Mass shootings

[fredtoast]

(02-19-2018, 07:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hard to pass a NICS check when you got a criminal threats conviction on your record.

Plenty of ways to get around that.

Background checks are a joke as long as a legitimate buyer can give or sell the gun to whoever he wants.

80% of all gun violence is committed by people who are not the legal owner of the weapon.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-19-2018, 07:08 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Are NICS checks always necessary to buy an AR, or are there 'loopholes' or whatever the term is for gun shows / private sales or whatever?  I get that it would have been a roadblock or stop the sale in a licensed transaction through a physical, reputable store, but wonder about the other (supposedly legal albeit non traditional) avenues.  

I can't speak to state laws outside of CA, I'm not expert in such matters and they can vary quite a bit.  Generally, the only time a NICS check is not required is when one private individual is selling to another.  Gun shows, to my knowledge, require a NICS check.  The real bottom line is people are calling for laws on guns when the system didn't even work as designed because of mistakes at numerous levels.  Both the recent church shooting and this one should not have occurred if actual laws and procedure were properly followed.  That they did not is a combination of human error and deliberate policy, not gun related policy either.  it's very possible that, if things had gone as designed, then both this shooting and the church shooting would have been prevented.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-19-2018, 07:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Plenty of ways to get around that.

Amazing that you just made an argument against gun control laws.  You literally just admitted that only law abiding citizens would be affected by them.

Quote:Background checks are a joke as long as a legitimate buyer can give or sell the gun to whoever he wants.

So we should do away with them then, right?

Quote:80% of all gun violence is committed by people who are not the legal owner of the weapon.

I think you mean 80% of gun violence is committed by criminals who acquired the firearm illegally.  Kind of makes you think that a better solution than new gun control laws would be putting criminals behind bars for longer.  I mean, it only worked from 1992-2016.

[fredtoast]

(02-19-2018, 07:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Amazing that you just made an argument against gun control laws.  You literally just admitted that only law abiding citizens would be affected by them.

No.  I just said that people who violate them will go to jail.

I'd have to be a complete moron to think that gun laws only effect law abiding citizens.

[fredtoast]

(02-19-2018, 07:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So we should do away with them then, right?

No.  We need them badly.  But until we require that every gun be registered to a specific owner they are useless.

We have discussed this before.  Must have went over your head.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-19-2018, 07:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  I just said that people who violate them will go to jail.

Actually, no, you didn't say that at all.  If you disagree then please point out the post in which you did.

Quote:I'd have to be a complete moron to think that gun laws only effect law abiding citizens.

Oh, I see.  You now want precise wording, when in the past you thought it unnecessary.  How about this then, Freddy?  Gun laws will only restrict the activities of law abiding citizens.  Now stop strawmanning and I'll let you sit at the adult table for a bit.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-19-2018, 07:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  We need them badly.  But until we require that every gun be registered to a specific owner they are useless.

We have discussed this before.  Must have went over your head.

We've discussed your proclivity to post ***** as well.  Does having a high post count somehow validate your existence?  I'm having a hard time coming up with a valid reason for your phobia towards the multi-quote function.

[fredtoast]

(02-19-2018, 07:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think you mean 80% of gun violence is committed by criminals who acquired the firearm illegally.

No I don't mean that at all.  The study you posted a link to did not say that at all.  Maybe you should have read it.  There are plenty of people with no criminal records who commit gun crimes with a gun they did not acquire legally.

(02-19-2018, 07:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   Kind of makes you think that a better solution than new gun control laws would be putting criminals behind bars for longer. 

Since we can not keep all criminals locked up for their entire lives I say we should try a different approach.  Right now a police officer could come in contact with a car with guns, 3 convicted felons, and one person with no felony convictions.  If the innocent person claims ownership of all the guns there is nothing the police can do unless they have some way to link the guns to the convicted felons.

(02-19-2018, 07:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  I mean, it only worked from 1992-2016.

The study I cited was from 2013.  So what makes you say locking criminal up longer was working to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

[fredtoast]

(02-19-2018, 07:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm having a hard time coming up with a valid reason for your phobia towards the multi-quote function.

I'm having a hard time figuring out why you care.

When I make different arguments it is easier for people to respond to individual arguments if they are in separate threads instead of having to do all that deleting.

BTW are you seriously claiming that you don't remember the discussion we had about this exact same topic in another thread?

Really?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-19-2018, 07:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No I don't mean that at all.  The study you posted a link to did not say that at all.  Maybe you should have read it.  There are plenty of people with no criminal records who commit gun crimes with a gun they did not acquire legally.

Wait, a person who acquires a gun illegally isn't a criminal?

Quote:Since we can not keep all criminals locked up for their entire lives I say we should try a different approach.  Right now a police officer could come in contact with a car with guns, 3 convicted felons, and one person with no felony convictions.  If the innocent person claims ownership of all the guns there is nothing the police can do unless they have some way to link the guns to the convicted felons.

This simply isn't correct.  Under such a scenario there are numerous ways that the guns could be confiscated.  As a lawyer I'm suprised you're not aware of this.

Quote:The study I cited was from 2013.  So what makes you say locking criminal up longer was working to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

Probably the empirical evidence from ~1992-2015.

(02-19-2018, 07:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I'm having a hard time figuring out why you care.

Because I don't like post whores, I though I made that clear.

Quote:When I make different arguments it is easier for people to respond to individual arguments if they are in separate threads instead of having to do all that deleting.

So you have trouble mentally keeping up with posts that respond to more than one point at a time.  Got it.

Quote:BTW are you seriously claiming that you don't remember the discussion we had about this exact same topic in another thread?

Really?

What?

[BmorePat87]

(02-19-2018, 07:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wait, a person who acquires a gun illegally isn't a criminal?

Legally speaking, if a kid finds their dad's gun and accidentally shoots their brother, would we classify them as a criminal who obtained their gun illegally?

Sincere question, because accounting for those scenarios is how I read his wording. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-19-2018, 11:24 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Legally speaking, if a kid finds their dad's gun and accidentally shoots their brother, would we classify them as a criminal who obtained their gun illegally?

Sincere question, because accounting for those scenarios is how I read his wording. 

In that scenario, no.  There's no theft as there's no intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property.  I don't think this scenario, although it does occur, accounts for many shootings though.

[GMDino]

(02-19-2018, 06:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: One of the interesting things in all this, talking about the FBI an everything, is what could the FBI actually have done? A lot of times there are warning signs and things are sent to law enforcement, but with current laws the FBI is limited in its authority as to what it can do. If the person has not committed a crime, are they able to detain them? They can't prevent them from purchasing a firearm. The laws regarding making threats often require very specific things to be said in order to be indicted.

I'm not sitting here saying that we should be stripping people of their civil liberties because of mere suspicion, I am just genuinely curious what people think law enforcement could have done to prevent these mass shootings that they had tips about.

I asked (don't know if it was here or not) about why the person who reported him didn't go to the local police too.  I think I read they did that also.  I'd put it more on them than the FBI for not following up or not finding a problem.

At least someone did the right thing at reported his behavior.  Baby steps I suppose.

[GMDino]

(02-19-2018, 06:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Incorrect.  You seem to take comfort in this notion as you routinely spout gibberish that I can easily disprove.  I've said it before, it remains true, you are the St. Lucie of the left, you spout inanities with the firm conviction of truth.  You constantly contradict yourself and don't realize it.  You disparage others for their "expert" opinion all the while trusting in the opinion of a blogger.  The most amusing and frustrating thing about you is you completely lack any comprehension as to how much you are the exact image of what you claim to hate, a blinkered ideologue who completely discounts any opinions that do not completely line up with your own.



Thankfully, I don't know you.  But you go on telling yourself this, it's not like I have this issue with the vast majority of the other posters on this board, both now and historically.  Maybe it's not me, it's you?


It's both sad and predictable that you would take use this tactic.  In the years I have posted on this, and the other, board, have I ever been proven incorrect about a LEO or gun related issue?  Have I ever been caught in a lie on either subject.  Has anyone shown me to be completely devoid of factual, life based, information on either subject?  You have an agenda, that agenda allows no counter point.  You hold as truth what agrees with you and discount as amateur or invalid that which does not.  like I said, you're Lucie without the bigoted statements, which, sadly, is barely an improvement.

[Benton]

(02-19-2018, 07:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I can't speak to state laws outside of CA, I'm not expert in such matters and they can vary quite a bit.  Generally, the only time a NICS check is not required is when one private individual is selling to another.  Gun shows, to my knowledge, require a NICS check.  The real bottom line is people are calling for laws on guns when the system didn't even work as designed because of mistakes at numerous levels.  Both the recent church shooting and this one should not have occurred if actual laws and procedure were properly followed.  That they did not is a combination of human error and deliberate policy, not gun related policy either.  it's very possible that, if things had gone as designed, then both this shooting and the church shooting would have been prevented.

Every time I've done a gun law/ gun violence story, I get the same response from gun stores and even guys who make their living at shows. They almost all advocate for expanded background checks or more uniform background checks. Of course, even if that were to happen, you've still got to have the FBI not drop the ball, which has been happening.

[Belsnickel]

(02-20-2018, 12:16 AM)GMDino Wrote: I asked (don't know if it was here or not) about why the person who reported him didn't go to the local police too.  I think I read they did that also.  I'd put it more on them than the FBI for not following up or not finding a problem.

At least someone did the right thing at reported his behavior.  Baby steps I suppose.

The narrative has been on the FBI, and there is a reason for that I won't expand on here. But local police (because they were aware of his issues), Social Services, and the mental health professional(s) he was seeing all share a larger portion of the blame for dropping the ball than the FBI does.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-20-2018, 03:25 AM)Benton Wrote: Every time I've done a gun law/ gun violence story, I get the same response from gun stores and even guys who make their living at shows. They almost all advocate for expanded background checks or more uniform background checks. Of course, even if that were to happen, you've still got to have the FBI not drop the ball, which has been happening.

Only your most extreme 2A advocates have any issue with background checks.  Expand them all day IMO.

(02-20-2018, 10:02 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The narrative has been on the FBI, and there is a reason for that I won't expand on here. But local police (because they were aware of his issues), Social Services, and the mental health professional(s) he was seeing all share a larger portion of the blame for dropping the ball than the FBI does.

The reason is that Trump has been raking them over the coals for other reasons, bad timing for them to be sure.  To the rest, I literally said exactly that much earlier in the thread.  The biggest share of blame goes to the school district and their policy of not contacting law enforcement regarding criminal acts by students unless the crime involves violence.  According to available information this kid made numerous threats to other students and the police were never contacted because we don't want that "school to prison pipeline".  One criminal threats conviction and this kid can't buy a firearm.  You won't hear this discussed though, much like you won't hear how left leaning soft on crime legislation is resulting in a rise in crime for the first time in ~25 years.

[Belsnickel]

(02-19-2018, 07:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I can't speak to state laws outside of CA, I'm not expert in such matters and they can vary quite a bit.  Generally, the only time a NICS check is not required is when one private individual is selling to another.  Gun shows, to my knowledge, require a NICS check.  The real bottom line is people are calling for laws on guns when the system didn't even work as designed because of mistakes at numerous levels.  Both the recent church shooting and this one should not have occurred if actual laws and procedure were properly followed.  That they did not is a combination of human error and deliberate policy, not gun related policy either.  it's very possible that, if things had gone as designed, then both this shooting and the church shooting would have been prevented.

I just noticed this. Gun shows vary state-to-state. Virginia, for instance, you are only required to obtain a background check if you are a licensed dealer, but it is not only licensed dealers engaging in sales at gun shows.

The mistakes you talk about are one reason why I actually advocate in my policy options for a more localized version of a background check system. Yes, there should be a federal database, but studies have shown that the more localized the background checks the more likely they are to catch things. State is better than federal, and county/city is better than state. The reason for this is that your local law enforcement is more likely to know something about an individual than the state or fed. Of course, all of this would take money, which I think should be a block grant situation for communities to provide resources to set up something like this.

I have a somewhat detailed plan that works to minimize the additional work on local law enforcement while acknowledging it will be more work, providing the resources to do it, combines a built in waiting period (which is one gun control measure that is actually effective, especially with suicides), and has the potential to hold gun owners responsible if they fail to follow the proper procedures and their firearm is used in a crime. No national, or even state, database of firearms owned. No limits on what types of firearms (even though I have my own opinions on that).

[Belsnickel]

(02-20-2018, 10:11 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Only your most extreme 2A advocates have any issue with background checks.  Expand them all day IMO.


The reason is that Trump has been raking them over the coals for other reasons, bad timing for them to be sure.  To the rest, I literally said exactly that much earlier in the thread.  The biggest share of blame goes to the school district and their policy of not contacting law enforcement regarding criminal acts by students unless the crime involves violence.  According to available information this kid made numerous threats to other students and the police were never contacted because we don't want that "school to prison pipeline".  One criminal threats conviction and this kid can't buy a firearm.  You won't hear this discussed though, much like you won't hear how left leaning soft on crime legislation is resulting in a rise in crime for the first time in ~25 years.

I have yet to see anything in the reporting about the school. I saw your comment about it, but I have seen reporting on the other groups and so that is why I focused on them.

[GMDino]

(02-20-2018, 10:02 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The narrative has been on the FBI, and there is a reason for that I won't expand on here. But local police (because they were aware of his issues), Social Services, and the mental health professional(s) he was seeing all share a larger portion of the blame for dropping the ball than the FBI does.

Yeah my thought too.  And I understand why the FBI is the hot topic word in the news.