Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Originally Posted by Mag3.14 Here is a question: being that a lot of (if not most) mass shooters tend to rant about something on social media, or on internet forums (the FBI claims that very few people actually just "snap. They tend to plan out shootings in advance), would you be OK with the NSA being given more authority to monitor the internet behavior of US residents?...
It's monitored on a daily basis....how do you think they catch a lot of terrorists?
Can they monitor everything, of course not....
Now, let me ask you an honest question...
let's go with the 30,000 deaths per year (including suicide), why is the big black scary assault rifle under so much fire (no pun intended)?
Last edited by chucksnee; 10-06-2015 at 03:38 PM..
So, I asked the question - an honest question as I haven't really given it much thought. Many on this thread are asking for suggestions: above is a suggestive question, and yet so far, not one has offered any reasoned or intelligent response.
As for you, at least you have responded I guess. So, are you saying that using something like the NSA to monitor for trends that potential shooters have in common with those of the past is a bad idea? If so, why? If we were to do something like that it would have to be pretty secretive though - that is the point.
I am sure that the vast majority of people support doing something - it is just very hard to agree on what that "something" is. So my question is not about regulation, or mental health - it is something else..
I believe that the govt. are already doing the monitoring,
but not acting upon all information that comes up in the monitoring process.
I also do not believe that much of this monitoring is 100% 'legal' which may be
a large part of teh reason that no action is taken when the information is gathered.
I am 68 and have guns around me most of my life. I do know that your side will argue about how dangerous the world is because of my guns. Somebody could break in and kill me with my own weapons. But I have lived all of these years thinking that I have the power to defend myself and family if I have to. That peace of mind is all I ever needed. I have never considered myself impotent; I am trained and lethal if I have to be (hopefully that time will never come). And, on the subject of 'hopefully that time will never come' you could take a poll of gun owners and I would bet that most will say the same thing. Most of us are not running around packing with a chip on our shoulders. We are simply working and surviving and using all the 'tools' available.
I don't doubt that you are exactly as you say you are. It is an undeniable fact that "most" gun owners will never ever harm anybody or anything with their guns. It is also a fact that almost all will never protect themselves or anyone else with one either. However, it is also a fact that having a gun at home makes you significantly more at risk from domestic violence, or suicide than without one, or than potentially protecting yourself from a potential attacker.
However, you as an individual do not negate the unique danger/threat than guns pose to this society at large. That is the larger discussion.
I believe that the govt. are already doing the monitoring,
but not acting upon all information that comes up in the monitoring process.
I also do not believe that much of this monitoring is 100% 'legal' which may be
a large part of teh reason that no action is taken when the information is gathered.
But, is it something that could help? It seems that much of what is posted or planned leading up to these events is discovered afterward - why can't we do more to track trends and potential threats prior? Is that not something worthy of discussion?
Yep.....
One has to wonder if crazy breeds crazy... In this case and the Newton mom one can argue that the parents had selective blindness when it came to their own kids.
Denial and hopeful fantasy that things will magically turn out OK.
One has to wonder if Newton set off any alarms with this mama.
I don't doubt that you are exactly as you say you are. It is an undeniable fact that "most" gun owners will never ever harm anybody or anything with their guns. It is also a fact that almost all will never protect themselves or anyone else with one either. However, it is also a fact that having a gun at home makes you significantly more at risk from domestic violence, or suicide than without one, or than potentially protecting yourself from a potential attacker.
However, you as an individual do not negate the unique danger/threat than guns pose to this society at large. That is the larger discussion.
The study you speak of, does it list those that have been arrested and all those others that are not allowed to have a gun or does it just lump all those into one category with people who are allowed to have a gun?
But, is it something that could help? It seems that much of what is posted or planned leading up to these events is discovered afterward - why can't we do more to track trends and potential threats prior? Is that not something worthy of discussion?
the courts have ruled that the power of the authorities to monitor one's internet activity is limited, much like their ability to barge in to your home searching for *whatever* without a warrant.
I think you answered your own question - and mine.
Here is my comment that I referenced before, #1272. Please have another read now that I have bolded what might help better present my question. I am curious to know the response, whether from a lefty or a righty, but with fingers crossed the response is reasoned and rational. Please see bolded below...
Like I commented before, I don't think there is any real way to prevent gun violence any more than it is possible to prevent terrorism, because when a crazy wants to do crazy, crazy will happen...
But..., Hillary Clinton is now calling for additional gun control, that if imposed, will obviously not prevent another mass killing. It might just prevent one or more incidents that we can never know about, because prevention is just as impossible to measure in terms of what DOES NOT happen that might have happened.
So..., I ask myself if I were a real gun enthusiast without any criminal or mental illness record, with a totally clean record, free to polish my guns every night, shoot at targets, hunt, protect my home from bad guys, pretend to be a crime-fighter too, and all the rest that pro-NRA types love to do, why not accept these additional gun control measures that won't keep me from doing my gun thing?
If it were me, I would think all the better to simply do all we can in terms of keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people, if nothing else to allow this country to say we have done all that can be done. To be able to confirm this for the victim families past, present and future.
Is this not a worthwhile goal, even if some believe the results will be negligible? If additional constraints might stop even one more mass killing from happening, should I not as a law-abiding gun owner agree with these tighter gun control laws just for the sake of doing all possible? I find the objections to the additional background check time, paperwork, additional cost..., all somewhat petty in light of the opportunity to respond with all reasonable measures that do not keep gun enthusiasts from enjoying their guns.
Of course I understand why the NRA pushes all the propaganda to the contrary. We all understand the profit motive and the significant profits enjoyed by gun manufacturers. The heavy propaganda is to be expected from those who are most directly profiting from less gun control. Same as RJ Reynolds has always been against the warnings and control of tobacco sales.
Too bad the NRA still seems to have a little more clout and just enough money to keep the sensible gun controls from passing into law, even though law abiding gun enthusiasts can continue to smoke their guns with tighter gun control laws just like tobacco enthusiasts have continued to smoke their smokes even with tighter regulation.
In the face of this sort of violence and/or incidents of death, it takes a much better argument than inconvenience or higher expense to justify not doing all within reason that can be done, IMHO.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Second try...
