-law-expands-background-checks-14065231.php

The law is a central provision in a far-reaching package of gun-control measures passed by voters in 2016. Proposition 63 also requires online ammunition sales be mailed to a licensed California ammunition vendor and bans individuals from purchasing bullets in other states and crossing over the California border. The measures have been rolled out separately over the past three years.

[Pericles]

Having strict gun control at the state level is an inadequate solution to a lack of gun control at the federal level, states can't combat the problem as effectively as the federal government (and ideally of course both states and the federal government would have responsible gun laws. Why settle for less, especially since you'd be settling for needless loss of life?)

Why have laws at the state level then? Why have state legislators and governors at all? After all, you seem to think that's "settling for less".

If you actually think the federal government is best equipped to combat the problem, I also know a Nigerian prince that needs a loan of $2500 and in exchange will pay you back millions. After all, just like the federal government, you can trust that prince because he promised something in return.

That seems illogical. Let's use a different example and discuss abortion. From your perspective, some states restricting abortion would be good, but abortion laws would still be liberal in some states and people could cross state lines to get abortions (still an impediment to abortions is created by state laws). Surely you would consider it settling for less if you were asked to just accept that abortion laws would be liberal in many states when the alternative would be restrictions on abortion federally? And while state laws would not be ideal in achieving your goals, surely you'd consider it counter productive to just repeal the state laws restricting abortion and have liberal abortion laws in all 50 states? I don't get why if you answer yes you wouldn't agree with my point that gun control is less effective if only done at the state level than if it were also done federally. And if you answer no then honestly you'd probably be pretty irrational.

[cvparty]

Like always this is a combination of lax gun laws and a ed up society. Really makes you think, as a potential future parent, why risk raising your kids here?

Sounds extreme, but there are plenty of other first world countries where this never happens: are you really willing to gamble with your kids life at this point?

Also, since Columbine an average of 3 kids a year have died in mass school shootings. As a current high schooler, I have 0 worries about being killed, and restricting gun rights over 3 lives makes even less sense then if we were to ban cars (since at way more then 3 people are run over by cars every year), and both are obviously ridiculous. Leave our rights alone.

iF We baN GunS ShOuLD WE bAn caRs tOO

[pppolitics]

It's also worth noting that California already has pretty strict gun laws. Probably safe to say "more gun control" clearly wasn't the answer.

This in an argument that is easily debunk.

It's like the argument that strict gun laws doesn't work because of all the shootings that Chicago, despite the strict gun laws in Illinois.

Where do the guns come from?  Indiana.

So of causes strict gun laws don't work if other states have relaxed gun laws.

[GoTfan]

What are background checks going to do about school shootings? Absolutely nothing! Most of the school shooters are under the age of 21 which means they can't legally purchase a firearm anyway in many states. Background checks and age limits don't work if the gun was stolen or illegally purchased. Red flag laws don't work if the shooter never had any red flags prior to the shooting.

Then how about passing actual gun laws.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

What are background checks going to do about school shootings? Absolutely nothing! Most of the school shooters are under the age of 21 which means they can't legally purchase a firearm anyway in many states. Background checks and age limits don't work if the gun was stolen or illegally purchased. Red flag laws don't work if the shooter never had any red flags prior to the shooting.

Then how about passing actual gun laws.

That don't work? What's the point of them if they have no effect?

[GoTfan]

What are background checks going to do about school shootings? Absolutely nothing! Most of the school shooters are under the age of 21 which means they can't legally purchase a firearm anyway in many states. Background checks and age limits don't work if the gun was stolen or illegally purchased. Red flag laws don't work if the shooter never had any red flags prior to the shooting.

Then how about passing actual gun laws.

That don't work? What's the point of them if they have no effect?

They don't work?

Huh. Guess I've been living in the wrong country for 22 years.

[T'Chenka]

What are background checks going to do about school shootings? Absolutely nothing! Most of the school shooters are under the age of 21 which means they can't legally purchase a firearm anyway in many states. Background checks and age limits don't work if the gun was stolen or illegally purchased. Red flag laws don't work if the shooter never had any red flags prior to the shooting.

Then how about passing actual gun laws.

That don't work? What's the point of them if they have no effect?

They work all over the world. Open your eyes.

[dead0man]

What are background checks going to do about school shootings? Absolutely nothing! Most of the school shooters are under the age of 21 which means they can't legally purchase a firearm anyway in many states. Background checks and age limits don't work if the gun was stolen or illegally purchased. Red flag laws don't work if the shooter never had any red flags prior to the shooting.

Then how about passing actual gun laws.

That don't work? What's the point of them if they have no effect?

They work all over the world. Open your eyes.

which nation had high rates of gun violence (which is very different than one or two high profile shootings), then banned guns, then had an obvious drop in gun violence that wasn't already in process before the banning.

[GoTfan]

What are background checks going to do about school shootings? Absolutely nothing! Most of the school shooters are under the age of 21 which means they can't legally purchase a firearm anyway in many states. Background checks and age limits don't work if the gun was stolen or illegally purchased. Red flag laws don't work if the shooter never had any red flags prior to the shooting.

Then how about passing actual gun laws.

That don't work? What's the point of them if they have no effect?

They work all over the world. Open your eyes.

which nation had high rates of gun violence (which is very different than one or two high profile shootings), then banned guns, then had an obvious drop in gun violence that wasn't already in process before the banning.

We had 13 mass shootings in the 18 years prior to Port Arthur.

[T'Chenka]

What are background checks going to do about school shootings? Absolutely nothing! Most of the school shooters are under the age of 21 which means they can't legally purchase a firearm anyway in many states. Background checks and age limits don't work if the gun was stolen or illegally purchased. Red flag laws don't work if the shooter never had any red flags prior to the shooting.

Then how about passing actual gun laws.

That don't work? What's the point of them if they have no effect?

They work all over the world. Open your eyes.

which nation had high rates of gun violence (which is very different than one or two high profile shootings), then banned guns, then had an obvious drop in gun violence that wasn't already in process before the banning.

We had 13 mass shootings in the 18 years prior to Port Arthur.

That comment about Australia was classless and unnecessary. Also, your entire argument seems to boil down to "the problem is too big, therefore you can't solve it the way it was solved on a smaller scale many times before". It's an interesting theory, but I don't see any actual reason for you to come to that conclusion, besides "I am politically against gun control and therefore my preferred theories imvolve gun control not working". We're not buying what you're selling, mate, unless you can provide some solid reasoning.

[GoTfan]

What are background checks going to do about school shootings? Absolutely nothing! Most of the school shooters are under the age of 21 which means they can't legally purchase a firearm anyway in many states. Background checks and age limits don't work if the gun was stolen or illegally purchased. Red flag laws don't work if the shooter never had any red flags prior to the shooting.

Then how about passing actual gun laws.

That don't work? What's the point of them if they have no effect?

They work all over the world. Open your eyes.

which nation had high rates of gun violence (which is very different than one or two high profile shootings), then banned guns, then had an obvious drop in gun violence that wasn't already in process before the banning.

We had 13 mass shootings in the 18 years prior to Port Arthur.

[dead0man]

why the hell was my entire post deleted and not just the questionable (to lightweights) lines removed?...who the hell is TG?  Is there yet another board I'm going to have to cut back in because of mods with an axe that needs grinding?


edit...ahh, of course.  Should have known.

[Mister Mets]

Like always this is a combination of lax gun laws and a ed up society. Really makes you think, as a potential future parent, why risk raising your kids here?

Sounds extreme, but there are plenty of other first world countries where this never happens: are you really willing to gamble with your kids life at this point?

there are many many things that are many many times more likely to kill your theoretical future children than getting shot at school.

That’s means nothing to the children who get shot at school, and it’s certainly not an excuse to do nothing to prevent children from being shot at school.

But it does mean anyone spending their energy on this issue is wasting resources that could be spent on something that will save more lives.

[Badger]

All those laws against murder and murders still occur. Better repeal these do nothing laws!

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Like always this is a combination of lax gun laws and a ed up society. Really makes you think, as a potential future parent, why risk raising your kids here?

Sounds extreme, but there are plenty of other first world countries where this never happens: are you really willing to gamble with your kids life at this point?

there are many many things that are many many times more likely to kill your theoretical future children than getting shot at school.

That’s means nothing to the children who get shot at school, and it’s certainly not an excuse to do nothing to prevent children from being shot at school.

But it does mean anyone spending their energy on this issue is wasting resources that could be spent on something that will save more lives.

Good point. MoscowMitch and the rest of the GOP aren't just killing kids with their obstruction. There's also the lives lost because of other legislation they could be passing...

Just kidding. We all know Republicans only pass legislation if it'll advance the interests of billionaires and bigots.