Shooting at GOP Baseball practice - page 3

Suspect James Hodgkinson Dies After Shooting At GOP Baseball Practice; Rep. Steve Scalise Is Wounded : The Two-Way : NPR Twitter What a story to wake up to this morning. The FBI is taking... Read More

  1. by   nursej22
    I do not have a lot to add here except that this is such a huge societal problem, that I don't think one gun control bill will help. A lot of this is a lack of mental health availability, an underlying anger about the wealth disparities, an urge to blame the "other", and just plain ignorance.

    I have noticed that if a shooter, or attacker is white, it is a mental health issue.
    If a shooter is black, they are a thug.
    If a shooter is brown, they are a terrorist.

    Where to start? Governments are not willing or able to fund increased mental health. We elected an administration that only seems to care about how much money the wealthy can make, and blames immigrants for all this country's ills.

    And some 2nd Amendments fanatics (not pointing the finger at any posters here) proclaim that we need guns to protect us from the government. Well, that's just who the Virginia shooter aimed at; he shot at the party in power.
  2. by   azhiker96
    He purchased his guns from a licensed FFL dealer. That means he passed the background checks. Guns Recovered From Congressional Shooter Appear Legally Purchased, FBI Says - NBC News

    What new gun law would have prevented this, Universal background checks?
  3. by   azhiker96
    The game was played as scheduled and the Democrats won 11 - 2. Hate and violence lost
  4. by   toomuchbaloney
    Quote from azhiker96
    He purchased his guns from a licensed FFL dealer. That means he passed the background checks. Guns Recovered From Congressional Shooter Appear Legally Purchased, FBI Says - NBC News

    What new gun law would have prevented this, Universal background checks?
    I think that personal history of domestic (any) violence should disqualify one from gun ownership, at least until some steps have been taken to determine if the person is a danger to others.
  5. by   No Stars In My Eyes
    Quote from toomuchbaloney
    I think that personal history of domestic (any) violence should disqualify one from gun ownership, at least until some steps have been taken to determine if the person is a danger to others.
    But, but, that would makes sense!!!
  6. by   Avid reader
    I wish I could contribute an opinion except violence is definitely not an answer. I never saw or heard a gun until I came to this country and have never shot one or own one. I understand that people like them but cannot imagine how they exist in an industrialized society. I have no opinion because I have no knowledge of them except I find them terrifying. I do have an opinion on now learning that Democrats are actually gun owners and do use them. I also now realize that atheists can actually be strident towards non atheists. I must be more naive and liberal than I thought except liberal appears to mean, less passive than I envisage.

    I've always believed that you change things by electing the right officials who would have been selected through a rigorous process of examination. This person then enacts laws within the framework constructed. Apparently, Americans feel differently than other industrialized nations about this process. I'm a born American but am also a Brit by parental extraction. My first eighteen years were spent in England in Berkshire which you would be extremely unlikely to find violence occurring. Heated debates after a few pints is as bad as it might get. So a Democrat picking up a gun or an atheist who should have arrived at that perspective from education and enlightenment, barracking a religious person, is quite literally paradoxical. I find this shocking because I only expect Republicans to own the guns that would be used violently. How does one believe in the Democratic process and use violence is illogical. The entire point is communication and exchange.

    Something is very wrong here!!
  7. by   toomuchbaloney
    Extremism is scary and wrong, regardless the ideology involved.
  8. by   azhiker96
    Quote from toomuchbaloney
    I think that personal history of domestic (any) violence should disqualify one from gun ownership, at least until some steps have been taken to determine if the person is a danger to others.
    I think everyone agrees on this point. In the article it notes that the charges against him were dropped. I don't know why they were dropped but they were. People's rights are not taken on a whim. It takes something solid like a conviction or diagnosis.
  9. by   tntrn
    Quote from azhiker96
    I think everyone agrees on this point. In the article it notes that the charges against him were dropped. I don't know why they were dropped but they were. People's rights are not taken on a whim. It takes something solid like a conviction or diagnosis.
    Exactly why we voted against an initiative here in this Washington regarding mental illness. There was no requirement for any kind of actual diagnosis to be done by a professional. I don't think the judge signing a person's rights away even needed to ever be face-to-face with the person. There are far too many false accusations (of all kinds) for an initiative like that to become law.
  10. by   toomuchbaloney
    So we have gun policy in this country that defaults to the position of universal gun ownership with no responsibility or obligation to prove or demonstrate that you are not a threat to public safety. That worked out really well the other day for those law makers and their staff.
  11. by   Lil Nel
    [QUOTE=toomuchbaloney;9485166]So we have gun policy in this country that defaults to the position of universal gun ownership with no responsibility or obligation to prove or demonstrate that you are not a threat to public safety. That worked out really well the other day for those law makers and their staff.[/QUOTE

    You got it! And in several states like KY and NH the NRA was trying to further weaken what laws are in place.

    The legislation was for open carry/concealed carry. It did away with any safety classes that had been previously required. Lawmakers in KY didn't end up voting on it, but it may have passed in NH. I am not sure. The legislation in both states was word-for-word the same.

    I belong to Moms Demand Action (gun safety advocacy group).
  12. by   Lil Nel
    There are other things that the federal government could do such outlawing certain types of bullets. But they have refused to do that too. Cowards. And what about banning assault rifles? Does anybody need an assault rifle to go hunting? No. It is a weapon of war. Oh, it has been used to kill the maximum number of people in several mass shooting including Sandy Hook/Newtown.
  13. by   tntrn
    Quote from Lil Nel
    There are other things that the federal government could do such outlawing certain types of bullets. But they have refused to do that too. Cowards. And what about banning assault rifles? Does anybody need an assault rifle to go hunting? No. It is a weapon of war. Oh, it has been used to kill the maximum number of people in several mass shooting including Sandy Hook/Newtown.

    Maybe you mean semi-automatic rifles? Because assault rifles are also called machine guns and are completely unable to be had in some states and at great cost, both with permitting and prices of the weapons, which can start at about $15K.

    Many states don't allow the scary AR-15 for hunting anyway, because the ammo used isn't powerful enough to bring down a large animal with one shot.
    Last edit by tntrn on Jun 17

close