There are plenty of guns in Australia. The National Firearms Agreement was not a total ban on firearms.
Another church shooting
- Thread starter zeke4ahs
- Start date
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I agree. I have said it privately a dozen times but unfortunately I think it’s going to take personal tragedy to affect GOP “not one inchers” before anything meaningful can happen.
Follow-up: some guy at the presser just said that there were no disqualifying crimes entered into the database. So the problem seems to be either that the database wasn't properly updated, or, for some strange reason, this particular type of domestic violence conviction doesn't count.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
The simple fact is that it’s far too easy to obtain a firearm in this country. Background checks seem to be porous at best and in many states anybody can get one at a gun show.
We have a family friend right now that is having severe mental health issues (seemingly out of nowhere). He was recently arrested and at first I thought this is a good thing because it will make it harder to obtain firearms. Now I’m not so sure it will do anything towards that end.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
How about mass shooting frequency and/or mass shooting deaths? I’d hypothesize that has drastically changed.
Okay, but let's get real here. Nothing's going to change anything here while guns are roaming around. Let's stop pretending. People are more screwed up with psychoactive drugs than ever before, and that from childhood. Big Pharma is hell bent on turning all of us into permanent customers, buying some medication or other for the remainder of our waking lives. Neither psychology nor psychiatry knows jackshit about the human mind so the practitioners just prescribe more drugs.
Let's stop pretending there's a solution here with some asinine law about keeping guns out of the hands of the deranged.
Getting rid of guns is the only sensible solution. Everything else is lip service.
Although it's true that Australia hasn't seen any really large mass shootings in a while, no one is sure if the law has anything to do with that, because mass shootings are so rare, anyway, they always show up as statistical outliers. It's possible the gun buyback prevented some mass shootings, or made some that happened less deadly, but it's probably not possible for us to measure that effect with any reliability.
Of course not. It's still the only sensible solution.
As I understand it, his conviction was under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I can't find details anywhere, I wonder if there is something in the way those crimes are reported that prevent the database from seeing them correctly? But it is true that domestic battery, even a misdemeanor, prevents gun purchases. Though I note there are pages that discuss such convictions do not result in police confiscating guns already owned.
The federal law only regulates purchases. State laws regulate possession. So it's possible that, for example, misdemeanor domestic violence might prevent one from purchasing a gun from a FFL holder, while at the same time, a state like Texas still allows that person to possess a gun, since the crime wasn't a felony.
What I don't understand is the same thing you mention - that this crime somehow didn't transfer to the background check system when it clearly should have. Either this is how it's designed - in which case the law is broken - or the reporting didn't work properly - in which case the system is broken. Either way, something needs fixed.
Good point on the first paragraph. IF that is the case in these states, I'd like to see it changed but admit it'll never happen.
I am surprised no one has made progress on the issue of the second paragraph. Either the law needs fixed, or the system, and finding out which shouldn't be difficult for people familiar with the database.
I was speaking with Lis Warren and we came up with the obvious solution. The national Database should be user searchable. If anyone has a feeling of going and killing people with a gun, one could simply check their background. If there was any shady crap in their past, they would simple not go try to buy a gun and the problem would be solved. Outside unexpected consequences would be that if they already had any guns, they would simply turn them in, just to be on the safe side.
At this point are we attacking this from the wrong end? I'm sure you couldn't remove enough guns from circulation to make a difference. But all those guns have to be loaded at some point why not require each gun owner register all their weapons and you can only buy ammunition with a valid registration for that weapon. The registration requires some form of mental evaluation and has to be renewed every X number of years.
I'm sure it would be hated by most everyone .
One thing people are speculating on right now is that the people at the FBI in charge of entering this information simply weren't aware of the details. This highlights a big hole in the law: "Misdemeanor domestic violence" in the law is defined on the basis of the facts of the case, rather than on any specific statutory crimes. That means it's up to someone to see "misdemeanor assault" and find someway to determine whether or not that particular assault was domestic in nature. If they are not set up to do that, there could be countless other people out there who should be carrying a similar disqualifier around, but aren't.
Actually, the more I think about it, no serious gun legislation is ever going to happen...until the 2nd Amendment gets amended. If that were to happen, then there'd also be the votes to get rid of guns, so I'd argue that's just as likely as any legislation you might propose that could actually have an effect on mass murder gun crimes.
Furthermore, I think that day might come. Hopefully not preceded by a horrific amount of bloodshed.
We already had that with the baseball shooting. Didn't move the middle one millimeter. I'd argue with each additional shooting without action, the status quo on guns becomes more ingrained. It will take a mass shooting of 10,000 people to move the needle one inch, and even then there are no guarantees.
Vegas got conservative musicians to open their mouths for the first time. I don't think it's so much a question of numbers as who the victims and perps are. This was a white male. Contradicts the conservative narrative.
Said it before....if mowing down dozens of 6 year olds in a school didn't move it...nothing ever will.
I guess we just need to pray better
“We have a lot of mental health problems in our country, as do other countries, but this isn’t a guns situation,” Trump said.
Abbott agreed, saying the proper response to Sunday’s shooting is to confront evil through prayer and other efforts to forge “a stronger connection to God.”
Abbott agreed, saying the proper response to Sunday’s shooting is to confront evil through prayer and other efforts to forge “a stronger connection to God.”
"The law" worked.
The God-less, murderous prick was denied a gun license by Texas (if you can believe anything you see or read or hear from the media anymore).
And yet .... he still shot up a church, allegedly (depending on media reliability - motive reports could change with the political whims of the minutes) because he hated his mother-in-law and that's where she churched.
So much for the law.
Thanks for nothin.
Feed his body to pigs.
Then maybe run the pigs off a cliff.
I have to go guard my shotgun now, so it doesn't jump out of my house and shoot somebody. (Doing my part.)
Caught the damn thing trying to steal Halloween candy last week.
Bad gun.
Bad, bad gun.
There oughta be a law.
I sadly laugh at you folks who think new laws are gonna cure the hate and mental disease that causes one man to shoot another or many others.
You'd be better off listening to The Shadow - he knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men.
You can't defeat evil with laws.
Not even with Godly people!
Haven't you dumb bastages ever read Exodus? Read about the Pharisees?
Smart people learned that rule thousands of years ago.
You can talk all you wanna about laws.
Look - whatayatalk. whatayatalk, whatayatalk, whatayataalk, whatayatalk?
Weredayagitit?
Whatayatalk?
You can talk
You can talk
You can bicker, ya can talk
You can bicker, bicker, bicker
You can talk, ya can talk,
You can talk, talk, talk, talk, bicker, bicker, bicker
You can talk all ya wanna, but it's different then it was.
No it ain't, no it ain't, but ya gotta know the territory.
The God-less, murderous prick was denied a gun license by Texas (if you can believe anything you see or read or hear from the media anymore).
And yet .... he still shot up a church, allegedly (depending on media reliability - motive reports could change with the political whims of the minutes) because he hated his mother-in-law and that's where she churched.
So much for the law.
Thanks for nothin.
Feed his body to pigs.
Then maybe run the pigs off a cliff.
I have to go guard my shotgun now, so it doesn't jump out of my house and shoot somebody. (Doing my part.)
Caught the damn thing trying to steal Halloween candy last week.
Bad gun.
Bad, bad gun.
There oughta be a law.
I sadly laugh at you folks who think new laws are gonna cure the hate and mental disease that causes one man to shoot another or many others.
You'd be better off listening to The Shadow - he knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men.
You can't defeat evil with laws.
Not even with Godly people!
Haven't you dumb bastages ever read Exodus? Read about the Pharisees?
Smart people learned that rule thousands of years ago.
You can talk all you wanna about laws.
Look - whatayatalk. whatayatalk, whatayatalk, whatayataalk, whatayatalk?
Weredayagitit?
Whatayatalk?
You can talk
You can talk
You can bicker, ya can talk
You can bicker, bicker, bicker
You can talk, ya can talk,
You can talk, talk, talk, talk, bicker, bicker, bicker
You can talk all ya wanna, but it's different then it was.
No it ain't, no it ain't, but ya gotta know the territory.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
If I knew your address I’d ask the police to do a wellness check on you after that post.
So the choices are what, just let these things happen and say it's God's fault? From the sound of the discussion, the right doesn't believe there is anything on earth we can do to try to eliminate these mass shootings. Europe has double the population of the US, Europe has a far less problem with these types of shootings. Like I suggest above, does this mean there are virtually no mental health issues in Europe. If that is the case, let's study why they are so much mentally healthier than us. Like many Americans, I'm just tired of this happening. "oh well" isn't a good solution. If the only reason we have these problems is that Americans are crazy and Europeans aren't, let's solve that problem.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I’m all for a database because a database can be mined and patterns of offenders can ideally be identified before tragedy strikes. However, it’d take an amendment to do such.
In Europe, you are right. You don't hear much about mass shootings. You only hear about dozens being mowed over by moving vehicles, dozens being killed while attending concerts by some nut suicide bomber, travelers being blown up in Brussels airport, and more people being mowed over by moving vehicles...again...and again...and again. They will find a way. Take away the guns, doubt if it does much.
WWI and WWII notwithstanding, of course. I think we should amend the First Amendment allowing peacefull assembly. If we limit assemblies to groups of 3 or 4, then BAM, no more mass shootings. Easy peasy.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Here’s what I would like to do, recognizing it’s completely impossible without amending the USC:
- Eliminate semi-auto long guns. These rifles have gotten too powerful too quickly and are killing machines, plain and simple. They are not effective home defense weapons and not hunting weapons. I’d establish a high buy back value catalog and buy back as many as I can. The rest would have to be turned in during an amnesty period. Or you can keep it at a sportsmen Club a la how golfers keep their sticks at a country club. You want to shoot a high powered long gun? Go to the club.
- Invest heavily into an integrated background check program that includes all states and districts. Firearms and ammo purchases must be registered in the database and ATF statistical experts should mine the database for potential problems before they start.
- Eliminate all background check loopholes.
Does this mean the GOP is going to stop flushing billions of dollars down the toilet with their War on Drugs because drug laws haven't stopped all drug use?
So the answer is just to accept mass casualties happen and we need to grow to like them? I don't get it, I'm specifically not calling for any sort of gun ban. At the moment I just want people to think this IS a problem and maybe we should figure why it is a problem.
Step 1) Is there a problem. If no, go to end. If Yes, go to 2.
Step 2) what can we do about the problem. Insert code here to solve problem.
End ;We are at fewest mass casualty events possible, congratulations everyone.
Depends on who you ask.
Ask Rand Paul - answer would be "yes."
Ask Mitch McConnell - my bet is he'd be against that.
Sorta like the Dimocrats.
Different folks - different strokes.
Step 2 ignores existing 'code' that is either ignored by criminals or inadequately executed by officials. How do you fix that?
No, there is clearly a problem, and someone far smarter than me needs to come up with a solution. But the argument that Europe is some safe haven gets really old. Ranger offers some really good starting points, and it certainly needs to be discussed. Let's just keep in mind that evil, deranged individuals will find a way, and it doesn't always have to be guns.
I'd much rather take my chance with an idiot driving a truck at me.
To say they are comparable is ridiculous. Look how much relatively limited carnage the NYC attack managed....in the heart of Manhattan.
But it is true that Europe - and most of the Western world - is much safer than the United States. That's just a fact that needs to be part of the discussion.
Does that mean we should model our laws after Europe? No, not necessarily. But the worst place to start is by denying basic facts. The United States suffers about 5 homicides per 100K people each year. That's 4-5 times higher than most European countries.
I agree Jim, but if we dismiss every idea that doesn't guarantee 100% success we'll never begin to reduce the violence.
Correct, and we need to figure that out. If there were mistakes here, he should not have been able to buy a gun, they need found and corrected. And before not after. I am sure there are people who deal with the issue that can come up with something.
No shit. I'm surprised these mass shooting don't involve more deaths. Seems lunatics can't aim too well. That's a blessing, I guess.
What about bombs blowing up while you are watching a concert or waiting for your next flight? Guns are an issue here. There are other things at work here that nobody wants to discuss, for fear of being called all kinds of names. Scandinavian countries have very little crime. Why is that, in your mind?
Homicide rates (not including just guns) are 3-4x higher in the US than they are in western Europe.
Are we just naturally more violent people? Or is it just a lot easier to murder here?
