15 hours ago, c13 said:

We've been over this many times. Of the difficulties of enforcing gun laws in the US as compared to islands. Of the difficulties of rounding up all the guns. Of the difficulties of getting criminals to obey the law, and how they will see it as an opportunity to take advantage of a defenseless population.

 

We've talked about how guns are an equalizer. How women and the elderly are most likely unable to fight off a single criminal without one. Of how you are more likely to be attacked by multiple people than caught in a mass shooting.

 

We've talked about how the primary firearms used in crimes are handguns, as they are concealable, cheap and there's no real con to ditching them. How rifles are used in less than 400 murders a year, and that doesn't specify the style of those rifles.

 

We've talked about how crime is dropping and has been dropping for decades, while simultaneously there are more guns in civilian hands than ever before in the US. How despite every state having a concealed carry permit system, and some states not even requiring permits to carry concealed, it's not the wild west gun control advocates screamed it would be.

 

We've talked about areas with some of the strictest gun control having some of the highest murder rates. How a majority of mass shootings occur in gun free zones. How a majority of shooters give up or kill themselves upon facing armed opposition.

 

We've talked about the difficulty of requiring background checks for everyone. How the gun show loophole is a myth. How the ATF said a national registry would be required to enforce it. We've even talked about how a majority of mass shooters passed a background check or acquired their guns through illegal means.

 

We've talked about the fact that not everyone lives in a city, and there are many places in the US where police can be hours away.

 

What are you trying to accomplish with that statement?

Well let me make it very clear to you then. I fully support a nationally enforced and mandatory gun registry, expanding funding for the ATF, banning private sales between individuals, aggressive gun buybacks, at least 4-6 month waiting periods, psychiatric evaluations, you name it. All of that, nation wide. You can disagree, and I don’t care.

 

Look at all the security measures put in place after 9/11. It got really annoying to be a law-abiding responsible airline passenger. A lot of good Americans were inconvenienced and irritated by those measures. I believe we need to do the same thing with guns. It SHOULD annoying and inconvenient to acquire a killing machine. 

Edited October 29, 20187 yr by Riley24

Unfortunate how events like this always fold out into a political debate.

As a Kansas City native who can remember only a few short years ago when we had our own mass hate-crime similar to this, I can tell you, it's best to leave this at sending prayers and help to those affected. No point in turning this into a worthless debate.
 

Do guns work? Yes.
Do they prevent crime? Yes.
Do we know if it would've worked here in this EXACT situation? No.

Is everyone a hero? No.

 

Lets keep it clean and simple. Not everything needs to be politicized. 

4 hours ago, Riley24 said:

Well let me make it very clear to you then. I fully support a nationally enforced and mandatory gun registry, expanding funding for the ATF, banning private sales between individuals, aggressive gun buybacks, at least 4-6 month waiting periods, psychiatric evaluations, you name it. All of that, nation wide. You can disagree, and I don’t care.

Tell me how gun registry possibly prevents crime. "Oh, but guns can be traced back." Report it stolen. The only thing a gun registry solves is giving the government a convenient list of who owns guns and how many they own.

 

As of 2017, there were 112,710 cases in 29 states where people failed a background check when attempting to purchase a firearm. Attempting to purchase a firearm while having your rights revoked is a felony. 12,700 were further investigated. 12 people were prosecuted.

 

Let that sink in for a moment. One thousandth of a percent were prosecuted. Think of all the violent offenders that could have been locked up, and probably went off to continue to commit crime. Enforce the laws we have now before we add more laws that will hassle law abiding citizens and where criminals will fail to be prosecuted.

 

Banning private sales will not exclude people gifting firearms to family members. "But what about people selling guns to known criminals?". There's already a law for that. It's called straw purchasing. Enforce the laws on the books.

 

A majority of guns at gun buybacks are older guns found in the attic of a deceased relative. Then there are often throwaway guns used by gangs since many buybacks have rules of no questions asked.

 

On the 4-6 month waiting period, let me tell you of an anecdote. When I worked at a gun store, we sold NFA items. That means short barreled rifles/shotguns, suppressors, and full autos. One time, some one sent in a form with the tax stamp to the ATF. There was an entire page not filled out. It got approved 9 months later. You know why? They rarely bother reviewing those items too closely, as people looking for NFA items have presumably purchased firearms before and passed background checks. They take the $200 tax stamp on those items and put it in a bank, letting it collect interest for 6-9 months.

 

I'll let you in on a little secret. Depending on how inundated NICS is with calls, a background check can be completed in as little as 5 minutes. If it's not in the system, it's not going to come up. "But those people with homicidal intentions might be dissuaded if they have to wait so long". Perhaps. But what is more likely to happen is a woman is killed by a stalker because she had to wait 6 months to get protection.

 

Psychiatric evaluations? All that has to happen is someone ruling that wanting a gun for self defense is crazy. I'll pass.

 

4 hours ago, Riley24 said:

Look at all the security measures put in place after 9/11. It got really annoying to be a law-abiding responsible airline passenger. A lot of good Americans were inconvenienced and irritated by those measures.

I'm not going to get into a 9/11 debate, but short and sweet, it was a failure of our government to react to many warning signs and have a plan in place to react to a hijacking. The Israeli's have some of the safest airports in the world. You know why? They profile.

 

And now we get to the most sickening part of your argument.

4 hours ago, Riley24 said:

I believe we need to do the same thing with guns. It SHOULD annoying and inconvenient to acquire a killing machine. 

There is absolutely no right that should be "annoying and inconvenient" to exercise, especially to the degree you describe. When that happens, it becomes a privilege. "But you can't shout 'FIRE' in a crowded theater." You're 100% correct. But we don't gag people before they enter. We prosecute them after the fact. We don't give people psychiatric evaluations before they are allowed to vote. We don't even require a photo ID in many states which is far greater of an issue.

 

Just come out and say it. You don't trust yourself with a firearm, therefore you don't trust anyone with one.

2 hours ago, c13 said:

 

“Implying that because something doesn't work 100% of the time it's not worth doing.”

-You

16 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

“Implying that because something doesn't work 100% of the time it's not worth doing.”

-You

Except I countered every single one of your proposals. Each one is a meaningless feel good idea, potentially does more harm than good, or has massive potential for abuse.

 

The quote you are attributing to me is completely ignoring the context of what I was replying to. It's a fact every time something like this happens people with guns respond to fix it. It's a fact mass shooters primarily commit their travesty in gun free zones. It's a fact that a majority of mass shooters give up or kill themselves, or at the very least shift their focus away from unarmed victims, every time other people with guns appear.

36 minutes ago, c13 said:

Except I countered every single one of your proposals. Each one is a meaningless feel good idea, potentially does more harm than good, or has massive potential for abuse.

 

The quote you are attributing to me is completely ignoring the context of what I was replying to. It's a fact every time something like this happens people with guns respond to fix it. It's a fact mass shooters primarily commit their travesty in gun free zones. It's a fact that a majority of mass shooters give up or kill themselves, or at the very least shift their focus away from unarmed victims, every time other people with guns appear.

Yeah, I disagree. Get over it.

1 hour ago, Riley24 said:

Yeah, I disagree. Get over it.

"My feelings are more important than facts"

Those who oppose Second Amendment liberties oppose a citizen's right to survival. If everyone in the synagogue were armed, the shooting would've ended then and there. Those who promote ideas such as gun control, gun registries, and even bans have no knowledge in this area of discussion and are ignorant in their beliefs. Not only are you trampling on the God-given rights of others, but also insist on placing people in a vulnerable state through the tyrannical force of government.

Edited October 30, 20187 yr by OFFICERJAKE8

I'll just simply say that Gun Laws don't work. Marijuana is illegal, yet millions of people couldn't care less. That drug war worked real well didn't it? It's also not hard to get your hands on, because there's absolutely no regulation, unlike firearms which you cannot purchase as a Felon, or if you have a known mental illness or have ever made threats which involved law enforcement. If we were ever to ban firearms, they'd become available everywhere to everyone just like the drugs are.

 

But why don't other Nations have this issue you might ask? Because we have several hardened Cartels just south of our border, who move into and out of our Country frequently, as in, thousands of times per day. That's every single day they run in and out, smuggling in drugs/sex slaves etc. They do move firearms as well, but it's a very low number by comparison because most people that want one will go to a gun shop for one. Make them illegal, and you'll see more firearms moved in than you could've possibly imagined because they're always looking for the next hot item on the black market. All you'd do is make good people with no criminal background at all into criminals, just like the drug war did. I'm on the side that says make firearms MORE accesible for people. Here in my State of Texas, check the crime stats of any County. The Counties with more firearms, have less crime, every time. Those with less, have exploding crime and murder rates. It's clear as day, just give people the ability to defend themselves from bad people who will get a firearm anyway. No law can stop those crazies, but hot lead will do it.

Edited October 30, 20187 yr by Steele1925

10 hours ago, OFFICERJAKE8 said:

Those who oppose Second Amendment liberties oppose a citizen's right to survival. If everyone in the synagogue were armed, the shooting would've ended then and there. Those who promote ideas such as gun control, gun registries, and even bans have no knowledge in this area of discussion and are ignorant in their beliefs. Not only are you trampling on the God-given rights of others, but also insist on placing people in a vulnerable state through the tyrannical force of government.

 

Writing your post in a different and bigger font doesn't make any of what you say truthful. So I'll just answer by: no.

 

Also:

 

10 hours ago, OFFICERJAKE8 said:

Not only are you trampling on the God-given rights of others

 

Really? Because as far as I know, your constitution was written by a bunch of dudes, not by any god. So god-given rights? Yeah no, hold your horses there champ.

 

15 hours ago, c13 said:

The only thing a gun registry solves is giving the government a convenient list of who owns guns and how many they own.

 

Everytime I see someone saying this as an argument, I just can't wrap my head around it. How is it a bad thing for the government to know how many guns are in circulation and who owns them? It'd make life easier for so many people, especially LEO. Just think about it, they get a call about domestic disturbance or anything, they just have to check that registry to know if the place they're going to has guns are not and prepare accordingly and to know what to possibly expect once on scene.

 

And please, don't give me the "evil government!" crap, because we both know your government won't turn onto you, ever, just like mine won't, just like any of the western, most developed countries won't. I genuinely want to know what makes having a registry of gun ownership is bad for anyone. Because when it comes to sharing personal information and data, you don't seem bothered all that much that most of the companies in the world trade those without you even knowing it, so I feel some double standards here, again.

Edited October 30, 20187 yr by Hystery

As I stated previously, these things always derail into political debates. People spend more time arguing about what they believe than trying to help those affected by this tragedy. 🤔

Lets move on from the gun debate.  Private message each other instead.

On 10/27/2018 at 9:55 PM, Giordano said:

 

Sigh Here we go again with this stupid discussion.  Let me lay it out for everyone before this turns into another pointless 5 page+ debate.

 

We don't know if an armed guard would've made a difference or not!  Just because someone has a gun does not mean they are automatically going to be a super hero and stop the situation from escalating. Yes, maybe the guard would've had the proper training, but there is a HUGE difference between training and real life.  MANY people freeze up in emergency situations and/or become panicked.  A gun does not make someone have a spine of steel, we are still human beings who can be frightened/scared/startled. Yes, believe it or not folks, someone with a gun is capable of being scared, which may result in an even worse situation.

 

  And others must acknowledge that there is absolutely nothing, nada, zip to prevent evil people from doing evil, horrid, vile, mean thing's.  Why don't you add that before you start directing the conversations issues toward one side of the spectrum?  

 

  There are fucked up people out there that will do fucked up things and no law or restriction will stop these vile people from completing their objective.

Edited November 2, 20187 yr by ToeBius