As Gun-Grabbers Decline to Criticize Police Response, Texas DPS Says Kids Called 911 Twelve Times, Could Hear "Shots Fired" Over Calls and Cops Inside

[Coyote]

Actually the murder rate is over 45% LOWER today than it was in 1980

Not talking about murder rates.

 

[Coyote]

We have random shootings because we have evil and self centered people. We have evil and self centered people because the greater society created them. More regulation, more social programs, more money, less effort, less responsibility. Be crazy and we will give you more social benefits. More than that, we will pass laws preventing defense and interference in your particular kind of crazy. That will fix it. Coyote, bless your heart, you are a prime example of why the crazy is growing.

How does not having an assault style weapon weapon or a high capacity magazine prevent you from defending your self?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nope.

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

Absolutely not.

You absolutely cannot say that our right to bear arms was "established in 2008." It was reaffirmed in 2008.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So why do we have ANY laws then?

Because it signifies that our useless politicians did something to address an issue they wind up never addressing.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

How does not having an assault style weapon weapon or a high capacity magazine prevent you from defending your self?

Sit down in a quiet place and give serious thought to what you just said. Although, I suppose an axe or machete, messy as they are might present some sort of defense. Not against someone armed though. I assure you, throwing yourself on your knees and begging for your life is never going to work.

Just for curiosity, could you slice an attacker open and empty his intestines on the floor?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Where did you get that idea?


So why do we have ANY laws then?

We have laws ONLY for the law abiding. And, only for the law abiding.

 

[Coyote]

Posted this almost a week ago which gets ignored which is why I don't think leftists wants this problem to get fixed.

It was the State and Federal governments who should have prevented the killer from passing his background check.

Flopping Aces

The signs were there. They’re almost always there. No one was paying attention.​

Posted by DrJohn on 27 May, 2022

Excerpt:

Tucson. Parkland. Buffalo. Uvalde.

Jared Loughner. Nikolas Cruz. Peyton Gendron. Salvador Ramos.

Their stories are all the same.

They committed terrible crimes exacting unimaginable pain and loss. All were preventable had someone taken their job seriously.

Jared Loughner, who shot Gabby Giffords, was well known to Tucson police. He made numerous death threats. The cops were called to his house numerous times. He purchased a Glock after he made several death threats. They let him keep the weapon.

Nikolas Cruz posted “Im going to be a professional school shooter” on YouTube. The FBI was tipped off.

A person close to Cruz warned the FBI last month that he had a “desire to kill people” and could carry out a school shooting, the FBI admitted on Friday. The agency failed to act on the tip.



LINK for the rest

Kinda cheesy article blaming Obama because he passed a law limiting criminal referrals of juveniles which is in itself a entire different problem.

There are several problems with the article. “The signs are almost always there”…true. But in and of itself that isn’t enough to act on under the laws as they currently stand.

Rightists have staunchly opposed red flag laws for example, and gun laws are largely up to the states, not the federal government. Texas, a state now almost synomous with mass shootings still refuses to consider red flag laws.

The article also seems to blame the Feds for not picking up some of these killers in background checks, but what do background checks actually cover?

Firearm background checks: Explained

The checks are designed to stop people who aren't legally allowed to buy a gun, but gaps in the laws remain.

usafacts.org

A prospective buyer fills out ATF Form 4473 and the federally licensed firearms dealers relays this information to the NICS. NICS staff perform a background check to verify the prospective buyer does not have a criminal record and is not otherwise ineligible to purchase a firearm.

The NICS has conducted more than 300 million checks since launching in 1998, leading to over 3 million denials.

The following groups are currently prohibited from owning guns:

• Convicted felons
• People under federal domestic restraining orders
• People convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes against victims they have been married to, lived with, or had a child with
• People committed to a mental-health facility, or a court ruled were mentally unfit
• Fugitives
• People convicted of drug crimes or determined to by a court to be addicted to an illegal controlled substance

Neither the Uvalde shooter nor the Buffalo shooter, just using the two most recent ones, would have been flagged.

Thousands if not millions people might mouth off on social media and say they will do any number of bad things but never do, so how would the FBI determine who to pay attention to, not to mention a background wouldn’t have picked up any of this AND rightists routinely oppose red flag laws.

 

[Coyote]

Sit down in a quiet place and give serious thought to what you just said. Although, I suppose an axe or machete, messy as they are might present some sort of defense. Not against someone armed though. I assure you, throwing yourself on your knees and begging for your life is never going to work.

Just for curiosity, could you slice an attacker open and empty his intestines on the floor?

Just out of curiosity, in your world, are your only choices for self defense a machete or an assault style weapon? Glocks work pretty well ya know….

 

[Coyote]

Got a link for your claims?
You kill children in your abortion factories so dont even try to pretend you care about children.

You kill children after they are born, what’s your point?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Just out of curiosity, in your world, are your only choices for self defense a machete or an assault style weapon? Glocks work pretty well ya know….

A glock is a gun. The standard clip holds 15 rounds. Some clips can hold 33 rounds. These are high capacity clips. Are you happy with high capacity guns?

 

[daveman]

Where did you get that idea?

You don't want all guns banned? Because it sure sounds like you do.

So why do we have ANY laws then?

If laws are sufficient to prevent crime, why do we have crime?

 

[Coyote]

A glock is a gun. The standard clip holds 15 rounds. Some clips can hold 33 rounds. These are high capacity clips. Are you happy with high capacity guns?

Nope. Why do you need them?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Are you happy with high capacity guns?

Nope. Why do you need them?

Because fuck you. That's why.

 

[daveman]

Because fuck you. That's why.

 

[Natural Citizen]

"...to each according to his need."

That's what you're really up against, people.

Ironically, the Marxist quislings never do mention who defines need. Right?

But we all know who....

 

[Natural Citizen]

If there's one thing I can't stand, it's an openly smug, snot nosed Marxist.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Kinda cheesy article blaming Obama because he passed a law limiting criminal referrals of juveniles which is in itself a entire different problem.

There are several problems with the article. “The signs are almost always there”…true. But in and of itself that isn’t enough to act on under the laws as they currently stand.

Rightists have staunchly opposed red flag laws for example, and gun laws are largely up to the states, not the federal government. Texas, a state now almost synomous with mass shootings still refuses to consider red flag laws.

The article also seems to blame the Feds for not picking up some of these killers in background checks, but what do background checks actually cover?

Firearm background checks: Explained

The checks are designed to stop people who aren't legally allowed to buy a gun, but gaps in the laws remain.

usafacts.org

A prospective buyer fills out ATF Form 4473 and the federally licensed firearms dealers relays this information to the NICS. NICS staff perform a background check to verify the prospective buyer does not have a criminal record and is not otherwise ineligible to purchase a firearm.

The NICS has conducted more than 300 million checks since launching in 1998, leading to over 3 million denials.

The following groups are currently prohibited from owning guns:

• Convicted felons
• People under federal domestic restraining orders
• People convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes against victims they have been married to, lived with, or had a child with
• People committed to a mental-health facility, or a court ruled were mentally unfit
• Fugitives
• People convicted of drug crimes or determined to by a court to be addicted to an illegal controlled substance

Neither the Uvalde shooter nor the Buffalo shooter, just using the two most recent ones, would have been flagged.

Thousands if not millions people might mouth off on social media and say they will do any number of bad things but never do, so how would the FBI determine who to pay attention to, not to mention a background wouldn’t have picked up any of this AND rightists routinely oppose red flag laws.

Gee you ignored a lot of information I posted it seems you are trying hard to ignore it even when you posted your own link that supports my contention that the government failed to stop Ramos, from MY link you too quickly dismissed:

"Jared Loughner, who shot Gabby Giffords, was well known to Tucson police. He made numerous death threats. The cops were called to his house numerous times. He purchased a Glock after he made several death threats. They let him keep the weapon.

Nikolas Cruz posted “Im going to be a professional school shooter” on YouTube. The FBI was tipped off.

A person close to Cruz warned the FBI last month that he had a “desire to kill people” and could carry out a school shooting, the FBI admitted on Friday. The agency failed to act on the tip."

from YOUR link:

"People committed to a mental-health facility, or a court ruled were mentally unfit"



They had plenty of time to have Ramos stopped even the local police and FBI knew about him for many months to the year before he was clearly mentally unfit to own a fire arm.

This has been a longstanding failure of the government protecting the people because they continually IGNORE the warning signs over and over, they never seem to learn from the common demographic pattern of the killers who does it and fails to follow through in preventing future possibilities.

Your excuses are getting absurd since it is time to improve the background check which is run by the FEDERAL Government agency,

National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)​

A division of the FBI who were involved with Ramos who waited until he was 18 to carry out his long stated many times repeated intention to shoot up a school something 99% of the people of America would NEVER talks this way.

As for your misleading complaint that the NRA or the GOP opposes "red flag" laws is false what they oppose is speculative judgement on someone who doesn't exhibit imminent threat to the people from the NRA link you never read:

The NRA Opposes Laws to Judicially Nullify Second Amendment Rights​

THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 2022

Excerpt:

As they unfailingly do, gun control proponents are using emotionally-charged moments of national tragedies to try to advance their pre-existing agenda to ban firearm ownership, or some portion of it, in whatever ways they can. Reports indicate that the leading proposals being considered by Congress concern what is commonly called “red flag” or “extreme risk protection order” legislation. The real purpose of these laws, however, is simply to empower judges to nullify Second Amendment rights with the stroke of a pen.

The NRA opposes any such effort.

Judicial nullification – or “red flag” – laws presuppose judges can determine who will act out in dangerous and unlawful ways ahead of time and issues decrees to prevent this from happening.

Both premises are flawed.

Judges – like anyone else – cannot predict the future.

There is simply no accurate, consistent, or scientifically valid way to determine who – among those who have not already behaved violently – will become violent at a future time. The RAND Corporation, in an exhaustive survey of existing gun control research, underscored this point in the context of mass shootings, in particular:

The nature of mass shootings creates serious challenges for developing policies that will effectively prevent their occurrence. For instance, their rarity makes it difficult to extract generalizable information to identify useful predictors of risk. The low base rates of these events also ensure that policies targeting individuals based on risk factors would result in an extremely high rate of false positives; even the best available risk factors can identify only a subpopulation in which the risk of committing a mass shooting is on the order of one in a million.

=====

Leftists just scream take "assault" firearms off the list to buy while commonly ignore the true cause of the problem...... mentally unstable people.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Not talking about murder rates.

That is because it would destroy the leftist talking points about general gun ownership.

 

[flacaltenn]

Different situations. Kids should not have to go to schools worrying about mass shooters and full armed security.

What are you against full armed security? And what does "full armed" mean? Not a toy replica gun or something?

We have armed security in churches now. At sporting events. At black tie Malibu fund raisers. The country is FILLED with hate and crazies made CRAZIER by Covid lock-downs. NOW a failing economy and a MORE polarizing govt.

I am going to simplify my answer because I have to get off line in a bit. Over the past few decades we have seen a loosening of gun regulations and an increase in gun deaths. We have seen every attempt to tighten regulations blocked. Is correlation causation? Depends, it is a complex problem. But throwing more guns into the mix doesn’t seem to have solved anything.

Only MAJOR loosening of gun laws that I know of are the assault weapons ban and the massive ACCEPTANCE of "concealed carry" in DOZENS of states.

Concealed carry loosening has created ALMOST NO ISSUES. Not worth discussing. Not more absolute number of guns, but more places where you can legally protect yourself. Which has also become INCREASINGLY important to people ACROSS the political spectrum since "Defund/Dismantle the police and the police "stand-down" orders during the Covid rioting/burning/looting. NO ONE IS GONNA PROTECT you from MASSIVE civil strife anymore. THOSE ISSUES that the Demos brought out SOLD MILLIONS of guns to new first time users. A LOT of minorities and leftists as well. THERE -- are your "gun inflation" causes. Forget "armed security" this country is charging towards civil chaos with energy issues, inflation, an almost certain recession, and RISING murder/crime stats. People will eventually turn to crime to eat and fuel their cars. BECAUSE all these crises hit the WORKING POOR and INDIGENT more than anyone else.

And the assault weapons ban was foolish. Didn't take a single semi-auto anything off the street unless the STATE mandated turn-ins like Cali. And the compliance or enforcement was nil there. No such thing as an "assault weapon" That definition decribes 90% of rifles and handguns. Leftists just saw the most "intimidating LOOKING" versions as their main target. And the murder rate with them is like 5% of that with handguns. Which are ALSO semi-automatic and can have "large capacity" magazines. ]

Too many fools trying to classifying guns who couldn't identify one or understand their function. What OTHER "gun de-regulation" were you referring to?

I'm all for raising age of purchase of long rifles with mags/clips to 21. What I WANT from the left in RETURN is laws REQUIRING SCHOOLS to record and FORWARD violent disciplinary problems to local/state authorities. ESPECIALLY THREATENING TO SHOOT UP A SCHOOL and NOBODY gets informed right now. That's the case for at least 6 school shooters that I know of. Authorities can ERASE those records at a later date if appealed. If not an outright threat to bomb or shoot up a school, OTHER physical violence should BE REQUIRED to be RECORDED and forwarded.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Nope. Why do you need them?

Because I did not have one when an 18 year old illegal put a gun to my head and stole my car. But I did have one when a friend of his came to my door in the middle of the night.