If the left had its way, this shooting would never have happened.

[athena]

Before they start to accuse the left of being vicious and crazy and unreasonable and violent, let's all remember that the left has been demanding reasonable gun control laws for decades. If the left had had its way, we would have stricter requirements for gun ownership, and the shooter would never have been able to get his hands on a gun.

This crime, like all gun crimes, belongs to the NRA and to its supporters. Liberals believe in peaceful resolution of disagreements. It is the Republican base that talks about violent takeover. Do not let them to make you forget that for one minute.

There is, on average, more than one mass shooting in the USA every day (see: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/us/how-often-do-mass-shootings-occur-on-average-every-day-records-show.html). Sometimes the killer is a right-winger, other times a left-winger. Sometimes it's a white person, other times a non-white person. Sometimes it's a Christian, other times a Muslim. What remains true, regardless of who the shooter is, is that guns are too readily available in this country. It is the height of hypocrisy to lay the blame for a shooting on a group that has advocated for gun control for decades.

[reflection]

1. Good point. Thanks for that. n/t

[dchill]

2. Just so.

[hack89]

3. Why do you think that?

He was not a felon and had no apparent history of hospitalization due to mental illness. I can't think of any law that the left has proposed that would have prevented this.

[Lee-Lee]

4. What law do you think would have prevented this?

The shooter is from Illinois where not only do they require a background check and waiting period on all sales they even license gun owners and bar ownership without a license.

[Hoyt]

105. Oh, howsabout the laws letting gun nuts carry them across state lines and openly

on the streets. Not to mention the laws that let you guys buy as many guns as you want, sell to any fool on the street, etc.

Until we bite the bullet like Australia in 1996, we are stuck with this crap and gun nuts.

It's time we quit worrying about gun nuts' feelings.

[jmg257]

5. Which stricter requirements would we have wanted to stop him from getting a gun?

Which reasonable ones would have prevented it?

I must have missed something on his background, or ???

[athena]

11. You cannot, if you are being honest, claim that stricter gun laws

would not have prevented this shooter from getting a gun. You cannot make that argument because it is a hypothetical. How do you know what the culture of this country would be like if the NRA did not exist, if the Republican Party did not attack gun control every time it is mentioned, and if Democrats had for decades had the votes needed to pass laws that restricted gun ownership in ways most non-gun-nuts would consider reasonable?

We know very little about the shooter. There is zero information based on which to claim that the shooter would have been able to get the gun he had, and the ammunition he had, in a place like Canada. If if it's so easy to commit a mass shooting when there are reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, why is it that mass shootings are so much more common in the U.S. than anywhere else? See http://globalnews.ca/news/2378037/gun-violence-by-the-numbers-how-america-canada-and-the-world-compare/.

Finally, regardless of who this specific shooter is, it remains that it is the height of hypocrisy to blame a Party that is regularly accused of being "anti-gun" for having caused a gun crime.

[jmg257]

15. I didn't make that argument. So again, which stricter gun laws DO we want that will prevent it?

And "reasonable laws" at that.

We could certainly just ban them all, and figure out how to confiscate them all - THAT would very likely prevent it. Doesn't seem to meet the criteria though.

[athena]

21. You seem to have missed my point.

You are demanding proof that something would not have happened in a hypothetical situation. You do not, however, bother to provide proof yourself that it *would* have happened in that hypothetical situation.

Reasonable laws would be:
not allowing people with a history of mental health problems to own guns;
not allowing people with a criminal record to own guns;
not allowing the sale of assault weapons -- limiting allowed weapons to those used for recreation and self-defense;
limiting the amount of ammunition that a person can buy;

You cannot, if you are an honest person, claim that the shooter would have been able to get a gun if all the above had been federal law for decades. You cannot, because it is a hypothetical. (Perhaps this is too sophisticated an argument for some people to understand.)

It remains, regardless of whether you acknowledge it or not, that it is hypocritical to blame the party that has been for gun control for decades for a gun crime. Feel free to ignore that point if it amuses you.

[jmg257]

25. I am NOT demanding proof at all - I am asking for laws that would prevent the shooting, as

was laid out in the OP - why is that such a crazy request?

And low and behold, you did respond with suggestions!

Thanks for that.

And yet you keep talking about claims i DID NOT MAKE - why i do not know.

[athena]

88. As it turns out, this specific crime could easily have been prevented

by the types of laws that have been championed by the left for decades.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-james-hodgkinson-shooter-20170614-story.html

My goal was not to get into an argument about guns. It was only to point out the hypocrisy of the Republicans.

ETA: I'm sorry for reading more into your posts than was there. It can be difficult to correctly gauge the "tone" of an internet post.

[Marengo]

41. What kind of "mental health problems" should disqualify an individual? What level of "criminal

Record"?

[athena]

48. Depression. Bipolar disorder. Schizophrenia. Sociopathy. Narcissism.

I'm not a psychologist, so that is not a complete list. However, as someone who has suffered from recurrent depression and felt suicidal in the past, I am grateful that I have never been anywhere near a gun. Anyone who thinks a person who is depressed or has a history of depression should be allowed to own a gun lacks a conscience. My heart breaks for all the depressed people who ended up killing themselves because their spouse, significant other, or family member, happened to have a gun. Just a few minutes' delay -- a phone call that comes in within the few minutes when a person is depressed, or a few seconds' distraction or hesitation about the difficulty of the act -- can prevent a suicide. Guns make suicide much too easy.

Incidentally, I find it very interesting that every single person who objects to my OP is a regular of the gun forum.

[Lonusca]

56. How should we identify these people and

get that information into a national database?

Do you think there would be much support from Democrats for this?

[athena]

68. A quick exam by a psychologist should be required to own a gun.

There is no need for a national database of mental health. All you need is a piece of paper issued by a professional, certifying that you are mentally stable enough to own a gun.

[Lee-Lee]

75. How are you going to implement that, logistically

Even a brief exam needs to be at least an hour from start to finish to paperwork.

Let's say your psychologist can do 35 interviews a week to allow 5 hours for administrative duties etc. That's 7 hour long interviews a work day.

Figure a professional like that will take 3 weeks vacation a year and you have about 240 work days a year.

That one psychologist can do 1680 interviews a year if that is all they do and they do 7 one hour interviews a work day with a 30 minute work period for admin stuff at the beginning and end of the day.

Last year there were over 27,000,000 NICS checks for firearm purchase transactions. That doesn't cover all sales because some states run their own system and some people are exempt. So it's likely double that for sales. So let's just use that 27,000,000 figure and assume that the number of people in there who made multiple purchases that year is offset by the ones who checks didn't use NICS.

You would need over 16,000 psychologists who did absolutely nothing but those interviews full time. And honestly you need more than that because the interviews would have to be made available with little or no waiting time to not be ruled an unconstitutional barrier to exercising a right.

Where are you going to get them?

How are you going to pay for them? A fee to the gun owner would be tossed out as an unconstitutional cost to exercise a right just as a poll tax would be.

[Marengo]

57. I sought treatment for depression many years ago and am a competitive target shooter...

You would have me stripped of my right to possess a firearm? That you believe you may be unable to control a suicide impulse if a firearm were easily accessible to you is your own problem, don't project that out on anyone else.

[athena]

67. I'm sure a therapist could clear you to own a gun with a quick exam.

You're the one who is projecting your pro-gun arguments onto millions of people who are depressed. As much as you feel you have a right to own a gun, I feel that I have a right to live in a society that does not treat guns like a toy.

Once again, it's very interesting that every single person who has a problem with my OP is someone who is a regular of the gun forum.

[Marengo]

79. Who appointed you the spokesperson for these millions of people?

[Lee-Lee]

80. Interesting you accuse others of projection

While you are projecting your own experiences with depression on everyone else and assuming everyone else will have the same thoughts and reactions as you.

I went through a serious bout of depression when my mom passed away, and carried a gun every day for work or when off duty. Had I reached a point where I felt I was in any way a danger to myself or others I would have quickly handed them over to someone else. But I didn't need to.

Projecting your level of stability or responsibility on everyone else, or even just those who have also dealt with the same issues, isn't realistic or responsible. Everyone handles things differently and your experience isn't that of everyone else. Demanding everyone be treated the way you feel is best for you based on your own individual experience is very irresponsible.

[Marengo]

86. A "regular of the gun forum" can't legitimately criticize your points?

[Doreen]

64. What degree of depression are we talking about?

If someone is depressed because they were just raped? Depressed if their mother died? Depressed because they saw the horrors of war? Depressed because their cat died? Just because you go see a psychologist for depression does not mean it is severe but it is still recorded that you have gone to get help. As I said to what degree is the depression enough to keep one from getting a gun?

[athena]

66. As someone who as been depressed,

I don't believe anyone who is depressed should be anywhere near a gun. I don't care why they are depressed. If you don't understand that, you simply don't understand depression. Indeed, the very phrase "depressed because their cat died" is incredibly insulting to anyone who knows what depression means.

[Doreen]

81. I fully understand depression as I feel it most of the time ( even when happy. )

If you got a gun when you were not depressed and everything in your life is wonderful then something happens and you get depressed then you should not have that gun anymore? Maybe the cat comment may be insulting to some but I have seen people go into major deep depressions because the death of an animal ( me included ) and to claim that their depression not valid is insulting. I lost my fucking service dog 5 years ago and still feel depressed about that but my depression because he was an animal is not valid??? I however would question that depression to not allow me to obtain a gun. Do not get me wrong I do think that mental health should be a factor but to what degree?

[athena]

87. A mental health professional can determine that.

Not being a mental health professional, I can't answer these questions. What I know is that depression greatly increases the risk of suicide.

I believe a mental health exam should be required to buy a gun. A mental health exam can also be required every few years to keep a gun. Given that one needs a valid driver's license to use a car, I don't see why a valid gun license that is predicated on a clean mental health bill should not be required to use a gun.

I don't think you understand depression. I'm not using the word "depressed" to mean "sad" or "out of it". Clinical major depression is not caused by the death of a cat, or even by the death of a person. If you want to determine whether you are clinically depressed, consult a psychologist. While I'm not a psychologist, the way you talk about depression makes it clear to me that you have no idea what it is. Consider yourself lucky.

[Lee-Lee]

89. The shooter came from one of the only states to issue "gun licenses"

That's a solution that makes for a good talking point, but when you look at the reality it's both ineffective and impractical.

[athena]

91. A mental health evaluation is not among the criteria

for obtaining a "gun license" in Illinois.

[Lee-Lee]

93. I already posted explaining the logistics of that

And what it would take.

I notice you have not responding with how you would make that happen given the logistics involved.

It's easy to throw out nice sounding talking points. It gets much harder when you have to actually think about the work to implement them.

[Marengo]

84. And there you go again, projecting your experience as universally applicable. I know a person...

Who suffered such serious depression over the death of her cat that she needed hospitalization.

[hunter]

104. The desire to own a gun for anything other than practical purposes would be a start.

Nope, "recreational use" doesn't count. Hunting plentiful species for food might. Shooting rabid animals on your ranch might. In any case I'd require six weeks of military boot camp training alongside people you might hate before qualifying for a gun license. I'd disarm everyone else, Wookie style, if necessary. I don't even think most cops are qualified to carry guns. I'm rather radical that way. Fuck the Second Amendment as it is now interpreted.

Yeah, I know I'm on the fringes.

I don't bother with guns because I can't imagine anyone I'd care to shoot and I wouldn't want them living in my head anyways.

I don't respect gun love. It's disgusting.

[Marengo]

137. How do you cope with the fact that you will never be able to legally inflict "wookie" style...

Violence on gun owners? Another vacation in the psych unit?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/11516470

Can you legally "bother" with firearms at any rate?

[hunter]

138. Oh please...

Do you really want to go there?

I'm no delicate flower.

If I choose to swim with the sharks or argue with people holding guns, surely that's my own business, right? (Okay, my friends and family would disagree, but I've learned to trust their judgement whenever my own instinct for self-preservation takes a vacation.)

I still think it would be very wise to give potential gun owners some kind of stress-testing. Most mental illnesses are not as outwardly visible as my own, or as effectively treated with medications. Anyone who owns guns to make themselves feel more powerful has a mental health issue. Anyone with anger management issues shouldn't have a gun.

Last time I played with guns I was fairly proficient. My name is Hunter, after all, and my family is a deer, pig, and turkey shooting wild west matriarchy. I like trips into the wilderness but I don't care to shoot anything.

[atreides1]

128. They are reasonable.

not allowing people with a history of mental health problems to own guns; There was no record of him having mental health problems!


not allowing people with a criminal record to own guns; His record consisted of misdemeanor charges, with the exception of assault involving a gun domestic violence charge in 2006, which was dropped!

not allowing the sale of assault weapons -- limiting allowed weapons to those used for recreation and self-defense;
limiting the amount of ammunition that a person can buy; The SKS was not classified as an “assault weapon” under the now-expired 1994 Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. Nearly twenty years later, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein didn’t include the firearm in her list of “assault weapons” that would be banned under a gun control bill she proposed in 2013.


Those reasonable laws still would not have applied in this particular situation.

[athena]

129. You will never be able to prove

that had this been a country like Canada where gun ownership is severely restricted while still allowing for recreational use and self-defense, this specific incident would still have happened. You cannot prove that because it is a hypothetical. How do you know that this specific person would have gotten a gun and tried to shoot members of Congress if this were not a gun-obsessed society but instead a society that modeled itself on liberal principles of peace and cooperation? The answer is, you don't. And yet you want me to prove that this incident would *not* have happened in such a country. You want to have one criterion for judging your own argument, and another one for judging my argument. You just want to grasp at straws to argue that this incident had nothing to do with gun control. That is missing the forest for the trees.

Enjoy living in a country that is obsessed with guns to the point where owning a gun is considered a more fundamental right than free speech. Enjoy living in a country where the members of one political party stretch the limits of hypocrisy to blame a gun crime on the party they call "anti-gun", and enjoy defending them by saying that this crime had nothing to do with gun control. In the end, intellectual dishonesty hurts the intellectually dishonest more than it hurts anyone else.

[niyad]

14. domestic violence, for starters.

[jmg257]

17. Good start, and already law in many places.

[athena]

22. As long as it is not a federal law, it's useless.

Nice try, though.

Enjoy demanding proof for hypothetical arguments, while continuing to make hypothetical arguments without proof yourself.

[jmg257]

23. I demanded no proof at all, and actually agreed with the suggestion. Huh - not sure

I even made an argument....especially one needing proof of...anything.

You responding to the right post??

[athena]

83. OK, I misunderstood your post.

I thought you were making a certain argument, which it seems you weren't making.

[jmg257]

85. No worries - I see you were quite busy in this thread! Cheers!

[Lee-Lee]

38. It is a federal law already

Conviction of a crime of domestic violence, including misdemeanors, makes a person ineligible to own firearms.

[Marengo]

44. Have you looked at a form 4473 lately?

[athena]

10. If you're going to blame all liberals for the actions of a single self-identified liberal,

then you must also be someone who blames all Muslims for any act of terrorism committed by a Muslim or Muslims.

The fact that a person self-identifies as a liberal does not mean all liberals hold the views he holds.

[marylandblue]

7. He has a history of domestic violence, so maybe that

[gopiscrap]

8. Agreed

I have long called for a total confiscation and banning of all weapons except for military and law enforcement

[Initech]

9. Agreed, that guy should not have been able to purchase a military grade weapon like that.

[sarisataka]

12. We just need a law

Against shooting at people...

[athena]

13. Because it's possible to shoot someone without a gun?

Yeah, let's just give anyone as many guns as they want, and then tell them not to shoot anyone. Oh wait! That's the way it is already! How is that working out for you?

ETA: We might as well ban drug use and sell cocaine at every convenience store, and expect that no one will use drugs.

[sarisataka]

18. So will your claim is if the left had its way

Completely banned and there would be no shootings at all?

You are aware that the Democratic platform does not even call for a total gun ban, yes?

[athena]

24. See my point earlier in the thread about demanding proof for hypothetical arguments.

Since you weren't able to respond to it, I take it you're all for banning the use of drugs and making them available at every corner store.

ETA: I see that you too, are a regular of the Gun Control forum. Enjoy living in a country where you're more likely to be shot to death than you would be to die in a car accident if you lived in Canada.

[sarisataka]

28. Your point would be valid if it was a hypothetical argument

You made a positive claim that this incident would never have happened. My question is what is your hypothetical argument that would have prevented it. You implied a gun ban which has not ever been proposed and is claimed by the majority to not even be a goal, you did not respond to that period should I laugh?

Yes I do regularly visit one of the gun forums you should read some of my posts there on gun control ideas I have proposed. But broad-brushing and stereotyping is so much easier.

[athena]

96. I did not make such a claim.

You seem not to have read my OP. My point, which I repeated enough times already, is that it is hypocritical for Republicans to blame a specific gun crime on the Left, when they have been relentlessly attacking the Left for being anti-gun for decades.

I did not advocate for a total ban on guns. You falsely claimed I did.

Other countries like Canada are able to allow the recreational use of guns without making them available to every nutcase at every street corner. The person who committed this crime is someone who has a history of domestic violence and shooting randomly into his neighbor's yard. This is someone who purchased an assault weapon and large amounts of ammunition. Reasonable gun laws could have prevented this crime.

Finally, if you wanted to come across as someone who is interested in having an intelligent discussion, you would not have started out by making the ludicrous argument that reasonable gun control is unnecessary because shooting people is already illegal.

[WillowTree]

92. You started this whole discussion with a hypothetical yourself.

"If the left had its way, this shooting would never have happened." Not just a hypothetical statement, but one chock full of assumptions. There have been many shootings that were perpetrated by people who had nothing in their background that would have predicted what they eventually did. And some ridiculous law requiring a "quick psych evaluation" would be useless in preventing those who get their guns illegally from doing so, and there would be a lot more of those.

Speaking of which, which of my other constitutionally protected rights do you think should be denied to me based on a "quick psych evaluation" from a shrink who knows nothing else about me since I've not needed to consult a psychologist/psychiatrist previously?

And just for the record, I don't own a gun, never did, don't expect that I ever will and, to save you a few minutes, I've never logged in to the gun forum.

[athena]

97. There is nothing wrong with making an argument based on a hypothetical.

It's when someone starts demanding proof for one hypothetical argument, while making a different hypothetical argument, that someone is being intellectually dishonest.

You can go ahead and make standard gun-nut arguments while claiming that you're not into guns -- like arguing that the second ammendment is the only one that should have no restrictions whatsoever; that since no law can prevent all gun deaths, laws that aim to ban gun deaths are pointless; and that because *some* shooters obtain their gun illegally, there is no need for any laws to restrict gun ownership. There are standard responses to your standard arguments. See:
https://theprogressivecynic.com/debunking-right-wing-talking-points/refuting-gun-enthusiasts-anti-gun-control-arguments/

And congratulations on not having needed to consult a mental health professional. In my experience, those who have demonstrated the courage to see one are much healthier on average than those who take pride in not having needed mental health. But if it makes you feel superior, go right ahead and feel superior.

[loyalsister]

130. It's constitutionally protected

The modern interpretation of the second amendment is as an unconditional right to kill and pretend to kill. A right to kill animals (including humans), and a god given right to destroy targets with full knowledge that the most common use of that skill is to kill.
That is what they are specifically designed for. To kill or pretend to kill using a target.

[bettyellen]

16. Men with a history of spousal abuse should have their guns confiscated. I know it won't happen in

My lifetime, but that's how I feel.

[flibbitygiblets]

26. +1

[athena]

30. 53% of women killed by guns are killed by an intimate partner or family member.

That is an amazing statistic. There is absolutely no justification for giving a gun to a man who has a domestic violence record or who has a restraining order against him.

Reference:
https://everytownresearch.org/reports/guns-and-violence-against-women/

[bettyellen]

34. Yes. And we can't ignore that standing up for gun control hurt HRC but is truly

A principled and moral stand to take. I don't want to abandon that to chase mythical WWC men.

[athena]

39. Good point. HRC never gets credit for that.

Every time someone claims HRC was not liberal enough or courageous enough to represent the left, they ignore all the ways in which she displayed enormous principle and courage.

[Lonusca]

49. "Hurt" is an understatement

It most likely cost her the election.

If we take the often cited "lost by 70K votes" across PA, MI, and WI, that's basically flipping 35K +1 votes.

Is it possible that her calls for Australian style gun control cost her the votes of 35K+ voters across those three states with large rural populations?

[bettyellen]

51. Easily- more than her stand with women's reproductive rights...

These idiots still claim Obama was going to take away their guns.

[Lonusca]

53. So in retrospect it doesn't look like

it was a very smart stand to take. I'm not sure who she was trying to win over with statements like that.

[bettyellen]

58. Becasue the NRA should be steamrolling the government with big money?

Maybe she should give up civil rights too- since so many didn't give a shit, and appear to want a dictator right now?

Seriously?

[Lonusca]

62. Interesting change of attitude

A few moments ago you agreed that her stance on gun control most likely cost her the election, and somehow you arrived at your response above.

And we wonder why we lost to this clown.

[bettyellen]

73. I'm proud that she stood up for sensible gun control as well as reproductive rights.... aren't you?

Her loss was so razor thin, you can pin it on anything.

I'm glad she never profited from the NRA support, but instead held on to her values.

[lunamagica]

55. That's what I was going to say, thank you. Yes standing up for gun control hurt her. I think

she knew it could possibly hurt her, but she's stood up for what was right. It really showed her integrity.

[Lee-Lee]

35. They do ban ownership if convicted- but conviction is the key

A person convicted of a crime of domestic violence is barred from owning firearms.

But in this case it looks like he wasn't convicted. Don't know what the reason is, but the end result is the same.

[bettyellen]

36. I thought it was a state thing? It sucks if repeated violent episodes get

Ignored. Patterns of behavior are important.

[Lee-Lee]

40. Some states but also Federal

From Wikipedia:

The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, often called "the Lautenberg Amendment" ("Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence", Pub.L. 104–208,[1] 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)[2]), is an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, enacted by the 104th United States Congress in 1996, which bans access to firearms by people convicted of crimes of domestic violence. The act is often referred to as "the Lautenberg Amendment" after its sponsor, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D - NJ).

[bettyellen]

45. Oh yes- I think that I've also read enforcement is non existent as far

As taking away weapons goes.

[Lee-Lee]

54. That's up to individual areas and departments

At my old department we were pretty active in it. We I worked domestic violence we always asked victims what guns were there and made sure as part of a sentence the court ordered they surrender or disposed of any firearms. Generally we already had them or they had already been removed because there was a protective order pending the trial.

But, resources are varied as are priorities. And there are varied agencies responsible on different levels.


A big gap is enforcement actions against people barred from owning guns who try and get turned down- committing a felony in the process- is virtually nonexistent. There are tens of thousands of people who can't legally buy a gun who commit perjury on the paperwork and try and get turned away and there is no enforcement against them. It's sheer lunacy to have a person who can't legally buy a gun who is actively trying to buy one who just committed an easy to convict felony and they don't even lift a finger to do anything about it. But that side must be done by the Feds and the BATFE doesn't see that as sexy enough to bother with.

[bettyellen]

59. Wow- interesting. Thank you!

[Pinkflamingo]

19. One thing we know, at least Congressmen aren't worried as hell about their health care.

MUST BE NICE.

[Mr.Bill]

20. We really can't have this arguement until we find out how he got the gun.

If he stole it, no laws would have prevented him from having a gun. If he walked into a gun store and just bought it over the counter, than that would be a different problem that possibly could be addressed with gun control legislation.

I'm not giving an opinion on this particular case until we know more details.

[athena]

27. Yes we can.

The easier it is to obtain a gun, the more widely available guns are, and the easier it is to steal a gun. There are 88 guns for every 100 people in the U.S., which makes it easy to find a gun to steal. (See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/one-map-shows-why-americas-gun-violence-is-so-much-worse-than-anywhere-else/)

If you insist on missing the forest for the trees, you can argue forever that gun control has nothing to do with a given gun crime because of the specifics. That kind of one-step thinking is precisely why this country has so many more mass shootings than any other country.

[Mr.Bill]

31. If you want to talk in broad hypothetical terms, sure.

But this specific incident requires more facts before I will have an opinion on how it could have been prevented.

[athena]

74. You should read this article about the shooter.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-james-hodgkinson-shooter-20170614-story.html

It's hard to argue that this was a crime that could not have been prevented with reasonable gun control laws at the federal level.

[Mr.Bill]

78. Thanks for the link. n/t

[Lee-Lee]

82. What law would you say would have stopped it?

Based on that article?

[EX500rider]

90. "One map shows why Americas gun violence is so much worse than anywhere else"

Except it's not?

The US is both below the median and avg for homicides per country worldwide.

[athena]

100. The U.S. is 14th in the world in murder rates.

The only countries that have a higher murder rate are:
Brazil
India
Mexico
Ethiopia
Indonesia
Nigeria
South Africa
Colombia
Russia
Pakistan
Democratic Republic of the Congo
China
Venezuela
By contrast, Canada is #80; France is #75; Germany is #73; the UK is #71; Italy is #83; and Japan is #86.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate

See also:
http://www.humanosphere.org/science/2016/06/visualizing-gun-deaths-comparing-u-s-rest-world/

[EX500rider]

106. No, not even close, US is 94th

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

[EX500rider]

107. I see the issue, you need to pick rate per 100,000 in the drop down box

Otherwise it's apple to oranges

[Hoyt]

32. Seems to me if any gun nut can walk around with a rifle/pistol in public, that makes it easy. EOM

[Mr.Bill]

43. I agree,

but I also want to know how and where he got the gun.

[Hoyt]

29. Exactly. Thanks for pointing it out.

[Eliot Rosewater]

33. Historians will look at this time in our country with a curiosity, all future

societies will in fact.

With endless, complete and undeniable statistical and societal proof that guns are destroying the country, they opted for more, not less.

[Fred Sanders]

37. Sometimes it is a Muslim in a mass shooting in America? Zero compared to Christians!

[athena]

42. At the rate of more than one mass shooting per day,

I'm sure some of the shooters are Muslim. My point was that when shootings are that common, it is inevitable that one day a left-winger will be the shooter, just based on statistics alone. Focusing on the one shooting committed by a leftist and claiming that this reveals a deep problem on the left is just as hypocritical as focusing on one shooting committed by a Muslim and blaming the entire population of Muslims for it. The hypocrisy of the Republican Party knows no bounds.

[Lonestarblue]

46. Bigger problam is hatred.

I agree that gun ownership should have reasonable controls, but the right-wing media has been fueling hatred and racial division in this country for decades. It has gotten even worse with Trump and his hatred of anyone who is not a lily white male (white women are okay but they are to be used, not admired). Republicans are already blaming Democratic hatred and violent protests against Trump. Hatred of other fuels the partisan divide, but I do not see improvement until we somehow stop the denigration of other people and the right-wing anti-government conspiracy theories. I have no clue how to do that, but without the hatred, guns would be less of a problem. Groups like the Oath Keepers and other white supremacist groups are just waiting for a reason to declare their own war on those they believe are not legitimate citizens; i.e., Muslims, Indians, Latinos, all brown and black people, plus some white people who dare to believe that white people do not own this country. I fear for our country.

[athena]

50. Excellent point.

It's disingenuous for the right wing to blame the left for this, when they have been cultivating hatred and fear among their base for decades, not to mention promulgating violent rhetoric. Hatred, fear, and anger can be contagious. Not too many people are able to stay calm when another person is screaming in their face.

[Hoyt]

71. Gunners have been fueling hatred too. Starting with the NRA leadership, to gun owners who frequent

gun shops and gun shows with confederate flags, Nazi paraphernalia and 3%er BS.

Honestly, I don't think very many who strap a gun on to walk down the street care for their fellow man/woman. Same goes for those who promote guns and lax gun control.

[blueseas]

47. Very good point.

The unstable do not need guns.

[athena]

52. I agree, as someone who should not be allowed to own a gun myself.

I wouldn't call myself "unstable", but I have a history of recurrent depression. A gun makes it too easy to commit suicide in a moment of despair.

[Marengo]

60. Is anyone attempting to force you to own a firearm?

[whathehell]

63. Correct...The last bit of sanity on the R's side was lost

about a month ago when The Idiot In Chief signed a bill allowing g mentally ill people to buy guns.

[nycbos]

65. Of course it could.

These types of events would still happen. They would happen less frequently but they will still happen.


Lets say universal background checks (which I support 100%) passed.

In a hypothetical situation person who no criminal history (not sure about this shooter) who suddenly had a mind to do such a thing could legally purchase a weapon and do this.

[athena]

69. This person had a history of domestic violence.

Even if he didn't, it would be much less likely if this country didn't have such an obsession with guns. There is a reason the United States has the highest rate of mass shootings in the world, by far.

In any case, my point was not about guns but about the hypocrisy of the right wing blaming the left for a gun crime after having claimed for decades that the left wants to take away people's guns. Some people are so obsessed with guns that they completely missed the point.

[nycbos]

70. Wasn't aware.

Thanks for the info.

[athena]

72. Apparently, he had a history of other gun-related offenses, too.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-james-hodgkinson-shooter-20170614-story.html

"Through the years, he had purchased at least three guns, all from a local gun store, and had a permit to carry a concealed weapon, a source told the Chicago Tribune. Among those three guns was an SKS assault rifle, the source said."

(snip)

"William Schaumleffel, who lives across a farm field from the Hodgkinson house, was concerned enough to alert police when he said Hodgkinson was firing a rifle into trees on his property and refused to stop."

(snip)

"That run-in was only the latest gun-related offense.

"In April 2006, he was arrested on "suspicion of battery, domestic battery, criminal damage of property and reckless discharge of a firearm" by the sheriff's office, according to a brief report at the time in the Belleville News-Democrat."

[democrank]

76. K & R

Thanks for posting this.

[athena]

77. Thank you! (n/t)

[Fluke a Snooker]

94. Yes, stricter gun laws would have prevented this. Namely, the banning of ALL guns, period!

The only obvious solution to this madhouse and daily terror of right wing <s>oppression</s> governance is to ban all guns, except for Federal police and its delegate agencies. We can't trust states and we can't trust organizations to control the people who have the guns, so we need to confiscate ALL guns, right now, and make gun ownership a life-in-prison crime. Period.

And if people won't willingly give up their guns? Easy. We go after them just like the oppressive white-wing SWAT departments take out minority drug users, breaking in their homes and terrorizing their families. Tit for tat, I say.

We could get all guns off the street within two years, once we have progressive governance in all branches.

[Marengo]

95. How would that be legal with the 2nd amendment in place?

[Hoyt]

111. Sometimes just gotta say gunners' "freedom" stops where the majority of non-gun owners' starts. nt

[Marengo]

124. That didn't answer my question. How is a complete ban on the civilian possession of firearms

Legal with the 2nd amendment in place?

[Hoyt]

125. Don't think I have endorsed complete ban, although I wouldn't protest a proposal.

I do support telling gun lovers that they are allowed two guns in their home and on their property. No public toting, except in very rare cases.

You guys have hidden behind your misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment for too long, to society's detriment.

[athena]

98. No one is arguing in favor of banning all guns.

Canada is able to have severely restrictive gun laws, even though Canadians are at least as much into hunting and self-defense as Americans are. Gun control does not mean taking away everyone's gun.

In any case, my point was not about gun control but about hypocrisy. It's interesting that some people are so obsessed with their personal right to own as many guns as they want that they get stuck on the minor point about guns and miss the more important point.

[Fluke a Snooker]

112. We don't need hunting. Government relocation policies take care of that

And nobody needs to own a gun. We need to federalize the police force and run it with a progressive agenda (that means taking back the White House for good in 2020 or sooner).

Seriously, who should be allowed to own a gun? I am arguing that all guns should be banned, so you can't say nobody, and to be blunt, I would submit that most people in DU would ban all guns if given half the chance.

I'm not going to argue it any more than what I just said here. If you need nuance just go to the gun chat area.

[Marengo]

123. What is a "government relocation" policy?

[Fluke a Snooker]

134. Relocation of animals to regulate their growth

Hunting claims to regulate animal growth to "sustainable" levels, when it's just as easy to relocate animals to other areas of the region. This is also why it is extremely important for the Federal Government to control as much land as possible, and to restrict private ownership as much as possible.

[Marengo]

136. LOL! Right click, Save As...

[Cha]

99. Yes, Hillary has been for Sensible Gun Laws

Gun violence prevention

We can—and must—end the epidemic of gun violence.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/gun-violence-prevention/

Mahalo, Athena

[athena]

101. Thank you, Cha!

What a great opportunity we missed.

[Cha]

102. The russians, stein, Voter Suppression, etc made us

miss it.

You're Welcome, Athena

[linuxman]

103. Which proposed law would have prevented today's events?

[Hoyt]

110. One law is that just about any fool can carry a rifle or pistol openly in Virginia. Seems to me

we should say screw people who want to carry a rifle or pistol in public. Then, if we see someone carrying one, we'd report them or take their worthless rear down before they can start shooting. But with laws that allow gun nuts to walk around with the dang things, it makes that difficult.

[linuxman]

113. So he was willing to murder, but would have been discouraged by open carry.

Right.

With thinking like that, it's no wonder the pro-rights crowd has roundly trounced the antis for more than a decade running now.

[Hoyt]

114. You are not listening. With no toting allowed, a fool carrying a gun would be a criminal.

Police could stop him, as could any citizen.

Enjoy your guns, and the results like today and Sandy Hook.

[linuxman]

115. Oh, I'll enjoy every freedom, thank you.

Okay. Man puts gun in trunk, drives car up to baseball field, pier, street festival, whatever, takes it out, then unloads on everyone. Not seeing where the 2-6 seconds between removing it from concealment to blowing holes in innocent people allows for cops to come stop him, but whatever. It's your fantasy. No judgement.

[Hoyt]

118. A little old lady took Loughner down.

2-6 seconds, people can start yelling if they know that anyone with a gun -- and not most police -- is intent on mayhem.

But, hey, gunners won't be happy until everyone is carrying a gun. I bet it's lonely being one of the less than 7% who carry a gun to go to the store.

[linuxman]

120. I wouldn't know.

I don't carry a gun to the store.

Not everyone fits into your narrow-minded little box you've built for them. That's the problem with anti rights activism. Absolutist thinking.

[Hoyt]

127. Sounds like the junk you hear from the 3%ers.

[linuxman]

131. Go to bed, hoyt.

You're (somehow) making even less sense than usual.

[Hoyt]

133. You are sounding just like a typical gun fancier. Your gunz are more important

than just about anything else.

[linuxman]

135. There's more of that nonsense talk.

Bedtime for hoyty.

[Lee-Lee]

121. He carried the gun for about 40-50 feet.

Probably. 30 seconds of "open carry".

Do you have any idea what the average police response time in this country is?

The idea that if open carry didn't exist this wouldn't have happened is total delusion.

[Hoyt]

126. He could have walked miles with it under Virginia law.

Guns on the street need to be prohibited. That way if you see a gun toter, you call 911 then get a little old lady to take him down like Loughner because you know he is up to no good.

Why is it gun lovers always have an excuse not to do anything that affects their damn gunz.

[L. Coyote]

108. All these killers are people with guns. Let that sink in.

[linuxman]

132. Deep.

[Progressive dog]

109. Some of the left have supported the NRA

While I think that we do need stricter gun control, that particular leftist shooter was unreasonable and violent.

[athena]

116. Conservatives have attacked liberals for being anti-gun for decades.

And now they're arguing that liberals are to blame for a shooting. The fact that a small number of individuals on the left are NRA supporters does not change the fact that they are hypocrites.

[Progressive dog]

119. I don't care what "they" argue,

facts are facts. The shooter had supported Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein. That is fact.
The shooter was not a Democrat, he was not a liberal. Those are also facts.

[Liberty Belle]

117. Shooter had a history of violence though charges got dismissed:

In April 2006, police records show Hodgkinson went to a neighbor’s house looking for his daughter and “used bodily force to damage” a wooden door upstairs. Witnesses said Hodgkinson forced his way into the home looking for his teenage daughter and grabbed her by the hair when he found her upstairs, according to a police narrative on file with St. Clair County Sheriff’s Department.

His daughter escaped and got into the neighbor’s car, but Hodgkinson opened the door of the car, pulled out a pocket knife and cut off the seat belt she was wearing, records show. Hodgkinson’s wife joined him, struggling to pull out their daughter, as Hodgkinson punched the neighbor who was in the driver’s seat of the car in the face, witnesses told police.

Later, Joel Fernandez, the boyfriend of the woman who was punched, went to Hodgkinson’s home to confront him. He said Hodgkinson “walked outside with a shotgun and aimed it at Fernandez face,” a complaint states. Hodgkinson struck Fernandez on the side of his face with the wooden stock of the shotgun and fired off one round as Fernandez ran away.

Police arrested Hodgkinson and his wife and charged them with domestic battery and aggravated discharge of a firearm, according to a narrative obtained by The Washington Post. Police also recovered a 12-gauge shotgun. The county clerk’s online database shows the charges were later dismissed.

More here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/law-enforcement-officials-identify-shooter-at-congressional-ballgame-as-illinois-man/2017/06/14/ba6439f4-510f-11e7-91eb-9611861a988f_story.html?utm_term=.dfb0712c3c6a

[Lee-Lee]

122. And there is a real problem and one you can really fix

Stop tolerating prosecutors who drop charges and don't pursue the strongest convictions for people who commit violent crimes and who have demonstrated a propensity for violence.

The police did the right thing and arrested him. Then the prosecutors and the courts let him go with no record.

Had the prosecutors and the courts done their jobs he would have been convicted and would have then been barred by federal law from purchasing or possessing firearms.

The laws didn't fail here. We didn't lack for laws to prevent this. The laws are in place that, had people done their jobs, would have prevented him from owning firearms and at least made getting them
much more difficult.

The system failed here because people didn't do their jobs.

You don't need more laws to fix that. You need different people in those jobs who will do what they are supposed to.