So, no. Not on a wider look at thwarted attacks or planned attacks. Just on cherry picked successful ones.Doctor Fate wrote:danivon wrote:Is that based on evidence and data, or supposition. Are you including attacks that have been foiled or just those that succeed.Doctor Fate wrote:danivon wrote:Question - do stricter gun laws make it easier to stop the plots before they happen?
Apparently not.
It's based on Paris and 9/11, for starters.
People can get off the no fly list.Here's the thing: Democrats are always trying to find ways to short-circuit the 2nd Amendment. In California, there is talk of background checks for ammunition. They're always chipping away at it.
So, banning sales to those on the watch list seems like one of these. For crying out loud: if they are Americans, what's to preclude an expanded "watch list?" How do you get off of it if you're not a terrorist? If you are a known threat, I would hope the waiting period would be sufficient for the FBI.
And not all legal current sales have a "waiting period". Gun shows and private sales are an example. Hence why the suspect in my link wanted to buy an AR-15 at a gun show I imagine.
Also, this betrays that for you it is a partisan issue, and more important to stop the Democrats from whatever their sinister plot is than it is to stop thousands of suspected terrorists getting hold of legal guns.
Because we could conclude that alarm systems don't stop burglaries based on a few burglaries on alarmed properties, or we could look a bit wider.
Actually, alarms do work: burglars rarely hit homes with alarms. [/quote]Precisely my point. If, however, we cherry picked a few prominent burglaries we could conclude otherwise.
Because while alarms do reduce the risk they are not a 100% guarantee. Nothing is.
We should welcome ways to reduce risks, not block them because they are not waterproof.
That would be greatly aided by consistent laws and processes, registration and tracing.All the more reason to enforce such laws, so as to not only target illicit sources, but those who might use them.What they might do: inconvenience the terrorists, causing them to need an illicit source. Then again, they might well resort to an illicit source anyway.
If the government knows of illicit arms dealers, they should shut them down ASAP.
We have enough gun laws. Enforce them!
If US gun laws really are adequate, how come people on a terror watch list have a 90% chance of passing a background check?
Ignoring the bit about voting (let's not veer too far off topic please), that seems a start. But all that does is help identify the buyer. Can that be enforced on private sales? Not without a fair amount more regulation. And given that even having been identified and put through background checks a couple of thousand potential terrorists got a gun, I don't see how this would make a difference.Nope, but let's not make it easy for them by making it easy to legally buy semi-automatics.You can't go to a gun store and buy a suicide vest. One thing about terrorists: they're never short of ideas on how to commit mass murder.
It's not "easy" to buy weapons. We could make it more difficult. Here's a compromise: let's have tamper-proof ID required to buy guns and to vote.