Gun Control

[Redux]

-Implement a waiting list: Okay. So his mass shooting just gets prolonged.

 

-Make the AR-15 Illegal: Okay.He comes in dual weilding Glock 17's with 35 round magazines instead.

 

-Require a psyche evaluation: Okay. Now it's even more of an outrage when he passes it and purchases firearms.

 

-Stop selling guns alltogether: Okay. Now he gets it from a guy in a van anonymously instead of from Cabela's with a paper trail.

[cm husker]

I don't know how to go about buying an illegal gun. I doubt most mass shooters are better informed.

 

I think it's impossible to argue that banning guns wouldn't reduce mass shootings (and shootings in general) but I don't know that (a) a ban would be acceptable or even desirable in this country, culturally speaking, and (b) enforceable or worth the tradeoffs associated with prohibition of any type.

 

It does strike me as odd that we have an amendment that governs ownership of a product when we have no other similar type of protection for other products.

[TAKODA]

-Implement a waiting list: Okay. So his mass shooting just gets prolonged.

 

-Make the AR-15 Illegal: Okay.He comes in dual weilding Glock 17's with 35 round magazines instead.

 

-Require a psyche evaluation: Okay. Now it's even more of an outrage when he passes it and purchases firearms.

 

-Stop selling guns alltogether: Okay. Now he gets it from a guy in a van anonymously instead of from Cabela's with a paper trail.

 

The answer!

 

Minority Report:

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689

[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.

Under the current laws, probably nothing, thus the need to gravitate towards the lessor of two evils type of thinking and allowing law enforcement or government officials to make judgement calls where suspicion of wrong doing, mental issue or associations with questionable parties/groups are reason for delays or refusal.

 

Banning firearms is not the answer!

If one believes that firearm ownership is a guard against tyranny and a fundamental component of self defense, including against unjust government action, then putting that judgment call into the hands of law enforcement is absolutely unjustifiable.

 

It would be the same as saying that the 1st amendment only applies to messages we like.

[TAKODA]

I don't know how to go about buying an illegal gun. I doubt most mass shooters are better informed.

 

I think it's impossible to argue that banning guns wouldn't reduce mass shootings (and shootings in general) but I don't know that (a) a ban would be acceptable or even desirable in this country, culturally speaking, and (b) enforceable or worth the tradeoffs associated with prohibition of any type.

 

It does strike me as odd that we have an amendment that governs ownership of a product when we have no other similar type of protection for other products.

 

cmhusker, even you, without wisdom of how to buy an illegal firearm could set your sights on this objective and within 24 hours could have obtained pretty much anything you set your mind to obtain in downtown USA as long as you have ca$h. I bet you could discern the neighborhoods you would need to go to in order to obtain such an item.

[Enhance]

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

This may be a complicated answer, but after my review of some of the information, probably nothing. Technically speaking, the two investigations launched into his potential terrorism ties were closed, and he was removed from a terror watch list in 2014. Because none of those were ever part of an official legal proceeding then they wouldn't have shown up on his record.

 

However, where it gets complicated is the FBI is reviewing their own investigation into him to see if they didn't do a proper job vetting him. If they did make some mistakes then he likely would be on a watch list still.

 

But, this is where we can look into changes that could make a difference outside of this situation. For example, if you're on a no-fly list, or a terror-watch list, that is not grounds enough for you to be denied a gun sale.

[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?

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,"[/size]

 

"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"[/size]

Yeah, it's mind blowing how easy aquiring a firearm is, sh#t needs to change. I said as much in page 2.

[TAKODA]

 

 

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.

Under the current laws, probably nothing, thus the need to gravitate towards the lessor of two evils type of thinking and allowing law enforcement or government officials to make judgement calls where suspicion of wrong doing, mental issue or associations with questionable parties/groups are reason for delays or refusal.

 

Banning firearms is not the answer!

If one believes that firearm ownership is a guard against tyranny and a fundamental component of self defense, including against unjust government action, then putting that judgment call into the hands of law enforcement is absolutely unjustifiable.

 

It would be the same as saying that the 1st amendment only applies to messages we like.

 

 

Preaching to the choir, I am all ears on other reasonable ideas or suggestions!

 

If it comes down to someone making such judgments for the sake of the many vs no one making any judgement with the results we are hearing about in Orlando, which way is the lessor of two evils?

 

What would you rather live with? Wrongfully denying someone gun ownership or possibly delaying or stopping this type of travesty?

[Enhance]

-Implement a waiting list: Okay. So his mass shooting just gets prolonged.

 

-Make the AR-15 Illegal: Okay.He comes in dual weilding Glock 17's with 35 round magazines instead.

 

-Require a psyche evaluation: Okay. Now it's even more of an outrage when he passes it and purchases firearms.

 

-Stop selling guns alltogether: Okay. Now he gets it from a guy in a van anonymously instead of from Cabela's with a paper trail.

All this really summarizes to is 'let us do nothing.'

 

Many people here in this thread have argued he would have gotten a gun anyways. While true, that doesn't mean we can't do everything in our power to prevent illegal usage of a gun, does it? There are literally thousands of laws in place across the country to prevent people from doing illegal things even though we all know someone is going to try to find a loop hole, and in many cases, exploit it. I'm speaking in generalities here.

 

Logic suggests you try to close as many loop holes as possible while still making legal use viable, whatever the conversation may be.

[Landlord]

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.

 

 

An easy way would be to have a nationwide database/license/permit system. The grounds for preventing him from buying could/would have been him being on a no-fly list and being looked at as an ISIS sympathizer. Another element of this, specifically in conjunction with terrorists, is better cooperation and sharing of information between the federal government and local law enforcement.

 

 

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?

 

 

 

I see it, but then I see you make a lot of arguments that seem to go against your own statement, basically giving up on the idea because he would have figured it out somehow.

 

St. Paul and knapp made great points similar to the one I did earlier - if you make it more difficult, the goal is to increase the friction, not to just stop the whole thing altogether. You increase the likelihood of time/money/distance/conviction being deterrents in a person's head, you increase the likelihood of him accidentally making a mistake that notifies officials, you increase the difficulty of getting his hands on what he has to get his hands on, and you don't stop everyone, but you at least give the law a better chance to catch the guy, and you make it difficult enough that some, not all, of these people give up because the effort/work involved is too much.

 

 

 

It's really sad, especially with the poignant reminder that Obama predicted something like this two weeks ago. 'Because of the NRA, I cannot prohibit suspected terrorists from buying a gun.'

 

As far as HOW, there have been many ideas already thrown out in this thread. Expanded and universal background checks with a centralized ID/permit system (especially at gun shows and private sales), more robust mental health requirements, repeating check-ups every X number of years, laws preventing particular types of people from being able to purchase guns period (such as domestic abusers and people on terrorist watch lists), MAYBE a ban on particular assault weapons (this is still entirely reasonable, as there is no need for these to exist outside of the military, but for some reason people freak out about this; maybe because of the fear-mongering associated with the word ban).

 

 

 

The most frustrating thing about all of this is that psychology and neurology tell us that in the wake of tragedies, instead of being able to have some humility and ask what we can do differently, people become surer of their beliefs and more entrenched in their camps as a survival mechanism to feel grounded in the midst of perceived upheaval.

[TGHusker]

Gun sales surge

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/gunmaker-shares-after-orlando-shooting-2016-6

[Redux]

 

-Implement a waiting list: Okay. So his mass shooting just gets prolonged.

-Make the AR-15 Illegal: Okay.He comes in dual weilding Glock 17's with 35 round magazines instead.

-Require a psyche evaluation: Okay. Now it's even more of an outrage when he passes it and purchases firearms.

-Stop selling guns alltogether: Okay. Now he gets it from a guy in a van anonymously instead of from Cabela's with a paper trail.

 

All this really summarizes to is 'let us do nothing.'

No it summarizes that the cookie cutter answers aren't really that helpful.

 

It furthers my opinion that we don't have the right answer yet and until we do, nothing will change. So instead of anti gun nuts taking to twitter and retweeting hippie nonsense at pro gun nuts, maybe both sides could come together and actually make a difference?

 

Ya know, something ACTUALLY constructive?

[Redux]

 

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.

 

 

An easy way would be to have a nationwide database/license/permit system. The grounds for preventing him from buying could/would have been him being on a no-fly list and being looked at as an ISIS sympathizer. Another element of this, specifically in conjunction with terrorists, is better cooperation and sharing of information between the federal government and local law enforcement.

 

 

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?

 

 

I see it, but then I see you make a lot of arguments that seem to go against your own statement, basically giving up on the idea because he would have figured it out somehow.

 

St. Paul and knapp made great points similar to the one I did earlier - if you make it more difficult, the goal is to increase the friction, not to just stop the whole thing altogether. You increase the likelihood of time/money/distance/conviction being deterrents in a person's head, you increase the likelihood of him accidentally making a mistake that notifies officials, you increase the difficulty of getting his hands on what he has to get his hands on, and you don't stop everyone, but you at least give the law a better chance to catch the guy, and you make it difficult enough that some, not all, of these people give up because the effort/work involved is too much.

 

 

 

It's really sad, especially with the poignant reminder that Obama predicted something like this two weeks ago. 'Because of the NRA, I cannot prohibit suspected terrorists from buying a gun.'

 

As far as HOW, there have been many ideas already thrown out in this thread. Expanded and universal background checks with a centralized ID/permit system (especially at gun shows and private sales), more robust mental health requirements, repeating check-ups every X number of years, laws preventing particular types of people from being able to purchase guns period (such as domestic abusers and people on terrorist watch lists), MAYBE a ban on particular assault weapons (this is still entirely reasonable, as there is no need for these to exist outside of the military, but for some reason people freak out about this; maybe because of the fear-mongering associated with the word ban).

 

 

 

The most frustrating thing about all of this is that psychology and neurology tell us that in the wake of tragedies, instead of being able to have some humility and ask what we can do differently, people become surer of their beliefs and more entrenched in their camps as a survival mechanism to feel grounded in the midst of perceived upheaval.

The suggestions made are pretty minimal in stopping acts of terror. Would they make it harder, sure. Would they stop terror, no.

 

Implement a bunch of restrictions on purchasing. Maybe it does make it so difficult for a wannabe terrorist that he gives up.

 

Or maybe it just makes him more determined and the end result is even more tragic.

 

No way of knowing.

 

Does that condone nothing being done? Nope. Merely points out what I said a above.

[Enhance]

 

 

-Implement a waiting list: Okay. So his mass shooting just gets prolonged.

-Make the AR-15 Illegal: Okay.He comes in dual weilding Glock 17's with 35 round magazines instead.

-Require a psyche evaluation: Okay. Now it's even more of an outrage when he passes it and purchases firearms.

-Stop selling guns alltogether: Okay. Now he gets it from a guy in a van anonymously instead of from Cabela's with a paper trail.

All this really summarizes to is 'let us do nothing.'

No it summarizes that the cookie cutter answers aren't really that helpful.

 

It furthers my opinion that we don't have the right answer yet and until we do, nothing will change. So instead of anti gun nuts taking to twitter and retweeting hippie nonsense at pro gun nuts, maybe both sides could come together and actually make a difference?

 

Ya know, something ACTUALLY constructive?

My point is that some of the suggestions you scoff at are things that could prevent future injuries and deaths, specifically, psyche evaluations. Yet, you wash your hands of it because of what could happen if someone passes a test and gets a gun anyways.

 

I hate to say this, but these come off as very common deflections. You seem to be a part of the problem despite suggesting you want to fix it, and I'm not the only person here picking up this narrative from you.

 

I don't mean this to be adversarial, but perhaps you could point to some of your own constructive suggestions that I may have missed in this thread. I'll admit, I haven't read every single post. I'd much rather discuss those.

[Landlord]

The suggestions made are pretty minimal in stopping acts of terror. Would they make it harder, sure. Would they stop terror, no.

 

Implement a bunch of restrictions on purchasing. Maybe it does make it so difficult for a wannabe terrorist that he gives up.

 

Or maybe it just makes him more determined and the end result is even more tragic.

 

No way of knowing.

 

Does that condone nothing being done? Nope. Merely points out what I said a above.

 

 

 

There's no such thing as stopping terror.

 

You just admitted that it would make it harder, which means that would be successful, because that is all we can do. If there are 100 people that want to shoot up a school or a club or their neighboor in the next 2 years, and the above policies are implemented, at least some of those won't happen. At least 1 of those 100 won't know how or where to get an illegal gun. At least 1 of those 100 will get caught in the process. There is no downside to this other than inconvenience, and it will save lives. It's really that simple.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

43 shootings reported on the day. If the above laws existed in our country, that number is less than 43.