rickyp wrote:fate

I'll ask: are you saying that Americans are so racist they only care about mass shootings when it's not a white man doing the shooting? Is that really your position?

I'm saying its easier for a lot of people to demonize another group and blame them rather than actually address how to effectively prevent repetitions of the crime.
After Sandy Hook, and Oregon and et al, its always "Too soon to address the issue, we should be grieving". With San Bernadino there was no "too soon"
because the was no need to look in the mirror. There was someone who was different to blame. Even though, other than the motivation, the crime was so much alike other work place, mall shootings...

The San Bernadino shooters got their guns through a straw purcnase. An unreported untraceable transfer of weapons.
If every gun had to be registered, and the transfer of guns reported to the registry, and gun owners held accountable for the use of their guns in crimes .... a number of effects would occur.
1) gun owners would be more careful about who they sell guns to.
2) the authorities might be alerted to the transfer of weapons and head off incidents like San Bernadino. or worse should a number of ISIL inspired nuts seek a large arsenal...

Funny thing, that system works for Islamic terrorists and the usual lonely white guy who's disassociated .
Congress is set to once again refuse to fund gun control research by the CDC.
Why's that Fate?
Its the same as Big Tobacco on cancer, and the NFL on concussions ... we can't uncover the evidence ....

First, thank you for not mentioning the faking of the Moon landing and keeping your response so narrow in scope.

Second, nothing you mentioned would have done anything in the San Bernardino shooting. The "straw purchaser" was a good friend, an apparent convert to Islam, and someone who quite clearly would not have reported the sale/purchase. That's the problem with every liberal "solution." You always want to put additional restrictions and burdens on law-abiding citizens, but . . . crooks and terrorists don't obey the laws. Murder is against the law and it has no effect on them. Neither will the restrictions liberals propose.

Third, as a native Californian, it would be great if people would note there are 2 r's in "Bernardino."

Fourth, your "it's too soon" line is just rubbish. Nothing but a weapon ban would have stopped Sandy Hook--unless there had been armed people inside the school.

Fifth, there is a difference between a "one-off" shooting and a terrorist attack. The terrorists cause you to wonder where "they" will hit next because it is an ideology, held by millions of people, some of whom live in the US.

Doctor Fate wrote:

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Fate

Trump will not win the first four primaries. If you think he will, name your price.

I'll take that bet. My price is lunch at my favorite chain restaurant paid via gift card. Yours?

To be clear, Trump has to win Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada, right?

He's only behind in polls for one of those, Iowa, and even then he was ahead in the latest Iowa poll. Nevada hasn't been polled for a couple of months, NH ten days ago but Iowa and SC less than a week ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide ... ries,_2016

When you measure "win" do you mean most votes or most delegates? Just so it's clear to you both in February.

fate

You always want to put additional restrictions and burdens on law-abiding citizens, but . . . crooks and terrorists don't obey the laws. Murder is against the law and it has no effect on them. Neither will the restrictions liberals propose

.

So you are arguing that murder should be legal because there would be no difference between murder rates when its legal and illegal? That the fear of punishments for crimes has no deterrence value?

The additional "restrictions" are the same as they are for cars. Another tool that we use in society that can be misused and abused and cause death and injury if misused.
If law abiding people do have to register guns, and report all transfers (as they do with cars), then they will be more careful about whom they sell to. Where owners have these responsibilities gun thefts are rarer, and gun thefts are one way guns become available cheaply.
If they had to ensure all guns and have liability insurance, they would be more responsible as well.
The fact that the friend was able to transfer the fire arms without any requirement to transfer means he didn't even have to think about consequences for transferring the weapons. And your right, he may have ignored the law. But he might not have.
There just being a law, does make people think and deters some from acting. That;s the nature of all laws and regulation. Murder as much as gun laws.

FOX NEWS explains why the "Too Soon" to "politicize shootings arguement is rubbish...

ADAM HOUSLEY: And those who are in favor of gun control, I have no problem with them making those arguments. And those who are opposed to it, I have no problem with them making their arguments. I think the issue becomes why can't we wait a day or two to make those arguments? You're going to have that time, it's not going to go away.

JULIE ROGINSKY: Because, I think the problem unfortunately is this happens so often. We have a shooting in this country virtually every day, so that there is never an appropriate time to talk about it, you're always "politicizing it.

"

Fate

Fifth, there is a difference between a "one-off" shooting and a terrorist attack. The terrorists cause you to wonder where "they" will hit next because it is an ideology, held by millions of people, some of whom live in the US

And the "One Off Shooters cause people to wonder when the next mentally ill person will shoot up a movie theater....and will i be in it?
Since this happens more often then terrorists ... isn't the terror created by these "one offs" worse? By the numbers over the years , yes... There are a lot more crazy people in the US, all who have access to guns.
Since the San Bernadino shooters weren't part of any ISIS cell, and were only inspired to their madness by ISIS they are just One Offs too. Lone Wolves...
But, there may be others inspired by ISIS floating about. Wouldn't it be a good idea to take steps to limit their access to guns too?
Here's a poll which shows that the percentage of Americans afraid that someone in their family will be a victim is exactly the same as the percentage who worry that terrorism will make a family member a victim
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ter ... d4bcbfce99

An interesting discussion on the public's fear.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 ... legitimate

danivon wrote:When you measure "win" do you mean most votes or most delegates? Just so it's clear to you both in February.

Good point. I would be satisfied with either one, but lean toward delegates.

rickyp wrote:fate

You always want to put additional restrictions and burdens on law-abiding citizens, but . . . crooks and terrorists don't obey the laws. Murder is against the law and it has no effect on them. Neither will the restrictions liberals propose

.

So you are arguing that murder should be legal because there would be no difference between murder rates when its legal and illegal? That the fear of punishments for crimes has no deterrence value?

I want to give a sarcastic "yes," but, like Mom used to say, "Don't feed the trolls dear."

That is absurd on innumerable levels, but I'll settle for just one: what punishment deters those who are willing to commit murder and to die in the commission of said murder? How do you instill fear in someone like that? Oh, right: by forcing them to report weapons transfers.

#brilliant

The additional "restrictions" are the same as they are for cars. Another tool that we use in society that can be misused and abused and cause death and injury if misused.

And, which cause far more deaths than guns . . . but, you don't want to ban them! Oh, and there is that whole Second Amendment thingee.

If law abiding people do have to register guns, and report all transfers (as they do with cars), then they will be more careful about whom they sell to. Where owners have these responsibilities gun thefts are rarer, and gun thefts are one way guns become available cheaply.

This is just silly. Let's say Mr. and Mrs. Terrorist didn't have a straw buyer. Let's say they waited until the day of the attack. They go to Mr. and Mrs. Lawabiding and buy the guns from them. Mr. and Mrs. Lawabiding dutifully notify the authorities of the gun sales.

How does that stop, limit, or do anything to change the attack?

Think for a bit and get back to me.

If they had to ensure all guns and have liability insurance, they would be more responsible as well.
The fact that the friend was able to transfer the fire arms without any requirement to transfer means he didn't even have to think about consequences for transferring the weapons. And your right, he may have ignored the law. But he might not have.

Um, you do know that he had (allegedly) discussed jihad with Mr. Terrorist for some months before this attack, right?

There just being a law, does make people think and deters some from acting. That;s the nature of all laws and regulation. Murder as much as gun laws.

Silly again.

"I want to kill my neighbor . . . oh, dang it! It's against the law! I guess I'll have to talk to him instead."

Is that how you really think the world works?

Now, it is true that lesser things than murder are inhibited by laws--thus, speed laws, theft laws, etc. However, if someone is determined to kill no law will stop him/her. The only thing that will is a bullet, or at least force sufficient to overcome their capacity to kill.

rickyp wrote:FOX NEWS explains why the "Too Soon" to "politicize shootings arguement is rubbish...

ADAM HOUSLEY: And those who are in favor of gun control, I have no problem with them making those arguments. And those who are opposed to it, I have no problem with them making their arguments. I think the issue becomes why can't we wait a day or two to make those arguments? You're going to have that time, it's not going to go away.

JULIE ROGINSKY: Because, I think the problem unfortunately is this happens so often. We have a shooting in this country virtually every day, so that there is never an appropriate time to talk about it, you're always "politicizing it.

"

Yeah, that's a killer argument . . . sorry.

What is her suggestion? How would she have stopped whatever shooting she's talking about?

Fate

Fifth, there is a difference between a "one-off" shooting and a terrorist attack. The terrorists cause you to wonder where "they" will hit next because it is an ideology, held by millions of people, some of whom live in the US

And the "One Off Shooters cause people to wonder when the next mentally ill person will shoot up a movie theater....and will i be in it?

Maybe in Canada. In the US, Star Wars has pre-sold $100M in tickets. Yup, people are going to brave movie theaters to see it!

What big mental health proposals has Obama made?

What gun proposals has he made that would have prevented even ONE of these shootings?

Go ahead. I'll wait.

Since the San Bernadino shooters weren't part of any ISIS cell, and were only inspired to their madness by ISIS they are just One Offs too. Lone Wolves...

Sure. Who funded them?

But, there may be others inspired by ISIS floating about. Wouldn't it be a good idea to take steps to limit their access to guns too?

Yes, let's limit the rights of Islamic citizens! Who are you, Trump? That would explain a lot. I've never seen you and Trump in the same place . . .

Here's a poll which shows that the percentage of Americans afraid that someone in their family will be a victim is exactly the same as the percentage who worry that terrorism will make a family member a victim
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ter ... d4bcbfce99

An interesting discussion on the public's fear.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 ... legitimate

Here, have a poll:

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- After the deadly terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California, Americans are now more likely to name terrorism as the top issue facing the U.S. than to name any other issue -- including those that have typically topped the list recently, such as the economy and the government. About one in six Americans, 16%, now identify terrorism as the most important U.S. problem, up from just 3% in early November.

Now, feel free to go Rick Perry.

Remember?

It goes like this, "Oops."

Doctor Fate wrote:Tashfeen had posted of her desire to participate in jihad BEFORE she came to the US. The government's screening process ought to include social media platforms.

Seems that Malik did not make public posts on social media, but these were re private messages.

I agree that checking social media should not be banned, but it would be an overhead and would still not have prevented San Benardino.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/er ... -killings/

Fate

And, which cause far more deaths than guns . . . but, you don't want to ban them! Oh, and there is that whole Second Amendment thingee.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... er_VMT.png

Annual US traffic fatalities per billion vehicle miles traveled (red) and miles traveled (blue) from 1922 to 2012. (chart above)

The example of cars is particularly apt. Since the 1950s regulations about car safety, driving and insurance have proven to remarkably increase car safety. The deaths per billion miles traveled have decreased enormously.
That's doesn't make cars foolproof. And increased regulation of guns would never be certain to stop a committed criminal . But regulation and enforcement of regulation did remarkably improve the odds of surviving your next excursion on the roads.And its certain that the same effect would limit the carnage from guns.
And this regulation came in despite complaints that they infringed upon peoples rights and freedoms.
Of course to prove or disprove the effectiveness of gun regulations would require some good research from independent epidemiology studies . Unfortunately your congress is dead set against funding this kind of research.

rickyp wrote:Fate

And, which cause far more deaths than guns . . . but, you don't want to ban them! Oh, and there is that whole Second Amendment thingee.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... er_VMT.png

Annual US traffic fatalities per billion vehicle miles traveled (red) and miles traveled (blue) from 1922 to 2012. (chart above)

The example of cars is particularly apt. Since the 1950s regulations about car safety, driving and insurance have proven to remarkably increase car safety. The deaths per billion miles traveled have decreased enormously.
That's doesn't make cars foolproof. And increased regulation of guns would never be certain to stop a committed criminal . But regulation and enforcement of regulation did remarkably improve the odds of surviving your next excursion on the roads.And its certain that the same effect would limit the carnage from guns.
And this regulation came in despite complaints that they infringed upon peoples rights and freedoms.
Of course to prove or disprove the effectiveness of gun regulations would require some good research from independent epidemiology studies . Unfortunately your congress is dead set against funding this kind of research.

Except owning a gun is a right; driving a car is a privilege.

Congress finally found one thing they won't spend money on. Good.

Doctor Fate wrote:Except owning a gun is a right; driving a car is a privilege.

A right than many seem to abuse.

You could do worse than regulate more effectively your nation's guns. When we look at the guns used in San Bernadino, all were originally purchased legally. And the private transfer is very poorly regulated. We now know that at least one of the guns used in Paris came through a gun dealer in Florida (one linked to guns getting to Mexico, the Contras and other dodginess).

More comprehensive registration, with ability to trace back, and liability for your gun being used in a crime unless you properly show it has been transferred (or reported stolen) would help stop a lot of legal guns becoming illegal guns, and thus reduce the scope for criminals. And with no new restrictions on the "right" to own a gun.

Congress finally found one thing they won't spend money on. Good.

I think it actually is incumbent upon someone to fund research into how we can reduce deaths of citizens.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Except owning a gun is a right; driving a car is a privilege.

A right than many seem to abuse.

I would argue people abuse many rights. :)

Even so, it's in the Bill of Rights. If enough citizens want to rid themselves of the right, they have the means to do so.

You could do worse than regulate more effectively your nation's guns. When we look at the guns used in San Bernadino, all were originally purchased legally. And the private transfer is very poorly regulated. We now know that at least one of the guns used in Paris came through a gun dealer in Florida (one linked to guns getting to Mexico, the Contras and other dodginess).

Again, registration and reporting of sales would have affected San Bernardino how? (and, no matter what spellcheck tells you, there are two r's. As someone who grew up meters from the San Bernardino Freeway, you'll just have to trust me.) In all seriousness, if this would have prevented the slaughter in California, I can't see it.

More comprehensive registration, with ability to trace back, and liability for your gun being used in a crime unless you properly show it has been transferred (or reported stolen) would help stop a lot of legal guns becoming illegal guns, and thus reduce the scope for criminals. And with no new restrictions on the "right" to own a gun.

Criminal liability or financial liability?

I think this could be a real problem in terms of what the cut-off is. Are you criminally liable if you fail to report it in 5 minutes? 5 days? 5 weeks? And, if you miss the cut-off by a minute, a day, a week? How much time in jail do you deserve for things you could not reasonably have foreseen?

I suspect gun control advocates will want draconian penalties--far more than there are, say, on businesses who permit their patrons to get all sloshed and then drive off.

Congress finally found one thing they won't spend money on. Good.

I think it actually is incumbent upon someone to fund research into how we can reduce deaths of citizens.

Normally, yes. In this case, it's going to be giving money to anti-gun fanatics who will tell us exactly what they tell us now, only they'll be sitting on a pile of cash for doing nothing productive.

fate

As someone who grew up meters from the San Bernardino Freeway,

This explains a lot...

http://www.emaxhealth.com/4214/freeway- ... alzheimers

Fate

Congress finally found one thing they won't spend money on. Good

.

Despite that there is still a fair amount of research that shows that stronger gun laws result in fewer deaths.
isn't part of the job of the elected officials the protection of American lives?

Last year, the Violence Policy Center compared rates of gun ownership against gun deaths in 2011, finding that deadly gun violence was more common in states with weak gun laws and higher rates of firearms ownership.
Other academic studies have similarly found that in places where more people have guns, more people get killed with them -- including in suicides. In 2014, a report on "right-to-carry" laws, which let people carry concealed firearms in public and are often held up by gun advocates as crime deterrents, found that such laws were "associated with substantially higher rates" of aggravated assault, rape and robbery. In others words, more guns didn't result in less crime.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sta ... 8fe302a1a2

rickyp wrote:fate

As someone who grew up meters from the San Bernardino Freeway,

This explains a lot...

http://www.emaxhealth.com/4214/freeway- ... alzheimers

Pretty low, even for you. Of course, the fact that I've watched relatives die from Alzheimer's means nothing to you.

Despicable.

Oh grow a sense of humor why don;t ya?