Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Question - do stricter gun laws make it easier to stop the plots before they happen?

Apparently not.

Is that based on evidence and data, or supposition. Are you including attacks that have been foiled or just those that succeed.

It's based on Paris and 9/11, for starters.

So, no. Not on a wider look at thwarted attacks or planned attacks. Just on cherry picked successful ones.

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.

People can get off the no fly list.

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.

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.

All the more reason to enforce such laws, so as to not only target illicit sources, but those who might use them.

If the government knows of illicit arms dealers, they should shut them down ASAP.

We have enough gun laws. Enforce them!

That would be greatly aided by consistent laws and processes, registration and tracing.

If US gun laws really are adequate, how come people on a terror watch list have a 90% chance of passing a background check?

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.

Nope, but let's not make it easy for them by making it easy to legally buy semi-automatics.

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.

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.

I find it hard to motivate myself to take part in this thread, so I won't. You all know my opinion on gun control by now right ?

Sidestep again, Danivon.

Do you think it is a good idea for citizens only to be allowed to purchase firearms, and then only with a background check?

rickyp wrote:fate

1. I'm betting your stats are filled with stuff that doesn't really fit the profile (like suicide)

.
The profile I said was death. Whtehr suicide or homicide or accident, deads dead.
And hionestly are you to lazt to click oin a kink and read? Or is that just your aversion to evidence?

I did click. The info is not there.

Are you too lazy to run spellcheck?

Suicide is not going to be reduced by gun control. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... icide_rate

Fate

2. I'm guessing the per capita terrorist homicide rate is much higher in France this year than the US

.
Are the people who were mowed down in a Colorado movie theater as dead as the people mowed down in Paris?

Was that this year? Or, were you too lazy to READ?

Fate

3. Had the Parisians been armed, I doubt so many of them would have been murdered.

Maybe. But there are plenty of cases where mass shootings ocurred in the US and all the guns that people carry around didn't help did they.
What we do know is that over 30,000 Americans will die from guns this year. And even with this atrocity only about 2,000 French.

That's a crap statistic and you're being dishonest. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... un-deaths/

Or, are you too lazy to actually look at HOW the deaths occur?

Fate

4. The problem is radical Islam, not guns. If all guns were banned, they would still commit murder . . . review Paris.

The problem is crazies with guns. Or just people with impulse control with guns.
Review the history and th facts in the US...

No, the problem is gun control laws. Almost all of the mass homicides in the US happen with legal weapons in gun-free zones, or are you too lazy to look it up?

Fate

Here's the thing: Democrats are always trying to find ways to short-circuit the 2nd Amendment

There have been no changes to federal gun laws since 2008.

Have the Democrats tried? Or, are you too lazy to look?

When republicans and the NRA refuse to even keep those on a terror watch list, they are saying they don't care about actually protecting citizens.

Did you know the late Senator Kennedy was once on the terror watch list? Or, were you too lazy to look? Should Kennedy have been prohibited from buying a gun?

Oh, and why don't you stop worrying about Americans and learn how to write?

I don't tell you how to run your useless country.

Fate

Actually, alarms do work: burglars rarely hit homes with alarm

s
This is true. Look at the actual statistical evidence and homes with alarms have fewer break ins per capita.
Why is it that this argument doesn't carry the same weight for you with gun ownership. Because its exactly the same argument.

Okay, I agree: homes with guns have fewer break-ins, but are you too lazy to provide a link?

We have a Second Amendment. Get over it--and go to Tim Horton's or something.

Doctor Fate wrote:Get over it--and go to Tim Horton's or something.

Is that a police/donut shop joke?

bbauska wrote:Sidestep again, Danivon.

Do you think it is a good idea for citizens only to be allowed to purchase firearms, and then only with a background check?

I already answered in my replies above, but to summarise:

I don't see citizenship as he issue.
Background checks are fine but should apply to all sales and include terrorism watch lists.
In order to actually do that you would need full registration and tracing to allow law enforcement to, um, enforce the law.

That doesn't affect my general view that the types of weapon available should be more restricted as well.

bbauska wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Get over it--and go to Tim Horton's or something.

Is that a police/donut shop joke?

This:

Tim Hortons Inc. (known internationally as Tim Hortons Cafe and Bake Shop) is a Canadian multinational fast food restaurant, known for its coffee and doughnuts. It is also Canada's largest quick service restaurant chain

fate

Almost all of the mass homicides in the US happen with legal weapons

Yes. So?
The point is that all the guns, not just the illegal guns, are being used to kill people.
The presence of all the guns in the hands of citizens, has not contributed to stopping a single mass shooting ... Which is the silly fantasy that you invoke when you asked whether different gun laws would have made a difference in Paris. Loose gun laws have not protected Americans in a single instance of mass shooting.... (There will be more mass shootings in the US this year than days of the year. And yet, no good guy with a gun has ever been on the scene to intercede...)
Meanwhile at least 100 children were unintentionally killed by gunfire in the year following the mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, a new study from a leading gun control group shows.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/2 ... 27932.html

The presence of guns do not contribute to public safety. They contribute only to a higher rate of homicide, and accidental death. The French will not change their gun laws expecting the fantasy of a good citizen stopping a bad guy to occur....but know that all loose gun laws lead to is more gun homicides and accidental shootings...

The gun lobby (the NRA) in the US is not interested in public safety if they resist gun registration and resist thorough back ground checks of purchasers. Nor are cynical politicians genuinely interested in public safety. Although they will pander to the ignorant and xenophobic about refugees they are quite willing to have the public continue to endure the exaggerated rate of homicide and accidental death that come from greater gun ownership and poor regulation.

And by the way, Hortons was bought by a Brazilian investment conglomerate a while ago. They also own Burger King and Kraft Foods.
Still, the best coffee in a quick serve by miles...

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Sidestep again, Danivon.

Do you think it is a good idea for citizens only to be allowed to purchase firearms, and then only with a background check?

I already answered in my replies above, but to summarise:

I don't see citizenship as he issue.
Background checks are fine but should apply to all sales and include terrorism watch lists.
In order to actually do that you would need full registration and tracing to allow law enforcement to, um, enforce the law.

That doesn't affect my general view that the types of weapon available should be more restricted as well.

Apologies, but I don't think it was answering my question.

Should ONLY citizens be allowed to purchase firearms? Regardless of background checks, is the question.

Sorry for being so cryptic...

rickyp wrote:fate

Almost all of the mass homicides in the US happen with legal weapons

Yes. So?

So . . . more laws won't change a thing.

The point is that all the guns, not just the illegal guns, are being used to kill people.

No, the point is we have a Second Amendment. If you don't like it, change it . . . oh snap! You can't!

So, why don't you worry about something you can do something about and know something about? You couldn't even protect Tim Hortons from the Brazilians and you want to lecture us about how we should protect ourselves?

No thanks.

So here's a perfect example of another mass shooting...
Now, how did the presence of guns help resolve this incident?

"At the end of the day it's really hard to police against a bunch of guys who decide to pull out guns and settle disputes with 300 people between them," Mayor Mitch Landrieu said at a news conference

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015 ... /76239788/

fate

So . . . more laws won't change a thing

.

Well, laws in France are different. And if the US had those laws .... things would be different...

But you're right, unless the will is there there will continue to be 30,000+ plus gun homicides a year. And many more injuries...
Much better to worry about the Syrian refugees... Can't be sure how many of those toddlers might be ISIS ...

rickyp wrote:So here's a perfect example of another mass shooting...
Now, how did the presence of guns help resolve this incident?

"At the end of the day it's really hard to police against a bunch of guys who decide to pull out guns and settle disputes with 300 people between them," Mayor Mitch Landrieu said at a news conference

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015 ... /76239788/

So, in addition to being dishonest (see other thread), you're not very insightful. It took me about 2 seconds to realize this was probably a gang shooting. See this article. http://m.wdsu.com/news/several-people-i ... s/36604972
and this one http://fox6now.com/2015/11/22/new-orlea ... -9th-ward/

Btw, are all the weapons legal? If not, or if you don't know, what good would more laws do?

fate

So . . . more laws won't change a thing

.

Well, laws in France are different. And if the US had those laws .... things would be different...

What in the world is that supposed to mean? It means nothing, but you must have intended it to mean something.

But you're right, unless the will is there there will continue to be 30,000+ plus gun homicides a year. And many more injuries...

More dishonesty. As I've already said, many of those deaths are suicides. The US is 50th in the world in suicides, so it's not like the availability or lack thereof substantially impacts the suicide rate. More gun control won't change the suicide rate in the US. I've already said that, you haven't refuted it, but you keep claiming it.

So, you're either dense or being dishonest again. Which is it?

Much better to worry about the Syrian refugees... Can't be sure how many of those toddlers might be ISIS ...

Demogoguery and dishonesty in the same post!

Your posts are useless. Until you admit your dishonesty, I'll simply mark them as trolling or remind everyone you're a liar.

fate

It took me about 2 seconds to realize this was probably a gang shooting

Ah. You can read.
Now, what difference does it make that these were gang shootings?
A mass shooting, is a mass shooting.
Facilitated by the incredible ease with which irresponsible people get guns. (legal or illegal)
It is an everyday occurrence.

fate

so it's not like the availability or lack thereof substantially impacts the suicide rate.

fead this...

A 1992 case-control study in the New England Journal of Medicine showed an association between household firearm ownership and suicide rates, finding that individuals living in a home where firearms are present are more likely to commit suicide than those individuals who do not own firearms, by a factor of 3 or 4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_viole ... ted_States

rickyp wrote:fate

It took me about 2 seconds to realize this was probably a gang shooting

Ah. You can read.
Now, what difference does it make that these were gang shootings?
A mass shooting, is a mass shooting.
Facilitated by the incredible ease with which irresponsible people get guns. (legal or illegal)
It is an everyday occurrence.

fate

so it's not like the availability or lack thereof substantially impacts the suicide rate.

fead this...

A 1992 case-control study in the New England Journal of Medicine showed an association between household firearm ownership and suicide rates, finding that individuals living in a home where firearms are present are more likely to commit suicide than those individuals who do not own firearms, by a factor of 3 or 4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_viole ... ted_States

I won't "fead" anything you post. You're a liar and a troll.

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Sidestep again, Danivon.

Do you think it is a good idea for citizens only to be allowed to purchase firearms, and then only with a background check?

I already answered in my replies above, but to summarise:

I don't see citizenship as he issue.
Background checks are fine but should apply to all sales and include terrorism watch lists.
In order to actually do that you would need full registration and tracing to allow law enforcement to, um, enforce the law.

That doesn't affect my general view that the types of weapon available should be more restricted as well.

Apologies, but I don't think it was answering my question.

Should ONLY citizens be allowed to purchase firearms? Regardless of background checks, is the question.

Sorry for being so cryptic...

Is my answer not clear enough for you? I queried your interpretation of the Second Amendment. I said at least twice that I don't see citizenship as the issue. Does that not give you even a hint of a clue?

What that means is that I think that the checks are the important thing. In a UK context, I don't have a problem with non-citizens owning guns on the same legal basis as citizens.

Do I think non-citizens (or citizens) should get a gun without a background check? No.
Do I think the background checks are sufficient? Not if they fail to stop people on a terror watch list about 90% of the time. Not if they are not applied consistently.