(June 14, 2016 at 9:46 am)dyresand Wrote: one that has a been investigated and been visited by the FBI should not be able to get a weapon.

I disagree with you here, and the problem I have with this argument is the same one I have against people who argue that Clinton shouldn't be allowed to run for President because she's being investigated by the FBI.

An investigation is nothing without an actual conviction. There are plenty of investigations which end with no charges filed, so to deprive a person of rights simply because they are under an investigation flies in the face of "innocent until proven guilty". The fact is, in this case, the FBI not only investigated the shooter, but they decided against pursuing charges, presumably because they had no actual evidence he was planning on doing anything.

This probably happens far more than people realize, and most times the person is actually not a criminal and nothing bad happens. This unfortunately wasn't one of these times.

Another reason I don't think it is a good idea is that investigations by the FBI of this nature are often secretive, as in, the person being investigated isn't aware of the investigation. If that person went to buy a gun and got rejected, they would likely want to know why, and may conclude that they are being investigated, which would put them in a state of alert that might cause them to try and leave the country.

A better system would be some kind of monitoring list, where names of people who have been investigated in the last X years are added, and when they try and buy a gun, a notification gets sent to the person in charge of the investigation, who can then decide whether or not this is indicative of a threat to national security.

(June 14, 2016 at 10:35 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(June 14, 2016 at 9:46 am)dyresand Wrote: one that has a been investigated and been visited by the FBI should not be able to get a weapon.

I disagree with you here, and the problem I have with this argument is the same one I have against people who argue that Clinton shouldn't be allowed to run for President because she's being investigated by the FBI.

An investigation is nothing without an actual conviction. There are plenty of investigations which end with no charges filed, so to deprive a person of rights simply because they are under an investigation flies in the face of "innocent until proven guilty". The fact is, in this case, the FBI not only investigated the shooter, but they decided against pursuing charges, presumably because they had no actual evidence he was planning on doing anything.

This probably happens far more than people realize, and most times the person is actually not a criminal and nothing bad happens. This unfortunately wasn't one of these times.

Another reason I don't think it is a good idea is that investigations by the FBI of this nature are often secretive, as in, the person being investigated isn't aware of the investigation. If that person went to buy a gun and got rejected, they would likely want to know why, and may conclude that they are being investigated, which would put them in a state of alert that might cause them to try and leave the country.

A better system would be some kind of monitoring list, where names of people who have been investigated in the last X years are added, and when they try and buy a gun, a notification gets sent to the person in charge of the investigation, who can then decide whether or not this is indicative of a threat to national security.

More or less say for instance if a person who has mental issues they should have a mental evaluation to see if they can get a gun or not.
Then the other thing we need common sense gun laws that guy had ties to isis that should be enough to restrict anyone from buying a gun. 
Same thing goes for having a criminal record of sorts.

(June 14, 2016 at 10:46 am)dyresand Wrote: More or less say for instance if a person who has mental issues they should have a mental evaluation to see if they can get a gun or not.
Then the other thing we need common sense gun laws that guy had ties to isis that should be enough to restrict anyone from buying a gun. 
Same thing goes for having a criminal record of sorts.

Absolutely. My only disagreement with you was on the people being investigated. People with a history of mental health problems (1) should be properly evaluated before being allowed to buy a gun, and (2) should have access to better treatment anyway.

(June 14, 2016 at 9:46 am)dyresand Wrote: This was a act of terror and bigotry hell the police prevented another mass shooting as well recently.
So take away everyone's guns no it should be that gun regulation as it stands is a complete failure and needs to be dramatically overhauled.
The fact being a mentally unstable person can get a gun and also one that has a been investigated and been visited by the FBI should not
be able to get a weapon. A lot more needs to be done in this country to prevent the mentally unstable from getting a gun and the other thing
the whole FBI thing should be enough for any responsible gun seller to say no. Getting a gun as it stands needs to be tougher and prevent
people who want to cause harm with a firearm.

There are no wrong answers, but this is a wrong answer, as this is the non gun debate thread doofus. I do not want to talk about how guns are ban in paris and this sort of thing still happened.. twice.

Far as I know, there is no such thing as a non gun debate. So there might be some confusion. Gun control isn't the same as non gun.

(June 14, 2016 at 10:14 am)abaris Wrote: It's not about a non gun debate, Drich. It's about a controlled gun ownership debate.

Noone can answer me why everyone should have access to an assault rifle, just to give one example. It's in the nature of these pieces to deal out more damage in a shorter period of time than any handgun. It's also about not every idiot having access to a deadly weapon. According to news coverage, this guy was already on the radar. Why someone like that could purchase his gun is beyond me.

This is why I feel this is just another news story. it was like all the speeches and all the talking head rhetoric was pre written because of how quickly it all got marched out, and these 49 dead people are being used to push/sell an agenda.

Yet there's a lot of these incidents to be used. Many more than in any other corner of the world. It happens in other countries too, but so seldomly that there's hardly any debate. I'm not even sure if the UK had any mass shooting after Dunblane and the ensuing legislation.

That's why debates like that are always in comparison to international standards.

(June 14, 2016 at 10:35 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(June 14, 2016 at 9:46 am)dyresand Wrote: one that has a been investigated and been visited by the FBI should not be able to get a weapon.

I disagree with you here, and the problem I have with this argument is the same one I have against people who argue that Clinton shouldn't be allowed to run for President because she's being investigated by the FBI.

An investigation is nothing without an actual conviction. There are plenty of investigations which end with no charges filed, so to deprive a person of rights simply because they are under an investigation flies in the face of "innocent until proven guilty". The fact is, in this case, the FBI not only investigated the shooter, but they decided against pursuing charges, presumably because they had no actual evidence he was planning on doing anything.

This probably happens far more than people realize, and most times the person is actually not a criminal and nothing bad happens. This unfortunately wasn't one of these times.

Another reason I don't think it is a good idea is that investigations by the FBI of this nature are often secretive, as in, the person being investigated isn't aware of the investigation. If that person went to buy a gun and got rejected, they would likely want to know why, and may conclude that they are being investigated, which would put them in a state of alert that might cause them to try and leave the country.

A better system would be some kind of monitoring list, where names of people who have been investigated in the last X years are added, and when they try and buy a gun, a notification gets sent to the person in charge of the investigation, who can then decide whether or not this is indicative of a threat to national security.

While I agree an investigation should not restrict any of our rights, i do think that if one is being investagated for something like terrorism, they should be monitored. if such a person should start to buy tools or supplies that would indicate a possible bomb being made, or an attack of any kind then they should be further questioned if not followed.

If the dude gets cleared then he should be left alone as with the case of this guy.

We must simply accept there can be no society who up holds freedom of it's citizens that will be completely free from attack from them. Those who die at the hands of people like this here in Orlando, Paris or Belgium are the civil cost of a free society.

If you want to mitigate risk do not introduce any new variables, that said we will never be able to eliminate the home grown risk without subjugating our citizens.

(June 14, 2016 at 10:46 am)dyresand Wrote:

(June 14, 2016 at 10:35 am)Tiberius Wrote: I disagree with you here, and the problem I have with this argument is the same one I have against people who argue that Clinton shouldn't be allowed to run for President because she's being investigated by the FBI.

An investigation is nothing without an actual conviction. There are plenty of investigations which end with no charges filed, so to deprive a person of rights simply because they are under an investigation flies in the face of "innocent until proven guilty". The fact is, in this case, the FBI not only investigated the shooter, but they decided against pursuing charges, presumably because they had no actual evidence he was planning on doing anything.

This probably happens far more than people realize, and most times the person is actually not a criminal and nothing bad happens. This unfortunately wasn't one of these times.

Another reason I don't think it is a good idea is that investigations by the FBI of this nature are often secretive, as in, the person being investigated isn't aware of the investigation. If that person went to buy a gun and got rejected, they would likely want to know why, and may conclude that they are being investigated, which would put them in a state of alert that might cause them to try and leave the country.

A better system would be some kind of monitoring list, where names of people who have been investigated in the last X years are added, and when they try and buy a gun, a notification gets sent to the person in charge of the investigation, who can then decide whether or not this is indicative of a threat to national security.

More or less say for instance if a person who has mental issues they should have a mental evaluation to see if they can get a gun or not.
Then the other thing we need common sense gun laws that guy had ties to isis that should be enough to restrict anyone from buying a gun. 
Same thing goes for having a criminal record of sorts.

apart of a back ground check is to see if one does have 'mental issues,' drug usage, felony conviction, all of these things disqualify one from purchasing a gun.

But it really is about the guns. Okay. Carry on.