Mass Shootings in America Thread

Originally posted by jaden101
The AR-15 is not a military weapon

Its a varient of a rifle sold to and used by numerous militaries.

Originally posted by jaden101
Oh. And I'm pretty sure God never wrote the US constitution or mentioned stuff in the bible about owning guns.

The opposite notion is this ethically relativistic stance in which what you are ethically entitled to is subject to the whims of society or government, essentially an appeal to either authority or the majority.

Originally posted by BackFire
Sure, when Obama was President. He's not president anymore.

Were the new Australian gun laws effective?

They went from a whole 13 mass shootings to 1. But I don't think they had something like a 2nd amendment like we do.

Face it, this is our culture. Love it or leave it. We will never be an Australia or even a Europe.

Originally posted by Surtur
They went from a whole 13 mass shootings to 1. But I don't think they had something like a 2nd amendment like we do.

Face it, this is our culture. Love it or leave it. We will never be an Australia or even a Europe.

I agree, I don't think a full blown ban or confiscation is possible in this country. And as I said, I don't know anyone actually in favor of that. Obama may have praised Australia, but he never actually pushed to enact any comparable legislation, even when he had a super majority. Hey may have just been praising the fact that they actually did something, which is more than we are willing to do.

But I just would like it if people stopped pretending that gun control legislation doesn't work. It clearly does work as evidenced by it working in other countries. They should just make the honest argument that even though it may work, they just don't want it done because it goes against their deeply held convictions and beliefs about guns.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
It's a variant made to be a non-military variant, ie. it's only semi-automatic. It's clearly scaled back for civilian use. Calling it a military weapon is disingenuous imo.

The point made by the philosophical notion of God given rights is the classical liberal notion of inalienable rights and natural law. That you inherently ethically are deserving of certain rights that others should not infringe upon, life, liberty, and property. Some compromises must be made for the protection of rights, as is the existence of the government and taxation, but in general it should be kept to a minimum.

The opposite notion is this ethically relativistic stance in which what you are ethically entitled to is subject to the whims of society or government, essentially an appeal to either authority or the majority.

Apparently the right to life isn't all that high on the list.

Originally posted by jaden101
Apparently the right to life isn't all that high on the list.

Do unborn children have a right to life?

Originally posted by BackFire
Yes, I do. I've spoken to them at length numerous times about it.

My mom believes that the AR-15 should be outright banned, she believes every gun sale should be proceeded by a mental health check, and if you fail, you don't get a gun, and if anyone in your family has a mental health issue, then you should not own a gun (I'm with her on this, I believe this would be the most effective way to curb these mass shootings.) She also believes that if you have any subversively violent images on your social media pages, then that should disqualify you from being able to own a gun. You should have to wait several weeks from when you want to buy a gun to when you actually receive it, and that there should be very intense background checks for every gun purchase.

My dad, I know a bit less about on the issue, I believe he is also in favor of AR-15 bans, and he also thinks that you should not be able to buy guns until you are older (what age, I'm not sure, over 21, though). He is in favor of background checks and mental health checks.

While I disagree with banning the AR, your dad's position seems fairly reasonable.

Originally posted by Silent Master
While I disagree with banning the AR, your dad's position seems fairly reasonable.

It's possible they both hold the same opinion, I've just talked to my mom about it more than my dad.

I think the crux would be forcing a mental health check prior to every gun purchase. Do this, I believe these mass shootings would be all but eliminated while at the same time not really affecting normal gun owning citizens because they would pass said check.

Originally posted by Surtur
Do unborn children have a right to life?

**** no. Irritating little bastards.

Originally posted by jaden101
Apparently the right to life isn't all that high on the list.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well considering murder is extremely illegal I'd say it is.

Yeah but we need to make shooting people for no valid reason illegal. Then things will change.

Originally posted by BackFire
It's possible they both hold the same opinion, I've just talked to my mom about it more than my dad.

I think the crux would be forcing a mental health check prior to every gun purchase. Do this, I believe these mass shootings would be all but eliminated while at the same time not really affecting normal gun owning citizens because they would pass said check.

Improving background checks so they catch people with known mental illnesses has one thing, however forcing a mental health check on everyone before allowing them to exercise their constitutional right is straying into dangerous territory.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Improving background checks so they catch people with known mental illnesses has one thing, however forcing a mental health check on everyone before allowing them to exercise their constitutional right is straying into dangerous territory.

Disagree. I think it'd be a very effective middle ground, it requires a ban on no guns and most people should have no problem passing the test. It would catch a lot of these people who engage in the mass shootings while not having much to do with anyone else. You could even make it so that if you've already owned a gun for X number of years, then you don't need to take the test.

It would also circumvent a lot of the laws in various states that require you wait a certain period of time before you are able to receive a gun. If you pass the mental health check and background check, you can get the gun immediately.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well considering murder is extremely illegal I'd say it is.

Seems to me that having guns is 3 places above not being deadified.

Originally posted by BackFire
Disagree. I think it'd be a very effective middle ground, it requires a ban on no guns and most people should have no problem passing the test. It would catch a lot of these people who engage in the mass shootings while not having much to do with anyone else. You could even make it so that if you've already owned a gun for X number of years, then you don't need to take the test.

It would also circumvent a lot of the laws in various states that require you wait a certain period of time before you are able to receive a gun. If you pass the mental health check and background check, you can get the gun immediately.

How would these mental health checks be provided and who would be picking up the bill?

-By a doctor or qualified professional

-By the person who wants a gun

I needed to pass both a written and driving test to get my auto license, plus the fees. Why should owning a gun be different.

Originally posted by Robtard
-By a doctor or qualified professional

-By the person who wants a gun

I needed to pass both a written and driving test to get my auto license, plus the fees. Why should owning a gun be different.

I'd be okay with that, as long as that standard is applied to all constitutional rights.

Last time I checked my right to vote didn’t mass murder a school

Hundreds of millions of people in this country also didn't match murder a school, why should their constitutional rights be restricted?

Now in my opinion, mental health checks should be covered under all forms of insurance and background checks should be allowed access to that information

Originally posted by Emperordmb
It's a variant made to be a non-military variant, ie. it's only semi-automatic. It's clearly scaled back for civilian use. Calling it a military weapon is disingenuous imo.

The point made by the philosophical notion of God given rights is the classical liberal notion of inalienable rights and natural law. That you inherently ethically are deserving of certain rights that others should not infringe upon, life, liberty, and property. Some compromises must be made for the protection of rights, as is the existence of the government and taxation, but in general it should be kept to a minimum.

The opposite notion is this ethically relativistic stance in which what you are ethically entitled to is subject to the whims of society or government, essentially an appeal to either authority or the majority.

Case in point, Mexico siezed the lands of wealthy land owners and gave them to the poor. This drove them into poverty, and many of them migrated here to the US, for a better life. Meanwhile, the poor sold their land and are still poor.

An example of whims, without bedrock principles to prevent it.