Gun Control/Rights Thread

[downzy]

1 hour ago, liers said:

Most want assault weapons banned and background checks. I think they're going to have a hard time getting the assault weapons banned. I'm all for the second amendment, but i see peoples point that there's not much reason to own a gun capable of killing hoards of people in minutes.

That still doesn't help the fact that guns will still be able to get in the hands of terrorists. There'll be a bigger market for assault weapons if they're banned too. Say AFD was banned in the US and there was no way to download it. The only way you could hear it ever again was through the banned cd. Would you turn your copy into the government? No. If you had an extra copy, and someone offered you a shit ton of money for it, would you take it?

 

Conflating a ban on assault weapons and the hypothetical situation where AFD is banned isn't helping the conversation.  It's a false analogy that doesn't hold up to scrutiny for a variety of reasons (I'd never give up my sole copy of AFD, since it's my favourite album of all time; governments could impose such harsh penalties for owning a copy that it wouldn't be worth the risk; the cost to buy a copy on the black market would be so astronomically high that few would be able to afford it; I wouldn't have the first idea how to sell my copy on the blackmarket without being caught, etc.)

Actually, the U.S. public is (or was) fairly split on an assault weapons ban.  Keep in mind, assault weapons ban has been legislated before (in 1994) and expired ten years later.  It could happen again, but realistically, you're right, it's not a realistic expectation.  It should be noted, however, that the cost of many banned weapons in Australia have grown exponentially since the ban.  So much so that few could afford to buy them.  So sure, a highly organized and well-funded organization like ISIS or al-qaeda might be able to afford the procurement of such firearms, but dipshits like Marteen in Florida likely wouldn't.  

The problem with the gun-control/gun rights debate is that it only receives attention after the kind of attacks we've seen in Orlando or Newtown.  Gun-control advocates should be weary of making the argument that increased gun-control measures would absolutely stop such massacres.  There's likely a chance universal background checks or banning guns would have prevented the carnage.  But it's also disingenuous for gun-rights advocates to suggest that efforts to curb gun ownership or limit the destructive properties of firearms wouldn't factor in reducing or possibly preventing such tragedies.  Most people who die by the hands of gun are not involved in a terrorist attack or mass/multiple-shooting incident.  It's those victims whereby efforts to reduce gun violence through legislation would likely have an effect.  

Florida Senator Ben Nelson is currently introducing legislation that would require FBI notification if and when someone who was currently or previously investigated for terrorist activities buys a firearm.  That seems like a reasonable law that would help authorities to prioritize threats and allocate resources to them.  

[Słash]

I don't understand half of the things you guys are saying

So @downzy a few questions for you

Do you think Guns should be banned? Yes or No

Do you own a Gun? Yes or No. If Yes then which one and when was the last time you used it.

What is your opinion on this Gun Control thing, on one hand there are so many shootings happening in schools or clubs or wherever, but then people say that they need a Gun for their protection.

I guess in some states they do a background check before giving a Gun License, but what is the solution to all of this.

[PappyTron]

Honestly, I wish that people would stop calling things such as AR-15s "assault weapons/assault rifles" because they are not. As for the proposal for the linking of the FBI investigation database to the ability to purchase a firearm, how would that work, exactly? If the FBI investigate a person and don't find enough evidence to arrest them, yet along take them to trial, then they are, as a cornerstone of the law, innocent and should be free to lead their life as they so choose. If the proposal would just be that their purchase of a firearm would flag up on the FBI's system, how would that have any chance of stopping anyone doing something crazy? First, it would take weeks to investigate (these things take time) and secondly, the person has done nothing illegal so has no obligation to discuss anything with anybody.

[SoulMonster]

Nothing illegal, right, but when enough such red flags are raised it may form the basis for surveilance, interrogation, and further investigation (looking at travelling pattern, cross-referencing with NSA surveillance data to look for anything suspicious or collaborating, family history, religion, etc) which may lead to enough evidence for prosecution (or, in earlier days, just shipping off to Guatanamo). I am not saying this is how most terrorist attacks are prevented, but there has got to have been some by now.

[SoulMonster]

Further to my point above, an example: Say you have a refuge from Yemen who's been in the US for 5 years. You have intelligence that tells you he has regularly transferred money to a person back home who is assumed to belong to Al-Qaida. Foreign intelligence also claims he has brothers who have been involved in terrorist attacks in Syria. He is also known to attend a radical mosque. And now you get information that he has purchased an AR-14, two glocks and a helluva ammunition. Sure, he is till innocent, but if you are involved in counter-terrorism this is a persoon you would pay close attention to. Very close attention.

[PappyTron]

The problem is there would be tens of thousands of people that would fit that and similar profiles, if not hundreds of thousands of them. Let's say that you have a man who is the pastor of his local church and who regularly espouses from the pulpit of the wickedness of homosexuals and how God will cleanse then from this earth with righteous retribution. He's a member of his local gun club and one day he purchases 2-3 new weapons and 1000 rounds of ammunition. Cause for concern?

[downzy]

8 hours ago, PappyTron said:

As for the proposal for the linking of the FBI investigation database to the ability to purchase a firearm, how would that work, exactly? If the FBI investigate a person and don't find enough evidence to arrest them, yet along take them to trial, then they are, as a cornerstone of the law, innocent and should be free to lead their life as they so choose. If the proposal would just be that their purchase of a firearm would flag up on the FBI's system, how would that have any chance of stopping anyone doing something crazy? First, it would take weeks to investigate (these things take time) and secondly, the person has done nothing illegal so has no obligation to discuss anything with anybody.

Mateen was investigated twice by the FBI, with bureau going so far as inserting an undercover agent.  It likely won't have taken much for them to relaunch the investigation and re-insert the plant as a means to coax Marteen into disclosing his plans.  Why would you assume this would take weeks?  

In terms of how the FBI determines which suspects to re-examine, one would assume it would depend on some sort of threat assessment.  It could be done by computers using some form of threat algorithm.   Such assessment or analysis could help determine which individuals to look into again if the FBI were to be informed about firearm purchases.

[PappyTron]

15 minutes ago, downzy said:

Mateen was investigated twice by the FBI, with bureau going so far as inserting an undercover agent.  It likely won't have taken much for them to relaunch the investigation and re-insert the plant as a means to coax Marteen into disclosing his plans.  Why would you assume this would take weeks?  

In terms of how the FBI determines which suspects to re-examine, one would assume it would depend on some sort of threat assessment.  It could be done by computers using some form of threat algorithm.   Such assessment or analysis could help determine which individuals to look into again if the FBI were to be informed about firearm purchases.

These things take weeks if not months because it requires a massive amount of manpower to sift through all of the information that would be present if any kind of red flag system was put in place for anything so commonplace as a person on any watch list purchasing a firearm. So, a person who espouses that homosexuals are the spawn of the devil and an abomination to God, such as a thousand pastors each and every Sunday, goes and purchases a handful of guns; how do you get that to flag up on a system, get in the hands of an actual agent, investigated and a decision made when there must be tens of thousands of such occurrences each month? The manpower would be astronomical, not to mention a clear violation of multiple civil, constitutional and moral rights.

Looking at Mateen specifically, what do you believe that yet another investigation would have turned up if a system had shown that he had purchased a rifle?

"Mr Mateen?"

"Yes"

"Our system shows that you recently purchased a rifle. Is that correct?"

"Yes"

"Great. Can you tell me, do you plan on doing anything illegal with it, such as a mass shooting?"

"No, I don't plan on doing anything like that"

"Okay. Well, thanks for your time and have a wonderful day"

The fact of the matter is that until he committed the shooting Mateen had done nothing illegal. Should we through everyone's right into the dumpster based on what they might do?

 

[downzy]

4 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

These things take weeks if not months because it requires a massive amount of manpower to sift through all of the information that would be present if any kind of red flag system was put in place for anything so commonplace as a person on any watch list purchasing a firearm. So, a person who espouses that homosexuals are the spawn of the devil and an abomination to God, such as a thousand pastors each and every Sunday, goes and purchases a handful of guns; how do you get that to flag up on a system, get in the hands of an actual agent, investigated and a decision made when there must be tens of thousands of such occurrences each month? The manpower would be astronomical, not to mention a clear violation of multiple civil, constitutional and moral rights.

Looking at Mateen specifically, what do you believe that yet another investigation would have turned up if a system had shown that he had purchased a rifle?

"Mr Mateen?"

"Yes"

"Our system shows that you recently purchased a rifle. Is that correct?"

"Yes"

"Great. Can you tell me, do you plan on doing anything illegal with it, such as a mass shooting?"

"No, I don't plan on doing anything like that"

"Okay. Well, thanks for your time and have a wonderful day"

The fact of the matter is that until he committed the shooting Mateen had done nothing illegal. Should we through everyone's right into the dumpster based on what they might do?

 

Come now, do you honestly think this is how undercover operations work?  You understand what "undercover" means, right?

 

 

[rock4eva]

@PappyTron you said " I would class a shooting on a university campus as being just as public as a shooting in a cafe or in a nightclub. Saying that the shooting at Monash is "different" because he "wasn't going room to room" is disingenuous to the facts at hand: that a man went on a shooting spree, in Australia, after the gun ban that Josh Butler was claiming has stopped all such occurrences."

The difference is the gun he had whether legal or illegal wasn't a rapid fire gun mowing down heaps of people sheltering for cover. Due to that he was overpowered by people without guns which is far better than everyone pulling out their guns & shooting everywhere trying to get him.

[PappyTron]

49 minutes ago, downzy said:

Come now, do you honestly think this is how undercover operations work?  You understand what "undercover" means, right?

 

 

Of course I understand undercover, but I also understand what the word "practicality" means as well as "civil" and "rights". How many people do you believe would flag up on any FBI database in any given year, that would require "undercover" investigation, and where do you propose all of that manpower is going to come from? I could sit here and list a dozen spree killers off the top of my head, both recent and historic, who wouldn't have flagged any concerns, unless the criteria for concern was so loose that it would cover virtually anyone and everyone.

[bran]

1 hour ago, PappyTron said:

Of course I understand undercover, but I also understand what the word "practicality" means as well as "civil" and "rights". How many people do you believe would flag up on any FBI database in any given year, that would require "undercover" investigation, and where do you propose all of that manpower is going to come from? I could sit here and list a dozen spree killers off the top of my head, both recent and historic, who wouldn't have flagged any concerns, unless the criteria for concern was so loose that it would cover virtually anyone and everyone.

go and take a shot of whiskey for every time a neighbor, a friend, or co workers says " he was such a nice guy" about a mass shooter. you will drop dead in minutes. it also doesn't help that this administration has cut our balls off as a society. the 2013 investigation ended because the fbi thought his co workers were racist....whoops. just like the san bernardino shooting where neighbors thought he was acting strange, but didn't say anything because they were in fear of being called racist.

also funny you have the bleeding heart up on congressional hill, doing his filibuster, doing his best virtue signaling, feigning his sadness over the orlando shooting, trying to ban a type of gun that kills a little over 300 people a year(all rifles combined so less really) but cigarettes kill 480,000 people a year, and are readily available when you are 18. shit we even sell them in pharmacies. drunk drivers kill 10,000 people a year, yet in my state we have liquor stores on the highways, in other places we have drive through liquor stores that will even put ice in a cup for you, but you go senator beat those evil nazi nra republicans over the head with your virtue, like you actually give a flying fuck in the first place.

Edited June 16, 2016 by bran

[bran]

if assault weapons were banned(which they are) what would the government do to stop the illegal guns coming in and out of mexico, since a wall is xenophobic and racist? i mean making drugs illegal has done wonders, it is amazing that, since drugs are illegal, why is there a heroin epidemic in my part of the country? why was there 100 overdoses and 8 deaths in manchester in 1 month? 

i know some on here will blame the nra boogeyman, like they always do. i will tell you why this is going to go nowhere. democrats like guns too, and politicians will value their jobs over your fucking life every time.

Edited June 16, 2016 by bran

[SoulMonster]

11 hours ago, PappyTron said:

The problem is there would be tens of thousands of people that would fit that and similar profiles, if not hundreds of thousands of them. Let's say that you have a man who is the pastor of his local church and who regularly espouses from the pulpit of the wickedness of homosexuals and how God will cleanse then from this earth with righteous retribution. He's a member of his local gun club and one day he purchases 2-3 new weapons and 1000 rounds of ammunition. Cause for concern?

That's the problem with profiling, right? But some people will raise more red flags than others, and when counter-terrorism groups have to prioritize their efforts those are the people they will look into.

[rock4eva]

51 minutes ago, bran said:

if assault weapons were banned(which they are) what would the government do to stop the illegal guns coming in and out of mexico, since a wall is xenophobic and racist. i mean making drugs illegal has done wonders, it is amazing that, since drugs are illegal, why is there a heroin epidemic in my part of the country? why was there 100 overdoses and 8 deaths in manchester in 1 month? 

i know some on here will blame the nra boogeyman, like they always do. i will tell you why this is going to go nowhere. democrats like guns too, and politicians will value their jobs over your fucking life every time.

LIKE

I ran out of likes bran.

Don't know if there is a political thread on here but who is the better candidate? Trump or Clinton? You're so lucky you don't have to vote.

[SoulMonster]

56 minutes ago, bran said:

if assault weapons were banned(which they are) what would the government do to stop the illegal guns coming in and out of mexico, since a wall is xenophobic and racist. i mean making drugs illegal has done wonders, it is amazing that, since drugs are illegal, why is there a heroin epidemic in my part of the country? why was there 100 overdoses and 8 deaths in manchester in 1 month? 

No one is blue-eyed enough to think a ban would somehow remove all guns. Guns will still seep in through border fluxes. But if you believe making something illegal reduces the amount of it, whether that is guns or drugs, and that a reduction in itself is favorable because it will lead to less deaths, then that is better than nothing. It is common to point to something and say, "Hey, [making heroin illegal/making guns harder to gegt access to] doesn't work because we still have [junkies ODing/gun deaths]!" without accepting that the problem could have been much worse without that measure in place. This is realpolitik, not some fantasy land where we believe measures will be perfedct and eradicate a problem completely.

[bran]

7 minutes ago, rock4eva said:

LIKE

I ran out of likes bran.

Don't know if there is a political thread on here but who is the better candidate? Trump or Clinton? You're so lucky you don't have to vote.

i don't like either, i'm voting for gary johnson.

[bran]

should people on a terror watch list be allowed to vote, when someone who may have committed a felony as a teen can't?

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, bran said:

should people on a terror watch list be allowed to vote, when someone who may have committed a felony as a teen can't?

Interesting questions. I believe that if they are only on a watch list, e.g. they haven't done anything criminal, then yes, they should be allowed to vote.

I also think anyone who has committed a felony and served his punishment should be allowed to vote. I was not aware this was not so in the US.

[bran]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Interesting questions. I believe that if they are only on a watch list, e.g. they haven't done anything criminal, then yes, they should be allowed to vote.

I also think anyone who has committed a felony and served his punishment should be allowed to vote. I was not aware this was not so in the US.

yeah if you are a convicted felon in some states you are not allowed to vote. i agree with you that is fucked up. i think taking away anyones rights away without some kind of due process is also insane, which is why i'm not into the "no fly no buy" provision that is being voted on. universal background checks i'am 100% in favor of. to your last point about banning guns, at this point and time, legalizing drugs would save more lives due to gun violence than banning ar15's.

Edited June 16, 2016 by bran

[SoulMonster]

Just now, bran said:

yeah if you are a convicted felon in some states you are not allowed to vote. i agree with you that is fucked up.

I would say it violates the principle that when you have served your sentence you are supposed to be equal to every other man. Being taken away your right to vote is a life-long additional sentence that I think could be felt like a huge burden long after a person has been punished for his crime and is supposed to be a productive member of society again. Basically, he is labelled an outcast of democracy for the rest of his life. That can't' be good.

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, bran said:

 to your last point about banning guns, at this point and time, legalizing drugs would save more lives due to gun violence than banning ar15's.

I don't know if legalizing heroin and hard opiates would be a good way to go, but I don't know. I really don't. Maybe it would take away some of the allure? Maybe it would improve the purity? I acknowledge there are valid argument in favour. But I am pretty certain making "hard" guns (automatic rifles, hand grenades, bazookas) legal would only make things worse, though.  I guess the analogy between guns and drugs don't hold up.

[bran]

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't know if legalizing heroin and hard opiates would be a good way to go, but I don't know. I really don't. Maybe it would take away some of the allure? Maybe it would improve the purity? I acknowledge there are valid argument in favour. But I am pretty certain making "hard" guns (automatic rifles, hand grenades, bazookas) legal would only make things worse, though.  I guess the analogy between guns and drugs don't hold up.

it takes away the stigma of the use of the drug, but it also takes away "the cool" factor. places where marijuana is legal, has decreased painkiller deaths by 25%. the other thing it would do, would allow for the product to be pure and clean. the overdoses in my part of the country come from heroin being cut with fentanyl. fentanyl is far more dangerous than the actual heroin, also narcane, the drug that counteracts heroin, doesn't work on fentynal.

the big thing legalizing drugs would do, would to end the vast majority of gun deaths. most gun deaths in the US aren't from mass shootings or from rifles, they are from gangs and handguns. the gangs need to protect there drug turfs from other gangs, so you have people shooting each other in the streets. it only has gotten worse with the influx of mexican gangs and drug cartels, coming over the border. when you make things illegal, you create a market for it, and the black markets leads to violence. this goes for anything, be it drugs, guns, alcohol during prohibition. 

also on guns, automatic weapons in the US are already banned. you cannot go into a gun store and buy one. the only way to obtain one is by getting a very special license, and certain stamps as a collector.these things are very expensive. i would agree about bazookas and all that. this is why this ban stuff just takes time and effort away from common sense gun control. universal background checks, the banning of bump fire/slide fire stocks, hair triggers. these are all things that could go to vote right now and pass.

Edited June 16, 2016 by bran

[downzy]

12 hours ago, PappyTron said:

Of course I understand undercover, but I also understand what the word "practicality" means as well as "civil" and "rights". How many people do you believe would flag up on any FBI database in any given year, that would require "undercover" investigation, and where do you propose all of that manpower is going to come from? I could sit here and list a dozen spree killers off the top of my head, both recent and historic, who wouldn't have flagged any concerns, unless the criteria for concern was so loose that it would cover virtually anyone and everyone.

Once again Pappy, you're making factious arguments.  Were a system in place whereby someone had been previously investigated by the FBI for terrorism purchased weapons and the FBI informed about this transaction is a system whereby the FBI at least has the ability to decide whether to review such surveillance.  You continually draw on hypotheticals that are neither realistic nor useful for the conversation.  The FBI and other security agencies have thwarted numerous attacks through surveillance and active policing.  Providing said agencies and bureaus more information whereby a threat analysis could be conducted (in which a certain level of threat triggers a return to a previously known entity) is extremely feasible.  With Mateen, there was clearly enough evidence to investigate the man twice previously, with the FBI inserting a plant as a means to deepen the investigation. Had the FBI known about the gun purchases perhaps the bureau could have prevented the attack by monitoring him again.  But we'll never know that because such a law wasn't in place. 

Sorry, but once again you're being unreasonable with this point just as you have continually been in this matter.  This is why there really isn't much point having a dialogue with yourself on gun rights and gun control.   This intransigent attitude by many gun-rights advocates is what puts off most from having a real discussion.  If we can't even agree that the FBI should be informed if and when someone who has previously been investigated for links to terrorism buys enough firepower to perform the level of carnage in Orlando, then really, why should we keep talking about this?  The totality of evidence that points to America having multiple of issues revolving around guns seems to get lost on gun-rights advocates.  It's akin to talking about climate change to someone who doesn't believe in science (or, uses the arguments of the one out of one-hundred scientists who questions the 99 other scientists).  I get that it's an issue that involves passionate principles, but to the rest of the world, most view the carnage that continually harms U.S. citizens as sad and avoidable.  So if you want to be "right" on this matter (regardless of what the data reveals, see the video I posted above), then fine, you're right; there's nothing America should be doing to limit access to guns to anyone.  I mean, that's what you believe, correct?  But understand that as you sit there and consider yourself right, thousands of Americans will die who would likely wouldn't if you weren't so sure of your convictions.  The rest of the developed world can see the forest from the trees, but good luck with your principled stand against pragmatism in this matter.  

[downzy]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't know if legalizing heroin and hard opiates would be a good way to go, but I don't know. I really don't. Maybe it would take away some of the allure? Maybe it would improve the purity? I acknowledge there are valid argument in favour. But I am pretty certain making "hard" guns (automatic rifles, hand grenades, bazookas) legal would only make things worse, though.  I guess the analogy between guns and drugs don't hold up.

Guns and drugs are not analogous since you can't be addicted to guns (well, physically addictive).  I've got an uncle that has a 25 gun collection but he wouldn't go through withdrawals if tomorrow they were gone (though surely, he'd be plenty mad about it).  

Drugs is a public health issue.  Guns are a public safety issue.  They shouldn't be viewed under the same lens.