Sutherland Springs Shooting

ShAArk92 said:
Yes. A whopping 4.x were convicted ... and just under 1% have been sentenced ... the completion of Justice, right?
Click to expand...

The goal is preventing that person from getting a gun and based on the data in the article I posted 120,729 purchases had been stopped due to domestic violence histories.

If you're only goal is to prosecute people for violated gun purchase laws then we might want to start looking elsewhere than the background check process.
 
ShAArk92 said:
The problem is relying upon government for something it’s unable to do
Click to expand...

It's perfectly capable. The problem is the purposely disjointed process that is an amalgamation State and FBI processes. For example, lets look at the AFA not alerting the FBI, should they also have to alert all the States that choose to do their own checks? Why do you think the States choose their own processes over the feds?
 
Seattle Husker said:
preventing that person from getting a gun
Click to expand...

And that of how many applications?

How many of those were repeats! How many of those actually prevented an aggravated crime?

This is why throwing stats around is a fools game.

Clearly there have been MUCH more infringement than there has actual stopping the commission of crime. The law is what it is and honoring the law is the only prevention.
 
ShAArk92 said:
And that of how many applications?

How many of those were repeats! How many of those actually prevented an aggravated crime?

This is why throwing stats around is a fools game.

Clearly there have been MUCH more infringement than there has actual stopping the commission of crime. The law is what it is and honoring the law is the only prevention.
Click to expand...

Facts and data is a "fools game"? You'd rather just go on gut feel? Are you sure you're not liberal? :p
 
Seattle Husker said:
Are you claiming the WSJ data aren't facts?
Click to expand...

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Smh

I said ... for the 3rd time, the singular pursuit of data is useless because it can be manipulated

Liars figure and figures lie.

Still True.

Prodigalhorn makes the astute observation in the “Tim Beck” thread about data points and the characteristic lack of ability to tell a story. No subject, just numbers.
 
ShAArk92 said:
Have you stopped beating your wife?

Smh

I said ... for the 3rd time, the singular pursuit of data is useless because it can be manipulated

Liars figure and figures lie.

Still True.

Prodigalhorn makes the astute observation in the “Tim Beck” thread about data points and the characteristic lack of ability to tell a story. No subject, just numbers.
Click to expand...


Moving on. I'm sure the left gets just as irrational when talking their pet topics (Abortion rights and environmentalism) but starting an argument by claiming these stats can't be trusted while concurrently proffering the following statement without any support leaves me only conclude that this debate will be fruitless.

Clearly there have been MUCH more infringement than there has actual stopping the commission of crime.
Click to expand...
 
OK... I don't know remember what you two are arguing about, but just so we're all on the same page here, my Tim Beck data observation WAS astute. :D

Carry on.
 
It takes forever to buy a car if you are really trying to negotiate a good price. I am okay with a 3 day waiting period for a gun. I own numerous firarms (nearly all are hunting related) and have never needed any I purchased within the next 3 days.

Apparently this dude had a violent past and at one point escaped from an insane asylum. Violent, convicted criminals who have gone on the lam from insane asylums should not be able to easily, legally purchase guns from law abiding gun dealers. I think a background check system for this is totally within our government’s capability. It may not be 100%, but it can be a lot better than what we have now.

I actually agree the federal government is hopeless, but it is not THAT hopeless.
 
There is a 3-day window where if they FBI doesn't respond, you get the gun. This is how Dylan Roof was able to attain the gun. That should be low hanging fruit to reevaluate that rule.
 
Employment background screenings used to be enormously challenging due to the lack of electronic records at many courthouses. Criminal history checks are still a challenge for most vendors.
 
Croc?
What you posted makes NO sense. The store only does a background check After the sale.
And since the Buyer's Remorse law does not apply to a store the buyer could have all the remorse he wants to no avail. The buyer can not use the Buyers Remorse law to back out of the sale.
So your assertion the NRA wanted instant background checks to thwart the Buyer's Remorse law is not true.
 
So if I agree to buy a gun, but haven't taken possession of it before the background check is complete, I can't back out. Wow. That is different than every other retail product I have ever purchased.
 
Croc
You are confusing store policy with the Buyer's Remorse law.
Read the law and then tell us again the NRA wanted instant checks to thwart a law that does not apply to stores.
 
Going back to insane asylums, the shooter escaped one in NM.
 
I heard this morning that Kelley actually attended some kind of festival at the First Baptist Church on Halloween, a few days before the massacre. His mother-in-law said she thought relations between them were actually getting better.

I wonder if he was just surveying the Church, planning his attack.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Someone here said it was simply "the price of freedom".
Click to expand...

Right up there with the "if we can save one life, it's worth it" argument. Because you argue that when people disagree with your solution, that means they think "children dying is less important than being free", we can't have a reasonable or productive discussion about this.
 
So what is the solution for reducing the amount of mass shootings?

I say:

1. Review the current background check system. Determine where it is failing. Attempt to improve the background check system whether that requires new polices for better coordination, new people, better funding or more time for the check to review (including a waiting period).

2. Improve the mental health system. Make policy changes that keep dangerous mentally deranged people locked up. Adequately fund mental health facilities.

3. Add people with dangerous mental health problems back to the no buy list.

4. Anyone on the “no-buy” list attempting to buy a gun should be flagged.

That would be my initial starting place.

Are these things unreasonable? I have heard no other ideas offered other than “it is fine if a mentally deranged convicted criminal can walk into academy and get an assault rifle in 5 minutes.”

I am a pro second amendment gun owner. I have bought rifles before. None of these reasonable steps should bother any lawful gun owners. The fact that it is far easier to get an assault rifle than a passport, for example, is absurd. I am not even anti-assault rifle ownership. I just think there are reasonable steps that can be take that are trivial inconveniences for law abiding gun owners like myself. They will not 100% stop all mass shootings, but they could have stopped Sunday’s.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
Right up there with the "if we can save one life, it's worth it" argument. Because you argue that when people disagree with your solution, that means they think "children dying is less important than being free", we can't have a reasonable or productive discussion about this.
Click to expand...

I do see Sandy Hook as a watershed moment. Nothing changed after that. One can say "do we need to change anything?" but we've clearly seen a continued set of mass killings since this time and no solutions even being seriously debated.


Htown77 said:
So what is the solution for reducing the amount of mass shootings?

I say:

1. Review the current background check system. Determine where it is failing. Attempt to improve the background check system whether that requires new polices for better coordination, new people, better funding or more time for the check to review (including a waiting period).
Click to expand...

I'd add that this needs to be a universal background check. We need a single solution that all gun sales are managed through rather than a hodgepodge of state/FBI. Additionally, all gun sales from dealers and private sales should go through this process.

2. Improve the mental health system. Make policy changes that keep dangerous mentally deranged people locked up. Adequately fund mental health facilities.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

3. Add people with dangerous mental health problems back to the no buy list.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It was ludicrous they were removed to begin with.

4. Anyone on the “no-buy” list attempting to buy a gun should be flagged.

That would be my initial starting place.
Click to expand...

We all seem OK with a "no fly list" and it seems to make sense that a "no gun list" should also apply.

Are these things unreasonable? I have heard no other ideas offered other than “it is fine if a mentally deranged convicted criminal can walk into academy and get an assault rifle in 5 minutes.”

I am a pro second amendment gun owner. I have bought rifles before. None of these reasonable steps should bother any lawful gun owners. The fact that it is far easier to get an assault rifle than a passport, for example, is absurd. I am not even anti-assault rifle ownership. I just think there are reasonable steps that can be take that are trivial inconveniences for law abiding gun owners like myself. They will not 100% stop all mass shootings, but they could have stopped Sunday’s.
Click to expand...

Is it time to revisit an "Assault Weapons Ban"? We had one in place from '92 - '03 and the ratio of these weapons being used in violent crimes was a fraction of what we see today. Has there been a mass shooting in the last 10 years that an assault weapon wasn't the primary weapon?
 
Seattle Husker said:
One can say "do we need to change anything?" but we've clearly seen a continued set of mass killings since this time and no solutions even being seriously debated.
Click to expand...

Because the left jumps straight to banning things, confiscating things (or praising programs in other countries that have included confiscation), and then says that people who don't agree with them are evil people. The right curls up into a fetal position and fears having a discussion, so they just tread water and hope the whole thing goes away. Meanwhile, no one discusses some of the common sense issues that have been pointed out (such as why do we continually have people not being added to lists which should be flagging them as ineligible to buy guns?) - because if they do, they get shouted down with phrases like, oh, I don't know... "you care more about freedom than you do about kids dying."

Democrats don't want to reform process because it's easier to just pass more layers of legislation so they can say they've done something. It doesn't appease progressives that you streamlined reporting. They just see that as window dressing, since the main issue in their eyes is that people can buy guns. Gun violence is the gift that keeps on giving, because they know they can propose legislation that won't actually stop anything, and if it doesn't pass, they can campaign on what they tried to do and failed because of evil republicans. And if it does pass, and doesn't stop the shootings (because we all know it won't) they can say "see, we didn't do enough, we have to be stricter" and the bar moves on down the line.

Republicans may or may not want to reform process, but they're not willing to spend time and political capital doing it, because they don't think it will make people like them more, and that's pretty much what drives most republican legislators.

So we just argue about stuff that doesn't matter and won't help. And some then say that means we don't care about kids dying, because we didn't just lay down and accept whatever solution the loudest yellers happened to demand.

How many violations were committed during the Obama administration of people illegally obtaining firearms? And how many did they prosecute?

http://www.dailywire.com/news/23282...ma-administration-not-hank-berrien#exit-modal

This older CNN article lays out some of the Obama administration arguments about why enforcement was down.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/09/politics/obama-executive-orders-gun-control-enforcement-gap/index.html

But since prosecution is apparently up about 23 percent this year on those cases, I'm not sure the Obama argument is completely honest. If it really is about needing more funding to prosecute gun laws, it seems like that'd be pretty popular legislation to introduce. And I suspect it would gain a lot of bi-partisan support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top