I know for a fact Japan is extremely difficult to move to(plus dont speak Japanese ldo) and Im pretty sure Australia is as well. Plus Australia has just elected a PM that seems intent on behaving as much like a movie villain as possible. And have you seen the rake in Aussie casinos?

How exactly would extended background checks have stopped any recent shooting?

You say this,
And then the very next post say this,

Which is it? "Americans don't want change when it comes to guns" or "all everyone wants to do is pass more legislation and there's a constant push to ban assault rifles"?

Any recent shootings? Are you saying no shootings done recently, or suicide committed by gun recently anywhere in the us were committed by someone who purchased a gun as a p2p sale who had a prior record or documented mental problems?

You don't honestly believe that.

This post shows a lack of reading comprehension.

For Mr.Wookie

Americans don't want change when it comes to guns. Everyone in this thread wants more legislation and a ban on assault rifles.

I'll rephrase, since it was introduced after Sandy Hook. How would expanded background checks have stopped any mass shooting in recent history?

I cannot think of any way they would have. However, notice above I mentioned 30000+ gun deaths yearly. You understand I don't think those all come from mass shootings, right? I care about preventing more than just those deaths. Preventing the suicides is a really big one to me, cause those who are suicidal often make the decision on the spur of the moment. They can also be helped, yet almost 20K took their life with a firearm in 2010, and a big reason is their ready availability.

This is a pretty sad story. I work with the a guy that lives across the street from where this happened.

Well, at least you admitted it, even VPC hasn't yet but they are getting closer. And I do admire the honesty and the strength of your convictions. But I do have a problem.

The right to keep and bare arms is a right in the bill of rights. That it includes handguns has been affirmed by the supreme court. You want to take that right over something that happens 8% as often as something you deem to be rare.

The 4th amendment has been slowly eroded over the past 15 years, over similar concerns (public safety). They even took a swing at the 1st amendment when they took James Rosen's e-mails (but the press went ballistic when they found out). No one ever tried to make a reporter doing his job a criminal co-conspirator over trying to get information from a government official before.

If you allow the government to take 1 right out of the bill of rights they may not stop there. Are you willing to put 1 and 3-10 at risk over #2?

And is this the take away you want us to remember before we step into a poker room?

You were only referring to people itt? I thought you slipped and were talking about Americans in general. You can see how that would be funny if you were talking about the general population in both instances.

No, and slippery slope arguments are logically fallacious, so best not to use them here. I disagree with the supreme courts ruling on hand guns being intended by the 2nd amendment, just as I disagree with their stance that prayer before government meetings is ok. Did you speak out against that? Are you ok with them trampling over the first amendment?

I have little problem with single action rifles and shotguns, again, with other first world countries as a backdrop, we can see their rate of being used for homicide/suicide is very low.

So you want to ban all handguns so suicidal people can't kill themselves with a gun? Are you ****ing serious? Sure, let's ban something 80,000,000 people own because 20,000 ****ing geniuses used a gun instead of jumping off a building. Sorry, I am not giving up my right to own a gun because 20,000 people, that were going to commit suicide anyway, did it with a gun instead of jumping in front of my truck.

You know there's polls showing that the vast vast majority of americans want stronger gun control laws, right? Wanting to ban handguns is a minority position for sure, but not wanting universal background checks.





Do you know what a slippery slope argument is?
Also, weren't the relevant SCOTUS decisions 5-4? All it takes is one change of justice and your argument is moot.

I don't want to speak for you, so I'll just ask you a question. Do you care more about your toy than the life of 30000+ people?

Also, saying they were going to commit suicide anyway is disingenuous and wrong. Suicidal people can be helped. They are less likely to be able to be helped if they use a gun because it's so effective.

I'm a suicide attempt survivor who wouldn't be here if I had had a gun. I got help and I'm better. I would have been a lot worse off had I had a gun, don't you think?

You know there's already federal background checks? I even had to submit to one purchasing a silencer this morning, and it isn't even a gun. If they want p2p sales to start using a background check, they should a) make it free, b) allow anyone to use it. No law needed, nothing to pass, it is simple. I would use it for all p2p sales if it were available, but I don't need a law to tell me that.

I care more about my liberty than the lives of 30,000 people. And before you go off on how insensitive I am, roughly 750,000 US troops died in WWI and WWII alone fighting for our liberties.

I don't believe that someone who truly wishes to commit suicide half-asses it. Like those kids that cut their wrists the wrong way, or take a bunch of pain killers then call someone and tell them what they just did. Most of the time it is for attention, and those are some truly ****ed up individuals. If they really wanted to do it, a knife to jugular, or a 10 story building, or rat poison would've sufficed. Don't act like there aren't thousands of ways that you can kill yourself without a gun.

You admit they are working on incremental legislation to take gun rights, then say slippery slope arguments are logically fallacious? That was ment to be humor, right?

????? Saying a prayer before a meeting is a LONG way from the government demanding you become a Baptist. Nothing in the 1st amendment says there cant be religious displays. If you don't like the prayer, ignore it. And not allowing a prayer to the flying spaghetti monster, or Allah, or Jesus, or what ever deity you are happy with could be construed as taking your 1st amendment right. So how does that trample your right to free speech? Are you trying to argue that speech you don't agree with is not protected?
The murder rate for long guns is quite low in the US too as a % of firearm homicides. That's why we keep bringing up legislation to restrict them.

Apparently, you'd be a "****ing genius." Because this guy actually believes being suicidal has to do with intelligence, or lack thereof. Many tortured actual geniuses say hi.

What is it with gun nuts and spelling?

If it was 6-3 it would be moot?

No. They don't. It only comes that way if you word the polling question laughably.

Wow. Suicidal ideation and suicide attempts are absolutely a cause for great concern and are not just a call for attention.

No, I am arguing that a government endorsement of a particular religion is a violation of my (and your) first amendment rights. Do some homework on amendments outside of the second for once.

There is more to the first amendment than just the right to free speech.

I in no way endorsed any type of slippery slope. Your fallacy is showing along with the Ignorance of your post