Gunman is reported dead.
Printable View
Gunman is reported dead.
ABC news saying 12 dead; one gunman still at large.
Now saying 27 dead, at least 14 children.
Lack of concern for human life. Sad and shameless.
There's no words to describe that kind of pure evil.
As long as I live, I will never understand what motivates anyone to harm, much less kill, an innocent child. I guess I do not completely fathom the depths and motivations of evil incarnate.
My heart goes out to the families of those innocent victims.
Dan harming an innocent child is the most evil and senseless act that could be committed. There's no reason whatsoever for something like this to ever happen.
It's so evil even many criminal organizations won't do it. You just don't.
20 kids dead, how on earth can someone just kill a punch of kids. My heart is breaking for these families.
The son of their very teacher no less. I have no way to describe any part of this madness.Quote:
Originally Posted by truecatsfan
Hopefully we can discuss gun laws without people being called idiots. The goal is to minimize events like we saw today and last week. All ideas that lead toward that goal should be discussed.
It depends on how people want to discuss gun laws. If you think that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens is the solution, you might be an ......... If you think that gun-free zones save lives, you might be an ........ If you think a semi-automatic weapon is an assault weapon, you might be an ....... If you think guns are the cause of evil people doing evil things, you might be an ............ If you think banning guns will keep evil people from killing others, you might be an ..........Quote:
Originally Posted by Badinage
The left turned this tragedy into just another reason to demand gun bans. Instead of praying for the families of those affected by this tragedy, they spent their day telling everyone who would listen just how evil gun owners are.
"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military."
- William Burroughs
No they shouldn't. Should shooting anyone diagnosed with certain mental conditions be discussed? No? OK, so we can eliminiate "all ideas" from that statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badinage
Nor is "the goal" to minimize these events. It is "a goal" and a very important one, but not the only goal. Another goal is to make sure people can protect themselves and their children in home invasions or protect them when they are with them in public. There are lots of them.
I'm not trying to be a smarta$$ by engaging in taking things to absurd conclusions, but your statement beings with a false implication that our laws should be tailored to these events to the exclusion of other threats.
I've never called anyone an idiot when discussing gun laws. I've called them wrong, but I can't help that b/c they are wrong. They react to horrible acts of evil a) on the assumption that evil can be combated by reducing its options for committing evil rather than eliminating the evil, and b) by emotional overreaction that doesn't lead to good objective policies and thus end up hurting our overall safety rather than insuring it.
I can't help that the conclusions people will draw about what is the threat and what to do about it are wrong. They're not idiots, they just aren't working through the nature of human incentives at a detailed enough level.
that's how we end up with all of our mass shootings happening in "gun free zones". We pass a law based on an emotional desire and not what it means in terms of individual actions and results, and end up shocked when it fails miserably. If people thought through it they'd realize people who will go kill school children won't care about the "gun free zone" sign and thus that entire approach is a failure and a false sense of action that only takes away from better possible solutions.
Same will happen here. People will call for bans on "assault weapons" while 99% of the gun deaths in this country come from other kinds of guns. I'd laugh if it weren't so sad and in the end futile at protecting our children and citizens.
Wampus -- that's the best part. They'll pass laws that won't do a thing to change the outcome of these events, and when those fail their solution will be even more such laws. it's true in social welfare policy, gun laws, all policies. Eventually saying "hey this direction isn't working, let's look at it from a different angle" is apparently not an option.
Every law now being proposed we already had for 10 years. It did nothing, but hey let's try it again.
Whenever I run into someone online who argues for banning guns, I send them here:
http://www.americanrifleman.org/Blog...x?cid=25&id=21
They should prohibit people who want to use them illegally from owning them.
Problem solved.
Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.
Would banning guns keep something like this from happening?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/...html?hpt=wo_c2
Or this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/wo...hina.html?_r=0
or this?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapc...ing/index.html
My point is, if guns are banned, it still wont keep these criminals from killing people. Actually it only makes it easier. They don't have to worry about someone blowing their worthless guts out.
20 kids ages 5 to 10 years old.....10 days before Christmas. I've got an 11 year old son and a 6 year old daughter. Like most with kids of that age, we've got "Santa's" gifts hidden, ready for Christmas Eve. How in God's name do you deal with that as a parent?? I've got tears in my eyes as I type this....I just cannot imagine this kind of pain.
God Bless these families, and hold them close!!!!
I cannot help but laugh. A lot of pro gun advocacy, but no one offering solutions. Glad none of you who think this way are elected officials.
For someone who is not trying to be a smarta$$ ...Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
Your passion for your gun makes you incapable of having an actual discussion. I know you have a 100 comebacks, but no solutions or real suggestions. We get it. You love your guns.
I take this, that you dont hunt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badinage
Why? What in my comment has anything to do with hunting? Man, that is a real headshaker.Quote:
Originally Posted by truecatsfan
You want solutions? First, enforce the laws that are already on the books. Second, do away with this gun-free zone crap. Third, allow law-abiding citizens to own/carry handguns (yeah, I'm talking to you Chicago, NY City, Washington D.C. Your gun bans work really well, don't they?). There are three solutions for starters. What are yours?Quote:
Originally Posted by Badinage
Do you really think banning guns will stop a crazy person who wants to kill a bunch of people? Gun control is just another example of Liberals having no understanding of cause and effect.
I have worked with ATF and local law enforcement. What unenforced laws are you suggesting would stop this chaos?Quote:
Originally Posted by CattyWampus
And, catch your assumptions, it reveals your biases. When did I ay anything about banning guns? This discussion is very revealing.
Invalid link. Why not just explain what laws should be enforced to stop these violent acts?Quote:
Originally Posted by CattyWampus
You complain up-thread that no one was discussing solutions. Now you tell me that my assumptions show a bias. Huh? What exactly is it you want to discuss?Quote:
Originally Posted by Badinage
In regard to enforcement, my answer is simple. Felons possessing/using firearms should be charged and sentenced according to the laws on the books, rather than being turned into snitches or giving them a slap on the wrist. As far as gun laws, whether enforced or not, preventing the "chaos" like today, they won't. Neither will restricting gun rights of law abiding citizens.
Your assumption that I was suggesting a gun ban demonstrated your bias. I want to know if there is a way to reduce the incidence of violent gun attacks that we have witnessed over the past few years. But, it appears there is a myopic obsession here.Quote:
Originally Posted by CattyWampus
And, my answer to your second paragraph is that I have seen it happen. I have seen federal prosecutors take cases from state prosecutors to enforce the guns with crimes laws and used their influence to get tougher sentences at the state court level. I have also seen felon in possession sentencing enhancements and charges at the federal level, and witnessed prosecutors attempting to enforce laws when felons attempt to lie to purchase guns. So, (1) I am not familiar with your claim and (2) I am not sure how those laws prevent what we witnessed this past week or so, and beyond.
If you are throwing your hands in the air, I get it, but do not accept. I will look to people with answers.
We can send this to the parents of the dead kids. That will surely help the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by CattyWampus
If you would not mind, I would be very interested to read your possible solutions and then we can all build from there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badinage
[gladyou are not an elected official as your option is to take away my right to defend myself
Now will you take away fertilizer, ok bombing
How about box cutters, 9-11
Knives, I understand over 20 children slashed to death in China this week
How about cars, 2 white young men from Pearl, Ms ran over a black man last year on purpose
So how do you deal with evil?
He had a entail illness, like the movie killer, used 2 pistols stolen from his mom which were legal
You haven't solution, just take away my right to defend against evil such as this
QUOTE=Badinage;38084]I cannot help but laugh. A lot of pro gun advocacy, but no one offering solutions. Glad none of you who think this way are elected officials.[/QUOTE]
I pray for those affected by this tragedy.
Just learned of it and I called my grandkids to tell them Pap loves them very much.
I know they should be in bed (the younger ones) but hey, the parents will get over it.
Father touch these families and comfort them, only as you can.
Pot meet kettle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badinage
What is your solution? Can't wait to hear it.
You'd get laughs from my friends. I'm 44 years old, I hadn't touched a gun from age 16 till about a year and a half ago other than plinking maybe 2-3 times with 22s. Didn't own a handgun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badinage
Yes I got into the business, but honestly that has nothing to do with it. I took these same positions when I hadn't picked up a gun in years.
My analysis is simply objective. I refuse to respond emotionally to single events and make policy action. I feel very strongly about that, not about guns in particular. It's my response to gun laws but also global warming legislation, labor laws, environmental regulation, you name it.
Legislation must have both a) a constitutional basis for authority, and b) a level of effectiveness that justifies action.
I got this from debate. Basic policy making theory: to support an action for change a proposal should meet basic policy reqirements. They include:
1) A "harm": something bad is happening
2) Significance. That harm is severe enough to have risen to a level requiring action a the given level (in this case Federal)
3) Causality. The harm is caused by the area the policy addresses (HUGE on the gun issue)
4) Inherency. the problem should be an inherent situation that will not resolve itself without this action
5) Solvency. The proposed solution must significantly solve the described harm.
My advocacy is for that structure and it applies to guns or whatever.
I'd gladly give up my guns and revoke the 2nd amendment if you present a policy that will workably protect people from criminals and lunatics and the power of the government.
The problem is no one can to date, so I support the solution that is the worse one possible other than the alternatives.
This will be the 2nd time I've asked for that, and I doubt I'll get an answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_bgblue
The reason isn't an attack on him, it's that there isn't one short of "banning guns", something he has said he isn't proposing.
"Ban Assault rifles". OK, let's say we can agree on what that is (is the M2 Carbine, a WWII collectible, an "assault rifle"? It could be.)
So we magically define the law so that it captures the guns that could do this but only those guns and doesn't miss any. Yeah, dream on, but let's just say.
OK, there are MILLIONS of these guns in circulation. So are we banning their importation and manufacture? That leaves millions of options for these guys so that won't make a difference. Do we ban their resale? OK, that leaves them in the hands of millions of people any one of whom may snap and go on a rampage.
So the only option to really prevent the next such horror is to round them all up. Otherwise you're closing the barn door after 20 million horses got out. Outright prevent their ownership and have them turned in.
Think that's going to happen? Think the laws will be passed and that millions of unregistered guns will get turned in?
Nope, so why pass a useless "ban" that isn't a ban? That's the #1 proposal to stop this and it's beyond laughable. It's not even a "ban", so why restrict ownership of a gun when it has zero chance of keeping such guns out of the hands of a lunatic?
Magazine ban? That's even funnier. Even more of those, even easier to exchange. Feinstein's proposal "fixes" a "loophole" in the Clinton ban if you read carefully which seems to prohibit their transfer.
Yeah, but a) how do you enforce that one, and b) what happens if the lunatic already has them? Again, there is a 100% chance that upon passage of that law we will see another horrible tragedy like this one. Guaranteed. So why are we passing a law that restricts the pursuit of happiness and liberty and goes against the Bill of Rights for a ZERO chance of preventing another incident?
I'm dying to hear the "solution", but what we'll get is some version of "we have to try", as if flailing about with laws is OK and even desirable even though we know it won't solve the problem that has outraged us.
As I said, I'll listen to workable solutions. Have yet to hear one for preventing evil through legislation.
When did I say I have a solution? I said the discussion was needed and then posters started posting their pro-gun, anti-gun regulation posts and claiming that gun laws are not the answer and wildly suggesting I wanted to ban guns. The answer may not be in gun laws, or it may. I am open. But, I am willing to suggest not all are. And, I find that selfish and sad.
"Pot calling kettle" - most trite used rebuttal on message boards. Your only position is what you adamantly claim will not work, not what you claim will. I do not think you are a good judge, because you care too damn much about your guns. That is your passion.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
You are the wordiest poster when it comes to guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
For purposes of disclosure my data below came from the chief liaison of the FBI NICS background check system to the dealer industry and 3 senior ATF agents now consulting for the NSSF. The data is sound.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badinage
1) Eliminate the location restriction on Federal Firearms license to allow FFLs to transact in any location as long as the process is correctly followed re NICS checks and 4473 compliance.
The complaint is many guns are sold without background checks. those are private transactions between non-dealers. We want more checks done yet we put the one group who does background checks at a disadvantage to those who don't do them.
Instead of seeing dealers as the enemy, encourage them to take a bigger percentage of the total gun transactions since they perform background checks.
It took years to even allow dealers to be at gun shows. Huh? Completely backward thinking.
2) Tell the ATF to do their job.
a) Move to the 21st century.
I was told by a senior ATF official that when we send in the multiple handgun forms via fax and it doesn't go through it's b/c the fax is out of paper. I s*** you not. The ATF doesn't have e-fax for processing 1,000s of forms that come in daily. You wonder why they may miss stuff?
b) Focus on felons.
When you buy a gun from a dealer you fill out the form 4473. It has a list of questions like "are you a felon" and you sign the document. Falsifying info on it is a felony.
Yet people do still try it, and the ATF has almost immediate notice of suspects b/c the dealer won't submit a NICS background check unless the form shows they are eligible (i.e. not a felon) yet they get back denials and you know some of them are kicking back b/c they are felons, etc.
so we KNOW for sure those people have just committed a felony trying to obtain a firearm and lying on the 4473.
How many of those people did the ATF even investigate for 4473 falsifications last year? 400.
How many dealers did they review and audit? Thousands.
Do your job: investigate and prosecute the criminals instead of worrying about every detail of every gun recorded by every dealer. First arrest the felons, then worry about the record keeping.
c) clarify rules regarding who is "in the business" of firearms dealing. There is no dollar limit or quantity limit that clarifies who must have a dealer's license versus who is a private citizen just selling his guns. Guys buy guns all the time knowing they will probably resell them but they aren't dealers.
The area is totally gray, based on whether they bought with intent to sell. Try proving that in court. Set a limit. Guns must be owned for x months before transacting again by a non-dealer, or it can't be more than x guns a year or y dollars or you have to at least file something to explain why you did it and the serials of the guns.
See, I'm not just against regulations. I'm just for regulations that work.
d) Allow dealers to move to computer record keeping instead of paper without having to risk losing your license.
The ATF refuses to certify software as "compliant" with their directive that you can use software instead of paper if you meet a series of requirements. There is industry software but technically you're still at risk, and keeping it otherwise is a risk. Yet the ATF when doing a trace woudl benefit greatly from dealers who didn't have to hand research through 4473 forms and stacks of bound books.
3) Reform the NICS system by giving the FBI authority to gather state level information.
Right now the FBI uses 3 basic databases to research a background check request through "NICS", the background check system operated by the FBI.
The dealer calls or submits via web the info and the NICS system issues an "approve" or "deny" or "delay". Delay is b/c they need further human research on the issue. Often just a similar name, those things can be fixed by better database work.
However the problem isn't the FBI. To comply with federal laws they have to gather state judicial record data. You're convicted of a felony at the state level, they then have to compile all that data.
It's further complicated by things like domestic violence provisions in the Gun Control Act as amended. Not all states clearly define that a conviction was related to domestic violence, so they then have to try to contact that state, often at the county level, and ask for details of the case.
So it's massive database undertaking that is largely non-automated and they have to rely on local people to provide missing info, a task they are not required to do at all and which is last on their list as it's not a priority for them and they are already short staffed in most cases.
The FBI liaison said in one case they were told the records were stored in a building out back and it had bees and they weren't going into it. Seriously.
One dealer was told flat out that in a Louisville district the clerks are instructed to do FBI NICS research dead last b/c they have other things they need more urgently.
This makes it very difficult for the NICS check system to not miss things. Change the domestic violence provision to line up with state laws (really does it matter who they beat when it comes time to let them have a gun? Really?), give the FBI more priority by law for compliance, apply the resources to further hone the database to prevent confusion in identities.
THere are a bunch more. I'll do some more later. You'll notice not ONE of these simple, often costless, and effective improvements is on any proposed legislation I've seen.
See that requires understanding by the politicians of what is really going on and their desire to fix things rather than to grandstand with a public not privy to the details of how things work.
Now your turn. What do you suggest?
It's not my passion. I've been posting on these boards for more than a decade. I'm passionate about individual liberty. Ask anyone here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badinage
I'm also wordy on every topic. Can't help it, I am a stickler for precise explanations and I type more than 100 words a minute. Bad combination for length. Again that's not about guns. Ask folks here who I email how bad I am about everything.
Now have the decency to answer the question presented to you: what are your solutions to this problem? This isn't the first time you've been asked and your only answer so far is "your'e in love with your guns" and "maybe now we can talk about solutions" yet you present none.
So let's hear it. I've laid out a cogent and detailed case for what will and will not work. Your response is just "you love your guns too much".
It is the most obvious case of an ad hominem logical fallacy I've seen in some time.