By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
jason1637 on 07 August 2019
vivster said:

1. There are laws that prevent the government from registering guns to their owners.

4. Not all gun owners hunt though. Some keep it for protection and we can't assume that every gun owner can afford a mental health check up. If someone is poor they should be able ot own a gun if a rich person can. It's wrong to not want them to especially when you consider that poor people are more likely to live in dangerous neighborhoods and are more prone to danger.

8. There should be no limit.

9. Even if it was a violent crime the person served their time and should be able to go back to how life was before their crime. Laws and policies restricting former criminals access and rights to certain things don't help anyone. It just causes resentment among these people and could lead to them committing another crime. If we stopped treating former criminals like they're second class citizens we would be a much safer country.

10/11. Not in all cases.

1. These laws are obviously stupid and would need to be changed as well then.

4. If people fear for their lives if they don't own murder weapons, there is something really wrong in their country. And it's not that there are not enough guns. Giving everyone who's scared a gun is most certainly not a solution.

8. Why? I mean I would set it to 1 because who needs more than 1? But I bumped it up to 2 in case one of the guns is in the shop or otherwise not available.

9. I would like to err on the side of caution here. People who committed violent crimes should have no need for a gun. Just like 99.999% of the non-criminal population. I mean those people live in a country where innocents are murdered by state officials, not being able to own a gun seems like a negligible issue. Again, the right to own a gun does not trump the right to not get shot by a person who had a violent past.

10/11. Again I would like to err on the side of caution.

We're not talking about Kinder Eggs. We're talking about mass murder weapons. Can we please have strict regulations on things whose only purpose it is to hurt other people? Thank you.

1.I think the law is fine. With background checks gun to owner registration is not needed.

4. It's just extra protection. Some poor people live in really dangerous areas.

8. Well with background checks every time you buy a gun why should their be a limit. If you pass a thorough background check and you're not gonna go on a rampage and kill lots of people you should have as many as you want.

9.Having a violent past does not mean you're violent now. Treating people like they're still criminals just makes them act like they are. If you treat them like everyone else they're more likely to not go back to crime.



Around the Network
jason1637 on 07 August 2019
Machiavellian said:
jason1637 said:

Well I don't think the government should keep tabs on what we buy anyway.

Actually its not illegal because it doesn't have to be a federal system.  Each state can create a system that tracks gun sales and share that data among each other to get around that little loophole.  States already do this with warrants that stop you from getting a license even if the warrant happens in another state.

You say you do not want the government to keep tabs on you until something awful happens to you or someone you love.  Then the things you thought were inconvenient you wish were available.  

It's a federal law that states or the federal government cant register guns to their owner. Gun are registered in certain states but these states don't register the gun to the owner. So and AK-47 can be registered but the datatbase can't have information on who owns the gun.

Well I do want background checks and I think with background checks a registerred gun database isnt needed. Back in 2014 my uncle was shot and killed and a database would have done nothing to prevent this while background checks would have.



jason1637 on 07 August 2019
SpokenTruth said:
jason1637 said:

It's a federal law that states or the federal government cant register guns to their owner. Gun are registered in certain states but these states don't register the gun to the owner. So and AK-47 can be registered but the datatbase can't have information on who owns the gun.

Well I do want background checks and I think with background checks a registerred gun database isnt needed. Back in 2014 my uncle was shot and killed and a database would have done nothing to prevent this while background checks would have.

You wouldn't want a system that can help determine who killed him though?

It's pretty easy for cops to determine this. Shooters get caught easly. They're either caught on camera, someone calls the cops, people know who they are, their dna is on the weapon etc. With background checks there's no need for a gun registry.



EricHiggin on 07 August 2019
the-pi-guy said:
EricHiggin said:

Probably best we just leave the investigating, reasoning, conclusions, and communication to the professional elites, like the church for example. I mean, we wouldn't want those blasphemous scientists questioning things and leading people astray now would we?...

Which has nothing to do with anything that was said. 

Sure looks like it does below.

the-pi-guy said:
Jaicee said:

This, suggesting that I'm attempting to either justify a mass shooting or oppose gun reform, is kind of a disingenuous post in the consideration of the fact that everyone here (including you) by now is fully aware that 1) I am a supporter of gun control, and 2) have never had a good word to say about Trump, including in connection to his racist politics. There's no question that the El Paso massacre was Trump-inspired white terrorism! No rational person disputes that. I mean the hospitalized victims believe exactly that to be case, which is why they've reportedly requested that the president stay the hell away from their community in the future.

The nation has just been awash in talk of the white racist motives of the El Paso shooter of late, so I thought I'd chip in the apparent sexist motives of the Dayton shooter since they're a lot less talked about. You can highlight that more people actually died in the El Paso massacre and that's true and all fine and well to point out, but it's not as if the actual casualty count in either case is much different (46 and 40 respectively). Both of these incidents merit national discussion, not just the one that's the most politically expedient for the left.

Sorry I've weirded you out by not sticking to the script here, rape and misogyny are personal topics for me that I think the nation should discuss and I'm not convinced that the left is actually any less sexist than the right. I think that should be part of this long-overdue national conversation we're having about the politics of mass shooters.

>suggesting that I'm attempting to either justify a mass shooting or oppose gun reform

My post was not suggesting any such thing.  

I was only talking about some of the complexities of media.  

>Sorry I've weirded you out by not sticking to the script here, rape and misogyny are personal topics for me that I think the nation should discuss and

They're important issues for me too.

>I'm not convinced that the left is actually any less sexist than the right.

I'm aware you think that.  There's absolutely plenty of sexism by people who happen to be leftists/liberals.  

People who think women are private property tend to be conservatives though.  

"It's a little bizarre to me for someone to point out that the latter shooting wasn't right wing, when most people are either concerned about gun violence in general regardless of political motivation or they're concerned about politically motivated shootings rising due to right wing fear propaganda."

So people are concerned about the politically motivated right wing violence specifically, while at the same time they're not?

I think what you mean to say is conservatives tend to think private things should remain private, like property.



sundin13 on 07 August 2019
jason1637 said:
SpokenTruth said:

You wouldn't want a system that can help determine who killed him though?

It's pretty easy for cops to determine this. Shooters get caught easly. They're either caught on camera, someone calls the cops, people know who they are, their dna is on the weapon etc. With background checks there's no need for a gun registry.

You seem to be vastly overestimating a lot of things here. It is nowhere near as easy to catch someone as you seem to think it is. For example, you say "their DNA is on the weapon". How much do you actually know about this? Do you know the rate at which firearms produce a usable DNA profile? Do you know the requirements to get that profile (if it exists) into a database? Do you know how likely it is for the database to actually hit to something conclusive?

This isn't CSI. These things aren't as easy as you seem to think they are.



Around the Network
jason1637 on 07 August 2019
SpokenTruth said:
jason1637 said:

It's pretty easy for cops to determine this. Shooters get caught easly. They're either caught on camera, someone calls the cops, people know who they are, their dna is on the weapon etc. With background checks there's no need for a gun registry.

How would a background check help identify the gun owner?

And your simplification on shooters getting caught is a bit too TV cop show for reality. I have an AA in Criminal Justice and a certification in Forensics. If only it were as easy as you just described.

If there was a thorough background check they'd probably not have go the gun.

Well I rarely heard of shooters not getting caught. It might not be as easy as i'm letting off but they almost always get caught is the point. Even with a registry and the shooter leaves with their gun you can't even track them.



sundin13 on 07 August 2019
jason1637 said:
SpokenTruth said:

How would a background check help identify the gun owner?

And your simplification on shooters getting caught is a bit too TV cop show for reality. I have an AA in Criminal Justice and a certification in Forensics. If only it were as easy as you just described.

If there was a thorough background check they'd probably not have go the gun.

Well I rarely heard of shooters not getting caught. It might not be as easy as i'm letting off but they almost always get caught is the point. Even with a registry and the shooter leaves with their gun you can't even track them.

In 2017, solve rate was about 60% for homicides and about 50% for aggravated assaults, so its far from rare for someone to get away with serious crimes.



jason1637 on 07 August 2019
sundin13 said:
jason1637 said:

If there was a thorough background check they'd probably not have go the gun.

Well I rarely heard of shooters not getting caught. It might not be as easy as i'm letting off but they almost always get caught is the point. Even with a registry and the shooter leaves with their gun you can't even track them.

In 2017, solve rate was about 60% for homicides and about 50% for aggravated assaults, so its far from rare for someone to get away with serious crimes.

What counts as a solve rate?



sundin13 on 07 August 2019
jason1637 said:
sundin13 said:

In 2017, solve rate was about 60% for homicides and about 50% for aggravated assaults, so its far from rare for someone to get away with serious crimes.

What counts as a solve rate?

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/clearances



jason1637 on 07 August 2019
sundin13 said:
jason1637 said:

What counts as a solve rate?

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/clearances

Those definitions for cleared seem too brad and also the crimes are not specific so we don't know if the "clear" rate for gun specific related crimes.

SpokenTruth said:
jason1637 said:

1). If there was a thorough background check they'd probably not have go the gun.

Well I rarely heard of shooters not getting caught. It might not be as easy as i'm letting off but they almost always get caught is the point. Even with a registry and the shooter leaves with their gun you can't even track them.

1). Did you miss a word?  I'm not following you here.

2). I never said the registration was to track WHERE the shooter but WHO the shooter is.  You are also far more likely to be careful about storing your gun, lending your gun, losing your gun, reporting it stolen, etc....if you know it's registered to you.  It also shows transfers of ownership.  Helps track where it came from, who sold, when, etc...  You don't see any value in that information?

1. If there was a background check the shooting probably would have not happened in teh first place so there is no need for a gun registry.

2.If the shooter got away they probably took the gun with them and if they left it you could look at the dna on the weapon to find who they are. No I don't think if someone sold a gun is valuable information since they didn't do the actual shooting.