Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Hrothbern, Feb 15, 2018.
22% is a fairly sizable loophole even if we assume the other 78% are being really well vetted.
But 78% is "an overwhelming majority." Didn't you hear?
Bottom line, I'm a felon and the idea that I couldn't get a gun if it struck me to want one is frankly laughable.
But, but, Tim, you can't be in the 78%!!!!
Clearly that's what we need to focus on.
The thread topic is "Florida School Shooting"
Was the "gigantic flaw designed into the system" aka gun show that you refer to a factor in this incident?
No. Which is why it is not relevant to THIS incident.
Was the "gigantic flaw designed into the system" that you refer to to blame for the Sutherland Springs church mass shooting?
Was the "gigantic flaw designed into the system" that you refer to to blame for the Charleston Church shooting?
Flaws in the background check system were major factors in Sutherland Springs and Charleston.
That is why I have been talking about the background check system.
The FBI (missed two tips) and local law enforcement (more than 36 visits to the shooters residence over 7 years) missed multiple red flags that just might have prevented this incident.
Completely closing the "gigantic flaw designed into the system" / gun show loophole would have done nothing to prevent this most recent Florida school shooting, Sutherland Springs, or Charleston.
How many mass shootings have been as a result of weapons obtained via the gun show loophole?
Closing the gun show loophole will not prevent ALL shootings, and neither will fixing the flaws in the background check process that I have referred to.
There is no one cure to fix everything.
You try to fix the biggest flaws/issues that will lead to the largest reduction in the number of these incidents.
If you are a felon you are not going to get your gun from a licensed dealer (presuming the background check system is functioning properly) and you are also probably not going to get it at a gun show.
Where do you think all the gang bangers that in 2017 shot and killed 625 in Chicago; who shot and wounded an additional 2,936 people got their guns?
They didn't get them from licensed gun dealers and they also likely didn't purchase them at gun shows.
They got them on the streets---on the black market.
Keep on believing.
There are gun shows twice a year at the fairgrounds ten miles away. The number of people who "change their minds" and resell their purchases before they even get to their cars in the parking lot would be hilarious, if it weren't so disturbing.
So, do you think there is some "black market factory" supplying the merchandise for this mysterious black market to operate? If they bought all those guns "on the black market," where exactly do you think the sellers got them in the first place? The biggest black market dealer in my town is the guy who buys all those guns from people who "change their minds" in that parking lot.
You aren't misremembering. However, I interpreted Tim's post as saying the current registered owner of a particular firearm would be the one liable for any damages caused by that firearm, just like the registered owner of a vehicle is responsible for any damage caused by that vehicle.
That was the correct interpretation.
No. The stat you're responding to compared people who are assaulted while carrying guns, to people who are assaulted while not carrying guns, and found that people who are assaulted while carrying guns are 4.5 times more likely to be shot in the course of the assault than those who were not carrying guns.
These extra details you're leaving out are essential to understanding what you were actually responding to, and make the rest of your post pretty irrelevant.
Mostly they buy them in Indiana or in Illinois outside of Chicago city limits where gun laws are much looser and easier to circumvent.
The black dots are guns recovered by police, The red x is location of the gun shop the guns came from.
In putting all / most of the blame on the FBI and local law enforcement you are implicitly putting the emphasis on tip or visits to the shooters residence as a means to prevent this sort of thing. By expecting such proactive activities to weed out the wrongun's, you are accepting a significant failure rate. This is the sort of thing where the successes are never going to be as visible as the failures and you will always be able to find a fault when you look after a tragedy.
What I would do is put more emphasis on the "well regulated militia" bit of the 2nd amendment. Have as part of well regulated the requirement for the militia to take responsibility for the firearms.
Do you know what TTC means in these images?
Expecting such proactive activities to "weed out the wrong'uns" also begs the question: What do you charge the wrongun with?
Okay, guy posted a stupidly aggressive status on YouTube. Multiple police calls to his house, but no charges to file. FBI Special Agent Dick Tracy "has a feeling" this guy is really dangerous. Now what? Are we, as a society, ready for "well, an FBI agent has a feeling you might be dangerous, so we are locking you up"?
The maps come from this report from 2017. The map tracks guns recovered from crime scenes over a 4-year period that are capable of being traced back to a specific vendor. The number on the left ("Total Guns") reports the total number of guns that were recovered within this 4-year period which were traceable back to the vendor in question. They never say specifically what the acronym separates out to, but I think it's probably something like "Three-year Time-to-Crime", as it records the % of those guns recovered within 3 years of the purchase (i.e. guns bought specifically in order to commit crime, rather than guns that were laying around in someone's house for a long period of time and then happened to be involved in a crime later on).
I considered pointing out that the solution he proposes would have a lot of right-wingers (and probably liberals too) complaining about 'government overrreach'. For my part I'm sort of terrified that, in our rush to avoid any kind of solution involving gun control, we are going to further stigmatize mental illness and ratchet up the surveillance state.
Yes... which is the point, I think.
Yeah, this is what I can see as the most likely negative consequence. A combination of "something must be done, this is something" and a generally looked down upon and sometimes feared minority (the mentally ill) could easily result in some draconian handling, with probably minimal effect on gun deaths.
If only it were just the surveillance that we need to worry about. LA County is working on legislation to allow county personnel (namely social services and deputies) to make a spot diagnosis of "mentally ill and refusing treatment" and have take people taken into custody. It's pretty much a naked "solve the homeless problem through incarceration" play, made all the more transparent by the fact that it was spearheaded by the only Republican on the board of supervisors, who actually looked like she had been taken over by an alien when she was speaking about her "deep concern" for "the plight of those who cannot take care of themselves."
maybe they can help our president get the help he needs
Unfortunately, he doesn't meet the LA County standard of 'mentally ill and refusing treatment' as proposed by Supervisor Barger. It was pretty clear from the debate that the Republicans are using that phrase as an alternate definition for the word "homeless" and not an actual health condition.
Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons?
It’s downright depressing to see mass shootings be so commonplace and politicians unwilling to do anything. Florida students went to the state capitol but were turned down. Unsurprisingly, the politicians had an A rating with the NRA.
Separate names with a comma.