Obama being a dumbass again

[dbair1967]

I don't think your article disputes the chart at all.

That's because you choose to write it off because of your left wing view of this, no facts that anyone presents to you will ever convince you otherwise.

 

[dbair1967]

And this is why arming people and having them guard schools or other places won't work. These people don't care if they die. The majority make sure that that they do. I have said it before that if your best laid plans are to prepare for how to react to a certain situation (i.e. having armed security would reduce the death toll..derpity, derp) rather than how to prevent said situation in the first place, then your best laid plans are fucked to begin with. Not to mention, guess which asshole becomes target #1 on the list? So the shooter walks up behind Barney Fife and executes his ass, then what

At least if someone is armed (and trained) there is a chance to save some lives.

The problem Hoof is you CANT 100% prevent what these really evil people might do. That's why I don't support gun control laws as they have been presented so far, there's nothing in there that prevents them from getting guns or other weapons.

The only thing that is going to help deter terrorist attacks is having more intelligence personnel. Right now we have an incredible shortfall here.

 

[dbair1967]

I agree.

But I'd settle for the goal of reducing gun availability to people who are mentally unstable.

Is this a compromise that cannot be reached?

This part I agree with, see my other post.

 

[dbair1967]

Great idea! I bet a wall would do the trick!

Flying 1000's of Syrian refugees in and welcoming them with open arms doesn't seem to be a bright idea either though does it?

 

[cockstrong]

As for GOP: most were fine w/using secret, due-process-free lists to imprison & even kill: just not deny gun sales! Glen Greenwald

 

[cockstrong]

Does anyone left or right have a problem with the below quote


For example, right now, people on the No-Fly list can walk into a store and buy a gun. That is insane. If you’re too dangerous to board a plane, you’re too dangerous, by definition, to buy a gun. And so I’m calling on Congress to close this loophole, now. We may not be able to prevent every tragedy, but—at a bare minimum—we shouldn’t be making it so easy for potential terrorists or criminals to get their hands on a gun that they could use against American

 

[peplaw06]

I do watch FoxNews. I do firmly believe they cover "news" more fairly than most other media outlets. I also like FOX and the Fox Business Channel because they have a nice roster of intelligent, hot women. I like Sean Hannity for entertainment value. Drudge does an outstanding job of gathering real news from a variety of sources, so does Breitbart. Maybe you should do your self a favor and start reading some of what they put up.

Now there's a shocker.

Yeah ok, its the same as me as saying you are full of shit and get all your "talking points" and "opinions" straight from Debra Wasserman Shultz or some other extreme leftist idiot.

I don't particularly care if you think I'm full of shit... same as I laught at you for calling me a liberal. You're like a robot on political topics. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a lefty. I've never gotten the impression you actually think about the shit people say.

You'd have to offer some proof of this instead of doing what Obama does and just crowing it over and over and expecting people to believe it just because you say it. Further, most gun crimes are not mass shootings, what happens to those people? They don't all turn the gun on themselves do they?

Proof of what? What the shooters are thinking? How do you expect me to prove that? How about you prove that they are thinking about it?

How do I know? Watch the fucking TV man. Terrorists do this stuff all over the place. Paris, France has some of the strictest gun control laws on earth, how'd that work out for them this year?

I'm not just talking about terrorism here. This is a broader topic. Actually, if we eradicated all mass shooting incidents othet than terroristic incidents, then I'd consider that a huge win.

Now you are being retarded.

I was being intentionally obtuse to show you the flaws in your logic. You thought I was being serious?

If someone comes up with gun control solutions that make sense and will actually impact some of what's going wrong, I'm happy to listen to it. So far I haven't seen any proposal that will eliminate ANY of what's going on.

Because you don't think about them for more than a few seconds. I bring up biometric or fingerprint identification on weapons that only allow for the owner to use the firearm, and you immediately fell back to your old reliable "won't eliminate what's going on." You're like a fucking broken record.

I think it's actually an idea that's worth discussing. If the background check processes are cleaned up, and only a person who passes a background check can use the gun that is purchased, then that prevents someone intent on committing a mass shooting to take the firearm from their parents, or steal it from a peaceful gun owner. No, it won't prevent all gun crimes... But why not try it to see if it can decrease the frequency of said crimes?

The one thing I would agree with is that anyone showing any type of mental health issue should not be allowed to buy guns. I'm not sure how they would implement that, but simply asking someone in a questionnaire "are you crazy" is not sufficient. There used to be a system in the life insurance industry where carrier's could check someone past medical history/large claims from medical/past insurance med exam etc etc to verify for accuracy, not sure if that is still used today or not but maybe that or something like that is possible.

I'm sure there is already a procedure in the background check to go through mental health issues.... but the mental health industry is also an imperfect system. Clean up the systems and close loopholes in background checks... If they're already there, make sure they work right.

 

[peplaw06]

And this is why arming people and having them guard schools or other places won't work. These people don't care if they die. The majority make sure that that they do. I have said it before that if your best laid plans are to prepare for how to react to a certain situation (i.e. having armed security would reduce the death toll..derpity, derp) rather than how to prevent said situation in the first place, then your best laid plans are fucked to begin with. Not to mention, guess which asshole becomes target #1 on the list? So the shooter walks up behind Barney Fife and executes his ass, then what

Now the shooter has an extra gun and more ammo... Sounds great.

How about we don't leave the doors into the classrooms at schools open to anyone who wants to go in there? The courthouses I go to in big cities have restricted areas I can't get into without a keycode or card to scan in. The school in the town where I work is just now making those changes to add that level of security. Why hasn't this been done across the board? Oh, parents don't like the idea of not having unfettered access to their kids at school? Oh well, would you rather they be dead?

But... but... but... that won't stop terrorism in other places. Sorry dbair, guess it's a dumb idea.

 

[Hoofbite]

I can understand your argument but it's flawed. These folks may or may not care about dying but they certainly care enough to attack "soft" targets, ie: those targets that are not well defended. The attacks that have been successful are those attacks where law enforcement or armed citizens were not present. The initial target of the Paris attacks was the subway but the presence of armed law enforcement led them to the theater.

Sure, but maybe because that's because law enforcement cannot possibly be in every singe place at any given moment. Which target would have more "real" security, and not just random people wearing shirts that say "security"? The subway or a theater? Subway, hands down.

In addition, deterrence alone will not work. The threat of prison does not deter someone intent on committing a crime. I don't consider deterrence a factor in these situations. I simply want the ability to defend myself and my family when the need arises. That's my right and the right of any American.

Agreed. You can't deter someone who has already chosen the outcome. They're going to die before it's all said and done so prison no part in the equation. Not that punitive measure were every a deterrent in the first place. Just an encouragement to not get caught.

And what I also find kind of funny is that we want to do away with Gitmo, water boarding, phone data collection, etc that may give us the actual intel to prevent these types of acts yet the current government is quick to want to take away a constitutional right from it's citizens. This whole argument is grounded in it's hypocrisy.

There's nothing that says any of these things work. How long can someone even remain captive before they are so far out of the loop that the information they provide becomes pointless? Not to mention, these small cells operate nearly independently of any large scale planning. Those who know are those who take part.

As far as phone data collection goes, I can't even begin to reconcile how people who are so supportive of constitutional rights when it comes to gun ownership would also be nearly indifferent to their right to privacy. I guess if it doesn't effect them it doesn't matter. They own guns so there can't be any discussion about how to curb gun violence through legislation, but they also aren't planning a terrorist attack so go ahead and piss on a different one of my constitutional rights if it helps catch "bad guys".

 

[Dodger12]

Sure, but maybe because that's because law enforcement cannot possibly be in every singe place at any given moment. Which target would have more "real" security, and not just random people wearing shirts that say "security"? The subway or a theater? Subway, hands down.

And that's the point. These folks avoid soft targets. I'm armed everywhere I go and at least that gives me a fighting chance.

There's nothing that says any of these things work. How long can someone even remain captive before they are so far out of the loop that the information they provide becomes pointless? Not to mention, these small cells operate nearly independently of any large scale planning. Those who know are those who take part.

The fact that you feel that none of these things work still hasn't stopped you from making your argument. There's nothing to say that gun control is the answer. But going a little deeper, I do agree that someone with mental health issues should not be allowed to purchase a firearm. I agree in background checks, waiting periods, etc. and that should apply to gun shows and sales of privately owned weapons. The one issue I have with strict gun control is that folks can't reconcile the fact that some of the cities with the strictest gun control laws have the most gun crime. How is that?

I'm not so headstrong that I won't listen to possible solutions. My problem is that these people with a political agenda can't answer why the crime rate in Chicago and other cities is so high even though they have strict laws. They just avoid the arguments that go against their position because their position is based on political leaning and not facts. When someone can show me a strategy where some form of gun control has worked, I'm willing to listen.

As far as phone data collection goes, I can't even begin to reconcile how people who are so supportive of constitutional rights when it comes to gun ownership would also be nearly indifferent to their right to privacy. I guess if it doesn't effect them it doesn't matter. They own guns so there can't be any discussion about how to curb gun violence through legislation, but they also aren't planning a terrorist attack so go ahead and piss on a different one of my constitutional rights if it helps catch "bad guys".

It's s certainly a controversial subject and there are issues. But the intercept laws have not really changed to keep up with the technological advances. There are means of electronic communication that law enforcement can not intercept with a valid and legal court order. The 4th Amendment was written in a time where the intent was to protect the public from government intrusions into their house which was considered a man's castle and do so without reason or notice. There were no cells phones or cars which needed to be considered and the 4th Amendment needed to be expanded and exceptions were introduced into law. Is collecting toll records (without voice content) of international calls to create linkages when the need arises unreasonable for public safety which is the barometer used? In any event, the phone data collection is antiquated anyway. International calls using traditional telephone companies are almost a thing of the past. Now people communicate using Apps which are not only free, but encrypted and not be subject to legal interception. The issue goes much deeper.

 

[peplaw06]

That's because you choose to write it off because of your left wing view of this, no facts that anyone presents to you will ever convince you otherwise.

I don't think my view is all that "left wing." I haven't called for confiscation of firearms. I think common sense background checks would be a good start, and technological advances that would prevent anyone but the gun owner (who passes the background check) from operating the gun is something to consider.

Do you disagree? What in particular about my view is so offensive to you? Is it just that I don't agree with your view or the "stats" pointed out by your FoxNews article?

 

[peplaw06]

I'm not so headstrong that I won't listen to possible solutions. My problem is that these people with a political agenda can't answer why the crime rate in Chicago and other cities is so high even though they have strict laws. They just avoid the arguments that go against their position because their position is based on political leaning and not facts. When someone can show me a strategy where some form of gun control has worked, I'm willing to listen.

How about the strategy(ies) used in other advanced countries around the world? They appear to have worked to a degree beyond anything we've tried.

And I've said this before in this thread, but I'll say it again. I don't think looking at one city's (or a few) gun crime control attempts is going to give you an idea of what nation-wide attempts would do. If the laws aren't uniform within a city, or across state lines, then you're not going to see much effect. All those laws do is encourage those who want to own firearms to find another place where they can get them legally.

It's just like when a city or county goes dry... it doesn't stop alcohol consumption in that city, because you just go outside the city limits or to the county line and there's a liquor store.

 

[peplaw06]

Pretty good article on 5 ways to combat mass shootings.

___________________________________

http://news.yahoo.com/five-ways-us-reduce-mass-shootings-133524659.html

Five ways the US can reduce mass shootings

It's not impossible to reduce mass shootings like the one in San Bernardino, experts say. The US has been able to eliminate or dramatically reduce other forms of violence.

Christian Science Monitor By Patrik Jonsson


Afraid. Helpless. Numb.

According to news reports, those are some feelings shared by Americans after a wave of disturbing mass shootings, including the one Wednesday in San Bernardino, Calif., where 14 people were killed and 21 others wounded in a hail of bullets.

By unofficial counts the 355th mass shooting in 2015, the mayhem in Southern California was preceded hours earlier by a mass shooting in Savannah, Ga. Before that, the list goes on: Roseburg, Colorado City, Isla Vista, Chattanooga, Charleston, Phoenix, Aurora, Newtown.

This is how the news makes Tampa, Fla., resident Wendy Malloy feel: “It is a constant, grinding anxiety. And it gets louder every day,” she told The New York Times.

The US is dealing with what appears to some experts to be an increasingly greater willingness by disturbed or ideologically motivated individuals to lash out at perceived injustices by meting out maximum damage to strangers.

In the past four years, the pace of such attacks has accelerated, by some measures. According to a Harvard University study based on a database compiled by Mother Jones magazine, what used to be an average of 200 days between mass shooting deaths in the US has dropped to just over 60 since 2011.

To address the roots of this trend in a substantive way, experts say, will require shifts in attitude and political thought.

While it often is left out of political rhetoric, America has seen dramatic successes in quelling violent crime in the past century – from the elimination of lynchings to decreases in domestic violence and child abuse, from declines in cop shootings and gun homicides, which have dropped 49 percent since a peak in 1993, according to Pew. Considering progress made in reducing other forms of violence, Americans and their institutions aren’t quite as powerless as it may sometimes seem to, if not eliminate, dramatically curb what’s become a numbing kind of new normal.

At the same time, it’s clear that any broad-based attempt to address mass shootings as a societal ill will have to involve several factors. Chief among them is compromise among political partisans and a greater willingness to accept advances in science, forensics, mental health screening, and gun safety features.

“The choice between the blood-soaked status quo and the politically impossible is a false one,” Evan DeFilippis and Devin Huges, the founders of Armed With Reason, wrote recently in The Washington Post.

Experts see five areas in which progress could be made in reducing mass shootings:

1) THREAT ASSESSMENT

In a nondescript FBI building near Washington, D.C., sits Behavioral Unit No. 2, a federal threat assessment laboratory that disseminates its strategies to pinpoint potential havoc-makers to local police departments. Its mission to spot potential domestic mass shooters was added onto the FBI's profiling wing in 2010, as an outgrowth of counter-terror activities going back to 9/11. Many of its interventions don't involve arrest, but rather helping someone get help to address mental health issues.

It is not a perfect system. Santa Barbara police supposedly versed in threat assessment visited Elliot Rodger on a so-called welfare, or check-up, call from his mother. Everything seemed fine to the officers, but they failed to ascertain whether he had recently purchased a gun, a standard question that threat assessment professionals say can be crucial in stopping a shooter in the planning stages. A few days later, Mr. Rodger killed six people during a campus rampage in Isla Vista.

But despite such failures, the American government, as well as states, already has investigators combing leads for any common thread of danger. It’s a strategy in its infancy, but proponents say the tactics, which when used correctly don’t violate individual constitutional rights, can be further shifted from terrorism to mass shootings.

Unit No. 2 has been involved in at least 500 interventions that might have ended in mass shootings. “Threat assessment has been America's best and perhaps only response to the accelerating epidemic of active shooters and mass shootings,” Tom Junod reported for Esquire last year.

2) COMMON SENSE GUN CONTROLS

No, the science is not settled on whether stronger gun control laws actually quell mass gun violence. In the case of San Bernardino, the weapons were bought legally. Also, California already has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country.

But “there’s such a clear middle ground” in the gun control debate “because you can stem gun violence without taking away guns,” says Jonathan Metzl, director of the Center for Medicine, Health and Society, at Vanderbilt University, in Nashville, Tenn.

Experts would like to see more of that middle ground employed.

The 2009 Heller decision by the US Supreme Court did guarantee the right of Americans to have access to firearms for personal protection, but left municipalities and states with room to regulate weaponry among the citizenry. And some of those legal checks on gun ownership have proven effective in saving lives.

When Connecticut enacted a law in 1995 that required that people purchase a permit before purchasing a gun, studies found a 40 percent reduction in the state’s homicide rate.

When Missouri in 2007 repealed a similar permit-to-purchase law, the state saw a 16 percent increase in suicides with a gun.

3) CITIZEN DEFENDERS

In terms of compromise, if gun owners cede new checks on gun ownership, then gun control proponents may have to concede points of their own, specifically that lawful gun-carry by responsible Americans can have a role in deterring, or in certain cases, stopping mass killers once an attack has begun.

One of the victims in the San Bernardino attack told CNN on Thursday that he wished he had been armed as he hunkered in a bathroom with bullets whizzing through the wall.

It is, without question, a controversial proposition. Sheriffs in Arizona and New York have called for concealed carry permit holders and retired police officers to carry their weapons with them to rebuff any attack. But other law enforcement officers have said they oppose having untrained bystanders step in to active shooter situations, possibly resulting in more loss of innocent life.

While rare, there have been cases, often involving off-duty police officers, where someone has been able to successfully intervene.

In 2007, an off-duty police officer having an early Valentine’s Day dinner with his wife shot and killed an 18-year-old gunman at an Ogden, Utah, mall, stopping a rampage where five people died. “There is no question that his quick actions saved the lives of numerous other people,” then-police chief Chris Burbank said at the time.

In 2010, another off-duty police officer drew his personal weapon and fired when a man attacked an AT&T store in New York Mills, N.Y. The attacker was killed before he could carry out a plan to murder several employees at the store.

And in 2012, a young shooter killed two people and wounded three others during a rampage at Clackamas Town Center before a man carrying a lawful personal weapon drew it and pointed it at the man. At that point, the assailant retreated, and then killed himself in a stairway.

Many Americans don’t like how widespread gun-carry has become in recent years.

But it’s already a fact of life, and one that, some law enforcement experts believe can be corralled into a potential bulwark the next time someone decides to go on a shooting spree.

4) THE SCIENCE OF VIOLENCE

Why is America, one of the bastions of scientific breakthroughs on the globe, so hesitant to better understand the fundamental dynamics of how guns, if at all, promote violence?

Partisan politics is the obvious answer to why Congress has for 20 years blocked the Centers for Disease Control from using public funds to study gun violence, worried that the data will be used for gun control advocacy. But even deeper is a long-running distrust between the NRA and gun control advocates about each other’s true intentions.

One symptom of the lack of systematic study is that there is currently no common standard for tracking mass shootings. Most news reports this week, including this one, have cited crowdsourced data from two online tracking sites that rely on news reports, in conjunction with studies such as the Harvard one and an FBI report on “active shooter” situation

The NRA rebuffs even the most minor check on guns on the idea that it’s part of a disarmament end game rather than an effort to save lives. The other side reflexively paints the gun lobby as a puppet for culpable weapons manufacturers, indeed as co-conspirators to violence, rather than as a politically active firearms safety organization.

That means any movement on research funding will require both sides to ease up their rhetoric and open their eyes to the emerging facts.

For example, one key question is whether laws that make it easier to carry guns reduce crime or increase it. Studies have found trends, but causation has remained elusive.

"Fundamental questions of whether you are safer carrying a gun around with you or not have not been answered adequately,” Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore, told the Post recently.

After all, applying scientific research to other societal dangers has had dramatic impacts on human safety.

As highway death tolls rose in the US decades ago, studies of car crashes showed that younger people were particularly prone to serious accidents. In response, states raised standards for younger adults, improved car safety, and saved thousands, if not millions, of lives.

“We learned that you could design cars to be safe … [and] we could do the same with guns and save some lives,” said Mr. Webster at Johns Hopkins. Having deeper knowledge “opens you up to having fuller understanding of the problem and what you can do to solve it.”

5) CELEBRATE VICTIMS, SHUN SHOOTERS

A free, vigorous press is enshrined in the Constitution as one of the highlights of American democracy. Yet studies have shown that current coverage of mass shootings likely fuel what experts call a “contagion effect,” given that many modern mass shooters emulate their “heroes” and yearned for their own infamy.

There are strategies that responsible media enterprises can employ without abandoning their fact-finding missions, says Ron Astor, a professor of social work at the University of Southern California.

“I’m like everybody else, I want to know who the person is, who his wife was, why they did it – that’s human nature,” he says. “But focusing intently on victims and what was lost here in a meaningless and random way … sends a really clear message that the sanctity of human life is so high that it’s unacceptable to shoot somebody as a way to send a message. Yes, it’s a news story that needs to include important information, but talking about the lives that were destroyed, what good they did, why that was taken away from us for no reason, that’s important, and will change how we think and how we feel.”

 

[Dodger12]

How about the strategy(ies) used in other advanced countries around the world? They appear to have worked to a degree beyond anything we've tried.

This is a general statement and I bet you don't know what the gun control laws are of those "countries" you are referring to unless it's an attempt to justify banning firearms. That won't happen unless someone wants to change the 2nd Amendment.

In addition, what if those countries allow the easier use/approval of electronic intercepts. Maybe that also plays a role in thwarting these types of crimes. In other words, there may be other variables at work as well which we may not want to entertain here.

And I've said this before in this thread, but I'll say it again. I don't think looking at one city's (or a few) gun crime control attempts is going to give you an idea of what nation-wide attempts would do. If the laws aren't uniform within a city, or across state lines, then you're not going to see much effect. All those laws do is encourage those who want to own firearms to find another place where they can get them legally.

Well, of course this would be your position since the results of strict gun laws have been abysmal. Why would you agree with a position when it completely ruins your argument? Can't say I blame you. But I also find it funny that you want to look at what works in other countries but not anything that has worked here because it doesn't go far enough to ban guns which is really the ultimate goal in your argument.

 

[peplaw06]

This is a general statement and I bet you don't know what the gun control laws are of those "countries" you are referring to unless it's an attempt to justify banning firearms. That won't happen unless someone wants to change the 2nd Amendment.

Oh no... a general statement! How dare I speak in generalities?!?!?!

I know "in generalities" what some other countries are doing, based on some minimal research I've done. "In general" they make it more difficult to legally acquire firearms, through background checks, licensure, and psychological assessments. There are also a few that have made it illegal to own a firearm.

I've never advocated for an all-out ban. But of course, you can read my mind through the innernets. Or maybe you just fall prey to the tired old fall back of anyone for common sense restrictions on gun ownership JES WANS ALL TEH GUNZ!!!

In addition, what if those countries allow the easier use/approval of electronic intercepts. Maybe that also plays a role in thwarting these types of crimes. In other words, there may be other variables at work as well which we may not want to entertain here.

Why wouldn't we want to entertain other ideas? I'm for finding and implementing something that works. In order to do that, discussion of other ideas should be something we all want. Unless you're just okay with what this society has become?

Well, of course this would be your position since the results of strict gun laws have been abysmal. Why would you agree with a position when it completely ruins your argument? Can't say I blame you. But I also find it funny that you want to look at what works in other countries but not anything that has worked here because it doesn't go far enough to ban guns which is really the ultimate goal in your argument.

How many times do I have to say I'm not for a gun ban before you stop saying I'm for a gun ban?

 

[Dodger12]

Oh no... a general statement! How dare I speak in generalities?!?!?!

You're the one who mentioned a "strategy" that is used by other advanced countries and then claim they have been working but you don't mention which one. Not one...as if you haven't a clue about them but just assume that they work. That's a pretty stupid argument to make, especially for you, no matter how much you want to brush it off.

I've never advocated for an all-out ban. But of course, you can read my mind through the innernets. Or maybe you just fall prey to the tired old fall back of anyone for common sense restrictions on gun ownership JES WANS ALL TEH GUNZ!!!

I don't know what you want because you yourself don't have a clue about what you want. Just some bullshit about what other "advanced" countries do without even a clue what that is. You should try some common sense yourself sometimes.

Why wouldn't we want to entertain other ideas? I'm for finding and implementing something that works. In order to do that, discussion of other ideas should be something we all want. Unless you're just okay with what this society has become?

I'm open to ideas. You just don't have any other than vague generalizations about what other countries do. I've lived and worked in other countries. Maybe you have too, I don't know. I've seen the people victimized atthe hands of crooks who don't follow the law and commit crimes with assault weapons (AK-47's). Just look no further than the gun restrictions in France that didn't work on multiple occasions this year alone. At some point, those examples need to be reconciled before you ignorantly claim that they work elsewhere.

 

[dbair1967]

I don't think my view is all that "left wing." I haven't called for confiscation of firearms. I think common sense background checks would be a good start, and technological advances that would prevent anyone but the gun owner (who passes the background check) from operating the gun is something to consider.

What exactly would be a common sense background check though? As I mentioned in another post I do agree having something more extensive in terms of someone's mental health history would be a positive, but I don't know exactly how that would be done. I think its the MIB system I was referring to that life insurance companies used to use to check people's medical histories and previous insurance application results, maybe modifying that somehow would be a start.

Not sure I agree about not letting anyone but the deemed owner fire the weapon being a good idea. What happens in cases where fathers or grand fathers want their sons/daughters/grandsons/grand daughters to shoot? Is there a way to have multiple approved users?

Do you disagree? What in particular about my view is so offensive to you? Is it just that I don't agree with your view or the "stats" pointed out by your FoxNews article?

Why do you not agree with the info in the article? Is it for the same stupid reason CMD cited?

The other news outlets have a much more proven history of misrepresenting facts or just out and out lying, yet those are the ones we are supposed to rely on solely?

 

[peplaw06]

You're the one who mentioned a "strategy" that is used by other advanced countries and then claim they have been working but you don't mention which one. Not one...as if you haven't a clue about them but just assume that they work. That's a pretty stupid argument to make, especially for you, no matter how much you want to brush it off.

I mentioned strategy or strategies... And I have mentioned multiple strategies throughout this thread. I don't know that there's any one strategy that is guaranteed to work, because I'm not clairevoyant... Every county is different, and certain things may not work here that work in other countries. But certain things might work. I think they need to be discussed openly, and not dismissed by gun nuts because any new restrictions are inherently evil. And I don't have to know which strategy will work in order to be in favor of change.

I don't know what you want because you yourself don't have a clue about what you want. Just some bullshit about what other "advanced" countries do without even a clue what that is. You should try some common sense yourself sometimes.

You should read the entire thread. I'm not going to repeat myself and go in circles with you.

I'm open to ideas. You just don't have any other than vague generalizations about what other countries do. I've lived and worked in other countries. Maybe you have too, I don't know. I've seen the people victimized atthe hands of crooks who don't follow the law and commit crimes with assault weapons (AK-47's). Just look no further than the gun restrictions in France that didn't work on multiple occasions this year alone. At some point, those examples need to be reconciled before you ignorantly claim that they work elsewhere.

Again, you're not going to prevent all types of gun violence. Also has been discussed previously in this thread...

France has had multiple terrorist attacks, which is a whole different topic. The general topic is about domestic mass shooting incidents... not international terrorists coming in. There are different strategies to combat foreigners bringing weapons across borders that really have nothing to do with the gun control debate here.

 

[peplaw06]

What exactly would be a common sense background check though? As I mentioned in another post I do agree having something more extensive in terms of someone's mental health history would be a positive, but I don't know exactly how that would be done. I think its the MIB system I was referring to that life insurance companies used to use to check people's medical histories and previous insurance application results, maybe modifying that somehow would be a start.

It would require closing the loopholes in the background checks that are currently in place and adding in a mental health component of some sort. Some other countries require you to pass an independent evaluation, rather than a review of mental health records that may or may not exist. You don't have to know exactly how it will work to think it's generally a good idea.

Not sure I agree about not letting anyone but the deemed owner fire the weapon being a good idea. What happens in cases where fathers or grand fathers want their sons/daughters/grandsons/grand daughters to shoot? Is there a way to have multiple approved users?

I have an iPhone that unlocks with my thumbprint... something like that. Multiple approved users may be an option... as well as maybe an option to have the owner "transfer" the firearm to a family member or something... but it wouldn't do much good if there was just unlimited ability for others to use it. If someone wants their family members to be able to use a firearm, how about they go through the required safety courses, get a license, do background checks and purchase one for them? Seems like that might reduce the number of accidental shootings as well.

Why do you not agree with the info in the article? Is it for the same stupid reason CMD cited?

You answer my question, and I'll answer yours.

The other news outlets have a much more proven history of misrepresenting facts or just out and out lying, yet those are the ones we are supposed to rely on solely?

Sorry man, I'm not going to get into a debate about "other news outlets." If you have something specific you don't agree with from the chart and article I posted, then let's hear that. I'm not talking about CNN or MSNBC or Daily Kos or Huffington...

 

[Dodger12]

I mentioned strategy or strategies... And I have mentioned multiple strategies throughout this thread. I don't know that there's any one strategy that is guaranteed to work, because I'm not clairevoyant... Every county is different, and certain things may not work here that work in other countries. But certain things might work. I think they need to be discussed openly, and not dismissed by gun nuts because any new restrictions are inherently evil. And I don't have to know which strategy will work in order to be in favor of change.

Good Lord man. So you propose we look at a country where a strategy "works" but then don't know what country that is but, oh, by the way, just because something works there it may not work here. But, then again...it just might.

Now this is some sound reasoning and advice IF I have been drinking most of the day which I haven't. But I'll drink a few scotches, re-read this drivel and get back to you. Maybe it'll make more sense then.

You should read the entire thread. I'm not going to repeat myself and go in circles with you.

Maybe you're referring to this:

If it were made harder to gain access to a semi-automatic weapon, it would absolutely decrease the frequency.

Hey pep, if we made access to food more difficult, we wouldn't be so fat and if we made access to cars more difficult, we wouldn't have so many auto accidents and fatalities....

What I'm saying is that having access to guns is not the issue. It's the wrong people who have access to them that is the problem. You also mentioned earlier about background checks and closing the loopholes for private gun sales (yes, I did go back to look for your strategies).

I have no issue with this. I have no issue with background checks or a medical clearance of some sort which is something that some countries require. I have no issue with real and meaningful discussion on the topic. But I'm also aware of countries that have strict gun laws and they still have problems with gun violence (ie: Brazil). There are millions of unregistered firearms in Brazil. When we discuss the issue of gun control, we need to look at both sides and at least admit, to some extent, that gun control in many countries does not work.

And while we're on this talk of strategy, maybe a few of the reasons why countries experience less violence is because they've maintained their traditional family values and Judaeo Christian beliefs. The family structure has not been undermined and is still valued. That maybe they don't reward the improper behavior and laziness with endless handouts that only fuel that conduct and culture. There are a lot of variables that no one seems to take into account and they refuse to because it doesn't fit into their political agenda and talking points (I'm not saying this is the case with you).

The general topic is about domestic mass shooting incidents... not international terrorists coming in. There are different strategies to combat foreigners bringing weapons across borders that really have nothing to do with the gun control debate here.

One has certainly bled into the other in this topic. The recent tragedies we've seen involved terrorism but that didn't stop folks from bringing in gun control into that issue. So, unfortunately, it has a lot to do with the current debate.