Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

Racist!


ETA: Remember when Page Get was a thing? Also, My hovercraft is full of eels

Edited, Jun 14th 2016 1:14am by stupidmonkey

Any day now.

Too many celibates and old people in here. Not enough adorable baby pictures. You people need help.

Here, Fixed!

Don't say I never did anything for these forums.

SpoilerYes we're aware of the cleft thing.

SpoilerYes that's also where I've been the last two weeks (not that I didn't leave for months at a time before or anything...). I'd ask to get brought back up to speed on the various happenings around here, but dead forum is dead, so it shouldn't be a problem to get caught up before anyone else shows up for work.

Don't worry he'll have a job farming gold in whatever MMO I'm playing once he's old enough to grasp a mouse.

The bigger issue in both cases is that you can't deny someone a constitutional right merely because they are on a watch list, or under investigation, etc. Funny thing that we actually have a legal system that requires someone to commit a crime before we punish them. Up until then, they have the same rights as we all do. Taking those rights away for mere suspicion means we similarly don't actually have the right either. Cause that's how legal systems work.

This, btw, is the reason why it's absurd to think that the best way to protect people from firearms is firearms regulations. It does not work, simply because the guy planning on killing a bunch of people is not going to bother to obey the regulations. I'll point out (cause I guess it's just that time again) that had a single other person in that club been armed with a firearm, there would have been, at the very least, far far fewer fatalities. Of course, the flip side of that coin is that allowing people to be armed while consuming alcohol in a club will certainly increase the number of "normal" shootings (ie: related to arguments and fights and not someone on a mass shooting spree).

So you basically have to pick your poison. And at least in most states, the poison picked has been to restrict firearm carrying in locations where the most people are out of a desire to limit accidental or fight related shootings, while allowing those areas to be soft targets for mass shooters. So, we get more mass shootings. I guess my point here is that the idea that any amount of regulation short of repealing the 2nd amendment could possibly prevent these sorts of shootings is just absurd. It's not going to work, so don't even talk about it.

Edited, Jun 16th 2016 7:10pm by gbaji

Harder to get for everyone then? Or just those planning to commit mass shooting? If the former, then you run into issues with that pesky 2nd amendment. If the latter, then the next question is "How do you determine who's planning on committing a mass shooting"? And remember, you have to do so in a way that complies with our due process rules.



No one at all? So every person who's not planning on committing a crime with their gun should not be allowed to own one and "sit on it"? Um... That's not going to fly as long as the 2nd amendment exists. You get that the 2nd amendment absolutely guarantees every citizen the right to own a firearm just because they feel like it. That's why it's a right. How do you make the distinction that your proposal assumes must exist?



Who is "they" though? How do you create rules that will only apply to the folks planning on committing a crime with their firearm, before they buy the firearm, and without running afoul of the 2nd amendment? I don't think it's possible to do that. I really don't. Not without some amazingly draconian laws in place.



Because that was only half of the point. The other half is that you have to not infringe the already well established 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. So any regulation you attempt to put in place that does not violate the 2nd amendment is not going to prevent someone who wants to commit a mass shooting from doing so.

You are correct that if the person in question has already lost their 2nd amendment rights (is a convicted felon, for example), then he has to go through those other illegal hoops, which makes it more difficult. But maybe you can do some research and tell me exactly how many mass shootings in the US have been committed by someone who had already legally lost their 2nd amendment right? Any? So what you are arguing is meaningless. This guy had exactly as much right to purchase a firearm as you or I do. Trying to make it "harder for them to buy guns" can only work if you make it harder for *everyone* to buy guns. And in this case "harder" would have to be a level of difficulty that is well past that allowed by the 2nd amendment.

You will disenfranchise the 2nd amendment right for many many people long before you put enough hurdles in the way to prevent this. People who are planning these sorts of attacks are not going to be deterred by waiting periods, or cost. They are far far more motivated to obtain a weapon (or many weapons) to commit their crime than Joe random person who maybe would like to own a handgun for home defense on the off chance someone tries to break into his home while he's there. And since the 2nd amendment allows for that latter condition, you're going to have problems making it too difficult for Joe random to do just that. And again, the bad guy is far more motivated.

Things like background checks and waiting periods are great tools to perhaps make it a bit harder for a criminal to get a gun, or someone to buy one on short notice while angry at someone (rage shooting). But people who commit mass shootings rarely fall into those categories (I'm not aware of any who have). They tend to plan their attacks for months before committing them. They're rarely spur of the moment things, and rarely (if ever) committed by career criminal types. So what exact regulations would you propose here?

Posting from phone.

Gbaji,

Are you suggesting that we have to wait for a suspected terrorist to kill everyone before acting? I'm positive that the law doesn't work that way.

One "good guy with a gun" in the club wasn't enough but if we had TWO extra people shooting in a crowded dark club, THAT would have fixed things.

Even better if the second guy isn't fully sure which of the other two shooters is his fellow Good Guy.

Oh, yeah, guns.

I'm all for people owning guns, but it's not an infringement of the 2nd Amendment to make it as hard to get one as, say, get a driver's license.

Name, address, photo and a short test to see if you are competent to use it.

@Gbaji, my regulation would be to flat out ban that type of weapon, sorry I thought that was clear. Banning specific weapons is allowed under the second amendment.

Which ones?

Some elected official called it an AR-47. Lulz were had.