Oct 14, 2017 05:42 AM
(Oct 13, 2017 09:28 PM)Leigha Wrote: He bought his guns, legally. http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/07/wh...all-legal/
What I'm saying, is that the background checks should be more stringent, and NO ONE should be able to buy a gun if they're on medication that is specifically to control anxiety, aggression, or depression. Sorry, not sorry. Where does one person's ''rights'' begin to infringe on the well being and safety of our rights? No one has a ''right'' to put someone else in danger, and the fact of the matter is that many people dropped the ball.
Having said that, I don't view this massacre as it being mainly due to the US' gun laws. If anyone wants to take out a group of people, there are ways to illegally obtain guns, there are ways to accomplish the task without using guns at all. (Terrorists have been using vehicles and planes to cause mass destruction) But, the fact that he did buy so many guns, there should have been red flags in the databases of these gun shop owners, and a medical background check should be in order. Like applying for a life insurance policy, the company is required to know if the applicant is on any medications, has undergone surgeries, etc...basically, people lie on their applications, so in order to prevent insurance companies from taking a loss, they have the right to access a medical database to obtain someone's records. These gun shop owners should send the applicant's documentation off to a third party who privately looks into the gun applicant's medical background. And if the meds are questionable, the person shouldn't be permitted to buy a gun. The government would have to pass a HIPAA law in order to have this incorporated into the purchase of a gun, there definitely would be a lot of anger from the general public, but if it's a matter of public safety, then it shouldn't be ruled out.
Yes, he certainly did buy them legally. The point is that he was rich enough he didn't have to. No amount of restriction on legal gun purchases will ever stop the determined criminal. Just look at Mexico, which has strict gun control and about four times the US murder rate...and most the guns are in the hands of the cartels. Valium is not generally indicated for aggression or depression, and there's no clear evidence that he displayed such diagnosable symptoms. So neither more restrictions on legal gun buyers nor the invasion of privacy into medical records would have stopped this. We know this because he had also amassed legally obtained explosives and bomb-making materials, which neither precaution would have stopped either. And as you say, there's always vehicles...like the one used in Nice that killed more people (86 deaths, 458 injured)...and the Vegas shooter was also a pilot.
As we discussed about a moderate view being the one that weighed the actual outcome of policies, it is not moderate to restrict the legal freedoms of law abiding citizens without the slightest indication of it accomplishing the stated goal. To do so is only an emotional argument that simply insists we "do something" regardless of efficacy. That is reactionary...not moderate.
Quote:If their application to purchase a gun is denied, and they still wish to continue plotting their massacre, they'll have to find another way to carry it out. Your medical records shouldn't be confidential if you're interested in buying a deadly weapon.
I know what will be said...well, should there be medical background checks for people who apply for a drivers license, after all...a car can kill people, too. True, but the intent of a car isn't to kill people. The only intent of a gun is to kill or injure animals/people.
Yes, another way...like the truck that killed about 1.5 times as many people in Nice.
Cars and guns don't have intents. They're both tools. There are roughly 250 million cars and trucks in the US and about 300 million guns. Can you guess which kills more people? According to the CDC, gun murder is less than a third (11,018) of vehicle deaths (33,736): https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr65/nvsr65_04.pdf
So which is more dangerous again?
And no, the intented purpose for most guns is sport or self-defense (saving lives). Obama's CDC even estimated the defensive use of guns to be anywhere from 500,000 to more than 3 million per year (in the context of 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms): https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15
So tell me how what you're advocating is moderate. O_o
Moderation weighs liberty against the actual, provable good restrictions may do.
Quote:This is how I feel about it, and if nothing comes of this and everyone just walks away throwing their hands up like ''oh well, that was such a shame'' then we're going to see more of these rampages, especially when wanna be serial murderers see how easy it is to get away with this.
Maybe you missed where he didn't get away with it. He died. And no one is saying "oh well". They're saying that no one can fight a threat that gives no signs of danger. Even if all your advocated policies were in effect, we KNOW that he had other means not only available but already planned.
A moderate shouldn't advocate policy out of how they "feel". That is emotional reaction...not moderation (like moderating feelings with rational examination of facts). Starting to see why I'm more centrist?