Guns

[Crash]

I read the news this morning while I was at work. I'm glad to see the two State Senators recalled. Though the immediate practical effect is not much, I'm at least happy about the message and symbolism that this carries.

Though as Zenith said, they really didn't help their own case.

 

[Schwartz]

Aaron Alexis is what happens when the NRA puppets in congress strike down a law expanding background checks. Congratulations.

From 2008 to 2011, Alexis served with Fleet Logistics Support Squadron 46 at the Naval Air Station in Fort Worth. He lived in that area and was arrested at least once in 2010 for firing a gun through the ceiling of his apartment. He told police it had been an accident.

Seattle police released details late Monday of another shooting incident from 2004 in which Alexis shot the rear tires of a vehicle owned by a construction worker doing work in his neighborhood. Alexis told police he had an anger-fueled "blackout" but added that he felt he had been "mocked" by the workers and "disrespected" by the workers.

Detectives later spoke with Alexis' father in New York, who told police Alexis had anger-management problems associated with PTSD, and that he had been an active participant in rescue attempts on 9/11.

The official, who is not authorized to comment publicly, said Alexis purchased at least some of the weapons used in the assault within the past few days in Virginia.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Go on Schwartz, expand on this and give us your insight on how this could have been prevented. Do you know the D.C. laws?

 

[Sam48]

The Aaron Alexis is what happens when the NRA puppets in congress strike down a law expanding background checks. Congratulations.

Yes, because if they hadn't struck down those lovely background checks, this man would have never even bothered trying. *sarcasm*

 

[arora]

An accident, a misdemeanor, and some hearsay does not equate to denial of purchase.

Your story doesn't even show any proof of how the weapons were obtained, not to mention the fact that it is oh so easy to simply buy these things on the street.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

An accident, a misdemeanor, and some hearsay does not equate to denial of purchase.

Your story doesn't even show any proof of how the weapons were obtained, not to mention the fact that it is oh so easy to simply buy these things on the street.

Forget buying them on the street, I could buy the parts over time and build one at home. Hey but what do we know Schwartz is the one with reality on his side, we're just making dreams of grandeur.

 

[arora]

My gut feeling is the guy has some mental issues, the problem is instead of helping these people we ostracize them, we shame them and we strip them of their rights. It's a crying shame and it's only going to get worse with this craptastic obamadon'tcare plan.

Mark my words, less and less people in trouble will seek help and these sorts of violent outbursts are going to rise.

imo of course

 

[Nicksfix]

Aaron Alexis is what happens when the NRA puppets in congress strike down a law expanding background checks. Congratulations.

Explain to me how the so called "NRA puppets in Congress" can control :

1.) black market purchases
2.) purchases made outside of an FFL establishment (gun show ... etc.)

Schwartz ....
How did Alexis obtain his firearm ? Do you have proof of where and or how he did obtain it ?

Sure ...... lets just blame the NRA for this one too.

 

[Schwartz]

An accident, a misdemeanor, and some hearsay does not equate to denial of purchase.

It seems pretty damn obvious this guy isn't responsible with a firearm if it goes off while he's cleaning it and then blacks out in a fit of rage and uses a firearm to commit a crime. But then again, I don't know at what point they will deny your purchase.

Your story doesn't even show any proof of how the weapons were obtained

Oh, GTPlanet, I knew I'd get Flak for this, but yeah, you're right.

not to mention the fact that it is oh so easy to simply buy these things on the street.

You always say that, except in the last three mass shootings (Aurora, Newtown, D.C.), the firearms were acquired legally. Now before you throw me statistics that tell me how more crime has been committed with illegally acquired weapons than with those acquired legally, please know that most of those crimes are gang related.

 

[arora]

I'll let you have your stubborn view as I've gone over my stance on gun control to greater then needed extents in this thread already.

Take a look at what I consider a more realistic remedy to over zealous gun control(which will not work as we've already seen some years back). I posted it right above. There is no reason why as a society we feel the need to kick people to the curb, we create our own demise in many instances. This unfortunate incident was most likely very easily avoided.

Imagine actually caring for one another, just a wee bit 👍

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

You always say that, except in the last three mass shootings (Aurora, Newtown, D.C.), the firearms were acquired legally. Now before you throw me statistics that tell me how more crime has been committed with illegally acquired weapons than with those acquired legally, please know that most of those crimes are gang related.

Oh my gosh, so crimes with guns now have sub-units that they fall into and that we should now pay attention to rather than the shootings done by gang members or just crazy killers in general despite the legality of purchase. Well I wish the world worked like that. Hear hear folks, a bullet from a gang bangers gun will stop and curve around you because their illegal weapon owning doesn't matter, but if it is a legal purchased weapon used improperly, count your chickens cause your dead.

Schwartz told us first.

 

[arora]

 

[Schwartz]

My gut feeling is the guy has some mental issues, the problem is instead of helping these people we ostracize them, we shame them and we strip them of their rights.

Of course he had mental problems, that much is obvious, and of course he needed some help. But denying a gun purchase is meant to keep him from hurting himself or other people. It's not meant to shame or strip someone of their rights. Let me clarify what I said in my first post. The striking down of that gun law isn't the sole reason of this shooting, but this is a thread about gun laws. The fact that this guy was legally allowed to buy a gun is a contributing factor.

 

[arora]

I know I know, you miss the whole point which is not a surprise to me

I'll try to make it easy for you; we go about picking each other up by kicking them down harder to simply get them out of our selfish way.

 

[Nicksfix]

You always say that, except in the last three mass shootings (Aurora, Newtown, D.C.), the firearms were acquired legally. Now before you throw me statistics that tell me how more crime has been committed with illegally acquired weapons than with those acquired legally, please know that most of those crimes are gang related.

Gangbangers always go to an authorized FFL store to acquire their arms .... right ?

So Adam Lanza acquired a gun legally ? You don't know squat !!! Lanza stole the guns he used from his his Mother. You know, the first person he capped on that eventful day.

Prove to me that the D.C. shooting was done with a legally obtained firearm.

Only James Holmes acquired his firearms legally. He snapped because of the meds he was on.

 

[Schwartz]

Oh my gosh, so crimes with guns now have sub-units that they fall into and that we should now pay attention to rather than the shootings done by gang members or just crazy killers in general despite the legality of purchase. Well I wish the world worked like that. Hear hear folks, a bullet from a gang bangers gun will stop and curve around you because their illegal weapon owning doesn't matter, but if it is a legal purchased weapon used improperly, count your chickens cause your dead.

Schwartz told us first.

Gang members are more likely to shoot other gang members, and forgive for my opinion and political incorrectness, but I couldn't care less if a gang member shot another gang member. But gang members generally don't walk into movie theaters or schools and shoot fire at a bunch of innocent civilians.

If you want to say something, lurkers, say it now because I won't be here to debate all night.

 

[LeMansAid]

It reads like some pretty irresponsible behaviour. Responsible gun owners would surely benefit from advocating the weeding out of people exhibiting such behaviour.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Gang members are more likely to shoot other gang members, and forgive for my opinion and political incorrectness, but I couldn't care less if a gang member shot another gang member. But gang members generally don't walk into movie theaters or schools and shoot fire at a bunch of innocent civilians.

If you want to say something, lurkers, say it now because I won't be here to debate all night.

So because they don't go into theaters or schools it doesn't matter, though in Chicago or Detroit or even LA many are killed in say a month due to such violence. Many innocent people as well that aren't gang members, but hey let's keep generalizing like you do, more fodder for the fire.

 

[arora]

If you want to say something, lurkers, say it now because I won't be here to debate all night.

You have not said much anyway tbh lol, go to sleep

 

[Nicksfix]

If you want to say something, lurkers, say it now because I won't be here to debate all night.

G'nite, go sleep on this, ok ? Come back tomorrow with a clear head. 💡

 

[Schwartz]

I know I know, you miss the whole point which is not a surprise to me

I'll try to make it easy for you; we go about picking each other up by kicking them down harder to simply get them out of our selfish way.

I do miss your point. Unless you're trying to tell me that it is acceptable to allow the purchase of a firearm to a person with a criminal history to "pick him up" and make him feel better. I doubt you're trying to make that point. From what I understand you're telling me that treating someone differently because he has mental issues or a criminal pastis wrong. If I'm wrong, explain your point, unabridged.

 

[Joel]

I do miss your point. Unless you're trying to tell me that it is acceptable to allow the purchase of a firearm to a person with a criminal history to "pick him up" and make him feel better. I doubt you're trying to make that point. From what I understand you're telling me that treating someone differently because he has mental issues or a criminal pastis wrong. If I'm wrong, explain your point, unabridged.

There's a bigger picture to mental health than access to guns. The real issue here is mental illness, mass shootings are a symptom.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I do miss your point. Unless you're trying to tell me that it is acceptable to allow the purchase of a firearm to a person with a criminal history to "pick him up" and make him feel better. I doubt you're trying to make that point. From what I understand you're telling me that treating someone differently because he has mental issues or a criminal pastis wrong. If I'm wrong, explain your point, unabridged.

*facepalm*

You seriously don't understand it? No one is saying that people with a Mental problem shouldn't be able to obtain a gun. However, just like the law you are so mad about getting put down, if they had more provisions about mental health it would have probably passed and subsequently helped possibly stop loons nationwide getting guns in a more legal manner.

The problem is people with a Felony can't get a gun to begin with unless another person breaks the law by legally buying one and then illegally giving it to a Felon. We saw that last year a couple times in the news. There aren't enough mental health provisions to stop a guy buying the gun. And there isn't even valid evidence to suggest he had mental health other than conjecture from the media that you are running with. It's easy for the family to come out and say "Yeah he had issues, don't hate him too much", yet he had enough stability to get a security clearance. I now ask if you know how that is obtained along with a weapon.

 

[arora]

It's not wrong to treat someone with a problem, you know, treat them? It's not wrong to deny legal purchase to someone in a bad state or a convicted felon, our laws already dictate that.

Of course I'm speaking of social issues, something you clearly will never grasp based on your wacked thought process regarding gangs. In this instance is it not fair to assume this guy was doing all the right things to the best of his abilities? I mean he served our country did he not? He was discharged once it was found out that he had some troubles? Oh sure, we did all we could to help him, by you guessed it, kicking him out lol. Now that what? he goes to work for a private contractor in direct contact with the military that kicked him down? Maybe not, sure seems that way, shall I ramble more, maybe he got his revenge, maybe the company he worked for also jacked him around.

I'm not calling him a victim as these acts are never justified, what I am saying is we as a whole know better and we sure as hell know how to take care of these things before they get out of hand. We choose not to, plane and simple.

You are part of it as well, if you were pure in your actions and intentions you would never have a fear in the world over gun sales or any one man buying one.

Think about it before you just get all defensive and spew more of your hippy lib bs.

 

[LeMansAid]

In my opinion:

Aaron Alexis is what happens when the NRA puppets in congress strike down a law expanding background checks. Congratulations.

A bad way to present a potentially valid point. Encourages reaction rather than discussion.

An accident, a misdemeanor, and some hearsay does not equate to denial of purchase.

A bad way to respond to a valid point hidden beneath the flame bait. Again:

It reads like some pretty irresponsible behaviour. Responsible gun owners would surely benefit from advocating the weeding out of people exhibiting such behaviour.

 

[Schwartz]

There's a bigger picture to mental health than access to guns. The real issue here is mental illness, mass shootings are a symptom.

I know that, but this is a thread about gun control. Surely you can't tell me that a mentally ill person should have access to firearms. You must understand there are TWO parts to preventing murder (neither of which involves banning GTA ). The first is weapons control and the second is mental health. Contrary to popular belief, you can't just pick one of the two and say it and only it needs to be addressed. The fact is that both need to be addressed. Again, this is a thread about guns which is why I posted about the gun laws and not mental health (laws).

In my opinion:

A bad way to present a potentially valid point.

I'll concede that to you sir.

 

[arora]

A bad way to respond to a valid point hidden beneath the flame bait. Again:

Of course, stating the law and the truth is always bad in your view, you've already showed that in the other thread 👍

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Actually both would be addressed through proper background check development, the banning of guns doesn't need to happen.

Of course, stating the law and the truth is always bad in your view, you've already showed that in the other thread 👍

And this one.

 

[arora]

To some it's the only answer, that way they can act as large ass cracks as they please with no fear of repercussion. Sounds great





to poop on

 

[LeMansAid]

Of course, stating the law and the truth is always bad in your view, you've already showed that in the other thread 👍

I don't know all of the "ins and outs" of the laws there, I wrongfully thought that you were stating your view rather than the law. I apologise. Does your view align with the law?