Current Events > Democrat congressman blames McConnell for California school shooting

(+) Yeah! (+)

Mr Hangman posted...

Pushing those laws on the back of a shooting that would in no way have been affected by them is completely disingenuous and destroys your credibility. It shows that you don't think through the consequences of your proposals and aren't actually interested in solutions. You have a predisposed view of a society where no one except our unaccountable racist murderer cops have guns and whatever happens it's just confirmation bias that that's how it should be.

lol wut?

I'm not pushing any laws "on the back of a shooting" it's not my fault there's a shooting every 2 seconds. I'm pushing laws that would reduce mass shootings. And that to me seems like very solution based.
---

I blame China for inventing gunpowder.
---

joe40001 posted...

Mr Hangman posted...

Please explain which proposed law might have stopped this particular shooting and why.

Universal background checks, red flag laws, no selling to violent criminals

For any given shooting will these necessarily prevent it? No. For any given shooting do having these in place at the federal level decrease the odds a shooting will happen? Yes, very much so.

None of those would have stopped this, Cali already has those in place.

Maybe they should just make murder illegal. That should stop this.
---

Bossdog421 posted...

joe40001 posted...

Mr Hangman posted...

Please explain which proposed law might have stopped this particular shooting and why.

Universal background checks, red flag laws, no selling to violent criminals

For any given shooting will these necessarily prevent it? No. For any given shooting do having these in place at the federal level decrease the odds a shooting will happen? Yes, very much so.

None of those would have stopped this, Cali already has those in place.

Maybe they should just make murder illegal. That should stop this.

Are you saying definitively that
1. These laws being on a federal level would have had 0 effect at preventing this shooting?
2. These laws would have 0 effect on preventing any shooting, say any of the others that have happened since this topic was made?
---

Makes as much sense as blaming lack or prayer in school or same sex marriage.
---

joe40001 posted...

Bossdog421 posted...

joe40001 posted...

Mr Hangman posted...

Please explain which proposed law might have stopped this particular shooting and why.

Universal background checks, red flag laws, no selling to violent criminals

For any given shooting will these necessarily prevent it? No. For any given shooting do having these in place at the federal level decrease the odds a shooting will happen? Yes, very much so.

None of those would have stopped this, Cali already has those in place.

Maybe they should just make murder illegal. That should stop this.

Are you saying definitively that
1. These laws being on a federal level would have had 0 effect at preventing this shooting?
2. These laws would have 0 effect on preventing any shooting, say any of the others that have happened since this topic was made?

Point is people that do this don't care about the laws. If they are at the point where they are considering killing people in cold blood they are already lost, an extra law or 10 isn't going to stop them, they are already willing to break the law.
---

joe40001 posted...

Universal background checks, red flag laws, no selling to violent criminals

For any given shooting will these necessarily prevent it? No. For any given shooting do having these in place at the federal level decrease the odds a shooting will happen? Yes, very much so.

The kid was 16. None of what you said would have prevented it.

---

Monolith1676 posted...

joe40001 posted...

Universal background checks, red flag laws, no selling to violent criminals

For any given shooting will these necessarily prevent it? No. For any given shooting do having these in place at the federal level decrease the odds a shooting will happen? Yes, very much so.

The kid was 16. None of what you said would have prevented it.

1. You don't know that. 2. It would prevent others
---

1. He couldn't legally buy a firearm at 16 so how would any of what you suggested prevent it?

2. Most gun related crimes are committed by people who aren't legal gun owners.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/

---

But honestly, UBC, red flag laws, no selling to violent offenders has no negative consequences for normal gun owners, and will prevent some shootings.

I mean how up the NRA's butt do you have to be to literally play around with human life by saying stuff like "but... it's only going to stop like 20% of mass shootings, so why even bother?"
---

joe40001 posted...

red flag laws

joe40001 posted...

has no negative consequences for normal gun owners

lol

---

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/more-80-percent-guns-used-mass-shootings-obtained-legally-n474441
---

Malcrasternus posted...

joe40001 posted...

red flag laws

joe40001 posted...

has no negative consequences for normal gun owners

lol

Maybe you should look at the corpses of the children at sandy hook while you lol, since you think it's so fucking funny.
---

I have patience for just about everybody on this earth, but the people who literally value not doing paperwork when they buy guns over human life are scum who I won't indulge.

There are several laws 80+% of the country support that WILL SAVE LIVES. Unless you have a better solution, shut the fuck up and let the people with souls actually make a difference.
---

DeadBankerDream posted...

I'm all for blaming everything bad that ever happened on Mitch McConnell. It doesn't even have to be true, I'll still fair, next it.

Comments like this are why we will vote him in for another 6 years.
---

joe40001 posted...

Malcrasternus posted...

joe40001 posted...

red flag laws

joe40001 posted...

has no negative consequences for normal gun owners

lol

Maybe you should look at the corpses of the children at sandy hook while you lol, since you think it's so fucking funny.

Didn't that guy also use a gun he didn't legally own for that?
---

Mr Hangman posted...

joe40001 posted...

I have patience for just about everybody on this earth, but the people who literally value not doing paperwork when they buy guns over human life are scum who I won't indulge.

Nobody believes that. They believe that these laws will not save lives. And they believe that the laws will be abused, as gun control laws always have been, e.g. to disarm minorities. By attributing such a laughably cartoonish opinion to your political opponents you are closing the door to any constructive dialogue.

People legitimately think the laws will not save lives?
https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819576527
---

joe40001 posted...

Mr Hangman posted...

joe40001 posted...

I have patience for just about everybody on this earth, but the people who literally value not doing paperwork when they buy guns over human life are scum who I won't indulge.

Nobody believes that. They believe that these laws will not save lives. And they believe that the laws will be abused, as gun control laws always have been, e.g. to disarm minorities. By attributing such a laughably cartoonish opinion to your political opponents you are closing the door to any constructive dialogue.

People legitimately think the laws will not save lives?
https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819576527

LMFAO
---

The Onion, heh.

That's a site I haven't heard of in ages.


---

Mr Hangman posted...

joe40001 posted...

People legitimately think the laws will not save lives?

Yeah, duh. There's plenty of laws that don't do what they're intended.

Let's put it this way: What do you think are the odds Federal Gun Licenses + UBC + Red Flag laws + No selling to violent criminals would prevent at least 1 mass shooting?
---

Mr Hangman posted...

I don't think it would prevent most of them. Not zero, sure. "If it saves one life then it's worth doing!" I hear you say. But no, that's wrong. Lowering the speed limits to 20 MPH everywhere at all times would save lives, but we don't do that. The costs would be greater than the benefits.

Gun licenses and background checks are already required. Red flag laws are, to put it generously, on very shaky ground with regard to due process. It sends cops to deal with the mentally ill. People with untreated mental illness are 16 times more likely to be killed by law enforcement

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/state-law/50-state-summaries/licensing-state-by-state/
You don't even have to go down the list at all before you encounter states that don't require gun licenses

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/
Only 12 states have Universal Background Checks.

Don't like red flag? Fine. But make UBC and gun license requirements federal and you will save significant innocent lives, and despite your hyperbole will not cripple society in the same way slowing all cars to 20mph would.
---

joe40001 posted...

Mr Hangman posted...

I don't think it would prevent most of them. Not zero, sure. "If it saves one life then it's worth doing!" I hear you say. But no, that's wrong. Lowering the speed limits to 20 MPH everywhere at all times would save lives, but we don't do that. The costs would be greater than the benefits.

Gun licenses and background checks are already required. Red flag laws are, to put it generously, on very shaky ground with regard to due process. It sends cops to deal with the mentally ill. People with untreated mental illness are 16 times more likely to be killed by law enforcement

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/state-law/50-state-summaries/licensing-state-by-state/
You don't even have to go down the list at all before you encounter states that don't require gun licenses

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/
Only 12 states have Universal Background Checks.

Don't like red flag? Fine. But make UBC and gun license requirements federal and you will save significant innocent lives, and despite your hyperbole will not cripple society in the same way slowing all cars to 20mph would.

What will expanding background checks accomplish? Flagging the mentally ill? Yeah good luck with that one flying in court.
---

scorpion41 posted...

joe40001 posted...

Mr Hangman posted...

I don't think it would prevent most of them. Not zero, sure. "If it saves one life then it's worth doing!" I hear you say. But no, that's wrong. Lowering the speed limits to 20 MPH everywhere at all times would save lives, but we don't do that. The costs would be greater than the benefits.

Gun licenses and background checks are already required. Red flag laws are, to put it generously, on very shaky ground with regard to due process. It sends cops to deal with the mentally ill. People with untreated mental illness are 16 times more likely to be killed by law enforcement

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/state-law/50-state-summaries/licensing-state-by-state/
You don't even have to go down the list at all before you encounter states that don't require gun licenses

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/
Only 12 states have Universal Background Checks.

Don't like red flag? Fine. But make UBC and gun license requirements federal and you will save significant innocent lives, and despite your hyperbole will not cripple society in the same way slowing all cars to 20mph would.

What will expanding background checks accomplish? Flagging the mentally ill? Yeah good luck with that one flying in court.

Nice straw man

The description of the law is right there for you to read.

It's not an expansion, it's just implementing UBC in the 38 states that don't have it. Same with the licensing in the states that don't have it.
---

joe40001 posted...

scorpion41 posted...

joe40001 posted...

Mr Hangman posted...

I don't think it would prevent most of them. Not zero, sure. "If it saves one life then it's worth doing!" I hear you say. But no, that's wrong. Lowering the speed limits to 20 MPH everywhere at all times would save lives, but we don't do that. The costs would be greater than the benefits.

Gun licenses and background checks are already required. Red flag laws are, to put it generously, on very shaky ground with regard to due process. It sends cops to deal with the mentally ill. People with untreated mental illness are 16 times more likely to be killed by law enforcement

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/state-law/50-state-summaries/licensing-state-by-state/
You don't even have to go down the list at all before you encounter states that don't require gun licenses

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/
Only 12 states have Universal Background Checks.

Don't like red flag? Fine. But make UBC and gun license requirements federal and you will save significant innocent lives, and despite your hyperbole will not cripple society in the same way slowing all cars to 20mph would.

What will expanding background checks accomplish? Flagging the mentally ill? Yeah good luck with that one flying in court.

Nice straw man

The description of the law is right there for you to read.

It's not an expansion, it's just implementing UBC in the 38 states that don't have it. Same with the licensing in the states that don't have it.

You still cant flag the mentally ill, homie. That would require making their medical records public, which is in violation of HIPAA rules unless it is involved with past criminal activity.

And all states require background checks when buying through FFL dealers. Even with UBC in place, private deals can and will occur with little or no consequence to the seller. Scratch the serial off and you have an untraceable weapon.

Background check laws only hamstring people going the legal route to procure a weapon...they dont do much to deter a criminal.
---

scorpion41 posted...

joe40001 posted...

scorpion41 posted...

joe40001 posted...

Mr Hangman posted...

I don't think it would prevent most of them. Not zero, sure. "If it saves one life then it's worth doing!" I hear you say. But no, that's wrong. Lowering the speed limits to 20 MPH everywhere at all times would save lives, but we don't do that. The costs would be greater than the benefits.

Gun licenses and background checks are already required. Red flag laws are, to put it generously, on very shaky ground with regard to due process. It sends cops to deal with the mentally ill. People with untreated mental illness are 16 times more likely to be killed by law enforcement

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/state-law/50-state-summaries/licensing-state-by-state/
You don't even have to go down the list at all before you encounter states that don't require gun licenses

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/
Only 12 states have Universal Background Checks.

Don't like red flag? Fine. But make UBC and gun license requirements federal and you will save significant innocent lives, and despite your hyperbole will not cripple society in the same way slowing all cars to 20mph would.

What will expanding background checks accomplish? Flagging the mentally ill? Yeah good luck with that one flying in court.

Nice straw man

The description of the law is right there for you to read.

It's not an expansion, it's just implementing UBC in the 38 states that don't have it. Same with the licensing in the states that don't have it.

You still cant flag the mentally ill, homie. That would require making their medical records public, which is in violation of HIPAA rules unless it is involved with past criminal activity.

And all states require background checks when buying through FFL dealers. Even with UBC in place, private deals can and will occur with little or no consequence to the seller. Scratch the serial off and you have an untraceable weapon.

Background check laws only hamstring people going the legal route to procure a weapon...they dont do much to deter a criminal.

You are the one who is bringing up flagging the mentally ill.

And yeah, duh, UBC slow down people who want to buy a gun legally but shouldn't be able to. That's the point. We are much better off if somebody is committing a crime buying the gun than everything being 100% legally hunky dory until they unload their bullets into a crowd of innocent people.

Is your argument literally "laws server 0 point because people can just break the law"? Is that seriously what you are saying?
---

joe40001 posted...

scorpion41 posted...

joe40001 posted...

scorpion41 posted...

joe40001 posted...

Mr Hangman posted...

I don't think it would prevent most of them. Not zero, sure. "If it saves one life then it's worth doing!" I hear you say. But no, that's wrong. Lowering the speed limits to 20 MPH everywhere at all times would save lives, but we don't do that. The costs would be greater than the benefits.

Gun licenses and background checks are already required. Red flag laws are, to put it generously, on very shaky ground with regard to due process. It sends cops to deal with the mentally ill. People with untreated mental illness are 16 times more likely to be killed by law enforcement

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/state-law/50-state-summaries/licensing-state-by-state/
You don't even have to go down the list at all before you encounter states that don't require gun licenses

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/
Only 12 states have Universal Background Checks.

Don't like red flag? Fine. But make UBC and gun license requirements federal and you will save significant innocent lives, and despite your hyperbole will not cripple society in the same way slowing all cars to 20mph would.

What will expanding background checks accomplish? Flagging the mentally ill? Yeah good luck with that one flying in court.

Nice straw man

The description of the law is right there for you to read.

It's not an expansion, it's just implementing UBC in the 38 states that don't have it. Same with the licensing in the states that don't have it.

You still cant flag the mentally ill, homie. That would require making their medical records public, which is in violation of HIPAA rules unless it is involved with past criminal activity.

And all states require background checks when buying through FFL dealers. Even with UBC in place, private deals can and will occur with little or no consequence to the seller. Scratch the serial off and you have an untraceable weapon.

Background check laws only hamstring people going the legal route to procure a weapon...they dont do much to deter a criminal.

You are the one who is bringing up flagging the mentally ill.

And yeah, duh, UBC slow down people who want to buy a gun legally but shouldn't be able to. That's the point. We are much better off if somebody is committing a crime buying the gun than everything being 100% legally hunky dory until they unload their bullets into a crowd of innocent people.

Is your argument literally "laws server 0 point because people can just break the law"? Is that seriously what you are saying?

Youre aware we already have over 200 federal laws governing firearms already, right? Which one of those stopped a shooter from legally buying a weapon? The Parkland shooter was able to buy his weapon because local agencies were too lazy to put in information that wouldve flagged him. UBC wouldnt have turned up anything either. Putting more laws on the books and restricting a right further is not the answer here.
---

scorpion41 posted...

joe40001 posted...

You are the one who is bringing up flagging the mentally ill.

And yeah, duh, UBC slow down people who want to buy a gun legally but shouldn't be able to. That's the point. We are much better off if somebody is committing a crime buying the gun than everything being 100% legally hunky dory until they unload their bullets into a crowd of innocent people.

Is your argument literally "laws server 0 point because people can just break the law"? Is that seriously what you are saying?

Youre aware we already have over 200 federal laws governing firearms already, right? Which one of those stopped a shooter from legally buying a weapon? The Parkland shooter was able to buy his weapon because local agencies were too lazy to put in information that wouldve flagged him. UBC wouldnt have turned up anything either. Putting more laws on the books and restricting a right further is not the answer here.

Ok, it's unfortunate that i have to explain this element of reality to you, but I will:

The shootings prevented by existing laws didn't happen, thus it is impossible for me to name them.

"Seriously, tell me 1 plane crash that was prevented by pilots needing licenses. YOU CAN'T! Thus pilot licenses are pointless."
---

Apples and oranges, my dude. Being trained to operate something is not the same as someone with malicious intent wanting to harm innocent people.
---

Dark_Spiret posted...

so wait. their blaming him for striking down a universal background check bill for causing a school shooting in california..who already has universal background checks in place anyway?

Yes.
---

joe40001 posted...

Mr Hangman posted...

joe40001 posted...

People legitimately think the laws will not save lives?

Yeah, duh. There's plenty of laws that don't do what they're intended.

Let's put it this way: What do you think are the odds Federal Gun Licenses + UBC + Red Flag laws + No selling to violent criminals would prevent at least 1 mass shooting?

Federal voting licenses + universal voter background checks + red flag voter laws + voter ID + no violent criminals voting would prevent at least 1 illegal vote, right?
---

darkjedilink posted...

joe40001 posted...

Mr Hangman posted...

joe40001 posted...

People legitimately think the laws will not save lives?

Yeah, duh. There's plenty of laws that don't do what they're intended.

Let's put it this way: What do you think are the odds Federal Gun Licenses + UBC + Red Flag laws + No selling to violent criminals would prevent at least 1 mass shooting?

Federal voting licenses + universal voter background checks + red flag voter laws + voter ID + no violent criminals voting would prevent at least 1 illegal vote, right?

Yes
---

scorpion41 posted...

Apples and oranges, my dude. Being trained to operate something is not the same as someone with malicious intent wanting to harm innocent people.

But the point is that laws on the books have saved lives, but obviously without a multiverse analyser we can't easily know which lives.

Other countries don't have this kind of mass shooting problems, other countries have different gun laws. What a coincidence!
---

joe40001 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

joe40001 posted...

Mr Hangman posted...

joe40001 posted...

People legitimately think the laws will not save lives?

Yeah, duh. There's plenty of laws that don't do what they're intended.

Let's put it this way: What do you think are the odds Federal Gun Licenses + UBC + Red Flag laws + No selling to violent criminals would prevent at least 1 mass shooting?

Federal voting licenses + universal voter background checks + red flag voter laws + voter ID + no violent criminals voting would prevent at least 1 illegal vote, right?

Yes

So, by your logic, we should implement all of that, regardless of who's rights are trampled.

After all, voting and owning a firearm are both Constitutionally protected fundamental rights of equal import, as proven numerous times by the Supreme Court.
---

darkjedilink posted...

joe40001 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

joe40001 posted...

Mr Hangman posted...

joe40001 posted...

People legitimately think the laws will not save lives?

Yeah, duh. There's plenty of laws that don't do what they're intended.

Let's put it this way: What do you think are the odds Federal Gun Licenses + UBC + Red Flag laws + No selling to violent criminals would prevent at least 1 mass shooting?

Federal voting licenses + universal voter background checks + red flag voter laws + voter ID + no violent criminals voting would prevent at least 1 illegal vote, right?

Yes

So, by your logic, we should implement all of that, regardless of who's rights are trampled.

No. My logic is about negatives vs positives. What is the cost of new laws and what might it do?

A "red flag" law on voting (whatever you might mean by that) is not really going to help anything at all, but could suppress legitimate votes.

UBC and licensing isn't going to be that much of a burden on responsible gun owners but will save lives.
---

joe40001 posted...

scorpion41 posted...

Apples and oranges, my dude. Being trained to operate something is not the same as someone with malicious intent wanting to harm innocent people.

But the point is that laws on the books have saved lives, but obviously without a multiverse analyser we can't easily know which lives.

Other countries don't have this kind of mass shooting problems, other countries have different gun laws. What a coincidence!

Other countries also outright ban guns, and have worse gun crime than us, so, yes, you're correct in calling it a coincidence.
---

darkjedilink posted...

joe40001 posted...

scorpion41 posted...

Apples and oranges, my dude. Being trained to operate something is not the same as someone with malicious intent wanting to harm innocent people.

But the point is that laws on the books have saved lives, but obviously without a multiverse analyser we can't easily know which lives.

Other countries don't have this kind of mass shooting problems, other countries have different gun laws. What a coincidence!

Other countries also outright ban guns, and have worse gun crime than us, so, yes, you're correct in calling it a coincidence.

Name one.
---

joe40001 posted...

scorpion41 posted...

Apples and oranges, my dude. Being trained to operate something is not the same as someone with malicious intent wanting to harm innocent people.

But the point is that laws on the books have saved lives, but obviously without a multiverse analyser we can't easily know which lives.

Other countries don't have this kind of mass shooting problems, other countries have different gun laws. What a coincidence!

Laws wont fix it though. More often than not, the firearms used in shootings were legally purchased. Thats the point control advocates like yourself are missing. Many of these shooters were law abiding citizens at one point. No law is going to curb this. What Europe has in place, as well as Australia, is essentially a gun ban. Not going to fly in a country where gun ownership is a protected right.
---

scorpion41 posted...

joe40001 posted...

scorpion41 posted...

Apples and oranges, my dude. Being trained to operate something is not the same as someone with malicious intent wanting to harm innocent people.

But the point is that laws on the books have saved lives, but obviously without a multiverse analyser we can't easily know which lives.

Other countries don't have this kind of mass shooting problems, other countries have different gun laws. What a coincidence!

Laws wont fix it though. More often than not, the firearms used in shootings were legally purchased. Thats the point control advocates like yourself are missing. Many of these shooters were law abiding citizens at one point. No law is going to curb this. What Europe has in place, as well as Australia, is essentially a gun ban. Not going to fly in a country where gun ownership is a protected right.

Ummmm, that's not true at all. Most shootings are done where the shooter did not purchase the gun legally - he either stole it or bought it illegally in some fashion.
---

joe40001 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

joe40001 posted...

scorpion41 posted...

Apples and oranges, my dude. Being trained to operate something is not the same as someone with malicious intent wanting to harm innocent people.

But the point is that laws on the books have saved lives, but obviously without a multiverse analyser we can't easily know which lives.

Other countries don't have this kind of mass shooting problems, other countries have different gun laws. What a coincidence!

Other countries also outright ban guns, and have worse gun crime than us, so, yes, you're correct in calling it a coincidence.

Name one.

Mexico, for starters.
---

darkjedilink posted...

joe40001 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

joe40001 posted...

scorpion41 posted...

Apples and oranges, my dude. Being trained to operate something is not the same as someone with malicious intent wanting to harm innocent people.

But the point is that laws on the books have saved lives, but obviously without a multiverse analyser we can't easily know which lives.

Other countries don't have this kind of mass shooting problems, other countries have different gun laws. What a coincidence!

Other countries also outright ban guns, and have worse gun crime than us, so, yes, you're correct in calling it a coincidence.

Name one.

Mexico, for starters.

2 Things:
1. Are you arguing that the quality of law enforcement in mexico is comperable to the US? Because I don't think most people would agree with that.
2. Also you are wrong:
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Murders-with-firearms-per-million
Another source:
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/gun-deaths-by-country/
US has more gun deaths than a borderline lawless place like Mexico
United States has 12.21 per 100k people per year
Mexico has 7.64 per 100k people per year
---

MITCH the BITCH
---