Orlando: Worst Mass Shooting In US History

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by corbes

Out of curiosity, does anyone here believe we should ban Muslim immigrants or immigrants from that part of the world?

It's a starting point. I don't recall us welcoming tons of Japanese and/or German visitors during the early 40s, I still can't fathom why we do so now.
It's asinine, self-destructive behavior.

And if so, what do you make of the fact that this terrorist was born here?

I don't really feel much need to explain that do I? Feels more than a little redundant honestly.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It's a starting point. I don't recall us welcoming tons of Japanese and/or German visitors during the early 40s, I still can't fathom why we do so now.
It's asinine, self-destructive behavior.

Something something "Great Depression." Immigration as a whole tanked after the 20s, and didn't recover until the 50s. Part of that was a change in immigration laws designed to favor immigration from Northern/Western Europe over Southern/Eastern (and to slam the door in the faces of Asians entirely) but some of that is also that the entire world got bit in the ass by the Depression; who had the money to immigrate to the States unless they were independently wealthy? There sure weren't employment opportunities available.

By the time World War II rolled around, immigration quotas had already been set. By 1929, total immigration permitted into the United States was capped at 150,000 persons/year, and the total from any given nation was set at 2% of the immigration total from the 1920 census.

German immigration from 1920-29 numbered over 4 million individuals; from 1930-39, about 670,000. 856,000 or so from 1940-49.

German immigration as a percentage of the immigrant whole, on the other hand, rose from 9% during the 1920-29 period to 17% and 14%, respectively, during the subsequent 20 years.

So, again, immigration as a whole tanked hard after the Great Depression, and for various reasons, but there is precisely ZERO evidence to support the idea that German immigration was restricted because of war.

As for the Japanese, Asians in general got fucked on immigration from the late 19th century clear through to the middle of the 20th. It had nothing to do with being at war with Japan and everything to do with a view of those of Chinese and Japanese ancestry being undesirable and, racially, unable to become "real" Americans. So Asians were largely barred from immigration, and to the extent immigration was allowed, citizenship and property ownership was denied them.

And all of that happened decades before World War II.

You're entitled to your own beliefs, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Are you honestly comparing the situation gays face in the United States from Christians to that they face in the Muslim world?

Our biggest battles are over whether someone should bake a cake or which restroom is used. These are countries where you will be executed.

If some "Christians" have their way, they'd face the same here.

Christian Pastor Celebrates Nightclub Massacre: “There’s 50 Less Pedophiles in This World”

Or this pastor who worked with Uganda's church to have homosexual activity punishable via death.

http://addictinginfo.org/2014/12/08/...inst-humanity/

edit: Before we get the usual "not all Christians", Never said all Christians, but the LGBT view of the church is not a spectacularly good one.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

Are you suggesting this isn't likely to happen in the near future? I'm no expert on guns or 3D printing technologies but I think it's going to be a reality within the next 5-10 years. Aren't they creating printers that can use multiple materials, including things like iron? And in these types of uses, the gun doesn't have to really last very long. Just needs to be the gun equivalent of a Kodak throwaway camera.

I attended a seminar on this topic about a year ago, and honestly? I don't know about near future, but printing iron - or at least printing any material strong enough to replace metals used in something like a firearm - are still a long way away I think, especially if we aren't talking industrial quality "printers". It would be insanely expensive, even if it were technically possible.

Printing 3D molds that could be used as casts for low-heat alloys, well, that's already here, but it will have the same durability problems as regular plastics. Single use designs though are a real possibility now, but I think more as components of explosives than firearms.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

You're entitled to your own beliefs, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

Nor are you.

Presidential Proclamations 2525 (Japan), 2526(Germany), and 2527 (Italy) covered the liability to be "apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies" of any & all "natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward"

Revisions of The Alien Enemies Act -- by Truman, first a month after the end of the war, another nearly a year after the end of it -- allowed for the continued removed of the previously defined Enemy Aliens, going so far as to direct the Attorney General to remove them as needed "to destinations outside the limits of the Western Hemisphere".*

Now, if you want to spin that as being open to free immigration then by all means have at it ... but I don't believe any reasonable person would buy it.


*As a historical footnote, there's a reason for that particular choice of geography. It involves several thousand enemy citizens who were actually brought to U.S. interment camps from a dozen or so South/Central American countries relatively early in the war. Those nations basically didn't seem to want them sent back to their country, so the negotiated agreement led to that phrasing.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Nor are you.

Presidential Proclamations 2525 (Japan), 2526(Germany), and 2527 (Italy) covered the liability to be "apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies" of any & all "natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward"

Revisions of The Alien Enemies Act -- by Truman, first a month after the end of the war, another nearly a year after the end of it -- allowed for the continued removed of the previously defined Enemy Aliens, going so far as to direct the Attorney General to remove them as needed "to destinations outside the limits of the Western Hemisphere".*

Now, if you want to spin that as being open to free immigration then by all means have at it ... but I don't believe any reasonable person would buy it.


*As a historical footnote, there's a reason for that particular choice of geography. It involves several thousand enemy citizens who were actually brought to U.S. interment camps from a dozen or so South/Central American countries relatively early in the war. Those nations basically didn't seem to want them sent back to their country, so the negotiated agreement led to that phrasing.

There were nearly 12 million residents of the United States who were either German nationals (that is, born in Germany) or had at least one German-born parent. About 11,000 of those were interned.

There were close to 700,000 Italian immigrants in the United States at that time, and millions more of Italian descent as a result of the late 19th century immigrant boom. About 1,500 Italians were detained.

Between Hawaii (not yet a state) and the mainland of the US, there were about 275,000 Japanese. Between 110,000 and 120,000 of those were eventually interned; about 1/3 of that 275,000 were natural-born Americans (although their parents were ineligible for citizenship courtesy of the laws I cited earlier).

Now...tell me that looks like a crackdown on enemy combatants as a whole, as opposed to specifically targeted towards Japanese or Japanese-Americans.

The reality is, Roosevelt may have issued those proclamations, but enforcement was pointedly targeted towards the "inferior" Japanese who were assumed to be subservient to the will of the Emperor. And, as previously cited, German immigration as a percentage of overall immigration STILL increased during the war years relative to pre-Depression levels.

Italian immigration? We've been over that - immigration laws passed in the early 20th century were specifically designed to exclude Southern European and Eastern European immigrants in favor of the "superior" Western and Northern Europeans. Pick a census when Italians weren't immigrating to set quota numbers and whoops...guess Italians can't really immigrate. Low quotas.

PP2525-27 sound good, in practice, but the facts don't bear you up. The German and Italian populations dwarfed the Japanese population, which means, mathematically, the German and Italian internee populations should have done, as well. 12 million German-born or second-generation immigrants, and 11,000'ish were interned. That's, 0.001%, if you're doing the math. Even one order of magnitude would have put German internment on par with Japanese internment, despite a 24-fold disparity in population numbers. Didn't happen.

Japanese and Italian immigration were already heavily restricted prior to the war; low immigration from those camps during the war years had nothing to do with being at war with either of those nations, and the nationals from only one of those two groups was seriously targeted.

German immigration, per capita, increased during the war years, and the ethnic German population, despite being targeted by rhetoric, didn't actually suffer serious detention levels during the war years. Presidential Proclamation 2526 is basically a piece of paper with which you can wipe your ass.

The law allowed (and still allows) the detention of enemy nationals, but the reality then was that those detained were overwhelmingly from the same group from whom the rights of citizenship were withheld, and the reality today is that applying the same principles to members of a religion, rather than members of a nationality, would be far more problematic (as well as potentially running afoul of the First Amendment, but why worry about that?).

[corbes]

Do you support detaining, as a class, American citizens who are Muslim?

[bob]

Originally Posted by nol

You are actually arguing against the idea that fewer (or at least slightly more difficult to obtain) guns would lead to fewer mass casualties, which is quite the leap of faith considering the evidence that exists from comparing from state to state or among industralized Western nations.

I'm not arguing anything - just stating that it isn't just fantasy that crazy people will use other means to kill people if guns aren't available. Brussels earlier this year is another example - although maybe since 32 < 50, that doesn't count either.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

If some "Christians" have their way, they'd face the same here.

Christian Pastor Celebrates Nightclub Massacre: “There’s 50 Less Pedophiles in This World”

Or this pastor who worked with Uganda's church to have homosexual activity punishable via death.

American Pastor Who Helped Uganda Create ‘Kill The Gays’ Law Will Be Tried For Crimes Against Humanity | Addicting Info | The Knowledge You Crave

edit: Before we get the usual "not all Christians", Never said all Christians, but the LGBT view of the church is not a spectacularly good one.

These are seen as extreme outliers in our society and mocked/condemned as a whole. This is considered the norm in predominately Muslim countries.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by bob

I'm not arguing anything - just stating that it isn't just fantasy that crazy people will use other means to kill people if guns aren't available. Brussels earlier this year is another example - although maybe since 32 < 50, that doesn't count either.

While this is true, you're increasing the level of difficulty. Giving more information for law enforcement or others to spot something. The reason most of these mass murderers have chosen guns as their weapon is because it's extremely easy to acquire them without suspicion.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Just so we are all clear.
An M-4 falls under Title II and is illegal everywhere in the US.

So you are literally campaigning for a change to make something illegal that has never been legal to own for a US civilian.

This is where, for me, much of the gun debate breaks down. I own guns. I like guns. There is rarely a week that goes by that I dont shoot guns at least 1 day and frequently multiple days that week. They also serve a utilitarian purpose in my life.

That said, unlike most I know who are gun "advocates", I can support certain specific measures to restricted ownership. What scares me more than the slippery slope argument is the nomenclature argument. I'd suggest that as a whole the mean intelligence of FOFC as a group is substantially higher than the mean intelligence of either the US HOR or Congress. If amongst this group of highly intelligent people, who feel very passionately and emotionally tied to this debate, we can't get basic nomenclature right I have zero hope that Congress can get it right in a bill of law, And I fear we would end up with unintended consequences of outlawing many weapons that were never intended to be outlawed. Because make no mistake, if and when regulation seems inevitable the gunmakers themselves will turn it into sales game and attempt to influence the law to make the technology of their competitors restricted and their preferred technology legal.

My final point on regulation, I think there is a major slippery slope argument however I dont think its that a ban on assault stylized weapon leads to a ban on bird hunting shotguns. Instead its the logistics argument. Ok tomorrow you wake up and every AR-15 is now illegal. Now what? Voluntary turn ins and buy backs. Ok, now what? Do we ignore the 4th amendment and go door to door with forced searches? Ok, so you ban ammunition. I load my own bullets as most serious target shooters do. Do you know ban the possession of gun powder? Do you ban the ownership of brass? I seriously have no idea how that ban is ever enacted without radical stripping of constitutional rights having nothing to do with A2.

That said what happened Saturday is an untenable situation. Changes HAVE to be made. Where and how is a good starting point. Are guns the right target? Is mental health? is Religious Extremism? Are lax enforcement of laws currently on the books.

I think reform is needed in multiple areas. Gun control may be one. But maybe a soft penal system is a more pressing one. Maybe we need to assess who gets to be a member of our society. Maybe not all people earn the right to ever regain freedom. Or maybe we actually need to rehabilitate and analyze criminals. We can turn this debate 1,000 ways. None of them are easy. Guns are a convenient scapegoat, and one with SOME culpability. But a total gun ban would not have prevented Saturday night. This was a man who plotted, planned, reconned and carried out an intentional strike on a group of people he (allegedly) loathed. How do we fix him and his kind?

I dont have many answers. But I think a whole lot of government reform is in order. This was once the greatest Nation the world has ever known. Her tide it is a waning, and I fear that cant be reversed. I dont think fall is imminent. Not in my lifetime. But I do think history tells us every super power has a finite life cycle.

In the midst of this thread, I personally just wanted to say thanks for the coherent post. Your defense of gun rights in a rational and coherent way now and in the past have actually made me rethink my previous knee jerk "OMG Guns!" reactions to things like this.

Not enough to like, get a gun, or anything. But realizing that some types of guns can actually have a place in a civilized society. And that some people who like guns can actually be for certain types of regulation if done properly.

I agree with you further that this debate is one that I barely trust the government to engage in without a terrible knee-jerk solution (ban all Muslims from the country! ban all guns!). But I do feel like this constant talk without action gets very frustrating. Even though I do barely trust them, I do think we are at a point where we should try something instead of just pointing the fingers and blaming every time this comes up... and then going back to doing nothing until the next incident. Restricting the rights of certain groups of people to obtain guns? Restricting types of guns? Restricting ammo? I don't know.

And finally your last point is something I have been thinking a lot about. "Every superpower has a finite life cycle". I feel like when we get to the point where we overstep some boundary as the "world's policeman", that the American civilization as we know it will get curtailed in a severe way. I know this will get me mocked or you or both of us. But there is some step that we won't even realize in the future that is going to, maybe not put an end to us as a culture, but it will definitely turn the world against us and our world influence will come to an end either through shunning or force or both.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

Do you think we should legalize Heroine? I'm fine with pot being legal (much like handguns and shotguns). But, I'm not a big fan of Heroine or Meth being legal. Just like with an AR-15 or M-4, there are very few ways to responsibly use those drugs.

No, I'm just saying that getting rid of guns isn't all that easy. Just as getting rid of drugs has proven to be impossible.

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Aren't drugs consumable while guns are not? While one can having a buying of guns addiction, the amount of people needing an endless supply of weapons is more limited than that of gun buyers. It's like a more dangerous version of buying exotic animals, no? There will be a demand from a segment of the population but probably not that significant. I can't see that many gun buyers risking health and career on buying the next big gun

The country sells close to 20 million legal guns a year. That's a huge demand. With how vital they are to the drug and gang world, I just don't see the demand dropping to nothing. Someone will pick up the slack. My guess is the same people who are sending up the drugs. It's easier to smuggle in guns than it is drugs.

And that doesn't even touch on the fact we have hundreds of millions of guns already in the country. The cat is out of the bag. Not sure how you can put it back.

[RainMaker]

I'd add that I still think the best solution is to really get serious about punishment for those who possess or sell guns illegally. If that means building more jails so be it. But getting felons who continuously possess firearms is the biggest issue we have when it comes to violence today. They are the ones who do the majority of the killings.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'd add that I still think the best solution is to really get serious about punishment for those who possess or sell guns illegally. If that means building more jails so be it. But getting felons who continuously possess firearms is the biggest issue we have when it comes to violence today. They are the ones who do the majority of the killings.

And to me -- that solution is simple. Every gun sale must be registered and transferred just like selling a car. If a gun is used by someone you sold it to and you are found to have not followed procedures then you get the same punishment as the criminal. If you followed procedures, then no punishment.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by rowech

Every gun sale must be registered and transferred just like selling a car.

Horrible, horrible example that unintentionally illustrates the point.
Every car sold doesnt have to be registered. Only those that are tagged. I restore old cars and trucks. I am working on a particular rare bird right now. In the last month I have brought 3 cars to take parts off of for this one. None have titles and all sales were completed legally. (just like the "antique firearm exemption) furthermore I recently bought an entire wrecked 2006 Tahoe from a yard that I am re-purposing the drivetrain for this project. No paperwork required as it will never be on the road. (Sounds an awful lot like the gunshow exemption)

[CU Tiger]

Dola - and yes this is entirely true not just a colorful example.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'd add that I still think the best solution is to really get serious about punishment for those who possess or sell guns illegally. If that means building more jails so be it. But getting felons who continuously possess firearms is the biggest issue we have when it comes to violence today. They are the ones who do the majority of the killings.

I think this absolutely has to happen to start to make a dent in gun violence. Of course it would not have mattered in this case unfortunately, but this guy should never have been able to legally buy guns.

I know it has been discussed and is a slippery slope, but the no gun list should encompass the same parameters as the no fly list. May not have stopped this horror, but again, at least he wouldn't have been able to buy the guns legally.

Finally, just mandate all gun sales must include background checks and be registered, including gun shows. I jut don't get the opposition to this if you are an accountable, responsible gun owner.

The sad truth as CU_Tiger pointed out though is our government, which can't/won't come together to solve problems not nearly close to this complex will likely never come to a rational solution on gun control that makes both sides happy and actually has an impact on gun violence.

[bronconick]

Considering it's illegal for the CDC to even study gun violence, the government isn't ever going to do shit.

[nol]

Originally Posted by bob

Brussels earlier this year is another example - although maybe since 32 < 50, that doesn't count either.

You're really not getting this. A coordinated bombing attack carried out by 5 attackers and God knows how many other people involved in the logistics (an actual terror cell) killed fewer people than did one psycho who decided to shoot up a club.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Just so we are all clear.
An M-4 falls under Title II and is illegal everywhere in the US.

So you are literally campaigning for a change to make something illegal that has never been legal to own for a US civilian.

This is where, for me, much of the gun debate breaks down. I own guns. I like guns. There is rarely a week that goes by that I dont shoot guns at least 1 day and frequently multiple days that week. They also serve a utilitarian purpose in my life.

That said, unlike most I know who are gun "advocates", I can support certain specific measures to restricted ownership. What scares me more than the slippery slope argument is the nomenclature argument. I'd suggest that as a whole the mean intelligence of FOFC as a group is substantially higher than the mean intelligence of either the US HOR or Congress. If amongst this group of highly intelligent people, who feel very passionately and emotionally tied to this debate, we can't get basic nomenclature right I have zero hope that Congress can get it right in a bill of law, And I fear we would end up with unintended consequences of outlawing many weapons that were never intended to be outlawed. Because make no mistake, if and when regulation seems inevitable the gunmakers themselves will turn it into sales game and attempt to influence the law to make the technology of their competitors restricted and their preferred technology legal.

My final point on regulation, I think there is a major slippery slope argument however I dont think its that a ban on assault stylized weapon leads to a ban on bird hunting shotguns. Instead its the logistics argument. Ok tomorrow you wake up and every AR-15 is now illegal. Now what? Voluntary turn ins and buy backs. Ok, now what? Do we ignore the 4th amendment and go door to door with forced searches? Ok, so you ban ammunition. I load my own bullets as most serious target shooters do. Do you know ban the possession of gun powder? Do you ban the ownership of brass? I seriously have no idea how that ban is ever enacted without radical stripping of constitutional rights having nothing to do with A2.

That said what happened Saturday is an untenable situation. Changes HAVE to be made. Where and how is a good starting point. Are guns the right target? Is mental health? is Religious Extremism? Are lax enforcement of laws currently on the books.

I think reform is needed in multiple areas. Gun control may be one. But maybe a soft penal system is a more pressing one. Maybe we need to assess who gets to be a member of our society. Maybe not all people earn the right to ever regain freedom. Or maybe we actually need to rehabilitate and analyze criminals. We can turn this debate 1,000 ways. None of them are easy. Guns are a convenient scapegoat, and one with SOME culpability. But a total gun ban would not have prevented Saturday night. This was a man who plotted, planned, reconned and carried out an intentional strike on a group of people he (allegedly) loathed. How do we fix him and his kind?

I dont have many answers. But I think a whole lot of government reform is in order. This was once the greatest Nation the world has ever known. Her tide it is a waning, and I fear that cant be reversed. I dont think fall is imminent. Not in my lifetime. But I do think history tells us every super power has a finite life cycle.

Amen, you put my thoughts in a coherent form. I don't know if I could have said it this way. I typed it up several times yesterday, but it didn't sound like this., so thank you.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by nol

That we in theory live in a democracy so we should try enacting solutions that 80-90 percent of people support.

Yes, this is tangential, but I couldn't help respond: We DON'T in theory live in a democracy. America's Founding Fathers spoke out adamantly against the disastrous results of democracy as a form of government.

We live in a constitutional republic, designed specifically to protect the rights of the 10% from the power of a 90% majority that would use mob rule against them.

If 90% of the public feels that the rights of the 10% need to be restricted, then we have a process for that - constitutional amendment.

[RainMaker]

If this is true, she should be charged as an accomplice.

Omar Mateen's Wife Tried to Talk Him Out of Orlando Attack, Sources Say - NBC News

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'd add that I still think the best solution is to really get serious about punishment for those who possess or sell guns illegally. If that means building more jails so be it. But getting felons who continuously possess firearms is the biggest issue we have when it comes to violence today. They are the ones who do the majority of the killings.

Originally Posted by rowech

And to me -- that solution is simple. Every gun sale must be registered and transferred just like selling a car. If a gun is used by someone you sold it to and you are found to have not followed procedures then you get the same punishment as the criminal. If you followed procedures, then no punishment.

In this case the simply answer to me is why not both? Register all gun sales and include background checks as a part of any gun sale, and have very high penalties for illegal possession or sales of guns.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If this is true, she should be charged as an accomplice.

Omar Mateen's Wife Tried to Talk Him Out of Orlando Attack, Sources Say - NBC News

Yep. And it seems that is what the cops are looking to do if it turns out she did know and didn't tell the police.

[bob]

Originally Posted by nol

You're really not getting this. A coordinated bombing attack carried out by 5 attackers and God knows how many other people involved in the logistics (an actual terror cell) killed fewer people than did one psycho who decided to shoot up a club.

We are just arguing past each other at this point rather than with each other. I've already stated that 1) guns clearly are easier to use for something like this and 2) if I could I'd remove all guns from circulation.

My entire intent was to address your "because the bad guys did it in some movie or video game" comment to show that people have died from non-gun situations.

I'm out of the thread....

[nol]

Originally Posted by bob

My entire intent was to address your "because the bad guys did it in some movie or video game" comment to show that people have died from non-gun situations.

What's there to address? If someone in America's more fearful of losing their life as the result of a terrorist bombing rather than a mass shooting, they're seriously detached from reality and are overly influenced by other forms of media. That fear creates a lazy "well they're gonna find another way to kill people" status quo that considers proposed solutions like universal background checks to be just as extreme as requiring a religious test to enter the country.

[Arles]

As I said in my original post, I'm OK with not banning assault rifles off the bat. Even though I don't really see a need for normal citizens to own an M16, I understand it isn't very practical. But, I still see no reason why getting an AR-15 is the exact same process as getting a handgun. Atleast make it a longer waiting period with a more stringent check. A lot of these shootings appear to be "spur of the moment" or atleast develop over a period of days (not months). If you made a 6 month waiting period for an AR-15, they might choose a different weapon (with less killing speed). I just don't see the downside of this.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

In this case the simply answer to me is why not both? Register all gun sales and include background checks as a part of any gun sale, and have very high penalties for illegal possession or sales of guns.

I think I can cover this one easily enough: because the first part a step toward developing a national gun registry, and that doesn't need to exist. At all.

[Ben E Lou]

Active shooter with hostages in Amarillo WalMart...

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I think I can cover this one easily enough: because the first part a step toward developing a national gun registry, and that doesn't need to exist. At all.

Yes. It does.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Active shooter with hostages in Amarillo WalMart...

Per scanner feed, shooter is down.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yes. It does.

Gosh, an impasse.

On this subject.

Imagine that.

[Logan]

In all seriousness, why is a registry such a terrible idea? I'm guessing it goes beyond "they're gonna know where to go when it's time to get our guns".

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Logan

In all seriousness, why is a registry such a terrible idea? I'm guessing it goes beyond "they're gonna know where to go when it's time to get our guns".

Hmm, perhaps. There's certainly a "none of their damned business" aspect. And a means-to-unwarranted-taxation angle most likely.

But I don't think you should undersell that initial simple aspect either, just tbh.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Logan

In all seriousness, why is a registry such a terrible idea? I'm guessing it goes beyond "they're gonna know where to go when it's time to get our guns".

Because it will make it easier for Obama to take their guns...oh wait...he hasn't and won't. In all seriousness, you nailed it on the head. There's been a boogyman that has been perpetrated by the gun lobby that if there is a registry, then those commie pinko liberals will kick their doors in and take their guns and then the ghost of Charlton Heston will have to rise from the grave to save the day. What these people don't realize is with this all or nothing approach, instead of compromising, is going to eventually end up with no one allowed to have guns.

At the very least, it should be as difficult to get a gun as it is to get a drivers license or a fishing license. You should have to take a test and also a competency test that shows you know how to use it and when not to use it. Once that is done, then you get your license to purchase a gun.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hmm, perhaps. There's certainly a "none of their damned business" aspect. And a means-to-unwarranted-taxation angle most likely.

But I don't think you should undersell that initial simple aspect either, just tbh.

In a hypothetical scenario where "the gun debate" would never, ever come up again, and there would be no additional regulation ever over the types of guns or the types/quantity of ammo you can purchase, or the process to acquire guns never changes, and "unwarranted taxation" (seriously?) never pops up and you would never have to bother fighting to protect these rights again as soon as a national gun registry is established solely for the purpose of being able to determine if initially legal guns are getting in the wrong hands...you wouldn't sign up for that to end the debate?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Logan

In a hypothetical scenario where "the gun debate" would never, ever come up again, and there would be no additional regulation ever over the types of guns or the types/quantity of ammo you can purchase, or the process to acquire guns never changes, and "unwarranted taxation" (seriously?) never pops up and you would never have to bother fighting to protect these rights again as soon as a national gun registry is established solely for the purpose of being able to determine if initially legal guns are getting in the wrong hands...you wouldn't sign up for that to end the debate?

No, can't say that I would.

That's something the government has no business having on file. Period.

Even if you remove all the other hypothetical discussions, that doesn't prevent abuse of the information.

[stevew]

I'd be fine if they just shared enough information among law enforcement services to recognized that a guy who was visited by the FBI a few times and assaulted his wife just bought 2 weapons including an AR-15. Maybe you put a car on him or something? We know they're domestic spying, so how about they do their fucking jobs?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Per scanner feed, shooter is down.

Do not want to mess around with Texas.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

I'd be fine if they just shared enough information among law enforcement services to recognized that a guy who was visited by the FBI a few times and assaulted his wife just bought 2 weapons including an AR-15. Maybe you put a car on him or something? We know they're domestic spying, so how about they do their fucking jobs?

So we can just follow around people without any crime being committed? Or even any indication of intent to commit a crime? And seven years after his domestic incidents? So pretty much indefinitely then? I mean ... since the FBI concluded they had nothing actionable (nor, in one investigation, nothing even warranting action).

Well shit, I could find some uses for this.

[Logan]

Does anyone have handy the number of people who purchase guns legally in the US daily, on average? Not actual number of guns...if Sam Jones is buying 3, we're counting him as one purchase.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hmm, perhaps. There's certainly a "none of their damned business" aspect. And a means-to-unwarranted-taxation angle most likely.

But I don't think you should undersell that initial simple aspect either, just tbh.

I really don't think its the unwarranted taxation angle. I think its "they are going to know where to go" when its time.

I'm personally okay with a registry.

[nol]

Originally Posted by stevew

We know they're domestic spying, so how about they do their fucking jobs?

Basically where I'm at. The horses are so far out of the barn with regard to this that anyone who suddenly becomes the ACLU when it comes to guns after being fine with all other sorts of surveillance is pretty clearly just being a gun fanatic. Before shedding some hypothetical tears over the innocent person wrongly placed on a watchlist not being able to load up on guns, maybe consider that the same person also couldn't take a flight to visit his/her poor, sick mother?

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

So we can just follow around people without any crime being committed? Or even any indication of intent to commit a crime? And seven years after his domestic incidents?

Says the person who is pretty fine with black and brown people being pulled over and searched at disproportionate rates.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

What these people don't realize is with this all or nothing approach, instead of compromising, is going to eventually end up with no one allowed to have guns.

we've seen what the all-or-nothing approach leads to.

It leads to tweeting #PrayForDeadPeople with one hand while you take NRA checks with the other. The left lost that argument a long time ago, and as long as Heller is law, that isn't changing short of a Constitutional amendment. The left isn't going to come CLOSE to a 2/3 majority in both chambers in my lifetime, let alone being able to ratify in 33 (or 34, whichever) state legislatures.

I don't think even a Constitutional convention would result in that outcome. Find me 34 states whose citizens would vote for a total ban on guns even if they currently support, like, expanded background checks.

Find me half that number.

I'll wait.

The reason they persist with the all-or-nothing approach is that it would require carnage on a truly breathtaking scale to create a backlash sufficient to power a total gun ban.

We're talking about a "soft targets" attack. One gay nightclub in Orlando? Try Times Square, the Mall of America, college tailgates, whatever. Coordinated. A mass shooting on THAT level and maybe a total gun ban finds its way onto the table.

Short of that? If the murder of elementary-aged schoolchildren in Newtown didn't put that option on the table, nothing else will. By re-electing the Congresscritters who moaned and wailed and did fuck-all else, we've already, collectively, assented to the sacrifice of innocent blood on the altar of firearms worship; after that, what else short of the aforementioned carnage on a massive scale would shock the national consciousness enough to do more than tweet self-serving hashtags?

I'm not arguing FOR such a ban, mind. I'm just saying that the argument that refusal to compromise is going to lead to a total ban is specious. We've seen the evidence of that for 20 years now.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Logan

if Sam Jones is buying 3, we're counting him as one purchase.

Blister pack!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by nol

Says the person who is pretty fine with black and brown people being pulled over and searched at disproportionate rates.

Doesn't appear disproportionate to the crimes being committed.

(Though the point was, actually, apparently others are now fine with it too. Apparently I was simply ahead of the curve)

[nol]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Doesn't appear disproportionate to the crimes being committed.

(Though the point was, actually, apparently others are now fine with it too. Apparently I was simply ahead of the curve)

It does. That's what you said about Ferguson, and I showed exactly how you were wrong, after which you said nothing. Just bigotry posing as principles.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Logan

In all seriousness, why is a registry such a terrible idea? I'm guessing it goes beyond "they're gonna know where to go when it's time to get our guns".

How does a registry prevent shootings?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

No, can't say that I would.

That's something the government has no business having on file. Period.

Even if you remove all the other hypothetical discussions, that doesn't prevent abuse of the information.

The government has "registration" of your house, your cars, your bank accounts, your retirement accounts, your medical records, etc. I'm sure you're not thrilled about all of those but presumably you've come to accept that. I'm really surprised you (yes, even you ) are so hesitant to agree to a registry in my hypothetical scenario where you'll never have to argue for your own views on guns to keep on winning out, ever again.

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

How does a registry prevent shootings?

Did I say it did? You're doing a real bang-up job in this thread.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Logan

In all seriousness, why is a registry such a terrible idea? I'm guessing it goes beyond "they're gonna know where to go when it's time to get our guns".

I don't know if I'm for or against a registry but Canada's experience building one (and then getting rid of it) probably provides the most relevant "anti-" talking points-

-Hugely expensive to administer and huge cost overruns.
-Crooked politics involved with the administration
-Doesn't do anything to prevent crime
-System didn't really work as intended - one study estimated that only 30% of guns in Canada ever got registered and there was many duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records
-Privacy concerns
-Safety concerns - that criminals would access the registry and use it to decide which houses to break into. (one home invasion home seemed to target a licensed gun collector, others may have targeted homes without guns).

The main thing when you read the articles seems to be the cost. Such a huge expensive disaster that didn't accomplish anything. It ended up costing billions, something like 20X the original projection. And of course the U.S. has many more people and a lot more guns, even per capita.

Edit: Quebec is putting together its own province-based registry. And really, if the goal is to assist law enforcement track weapons, it's probably something that would be more effective at the state level.