Gun Control

[knapplc]

I don't disagree wt you on the need for reform Knapp. I probably overstated by using the word 'ban'. I think some curbs are needed but even wt that, the bad guys will still get theirs. So, we need to work on the processes that keep the bad guys on the streets - whether they are mental/psyco or radical terrorist bad guys. Even if all guns were banned, then the bad guys will use some other method to inflict horrific carnage.

There will still be carnage if guns are banned, yes. Some inflicted by illegal guns, some by knives, bombs, cars, whatever. People will use sticks & stones to carry out murder if they have to. We know this, we can't prevent this. All we can do is try to curb the problem. That's a reasonable thing to do.

 

[Saunders]

The fact is, this guy "Orlando shooter" was on the radar, went abroad and was questioned not once, but three times by the FBI.

Why was he given the green light to purchase a weapon.

Once again, the gun is not the perp, the individual who wielded the gun was!

You can't be serious, right? He was able to purchase a weapon because the laws that many have been attempting to pass that would stop people like this from being able to purchase weapons, keep getting rejected by Republicans with the mindset of, "the guns aren't the problem"

[citation needed]

Edit: and FYI the no-fly list isn't it. He was investigated by the FBI, but never accused or charged with anything. We don't strip people of their rights without due process, do we?

 

[zoogs]

For the record, it's not just the NRA doing things because they're the NRA. It's actual citizens who are objecting to these laws. DC v Heller happened because citizens wanted to be able to protect themselves, and the District of Columbia had a handgun ban for regular citizens.

If DC citizens wanted those laws overturned, it is as easy as electing politicians to undo the handgun ban. The problem with DC v Heller is that this was the product of the NRA -- and the consequence of the landmark 5-4 decision is that now, when actual citizens maybe want gun control, they have to run up against the enormous weight of the law of the land saying their desired laws are unconstitutional.

How are Americans having guns stopping them?Why is the answer not making it more difficult for ISIS "plants" or perhaps, more likely, converts, to purchase guns? Why is it instead that we need the NRA to get their way with gun laws in this country, or else ISIS?

The answer IS to make it harder for those people to aquire guns, but your scathing stance on the issue ignored when I said that 2 pages ago. I do want better control and less availability. But you're hung up on the fact I said it would sure be nice to be able to protect myself if an invasion occured.

If we can agree that ISIS is an irrelevant appeal in the discussion of gun control, then I guess we just agree!

I'm happy to agree, especially on the bolded.

 

[NM11046]

The fact is, this guy "Orlando shooter" was on the radar, went abroad and was questioned not once, but three times by the FBI.

Why was he given the green light to purchase a weapon.

Once again, the gun is not the perp, the individual who wielded the gun was!

You can't be serious, right? He was able to purchase a weapon because the laws that many have been attempting to pass that would stop people like this from being able to purchase weapons, keep getting rejected by Republicans with the mindset of, "the guns aren't the problem"

[citation needed]

Edit: and FYI the no-fly list isn't it.

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/09/459099457/republicans-reject-proposals-to-bar-people-on-no-fly-list-from-buying-guns

 

[zoogs]

Huh?

Going back to our discussions on this yesterday -- there was a legal consensus. The NRA-ILA invested an enormous amount of effort over decades to reshape that legal consensus. And so Heller was the product of their gains.

Heller wouldn't have been decided that way in 1992, or 1982, or 1972. The NRA wanted this change, and they got it.

 

[Saunders]

The fact is, this guy "Orlando shooter" was on the radar, went abroad and was questioned not once, but three times by the FBI.

Why was he given the green light to purchase a weapon.

Once again, the gun is not the perp, the individual who wielded the gun was!

You can't be serious, right? He was able to purchase a weapon because the laws that many have been attempting to pass that would stop people like this from being able to purchase weapons, keep getting rejected by Republicans with the mindset of, "the guns aren't the problem"

[citation needed]

Edit: and FYI the no-fly list isn't it.

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/09/459099457/republicans-reject-proposals-to-bar-people-on-no-fly-list-from-buying-guns

Yeah, like I said, that's not it. It was a bad law even the ACLU fought, and wouldn't have done a thing in this instance.

Edit: ACLU's take: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms

 

[TAKODA]

Once again, the gun is not the perp, the individual who wielded the gun was!

Stop this. The reason he used a gun is it's the most readily-accessible tool to kill mass amounts of people. It's easily transportable and easily acquired.

The gun is part of the problem. Let's stop pretending it isn't.

The fact is, this guy "Orlando shooter" was on the radar, went abroad and was questioned not once, but three times by the FBI.

Why was he given the green light to purchase a weapon.

Once again, the gun is not the perp, the individual who wielded the gun was!

You can't be serious, right? He was able to purchase a weapon because the laws that many have been attempting to pass that would stop people like this from being able to purchase weapons, keep getting rejected by Republicans with the mindset of, "the guns aren't the problem"

Here's a scenario I want to throw out there. Keep in mind it's just a scenario:

What if all of the gun manufacturers were actually members of ISIS, and without us knowing it, they put tiny little explosive implants in every single gun made, and are just waiting for the right combination of good weather and a lull in the news cycle to blow them all up at the same time, killing about half of the population?

What if that's true?????

There isn't a ghost of a chance that's true.

Dude chill, not saying it's true. Just laying out a scenario.

Landlord, if you read my prior post in this thread, I have zero argument with increasing the background checks to the point where people like this would not have had that right, but as a matter of fact, he would have still got a gun from other means. The bottom line I am trying to lay out is that this crime was done by a Muslim or sympathizer, (i don't care which), with intent to do harm for his cause.

You say it was because of the ease of him getting the gun that caused this? Are you serious? Do you honestly believe he would not have obtained one from a different source anyways? Hell, look how easy it was to get those planes on 9/11?

I am not sure if Redux was being serous or if he was just throwing out an arbitrary thought when he suggested an invasion by ISIS, but don't kid yourself thinking the USA has this Muslim issue under control, because we don't!

I don;t have the answer, but don't tell me that the gun caused this incident!

 

[BigRedBuster]

Chicago bans guns unless you have a conceal carry permit. I highly doubt if 10% of the gun owners in Chicago have permits. There are gun murders their every day. 677 murders this year. So....if the guns are banned, why are they still on the streets?

What I'm pointing out is that even IF someone gets a gun law passed that bans guns, it's totally worthless legislation. It would absolutely be meaningless legislation.

I'm not completely familiar with the Chicago situation. What happened after the landmark 2010 case that overturned their prior gun restrictions, in the wake of DC v. Heller?

...which highlights the thing that really chafes at me. Cities should be able to try things more freely. But they're hamstrung by the efforts of the NRA-ILA to overturn everything.

To the latter point, I guess what I'd say is you have to reduce the number of guns. If that isn't accomplished, I don't think you can make many real gains.

Chicago is a city. Chicago isn't a country. I live here, I've had enough conversations with law enforcement officers and city officials to know that the guns on the streets aren't guns that are coming from Chicago.

But....even if the entire US banned guns, those guns aren't going away. They don't just automatically disappear.

Also....what constitutes "aren't guns that are coming from Chicago"?

 

[Redux]

Lets pretend for a second that he was unable to aquire firearms. Does he still commit acts of violence via different means?

If you answer no to that I have nothing to say to you.

 

[Redux]

Once again, the gun is not the perp, the individual who wielded the gun was!

Stop this. The reason he used a gun is it's the most readily-accessible tool to kill mass amounts of people. It's easily transportable and easily acquired.

The gun is part of the problem. Let's stop pretending it isn't.

The fact is, this guy "Orlando shooter" was on the radar, went abroad and was questioned not once, but three times by the FBI.

Why was he given the green light to purchase a weapon.

Once again, the gun is not the perp, the individual who wielded the gun was!

You can't be serious, right? He was able to purchase a weapon because the laws that many have been attempting to pass that would stop people like this from being able to purchase weapons, keep getting rejected by Republicans with the mindset of, "the guns aren't the problem"

Here's a scenario I want to throw out there. Keep in mind it's just a scenario:

What if all of the gun manufacturers were actually members of ISIS, and without us knowing it, they put tiny little explosive implants in every single gun made, and are just waiting for the right combination of good weather and a lull in the news cycle to blow them all up at the same time, killing about half of the population?

What if that's true?????

There isn't a ghost of a chance that's true.

Dude chill, not saying it's true. Just laying out a scenario.

Landlord, if you read my prior post in this thread, I have zero argument with increasing the background checks to the point where people like this would not have had that right, but as a matter of fact, he would have still got a gun from other means. The bottom line I am trying to lay out is that this crime was done by a Muslim or sympathizer, (i don't care which), with intent to do harm for his cause.

You say it was because of the ease of him getting the gun that caused this? Are you serious? Do you honestly believe he would not have obtained one from a different source anyways? Hell, look how easy it was to get those planes on 9/11?

I am not sure if Redux was being serous or if he was just throwing out an arbitrary thought when he suggested an invasion by ISIS, but don't kid yourself thinking the USA has this Muslim issue under control, because we don't!

I don;t have the answer, but don't tell me that the gun caused this incident!

It was an arbitrary example, yet Landlord, Zoogs and knapp use it as a way to push their stance on gun control and to make any counter I offer look foolosh. It is what it is.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Lets pretend for a second that he was unable to aquire forearms. Does he still commit acts of violence via different means?

If you answer no to that I have nothing to say to you.

Well.....it would be more difficult because he might have to kick them to death.

 

[darkhorse85]

Lets pretend for a second that he was unable to aquire firearms. Does he still commit acts of violence via different means?

If you answer no to that I have nothing to say to you.

Perhaps, but it's doubtful he kills 50 people and wounds another 50+ before he's stopped.

 

[huKSer]

In Kansas the government is forcing colleges and universities to allow conceal carry on campus, unless you put a metal detector at every exterior door. In part this was done to prevent another VT.

I can see their logic on this UNTIL you get back to the dorms. Drunk students, lovers quarrels, you stole my stash, stop playing Barry Manilow . . . you get the picture.

 

[Redux]

Lets pretend for a second that he was unable to aquire firearms. Does he still commit acts of violence via different means?

If you answer no to that I have nothing to say to you.

Perhaps, but it's doubtful he kills 50 people and wounds another 50+ before he's stopped.

Doubtful he kills 50 and injuries 50+ more if he had to use a home made bomb instead? I doubt it.
Religous extremists who want to cause harm will continue to find ways to cause it. That's what the shooting is about, but here we are debating regulating legal means to purchase firearms. Maybe we should be debating how the FBI failed to prevent him from doing it when he was already under suspicion.

 

[StPaulHusker]

Lets pretend for a second that he was unable to aquire firearms. Does he still commit acts of violence via different means?

If you answer no to that I have nothing to say to you.

If he would have had a stricter background check and the gun shop not sold him the guns, legally, he may have had to go with other means which would have taken time and perhaps he may have been caught before anything happened.

Instead, he bought a gun rather quickly and did what he did.

The problem with your statement is that nobody can possibly know what would have happened.