|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 15, 2018 7:49:53 GMT -5
Translation: you have nothing to add to any discussion. You're the one who said you'd have to figure out how to battle rape gangs, what to do about people like Cruz and weapons. You still haven't proposed anything, and I'm betting you never do. Instead, you deflect and claim that I have no sensible argument when you have never had one. I believe you said a while ago, "Put up or shut up." Follow you own advice . . . though I don't think you're capable of it. You wallow in your unthinking partisan bigotry and ignorance too much. Just because you lack either the intelligence to understand the proposals, or the integrity to admit I've made several, doesn't mean I haven't made any. We need to improve NICS, and hold local law enforcement and the courts accountable when they fail to make the necessary reports, and to appropriately deal with the Nikolas Cruz's of the world. Parkland was ENTIRELY AND EASILY preventable had the local police (and FBI) simply been willing to do their job. But they either can't or won't. Adding new gun control laws isn't going to do a damn thing when a local police department is unwilling to take a creature like Cruz off the streets after being given 30+ opportunities to do so, and with the department KNOWING FULL WELL that he was a threat to do exactly what he did. As long as you keep proposing new laws, while communities like Broward County (or Telford, which should have known about the rape-gang LONG begore ot acted) have to live with ineffective law enforcement agencies which refuse to enforce existing law, you can't be taken seriously on this subject. New laws won't do Jack without effective law enforcement agencies to enforce them. Neither Broward County nor Telford have effective law enforcement agencies.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 15, 2018 8:52:54 GMT -5
Translation: you have nothing to add to any discussion. You're the one who said you'd have to figure out how to battle rape gangs, what to do about people like Cruz and weapons. You still haven't proposed anything, and I'm betting you never do. Instead, you deflect and claim that I have no sensible argument when you have never had one. I believe you said a while ago, "Put up or shut up." Follow you own advice . . . though I don't think you're capable of it. You wallow in your unthinking partisan bigotry and ignorance too much. Just because you lack either the intelligence to understand the proposals, or the integrity to admit I've made several, doesn't mean I haven't made any. We need to improve NICS, and hold local law enforcement and the courts accountable when they fail to make the necessary reports, and to appropriately deal with the Nikolas Cruz's of the world. Parkland was ENTIRELY AND EASILY preventable had the local police (and FBI) simply been willing to do their job. But they either can't or won't. Adding new gun control laws isn't going to do a damn thing when a local police department is unwilling to take a creature like Cruz off the streets after being given 30+ opportunities to do so, and with the department KNOWING FULL WELL that he was a threat to do exactly what he did. As long as you keep proposing new laws, while communities like Broward County (or Telford, which should have known about the rape-gang LONG begore ot acted) have to live with ineffective law enforcement agencies which refuse to enforce existing law, you can't be taken seriously on this subject. New laws won't do Jack without effective law enforcement agencies to enforce them. Neither Broward County nor Telford have effective law enforcement agencies. They are run by Democrats. That means they are more than willing to sacrifice a few innocent teens on the altar of PC. And notice, they are claiming the NRA has "blood on it's hands" for the murder of 17 people, but worship Planned Parenthood, who has murdered millions. It's not about 'stopping violence', it's about turning the populace into serfs, like them, so their masters can impose whatever stupidity they want without fear of retribution.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 15, 2018 9:28:45 GMT -5
So, RJ, as I have said earlier, you propose strengthening background checks and making people to their jobs. Same thing you've been saying (as I have said several times -- your idea, but nothing original).
It's interesting that you claim Cruz could have been stopped. Even the FBI's acting deputy director told Congress yesterday that, even had they and the local police followed every tip, it's possible Cruz would still have acted.
And I'm sure you realize that, while Congress is considering legislation to strengthen background checks (which isn't really getting much consideration), there have been 6 more school shootings . . . since Parkland. Six more in a month. Your "let's strengthen background checks and hold other people accountable" sure is working well, isn't it?
Since nothing you propose seems to ever work -- Congress is not seriously considering background check legislation -- maybe a new approach is needed. I realize that new approaches almost paralyze you unthinking partisan parasites on the right and alt-right, but we can't keep following the right and alt-right and NRA lead of doing nothing -- that's not working.
Maybe some of the student who marched, students who have faced gun violence, students who have had classmates who were injured and died, have a point. There need to be changes.
People tout open carry laws. The evidence shows that such laws result in more violence and more deaths. Not a good solution, is it.
I heard someone yesterday propose banning all automatic weapons. They may be needed for the military and law enforcement, but there's little need for the average citizen. That might be a start.
I'm sure you'll find a way to shoot down this proposal too, RJ (no pun intended). But given the continued spate of gun violence in our country, some sort of serious action needs to take place. We can't continue to do nothing or wait for legislators -- most of whom are beholden to the NRA -- to continue to do nothing. Background checks may stop a few people from getting weapons, but it's not a real solution, and I think you know that.
Wonder if you can come up with some sort of solution that might actually do something. I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 15, 2018 9:54:53 GMT -5
So, RJ, as I have said earlier, you propose strengthening background checks and making people to their jobs. Same thing you've been saying (as I have said several times -- your idea, but nothing original). It's interesting that you claim Cruz could have been stopped. Even the FBI's acting deputy director told Congress yesterday that, even had they and the local police followed every tip, it's possible Cruz would still have acted. And I'm sure you realize that, while Congress is considering legislation to strengthen background checks (which isn't really getting much consideration), there have been 6 more school shootings . . . since Parkland. Six more in a month. Your "let's strengthen background checks and hold other people accountable" sure is working well, isn't it? Since nothing you propose seems to ever work -- Congress is not seriously considering background check legislation -- maybe a new approach is needed. I realize that new approaches almost paralyze you unthinking partisan parasites on the right and alt-right, but we can't keep following the right and alt-right and NRA lead of doing nothing -- that's not working. Maybe some of the student who marched, students who have faced gun violence, students who have had classmates who were injured and died, have a point. There need to be changes. People tout open carry laws. The evidence shows that such laws result in more violence and more deaths. Not a good solution, is it. I heard someone yesterday propose banning all automatic weapons. They may be needed for the military and law enforcement, but there's little need for the average citizen. That might be a start. I'm sure you'll find a way to shoot down this proposal too, RJ (no pun intended). But given the continued spate of gun violence in our country, some sort of serious action needs to take place. We can't continue to do nothing or wait for legislators -- most of whom are beholden to the NRA -- to continue to do nothing. Background checks may stop a few people from getting weapons, but it's not a real solution, and I think you know that. Wonder if you can come up with some sort of solution that might actually do something. I doubt it. PAM, you can pass all the gun control laws you want. The Broward County Sherriff won't enforce them. Cruz was credibly accused of assault on his own mother. He was banned from carrying a bookbag in the High School. No one gets 30+ calls to 911 to their house without doing SOMETHING that warrants an arrest. An arrest on his record would have put him in NICS, and made it impossible for him to legally purchase a gun. But BCSD couldn't be bothered to do that. If it won't enforce existing law, it won't enforce new ones. Nevermind there's a PLENTY large black market for guns that doesn't deter criminals from obtaining them. Gun control doesn't work, because it only applies to people who obey the law. It doesn't apply to people who want to shoot up a school. This is obvious, and easy to understand. People who say otherwise are only interested in taking away rights, and gaining more control of the people. It's a totalitarian impulse to disarm the people.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 15, 2018 10:42:31 GMT -5
You keep living in your delusional little world, RJ. As expected, you continue to claim that there's nothing that can be done so solve gun violence in our country. Six school shootings in the last month since Parkwood. How many more must we have before you think there could be a solution How many more people must die because of gun violence before you finally think there could be a solution?
I suggest you stop looking so closely at the Parkland case and look at others. There are way too many to look at. What similarities are there? Differences? Is there some sort of a link? How can that link be broken?
I realize that this is an intellectual exercise, and therefore might be too much for you to understand to actually do. But it sure beats your continually talking about 1 case that, as the FBI indicated, might not have been stopped even if all procedures you claim were ignored were followed.
But, again, I really don't expect you to do anything except keep complaining that government isn't doing its job.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 15, 2018 10:50:07 GMT -5
By the way, RJ, you might want to really check the law. Being arrested does not necessarily make someone ineligible to buy or possess a weapon. Just being involved in mental health treatment does not make someone ineligible to buy or possess a weapon. Cruz bought his weapon legally. Why do you continue to think that he should have been ineligible?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 15, 2018 11:07:00 GMT -5
You keep living in your delusional little world, RJ. As expected, you continue to claim that there's nothing that can be done so solve gun violence in our country. Six school shootings in the last month since Parkwood. How many more must we have before you think there could be a solution How many more people must die because of gun violence before you finally think there could be a solution? I suggest you stop looking so closely at the Parkland case and look at others. There are way too many to look at. What similarities are there? Differences? Is there some sort of a link? How can that link be broken? I realize that this is an intellectual exercise, and therefore might be too much for you to understand to actually do. But it sure beats your continually talking about 1 case that, as the FBI indicated, might not have been stopped even if all procedures you claim were ignored were followed. But, again, I really don't expect you to do anything except keep complaining that government isn't doing its job. You have to lie about my position to make your point. My suggestions on how to solve this have been repeated over and over again, against your assertion that I haven't offered anything. It's appalling that you have so little shame that you'd embarrass yourself this way. But hey, don't let me stop you. There are times I'm almost convinced that only a conservative posting as a liberal would say the things you say, as an attempt to discredit liberalism. But such a person would have stopped by now, their point having been amply demonstrated.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 15, 2018 11:10:58 GMT -5
By the way, RJ, you might want to really check the law. Being arrested does not necessarily make someone ineligible to buy or possess a weapon. Just being involved in mental health treatment does not make someone ineligible to buy or possess a weapon. Cruz bought his weapon legally. Why do you continue to think that he should have been ineligible? Sure, embezzlement won't get you on the NICS database. Cruz was accused of assault, and other violent activities. Had those reports been properly followed up on, and Cruz been arrested as he should have been, he would not have been eligible to purchase a weapon. It was Democrat/liberal policies that sought to keep Cruz out of the "school-prison pipeline" that got 17 students killed. The DNC, and the Democrat Sherriff running the BCSD are a far greater threats to students than the NRA.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 15, 2018 12:34:50 GMT -5
Wrong, RJ, as usual. An arrest is not enough to get one on the database and prevent someone from buying or possessing a weapon. Being arraigned on certain felonies or being convicted of a felony will do it.
Funny that you keep calling me stupid when you don't know or understand the law.
And I know what you've posted -- the same thing over and over -- strengthen the database. Hasn't worked, may work, but Congress and the NRA stand in the way. Can you propose something that mgiht actually work? Probably not, but I keep hoping.
And you keep blaming a Democratic sheriff. You should know -- should, but unfortunately don't --- that most people in law enforcement, corrections, military are very conservative. They're not the threat you make them out to be. The NRA, on the other hand, is a danger. Why do you think the database doesn't work properly? Why do you think Congress refuses to take action on any gun legislation?
Please stop embarassing yourself. Please do some research. I know it's hard for some people, and you probably can't teach an old dog like you new tricks, but at least make a little effort to sound like you know what you're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 15, 2018 13:16:19 GMT -5
Wrong, RJ, as usual. An arrest is not enough to get one on the database and prevent someone from buying or possessing a weapon. Being arraigned on certain felonies or being convicted of a felony will do it. Funny that you keep calling me stupid when you don't know or understand the law. And I know what you've posted -- the same thing over and over -- strengthen the database. Hasn't worked, may work, but Congress and the NRA stand in the way. Can you propose something that mgiht actually work? Probably not, but I keep hoping. And you keep blaming a Democratic sheriff. You should know -- should, but unfortunately don't --- that most people in law enforcement, corrections, military are very conservative. They're not the threat you make them out to be. The NRA, on the other hand, is a danger. Why do you think the database doesn't work properly? Why do you think Congress refuses to take action on any gun legislation? Please stop embarassing yourself. Please do some research. I know it's hard for some people, and you probably can't teach an old dog like you new tricks, but at least make a little effort to sound like you know what you're talking about. So you're going to hang your hat on the difference between being arrested, and being arraigned? Which isn't correct either (the requirement is an indictment see: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System ). The NICS database also includes domestic violence convictions and PFAs, which would have included the assault on his mother if the police (or his mom) had decided to pursue it. The Washington Post has a history of all of the crimes the Broward County Sherrff ignored: www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/02/15/florida-shooting-suspect-nikolas-cruz-guns-depression-and-a-life-in-free-fall/?utm_term=.6a2d2c1fcd32It includes several arrestable offenses ranging from battery to terrroristic threats to being a peeping Tom to cruelty to animals. Cruz could have easily been locked up, let alone in the NICS database, had the Sherriff's Department been willing to do its job. This isn't someone who should have out of jail, let alone not been in the database. That he wasn't is a failure of local law enforcement. And yes, most people in law enforcement are both more conservative, and better suited to the job than Sherriff Israel, who is a Democrat.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 15, 2018 14:15:52 GMT -5
Glad to see you finally did some research, RJ. You're learning.
What do you do for people who are not indicted? Not everyone is. In fact, the majority of people arrested are probably not indicted.
I read the Post article, and I don't see any "list of crimes." I see a lot of bad behavior, things that could be considered crimes. I also note that does not appear to be any history of "domestic violence." His adopted parents and his foster parents both note that they never saw any violence. People who went to school with him also say that he was not violent. Wierd, but not violent. Guess you read something I didn't . . . or imagined something to support his case.
And it would be laughable if it were not so pathetic that you continue to link his behavior with a supposedly liberal sheriff with no evidence other than a political affiliation.
The other pathetic part is that you continue to focus on this one particular shooting. There have been 6 school shootings since this one. Looks like you don't care about any of them. There was the Las Vegas shooting. Orlando. San Bernadino. But your focus is on a troubled youth in Florida and a sheriff you claimed refused to take action because of his political philosophy, though you don't know his political philosophy. In fact, you're not even sure the sheriff had any contact with Cruz. As a general rule, it's the lower level deputies who handle calls. The sheriff may never have any contact with Cruz at all. But continue to blame him because he's a democrat.
The general issue is what can be done to help prevent gun violence in America. Beside strengthing background checks and all that that entails, do you have any concrete suggestions? Or will you continue to be part of the problem?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 15, 2018 14:39:44 GMT -5
Glad to see you finally did some research, RJ. You're learning. What do you do for people who are not indicted? Not everyone is. In fact, the majority of people arrested are probably not indicted. This isn't even relevant for Cruz. I've listed MULTIPLE offenses that he could have been arrested and indicted for had the police been willing to do their job. Yes, we all know you won't see what is directly in front of you if it doesn't fit the left's narrative. I'm sure no one else who reads that article will have any difficulty finding charges for assault, battery, terroristic threats and animal cruelty. Or maybe you think such things aren't crimes at all. Political affiliation isn't enough now? Wow. Of course there is also politically correct law enforcement style. Again, you continue to be the blind person who will not see. How about we talk about Corey Johnson, the ISIS recruit that stabbed a bunch of innocent people at a sleep over because the FBI and Jupiter, FL police didn't move quickly enough charging him with terroristic threats? Another tragic example of law enforcement dropping the ball... And I'm sure you think more gun control would have stopped him too.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 15, 2018 14:52:13 GMT -5
We really should just distill this to the fundamental truth that law enforcement can't (and in some cases can, but don't) protect the innocent from people like Cruz and Johnson.
What this means, is that individuals must maintain the fundamental right to defend themselves against nut-cases, regardless of whether or not the nutcase is carrying an AR-15 or a knife.
Gun control defeats that right, and must be defeated if we are to remain a free people.
The police and FBI can clearly do more, including with the NICS database, and investigating, arresting and prosecuting the Cruze's and Johnsons of the world. And that is where our focus needs to be if we're serious about stopping the next Parkland, rape-jihad, or slumber party jihadist.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 15, 2018 15:25:27 GMT -5
Absolutely, RJ. More open and concealed carry laws are just what's needed. Even though the evidence shows that open and concealed carry results in a higher level of gun violence in states who pass such laws than before the laws were passed.
Most of us want to DECREASE gun violence, not increase it. More unthinking partisan nonsense.
Can you propose anything that might really work?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 15, 2018 15:55:45 GMT -5
Absolutely, RJ. More open and concealed carry laws are just what's needed. Even though the evidence shows that open and concealed carry results in a higher level of gun violence in states who pass such laws than before the laws were passed. Most of us want to DECREASE gun violence, not increase it. More unthinking partisan nonsense. Can you propose anything that might really work? None of this is true. Legitimate studies don't show any link at all between lax gun laws and gun crime. Never mind that Douglas High is a "gun-free zone" which clearly didn't stop Cruz. But even if they did, it doesn't matter. Until law enforcement shows it can get lunatics like Cruz and Johnson under control, innocent people need to be able to defend themselves. Gun control makes that harder or impossible. So, here's what I suggest: put up a "gun free zone" sign on your front lawn, and let me know your results.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 15, 2018 17:29:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 15, 2018 18:56:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 15, 2018 20:16:10 GMT -5
Cliff Notes? Really? Rand I'll give some credence to, but Cliff Notes? article that presents arguments with no conclusion? You really don't understand research and scholarship, do you.
I do understand research. I appreciate research. I've conducted research. I've had findings published. Can you say the same?
Rand is inconclusive and says so up front. I'll take Hopkins and Stanford. I appreciate scholarship.
Cliff Notes? Strike One. Try again.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 16, 2018 6:39:51 GMT -5
Cliff Notes? Really? Rand I'll give some credence to, but Cliff Notes? article that presents arguments with no conclusion? You really don't understand research and scholarship, do you. I do understand research. I appreciate research. I've conducted research. I've had findings published. Can you say the same? Rand is inconclusive and says so up front. I'll take Hopkins and Stanford. I appreciate scholarship. Cliff Notes? Strike One. Try again. What's your issue with Cliff Notes? Do you think they're biased? Both Cliff Notes and Rand Corp looked at a bunch of studies. Some of which supported your position, some of which do not. Hence, the inconclusive finding. And that's the problem. Lots of contradictory studies show that which side you believe is about your confirmation bias, not reality. You've picked the studies you like because they reinforce your beliefs. There are credible studies that say you're wrong. The reality is this is a complex problem that we really don't fully understand. Come out of your echo chamber. It's making a fool out of you.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 16, 2018 9:59:33 GMT -5
Cliff Notes provide no link to any research. They're a summary from somewhere or something, but there's no indication what the something or somewhere is, so no chance to try to view the original research to check methodology, data sources, etc. For a novice or a non-research it's great. For any serious researcher, it holds little value.
Rand is a good resource. However, most of the articles mentioned use research from the 1970s to the early 2000s. While Rand notes that effects in many areas are inconclusive, it does note some evidence to indicate shall-issue laws result in an increase in violent crime.
The Stanford study uses later data. It concludes that states with a right-to-carry law have an increase in violent crime.
Picking studies isn't about confirmation bias -- though it might be for you, especially since you've proven that you don't understand research. Using Cliff Notes as a primary source is what I'm talking about.
I point to the Stanford study because it uses more recent data than the other studies.
A serious scholar doesn't just indiscriminately grab an article or two and regurgitate their conclusions. Just because a paper has been published does not mean that it's accurate. It's not about finding papers that support a particular viewpoint. It's about finding credible papers that use a proper methodology to reach a conclusion.
Maybe some day you'll figure it out . . . but I doubt it. Continue to wallow in your unthinking partisanship.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 16, 2018 10:01:21 GMT -5
So, RJ, as I have said earlier, you propose strengthening background checks and making people to their jobs. Same thing you've been saying (as I have said several times -- your idea, but nothing original). Strange, since if they had done their jobs, Cruz would have been prevented from buying a firearm, and would probably had any firearms he did have confiscated. In addition, he would probably have been remanded to psychological evaluation, and probable in house treatment, which would have also prohibited him from buying firearms. So, a CYA statement from a bureaucrat that should be fired is "proof"? All in "gun free zones", don't you know. And I'll bet that every one of the shooters was "on the law enforcement radar", having been reported, or having made threats on Facebook or some such. Again, law enforcement failing to do their job. So, your "approach" would involve infringement on the rights of people that haven't broken the law, haven't shot anyone, or threatened anyone. How about we fire all the Leftist teachers that are creating these monsters, repealing all the stupid, insane Leftist policies that are protecting these monsters, and put real teachers and real authorities in charge of actually educating young skulls full of mush? How about arming teachers, and outlawing "gun free zones"? Or is that something that might actually work, so of course, we can't have that. Yes, there need to be changes. Outlaw "gun free zones". Stop babysitting kids that start showing a propensity for violence. Stop emasculating boys, stop with the whiny "inclusive" stupidity, stop with the participation trophy mentality, and stop drugging boys because they are acting like boys. The Party of the KKK, and the Left own every one of the shooters, because it's their policies of insanity and Communism that have created them, and allowed them to carry out their atrocities. What "studies"? Who conducted them? Who fact checked them? Who peer reviewed them? Who funded them? Violent crime has been, and still is, declining as more and more private citizens take up arms. That's from the FBI. So, who, exactly, is finding the difference? Automatic firearms have been, to all intents and purposes, banned since 1934. Again, you have an imbecile telling you what to think, and you just go along. On the other hand, you call Trump a dictator and a NAZI, yet intend to put all the firepower in his hands. Psychotic much? So, the Party of the KKK being owned by the actual NAZI Soros, unions including the teacher's unions, enviroNAZIs, and the CPUSA is fine, but a group of citizens being influential through their organization is something sinister? Nothing your masters have proposed will stop a single shooter. When the shooter is the only one armed, it doesn't matter what firearm he's using. A lever action, a bolt action, even a revolver would put him in charge until another armed individual arrives. There is no "spate of gun violence", except in the Leftist controlled enclaves of Chicago, B'more, DC, LA, SF, and other big cities where the insane Left has had control for decades. And they are proving that they have zero intention of stopping "gun violence", as long as it stays out of the gated communities where the Leftists live. They want murder and mayhem, because it gives them power, and the opportunity to deprive law abiding citizens of their God given rights. Several things that would actually work, but none of your owners would consider it for a second. First, arm everyone. Teachers, Administrators, the average individual walking down the street. The more armed individuals are around, the better the chances of stopping a shooter before he can do much damage, and the very idea of a lot of armed individuals at his target would deter a lot of them. They are Democrats, so want as big a body count as possible, so the idea of being stopped before doing massive damage deters them. Second, outlaw the Democrat Party, repeal every policy they ever put in place, and replace those policies with real world tested, intelligent policies that would take people off of welfare, stop single mother families, and start actually teaching real subjects. Those would be a start.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 16, 2018 10:10:21 GMT -5
You keep living in your delusional little world, RJ. As expected, you continue to claim that there's nothing that can be done so solve gun violence in our country. Six school shootings in the last month since Parkwood. How many more must we have before you think there could be a solution How many more people must die because of gun violence before you finally think there could be a solution? I suggest you stop looking so closely at the Parkland case and look at others. There are way too many to look at. What similarities are there? Differences? Is there some sort of a link? How can that link be broken? I realize that this is an intellectual exercise, and therefore might be too much for you to understand to actually do. But it sure beats your continually talking about 1 case that, as the FBI indicated, might not have been stopped even if all procedures you claim were ignored were followed. But, again, I really don't expect you to do anything except keep complaining that government isn't doing its job. First, what "school shootings" have happened? Or are they like the "Mothers Demand facts" that use suicides in a school parking lot at 0200 as a "school shooting"? Second, stop drugging little boys because they act like little boys. Nearly every single mass shooter has been on psychotropic drugs, and stopped taking them. Stop the mass use of Ritalin, and similar drugs to keep little boys acting like zombies because teachers don't want to have to "deal with" the normal activities of little boys. The similarities are that nearly every one of the shooters was drugged at some point in their life. Nearly every one of the shooters was "on the radar" of law enforcement", but was ignored. Nearly every shooter obtained their firearms because a government agency failed to do what the law required, so there was nothing stopping them from gaining firearms "legally", even though they were prohibited persons. The FBI has discredited themselves in situations like this because they failed to follow their own protocols. Could they have stopped the shooting? Probably. He was credibly accused of several felonies, which would have precluded him from buying a firearm. Law enforcement failed, at every level, to follow their own rules, regulations, and protocols. So your "solution" is to give them more control, and remove the rights of law abiding citizens? Really? No wonder you are a serf. There is no "solution", except to hold government officials that fail to do the jobs they are paid to do, and required by law to do, accountable. You claim that we "keep complaining" about them not doing their job, but you want the same incompetent or corrupt individuals to have even more control over the lives of individual citizens.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 16, 2018 10:12:29 GMT -5
By the way, RJ, you might want to really check the law. Being arrested does not necessarily make someone ineligible to buy or possess a weapon. Just being involved in mental health treatment does not make someone ineligible to buy or possess a weapon. Cruz bought his weapon legally. Why do you continue to think that he should have been ineligible? No, it doesn't. However, had Cruz been arrested, and indicted for the assaults he apparently committed, or been remanded for psychological evaluation because of his violent behaviors, he would have been prohibited. He was given neither option. Your sainted government failed, again, to do it's job, and you want to give it even more power.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 16, 2018 10:20:38 GMT -5
Cliff Notes provide no link to any research. They're a summary from somewhere or something, but there's no indication what the something or somewhere is, so no chance to try to view the original research to check methodology, data sources, etc. For a novice or a non-research it's great. For any serious researcher, it holds little value. Rand is a good resource. However, most of the articles mentioned use research from the 1970s to the early 2000s. While Rand notes that effects in many areas are inconclusive, it does note some evidence to indicate shall-issue laws result in an increase in violent crime. The Stanford study uses later data. It concludes that states with a right-to-carry law have an increase in violent crime. Picking studies isn't about confirmation bias -- though it might be for you, especially since you've proven that you don't understand research. Using Cliff Notes as a primary source is what I'm talking about. I point to the Stanford study because it uses more recent data than the other studies. A serious scholar doesn't just indiscriminately grab an article or two and regurgitate their conclusions. Just because a paper has been published does not mean that it's accurate. It's not about finding papers that support a particular viewpoint. It's about finding credible papers that use a proper methodology to reach a conclusion. Maybe some day you'll figure it out . . . but I doubt it. Continue to wallow in your unthinking partisanship. Except there's a fundamental problem using state-level data. In a state like Pennsylvania that has relatively lax state-level gun laws, gun violence in localities that have notably tighter gun laws (like Philadelphia) create the impression that Pennsylvania's gun laws are driving Philadelphia's violence problem. When, in fact, Philadelphia has both stricter laws, and higher violent crime rates than the rest of the state. Look, it doesn't take a study to see that the most violent jurisdictions in the country are its cities. These jurisdictions are almost entirely governed by hard-left gun-grabbibg Democrats. Taking advice on reducing gun violence from the people who bring us high-crime jurisdictions like Detroit, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Chicago is foolish. Rand went looking for credible papers that use proper methodology. They found several. Some support your case, others do not. Recentness of the data isn't especially helpful on this topic.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 16, 2018 10:21:31 GMT -5
And assault is one of those arrests and indictments that will keep you from buying a firearm legally. He was accused, multiple times, of assault, even assault with a deadly weapon, which is a felony. The police refused to do anything about it because he was headed for the "school to prison pipeline", and The Puppet didn't want violent felons in prison. He wanted them in schools where they could do the most damage. He even required the ATF to remove 500,000 fugitives from NICS, because "it wasn't fair" to have them prevented from committing mayhem. . Funny that you keep calling me stupid when you don't know or understand the law. They haven't done it, so how do we know whether it would work or not? They haven't even fired anyone for failing to do what the law requires, adding persons to the NICS that have been convicted of violent crimes. Like the church shooter in Texas, the Democrat white nationalist church shooter, Cruz, and the LV shooter. All were individuals that should have been prevented from buying firearms, but their names were never added to NICS. Who has been held responsible for that? Not the leadership, who are usually elected. This sheriff is a staunch Party of the KKK idiot. Just listening to him prevericate, refuse responsibility for his people, and try to blame those that had nothing at all to do with the crime. The NRA has done more to preach, and teach, firearm safety than any organization in the country, often over the strenuous objections of the man bun pajama boy idiots. How many of the shooters even been members? How many of them have the NRA supported? You are simply blaming them because they don't follow your master's mantra of disarming all the citizens so the government can do whatever it wants.
|
|