Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-04-2016, 08:46 AM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,029,361 times
Reputation: 9407

Advertisements

FACT: Not one single recent mass shooting would have been stopped by a background check or expanded background check. In fact, all guns used in recent attacks were purchased legally. With one notable exception of course: The FBI failed to stop the Charleston shooter through the background check process already in place. THE FBI!

Now, Barack is poised to expand background checks to higher volume gun dealers, which will be 100% meaningless. Obviously.

Do liberals and Democrats understand this? If not, why not?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-04-2016, 08:50 AM
 
24,338 posts, read 22,887,254 times
Reputation: 14915
They want guns banned, background checks aren't what matters to them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2016, 08:51 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 34,991,295 times
Reputation: 7875
Did you have a link to back up your "fact" that isn't from a far right wing source?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2016, 08:56 AM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,029,361 times
Reputation: 9407
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Did you have a link to back up your "fact" that isn't from a far right wing source?
Ask and you shall receive. I'll even use a source that makes you all warm and fuzzy inside.


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...guns.html?_r=0
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2016, 09:04 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 34,991,295 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
Ask and you shall receive. I'll even use a source that makes you all warm and fuzzy inside.


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...guns.html?_r=0
Thank you, though the link does seem to show that most of them could have been prevented if we denied those with a criminal background and/or mental health issues. So basically the current background check doesn't go far enough.

Though I doubt any gun nuts care about that....case in point will probably be all the posts that follow this one....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2016, 09:11 AM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,029,361 times
Reputation: 9407
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Thank you, though the link does seem to show that most of them could have been prevented if we denied those with a criminal background and/or mental health issues. So basically the current background check doesn't go far enough.

Though I doubt any gun nuts care about that....case in point will probably be all the posts that follow this one....
It's not a matter of the depth of the background check. It's a matter of legality. Current law does not prevent a person who has not been ordered by a court to a mental institution to purchase a gun. Also, misdemeanor offenses do not result in a prohibition on gun ownership.

That's why Barack's proposed expansion of background checks are merely symbolic. A solution looking for a problem....that's all this is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2016, 09:12 AM
 
Location: SE Asia
16,237 posts, read 5,820,088 times
Reputation: 9117
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Thank you, though the link does seem to show that most of them could have been prevented if we denied those with a criminal background and/or mental health issues. So basically the current background check doesn't go far enough.

Though I doubt any gun nuts care about that....case in point will probably be all the posts that follow this one....
And I doubt those on the left are willing to do what it takes to eliminate people with mental health issues from getting guns. That would mean forcing shrinks to report patients who pose a threat. I would even advocate holding shrinks responsible for their patients actions, if the shrink failed to report the threat.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2016, 09:13 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 34,991,295 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
It's not a matter of the depth of the background check. It's a matter of legality. Current law does not prevent a person who has not been ordered by a court to a mental institution to purchase a gun. Also, misdemeanor offenses do not result in a prohibition on gun ownership.

That's why Barack's proposed expansion of background checks are merely symbolic.
Maybe it should, and yes, Obama's expansion on background checks are symbolic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2016, 09:21 AM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
9,096 posts, read 13,110,836 times
Reputation: 10046
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
FACT: Not one single recent mass shooting would have been stopped by a background check or expanded background check. In fact, all guns used in recent attacks were purchased legally. With one notable exception of course: The FBI failed to stop the Charleston shooter through the background check process already in place. THE FBI!

Now, Barack is poised to expand background checks to higher volume gun dealers, which will be 100% meaningless. Obviously.

Do liberals and Democrats understand this? If not, why not?
Sure but only because you are only seeing cases where the system failed.

What you don't look at is how many mass shootings did not occur because the criminal or mentally ill person was not able to obtain a gun for some reason. Whether it is because of government screening or simply people practicing proper gun safety like locking their guns up in a secure location. In other words the shooting never happens so you do not hear about it.

Its hard to judge fairly when you only hear about failures and not success.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2016, 09:22 AM
 
Location: Central Maine
4,697 posts, read 6,419,399 times
Reputation: 5046
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
Ask and you shall receive. I'll even use a source that makes you all warm and fuzzy inside.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...guns.html?_r=0
From your source:

Quote:
The vast majority of guns used in 15 recent mass shootings, including at least two of the guns used in the San Bernardino attack, were bought legally and with a federal background check. At least eight gunmen had criminal histories or documented mental health problems that did not prevent them from obtaining their weapons.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that rational people, regardless of their views on guns in general, would rather keep guns out of the hands of people with criminal histories and/or documented mental health problems. Can we at least agree on that?

It seems to me that we can either (1) discontinue background checks for gun purchases, since they don't appear to be working as effectively as we would like, or (2) fix the problems in background checks that allowed such individuals legal access to guns.

Let's fix the background checks, expand them, and eliminate the loopholes. Let's change the laws that are a hindrance rather than a help to effective background checks. If the background checks aren't working now, let's make the changes needed to make them work. Let's keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top