I never said you did but there are others in this thread that are using the recent mass shooting as evidence that we need stronger gun control measures. My point being that the types of measures proposed would do nothing to stop the tragedies they are using as evidence.

[Edited on September 20, 2013 at 10:49 AM. Reason : A]

9/20/2013 10:46:56 AM

IMO a registry wouldn't do much except help catch people after they've killed someone, provided the gun was ever registered in the first place.

9/20/2013 10:49:21 AM

yes, and also slowly make it more difficult for people to buy guns who are not allowed to buy guns which would slowly reduce the number of illegal guns. It does this by adding accountability to the seller, and that doesn't exist right now for a lot of gun sales, and by creating a record for the entire life of a gun.

but it shouldn't be done until there are privacy protections and rules about how to handle the data, which recent proposals have not included. that's why the ACLU was against it, there was no data/privacy protection or rules.


[Edited on September 20, 2013 at 10:54 AM. Reason : .]

9/20/2013 10:52:14 AM

^ The problem is, even if there were such protections and rules, they're absolutely meaningless. The government has shown time and again whether it's VA medical records getting stolen and released to NSA abuses to parallel construction that they have no care or concern for their own policies and procedures let alone the rule of law.

Gun rights advocates are paranoid because they have every reason to be as does just about every American.

9/20/2013 1:04:55 PM

the NSA thing isn't relevant, since this database would already by information available to the government by nature. but yes, that's exactly why i explicitly stated that we should not have a registry until those protections could by guaranteed.

that is the only reasonable objection to it, the other arguments have been laughable

[Edited on September 20, 2013 at 1:13 PM. Reason : .]

9/20/2013 1:12:46 PM

Quote :

"we should not have a registry until those protections could by guaranteed"

rofl

9/20/2013 2:18:54 PM

guaranteed protections will never happen or work. that list will be immediately shared with/accessed by probably almost every LEA and millions of americans would all of a sudden be deemed threats. If a professional photographer gets on NSA and FBI lists because he's doing his job of taking photos, then you can bet that any list naming people with firearms will create a field day. The idiots at the NSA will just add millions of more people to their lists, muddying their own waters, diluting their resources, and straying further from their mission of national security.

9/20/2013 2:25:03 PM

Quote :

"The problem is, even if there were such protections and rules, they're absolutely meaningless. The government has shown time and again whether it's VA medical records getting stolen and released to NSA abuses to parallel construction that they have no care or concern for their own policies and procedures let alone the rule of law. Gun rights advocates are paranoid because they have every reason to be as does just about every American."

wahh, wahh, wahhhhh....


...either shit or get off the pot. If gun advocates are that concerned about abuses of govt power, then maybe they should use those guns to correct the problem. Isn't that the whole reason why that amendment was put in the bill of rights to begin with?

I fuckin' hate this argument, because you guys bring it up every time, and never mean it.

9/20/2013 2:28:50 PM

^^again, the point of a registry is not to identify threats, so the idea of "muddying the water" isn't an argument against it

9/20/2013 2:43:54 PM

what you think the intended point of the list is, is very different from how our overlords will use it.

it will be leaked/provided. it will be used to identify/target/watch people. your cell phones are. you pictures are. your facebook is.

[Edited on September 20, 2013 at 2:50 PM. Reason : .]

9/20/2013 2:49:42 PM

which is why i have very clearly and explicitly said that we should not have one until protections against those things can be guaranteed. My point is that you guys are against it as a concept, but it makes sense as a concept. (and the information being leaked or provided is the privacy issue, but it would have your information in it so of course it would be tied to you)

9/20/2013 3:03:47 PM

the point of my guns is not to shoot people, but to shoot paper, therefore, you don't need to worry about them

that is the argument you have made

9/20/2013 3:05:52 PM

uh, no. not even close. are you talking to me?

9/20/2013 3:29:23 PM

Quote :

"^ that seems like a good solution. I think an objection a reasonable person might have is to the punishment for having a gun stolen. "

As long as a police report is filed every time time weapons are stolen, there should be no punishment to the legal owner just solely based on that. The weapon would be marked in database as stolen and owner absolved of responsibility from any crimes that weapon is involved in unless he is directly linked to the crime. Now if a person files these reports CONSISTENTLY, then yeah police should investigate, because either that person can't secure his guns worth a shit, or he/she is selling the guns illegally. Both of those are dangerous to society as a whole and need to be prevented.

Will the criminals still be able to buy guns illegally? Yes, but it won't be a walk in the park like it is now, and supply of black-market gray market guns will diminish significantly. Like dtownral pointed out, these measure are not meant to prevent mass shootings like the Navy Year or Colorado, they are meant to reduce a massive use of firearms in violent crime that happens every day.


[Edited on September 20, 2013 at 4:04 PM. Reason : .]

9/20/2013 4:01:12 PM

The point is, that this 'secure' registration will never happen. All it takes is the people in charge to decide to make it unsecure. Registration is still registration, and history tends to repeat itself.

9/20/2013 4:12:30 PM

HIPAA was supposed to be a secure method of keeping your health information private, and now with the new HUB, that information will be available to whatever government agency wants it. You think a gun registration will be secure? If so you have way too much faith in our government to do something right.

9/20/2013 4:30:01 PM

Quote :

"history tends to repeat itself."

Which is code for "I'll give up my guns when you pry them from my cold dead hands." Which is why this discussion is pointless. Gun violence is just something we'll have to live with for the foreseeable future.

9/20/2013 4:30:35 PM

Quote :

"The point is, that this 'secure' registration will never happen. All it takes is the people in charge to decide to make it unsecure. Registration is still registration, and history tends to repeat itself."

So what is the worst that can happen? What are some real-world scenarios of such a database breach? Someone in public will find out that you have a lot of expensive weapons? And they will try to break into a house of heavily armed owner to try to steal those weapons? DMV/MVA systems around the US have databases of all vehicles, their registered owner and addresses. You don't see crooks breaking into the database to find out where all the expensive or easily resellable cars are garaged at.

Please provide a better specific, effective solution to the problem we have now. I don't want to hear anything like "we have to fix socioeconomic conditions so people will not be compelled to live a life of crime." Most gun owners consider themseves open to debate but really they are opposed to ANY meaningful change from the status quo.

[Edited on September 20, 2013 at 4:44 PM. Reason : .]

9/20/2013 4:37:40 PM

Quote :

"The point is, that this 'secure' registration will never happen."

false, its possible

9/20/2013 5:07:28 PM

lol

9/20/2013 5:44:54 PM

^^nope, youre wrong.

keep trying.

9/20/2013 6:17:27 PM

Quote :

"Which is code for "I'll give up my guns when you pry them from my cold dead hands." Which is why this discussion is pointless. Gun violence is just something we'll have to live with for the foreseeable future."

Or we could just keep doing what we're doing. You know, since crimes nation wide are on a downward trend and have been for nearly 2 decades with the murder rate back to levels we haven't seen since the 60s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

9/20/2013 6:59:42 PM

^ crimes have been dropping, because we've been taking steps to make it drop.

The most logical move isn't to do nothing, but rather to continue to take steps to make it drop.

We have an issue with gun crime, and there are some low hanging fruits that don't necessitate people giving up their guns.

9/20/2013 7:02:03 PM

Enforcing existing laws would be one of those fruits. Not making more rules and regulations.

9/20/2013 9:40:16 PM

This video pretty much sums up the general attitude of the pro-gun crowd.
"Oh we are so sorry if these killings offended you"
"that's too bad, FUCKKK YOUUUUU, second amendment, first amendment, fuuuuuuck you, cocksuckers"

I'm not saying what he is doing it's illegal (assuming he legally has access to full auto weapons as a police chief). But it's not giving the gun nuts any credibility if there are people out there with guns acting like nuts.



The reason why we have so many damn laws and regulations is because the society ends up trying to protect itself from people that lack commons sense or common courtesy like this one. I'm pretty sure if people were all decent, our entire body of law would have consisted of the ten commandments and a driver's handbook.

9/20/2013 11:25:09 PM

Quote :

"COMMONS SENSE"

9/21/2013 9:39:43 AM

That police chief makes some pretty good points, and he looks super-tough while doing it! It's a good think we have people like him out there protecting us all.

9/21/2013 10:56:30 AM

I can't tell if that is sarcasm.

9/21/2013 11:39:40 AM

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-18-2013/depressingly-familiar-post-tragedy-analysis---a-homicide-pact

The Daily Show points out hypocrisy yet again.

9/21/2013 12:14:09 PM

Quote :

""COMMONS SENSE""

A typo is the only thing you picked up from that post? Or you just have no meaningful reply?

9/21/2013 3:04:38 PM

^^^^^^ He might not be wrong, but he's certainly unprofessional in his capacity as a police chief.

and he needs to keep his motherfucking finger off the trigger at around the 2:10 mark.

9/21/2013 4:31:43 PM

Quote :

"Let's take two hypothetical crazy people. Give one of them a gun. Give the other one some ninja stars. Take a wild fucking guess which one is going to rack up the higher body count. Fuck me, how is this not obvious?"

Let's take two hypothetical crazy people. Put one of them in a mental institution and let the other one roam free. Take a wild fucking guess which one is going to rack up the higher body count. Fuck me, how is this not obvious?

Quote :

"Gee, I wonder why our founding fathers didn't constitutionally protect something that wasn't invented for another one hundred fucking years"

But they did have roads then, didn't they? And yet, they didn't say that everyone had unfettered and unregulated access to the roads. Hmmm...

Quote :

"You mean in the institutions that don't exist anymore? http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-mental-patients-began.html Everyone agrees that mental health is ignored too often, but what is the solution? "Control the mentally ill". How do you control them and who will pay for it?"

You're not hearing me argue against the gov't paying for it, are you?

Quote :

"You can point to growing gun sales as proof of your side, but public sentiment and polling shows an increased demand for reform every time there is a mass shooting."

Imagine that... Sensationalist media and highly charged emotional environments make people make stupid decisions. Who would have thought?

Quote :

"Sure-- we'll never have "universal" background checks, but checks take 10 minutes and are in no way an infringement on legal gun owners."

Oh, if it's not an infringement, then that means you can get a gun with no trouble without one, right? Oh, wait... If you have to jump through hoops set up by the gov't, any hoops at all, then it's an infringement. And let's not even go into the massive infringements of privacy that would be necessary for the registration, itself.

Quote :

"Second Amendment guarantees you a right to bear arms, it does not guarantee the privacy of your gun collection"

Yep. Good thing there aren't any other amendments that deal with privacy of things in your house, lol.

Quote :

"Anyone who is against background checks and a registry is a pro-gun hardliner in my opinion and will not accept any kind of compromise no matter what the common sense says."

Giving up Constitutionally protected rights in the name of "common sense" is not "common sense."

Quote :

"It might be the best solution is the status quo where we tolerate the slaughter of innocent children or of people in the workplace for the sake of gun nuts to have a little more gun freedom."

False dilemma. There are other solutions that lie in between infringing on Constitutionally protected rights and allowing the slaughter of children.

Quote :

"where have I used any mass shooting as a reason I want a gun registry?"

Well... Why is this thread getting revived immediately following a mass shooting? Hmmm?

Quote :

"Like dtownral pointed out, these measure are not meant to prevent mass shootings like the Navy Year or Colorado, they are meant to reduce a massive use of firearms in violent crime that happens every day."

I wonder if we cold do other things to reduce the violent crime. Like, maybe, stop the senseless war on drugs that fuels it. Nope, we should just take away more rights in order to fix the problems caused by other instances where we took away rights. That makes perfect sense!

9/21/2013 8:34:43 PM

Quote :

"Oh, if it's not an infringement, then that means you can get a gun with no trouble without one, right"

Yes, you can. By getting one from a private buyer. And that's a huge problem.

Quote :

"Yep. Good thing there aren't any other amendments that deal with privacy of things in your house, lol."

You are protected from unreasonable search and seizure. Registering certain types of items are not an infringement of those rights. Is car registration unconstitutional? How about building inspections?

Quote :

"Giving up Constitutionally protected rights in the name of "common sense" is not "common sense.""

No one is asking you to give up your rights to bear arms. Those rights are not unlimited or universal, have certain restrictions for the benefit of society. Should felons and mentally ill people be able to possess guns legally because 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about them? Just like freedom of speech does not protect hate speech, although those details are not spelled out in the constitution, Government does have the right to regulate certain aspects of your right through legislation and executive orders, unless those are found unconstitutional by the Supreme court.

Quote :

"False dilemma. There are other solutions that lie in between infringing on Constitutionally protected rights and allowing the slaughter of children"

Why don't you propose some specific, effective solutions that will curb gun violence and reduce the number of guns in hands of criminals, instead of making broad and vague statements like that? I take that stopping the war on drugs is one, and I support that, although if criminals won't murder each other over issues that come with trafficking of drugs, they will still murder each other over drugs and money in general.

9/21/2013 9:05:49 PM

Quote :

"Yes, you can. By getting one from a private buyer. And that's a huge problem."

Yes, just like being able to post on the internet without gov't permission is a huge problem, or praying without gov't consent is a huge problem. You didn't address the point of my statement, though, which is that if you pass through the gov't hoop, it's an infringement, no matter how you label it.

Quote :

"Registering certain types of items are not an infringement of those rights."

Yes, the key word being "certain types of items". "Guns" does not fall into one of those "certain types". Car registration? You don't have to register a car, unless you want to drive it on publicly funded roads. Seems reasonable to me.

Quote :

"Those rights are not unlimited or universal, have certain restrictions for the benefit of society."

You just failed the Constitution. Please go pick up a copy, study it, and come back for more discussion. "Shall not be infringed" doesn't mean "common sense infringement."

Quote :

"Should felons and mentally ill people be able to possess guns legally because 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about them?"

What part of "if you are too crazy to own a gun, you are too crazy to roam the streets" did you not understand from where I stated it before? Having said that, I apply the same logic to felons: if you're too dangerous to be trusted with a gun, then you shouldn't be released from prison. Then again, I think you get a felony for looking at a cop the wrong way while being black, so...

Quote :

"Just like freedom of speech does not protect hate speech"

Actually, it does. Jesus, dude, do you speak English? Have you ever actually READ the Constitution?

Quote :

"Why don't you propose some specific, effective solutions that will curb gun violence and reduce the number of guns in hands of criminals, instead of making broad and vague statements like that?"

It's funny that you ask me to propose effective solutions when the anti-gun crowd has never done so. But, I've already proposed the biggest one: end the war on drugs. A huge amount of crime is driven by the drug trade, and simply making drugs legal will remove the access to funds that criminal enterprises use to purchase guns. You tell me: if you can go to the sketchy guy down the street or to a legal drug shop, which are you going to do? Oh, did I mention that the guy down the street has a lot of overhead due to paying "enforcers" and drug runners, thus making his shit way more expensive, while the legal drug shop does not?

9/21/2013 9:20:38 PM

Quote :

"Yes, just like being able to post on the internet without gov't permission is a huge problem, or praying without gov't consent is a huge problem. You didn't address the point of my statement, though, which is that if you pass through the gov't hoop, it's an infringement, no matter how you label it."

The point is, you are NOT required to pass through the government loop at this point. Government specifically allows private-party sales without any government intervention.

Quote :

"Yes, the key word being "certain types of items". "Guns" does not fall into one of those "certain types". Car registration? You don't have to register a car, unless you want to drive it on publicly funded roads. Seems reasonable to me. "

Quote :

"You just failed the Constitution. Please go pick up a copy, study it, and come back for more discussion. "Shall not be infringed" doesn't mean "common sense infringement.""

Why do we have ANY gun laws then? Why laws prohibiting private ownership of full-auto weapons or explosive have not been found unconstitutional yet? YOU just failed at Government 101 by failing to understand how our law system works. Constitution is supreme law, which Congress interpretes to issue a large body of Constitutional law, which you have to follow, unless certain parts of it are found unconstitutional by the Supreme court.

Quote :

"What part of "if you are too crazy to own a gun, you are too crazy to roam the streets" did you not understand from where I stated it before? Having said that, I apply the same logic to felons: if you're too dangerous to be trusted with a gun, then you shouldn't be released from prison. Then again, I think you get a felony for looking at a cop the wrong way while being black, so... "

Stealing a bicycle or evading taxes can be a felony. While I am not defending thieves or crooks, are you seriously suggesting that they should be kept in jail for life? Because right now they can still buy a gun when they finish their sentence.

Quote :

"Actually, it does. Jesus, dude, do you speak English? Have you ever actually READ the Constitution?"

No, I use Google translate to read this message board. And don't call me Jesus.
I've read the Constitutioin and it actually doesnt specify hate speech, but I do stand corrected that certain types of hate speech ARE protected by constitution. There are still many other types of speech that are not illegal. Slander, libel, hate speech that incites violence, etc

Quote :

"It's funny that you ask me to propose effective solutions when the anti-gun crowd has never done so. But, I've already proposed the biggest one: end the war on drugs"

Fist of all, let's make it clear: I am no anti-gun. I think responsible owners should be able to own any type an quantity of weapons they wish. But I do think thy should be held RESPONSIBLE and ACCOUNTABLE for weapons they own and sell. I support a solution that is specific and will be effective in long-term, and that is a system of background checks IN CONJUNCTION with nationwide gun registry and inventory system.

I also agree that the war on drugs is a waste of money, but criminals use drug trafficking as a source of employment. As soon as those are cheap end easy to obtain, they will find another illegal activity that can become a cash cow, such as human trafficking, and the demand for black market guns will still be there. What do you think they are going to do, get jobs at Walmart? Some of them can be reformed but that's a much broader issue (which does need to be dealt with, in parallel)

9/21/2013 10:47:35 PM

just ignore aaronburro when he responds to individual sentences only in quote bombs, make him respond to your full post

9/21/2013 11:52:23 PM

Wayne LaPierre On Navy Yard Shootings: 'Wasn't Enough Good Guys With Guns'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/22/nra-navy-yard-shootings_n_3972208.html?1379869125


in the same way that liberals need to acknowledge that gun control won't stop a mass shooting event like the Navy Yard, the NRA and the gun nuts who blindly follow it need to acknowledge that neither would more guns in the hands of "good guys"

9/22/2013 4:25:26 PM

How the people are blind to the fact that the NRA is solely basing their "argument" off of an inherent need to sell their product makes no sense to me.

9/23/2013 6:27:30 PM

Two things: gun control absolutely can stop mass shootings, as evidenced in Australia, the UK, and parts of central/South America. Also, while gun violence overall is down, since at least 2006 mass killings (as defined by the FBI) are on the rise and over half of them were committed using weapons that would have been outlawed by the AWB. But hey, keep on believing whatever helps you sleep at night.

9/23/2013 7:08:35 PM

oh holy fuck we're back to the AWB again? really?

9/23/2013 7:12:04 PM

Lol, the knee jerk anger and vitriol by some of you anytime someone mentions the AWB just confirms my suspicions that gun ownership is nothing but a thinly veiled form of small penis overcompensation. No, you dip shit, we're not back on the AWB. I'm just pointing out that the long running narrative by the right that none of the proposed gun legislation can do anything about mass shootings is factually inaccurate.

9/23/2013 7:20:36 PM

The fact that the AWB was pointless and prevented nothing, as spelled out directly by the DOD, apparently means nothing to you....
Lets look at the mall that was just attacked. Guess what, guns aren't allowed there either.

9/23/2013 7:23:35 PM

Shrike fancies himself an academic, so he expresses his small penis syndrome by citing countries that are meaningless in this debate.

To each his own, I suppose.

You would figure that those figures, used so many times by that idiot Piers Morgan (to ill effect), would no longer be used by the left.

Again I want to make a point that this is nothing but "we need to belittle those rednecks and, oh yeah, score one for the blue team!"

You care nothing about the actual number of deaths, so quit white-knighting in here. Your purely political exploitation of the tragedies is far more morally depraved than the rights simple ignoring of the issue.

9/23/2013 7:50:46 PM

Hahahahaha yeah, totally meaningless. Meanwhile, "THE FIRST THING HITLER DID WAS TAKE AWAY GUNS FROM THE JEWS" is totally relevant to the United States in 2013.

9/23/2013 8:10:02 PM

This may belong more to the "gun ownership" thread, but it's worth a mention here. Here is a gun that allows anyone to shoot with the accuracy of a highly-trained sniper, even at night. While the tech is undoubtedly cool, this raises some ethical and legal questions. Are these good or bad for society?Should these be regulated? Does a "right to bear arms" cover weapons guidance systems? How far are we from introducing guns that can be aimed and fired remotely and how are those going to be regulated? Can the systems be hacked and used maliciously?

9/23/2013 8:28:47 PM

9/23/2013 8:43:19 PM

I know you were trying to be sarcastic, but hackers now actually CAN blow up your laptop remotely. Oh, the irony.

The guns in the documentary I posted have an electrical trigger release and Wi-Fi connection. It is not a stretch at all to say that it can be remotely fired against your will by an outside source.

9/23/2013 8:50:20 PM

A person still acquires the target, and pulls the trigger, it just breaks the shot for you.

[Edited on September 23, 2013 at 8:59 PM. Reason : .]

9/23/2013 8:58:27 PM

The way I understood it from the video, the "trigger" pulled by the person is basically a stand-by button. Computer releases the actual firing pin. Even if mechanical pull of the trigger is required for the firing pin to overcome the spring pull, by NOT allowing the pin to release, hacker can still do damage by incapacitating the gun in the battle.

Also, it allows expert-level precision to people with no training.

Thinking into the future, the gun can recognize various types of targets. What if the hacker programs it to not fire at certain types of targets?

It's in many ways similar to a self-driving car. Yes, the person have to get into it and turn it on, but the legal and practical implications of the cars driving and steering themselves cause a lot of debate.

9/23/2013 9:13:31 PM

Jesus tittyfucking Christ. The AWB didn't outlaw anything except for further production, and the whole reason there are fucking millions of ARs nowadays is because of the first AWB.

If it wasn't for the '94 ban, I'll go out on a limb and say that ARs wouldn't be so commonly used in mass shootings, because they'd be a relative rarity , not the most common gun now sold.

9/23/2013 9:16:35 PM