• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Crazy Mall Shooting Outside of Milwaukee

PosterPolitic said:
So where there is smoke there is fire.



Also while gun defenders argue that the population numbers are larger than the numbers killed or committing violence or that gun shootings would be replaced by another weapon they do so disingenuously. They ignore people dying due to lacking regulation they could help create to be less disruptive but effective regulations to prevent exploitation and illegal sales but instead they cry freedom without responsibility because it would make things take longer for them.

It may not stop the killings but it could certainly lower them if you hold gun users responsible for training and opacity so tell me your argument for not trying to save lives that doesn't revolve around I don't want to? If it won't work to refuse getting a drivers license it won't work for using a dangerous piece of equipment in any job either or being a soldier as well. And if you want to join a government regulated militia then join the National Guard as that is what they are supposed to be.

People dying is just part of doing business for the gun lobbies and they fund the right and the NRA to push their agenda and make it seem like any change will harm the gun user or their rights when it is just about ensuring profits and preventing regulations from raising costs or lowering sales.
Click to expand...
Yeah.. but thats not really the argument. The argument by the pro gun people is not simply that "the numbers killed is small". ..

The argument is that the proposals that are supposed to be "effective regulations to prevent illegal sales and exploitation",, will not.. cannot be effective nor efficient because they are not considering the data.
So for example lets take background checks. Anti gun people want background checks and expanded background checks. We already have background checks on every dealer purchase in the US.
As Turtledudes evidence 3/4 of the "gun murders".. are done by felons. These are people that ARE ALREADY prohibited by buying firearms. Yet they are still obtaining the firearms. well that means that background checks aren;t working.. don;t work.
So why are we wasting money on doing background checks that don;t work?
Wait.. you say.. but but but private sales? Well.. you look at the data on how those felons got their guns? Two main ways? They either stole them.. or they get a friend or relative who will pass a background check to buy them.. "strawman purchase".
So.. expanding the background check doesn;t work either.

So we waste billions of dollars on a system of checks.. that don;t make a difference.. and take valuable resources away from things that do work.. like education, like mental health etc.
And even if you want background checks because it would "stop some"... then why not do it efficiently? Why make Turtledude and I do a background check.. and all the people that would pass.. do a background check. Why not simply identify those that are ineligible for firearms? Have an "ineligible for firearms".. on their drivers license or ID.
Done. Any private sale.. anytime I might loan a firearm.. any dealer sale... "let me see your drivers license". "Sorry you can;t buy one."
Done. '
Instead of having to keep a record bank of every single person in the US.. to check against?
 
jaeger19 said:
Yeah.. but thats not really the argument. The argument by the pro gun people is not simply that "the numbers killed is small". ..

The argument is that the proposals that are supposed to be "effective regulations to prevent illegal sales and exploitation",, will not.. cannot be effective nor efficient because they are not considering the data.
So for example lets take background checks. Anti gun people want background checks and expanded background checks. We already have background checks on every dealer purchase in the US.
As Turtledudes evidence 3/4 of the "gun murders".. are done by felons. These are people that ARE ALREADY prohibited by buying firearms. Yet they are still obtaining the firearms. well that means that background checks aren;t working.. don;t work.
So why are we wasting money on doing background checks that don;t work?
Wait.. you say.. but but but private sales? Well.. you look at the data on how those felons got their guns? Two main ways? They either stole them.. or they get a friend or relative who will pass a background check to buy them.. "strawman purchase".
So.. expanding the background check doesn;t work either.
Click to expand...

If you want data...

In the 2010 report "Summary of Select Firearms Violence Prevention Strategies" the DOJ noted that “universal” background checks can’t be effective without a reduction in the illegal sources of guns to criminals and can’t be enforced without comprehensive firearm registration.

In "Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes: Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016", the DOJ reported in Table 5 where criminals get their guns. We see that vast majority of guns in the hands of criminals come from straw purchases, family transfers, theft and the underground market (Illegal sources of firearms that include markets for stolen goods, middlemen for stolen goods, criminals or criminal enterprises, or individuals or groups involved in sales of illegal drug). A total of 1.2% come from gun shows and flea markets. Purchases from "good guys" in private sales don't even show up.


More importantly, rights aren't dependent upon statistics.
 
Rucker61 said:
If you want data...

In the 2010 report "Summary of Select Firearms Violence Prevention Strategies" the DOJ noted that “universal” background checks can’t be effective without a reduction in the illegal sources of guns to criminals and can’t be enforced without comprehensive firearm registration.

In "Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes: Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016", the DOJ reported in Table 5 where criminals get their guns. We see that vast majority of guns in the hands of criminals come from straw purchases, family transfers, theft and the underground market (Illegal sources of firearms that include markets for stolen goods, middlemen for stolen goods, criminals or criminal enterprises, or individuals or groups involved in sales of illegal drug). A total of 1.2% come from gun shows and flea markets. Purchases from "good guys" in private sales don't even show up.


More importantly, rights aren't dependent upon statistics.
Click to expand...
Oh I have the data. Thats why I posted what I did.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yeah.. but thats not really the argument. The argument by the pro gun people is not simply that "the numbers killed is small". ..

The argument is that the proposals that are supposed to be "effective regulations to prevent illegal sales and exploitation",, will not.. cannot be effective nor efficient because they are not considering the data.
So for example lets take background checks. Anti gun people want background checks and expanded background checks. We already have background checks on every dealer purchase in the US.
As Turtledudes evidence 3/4 of the "gun murders".. are done by felons. These are people that ARE ALREADY prohibited by buying firearms. Yet they are still obtaining the firearms. well that means that background checks aren;t working.. don;t work.
So why are we wasting money on doing background checks that don;t work?
Wait.. you say.. but but but private sales? Well.. you look at the data on how those felons got their guns? Two main ways? They either stole them.. or they get a friend or relative who will pass a background check to buy them.. "strawman purchase".
So.. expanding the background check doesn;t work either.

So we waste billions of dollars on a system of checks.. that don;t make a difference.. and take valuable resources away from things that do work.. like education, like mental health etc.
And even if you want background checks because it would "stop some"... then why not do it efficiently? Why make Turtledude and I do a background check.. and all the people that would pass.. do a background check. Why not simply identify those that are ineligible for firearms? Have an "ineligible for firearms".. on their drivers license or ID.
Done. Any private sale.. anytime I might loan a firearm.. any dealer sale... "let me see your drivers license". "Sorry you can;t buy one."
Done. '
Instead of having to keep a record bank of every single person in the US.. to check against?
Click to expand...
I think you know the real answers

The Obama DOJ said private sales background checks are worthless WITHOUT universal registration. UBGCs are a stalking horse to impose universal registration-which is the holy grail of tools that the Gun banning left wants

Two: those who pass such a placebo can claim they DID Something. When Lanza killed all those kids with a gun her murdered his own mother to get, the anti gunners were screaming for Background checks? WHY-so they could claim they did SOMETHING

Finally, its a trap for the lazy or the unwary-it can be used to turn legal gun owners into criminals if they sell a friend a gun-without say driving a half hour to a dealer and paying the dealer 20-50 bucks to do the check. Gun banners want to disqualify as many people as possible from owning guns.
 
Robertinfremont said:
If the gunman is black, he will not have a major problem unless shot by the cops.
Click to expand...
or killed by another black. black criminals are killed at much higher rates than other blacks, than by cops
 
Manc Skipper said:
Or there would have been many more as the circle jerk of shootists mowed down the bystanders.
Click to expand...
Shooters prefer the places where there are no arms at all. Notice how many heavily armed police stations ever get attacked?

Me either.
 
Robertinfremont said:
Shooters prefer the places where there are no arms at all. Notice how many heavily armed police stations ever get attacked?

Me either.
Click to expand...
Not to many robberies at shooting ranges, or gun clubs either
 

The only one I can recall waa Chris Kyle but I don't think it technically is a mass shooting
[/QUOTE]
It was a cowardly assassination and IIRC the place was not well occupied by other shooters-if any at all
 
TurtleDude said:
It was a cowardly assassination and IIRC the place was not well occupied by other shooters-if any at all
Click to expand...
No, it was another case of "good guy" with gun loses his shit and two innocent people die.

Why do you always deny what is really happening in these gun atrocities?
 
calamity said:
No, it was another case of "good guy" with gun loses his shit and two innocent people die.

Why do you always deny what is really happening in these gun atrocities?
Click to expand...
You mean it was about a guy with a mental health problem?
Would a background check have stopped him from killing Chris Kyle?

Why do YOU always deny whats happening in this atrocities?

Tell me... if we were able to ask Chris Kyle. Do you think he would say.. what should be done is ban assault weapons and more background checks.
Or do you think he would say.. we need more mental health services so veterans suffering from PTSD are better off?
 
jaeger19 said:
You mean it was about a guy with a mental health problem?
Would a background check have stopped him from killing Chris Kyle?

Why do YOU always deny whats happening in this atrocities?

Tell me... if we were able to ask Chris Kyle. Do you think he would say.. what should be done is ban assault weapons and more background checks.
Or do you think he would say.. we need more mental health services so veterans suffering from PTSD are better off?
Click to expand...
He was a legal gun owner out with two other responsible gun owners. And, guess what? Shit went wrong; two people are dead. The shooter wasn't some gangbanger. He was a traumatized vet, perhaps due to a head injury of some type. Truly a good guy gone bad.
 
jaeger19 said:
Shortened copy of post quote for character limit.
Click to expand...

Your points and how they relate to the world.
Background checks don't work because:
  • 3/4 murders done by (previous) felons getting illegal guns: So you're saying someone who killed someone with a gun is likely to kill with a gun again and the reason a background check won't work is because they don't buy guns legally. Sounds like it stops them from buying one legally. And not every felon that seeks a gun has these underground contacts to buy one illegally nor do they necessarily want to deal with criminals who sell guns as that is a good way to get shot so a background check may stop impulsive/temperamental but otherwise unmotivated felons from getting a gun for a time.
  • Private sales: Do happen especially among family or friends and the internet allows people to make private sales quite easily and quickly without any background checks. But maybe you could have a title like you do a car with a registration number and also a sellers copy they mail to a registrar with the buyers information. You could also have them send the information into the registrar before the sale is finalized and the buyers identity can be confirmed before the sale.
  • Gun shows: Using the title suggestion above, have a registrar at the show to start the check process and for shipping charges will mail the gun to the buyer upon verification of their ID. The registrar holds onto the gun unlike the seller in a private sale who can hold onto the gun. If the identity check fails both the seller and buyer are contacted to work it out if it might be a paperwork or filing error. If the buyers ID does not hold up the registrar will ship the gun back to the seller. If the event is planned and advertised in advance, buyers may preregister in advance to buy and claim their guns at the show.
  • Auctions: See the suggestions for gun shows above.
  • Strawman Purchases: Background check info should note this person is connected to a felon or ineligible person. It would still be hard to curb since you can't stop an eligible person just because of who they know. My rough idea is increase the penalty drastically. Make buying a gun for a felon or ineligible person is punishable by life in prison with parole. Maybe too harsh and could be work shopped but it's a lot of risk to the strawman to benefit the felon/ineligible person.
  • Stolen Guns: Report stolen guns immediately, no exceptions once you know. Next a responsible owner needs a locked gun cabinet for guns not carried daily. Owners should pick one gun for easy access for defense and or carry purposes and may choose to not store as securely at home. On stealing guns this is a big issue since the owner has to act to prevent this. Maybe keeping excess guns at a high security gun club with a vault or cage with personal lockers and can be part of the clubs services for members.
  • I'm adding Black Market: Short of government and police investigation and crackdowns on criminal smuggling and illegal purchasing fronts hiding under legitimate businesses. To stop this would be to fight organized crime and that would have to be done by regulating businesses selling guns, shipping guns, making guns and developing guns to prevent leaks or illegitimate buyers trying to get a hold of them. Also the military and government sales to other countries and parties need further regulation as well which is the hardest one to regulate.
Your ideas toward a working solution
  • Divert gun control funds to Mental Health/Education: Our current programs toward gun education, regular education and mental health care are all being siphoned at the state level and undercut by right side federal policies as they are social programs coddling the weak in a dog eat dog culture. High stress, high time commitment, low rewards for the working class who end up snapping and shooting each other fighting for scraps left after paying taxes that the rich avoid due to cuts. So it won't work until we stop working people to death for nearly nothing.
  • Ineligible For Sale on License: Main downside is that people lose or have their license stolen all the time. If a stolen or fake license will let a criminal buy guns then identity theft will circumvent the process. Fake id's may become good enough to pass as well which means just buying one. You have to ensure the ID it is associated with can't be used by others or virtually stolen or copied by another person. We are working on that but don't have it yet. Maybe a multiple character (30+ at least) secret encryption code that only the owner of the license knows and the licensing authority has record of which has to be checked each time it is used to buy a gun. Both have to match on confirmation when the ID owner enters the accompanying code that they memorized or recorded separate from their ID.
 
TurtleDude said:
If we actually hammer those who engage in violent crimes, we would cut down on most of the violent crime.
Click to expand...

Looking at punitive approaches stricter sentencing/punishment has not proven to be that much of a deterrent to crime in most studies. More often than not the best deterrent is the chance of being caught for a crime as when you are more likely to be arrested you don't want to take the chance in the first place or talk yourself into it.

Violent crimes also tend to be done in either the heat of the moment or in a very premeditated fashion. Both types are not likely to stop if they reach the belief they need to kill someone.

People who kill in the heat of the moment often claim necessity out of panic, rage, confusion and or intoxication so temporary insanity also can be claimed but at a high burden of proof.

Single murders of premeditation do not care already as the person has to die. Same for contract killings or gang warfare.

Vigilante jerks looking for an excuse may be somewhat stalled but many are looking to kill the bad guys and will use their guns in "self-defense" and make up the reasons later if they even feel threatened.

Criminal murders to cover other crimes or out of necessity while in the moment are already decided before someone pulls a trigger.

Idiots carrying a gun to feel safe and with no real discipline might shoot out of panic as well.

And most spree shooters plan to surrender to deliver a message or to go for suicide by cop so I don't think it will do much.

The only people it might stop are the few who probably would talk themselves out of it anyways or that rare panicked person who fears punishment from authority over the risk to their own life. Or maybe the person defending themselves who doesn't want to kill and isn't sure they won't be charged under some technicality for trying to defend themselves.
 
PosterPolitic said:
Looking at punitive approaches stricter sentencing/punishment has not proven to be that much of a deterrent to crime in most studies. More often than not the best deterrent is the chance of being caught for a crime as when you are more likely to be arrested you don't want to take the chance in the first place or talk yourself into it.

Violent crimes also tend to be done in either the heat of the moment or in a very premeditated fashion. Both types are not likely to stop if they reach the belief they need to kill someone.

People who kill in the heat of the moment often claim necessity out of panic, rage, confusion and or intoxication so temporary insanity also can be claimed but at a high burden of proof.

Single murders of premeditation do not care already as the person has to die. Same for contract killings or gang warfare.

Vigilante jerks looking for an excuse may be somewhat stalled but many are looking to kill the bad guys and will use their guns in "self-defense" and make up the reasons later if they even feel threatened.

Criminal murders to cover other crimes or out of necessity while in the moment are already decided before someone pulls a trigger.

Idiots carrying a gun to feel safe and with no real discipline might shoot out of panic as well.

And most spree shooters plan to surrender to deliver a message or to go for suicide by cop so I don't think it will do much.

The only people it might stop are the few who probably would talk themselves out of it anyways or that rare panicked person who fears punishment from authority over the risk to their own life. Or maybe the person defending themselves who doesn't want to kill and isn't sure they won't be charged under some technicality for trying to defend themselves.
Click to expand...
How do restrictive gun laws impede those who premeditate crimes that will lead to a life sentence or worse, if they are caught?
 
TurtleDude said:
How do restrictive gun laws impede those who premeditate crimes that will lead to a life sentence or worse, if they are caught?
Click to expand...

They work on the principal of the risk of getting caught versus the need of avoiding punishment.

If one is motivated to do something and thinks they are either right to do it or will get away with it despite punishment then increasing that punishment is going to do little to dissuade them. They are not thinking about the risk anymore because by then their plan is set.

But if a person does not think they can get away with it in the planning stages without being caught or stopped before they can do it they will delay, rethink, perhaps talk themselves out of it as they weigh the risks and the obstacles again. They may choose other options true but those come with their own risks and required skills to negate them such as proper knife technique or bomb making skills which many don't have. Using a gun is attractive because the using part is easy and quick. So if that is the issue then make it slower to get and under scrutiny by those that could deny them or even investigate why they are purchasing it.

You make something harder or you make it come with conditions that negate any easy way for someone to abuse it and or delay them to keep them from acting on their feelings or desires long enough to change their mind as to potential risk/reward of the crime. Not all but some who want to kill with a gun and premeditate the crime may change their mind if the time it takes and the inspection they endure to get a gun will delay them or likely put them in jail before they even can do so.

But a full real life sentence can't really be increased any further. Execution can't be doubled short of torture before death and no thank you for either as far as I am concerned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom