Current Affairs The " another shooting in America " thread

[Pittsburgh Footy]

You are making my point.

Its not a ban on assault rifles. Its a ban on guns the left want.

I neither own or have ever fired a gun but I don't call on cars or alchohol to be banned every time a drunk driver kills a kid.

Its politicization of a tragedy.

Unequivocally false.

Do some on the left want guns to be banned? sure.

Just like only some on the right are white supremecists, eh comrade?

 

[LiamG]

What are you on about?

You said if he was an ISIS sympathizer it may not have happened.

I asked you are you saying if that was the case the FBI would have had him before he committed the crime and cited to examples were that is not clearly the case.

You never did answer it instead you become petulant and ramble on about gun control. Which i never even mentined

How about clear up the FBI and ISIS remark and lets go from there.

I didn't become petulant. I agreed with you that at the moment law enforcement can't stop all these crimes.

 

[Pettifogger]

for it to be a compromise there has to be give and take. I don't like handguns, but if I can get rid of automatic and semiautomatic rifles I will cede any ground on handguns. That is compromise. The anti gun lobby will have to compromise along with the NRA.

I don't mean to imply this solves the problem, but it doesn't hurt.

A few problems here. First, semi-auto and automatic rifles really "aren't the problem" in many ways. There have been recent incidents involving semi-auto rifles, but the majority of mass shootings occur with handguns. With the exception of a situation like Las Vegas, I don't think there is a great argument that semi-auto rifles are more effective.

The status quo is that both semi-auto rifles and handguns (among other firearms) are legal. So in your compromise, the pro-gun crowd is "getting" something they already have, without real pressure that they're going to lose something greater. If we were really on the verge of a complete ban, giving up semi-auto rifles might be a compromise, but we're not, so it's not.

Additionally, semi-auto rifles are used widely in hunting and other sporting, even outside of AR-15-related sports and the like. So I think that broad of a category is going to be a non-starter.

 

[LiamG]

Unequivocally false.

Do some on the left want guns to be banned? sure.

Just like only some on the right are white supremecists, eh comrade?

Or those on the left are communists.

 

[Pittsburgh Footy]

A few problems here. First, semi-auto and automatic rifles really "aren't the problem" in many ways. There have been recent incidents involving semi-auto rifles, but the majority of mass shootings occur with handguns. With the exception of a situation like Las Vegas, I don't think there is a great argument that semi-auto rifles are more effective.

The status quo is that both semi-auto rifles and handguns (among other firearms) are legal. So in your compromise, the pro-gun crowd is "getting" something they already have, without real pressure that they're going to lose something greater. If we were really on the verge of a complete ban, giving up semi-auto rifles might be a compromise, but we're not, so it's not.

Additionally, semi-auto rifles are used widely in hunting and other sporting, even outside of AR-15-related sports and the like. So I think that broad of a category is going to be a non-starter.

I thought "the left" has been trying to "take away your guns" for "years"

 

[Pittsburgh Footy]

 

[SteveSC]

I didn't become petulant. I agreed with you that at the moment law enforcement can't stop all these crimes.

Hmm not really. All you said was you are not sure what law enforcement can do. That didn't answer what i asked you.

You made a claim anyone associated with ISIS gets caught before they commit the crime yet the majority if not all linked to ISIS in the past prove that's not the case.

So do you think that that's true?

That in ISIS related cases they prevent them but others they don't.

 

[LiamG]

Hmm not really. All you said was you are not sure what law enforcement can do. That didn't answer what i asked you.

You made a claim anyone associated with ISIS gets caught before they commit the crime yet the majority if not all linked to ISIS in the past prove that's not the case.

So do you think that that's true?

That in ISIS related cases they prevent them but others they don't.

I wrote bloody hell really so yes demonstratably you are right. At least now.

However I don't think this should be the case. He had put this on social media, had informed people. Same with terror suspects there's always clues.

Police should be able to proactively pick these people up and have them mentally evaluated.

 

[Pettifogger]

I thought "the left" has been trying to "take away your guns" for "years"

Many on "the left" have, and to pretend otherwise is foolish and undercuts the argument for those who want gun control.

Here is the reality:

A ban and confiscation would be necessary for significant reductions in US gun deaths. The only other alternative would be broad and difficult user-side restrictions relating to mental health and the like. Those, while viable, are not easy nor simplistically implemented. We should not abandon that latter discussion in particular, but it goes far beyond the "we're all in agreement, it's so easy!" plea. It's not easy.

So, when people on the left (or right, I suppose it doesn't matter) claim they want "common sense gun restrictions" that should already be in place, they're either a) advocating for something that likely won't make a difference, b) are ignorantly or intentionally misstating the scope of what would be required to put those restrictions in place or c) are lying/misleading about their end goals.

What would happen:

5 years from now, when enhanced background checks (unaccompanied by some broad new mental health database), closing the "gun show loophole" and magazine restrictions fail to significantly reduce firearm deaths, the "common sense gun control" folks will tell us those efforts weren't enough. Obviously, we need to do something more.

Now, most media and political commentators know nothing about firearms, so they may not appreciate that this future revelation - "we need to do more!" - was known from the outset. But entities, like the NRA, or like Everytown, already know this.

In short, when people claim "oh I don't want to take your guns" but advocate for other, "common sense" regulations, I predict, with high accuracy, that they either don't know what they're talking about, or they're lying.

 

[toffee-L]

Guns are meant to outnumber people now in the US, even if you have strict gun laws in one particular state it would be the easiest thing in the world to move weapons across state lines. More stringent background checks should be brought in but the problem is most mass shooters would pass them anyway. Politicians let gun escalation completely overtake them, they let the NRA build up a huge network of influence virtually unopposed and now there are very few options open to the American government about how to curb this problem.

Not that this particular government sees guns as a problem mind you.

 

[SteveSC]

I wrote bloody hell really so yes. At least now.

However I don't think this should be the case. He had put this on social media, had informed people. Same with terror suspects there's always clues.

Police should be able to proactively pick these people up and have them mentally evaluated.

But its not true though is it. Of the cases linked to ISIS and not simply the ones they have claimed the feds have not been successful in stopping any off them.

In fact we wouldn't be told if they did stop a suspect unless it makes the news because they raided his or her home.

So like i said there is no proof to suggest this is the case nor would their be statistical data to prove it. The FBI don't play that sort of game unlike politicians and the internet.

Why you brought ISIS into it the first place is baffling.

 

[Ruairi77]

In short, when people claim "oh I don't want to take your guns" but advocate for other, "common sense" regulations, I predict, with high accuracy, that they either don't know what they're talking about, or they're lying.

man, stop listening to that crap on the radio, it's doing you no favors.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

It seems to be always white males doing these school shootings. The government should just bar white men from gun ownership. Especially the dumb ones.

 

[Pettifogger]

man, stop listening to that crap on the radio, it's doing you no favors.

I'm quite familiar with firearms, the history of firearms in America, the lobbies on both sides, the firearms industry and the legal precedent forming the framework for America's firearm legislation reality.

I'm not insulted by your snark of equating that to "crap on the radio," but it is nonetheless very silly.

 

[SteveSC]

Many on "the left" have, and to pretend otherwise is foolish and undercuts the argument for those who want gun control.

Here is the reality:

A ban and confiscation would be necessary for significant reductions in US gun deaths. The only other alternative would be broad and difficult user-side restrictions relating to mental health and the like. Those, while viable, are not easy nor simplistically implemented. We should not abandon that latter discussion in particular, but it goes far beyond the "we're all in agreement, it's so easy!" plea. It's not easy.

So, when people on the left (or right, I suppose it doesn't matter) claim they want "common sense gun restrictions" that should already be in place, they're either a) advocating for something that likely won't make a difference, b) are ignorantly or intentionally misstating the scope of what would be required to put those restrictions in place or c) are lying/misleading about their end goals.

What would happen:

5 years from now, when enhanced background checks (unaccompanied by some broad new mental health database), closing the "gun show loophole" and magazine restrictions fail to significantly reduce firearm deaths, the "common sense gun control" folks will tell us those efforts weren't enough. Obviously, we need to do something more.

Now, most media and political commentators know nothing about firearms, so they may not appreciate that this future revelation - "we need to do more!" - was known from the outset. But entities, like the NRA, or like Everytown, already know this.

In short, when people claim "oh I don't want to take your guns" but advocate for other, "common sense" regulations, I predict, with high accuracy, that they either don't know what they're talking about, or they're lying.

What are the right and the lobbyists afraid of then? So put some checks and balances in and when it fails point fingers. What have they got to lose?

To simply say it won't work without empirical evidence or stats is disingenuous.

Your lot harp on about mental health and won't even do anyting about that. In fact Trump removed the one thing stopping someone who is mentally ill from getting a gun.

The right is hell bent on simply dismissing it and referring to their constitutional right. Honestly if you guys think the gun lobby cares about you and your guns then you are kidding yourself. They only care about you buying more guns and bullets.

Oh and not forgetting to bash the left and tell them they have no idea what they are talking about ala your very point.