United States & Gun Control discussion.

[Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆]

The gun did not commit the violent act. When someone is stabbed to death do you call it knife violence? When people are killed by some vile twat ramming a truck through a crowd do you call it “truck violence”?

By referring to it as “gun violence” you omit the human factor. You minimize the person pulling the trigger.

 

[Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆]

Because there is all sorts of violent crime that doesn't get the same amount of traction as violence perpetrated with firearms. In this case, since we are discussing firearm related violence, the term 'gun violence' is easier to use.

Just call it violence then. Hell, call it human violence. Charge the human with the act not the tool used.

 

[Red Flag 1]

A qu

 

[R.Caerbannog]

@Malone

Just call it violence then. Hell, call it human violence. Charge the human with the act not the tool used.

I get what you're saying, but in this case I'm advocating against criminals who specifically use firearms as a way to disproportionately apply force to a civilian populace. There are a bunch of things way more violent and intimate than firearms, but I figured I should stay on the topic at hand.

 

[Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆]

@Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone

I get what you're saying, but in this case I'm advocating against criminals who specifically use firearms as a way to disproportionately apply force to a civilian populace. There are a bunch of things way more violent and intimate than firearms, but I figured I should stay on the topic at hand.

When you call it gun violence you vilify the wrong part of the act. I'll state again, in no other violent act do we blame the tool used. the ease of your conversation creates a biased view of an inatimate object.

 

[Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆]

Ok ladies and gents. We are all members of the profession of of arms. We should be able to disagree without coming to verbal blows. We are brother and sisters and should be able to have civil discussion.

I will ask @ShadowSpear to allow all offending parties back into to the thread. If after a second chance they continue to behave like temperamental children allow @AWP to drop the ban hammer.

This issue needs attention and stifling it does no benifit to any of us.

 

[Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆]

I subscribe to no political party. I am a patriot and I believe in the ideas of our founding fathers. I want nothing more than for my countrymen to be safe, but I will not relinquish my god given rights for a false sense of safety for the sake of our children.

 

[ShadowSpear]

Ok ladies and gents. We are all members of the proeffsion of of arms. We should be able to disagree without coming to verbal blows. We are brother and sisters and should be able to have civil discussion.

I will ask @ShadowSpear to allow all offending parties back into to the thread. If after a second chance they continue to behave like temperamental children allow @AWP to drop the ban hammer.

This issue needs attention and stifling it does no benifit to any of us.

The best I’m willing to do is reduce it to 24 hrs. They wasted my time with the juvenile bullshit so they have to pay the man.

 

[DC]

The percentage of mental illness has not changed that much over the years. What has changed is the care and tracking of the mentally ill.

This is huge

 

[ThunderHorse]

Diagnosis categories ranged from severe psychotic disturbance to mental retardation and simply needed folks to watch out for them.

In California, up until the Mid-2000s we still had facilities for the severely disabled. My Aunt was one them. She now, somehow, lives in a group home. She was admitted to Lanterman Developmental Center when she was 10. She was blind and deaf when she was born, she became mute a bit later. My mother sees her sister often, but I'm not a supporter of the group home concept with how much care is required. My aunt was somehow on the lower end of that spectrum. There were 22 of these State Hospitals separate from the California Mental Health hospitals that existed.

 

[Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆]

The best I’m willing to do is reduce it to 24 hrs. They wasted my time with the juvenile bullshit so they have to pay the man.

That is an acceptable compromise. Thank you.

 

[DC]

This whole issue needs to focus on the criminal and/or mental heath issues of use of a weapon to commit these acts. Intel, protective measures are a good proactive start.

 

[AWP]

That is an acceptable compromise. Thank you.

Please be aware that the staff is tired of this behavior. I say this to everyone, first both Trump threads and now this, if you can't take some of the emotion out of your post, if you are incapable of discussing a topic without personal attacks, then either stay out of a thread or "get got." We've banned members over this, people we like, so none of you are immune. We actually had a staff member send the rest of us a message: please watch this thread. I'm at work and can't keep an eye on this mess.

It isn't a person's message, but their delivery. Deliver like UPS or we'll deliver like a Ju-87.

Carry on, everyone.

 

[AWP]

I love it when background checks are brought up because it ties into an earlier observation: enforce the laws on the books. A dirty "secret" missed in the discussion: the system is broken...literally the system that handles the background checks. Submitting data is voluntary and the system is understaffed and runs on antiquted equipment. You're talking a billion plus dollars easily for the network and hundreds of new investigators just to make the current process work...and this is without any additional laws to further burden the system.

If you have a truck that can barely tow a boat, don't buy a bigger boat; You either downsize the boat or buy a bigger truck.

 

[CQB]

So background checks can be part of the mix, good idea. We've heard mental health being discussed & the bump stock debate again. POTUS doesn't have a tin ear when it comes to his constituents and this may result in some steps forward.

 

[Ranger Psych]

I love it when background checks are brought up because it ties into an earlier observation: enforce the laws on the books. A dirty "secret" missed in the discussion: the system is broken...literally the system that handles the background checks. Submitting data is voluntary and the system is understaffed and runs on antiquted equipment. You're talking a billion plus dollars easily for the network and hundreds of new investigators just to make the current process work...and this is without any additional laws to further burden the system.

If you have a truck that can barely tow a boat, don't buy a bigger boat; You either downsize the boat or buy a bigger truck.

This is what gun owners have been screaming for years, because all of us who have them that are clean, positive members of society, don't want trashbads to have guns either. Just because I like guns doesn't mean I like everyone who has guns.

 

[CQB]

I wasn't aware of that push & I hope the creaky system can reform.

 

[Ranger Psych]

I wasn't aware of that push & I hope the creaky system can reform.

Issue number one is state compliance. There's quite a few states that don't actually submit their lists of prohibited persons up to the federal level. Think if you guys still allowed guns on a wider level. Someone gets a conviction bad enough to be restricted in Sydney. They move to Brisbane. Sydney didn't put their conviction into the system... now, even though THEY know they're prohibited, they go to try to buy a gun on a whim.... and get approved, because their record isn't in the system.

That happens. Federal restrictions on domestic violence can't be enforced because they don't get submitted. Oregon's legislature is chest thumping right now because they just, literally/specifically/retardedly, made a state version of the Lautenberg Amendment which makes anyone who has a domestic violence conviction OR a restraining order with DV as a reason for the order, unable to posses or purchase firearms.

The other aspect is that if you do a purchase specifically to hand the gun over to someone else out the gate, it's supposed to be illegal. Proper gifts don't apply, but if you're giving it to a restricted person that shouldn't have a gun and can't buy it themselves, then it's a straw purchase and a federal felony. Just like if you lie on the paperwork.

The feds have like 48 convictions for 48,000 current falsifications/straw purchases that were logged. How these people are still walking around is on the system, not the legal gun owner.

The system is actually rigorous and thorough in design, the problem is enforcement.

 

[Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆]

The Air Force failed to report people to the Feds.

 

[CQB]

Issue number one is state compliance. There's quite a few states that don't actually submit their lists of prohibited persons up to the federal level. Think if you guys still allowed guns on a wider level. Someone gets a conviction bad enough to be restricted in Sydney. They move to Brisbane. Sydney didn't put their conviction into the system... now, even though THEY know they're prohibited, they go to try to buy a gun on a whim.... and get approved, because their record isn't in the system.

That happens. Federal restrictions on domestic violence can't be enforced because they don't get submitted. Oregon's legislature is chest thumping right now because they just, literally/specifically/retardedly, made a state version of the Lautenberg Amendment which makes anyone who has a domestic violence conviction OR a restraining order with DV as a reason for the order, unable to posses or purchase firearms.

The other aspect is that if you do a purchase specifically to hand the gun over to someone else out the gate, it's supposed to be illegal. Proper gifts don't apply, but if you're giving it to a restricted person that shouldn't have a gun and can't buy it themselves, then it's a straw purchase and a federal felony. Just like if you lie on the paperwork.

The feds have like 48 convictions for 48,000 current falsifications/straw purchases that were logged. How these people are still walking around is on the system, not the legal gun owner.

The system is actually rigorous and thorough in design, the problem is enforcement.

So there's some work to be done & with 50 states...
We have similar concerning DV, with a type of writ issued here known as an AVO (Apprehended Violence Order) putting restrictions on a person approaching another. They are virtually worthless, & don't really do much at all except to prevent purchase & ownership for 10 years. Yep, you read it correctly. IMO very severe but gives one pause to think. If an owner gets hit by one, bye bye guns...equally for 10 years.
I'm not suggesting that this should be adopted where you are, I'm contributing to a tyre kicking for a solution as the circumstances are different in the US, but we don't have the enforcement problem that looks to be the norm Stateside, our cops are on it.