Exactly what new gun control regulations are people here proposing that would have prevented the Umpqua shooting? If we could nail that down, then we could have a more focussed discussion on it.
I think we decided in the middle of page 30-something somewhere that this topic would be more about gun violence or mass shootings in general, rather than this particular one. Beyond intparent’s suggestion of a ban on all handguns I don’t think we have anything else that would have prevented this shooting.
I am also curious: intparent, I glean from your posts that you are an anti-gun extremist. Why do you own two guns, then?
They appear to only be anti-handguns. They own two long guns.
Gun insurance (and I don’t mean the kind against theft that NRA sells cheaply to draw in members). So mandatory liability insurance for gun owners. Mandatory licensing to own a gun, including safety training. Loss of firearm if safety rules not followed. Complete background checks required for every gun purchase, including private or gun show purchases. No exceptions – no sale until the check comes back clean, no matter how many days it takes. Unfetter the CDC and provide funding to research gun violence. Ban on semi-automatic weapons. No more liability protections for the gun industry.
Are you against revolvers also intparent?
^That is what you believe would have stopped the Umpqua shooting?
I’d still like to hear why intparent owns two long guns. And given her proposals, does she have gun insurance, done safety training, licensed her guns and submitted to background checks?
It’s possible it would have had this been implemented before he bought the guns. If the manufacturer can be sued for any time someone using one of their firearms commits a crime they might all just close up shop. Also he did use semiautos, so if they were all illegal he couldn’t have bought them (legally at least).
I’m still confused how someone buys a gun legally without a background check.
“Britain invaded in the war of 1812. And we’ve invaded overseas countries. It’s not impossible to invade a country on a different continent.”
Before there were these things called jet planes. Do you not think that the US would have waged war over the Pacific with an invading Japanese military?
What country did we invade over seas were we didn’t have an ally to base troops out of close to the conflict we were fighting. And please don’t say Greneda.
Yes, I believe that is the goal for the anti-gun extremists.
Yes, but already mentioned that in previous posts. Guns owned for grouse hunting, although have not been used for that in a few years. And as I said earlier, I would give them up to fix this problem.
The Philippines? I might be wrong, maybe there was a base somewhere nearby. But 150 years into the future no one knows what the geopolitical climate would be. Maybe Mexico will be contemplating invading the US. It doesn’t have to be an overseas power.
“I’m still confused how someone buys a gun legally without a background check.”
Private gun sales between two people. Parking lots at gun shows are rampant with illegal sales.
@Vladenschlutte Yamamoto did not make that quote. It’s a fabrication commonly used to support someone’s opinion.
@emilybee Now that is something the Japanese High Command did discuss on numerous occasions.
How much does your gun insurance cost?
@JustOneDad, what is? Securing an ally close to us from which to invade the US?
I think he’s saying the Japanese didn’t invade because it’s difficult to invade across an ocean.
@emilybee Your comment about “the huge ocean” being a detriment to Japanese invasion.
And, as you know, shot guns are just as effective at killing little children as are handguns, and probably would cause more suffering while requiring less precision. Remember Joe Biden’s advice for protecting your home? Even those who think they would freak out at shooting a gun like terriwt, could probably easily hit a child with a shotgun in an enclosed classroom.