Gun Control

[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.

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 extrimists 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.

If the cases were closed, he was no longer under suspicion.

 

[TAKODA]

In all my years, I have never seen a gun convicted of a crime!

I have seen many, many who wielded them convicted, I have seen summery judgments on the retailers who sold them to someone they should not have been sold too, but the gun always has a pretty decently outlined defense, and that is, it didn't pull it's own trigger!

Want to enforce tougher standards to purchase one or two or ten guns, so be it, sign me up!

Going to sit here and tell me it's the guns fault for the actions of a loon, try harder!

 

[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.

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.

Come on, you don't honestly believe that if he were unable to aquire the firearms as quickly as he did he would have just been like "Oh well, I tried".

 

[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 extrimists 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.

If the cases were closed, he was no longer under suspicion.

Well, job well done I guess?

 

[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.

Come on, you don't honestly believe that if he were unable to aquire the firearms as quickly as he did he would have just been like "Oh well, I tried".

That's not what I am saying at all. I'm saying that he wasn't going to be able to just get turned down at the gun shop, walk out the door and go a few blocks and buy one illegally either. It might have taken some time. A few days to figure where to go, who to buy from, not get caught, etc. In the mean time, he could slip up. Contact an undercover officer, get caught in a sting, etc and things are different.

 

[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.

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 extrimists 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.

If the cases were closed, he was no longer under suspicion.

Well, job well done I guess?

I think you don't understand the f'd up nature of gun laws in this country.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/orlando-shooter-bought-guns-previous-flags-fbi/story?id=39799861

"Being on the watch list is not in itself disqualifying, under law. The disqualifying elements of the investigation may be classified,"

"According to Florida law, there is a mandatory three-day waiting period for handgun purchases, but no permit, registration or licensing is needed to buy or own rifles, shotguns or handguns"

 

[Bigred_inSD]

If we fully follow the constitution only white land owning males should have guns, no?

 

[Enhance]

The issue that Potus fails to mention or to identify here is that Muslims are anti "Gay" and believe those who fit that description are fair game. Owning a gun is really not the impetus for what happened in Orlando so let's be sure we separate the two when talking.

Bingo

Traditional Muslim and Christian values go against gays. Although Islam has tended to be more violently reactive to homosexuality, this mindset/argument clouds the issue. Weapons, mental health and murderous motives are all intertwined.

This is exactly what the power players in this debate want - people trying to focus on one piece over the other instead of looking at them as one cohesive unit.

Guns are a huge problem.

People are a huge problem.

Stop trying to make it one or the other.

Guns are not the problem!

The problem comes from people who have acquired the guns that should not have been allowed too, period!

However, potus sure teed off on it like this tragedy simply happened because of inadequacy in gun control policies. I think they had reasonable cause to deny this guy from obtaining one legally. We all know that he would have obtained one illegally however so I am not sure why there is a debate regarding this point.

Again let me restate what I stated earlier, I am for stricter regulatory background checks prior to being able to acquire a gun legally.

Perhaps this is my fault for not properly wording my statement - I didn't mean 'guns' are a problem in the sense that the contraption that shoots a bullet is the only problem. I mean that gun control is a problem. The ease of access, the amount of illegal weapons on the streets and the lack of responsible gun ownership. I think we agree on this part.

As to your second point, I think anybody who wants to get a gun is going to find a way to get a gun. We have so many illegal guns on the streets and such poor owner responsibility that guns are relatively easy to acquire. But, this is also deflect mechanism and again clouds the issue because we're ignoring how he really obtained a weapon. I would again say that I want people to be legally able to own guns - I have no problem with that. But, I think we can both agree that if there is a way out there to make it more difficult for someone like this murderer to get a gun, we should explore that option.

 

[knapplc]

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 extrimists 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.

You're right, if he couldn't get ahold of a gun, he'd have used a bomb, or driven a car into the club. This guy is a nutter who was determined. But it'd have to have been a huge bomb to damage a nightclub like that, and that takes logistics. It's harder to build a bomb than buy a gun, and I'm all for making the bad guys work harder to pull off stunts like this.

If we can slow this kind of thing down, don't we do that? Or do we just say "Well, we can't stop 100% of these so let's not try to stop 1%."???

 

[TAKODA]

The issue that Potus fails to mention or to identify here is that Muslims are anti "Gay" and believe those who fit that description are fair game. Owning a gun is really not the impetus for what happened in Orlando so let's be sure we separate the two when talking.

Bingo

Traditional Muslim and Christian values go against gays. Although Islam has tended to be more violently reactive to homosexuality, this mindset/argument clouds the issue. Weapons, mental health and murderous motives are all intertwined.

This is exactly what the power players in this debate want - people trying to focus on one piece over the other instead of looking at them as one cohesive unit.

Guns are a huge problem.

People are a huge problem.

Stop trying to make it one or the other.

Guns are not the problem!

The problem comes from people who have acquired the guns that should not have been allowed too, period!

However, potus sure teed off on it like this tragedy simply happened because of inadequacy in gun control policies. I think they had reasonable cause to deny this guy from obtaining one legally. We all know that he would have obtained one illegally however so I am not sure why there is a debate regarding this point.

Again let me restate what I stated earlier, I am for stricter regulatory background checks prior to being able to acquire a gun legally.

Perhaps this is my fault for not properly wording my statement - I didn't mean 'guns' are a problem in the sense that the contraption that shoots a bullet is the problem. I mean that gun control is a problem. The ease of access, the amount of illegal weapons on the streets and the lack of responsible gun ownership. I think we agree on this part.

As to your second point, I think anybody who wants to get a gun is going to find a way to get a gun. We have so many illegal guns on the streets and such poor owner responsibility that guns are relatively easy to acquire. But, this is also deflect mechanism and again clouds the issue because we're ignoring how he really obtained a weapon. I would again say that I want people to be legally able to own guns - I have no problem with that. But, I think we can both agree that if there is a way out there to make it more difficult for someone like this murderer to get a gun, we should explore that option.

Yep, we agree for the most part, no issues here. I however feel that, if the FBI or our government has any tangible reason or suspicions about someone, they need to act on the side of caution rather than worrying about someone accusing them of profiling. Would it have made a difference here, most likely not, he could have used a 3000lb car filled with gas and ran into the buildings front doors or got a hold of numerous other (legal to acquire products), or simply got a gun illegally and carried out his plan.

The world we live in has changed and its about time we start recognizing this and start acting appropriately.

Will additional steps be cumbersome to people who are on the up and up? Yes, but that is just too bad, either accept it or just don't continue on with your purchase or initial intent.

 

[Enhance]

The issue that Potus fails to mention or to identify here is that Muslims are anti "Gay" and believe those who fit that description are fair game. Owning a gun is really not the impetus for what happened in Orlando so let's be sure we separate the two when talking.

Bingo

Traditional Muslim and Christian values go against gays. Although Islam has tended to be more violently reactive to homosexuality, this mindset/argument clouds the issue. Weapons, mental health and murderous motives are all intertwined.

This is exactly what the power players in this debate want - people trying to focus on one piece over the other instead of looking at them as one cohesive unit.

Guns are a huge problem.

People are a huge problem.

Stop trying to make it one or the other.

Guns are not the problem!

The problem comes from people who have acquired the guns that should not have been allowed too, period!

However, potus sure teed off on it like this tragedy simply happened because of inadequacy in gun control policies. I think they had reasonable cause to deny this guy from obtaining one legally. We all know that he would have obtained one illegally however so I am not sure why there is a debate regarding this point.

Again let me restate what I stated earlier, I am for stricter regulatory background checks prior to being able to acquire a gun legally.

Perhaps this is my fault for not properly wording my statement - I didn't mean 'guns' are a problem in the sense that the contraption that shoots a bullet is the problem. I mean that gun control is a problem. The ease of access, the amount of illegal weapons on the streets and the lack of responsible gun ownership. I think we agree on this part.

As to your second point, I think anybody who wants to get a gun is going to find a way to get a gun. We have so many illegal guns on the streets and such poor owner responsibility that guns are relatively easy to acquire. But, this is also deflect mechanism and again clouds the issue because we're ignoring how he really obtained a weapon. I would again say that I want people to be legally able to own guns - I have no problem with that. But, I think we can both agree that if there is a way out there to make it more difficult for someone like this murderer to get a gun, we should explore that option.

Yep, we agree for the most part, no issues here. I however feel that, if the FBI or our government has any tangible reason or suspicions about someone, they need to act on the side of caution rather than worrying about someone accusing them of profiling. Would it have made a difference here, most likely not, he could have used a 3000lb car filled with gas and ran into the buildings front doors or got a hold of numerous other (legal to acquire products), or simply got a gun illegally and carried out his plan.

The world we live in has changed and its about time we start recognizing this and start acting appropriately.

Will additional steps be cumbersome to people who are on the up and up? Yes, but that is just too bad, either accept it or just don't continue on with your purchase or initial intent.

Well said.

 

[cm husker]

In a world of enhanced background checks, what would have been the grounds for preventing him from buying?

Also, is there a way to detect "stockpiling," like buying multiple handguns in one sitting?

Short of a ban, I'm just having a lot of trouble seeing how more "half measures" will have an impact on things like this.

That said, I'm not necessarily for a ban either.

 

[cm husker]

"The world we live in has changed and its about time we start recognizing this and start acting appropriately"

I sympathize with this feeling, but it's a dangerous road of justification.

 

[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 extrimists 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.

You're right, if he couldn't get ahold of a gun, he'd have used a bomb, or driven a car into the club. This guy is a nutter who was determined. But it'd have to have been a huge bomb to damage a nightclub like that, and that takes logistics. It's harder to build a bomb than buy a gun, and I'm all for making the bad guys work harder to pull off stunts like this.If we can slow this kind of thing down, don't we do that? Or do we just say "Well, we can't stop 100% of these so let's not try to stop 1%."???

Do you guys seriously not see it in my posts when I say "we need to take steps towards making it more difficult to aquire weapons".

I'm all ears for a suggestion. So far you guys just keep repeating that gun ownership is unecessary, that gun crimes would reduce if it weren't for availability, gun death stats would drop if it was harder to buy, I'm a weirdo cause I ghost hunt, etc.

Just once, tell me how we go about making it more difficult for John Q. Terrorist to aquire a gun legally and or illegally?

 

[knapplc]

You're right, if he couldn't get ahold of a gun, he'd have used a bomb, or driven a car into the club. This guy is a nutter who was determined. But it'd have to have been a huge bomb to damage a nightclub like that, and that takes logistics. It's harder to build a bomb than buy a gun, and I'm all for making the bad guys work harder to pull off stunts like this.If we can slow this kind of thing down, don't we do that? Or do we just say "Well, we can't stop 100% of these so let's not try to stop 1%."???

Do you guys seriously not see it in my posts when I say "we need to take steps towards making it more difficult to aquire weapons".

I'm all ears for a suggestion. So far you guys just keep repeating that gun ownership is unecessary, that gun crimes would reduce if it weren't for availability, gun death stats would drop if it was harder to buy, I'm a weirdo cause I ghost hunt, etc.

Just once, tell me how we go about making it more difficult for John Q. Terrorist to aquire a gun legally and or illegally?

That may have been poorly phrased on my part. I was mostly agreeing with you there, and I wasn't really directing that last hypothetical at you. I think we all agree that something should be done. It's just that none of us have drafted up plans on how to fix this.