Commonsense gun laws.

[poundXpound]

Nope. People who are on welfare. People who pay little to no taxes. People who are unemploted. under 21. All legal and allowed to vote yet are targets of the right saying they shouldn't be able to vote.

Sorry, but the only party that tries to suppress voters is the democrats. In Wisconsin a number of years ago the son of Milwaukee congresswoman Gwen Moore was arrested for slashing the tires on a group of buses that the republican party had rented to take voters to the polls. And the democrats had no problem with it as he has since been elected as a Milwaukee alderman.

[Fishman15]

The core issue is that no one follows the laws, it's one of the myriad of reasons we have so many of them in place. Can't drive without a license. Period. OK. Some people still do it, let's add more restrictive language. OK. Some people still do it. Let's add a forfeiture to it. OK. Some people still do it. Travel is a right and no matter how local, state, and federal agencies attempt to validate that right, people keep 'driving' around it. The license system for driving is a complete fraud. Just nit picking there. For guns it's not the issue with the overal majority of legal owners who in some states and cases already go through more than a few hoops and regulations to get the firearm in the first place. If these mass shooters can't get a gun, they'll grab mom's car keys off the hook (or brick a window to get a car) and wait until their classmates are gathered in one spot. Drivers license (gun license) be damned.

Pretty much...we have metro bus stops outside of some of our public schools where kids gather to enter/exit a metro bus dozens at a time. A car driving by could take out every damn one of them by veering off the road no more than 10 to 15 ft. Guns or no guns...security or no security...bad things can be done so easily.

[Brackneyc]

Sorry, but the only party that tries to suppress voters is the democrats. In Wisconsin a number of years ago the son of Milwaukee congresswoman Gwen Moore was arrested for slashing the tires on a group of buses that the republican party had rented to take voters to the polls. And the democrats had no problem with it as he has since been elected as a Milwaukee alderman.

That sounds deplorable.

[Iceman1800]

Sorry, but the only party that tries to suppress voters is the democrats. In Wisconsin a number of years ago the son of Milwaukee congresswoman Gwen Moore was arrested for slashing the tires on a group of buses that the republican party had rented to take voters to the polls. And the democrats had no problem with it as he has since been elected as a Milwaukee alderman.

you win. One example of a hoodlum makes everything the right does non existent I guess

[Brackneyc]

you win. One example of a hoodlum makes everything the right does non existent I guess

I’d say that the bs in the government is a 50/50 proposition. Neither side can claim to be “better” than the other.

None of it is cancelled out. It is all sht, and the voters are to blame. You accept what you allow. Neither side has a leg to stand on.

[DuracellBunny]

Hell yeah we should add a few amendments, and while we are there knock a few of them off. But the overall Constitution needs a strict adherence Throw out the volumes of laws atop new laws atop even more laws and go back to the core system in place rather than each generations take on it. Bet things would sharpen up really quickly.

To do anything of significance re guns, it would require an amendment to the constitution. Anything else is pretty much faffing around, as it will get appealed to SCOTUS and SCOTUS will say "2A" and strike it down. If anybody got a significant enough majority to actually make an amendment to the constitution, they wouldn't be able to just tweak 2A and stop there though, they would start making wholesale changes. Whichever party it was, as it currently stands, once they got past the hurdle of passing an amendment, they would pass lots of them; they just wouldn't be able to stop themselves.

[GuyJin]

Naive--and probably dumb--question, but as I don't live in the US, how easy is it to get an AR-15 or modify it? I'm not against owning guns or using them to hunt (legally). I'm also pro 2nd Amendment, but this was a case of someone who clearly had mental issues. My feeling is that if he hadn't gotten an AR-15, he would have gotten something smaller, like a handgun which isn't as 'mass lethal' but is more easily concealed and can still take out a lot of innocents. I agree with Roy's sentiments in the original post--surprise!--but I'd still like to know how that maggot--the kid, not Roy--got past all the so-called security and background checks.

[BrightonBomber]

Naive--and probably dumb--question, but as I don't live in the US, how easy is it to get an AR-15 or modify it? I'm not against owning guns or using them to hunt (legally). I'm also pro 2nd Amendment, but this was a case of someone who clearly had mental issues. My feeling is that if he hadn't gotten an AR-15, he would have gotten something smaller, like a handgun which isn't as 'mass lethal' but is more easily concealed and can still take out a lot of innocents. I agree with Roy's sentiments in the original post--surprise!--but I'd still like to know how that maggot--the kid, not Roy--got past all the so-called security and background checks.

Agreed he'd have just chosen another weapon, banning one specific type of gun won't make any difference, change needs to be on a much larger scale as peice meal changes will not work and only fuel the false idea that gun control does not work.

As for how he got a gun, he apparently legally purchased it last February having passed all the normal background checks. He's not the first shooter who had clear mental health issues who has passed the insufficient background checks. The Virginia Tech shooter was being treated for mental illness and was deemed a danger to himself and others but even though he had been adjudicated as being mentally defective this was never reported to the proper databases which would of prevented him buyng a gun. Which goes to show how easily a person with clear mental health issues can easily purchase a gun.

There is no legal requirement for mental health boards to report this information to the appropriate databases to prevent these people buying guns and until that changes many mentally ill people will continue being able to buy guns. Apparently only 12 states in the US have ever submitted such reports which of course means that there are 38 states where the mentally ill can purchase weapons legally.

[Mark1T]

The simplest way to prevent some (not all) of the mass shootings is for the authorities to act on their credible leads instead of sitting on their asses.

Go ahead and debate for another 10 years about mental health and politics while more people die, but taking credible threats more seriously will save lives.

[BrightonBomber]

The simplest way to prevent some (not all) of the mass shootings is for the authorities to act on their credible leads instead of sitting on their asses.

Go ahead and debate for another 10 years about mental health and politics while more people die, but taking credible threats more seriously will save lives.

This is true, the FBI were told before hand about Cruz but failed to act. You have to wonder what they were thinking, this guy had so many red flags that it should of never gotten to this tragic event.

[7Seconds]

The simplest way to prevent some (not all) of the mass shootings is for the authorities to act on their credible leads instead of sitting on their asses.

Go ahead and debate for another 10 years about mental health and politics while more people die, but taking credible threats more seriously will save lives.

The question rising from this is: what constitutional rights are you willing to deprive someone of based on the presumption or notion that they are likely to commit a crime. I don't know the answer. It could very well be "none," which means we'd generally have to accept the risk.

[Mumra]

Dont know what laws and procedures are in place, but Ill take a swing at this...

I think your local community could play a roll here, maybe your community should decide whether you can be trusted to own a weapon.

So you want to buy a gun.

You have to be 21.

Most countries when you get a passport, you need references, people who have known you for some period of time. Also you need a community professionals/leaders, usually someone like your GP-Dr. Dentist, Accountant, Notary Public, Lawyer etc, or a clergyman, town council, mayor etc. I think they have to have know you for at least 3-5 years.

You need to go shopping, for whatever you want. You get a quote for the gun, specs, intended use or whatever: collector, hunter-sportsman, self defense etc.

You declare what types of firearms you would like to own, and why. This is a declaration to the community

You need the 3-4 individuals to sign off that they know that you are a person in good standing in that community, your licensed professional vouches for the other others and you. If you are able to pass all tiers and are a responsible person your permissions are all in order you can potentially posses all manner of firearms that are reasonable. For example, you are a cop, an ex serviceman with years of service and honorable discharge, you can own an AR-15 because you are beyond reproach, if you are young, and inexperienced, you permissions are much lower, if any.

You take the requisite safety courses.

There is a waiting period of a couple of weeks

You hand all of your information and paperwork into the local police station. They crosscheck the information takes a few days. You get your gun owners card. You now have the right to purchase firearms within your jurisdiction, YOU ONLY HAVE TO DO THE ABOVE ONCE. If you move to another area in the country you may have to repeat only a couple of the steps.

wait you want someone's neighbors to decide if they should be able to exercise their Right? why not apply that to all Rights? say voting for example. one could argue that voting can be just as if not more dangerous than a weapon could be especially in the long term. We can't have unstable/irresponsible/mentally ill people voting right?

[Mark1T]

The question rising from this is: what constitutional rights are you willing to deprive someone of based on the presumption or notion that they are likely to commit a crime. I don't know the answer. It could very well be "none," which means we'd generally have to accept the risk.

I do not believe any constitutional rights would be infringed upon by merely following the law when there is a terroristic threat.

It is already being done in New York. Making a terroristic threat is a crime, so your scenario is not an accurate scenario based upon this subject matter. It is not free speech to make terroristic threats about shooting up a school and posting those threats on FB. Especially when the person has a history of complaints from local police and also the FBI.

[Brackneyc]

Naive--and probably dumb--question, but as I don't live in the US, how easy is it to get an AR-15 or modify it? I'm not against owning guns or using them to hunt (legally). I'm also pro 2nd Amendment, but this was a case of someone who clearly had mental issues. My feeling is that if he hadn't gotten an AR-15, he would have gotten something smaller, like a handgun which isn't as 'mass lethal' but is more easily concealed and can still take out a lot of innocents. I agree with Roy's sentiments in the original post--surprise!--but I'd still like to know how that maggot--the kid, not Roy--got past all the so-called security and background checks.

Buying is legal, modifying the manner in which it operates in most cases (in assuming you mean making it full auto) is not. It is possible, but not by most folks. At least not done so and keeping the weapon reliable.

That kid could have walked in with a single shot 20g and still had full command of the rooms/hallway he was in.

Surely a full or semi auto can dispense more ammo, but the fish in the barrel have two options, sit, or run.

I work in a school, and I doubt a day goes by when someone comes into the building I don’t recognize. I approach each one with caution. So far, in 14 years I have not had any issues. I get pissed off parents from time to time, but no credible threats of violence. I hope it never happens because no matter how you prepare, you have hundreds of unpredictable variables in the building at any one time.

[7Seconds]

I do not believe any constitutional rights would be infringed upon by merely following the law when there is a terroristic threat.

It is already being done in New York. Making a terroristic threat is a crime, so your scenario is not an accurate scenario based upon this subject matter. It is not free speech to make terroristic threats about shooting up a school and posting those threats on FB. Especially when the person has a history of complaints from local police and also the FBI.

I was speaking in more general terms and not this specific episode, but I know where this eventually leads. Due process is not just a slogan, it is in the constitution. Even when the FBI has a suspect that they absolutely know wants to blow something up, they have to set him up with a fake bomb and watch him actually do the thing that he thinks will detonate it in order to get a conviction. It all depends on what state you’re in, but yes a threat of bodily harm is assault. If a weapon is not involved, then it is a C misdemeanor and it wouldn’t cause an arrest and there would be a fine not jail, also I don’t believe saying “I’m going to become a professional school shooter” in YouTube comments is an assault. It’s also not a “threat” for legal purposes. I don’t think there is a way in this country that someone will have their rights suspended because of a tweet or a YouTube comment.

[Mark1T]

I was speaking in more general terms and not this specific episode, but I know where this eventually leads. Due process is not just a slogan, it is in the constitution. Even when the FBI has a suspect that they absolutely know wants to blow something up, they have to set him up with a fake bomb and watch him actually do the thing that he thinks will detonate it in order to get a conviction. It all depends on what state you’re in, but yes a threat of bodily harm is assault. If a weapon is not involved, then it is a C misdemeanor and it wouldn’t cause an arrest and there would be a fine not jail, also I don’t believe saying “I’m going to become a professional school shooter” in YouTube comments is an assault. It’s also not a “threat” for legal purposes. I don’t think there is a way in this country that someone will have their rights suspended because of a tweet or a YouTube comment.

Well, it is exactly the result of the lax attitude of no action when people die. I am not speaking in general terms.

I am not so sure about your FBI procedures. A guy on Youtube who has a channel, posted a comment that disturbed this shooter. That is when the shooter made a terroristic threat and the owner of that Youtube channel reported it to the FBI. Contrary to your procedures, two FBI field agents interviewed him (Youtube channel owner) the very next morning. But he heard nothing more until the following Wednesday, which was hours after the shooting occurred, that killed 17. The shooter’s Youtube user name, “Nikolas Cruz,” matched that of the suspect.

Quote from FBI Deputy Director Christopher Wray: "“I am committed to getting to the bottom of what happened in this particular mater as well as reviewing our processes for responding to information that we receive from the public,” Wray continued, adding, “It’s up to all Americans to be vigilant, and when members public contact us with concerns we must act properly and quickly.”

“We have spoken with victim sand families, and deeply regret the additional pain this causes,” Wray said.

Source: http://deadline.com/2018/02/florida-...ip-1202292125/

Why would the Deputy Director apologize for dropping the ball, if the FBI according to you, was supposed to stand down and allow it to happen?

**I appreciate the civil discussion.

[7Seconds]

Well, it is exactly the result of the lax attitude of no action when people die. I am not speaking in general terms.

I am not so sure about your FBI procedures. A guy on Youtube who has a channel, posted a comment that disturbed this shooter. That is when the shooter made a terroristic threat and the owner of that Youtube channel reported it to the FBI. Contrary to your procedures, two FBI field agents interviewed him (Youtube channel owner) the very next morning. But he heard nothing more until the following Wednesday, which was hours after the shooting occurred, that killed 17. The shooter’s Youtube user name, “Nikolas Cruz,” matched that of the suspect.

Quote from FBI Deputy Director Christopher Wray: "“I am committed to getting to the bottom of what happened in this particular mater as well as reviewing our processes for responding to information that we receive from the public,” Wray continued, adding, “It’s up to all Americans to be vigilant, and when members public contact us with concerns we must act properly and quickly.”

“We have spoken with victim sand families, and deeply regret the additional pain this causes,” Wray said.

Source: http://deadline.com/2018/02/florida-...ip-1202292125/

Why would the Deputy Director apologize for dropping the ball, if the FBI according to you, was supposed to stand down and allow it to happen?

**I appreciate the civil discussion.

The director said they need to review the process to make sure info from the public is processed in a proper and timely manner; is that saying they could have stopped Cruz with the information they had? I don’t know. I do agree that there were enough pieces of information reported to warrant an interview from the FBI, but none of it is enough to take away any persons rights.


I’m not a constitutional authority or anything, but yes, i think saying “I’m going to be a professional school shooter” is protected speech. It’s not an actionable threat, it’s not a call for violence to be acted in his stead, it’s not inviting a riot or cause a general panic.

It is extremely difficult for the government to limit speech.

[Mark1T]

I’m not a constitutional authority or anything, but yes, i think saying “I’m going to be a professional school shooter” is protected speech. It’s not an actionable threat, it’s not a call for violence to be acted in his stead, it’s not inviting a riot or cause a general panic.

But, if “I’m going to be a professional school shooter” is protected speech (which I do not believe it is), then the FBI would not have sent out two field agents to interview the Youtube guy. And, the Deputy Director of the FBI would not have apologized for not acting.

I also do believe that the FBI is saying that they could have stopped Cruz with the information they had. That is the narrative all over the news. I think this incident is a game-changer.

[Corbi]

AR's are cheap relatively speaking & they are what all the cool kids want because they do look cool. But there are hundreds of other rifles & even handguns that can fire just as many rds as quickly. Hell my crappy SKS is more lethal & with stripper clips I can load 10 reds at a time in a split second.

[Old-Time-Lifter]

AR's are cheap relatively speaking & they are what all the cool kids want because they do look cool. But there are hundreds of other rifles & even handguns that can fire just as many rds as quickly. Hell my crappy SKS is more lethal & with stripper clips I can load 10 reds at a time in a split second.

Honestly, in this situation with the concentration of kids in the hallway, I think he could have caused just as much or more loss of life with any 9mm handgun and a stash of 10 or 15 round magazines. I have not read anywhere the number of rounds he supposedly fired. The media tends to exaggerate things involving guns, to them 3 guns is an arsenal for example.

[grouchyjarhead]

That "law only applies to law abiding citizens" line always baffles me, if that is the case how have other countries like Australia and the UK been able to enforce their gun laws to restrict gun ownership and I'm not even talking about imposing laws half as draconian as in these countries. Are Americans really just a bunch of law less sociopaths as you describe, I don't think so. Americans are in general a pretty law abiding bunch as are most civilised and developed cultures.

Geography. It's a lot easier to prevent things from coming onto an island than one bordering two other countries with border security issues to begin with.

Most US gun laws are adequate already. The main problems with them is lack of enforcement by the federal government, for fear of hurting someone's feelings. Judges give way too lenient sentences to individuals with multiple firearms offenses.

ISIS is actually telling those it is attempting to radicalize NOT to use firearms for attacks in the United States. Why? Too many would-be operatives were stopped before they could commit their acts of terror because they were trying to purchase firearms.

[grouchyjarhead]

Some real facts for our OCONUS friends -

There are on average about 30,000 gun related deaths annually in the US. With a population of close to 325 million, that ends up being 1 out of every 11,000 per year. When you take out suicides (65%), line of duty shootings by law enforcement (15%), or accidental discharges (3%), you're left with 17% of that number, or about 5100 total. Then consider that 24.9% of those are primarily in just FOUR major US cities: Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, and DC. All four have very strict gun laws.

That leaves 3825 for the rest of the US, roughly 78 for each state. If you look at population size, you'll see some have a lot (e.g. California with over 1200) and some have hardly any (Vermont has 2), which also goes with population size. Over half the murders that take place in the US (total murders, not just those committed with a gun) occur in just 2% of the counties we have here. 54% of the counties in the US experienced no murders (again, total murders) at all.

Overall, it's not as widespread as the mainstream media would have you believe.

[bustasinclair]

But, if “I’m going to be a professional school shooter” is protected speech (which I do not believe it is), then the FBI would not have sent out two field agents to interview the Youtube guy. And, the Deputy Director of the FBI would not have apologized for not acting.

I also do believe that the FBI is saying that they could have stopped Cruz with the information they had. That is the narrative all over the news. I think this incident is a game-changer.

I think it falls under the same set of laws whereby you cannot use the word, "bomb" in an airport or airplane. But I might have this wrong.....

[Mark1T]

I think it falls under the same set of laws whereby you cannot use the word, "bomb" in an airport or airplane. But I might have this wrong.....

It sure might and if not, it should.

[7Seconds]

It sure might and if not, it should.

Shouting you have a bomb in an airport seems to be a much more specific and direct threat than a YouTube comment saying you want to be a professional school shooter. Should I be arrested for stating I want to be a professional hitman?

It was a YouTube comment with only a name. No location or time. They would need to either investigate every person who knows any one with the given name (no address included, and you have to keep in mind people swat their "friends" so anyone who knows one of those people is possible), or subpeona YouTube's ISP address records, if they even keep them on all comments. To expect the FBI to subpoena user information from Google (and for Google to passively comply with those requests) for every provocative YouTube comment seems rather absurd.

[Dave76]

Honestly, in this situation with the concentration of kids in the hallway, I think he could have caused just as much or more loss of life with any 9mm handgun and a stash of 10 or 15 round magazines. I have not read anywhere the number of rounds he supposedly fired. The media tends to exaggerate things involving guns, to them 3 guns is an arsenal for example.

I think that any semi auto shotgun with a 5 round capacity and 00 buck could have done as much or more damage. Shooting 9-30 caliber (larger than the 5.56 AR round) lead pellets down a crowded hallway would cause lots of damage. Only five rounds but it doesn't take much time to reach into a coat pocket and reload a few shells after a volley.

[Mark1T]

Shouting you have a bomb in an airport seems to be a much more specific and direct threat than a YouTube comment saying you want to be a professional school shooter. Should I be arrested for stating I want to be a professional hitman?

Not an accurate analogy. Saying you want to be a professional hitman does not indicate an imminent danger.

It was a YouTube comment with only a name. No location or time. They would need to either investigate every person who knows any one with the given name (no address included, and you have to keep in mind people swat their "friends" so anyone who knows one of those people is possible), or subpeona YouTube's ISP address records, if they even keep them on all comments. To expect the FBI to subpoena user information from Google (and for Google to passively comply with those requests) for every provocative YouTube comment seems rather absurd.

I don't think so. Please read up on the shooter's threats. If what you say is true, "just a comment," then why did the FBI see it otherwise? And, the FBI disagree with you, hence its apology and re-thinking of its own procedures.

The FBI received a tip last month that the suspect in the Florida school shooting had a "desire to kill" and access to guns and could be plotting an attack, but agents failed to investigate, the FBI said. So, what you are saying is just not true. Easy to find these sources. No need to depend on me.

But: http://www.ksbw.com/article/fbi-prot...g-tip/18212056

I think you're messing with us

[7Seconds]

Not an accurate analogy. Saying you want to be a professional hitman does not indicate an imminent danger.



I don't think so. Please read up on the shooter's threats. If what you say is true, "just a comment," then why did the FBI see it otherwise? And, the FBI disagree with you, hence its apology and re-thinking of its own procedures.

The FBI received a tip last month that the suspect in the Florida school shooting had a "desire to kill" and access to guns and could be plotting an attack, but agents failed to investigate, the FBI said. So, what you are saying is just not true. Easy to find these sources. No need to depend on me.

But: http://www.ksbw.com/article/fbi-prot...g-tip/18212056

I think you're messing with us

My argument the whole time has been about the YouTube comment because that was all I was aware of, I will try to catch up. Still not sure what the FBI was going to do at that point. Arrest him? Take his guns away? Up until the day of the shooting the guy had never been involuntarily committed, never deemed mentally unfit by a judge, never been convicted of a felony, never committed domestic violence, didnt have a restraining order against him and never specifically threatened a person.

[Mark1T]

My argument the whole time has been about the YouTube comment because that was all I was aware of, I will try to catch up. Still not sure what the FBI was going to do at that point. Arrest him? Take his guns away? Up until the day of the shooting the guy had never been involuntarily committed, never deemed mentally unfit by a judge, never been convicted of a felony, never committed domestic violence, didnt have a restraining order against him and never specifically threatened a person.

You do need to catch up, my friend. Please take all the time you need.

But, a short reply: The FBI could have taken him in for at least a mental check and a preliminary investigation surrounding his threats without infringing his rights.

[DuracellBunny]

My argument the whole time has been about the YouTube comment because that was all I was aware of, I will try to catch up. Still not sure what the FBI was going to do at that point. Arrest him? Take his guns away? Up until the day of the shooting the guy had never been involuntarily committed, never deemed mentally unfit by a judge, never been convicted of a felony, never committed domestic violence, didnt have a restraining order against him and never specifically threatened a person.

I'm given to understand that LEOs had been called out to his address on 37 occasions. Something was definitely going on.