Obama politicizes Texas shootings

[iceberg]

biggest issue i have is it will stop any form of dialog between the 2 parties. like i say, tell them that is your goal and the conversations end.

the first step is going to have to be a small one of faith. today we can't even do that. when you consider that again there is a segment, and we just had one of that crowd leave the white house, that will lie to control, why should i trust them to help me resolve a common issue?

I'm just looking at a problem and providing thoughts for solutions that make the most sense to me. I'm not big on politics, the actions of both parties make me sick much of the time. I'm a business and systems guy. Identify a problem and work on direct solutions. From that approach registration makes the most sense, and I'm a gun owner and supporter of the second amendment. The only people who should be against registration are those that know they wouldn't qualify to own a gun because of their history. I think if you are going to make the claim that you only want responsible people to own and/or carry guns then you should think really hard about why you wouldn't support registration.

i provided my long detailed analysis on how i thought a compromise would work and it was torn up. the *fear* (earned by the lies of the left) of asking for 1 change then forcing 10 will keep any positive discussion at bay. you can i can talk and it's great but the odds of it ever seeing the light of day are remote at best. the left will push for stupidity and the right will walk away and say "2nd amendment" and be done.

Its too bad... You had some good ideas, which i'm happy to further discuss, but the thing is I agree with most of them. I brought up registration and it seems that you fell away from talking about the specific issue and are now focused on the Slippery slope or the fact that it is a deal breaker. Well lets talk about why the actual idea of registration is bad! I don't have an ulterior motive to take guns away from law abiding citizens, I just want to make the system better.

You are very pointed at the Left calling them liars with ulterior motives, but think about it from the other side. If you are trying to have a debate and talk about real solutions and the other side keeps avoiding your ideas by using the "Slippery Slope" argument and accusing your solutions as instruments towards a greater goal of disarmament... Then how is anything ever going to get done? You have to be able to see how that tactic is contributing to the ineffective dialogue as well... It is happening right now between you and I!

i point at the left because the conversation you and i are having right now - well they are far and few between, unfortunately. it goes straight to BATTLE TIME instantly usually. do i care if i have to register my guns to the local police? not at all. federal? maybe, but if that's what we as a country decide to do, great.

and when i call *them* liars with ulterior motives, i'm talking specifically about obama, couric and clinton and many others. people mouthing off in here have no more say than you or i in this so they can be ignored. unfortunately they are the mouthpieces for this part of the left.

now, while *i* may not care if we end up having to register guns, i'm rare for a gun owner. at least in the bulk of who i have talked to. they don't want change and are happy with it the way it is. but given more and more violence happening, *something* is going to have to give.

if you want to dive into a debate on registering guns - then i'll ask you - would that stop many of the guns crimes? if yes, how? if not, why bring it up?

the goal to me is to lower gun violence. ending it completely is a fools errand and only an idiot would say that is their goal.

the most recent shooter - what action could have taken place in this to be alerted he had guns. would registering guns have stopped him from doing what he did? i don't think so because he was able to buy guns to begin with. what are you going to do with the registry - that will be a huge key in even bringing it up. he never should have been able to buy the guns but the military left a few things off his record. i smell lawsuit soon.

so
- what would we do with a list of gun owners and the guns they own? who is to control this list? in your car example i don't think the gov has the VIN to my car but the dealership and warranty company do.
- how would having this list have stopped any of the past 5 mass shootings?

we can't create a new system because this one sucks w/o ensuring we identify the goals of the changes and stick to it. if it is to lessen gun crime, how will registering guns accomplish that? it may stop some of the basic family stuff but if someone wants to shoot up a crowd, they will find a gun and breaking any law you put in their way, well that won't stop them.

and i know if you put this on the table the gun crowd will get up and leave. has nothing to do with how *i* feel about it but the reaction you'll get. you instantly turn away the very people needed to facilitate these changes. again, i don't care. register and put it somewhere safe. viola.

but they do and they have far less trust or apathy than i do. talked to too many who flat out say they leave if this is part of any changes at all.

All good questions and valid concerns. I'm glad we are getting past the generalized talking points and digging into details. One thing I respect about having discussions with you.

To me a registration is the easiest way of tracking and enforcing who has which weapons. If I am going to sell a gun to a friend or neighbor then I do a transfer of ownership like I do with a car. I'd love to see a quick and easy system that can be done online or at local gun shops as creating another "DMV" seems too extreme and expensive.

If there is a registry and somebody is involved in domestic violence or assault or any other crime that would disqualify them from owning certain types of weapons then it makes it much easier for law enforcement to confiscate the weapons. If an unregistered gun is found on a person who shouldn't have it then it is taken away, we already have conceal and carry laws and permit laws in many cities based on these ideas.

The goal you ask about, is to make our system more conducive towards responsible people owning guns and taking guns away / or blocking the legal sale of weapons to those who are not responsible (criminals/mentally ill). I'd think this would be a common goal no matter the ideology.

Per your question about whether registration would have prevented the recent church shooting. No, I don't think any law is going to eradicate gun violence or mass shootings. If somebody has a mental breakdown and decides to go kill a bunch of people and they don't have a gun or can't easily go buy one then maybe they use their car/or truck or a knife to try and take people out, either way violence is likely going to happen. All scenarios are tragic and unfortunate but I'd rather try and dodge a truck or a knife than a bullet or a spray of bullets, wouldn't you? I'd rather face a guy with a 6 shooter over a guy with a semi-auto carrying 30 round magazines. wouldn't you?

Now on the flip side I can bring some ideas to further the ones that you brought up. I don't want to put too much in one post so I'll let you respond to these comments and then we can move on to some others if you'd like.

The one thing you said that will end any discussion is "take their gun away" the rest of what you said won't be heard as you are now coming for guns.

I see what you are saying but this is a minefield n you just lost a leg.

This again won't fly. Gun owners don't want to be registered. If our gov comes at us, they know how no to take out first. Google illegal searches for guns for examples you will be hit with on this path.

If a foreign gov takes over, they know who to go after.

We can talk all day long but we have shifted from stopping head killings to "responsible" gun ownership and already drifted from the core problem to try n resolve in these shootings. "Scope creep" dooms this idea

 

[rightwinger]

Obama didn't say anything in particular about gun control here.

"“We grieve with all the families in Sutherland Springs harmed by this act of hatred, and we’ll stand with the survivors as they recover,” Obama wrote on Twitter. “May God also grant all of us the wisdom to ask what concrete steps we can take to reduce the violence and weaponry in our midst.”"

For the record I'm a Trump supporter and believe that more armed citizens would virtually eliminate mass shootings by discouraging them and nipping them in bud (like in Texas) when they actually commence.

The concrete step that I advocate is more guns based on the Texas shooting and Oregon Mall (attempted) mass shooting that were both impeded by private gun owning citizens.

Also, although I do not agree with a national gun registry, as that provides an easy list for future confiscation, I do agree with a national background database that prevent mentally disturbed fucks (like this texas shooter) from gaining access to weapons to begin with. Although such a database can not prevent all these attacks, it too would greatly reduce them, just as more armed citizens would.

Texas is the most armed state in the union

Why do they have so many massacres?

Look at the difference between your post and Slade's, and look at the difference in how I'm going to respond to him. Then try again.

More guns = More slaughter

 

[Slade3200]

Obama didn't say anything in particular about gun control here.

"“We grieve with all the families in Sutherland Springs harmed by this act of hatred, and we’ll stand with the survivors as they recover,” Obama wrote on Twitter. “May God also grant all of us the wisdom to ask what concrete steps we can take to reduce the violence and weaponry in our midst.”"

For the record I'm a Trump supporter and believe that more armed citizens would virtually eliminate mass shootings by discouraging them and nipping them in bud (like in Texas) when they actually commence.

The concrete step that I advocate is more guns based on the Texas shooting and Oregon Mall (attempted) mass shooting that were both impeded by private gun owning citizens.

Also, although I do not agree with a national gun registry, as that provides an easy list for future confiscation, I do agree with a national background database that prevent mentally disturbed fucks (like this texas shooter) from gaining access to weapons to begin with. Although such a database can not prevent all these attacks, it too would greatly reduce them, just as more armed citizens would.

Fair ideas, I would push back a little on the "more armed citizens" argument and say that I would agree if those citizens are good responsible people. I'm all for that. I feel much safer when there is an armed police officer or security guard around. Now, just arming more citizens is a different story. I go out all the time and run into complete dipshits. Go out to restaurants and bars and see guys talking shit and trying to get in fights all the time. I think damn, if these guys were armed what would it take for them to freak out and pull their piece? How many more shots of booze till they wake up tomorrow with no memory of what they did last night? That is a real concern.

As for the mass shootings, I don't think those guys are going to be detoured by other people being armed. Most go into it knowing they are going to die. Most even are the ones that take their own life. The only thing that is going to effect SOME mass shootings is limiting their access to weapons and firepower as much as possible. The ones who are adamant in their planning will likely get whatever weapon they want but those who act on impulse may just go at it with a weaker arsenal and less firepower.

I did push back on a few of your ideas but for the most part I agree with your post and commend you for making it and not just sticking to the party line talking points

The presence of armed law enforcement and security most definitely deters mass shooting. This is why you don't see mass murder in NYC and Boston being committed by gunmen, but by truck drivers and bombers. The ability of law enforcement to rapidly neutralize a gunman in an urban environment and shut them down prevents these shooters from getting their 15 minutes of national infamy, and thus they do not use guns to commit mass murder in urban enivronements.

The same can not be said of rural and suburban communites, where the police are 10-60 minutes away in their ability to respond (to no fault of their own), and thus only an armed citizenry can deter these gunmen. The gunmen rely on not being neutralized by another gunman in order to kill as many as possible to achieve their 15 minutes of media infamy (in most cases 24/7 media infamy if they manage to kill more than 10).

Fair point, I think the most important statement that you made was in law enforcements ability to quickly respond. In rural areas that do not have quick response times from law enforcement we do see different gun laws and many more people who live in those areas carrying guns. I have no issue with that. It would be nice to have more programs with those gun owning citizens through their local police department where they can receive training and education about how to use the guns and how to handle violent situations in a responsible way. We can also look at better ways to provide protection to "soft targets" like schools and churches with armed security. I think all these ideas are worth discussing and pursuing. Bans and restrictions aren't the only ways to address the problem. It would be nice to integrate the ideas that you just brought up with the control measures brought up by the political left. I think there can be a healthy balance of both sides ideas to produce effective solutions.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Obama didn't say anything in particular about gun control here.

"“We grieve with all the families in Sutherland Springs harmed by this act of hatred, and we’ll stand with the survivors as they recover,” Obama wrote on Twitter. “May God also grant all of us the wisdom to ask what concrete steps we can take to reduce the violence and weaponry in our midst.”"

For the record I'm a Trump supporter and believe that more armed citizens would virtually eliminate mass shootings by discouraging them and nipping them in bud (like in Texas) when they actually commence.

The concrete step that I advocate is more guns based on the Texas shooting and Oregon Mall (attempted) mass shooting that were both impeded by private gun owning citizens.

Also, although I do not agree with a national gun registry, as that provides an easy list for future confiscation, I do agree with a national background database that prevent mentally disturbed fucks (like this texas shooter) from gaining access to weapons to begin with. Although such a database can not prevent all these attacks, it too would greatly reduce them, just as more armed citizens would.

Fair ideas, I would push back a little on the "more armed citizens" argument and say that I would agree if those citizens are good responsible people. I'm all for that. I feel much safer when there is an armed police officer or security guard around. Now, just arming more citizens is a different story. I go out all the time and run into complete dipshits. Go out to restaurants and bars and see guys talking shit and trying to get in fights all the time. I think damn, if these guys were armed what would it take for them to freak out and pull their piece? How many more shots of booze till they wake up tomorrow with no memory of what they did last night? That is a real concern.

As for the mass shootings, I don't think those guys are going to be detoured by other people being armed. Most go into it knowing they are going to die. Most even are the ones that take their own life. The only thing that is going to effect SOME mass shootings is limiting their access to weapons and firepower as much as possible. The ones who are adamant in their planning will likely get whatever weapon they want but those who act on impulse may just go at it with a weaker arsenal and less firepower.

I did push back on a few of your ideas but for the most part I agree with your post and commend you for making it and not just sticking to the party line talking points

The presence of armed law enforcement and security most definitely deters mass shooting. This is why you don't see mass murder in NYC and Boston being committed by gunmen, but by truck drivers and bombers. The ability of law enforcement to rapidly neutralize a gunman in an urban environment and shut them down prevents these shooters from getting their 15 minutes of national infamy, and thus they do not use guns to commit mass murder in urban enivronements.

The same can not be said of rural and suburban communites, where the police are 10-60 minutes away in their ability to respond (to no fault of their own), and thus only an armed citizenry can deter these gunmen. The gunmen rely on not being neutralized by another gunman in order to kill as many as possible to achieve their 15 minutes of media infamy (in most cases 24/7 media infamy if they manage to kill more than 10).

Fair point, I think the most important statement that you made was in law enforcements ability to quickly respond. In rural areas that do not have quick response times from law enforcement we do see different gun laws and many more people who live in those areas carrying guns. I have no issue with that. It would be nice to have more programs with those gun owning citizens through their local police department where they can receive training and education about how to use the guns and how to handle violent situations in a responsible way. We can also look at better ways to provide protection to "soft targets" like schools and churches with armed security. I think all these ideas are worth discussing and pursuing. Bans and restrictions aren't the only ways to address the problem. It would be nice to talk integrate the ideas that you just brought up with the control measures brought up by the political left. I think there can be a healthy balance of both sides ideas to produce effective solutions.

This is why I don't complain about firearm restrictions in cities. There's five armed cops on every corner. If you're carrying semi-auto rifle in a city I have to assume it's to kill as many people as possible on the sidewalk. These weapons must be carried in a transparent case with multiple locks on them in a city.

 

[Slade3200]

I'm just looking at a problem and providing thoughts for solutions that make the most sense to me. I'm not big on politics, the actions of both parties make me sick much of the time. I'm a business and systems guy. Identify a problem and work on direct solutions. From that approach registration makes the most sense, and I'm a gun owner and supporter of the second amendment. The only people who should be against registration are those that know they wouldn't qualify to own a gun because of their history. I think if you are going to make the claim that you only want responsible people to own and/or carry guns then you should think really hard about why you wouldn't support registration.

i provided my long detailed analysis on how i thought a compromise would work and it was torn up. the *fear* (earned by the lies of the left) of asking for 1 change then forcing 10 will keep any positive discussion at bay. you can i can talk and it's great but the odds of it ever seeing the light of day are remote at best. the left will push for stupidity and the right will walk away and say "2nd amendment" and be done.

Its too bad... You had some good ideas, which i'm happy to further discuss, but the thing is I agree with most of them. I brought up registration and it seems that you fell away from talking about the specific issue and are now focused on the Slippery slope or the fact that it is a deal breaker. Well lets talk about why the actual idea of registration is bad! I don't have an ulterior motive to take guns away from law abiding citizens, I just want to make the system better.

You are very pointed at the Left calling them liars with ulterior motives, but think about it from the other side. If you are trying to have a debate and talk about real solutions and the other side keeps avoiding your ideas by using the "Slippery Slope" argument and accusing your solutions as instruments towards a greater goal of disarmament... Then how is anything ever going to get done? You have to be able to see how that tactic is contributing to the ineffective dialogue as well... It is happening right now between you and I!

i point at the left because the conversation you and i are having right now - well they are far and few between, unfortunately. it goes straight to BATTLE TIME instantly usually. do i care if i have to register my guns to the local police? not at all. federal? maybe, but if that's what we as a country decide to do, great.

and when i call *them* liars with ulterior motives, i'm talking specifically about obama, couric and clinton and many others. people mouthing off in here have no more say than you or i in this so they can be ignored. unfortunately they are the mouthpieces for this part of the left.

now, while *i* may not care if we end up having to register guns, i'm rare for a gun owner. at least in the bulk of who i have talked to. they don't want change and are happy with it the way it is. but given more and more violence happening, *something* is going to have to give.

if you want to dive into a debate on registering guns - then i'll ask you - would that stop many of the guns crimes? if yes, how? if not, why bring it up?

the goal to me is to lower gun violence. ending it completely is a fools errand and only an idiot would say that is their goal.

the most recent shooter - what action could have taken place in this to be alerted he had guns. would registering guns have stopped him from doing what he did? i don't think so because he was able to buy guns to begin with. what are you going to do with the registry - that will be a huge key in even bringing it up. he never should have been able to buy the guns but the military left a few things off his record. i smell lawsuit soon.

so
- what would we do with a list of gun owners and the guns they own? who is to control this list? in your car example i don't think the gov has the VIN to my car but the dealership and warranty company do.
- how would having this list have stopped any of the past 5 mass shootings?

we can't create a new system because this one sucks w/o ensuring we identify the goals of the changes and stick to it. if it is to lessen gun crime, how will registering guns accomplish that? it may stop some of the basic family stuff but if someone wants to shoot up a crowd, they will find a gun and breaking any law you put in their way, well that won't stop them.

and i know if you put this on the table the gun crowd will get up and leave. has nothing to do with how *i* feel about it but the reaction you'll get. you instantly turn away the very people needed to facilitate these changes. again, i don't care. register and put it somewhere safe. viola.

but they do and they have far less trust or apathy than i do. talked to too many who flat out say they leave if this is part of any changes at all.

All good questions and valid concerns. I'm glad we are getting past the generalized talking points and digging into details. One thing I respect about having discussions with you.

To me a registration is the easiest way of tracking and enforcing who has which weapons. If I am going to sell a gun to a friend or neighbor then I do a transfer of ownership like I do with a car. I'd love to see a quick and easy system that can be done online or at local gun shops as creating another "DMV" seems too extreme and expensive.

If there is a registry and somebody is involved in domestic violence or assault or any other crime that would disqualify them from owning certain types of weapons then it makes it much easier for law enforcement to confiscate the weapons. If an unregistered gun is found on a person who shouldn't have it then it is taken away, we already have conceal and carry laws and permit laws in many cities based on these ideas.

The goal you ask about, is to make our system more conducive towards responsible people owning guns and taking guns away / or blocking the legal sale of weapons to those who are not responsible (criminals/mentally ill). I'd think this would be a common goal no matter the ideology.

Per your question about whether registration would have prevented the recent church shooting. No, I don't think any law is going to eradicate gun violence or mass shootings. If somebody has a mental breakdown and decides to go kill a bunch of people and they don't have a gun or can't easily go buy one then maybe they use their car/or truck or a knife to try and take people out, either way violence is likely going to happen. All scenarios are tragic and unfortunate but I'd rather try and dodge a truck or a knife than a bullet or a spray of bullets, wouldn't you? I'd rather face a guy with a 6 shooter over a guy with a semi-auto carrying 30 round magazines. wouldn't you?

Now on the flip side I can bring some ideas to further the ones that you brought up. I don't want to put too much in one post so I'll let you respond to these comments and then we can move on to some others if you'd like.

The one thing you said that will end any discussion is "take their gun away" the rest of what you said won't be heard as you are now coming for guns.

I see what you are saying but this is a minefield n you just lost a leg.

This again won't fly. Gun owners don't want to be registered. If our gov comes at us, they know how no to take out first. Google illegal searches for guns for examples you will be hit with on this path.

If a foreign gov takes over, they know who to go after.

We can talk all day long but we have shifted from stopping head killings to "responsible" gun ownership and already drifted from the core problem to try n resolve in these shootings. "Scope creep" dooms this idea

You may be right about losing the leg. But I'm tired of walking on thin ice, i'm bringing real ideas to the table and I think if most gun advocates are being honest they would agree that they don't want criminals or mentally ill people owning or carrying guns. So if criminals or mentally ill people own guns then it only make sense to take them away. I don't care if its a buzz phrase, we should all be able to say it. It should not be a conversation ender it should be mutually agreed upon. Don't you think?

 

[Slade3200]

Obama didn't say anything in particular about gun control here.

"“We grieve with all the families in Sutherland Springs harmed by this act of hatred, and we’ll stand with the survivors as they recover,” Obama wrote on Twitter. “May God also grant all of us the wisdom to ask what concrete steps we can take to reduce the violence and weaponry in our midst.”"

For the record I'm a Trump supporter and believe that more armed citizens would virtually eliminate mass shootings by discouraging them and nipping them in bud (like in Texas) when they actually commence.

The concrete step that I advocate is more guns based on the Texas shooting and Oregon Mall (attempted) mass shooting that were both impeded by private gun owning citizens.

Also, although I do not agree with a national gun registry, as that provides an easy list for future confiscation, I do agree with a national background database that prevent mentally disturbed fucks (like this texas shooter) from gaining access to weapons to begin with. Although such a database can not prevent all these attacks, it too would greatly reduce them, just as more armed citizens would.

Fair ideas, I would push back a little on the "more armed citizens" argument and say that I would agree if those citizens are good responsible people. I'm all for that. I feel much safer when there is an armed police officer or security guard around. Now, just arming more citizens is a different story. I go out all the time and run into complete dipshits. Go out to restaurants and bars and see guys talking shit and trying to get in fights all the time. I think damn, if these guys were armed what would it take for them to freak out and pull their piece? How many more shots of booze till they wake up tomorrow with no memory of what they did last night? That is a real concern.

As for the mass shootings, I don't think those guys are going to be detoured by other people being armed. Most go into it knowing they are going to die. Most even are the ones that take their own life. The only thing that is going to effect SOME mass shootings is limiting their access to weapons and firepower as much as possible. The ones who are adamant in their planning will likely get whatever weapon they want but those who act on impulse may just go at it with a weaker arsenal and less firepower.

I did push back on a few of your ideas but for the most part I agree with your post and commend you for making it and not just sticking to the party line talking points

The presence of armed law enforcement and security most definitely deters mass shooting. This is why you don't see mass murder in NYC and Boston being committed by gunmen, but by truck drivers and bombers. The ability of law enforcement to rapidly neutralize a gunman in an urban environment and shut them down prevents these shooters from getting their 15 minutes of national infamy, and thus they do not use guns to commit mass murder in urban enivronements.

The same can not be said of rural and suburban communites, where the police are 10-60 minutes away in their ability to respond (to no fault of their own), and thus only an armed citizenry can deter these gunmen. The gunmen rely on not being neutralized by another gunman in order to kill as many as possible to achieve their 15 minutes of media infamy (in most cases 24/7 media infamy if they manage to kill more than 10).

Fair point, I think the most important statement that you made was in law enforcements ability to quickly respond. In rural areas that do not have quick response times from law enforcement we do see different gun laws and many more people who live in those areas carrying guns. I have no issue with that. It would be nice to have more programs with those gun owning citizens through their local police department where they can receive training and education about how to use the guns and how to handle violent situations in a responsible way. We can also look at better ways to provide protection to "soft targets" like schools and churches with armed security. I think all these ideas are worth discussing and pursuing. Bans and restrictions aren't the only ways to address the problem. It would be nice to talk integrate the ideas that you just brought up with the control measures brought up by the political left. I think there can be a healthy balance of both sides ideas to produce effective solutions.

This is why I don't complain about firearm restrictions in cities. There's five armed cops on every corner. If you're carrying semi-auto rifle in a city I have to assume it's to kill as many people as possible on the sidewalk. These weapons must be carried in a transparent case with multiple locks on them in a city.

Agreed, its also restricted by many private venues that have events, including the RNC and Trump rallies, that do not allow the crowd to carry... common sense

 

[Brain357]

I'm just looking at a problem and providing thoughts for solutions that make the most sense to me. I'm not big on politics, the actions of both parties make me sick much of the time. I'm a business and systems guy. Identify a problem and work on direct solutions. From that approach registration makes the most sense, and I'm a gun owner and supporter of the second amendment. The only people who should be against registration are those that know they wouldn't qualify to own a gun because of their history. I think if you are going to make the claim that you only want responsible people to own and/or carry guns then you should think really hard about why you wouldn't support registration.

i provided my long detailed analysis on how i thought a compromise would work and it was torn up. the *fear* (earned by the lies of the left) of asking for 1 change then forcing 10 will keep any positive discussion at bay. you can i can talk and it's great but the odds of it ever seeing the light of day are remote at best. the left will push for stupidity and the right will walk away and say "2nd amendment" and be done.

Its too bad... You had some good ideas, which i'm happy to further discuss, but the thing is I agree with most of them. I brought up registration and it seems that you fell away from talking about the specific issue and are now focused on the Slippery slope or the fact that it is a deal breaker. Well lets talk about why the actual idea of registration is bad! I don't have an ulterior motive to take guns away from law abiding citizens, I just want to make the system better.

You are very pointed at the Left calling them liars with ulterior motives, but think about it from the other side. If you are trying to have a debate and talk about real solutions and the other side keeps avoiding your ideas by using the "Slippery Slope" argument and accusing your solutions as instruments towards a greater goal of disarmament... Then how is anything ever going to get done? You have to be able to see how that tactic is contributing to the ineffective dialogue as well... It is happening right now between you and I!

i point at the left because the conversation you and i are having right now - well they are far and few between, unfortunately. it goes straight to BATTLE TIME instantly usually. do i care if i have to register my guns to the local police? not at all. federal? maybe, but if that's what we as a country decide to do, great.

and when i call *them* liars with ulterior motives, i'm talking specifically about obama, couric and clinton and many others. people mouthing off in here have no more say than you or i in this so they can be ignored. unfortunately they are the mouthpieces for this part of the left.

now, while *i* may not care if we end up having to register guns, i'm rare for a gun owner. at least in the bulk of who i have talked to. they don't want change and are happy with it the way it is. but given more and more violence happening, *something* is going to have to give.

if you want to dive into a debate on registering guns - then i'll ask you - would that stop many of the guns crimes? if yes, how? if not, why bring it up?

the goal to me is to lower gun violence. ending it completely is a fools errand and only an idiot would say that is their goal.

the most recent shooter - what action could have taken place in this to be alerted he had guns. would registering guns have stopped him from doing what he did? i don't think so because he was able to buy guns to begin with. what are you going to do with the registry - that will be a huge key in even bringing it up. he never should have been able to buy the guns but the military left a few things off his record. i smell lawsuit soon.

so
- what would we do with a list of gun owners and the guns they own? who is to control this list? in your car example i don't think the gov has the VIN to my car but the dealership and warranty company do.
- how would having this list have stopped any of the past 5 mass shootings?

we can't create a new system because this one sucks w/o ensuring we identify the goals of the changes and stick to it. if it is to lessen gun crime, how will registering guns accomplish that? it may stop some of the basic family stuff but if someone wants to shoot up a crowd, they will find a gun and breaking any law you put in their way, well that won't stop them.

and i know if you put this on the table the gun crowd will get up and leave. has nothing to do with how *i* feel about it but the reaction you'll get. you instantly turn away the very people needed to facilitate these changes. again, i don't care. register and put it somewhere safe. viola.

but they do and they have far less trust or apathy than i do. talked to too many who flat out say they leave if this is part of any changes at all.

All good questions and valid concerns. I'm glad we are getting past the generalized talking points and digging into details. One thing I respect about having discussions with you.

To me a registration is the easiest way of tracking and enforcing who has which weapons. If I am going to sell a gun to a friend or neighbor then I do a transfer of ownership like I do with a car. I'd love to see a quick and easy system that can be done online or at local gun shops as creating another "DMV" seems too extreme and expensive.

If there is a registry and somebody is involved in domestic violence or assault or any other crime that would disqualify them from owning certain types of weapons then it makes it much easier for law enforcement to confiscate the weapons. If an unregistered gun is found on a person who shouldn't have it then it is taken away, we already have conceal and carry laws and permit laws in many cities based on these ideas.

The goal you ask about, is to make our system more conducive towards responsible people owning guns and taking guns away / or blocking the legal sale of weapons to those who are not responsible (criminals/mentally ill). I'd think this would be a common goal no matter the ideology.

Per your question about whether registration would have prevented the recent church shooting. No, I don't think any law is going to eradicate gun violence or mass shootings. If somebody has a mental breakdown and decides to go kill a bunch of people and they don't have a gun or can't easily go buy one then maybe they use their car/or truck or a knife to try and take people out, either way violence is likely going to happen. All scenarios are tragic and unfortunate but I'd rather try and dodge a truck or a knife than a bullet or a spray of bullets, wouldn't you? I'd rather face a guy with a 6 shooter over a guy with a semi-auto carrying 30 round magazines. wouldn't you?

Now on the flip side I can bring some ideas to further the ones that you brought up. I don't want to put too much in one post so I'll let you respond to these comments and then we can move on to some others if you'd like.

The one thing you said that will end any discussion is "take their gun away" the rest of what you said won't be heard as you are now coming for guns.

I see what you are saying but this is a minefield n you just lost a leg.

This again won't fly. Gun owners don't want to be registered. If our gov comes at us, they know how no to take out first. Google illegal searches for guns for examples you will be hit with on this path.

If a foreign gov takes over, they know who to go after.

We can talk all day long but we have shifted from stopping head killings to "responsible" gun ownership and already drifted from the core problem to try n resolve in these shootings. "Scope creep" dooms this idea

We are a government of the people, they are not coming after us. We have the strongest military the world has every seen, we won't be taken over by a foreign government.

 

[BluesLegend]

Frivolous gun laws will not save a single person... fact

I don't know why i'm even starting with you but what the hell, i must be bored. Frivolous gun laws wouldn't save a single person you say. So play this out with me.... If the riffle that the church shooter used was restricted and he wasn't able to walk into Academy and purchase it like he did, if he instead had to purchase a weapon with less ammo capacity and less destructive power. Do you still think he would have shot and killed the same amount of people? You honestly don't think that there would have been opportunity for some to run away during a reload, or find a better hiding space, or tackle him, or maybe less shots would have been fired and less people would have died? You really can't admit to that?

Good grief...crazy insane nut jobs are going to obey your gun laws? The next nut job will just use a truck bomb and kill everyone.

This is such a lazy argument, i'm getting tired of hearing it. Yes of course SOME people will go outside the law and still be able to get whatever weapon they want. But there are also people like the Pulse shooter, or the Vegas shooter, or the Church shooter, that walked into a sporting goods store and then walked out with a weapon that ended up being used to kill dozens of people. Had lesser firepower been the only thing available to them then they would likely had had less firepower and that would have created opportunity for less people to die. Get it??

You're getting tired of hearing common sense? Go ahead tell us how you plan to rid the country of 10's of millions of rifles and high capacity mags. Here have an eye roll Not only is your argument stupid, its dishonest.

Its not common sense, it is a diversion and a lazy argument... I don't plan on ridding the country of 10's of millions of guns. I'd hope that we only sell those guns to responsible people and when we catch unlicensed people with those kind of weapons they are taken away and the owners are punished. Pretty simple.

Then your plan is a failure before it gets off the ground, congrats!

 

[Slade3200]

I don't know why i'm even starting with you but what the hell, i must be bored. Frivolous gun laws wouldn't save a single person you say. So play this out with me.... If the riffle that the church shooter used was restricted and he wasn't able to walk into Academy and purchase it like he did, if he instead had to purchase a weapon with less ammo capacity and less destructive power. Do you still think he would have shot and killed the same amount of people? You honestly don't think that there would have been opportunity for some to run away during a reload, or find a better hiding space, or tackle him, or maybe less shots would have been fired and less people would have died? You really can't admit to that?

Good grief...crazy insane nut jobs are going to obey your gun laws? The next nut job will just use a truck bomb and kill everyone.

This is such a lazy argument, i'm getting tired of hearing it. Yes of course SOME people will go outside the law and still be able to get whatever weapon they want. But there are also people like the Pulse shooter, or the Vegas shooter, or the Church shooter, that walked into a sporting goods store and then walked out with a weapon that ended up being used to kill dozens of people. Had lesser firepower been the only thing available to them then they would likely had had less firepower and that would have created opportunity for less people to die. Get it??

You're getting tired of hearing common sense? Go ahead tell us how you plan to rid the country of 10's of millions of rifles and high capacity mags. Here have an eye roll Not only is your argument stupid, its dishonest.

Its not common sense, it is a diversion and a lazy argument... I don't plan on ridding the country of 10's of millions of guns. I'd hope that we only sell those guns to responsible people and when we catch unlicensed people with those kind of weapons they are taken away and the owners are punished. Pretty simple.

Then your plan is a failure before it gets off the ground, congrats!

Why?

 

[Rambunctious]

Obama????? The fast and furious evil mastermind? Politicizes the shooting? Him? the guy that thought if you allow drug selling gang thugs across the border to buy guns here and commit mass murder in Mexico that he could then turn the American people on the 2nd amendment? That fucking dickhead? Him and Holder should be in prison for that little scheme.
Ask yourself one question...Why is our background check system so broken?

 

[Slade3200]

Obama????? The fast and furious evil mastermind? Politicizes the shooting? Him? the guy that thought if you allow drug selling gang thugs across the border to buy guns here and commit mass murder in Mexico that he could then turn the American people on the 2nd amendment? That fucking dickhead? Him and Holder should be in prison for that little scheme.
Ask yourself one question...Why is our background check system so broken?

Why do you think our background check system is broken?

 

[Rambunctious]

Why do you think our background check system is broken?

Because mass shooter after mass shooter passes an FBI back round check when they should not have and buys a gun...any other stupid questions?

 

[Slade3200]

Why do you think our background check system is broken?

Because mass shooter after mass shooter passes an FBI back round check when they should not have and buys a gun...any other stupid questions?

Sorry, I was asking what you think caused our background check system to break. It was in response to your previous statement.

 

[Rambunctious]

Sorry, I was asking what you think caused our background check system to break. It was in response to your previous statement

Obama broke it, Obama and his anti 2nd amendment deep state were the ones that broke it......Fast and furious on American soil...let the guns flow to those that should not have them and sit back and take advantage politically of the predictable carnage...

 

[Slade3200]

Sorry, I was asking what you think caused our background check system to break. It was in response to your previous statement

Obama broke it, Obama and his anti 2nd amendment deep state were the ones that broke it......Fast and furious on American soil...let the guns flow to those that should not have them and sit back and take advantage politically of the predictable carnage...

How exactly did a gun sting operation break the background check system? Connect the dots

 

[Rambunctious]

How exactly did a gun sting operation break the background check system? Connect the dots

A back round check system is only as good as the people running it...it's called look the other way. Lets say you want to increase under age drinking...all you would need to do is pull back on enforcement of sales of alcohol to minors. Make it obvious that stores are not being watched. The rest will take care of it'self....

 

[Slade3200]

How exactly did a gun sting operation break the background check system? Connect the dots

A back round check system is only as good as the people running it...it's called look the other way. Lets say you want to increase under age drinking...all you would need to do is pull back on enforcement of sales of alcohol to minors. Make it obvious that stores are not being watched. The rest will take care of it'self....

Fast and furious was a coordinated sting operation to trace gun runners back to their source supplier. It wasn’t executed very well and many guns were lost track of, but I don’t see what a sting op has anything to do with a background check system. What specifically did FF break and how did it do so?

 

[Rambunctious]

Fast and furious was a coordinated sting operation to trace gun runners back to their source supplier. It wasn’t executed very well and many guns were lost track of, but I don’t see what a sting op has anything to do with a background check system. What specifically did FF break and how did it do so?

That is not believable...the guns were going to Mexico to the drug gangs where they were being used in drug gang wars on the Mexico side of the border.
And it was making big news in the media because of the proximity to the border. The guns were being traced back to gun stores on the American side of the border. The cynic in me believes the Obama administration and the Holder run Justice Dept. Were waiting like vultures to pounce when death and tragedy occurred in Mexico because of our 2nd amendment.
If it was as simple as you suggest and a proper investigation why do Obama and Holder avoid the topic. No answers...even after one of the guns killed a US border agent. The democrats always make an issue so bad that the people will say do something and when the people do the dems get their way.
Health care is a perfect example...the sad part is we have Republicans that admire that tactic and have adopted it for themselves.

 

[Slade3200]

Fast and furious was a coordinated sting operation to trace gun runners back to their source supplier. It wasn’t executed very well and many guns were lost track of, but I don’t see what a sting op has anything to do with a background check system. What specifically did FF break and how did it do so?

That is not believable...the guns were going to Mexico to the drug gangs where they were being used in drug gang wars on the Mexico side of the border.
And it was making big news in the media because of the proximity to the border. The guns were being traced back to gun stores on the American side of the border. The cynic in me believes the Obama administration and the Holder run Justice Dept. Were waiting like vultures to pounce when death and tragedy occurred in Mexico because of our 2nd amendment.
If it was as simple as you suggest and a proper investigation why do Obama and Holder avoid the topic. No answers...even after one of the guns killed a US border agent. The democrats always make an issue so bad that the people will say do something and when the people do the dems get their way.
Health care is a perfect example...the sad part is we have Republicans that admire that tactic and have adopted it for themselves.

I didn't say it was a proper investigation, I actually said that it was executed very poorly and many guns were lost track of and spread on the black market. I asked how the sting op broke the background check system like you claim. I'm not seeing the correlation and you are not doing a very good job explaining it. You just pivoted to attack the dems, point out the border agent, and then you bring up healthcare? How about just stay on topic and explain your statement.