(November 6, 2017 at 12:45 pm)A Theist Wrote: Just watched a news conference out of Texas. It seems this shooting may have been domestic related. The shooter had no legal license to buy guns because of his military record of domestic violence. The shooter apparently, had threatened his former mother in law who attended that church.

Yep, hearing the same thing. The ex-in-laws skipped church that. 

:conspiracynut: How ... convenient. :/conspiracynut:

Leave it to the FOX FUX.

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/fox-new...ant-to-go/

Quote:Fox News host says church is the best place to get shot: ‘There’s no other place we would want to go’

I'd rather be in an emergency room, you dumb twat.

(November 6, 2017 at 12:15 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(November 6, 2017 at 12:09 pm)wallym Wrote: "This is unacceptable, we need to do something" will be the refrain after any mass murder.  If you give all the background checks, and all the modification requirements, and whatever else you want, there will still be a mass murder, and the response will never be "This is acceptable, nothing we can do."  

The NRA is smart enough to recognize this.  It's not a battle over gun rights, it's a war.  If it were an issue of background checks, and that was going to end the debate, I'd bet the NRA would happily concede the point.  But that's not how it will work.  Because every event will result in another call to do something forever until guns are illegal.

Ah, the Slippery Slope fallacy.

Common sense, to me, says that if you are going to say "This needs to be stopped!  Mass murder is unacceptable!"  The goal is no guns.  There isn't a number of children that can be shot in a Sandy Hook scenario that is going to be okay.  If the guy in Vegas kills 5 people with a deer rifle, that's still a cause for outrage.   If the acceptable number of mass murders with guns is 0, you can't have guns around.  That would be my take if I were a humanist.  We need to get rid of the guns.  Feasibility would of course be an issue, but everything would be pushing towards as close to that end goal as possible. 

I'm not a humanist though.  I don't care either way.  Take all the guns.  Give everybody a free gun.  Whatever.  I'm uninvested on the issue.  That's probably why I don't have any problems with thinking things through from both sides.

(November 6, 2017 at 9:07 am)Khemikal Wrote: That 37year old male with a 9mm from the trace data...that's the guy who shoots his wife, after having beat the living dogshit out of her for years.  Probably bought the pistol a decade before when they got married "for home defense".

Here's a novel idea, how about a response on the federal purchasing form as to the question of purpose: "for home defense" - triggers a longer waiting period, and a requirement of a recent mental health screening, and an exhaustive check for complaints (not just convictions) of domestic abuse?  I know, I know..what if they lie and say "hunting"?    Easy, recurring checks for a current state hunting license.  If they say they;re gonna hunt with it but never buy a license, they've likely falsified information on a federal document..a felony......and felons can't have guns.  Any of this stuff can be used to toss up red flags and draw the attention of an investigator or interviewer, either in house (as in at a government office) or in person.

Not to mention that if a guy says he's gonna use a Glock for hunting...he's probably lying. The guy buying a bolt-action rifle, not so much.

As much as they push bullshit, there is one position that the NRA is correct on, and that is that - as you say - existing law is not strongly enforced. Of course they have an agenda in pushing that angle, but the fact of the matter is it's true. Unlicensed de facto dealers, straw purchases, etc - all unlawful, and inadequately enforced.

Oregon and Washington have both instituted universal background checks for person-to-person sales. Practically speaking, this means that such sales are required to be handled via a licensee.

Years ago I was a hard-line strong 2nd amendment advocate, but no part of the constitution is a suicide pact. There's little that can be done about the millions already out there, but as you have said, the average firearm is gathering dust in a closet. I used to own a collection of old war relics and a few modern guns. When I made the decision to go gun-free, not one had been out of storage in 15 years. I know a guy locally who probably owns close to a thousand guns, all old war relics, completely unsuitable for much of anything, and gathering dust. I have no idea how ubiquitous that experience is, but I don't think the guy with a closet full of dusty Mosin-Nagants and Mausers is much of a threat to anyone.

Better enforcement, better scrutinization of transfers, and more effective removal of firearms from prohibited persons is needed.

(November 6, 2017 at 1:03 pm)wallym Wrote:

(November 6, 2017 at 12:15 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Ah, the Slippery Slope fallacy.

Common sense, to me, says that if you are going to say "This needs to be stopped!  Mass murder is unacceptable!"  The goal is no guns.  There isn't a number of children that can be shot in a Sandy Hook scenario that is going to be okay.  If the guy in Vegas kills 5 people with a deer rifle, that's still a cause for outrage.   If the acceptable number of mass murders with guns is 0, you can't have guns around.  That would be my take if I were a humanist.  We need to get rid of the guns.  Feasibility would of course be an issue, but everything would be pushing towards as close to that end goal as possible. 

I'm not a humanist though.  I don't care either way.  Take all the guns.  Give everybody a free gun.  Whatever.  I'm uninvested on the issue.  That's probably why I don't have any problems with thinking things through from both sides.

Nice, but it's still a slippery slope fallacy.

(November 6, 2017 at 1:06 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Not to mention that if a guy says he's gonna use a Glock for hunting...he's probably lying.  The guy buying a bolt-action rifle, not so much.

I've seen it. It seems silly to me, but people do hunt with glocks. You know what, fine, let em. No law against it. I just want to make sure that the person who says he's going to hunt with a gun isn;t secretly fantasizing about shooting a person with the thing before he even buys it.

Quote:As much as they push bullshit, there is one position that the NRA is correct on, and that is that - as you say - existing law is not strongly enforced.  Of course they have an agenda in pushing that angle, but the fact of the matter is it's true.  Unlicensed de facto dealers, straw purchases, etc - all unlawful, and inadequately enforced.

Oregon and Washington have both instituted universal background checks for person-to-person sales.  Practically speaking, this means that such sales are required to be handled via a licensee.

So have 20 other states.  Predictably, p2p guns flow into background states from non background p2p states, this is also recorded in the trace reports.  

Quote:Years ago I was a hard-line strong 2nd amendment advocate, but no part of the constitution is a suicide pact.  

Exactly.  We've long since accepted and expected reasonable restrictions of our rights in the interest of public safety.  Can't yell fire in a theater, either....and for the same reason..if someone did yell fire in a theater, we don't expect to hear a volley of small arms sounding off.  If we can handle this issue without further restrictions to our rights..then we should do that.  If we can't.....then it's bye bye beretta.

Quote:There's little that can be done about the millions already out there, but as you have said, the average firearm is gathering dust in a closet.  I used to own a collection of old war relics and a few modern guns.  When I made the decision to go gun-free, not one had been out of storage in 15 years.  I know a guy locally who probably owns close to a thousand guns, all old war relics, completely unsuitable for much of anything, and gathering dust.  I have no idea how ubiquitous that experience is, but I don't think the guy with a closet full of dusty Mosin-Nagants and Mausers is much of a threat to anyone.

I think Sama posted the stats earlier, on what percentage of americans own guns vs how many there are.  Your experience is representative. 

Quote:Better enforcement, better scrutinization of transfers, and more effective removal of firearms from prohibited persons is needed.

Desperately.  More than that, in all likeliohood, as well.  It would be a hell of a start though. We'e just so blatantly doing the opposite of that it;s difficult to fathom, and it's not like a person can argue that we're not defunding enforcement on purpose with an ounce of integrity. I remember reading an article somewhere, that opinined on the subject to the effect that..iof what you -wanted- to do was create a toothless enforcement agency which then lead to the very problem that agency was tasked with stopping..the ATF is the model.

(November 6, 2017 at 1:09 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(November 6, 2017 at 1:03 pm)wallym Wrote: Common sense, to me, says that if you are going to say "This needs to be stopped!  Mass murder is unacceptable!"  The goal is no guns.  There isn't a number of children that can be shot in a Sandy Hook scenario that is going to be okay.  If the guy in Vegas kills 5 people with a deer rifle, that's still a cause for outrage.   If the acceptable number of mass murders with guns is 0, you can't have guns around.  That would be my take if I were a humanist.  We need to get rid of the guns.  Feasibility would of course be an issue, but everything would be pushing towards as close to that end goal as possible. 

I'm not a humanist though.  I don't care either way.  Take all the guns.  Give everybody a free gun.  Whatever.  I'm uninvested on the issue.  That's probably why I don't have any problems with thinking things through from both sides.

Nice, but it's still a slippery slope fallacy.

The goal is (nearly) no guns.  That's the actual endpoint.  We've seen it all over the world.  'No guns' is not 'marrying a horse.'  I am not going beyond the actual objective to some hypothetical nonsense which is what slippery slope fallacy is.  The goal is not a maximum of 5 kids killed per mass shooting at an elementary school.  It's 0 shootings at elementary schools.  You achieve this through the removal of guns.  It's obvious.  Australia and the UK figured it out with little difficulty.

Currently, it's not feasible or politically expedient in the US.  But that doesn't change the fact that is the objective for many, and that number is going to grow going forward.  

Now if I said "What's next, we can't have cars because you can kill someone with them?"  That would be a slippery slope fallacy.

Never fear.  The republicunts are on it.

(November 6, 2017 at 1:26 pm)wallym Wrote:

(November 6, 2017 at 1:09 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Nice, but it's still a slippery slope fallacy.

The goal is (nearly) no guns.  That's the actual endpoint.  We've seen it all over the world.  'No guns' is not 'marrying a horse.'  I am not going beyond the actual objective to some hypothetical nonsense which is what slippery slope fallacy is.  The goal is not a maximum of 5 kids killed per mass shooting at an elementary school.  It's 0 shootings at elementary schools.  You achieve this through the removal of guns.  It's obvious.  Australia and the UK figured it out with little difficulty.

Currently, it's not feasible or politically expedient in the US.  But that doesn't change the fact that is the objective for many, and that number is going to grow going forward.  

Now if I said "What's next, we can't have cars because you can kill someone with them?"  That would be a slippery slope fallacy.

You haven't been keeping up with the NRA propaganda if that's what you think.

Type in atheist shooter in Google. Interesting what pops up.