Ten dead in Boulder, Colorado

But wait, @oldfella1962 is fighting off @Uncle Albert, and wrests control of his foot back!

Like I said. As long as there is some sort of due process.

Don't we already have background checks? The store runs one on me every time I buy one. Red flag laws are okay but agree due process must be followed with every i dotted and t crossed 100 percent of the time. And once the flag is lifted, you get the gun back of course.

We do, but there are some instances where you don't have to do a background check. I could sell you one of my guns without doing one

Yes, it was a mistake. I apologized, and the thread was renamed by the mods while I was at work. Everything is kosher and the thread is on track for the most part.

Sorry, but when it comes to things like that, I have to agree with Kirk.

In addition to the logical fallacies I already mentioned (strawman and whataboutism), your question also suffers from the logical fallacy of false premise(s).

It presumes that people do not care about the hundreds of people getting killed annually. Obviously, people do. I hope most would agree that there is a tragedy in every single life lost.

It also presumes that people don't care about black-on-black gun homicides. That is also false, as these routinely generate marches, protests and other calls for action.

Here, for example, is a small sample of where you can find stories about anti-violence marches in Chicago, and keep in mind these reflect not every anti-violence march in the City, but just those that this particular outlet had the knowledge, time and manpower to cover:

https://chicago.cbslocal.com/tag/anti-violence-march/

Now if your question is why do people pay more attention to spree shootings than the individual murders that happen all too frequently, the answer would be the more unusual something is, the more attention it will draw. There are a couple potential other answers:

1. There is a grudging acceptance that as long as there are going to be guns allowed, one can do little to stop individual acts of gun violence. But as we are basically the only country where mass shootings happen regularly, there seemingly must be something that the other countries are doing to prevent mass shootings that we are not.

2. Targeted gun violence is arguably less scary than random gun violence. I think it's fair to say that the news media, the government, and others probably place more emphasis both on things that are more unusual than usual and more "it could happen to me" than distant.

3. With that, there probably are some race and class dynamics and other value judgments that are in play in the amount of attention things get. The death of a gang member at the hands of another gang member is going to get less coverage than the death of an innocent baby at the hands of a drug dealer. There is an argument that even though this doesn't involve police shootings that these Black lives don't matter, and that if the carnage that were confined in some urban neighborhoods were to spread to more well-to-do or White neighborhoods, some people would care a whole lot more.

BTW, I at least haven't claimed to be morally superior to you and I don't think that anyone has.

Is that state thing or federal? I only buy from licensed dealers. Regardless every sale (or even giving a gun as a gift) should undergo a background check by a licensed dealer. I don't see that "infringing" on the 2nd. Yes it might cost whatever a dealer might charge you to do it, but that's something everyone can afford. It protects everybody from liability IMHO. I wouldn't want to sell a gun to somebody who might implicate me down the road!

Some states may require it (I honestly don't know), but I'm all for a federal ubc.

"Cleanup on Aisle 5" is not a witty thing to say about a spree shooting at a grocery store.

No one is saying that dark humor has no place anywhere. Unfunny jokes that are insensitive to the victims of crime, however, don't. If Trevor Noah or John Oliver or whoever makes such jokes, I'm sure they will get earfuls from lots of people.

P.S. Probably the first and only time anyone has compared OF's sense of humor to actual comedians.

That this is a straw man and whataboutism again.

Because I'm pretty sure that literally no one on the left has ever suggested that the behavior of a mass shooter is typical of all gun owners, whereas it's not too difficult to see people argue that jihadists are a typical representative of Muslims and/or call for Muslims to apologize for the actions of their bad apples. At most, people on the left criticize the majority of gun owners for being so against gun control that gun control measures are a non-starter despite the frequency of mass shootings.

"It also presumes that people don't care about black-on-black gun homicides. That is also false, as these routinely generate marches, protests and other calls for action."
Yes, at the local (maybe state) level. I see the mayor of Chicago on TV trying to do her best, no argument there. She has her hands full, no doubt about it.

And true while you haven't claimed to be morally superior, quite a few on wordforge have loudly & proudly proclaimed that conservatives and republicans are evil by default, and basically rotten to the core at every level. If you haven't noticed this, it wouldn't take much work to go back through a few threads - especially of an overtly political nature - to ascertain this.

another thing that grinds my gears is RECIPROCITY between states concerning gun laws! You live in one state, you work across the river in another state for example - cross that bridge into a "no handguns outside your home" state and now you're a law breaker. There are many examples of similar situations of course and it's crazy.

Jesus is there any fucking way to even have a discussion - to bring up examples and situations and opposing points-of-view, without it being a straw man or whataboutism?
Seriously I'm not a fucking English major or a literary expert. You don't agree with my statement? No problem, that's your right. But it's just a stand-alone comment - an observation - but it's not deliberate obfuscation or anything. Trust me, I'm not that clever.

Read more, write less.

States Rights and all that. Besides, unless all 50 states come together and agree on carry law standards () the FedGov would have to step in and make the standards. I don't reckon there are a lot of gun owners who would want that.

Well that comment brought some productive insight to the table, and moved the discussion along quite effectively!

Indeed. I dearly want to leave but the damn space aliens insist on picking up hicks from the sticks. Waddayagonnado?

Move back home to improve your chances?

Oh I get states rights, but I think it would be to everybody's benefit to come together on this subject. Even if you had to get a "waiver" approved on a case-by-case basis there should still be a contingency for interstate gun transportation and use.

Meh. Where I grew up might have been "the sticks" fifty years ago but it sure as hell ain't that any more. Starting around the mid 1980s or so the "rich folk" from New York City discovered our area and started buying up properties to build vacation homes and whatnot. Ruined a lot of good woods, destroyed some farms, changed the whole character of the area.

Which, strangely enough, is another reason I would like to leave. Too many people crowding too close together and telling each other how wonderful they are.

^^^ Believe me, I'd be much happier living far to the north of the DC area. But I followed the money and the jobs, so here I am.

That would be a good use of the interstate commerce clause, but liberals like to abuse that part of the constitution too.

Fucking liberals.

Yeah, you know who really respects the Constitution? Conservatives.

I know, right?

Gallows humor is appropriate for people in a terrible situation who have no control over circumstances and need a release valve in order to try and maintain their well-being. And while they might joke amongst themselves that somebody who took a shotgun blast to the face now looks like Zoidberg from Futurama, they know better than to crack that joke to people outside of that situation.

I will also point out that it is entirely possible to reduce the carnage caused by gun violence without changing a single gun law. Let me repeat that: We can reduce the problems caused by gun violence without changing a single gun law. How? Universal healthcare. With that, it's entirely possible that at least a couple of shooters will get the treatment they need before they go on a killing spree, and so don't decide that they have to kill people.

But let's say that UHC won't stop any shooters, it'll still reduce the carnage. How many people have to start GoFundMes to pay for their medical bills in the wake of a mass-shooting? How many more won't seek mental health treatment to help them deal with the trauma of being in a mass-shooting or losing someone to a mass-shooting because they can't afford it? How fucking horrible is it to not only have to stare at a loved one hooked up to all kinds of machines because some asshole decided to shoot up a place and also have to worry about how the fuck you're going to pay for the hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical bills you know are headed your way? UHC would at least take some of the worries off the minds of the victims and their families. And that is far, far better than what we have now.

Addressing social problems with finesse? Come on. Get real here.

How? I only drive between NC and TN, which have reciprocity, but if they didn't...how would me carrying from one to the other be commerce?