Another mass shooting deserves a better answer.

Discussion in 'United States' started by kungfuliberal, Aug 3, 2019.

  1. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,896
    Likes Received:
    7,528
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem with relying on the united states news media for any information, is finding one that is not selling a biased narrative. Whether it is Fox or CNN, all organizations are guilty, to one extent or another, at pushing a political narrative at the expense of the truth. In the era of fake news, where various organizations have been caught in the act of manufacturing stories of their own that have no bearing on reality, how can one ever know for certain whether or not what they are viewing is the truth?

    There is little actual scrutiny or security when it comes to either voting, or registering to vote.

    https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/voter-fraud-database-tops-1000-proven-cases

    https://publicinterestlegal.org/files/Report_Alien-Invasion-in-Virginia.pdf

    And yet there was no effort at investigation for any of the numerous misdeeds that occurred under the watch of Barack Obama. Such as operation fast and furious which trafficked firearms to the nation of Mexico. It was blamed on low-level ATF agents acting rogue, yet any and all documents relating to the operation were withheld from the public under the claim of executive privilege by Barack Obama. Nor was there any investigation into the targeting and auditing of conservative lobbying groups by the IRS for seeking tax exempt status, which was blamed on Lois Lerner who suffered no legal repercussions for her supposed involvement.

    For better or worse, politicians in the united states are only interested in a system of checks and balances, and accountability, when their party does not hold the majority, and they are powerless to do anything. The moment their party gains the majority, all interest in accountability goes out the window in the interest of pushing political ideology at all costs.

    The simple fact of the matter is that politics in the united states is motivated largely by spite. Simple, uncomplicated spite, designed to inflict as much pain and suffering on the opposition as possible. Such is best seen with politicians who belong to the liberal democrat party, who are promising to pack the united state supreme court when they regain the majority, and have actually gone on record to threaten the united state supreme court with repercussions if they do not vote the correct way on a firearms licensing issue in the city of New York.

    No one ever accused Donald Trump of being perfect for the role of president of the united states. In truth he is not. The public did not vote for him for president of the united states, they merely voted against Hillary Clinton.
     
  2. DixNickson

    DixNickson Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,843
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree, a motor vehicle operated on the highway is a privilege while arms are an enumerated, constitutionally recognized/protected right for the American citizen. A huge and unreconcilable difference, cars and firearms.

    Did you ever think airplanes would be used to murder thousands of people? It is not the instrument/tool/object (anything used to commit a crime can be labeled a criminal tool) but rather the intellect and socio/psychopathic personality within it that has been weaponized against humanity that is the core issue. That is what must be targeted/addressed. Any law/regulation/edict/restriction/confiscation scheme anyone comes up with will not be 100% successful/foolproof. Balance all of that with not violating an individual's rights. Balance that with using the criminal acts of others to diminish the rights of people innocent of that criminal act. It is not the inanimate object but the person who utilizes an amoral instrument/tool/object for good or evil purposes.
     
  3. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    3,203
    Likes Received:
    939
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1. Does Chicago have a license and registration law for gun show and private sales? If not, then the OP is a valid proposal. And guess what? The state already has the right to hold YOU responsible for careless sales of dangerous items...like explosives, corrosive liquids, etc. so
    Unlike a Warner Bros. cartoon, guns don't spring tiny sneakered feet and chase people around shooting at them. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE BY USING GUNS. Now, since unlike cars and planes, guns are specifically designed to kill (or practice more accuracy in killing) it's stands to reason that they should be regulated as much as possible to limit the exploitation of their availability to the general public. This is why since colonial days REGULATION as to who what where and how guns are used in relation to the civilian population. Now, cars are insured, registered and license to prevent/limit theft, damage in accidents, usage in crime. Commercial airlines use (or use to use) air marshals, locked cockpits to prevent theft, background checks on crew, etc. And once again for the cheap seats, my proposal does not violate your right to a gun...you just can't have any gun you want. It's been that way since colonial times.
     
  4. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are there laws requiring background checks for gun sales at gun shows or private sales? Having such laws could be most helpful in keeping those you mention above from getting possession of guns.
     
  5. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1. I agree it's become difficult finding any news media source that focuses on the facts with a neutral perspective anymore. But there's a difference--big difference--between offering a slanted perspective on the actual facts, & simply distorting or ignoring the facts altogether. The first of these is simply an opinion. The latter one is lying. Fox News has been shown by neutral fact watchdogs, as lying on a frequent basis--& twisting the truth or ignoring facts altogether. I have found MSNBC reports the news from a liberal bias interpretation, but seems to stand solidly on the real facts. I can deal with differing opinions better than I can deal with outright lying.
    2. Real, effective voting security would cost many times the funding available now for the effort. We must ask, is the number of illegal votes worth the cost of more effective security? Is the number of illegal votes affecting our election outcomes enough to be of major concern? The first article you cited was by the Heritage Foundation, a well known ultra-conservative organization. I'm OK with their facts here & their bias. But I disagree with their conclusions. They cite over 1,000 new cases of voter fraud NATIONWIDE, with some of the states they mention having only one single individual voting illegally. One thousand illegal votes distributed across 50 states, out of over 100 million cast, simply doesn't deserve the angst being promoted by conservatives or Republicans or Trump himself. If the number were large enough to actually throw an election, in a state or nationally, I'd join in with your concerns. But the only example of voter fraud shown to have actually thrown an election in 2018, was one district in NC, & that was due to illegal actions taken by conservative Republicans.
    3. I'm not familiar with either of the cases you cite.
    4. I think you are right from the conservative perspective, but not from the liberal one. I'm a liberal Democrat, & I feel no desire to react to Trump or his Republican sycophants with or thru spite. I simply want to get America on a more positive, constructive, progressive, humane path. I think the spiteful politics seemed to begin gaining a foothold in America during & after the Tea Party antics of 2010. But it really started in 1994, under the leadership of House Speaker Newt Gingrich. As a Democrat, I've felt Republican hatred & desire for spite growing ever since, but I've never felt any desire to respond in a likewise manner. To do so would change the nature of America as a society in a bleak, dismal, negative & dark way. I don't want to contribute to that, & most of the Democrats I've met don't either. If we look at Trump, we see the perfect example of the type of behaviors you cite in your post. Trump is very spiteful, & makes many of his daily decisions based on precisely that basis. He's made a focused effort to undo anything & everything that Obama accomplished as President, based not on its merit, but simply its association with Obama. Many of Trump's followers think the same way. He & they are our most accurate examples of the current decline by America into the dismal behaviors you cite in your post. Getting rid of Trump in 2020, will do much to alleviate this trend. At least, that's my hope.
    5. I hope those who voted for Trump as an act of spite against Hillary, have learned that their actions have consequences, & that they must be more careful & thoughtful next time. Trump's faults exceed Hillary's by magnitudes, & we are all suffering from that fact now.
     
    kungfuliberal likes this.
  6. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree. But we who support background checks & further regulations on guns, aren't attacking guns or the 2nd Amendment. We're trying to find ways to prevent criminals & those with social or mental problems from gaining possession of them without encroaching on the rights of normal gun owners any more than necessary. But we must have effective compromises between the two sides for that to succeed.
     
  7. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,896
    Likes Received:
    7,528
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In numerous states, however none of the studies conducted to determine the effectiveness of these requirements have found anything in the way of evidence that would suggest they are actually working at preventing the illegal acquisition of firearms by those who should not have access to them.

    The state of California, and more specifically the ATF, have demonstrated that such is simply not the case.

    https://www.atf.gov/file/119241/download

    For the last year the data was available, the ATF was asked by the state of California to trace some thirty nine thousand and thirty four firearms that were found in the possession of those who cannot legally possess them, to try and determine the state of origin from where the firearms were obtained. Of that number, some sixteen thousand eight hundred and seventy six firearms were successfully traced back to having within the state of California in the first place.

    That is ultimately a rate of forty three percent. For every one hundred firearms found in the possession of criminal individuals in the state of California, forty three of them were originally sold in the state of California, rather than being smuggled in from some outside state that does not possess the same firearm-related restrictions.

    The second highest amount of firearms traced to an outside state was one thousand eight hundred and sixty eight, originally sold within the state of Arizona. That is ultimately a rate of just under five percent.

    The conclusion that one must reach upon being confronted with such facts is the firearm-related restrictions of the state of California simply do not work at either keeping the public safe, or preventing the illegal acquisition of firearms by those who should not possess them. Every single firearm is registered to a private owner and subject to licensing requirements. All firearm transactions require a background check and are subject to registration requirements, even when it is between two private individuals. All firearms are required to be locked up and stored in a manner that renders them physically inaccessible to unauthorized access. Any loss of a firearm, be it through theft or simple misplacement, must be reported to law enforcement immediately or the legal owner is regarded as a criminal suspect themselves.

    Yet despite these and many other firearm-related restrictions being not only in place but also enforced, the failure rate for the state of California is nearly fifty percent when it comes to the illegal acquisition of firearms sold within the state of California. Either those who legally acquire firearms see no motivating reason to refrain from knowingly trafficking them to prohibited individuals, or the process for legally acquiring a firearm is not serving as a factor that would deter legal firearm owners from engaging in a criminal action with their firearm.

    Whatever the reason ultimately turns out to be, it is not good, and does nothing but point to a complete and total failure of the firearm-related restrictions having any feature that provides for protecting the public from harm.
     
  8. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Based on your post above, what do you feel would help the situation?
     
  9. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,896
    Likes Received:
    7,528
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Based on all available evidence, culminated from literally decades of studying and researching the matter in search of what would ultimately be a solution, the answer that has ultimately been arrived at, is that there are no solutions. Not simply no easy solutions, but rather no solutions whatsoever.

    Firearm-related restrictions going back over the course of decades have been studied extensively, looking for faults and shortcomings that would explain the countless failures being witnessed today, and the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is the faults and shortcomings were deliberately included in the restrictions so that failure was the only logical outcome, so those failings could be capitalized on and used to justify the push for more firearm-related restrictions to correct the previous failures, while still being drafted in a manner dictated by planned obsolescence so that they too will be failures to be capitalized on later.

    It is known full well that the above statement appears to be one driven by paranoia and distrust of the system that holds society together. But it is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn after having witnessed so many failures that never should have been allowed to occur in the first place, and over such a long stretch of time.

    For better or worse, all efforts at addressing the problem are focused exclusively on the implement, while paying no attention to the perpetrators who are responsible for their own actions. Instead of blaming the mass murderer who killed numerous individuals in the pursuit of fame and recognition, the availability of firearms is blamed as if that availability forced the responsible individual to murder others by giving them no other choice in the matter. This is done for a myriad of reasons, the largest of which is simply that it is more expedient and more cost effective than telling society at large, and the voting public, that it is sick and cannot be helped because it does not truly want to be helped. Such is alienating to the voting constituents and would result in certain career politicians being voted out of office and forced to obtain employment that involved far more than public speaking.

    So long as the problem is scapegoated to inanimate objects, rather than addressing the ills of society itself, nothing will ever change. The individuals who go on to commit mass murder will still remain free in society, and still be ignored by the system that is in place, just as countless mass murderers before them have been ignored even when they displayed clear and present warning signs that they were unwell and dangerous. A lack of available firearms will not deter them from committing mass murder, they will simply come up with different ways of going about killing a large number of individuals in order to gain recognition and infamy.
     
  10. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    3,203
    Likes Received:
    939
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not fully....but not for a lack of trying:

    https://www.thoughtco.com/gun-show-laws-by-state-721345
     
    XploreR likes this.
  11. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    40,252
    Likes Received:
    14,038
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :lol: "Assault" rifles :lol:
    Yes.
    354 people in 25 years, or 0.1000361% of the total number murdered across that same time.
    How does a rational, reasoned person conclude this necessitates a ban on said rifles?
     
  12. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    40,252
    Likes Received:
    14,038
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fallacy: non-sequitur.
     

Share This Page