Guns and Intent

[he_who_is_nobody]

HWIN, the reason why Bogan referred to me as the "first left" is undoubtedly because he doesn't perceive you as on the left - he certainly appears to be unaware of your post in the "Political Spectrum" thread. [1]

I doubt that. I am pretty sure he either did not read my post or forgot about it.

 

[Deleted member 619]

'Did not'? That's very charitable of you, dude.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Gun controls in the U.S. are being deregulated regardless even when this argument is commonplace in most states. 21 states that require no process in order to obtain a carry permit because they have removed the requirement to get a carry permit to carry a handgun legally concealed or open. It may be mal lined but it effective nonetheless.

This just means that anyone can carry, which doesn't seem to make sense to me.

If there's no process to carrying, how does one stop someone who's unfit to do so, carrying a weapon?

I think it is better to simply argue that hunting rifles are or can be semi automatic even if you discounted the AR-15 platform entirely. The Browning Automatic Rifle is by default and inception for hunting and modified to be used in combat as a light automatic rifle.

Even still forcing someone else on the defensive and asking them why the gun is more lethal is far more effective and makes gun grabbers look stupid. Other people can plainly tell so more simple arguments are more effective. Explaining to them the history of the AR doesn't really do much in terms of conciseness.

Personally, I'd rather address someone's fears first - if their fears are rational, they may come around. If their fears are irrational, then no amount of talking to them - whether you use "honey" or "vinegar" - will change their mind, and being "in their face" is certainly going to entrench their anti-gun views.

Situationally dependent.

My point was - and is - that advancing on your assailant changes how the law looks at you because it muddies the water as to who is the attacker and who the defender.

If you use force against someone threatening you with serious bodily harm, a forcibly felony and/or death then you are covered legally to use lethal force against said person. The problem comes with incidentals: 1) Hitting a bystander. 2) Confusing serious bodily harm with general harm. 3) Pursuing when that threat is no longer being displayed.

Granted - and the last is one of the examples I gave of advancing on (chasing) someone.

Regardless the recorded worst mass shooting in history in the U.S. had less wounded and less killed comparatively and even still it was 23 firearms involved compared to 1 van.

I'd like to see the stats for this - the mass shooting and the use of "1 van", please?

Both are involved in crime. It is far more likely that a vehicle is used in a crime than a gun even in the U.S. considering vehicles are used to escape or evade. Firearms on the other hand overwhelmingly are still used for lawful purpose considering the ratio of number of firearms to firearms used in a crime. Even still you don't go through the same process to buy a car than you do a gun from a dealer.

I'd contest this claim that vehicles are "far more likely" to be used in crimes than a gun, never mind a weapon.

And the DGU figures are contested.

Being favorable to firearms doesn't mean I am going to sell to anyone. I think if there is evidence of foul play then that is different however. I have been on camera denying people transfers of firearms. Why? They stink like they are under the influence of substances. They say specific things that lead to SUSPICION of a crime. They can't get their story straight on the form etc. I lose a sale but I do so regardless even though it is inherently a negative for me.

Contrast that to say: A potential director of the ATF that is linked with a gun grabber institution attempting to regulate pistol braces and suggesting firearms bans and it is totally different in scope and severity.

I wasn't referring to you - I was referring to whoever is in charge of the ATF needing to be a guard dog rather than a fox, since s/he's there to monitor weapons.

Even his perceived competence is at fault and issue here. In commanding tactical squads he is a failure and still he is suggested to carry out ATF work. He is a failure in personal firearms handling so whatever he argues in terms of gun handling also irrelevant. He is a literal incompetent.

We all make mistakes - it's arguably the main way we learn.

His doing so hasn't prevented him from progressing in his chosen career.

I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt - until he makes a real mess.

If he was any other father he'd be arrested. He is the president so he is immune.

Finally you are the first left person that actually agrees that Hunter should be prosecuted. Also I think Biden should be arrested for his obvious act of corruption.

Hunter may yet be prosecuted/arrested over tax and business dealings - particularly in relation with the Ukraine.

If you arrested Biden Snr., then you'd have to arrest most - if not all - of those in all the branches of government.

They've been 30+ years at it (NICS) and have made no improvement to the system overall. The total amount of firearms regulations have declined and yet firearms homicides have declined compared to the peak during the 1980s and 1990s. Mass shootings have increased but yet the number of firearms homicides is less. Violent crime is increased and decreased seemingly at random.

Certainly nothing to do with immigration.

They suggest to implement a gun registry which is FEDERALLY PROHIBITED under the GCA of 1968 and the FOPA clause.

This would need to go through Congress - what are the chances of that? Even if it managed to get t

They also suggest high taxes and confiscation of firearms.

Why would anyone allow them to steal firearms from private citizens that have no criminal record?

To arbitrarily declare something illegal and then to steal said item. If anything they are helping the argument of private ownership of firearms because they give cause for distrust the government literally is stealing items from you under legal extortion without compensation.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

This just means that anyone can carry, which doesn't seem to make sense to me.

"anyone" no.

If there's no process to carrying, how does one stop someone who's unfit to do so, carrying a weapon?

If they make a spectacle of themselves then they will be investigated. It just depends on the specific condition and example. Plus if someone was unfit and they obtain a firearm they could still do so it just means they are in violation and this happened routinely with prohibited persons prior to the states requiring permits. The process doesn't prevent anybody sufficiently enough to not carry given they are prohibs.

Personally, I'd rather address someone's fears first - if their fears are rational, they may come around. If their fears are irrational, then no amount of talking to them - whether you use "honey" or "vinegar" - will change their mind, and being "in their face" is certainly going to entrench their anti-gun views.

Regardless if you use honey or vinegar the odds of convincing someone is remote I would agree. The point is to give a good example of a bad example in order to convince on lookers in a public place. The way you do this is to concisely make the argument I already laid out. People generally don't have good attention spans so it is imperative you make the argument concise and not longform. You need sound bites that are easy to understand and are correct not long form stuff that people are generally going to ignore or forget in longform.

My point was - and is - that advancing on your assailant changes how the law looks at you because it muddies the water as to who is the attacker and who the defender.

But if the person who initially aggressed on you remains a threat then that person is still the attacker. Of course this highly depends if you are in a free state or not. Duty to retreat would trounce this.

Castle Doctrine and Stand your ground makes this argument viable. "I closed distance to reduce casualties and end the continual threat sooner. How? In X manner. Ok."

Granted - and the last is one of the examples I gave of advancing on (chasing) someone.

Correct I wasn't contesting the part of pursuing someone NOT continuing to display serious threat to bodily harm. I gave the example of gaining ground on someone continuing to display threat.

I'd like to see the stats for this - the mass shooting and the use of "1 van", please?

2017 Las Vegas shooting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2016 Nice truck attack - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'd contest this claim that vehicles are "far more likely" to be used in crimes than a gun, never mind a weapon.

Lots of people own vehicles. More people own vehicles than firearms. Vehicles being used in a crime doesn't necessarily mean they use a vehicle as a weapon. I think it would be better to put it as "involved in crime" rather than be "used" as the same problem persists with how you define a defensive gun use?

And the DGU figures are contested.

Fine. Statistics are hard to come by especially when there is no legal requirement to file a police report if no legal damages are sustained by either party. If you lack records then obviously you have to extrapolate and the definition of "use" which uses are legitimate and should be counted versus not is one such example.

I wasn't referring to you - I was referring to whoever is in charge of the ATF needing to be a guard dog rather than a fox, since s/he's there to monitor weapons.

Ok.

We all make mistakes - it's arguably the main way we learn.

Should an incompetent be in charge of anything? I made a mistake oopsy now give me control of the institution looking to ban firearms for nonsensical reasons because Biden a fellow gun grabber as ordered such? Imagine if I let firearms be stolen should I be allowed to sell guns after I go "oopsy my bad"? No. Why should it be any different for appointed political leaders?

His doing so hasn't prevented him from progressing in his chosen career.

That is a point in favor of me arguing the U.S. government is incompetent. If you can progress after such incompetence and not be fired or arrested for breaking departmental policy and still advance in that career then something is very wrong.

I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt - until he makes a real mess.

Waco siege - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

When is it a real mess then?

Hunter may yet be prosecuted/arrested over tax and business dealings - particularly in relation with the Ukraine.

Most likely not.

If you arrested Biden Snr., then you'd have to arrest most - if not all - of those in all the branches of government.

I think for interfering for an investigation Biden should be prosecuted but he is immune.

Certainly nothing to do with immigration.

Its an example that processes generally go unchanged or fundamentally unchanged.

This would need to go through Congress - what are the chances of that? Even if it managed to get t

This technically could get through Congress as outlined by other theorists on YouTube through 50 votes under conciliation considering gun control measures as a public health crises and addressed as an expense line item. Certain aspects they suggest have been getting close in house and senate. It is still possible.

You didn't reply to the last quote.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

as I've mentioned before, I've been having ISP issues connecting - it seems to have dropped part of my response to the second-last paragraph and my response to the last.

This is what I'd meant to say:

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:


They suggest to implement a gun registry which is FEDERALLY PROHIBITED under the GCA of 1968 and the FOPA clause.

This would need to go through Congress - what are the chances of that? Even if it managed to get through, it would undoubtedly be struck-down by the Supreme Court.

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:

They also suggest high taxes and confiscation of firearms.

Why would anyone allow them to steal firearms from private citizens that have no criminal record?

To arbitrarily declare something illegal and then to steal said item. If anything they are helping the argument of private ownership of firearms because they give cause for distrust the government literally is stealing items from you under legal extortion without compensation.

If the Supreme Court supports such legislation, then so be it.

=========================

That's what I intended saying - I'll wait for your reply to this extra bit before replying to it all in a single post. Apologies for the confusion.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:

They suggest to implement a gun registry which is FEDERALLY PROHIBITED under the GCA of 1968 and the FOPA clause.

This would need to go through Congress - what are the chances of that? Even if it managed to get through, it would undoubtedly be struck-down by the Supreme Court.

They also suggest high taxes and confiscation of firearms.

Why would anyone allow them to steal firearms from private citizens that have no criminal record?

To arbitrarily declare something illegal and then to steal said item. If anything they are helping the argument of private ownership of firearms because they give cause for distrust the government literally is stealing items from you under legal extortion without compensation.

If the Supreme Court supports such legislation, then so be it.

Searchable Firearm Registry:
Considering cost and complexity SCOTUS has already prohibited poll taxes so I don't understand the legal argument considering the logistics of enforcing a registry even though it is federally prohibited. It would be struck down as the costs associated for the people attempting to register in order to exercise their right would be burdensome. It wouldn't be very consistent to prohibit taxing on the right the vote compared to the right to bare arms as SCOTUS has articulated before.

The cost associated to the proposed legislation would effectively mean gun owners couldn't afford to be gun owners if the firearms under ban are all they own. It would essentially prohibit ownership purely due to cost. You can't prohibit something and make it so expensive you make it illegal according to SCOTUS although I type this in consideration of the NFA the polling tax ruling was post this and yet the NFA remains unchallenged.

Confiscation of Firearms:
Taking someone's property without compensation is already illegal when it concerns non contraband in the U.S.. You cannot simply have the government take your property and not have them reimburse you for the value of the property. this is precisely what Gun grabbers are suggesting as in order to fairly compensate owners of firearms they are lawfully in possession of with an arbitrary decree t would it take a lot of money and would threaten to compromise budgets.

Arbitrary Banning of Firearms:
The firearms they are attempting to ban aren't even part of the majority of firearms used in crimes. The vast majority include handguns - conventional handguns and not the type they are parading around as the ills and woes of American gun violence.

Even if they went through ALL of it the effects on American gun crime would be negligible considering cost and advancing more government control without a significant increase in safety is not American. Again the country is based on upbringing the individual potentially at cost of the group. This is what the country was founded on and the continued ideal of the U.S.. We are attempting to not become a nanny state and not to become one and be geared towards globalism.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

"anyone" no.

If they make a spectacle of themselves then they will be investigated. It just depends on the specific condition and example. Plus if someone was unfit and they obtain a firearm they could still do so it just means they are in violation and this happened routinely with prohibited persons prior to the states requiring permits. The process doesn't prevent anybody sufficiently enough to not carry given they are prohibs.

In that case, if permits don't prevent those unfit to carry weapons from doing so, you have to prevent them from keeping weapons in the first place.

The only way to do that is based on a history of violence and/or a likelihood to violence - and that means some form of state and/or national database of violent crime and mental health problems known to be associated with violence.

If you have another way of preventing the unfit from keeping weapons, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Regardless if you use honey or vinegar the odds of convincing someone is remote I would agree. The point is to give a good example of a bad example in order to convince on lookers in a public place. The way you do this is to concisely make the argument I already laid out. People generally don't have good attention spans so it is imperative you make the argument concise and not longform. You need sound bites that are easy to understand and are correct not long form stuff that people are generally going to ignore or forget in longform.

There are those who'll be convinced by honey; there are those who'll be convinced by vinegar. And there'll be those who'll be convinced by neither.

The best option is to combine both to convince the most people.

But if the person who initially aggressed on you remains a threat then that person is still the attacker. Of course this highly depends if you are in a free state or not. Duty to retreat would trounce this.

Castle Doctrine and Stand your ground makes this argument viable. "I closed distance to reduce casualties and end the continual threat sooner. How? In X manner. Ok."

Correct I wasn't contesting the part of pursuing someone NOT continuing to display serious threat to bodily harm. I gave the example of gaining ground on someone continuing to display threat.

Not advancing on the initial aggressor would be the best option to avoid confusing the issue as to who's the aggressor and who the defender/victim.

2017 Las Vegas shooting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 496

2016 Nice truck attack - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 497

Lots of people own vehicles. More people own vehicles than firearms. Vehicles being used in a crime doesn't necessarily mean they use a vehicle as a weapon. I think it would be better to put it as "involved in crime" rather than be "used" as the same problem persists with how you define a defensive gun use?

In this case the vehicle wasn't the weapon per se - it was the bomb it contained.

I was referring to someone driving a vehicle onto the pavement or into a crowd - a gun can kill more people in all directions than a vehicle.

Fine. Statistics are hard to come by especially when there is no legal requirement to file a police report if no legal damages are sustained by either party. If you lack records then obviously you have to extrapolate and the definition of "use" which uses are legitimate and should be counted versus not is one such example.

Agreed.

Ok.

Should an incompetent be in charge of anything? I made a mistake oopsy now give me control of the institution looking to ban firearms for nonsensical reasons because Biden a fellow gun grabber as ordered such? Imagine if I let firearms be stolen should I be allowed to sell guns after I go "oopsy my bad"? No. Why should it be any different for appointed political leaders?

That is a point in favor of me arguing the U.S. government is incompetent. If you can progress after such incompetence and not be fired or arrested for breaking departmental policy and still advance in that career then something is very wrong.

Waco siege - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 498
When is it a real mess then?

You keep implying that he is responsible for Waco - he's not, because he wasn't in charge at the time.



No mention of him at all.

Most likely not.

I think for interfering for an investigation Biden should be prosecuted but he is immune.

Perhaps after he leaves office.

Its an example that processes generally go unchanged or fundamentally unchanged.

But it had nothing to do with immigration/immigrants.

This technically could get through Congress as outlined by other theorists on YouTube through 50 votes under conciliation considering gun control measures as a public health crises and addressed as an expense line item. Certain aspects they suggest have been getting close in house and senate. It is still possible.

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:

They also suggest high taxes and confiscation of firearms.

Why would anyone allow them to steal firearms from private citizens that have no criminal record?

To arbitrarily declare something illegal and then to steal said item. If anything they are helping the argument of private ownership of firearms because they give cause for distrust the government literally is stealing items from you under legal extortion without compensation.

Searchable Firearm Registry:
Considering cost and complexity SCOTUS has already prohibited poll taxes so I don't understand the legal argument considering the logistics of enforcing a registry even though it is federally prohibited. It would be struck down as the costs associated for the people attempting to register in order to exercise their right would be burdensome. It wouldn't be very consistent to prohibit taxing on the right the vote compared to the right to bare arms as SCOTUS has articulated before.

The cost associated to the proposed legislation would effectively mean gun owners couldn't afford to be gun owners if the firearms under ban are all they own. It would essentially prohibit ownership purely due to cost. You can't prohibit something and make it so expensive you make it illegal according to SCOTUS although I type this in consideration of the NFA the polling tax ruling was post this and yet the NFA remains unchallenged.

Confiscation of Firearms:
Taking someone's property without compensation is already illegal when it concerns non contraband in the U.S.. You cannot simply have the government take your property and not have them reimburse you for the value of the property. this is precisely what Gun grabbers are suggesting as in order to fairly compensate owners of firearms they are lawfully in possession of with an arbitrary decree t would it take a lot of money and would threaten to compromise budgets.

Arbitrary Banning of Firearms:
The firearms they are attempting to ban aren't even part of the majority of firearms used in crimes. The vast majority include handguns - conventional handguns and not the type they are parading around as the ills and woes of American gun violence.

Even if they went through ALL of it the effects on American gun crime would be negligible considering cost and advancing more government control without a significant increase in safety is not American. Again the country is based on upbringing the individual potentially at cost of the group. This is what the country was founded on and the continued ideal of the U.S.. We are attempting to not become a nanny state and not to become one and be geared towards globalism.

I agree that their efforts are misdirected: it's aimed at what's seen as a long-range weapon with a greater potential for more deaths and injuries.

Their efforts should be aimed at reducing violence through support for mental healthcare, diversion programmes for youth from gang culture - including using groups with ex-gang members, etc.

There's too much reliance on approaches that look good but aren't backed-up with evidence.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

In that case, if permits don't prevent those unfit to carry weapons from doing so, you have to prevent them from keeping weapons in the first place.

NICS Firearm Checks: Month/Year | Federal Bureau of Investigation

Statistics represent the number of firearms background checks initiated through the NICS from November 1998 to March 31, 2024.

www.fbi.gov

+

40%.

Impossible even if the government had advanced warning of someone planning a violent crime with a firearm.

The only way to do that is based on a history of violence and/or a likelihood to violence - and that means some form of state and/or national database of violent crime and mental health problems known to be associated with violence.

States have NO legal requirement in order to communicate with each other. A federal database is pretty much impossible legally speaking and judging from the results of the NICS - a cobbled together chain of state databases which are not upkept I don't think this would work either even if the legality of states communicating was enforced for federal law.

If you have another way of preventing the unfit from keeping weapons, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Keep them in jail or kill them if they are repeat offenders is the only way I see. If they are mentally deficient then likewise jail them. Reagan defunded the federal platform for mental hospitals and asylums and released them in general population. A mere generation later and the rate of violence is significantly increased. One other factor to consider is the mandating and reducing to exposure to LEAD. Correlative but not necessarily causation.

There are those who'll be convinced by honey; there are those who'll be convinced by vinegar. And there'll be those who'll be convinced by neither.

The best option is to combine both to convince the most people.

There are multiple indicators or causes of violent crime and crime in general. If you want to make the biggest impact it is far more efficient to address the largest contributors and work your way down.

Addressing social issues, gangs, drugs, mental problems etc would be far more effective as it would reduce ALL forms of violent crime potentially not just gun controls to only effect the law abiding and only effect so called gun violence even though the majority is suicide.

I like conciseness and I think you can't really spend a lot of time explaining things to 330m or so people in the U.S.. It would be far more efficient and possible to talk to all 330m or so people if you keep short and keep it to the point. I think more people would listen if you don't sugar coat it and most people I run into don't have the interest or time.

Not advancing on the initial aggressor would be the best option to avoid confusing the issue as to who's the aggressor and who the defender/victim.

In the vast majority of camera footage I have seen other people generally do not intervene it is purely between you and the aggressor. It is a risk you must accept if you want to be effective in defending yourself/others in certain situations. Closing on someone to gain angle and shoot them in a vital area and minimize the chance that you miss and hit a bi stander is much preferred compared to not closing and threatening someone else unrelated.

In this case the vehicle wasn't the weapon per se - it was the bomb it contained.

I was referring to someone driving a vehicle onto the pavement or into a crowd - a gun can kill more people in all directions than a vehicle.

The Nice attack involved the attacker ramming people from a crowded street. There was no bomb involved according to the source I linked. What are you talking about? Even then there were more casualties and FATALITIES linked to this attack rather than the worst mass shooting attack on record in the U.S.. 20+ firearms compared to 1 truck and it is still worse with just a Truck.

Agreed.

You keep implying that he is responsible for Waco - he's not, because he wasn't in charge at the time.



No mention of him at all.

Yea apparently Daily Mail got it wrong. It says its some FBI agent.

Ok even still you would grant someone the head of an organization in controlling firearms when said person LOST his issued weapon?

I still think he's incompetent.

Perhaps after he leaves office.

I doubt it. Government is so clogged up. Which is why I like small government.

But it had nothing to do with immigration/immigrants.

Been too long what is the context of this?

I agree that their efforts are misdirected: it's aimed at what's seen as a long-range weapon with a greater potential for more deaths and injuries.

Their efforts should be aimed at reducing violence through support for mental healthcare, diversion programmes for youth from gang culture - including using groups with ex-gang members, etc.

There's too much reliance on approaches that look good but aren't backed-up with evidence.

Yes.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

NICS Firearm Checks: Month/Year | Federal Bureau of Investigation

Statistics represent the number of firearms background checks initiated through the NICS from November 1998 to March 31, 2024.

www.fbi.gov

+

40%.

Impossible even if the government had advanced warning of someone planning a violent crime with a firearm.

States have NO legal requirement in order to communicate with each other. A federal database is pretty much impossible legally speaking and judging from the results of the NICS - a cobbled together chain of state databases which are not upkept I don't think this would work either even if the legality of states communicating was enforced for federal law.

There should be a legal requirement for states to maintain up-to-date "history of violence" (both criminal and mental health problems known to be associated with violence) databases, so that FFLs like yourself will know - on the spot - whether a customer is eligible or not to purchase weapons.

If this needed to be mandated by federal law, then that might help.

If all states were up-to-date, it would be easy for federal authorities to check the states' databases for those who are out-of-staters and/or weapons crossing state lines.

Keep them in jail or kill them if they are repeat offenders is the only way I see. If they are mentally deficient then likewise jail them. Reagan defunded the federal platform for mental hospitals and asylums and released them in general population. A mere generation later and the rate of violence is significantly increased. One other factor to consider is the mandating and reducing to exposure to LEAD. Correlative but not necessarily causation.

I disagree with the death penalty as a solution.

Keep them in jail until they change.

Those whose violence is due to mental health issues should be in psychiatric institutions: if they can't be cured, then - sadly - they'll have to remain there for the rest of their natural lives.

Reinstating the federal platform which Reagan removed would be a start to addressing violence in society.

I agree with the lead issue - and the evidence is clear that exposure to lead damages impulse control. That's why toys, etc., that include lead have been banned in the US and certain other developed countries.

There are multiple indicators or causes of violent crime and crime in general. If you want to make the biggest impact it is far more efficient to address the largest contributors and work your way down.

Addressing social issues, gangs, drugs, mental problems etc would be far more effective as it would reduce ALL forms of violent crime potentially not just gun controls to only effect the law abiding and only effect so called gun violence even though the majority is suicide.

I like conciseness and I think you can't really spend a lot of time explaining things to 330m or so people in the U.S.. It would be far more efficient and possible to talk to all 330m or so people if you keep short and keep it to the point. I think more people would listen if you don't sugar coat it and most people I run into don't have the interest or time.

I fully agree with you that we need to address the causes of violence rather than the effects - all too often it's about short-term gains ("optics", re-election and/or political party point-scoring).

In the vast majority of camera footage I have seen other people generally do not intervene it is purely between you and the aggressor. It is a risk you must accept if you want to be effective in defending yourself/others in certain situations. Closing on someone to gain angle and shoot them in a vital area and minimize the chance that you miss and hit a bi stander is much preferred compared to not closing and threatening someone else unrelated.

I understand your point - I'm just thinking of how it might look to a jury who doesn't understand the tactics involved in such situations. The opposing lawyer could use that against you to make you look like the "aggressor".

The Nice attack involved the attacker ramming people from a crowded street. There was no bomb involved according to the source I linked. What are you talking about? Even then there were more casualties and FATALITIES linked to this attack rather than the worst mass shooting attack on record in the U.S.. 20+ firearms compared to 1 truck and it is still worse with just a Truck.

My apologies - I saw the title of the Wiki article but didn't read it - I confused this with a similar incident in Nice several years prior involving a bombing.

Still, a truck being used in a single incident doesn't mean that a car in general can kill more people than a gun.

Yea apparently Daily Mail got it wrong. It says its some FBI agent.

Ok even still you would grant someone the head of an organization in controlling firearms when said person LOST his issued weapon?

I still think he's incompetent.

The Daily Mail used to be a mainstream paper back in the 70s - now, it's just a tabloid. As Potholer54's second video (which i posted in the Pipe Dream thread) shows, it's not a reliable source.

Whether he's competent or not is another matter - he may have made a mistake back then but I don't think it's fair to judge someone one one incident in their life. I saw something about his being accused of racism during the hearings...

I doubt it. Government is so clogged up. Which is why I like small government.

Been too long what is the context of this?

Yes.

Regarding context, you'd said [#255]:

Violent crime is increased and decreased seemingly at random.

I was reiterating what I'd said; that there's no correlation between violent crime and immigration.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Led Zeppelin]

If they make a spectacle of themselves then they will be investigated. It just depends on the specific condition and example. Plus if someone was unfit and they obtain a firearm they could still do so it just means they are in violation and this happened routinely with prohibited persons prior to the states requiring permits. The process doesn't prevent anybody sufficiently enough to not carry given they are prohibs.

No American should ever be allowed to own any firearm. You are all too fucking insane.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

No American should ever be allowed to own any firearm. You are all too fucking insane.

Good thing it isn't up to you.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

There should be a legal requirement for states to maintain up-to-date "history of violence" (both criminal and mental health problems known to be associated with violence) databases, so that FFLs like yourself will know - on the spot - whether a customer is eligible or not to purchase weapons.

They do the problem is that federal law makes it impossible to have a consistent federal database. No requirement to communicate or participate with another state. It would require a Constitutional amendment and even then that only takes care of the legal requirement and not if the states are even capable of doing what is asked.

I disagree with the death penalty as a solution.

Keep them in jail until they change.

Those whose violence is due to mental health issues should be in psychiatric institutions: if they can't be cured, then - sadly - they'll have to remain there for the rest of their natural lives.

Reinstating the federal platform which Reagan removed would be a start to addressing violence in society.

I agree with the lead issue - and the evidence is clear that exposure to lead damages impulse control. That's why toys, etc., that include lead have been banned in the US and certain other developed countries.

How exactly is it better to forever incarcerate someone rather than killing them? If done my way the costs would be lower and the suffering on the part of the guilty would be less. Also it wouldn't be likely that they change as those societal problems haven't gone away. It is partly the reason why they continually do what they do.

I understand your point - I'm just thinking of how it might look to a jury who doesn't understand the tactics involved in such situations. The opposing lawyer could use that against you to make you look like the "aggressor".

It is their job to make you the bad guy. The problem with that is that the law literally allows for it. They can argue all they want but hopefully you live in a progun state your peers are generally of the opinion that they support the same view as viewed at the time with the information that was had in the moment.

My apologies - I saw the title of the Wiki article but didn't read it - I confused this with a similar incident in Nice several years prior involving a bombing.

Still, a truck being used in a single incident doesn't mean that a car in general can kill more people than a gun.

Assuming target rich environment then the Truck would be more deadly and produce more casualties in total. Because you really don't have to be very accurate with a Truck vs a firearm. If shot in a non critical area it is a severe point of pain. If hit with a Truck it is very difficult not to be hit in a lethal or critical area if able to get up to speed as was done during the attack considering of the mass of the object hitting a much smaller object. It depends if target rich environment and able to ramp up speed.

Whether he's competent or not is another matter - he may have made a mistake back then but I don't think it's fair to judge someone one one incident in their life. I saw something about his being accused of racism during the hearings...

Do you consider the proposed director of the ATF to be competent assuming he lost his issued duty weapon and had it stolen? I certainly don't it is black and white. You lost an issued firearm in your personal vehicle because you left it in the personal vehicle against the policy of the ATF. Remember this is an organization this person is supposed to be heading that controls firearms or is supposed to control firearms with an aim to provide public safety. I refuse to consider such a person competent or even someone level headed considering his rhetoric.

Regarding context, you'd said [#255]:

I was reiterating what I'd said; that there's no correlation between violent crime and immigration.

I wouldn't say "no correlation". There are certainly examples of the undocumented committing crimes other than entering the country or remaining illegally.

Another possibility popped into my head. Rates of conviction has to require a conviction correct? What happens when they catch someone committing a violent crime and an illegal? What are the rates of people being deported before being convicted of a crime? Seems much more efficient to get rid of a problem temporarily under deportation and not fully showing figures relative to violent crime and the undocumented. It also would theoretically paint illegal aliens in a more positive light.



This video and the interview conducted means that such conviction rates relating to the undocumented is NOT commonly kept according to the author of the publication people commonly cite relating to the illegal aliens and convictions for violent crimes.

It begs the question:
Should I take seriously violent crime rates relative to illegal aliens when even according to the author of one publication relating to convictions of violent crime and illegal aliens that all the information is not present and he used partial data from Texas and not all states or localities because such information "is not kept" - 3:33 timestamp.

If true it is simply misrepresenting reality claiming one thing is not the case when the evidence doesn't exist.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

An Example of why Immigration may have something to do with violent crime.



Detainers are effectively null and void in sanctuary areas. An illegal arrested and then sent detainer to ICE to have said illegal alien deported or otherwise punished and jailed doesn't apply. That is INCENTIVE to commit repeat violent crime.

They can't do much against you. They can temporarily hold you - that's it.