ADVERTISEMENT

I would like to have a intelligent discussion about the horrible shooting that occurred today in Boulder, Co. No politics allowed.

Status
Not open for further replies.
what’s the difference between a state and national registry? Other than making it harder for the registry to be effective.
How about this? A national registry where there must be a warrant issued by court before law-enforcement can go in and look at the registry. And the warrant would only allow them to look at specific people that are under investigation. I know the FISA court stuff was abused but this may could work. How does that sound?
 
I dare say you don’t know shit about me, my experience with guns or my thoughts about gun owners. You are again assuming things, and talking about everything BUT the subject at hand by trying to redirect the discussion to your made up opinions about me.

164677334_3778192825549142_9077325556184717884_n.jpg
 
How about this? A national registry where there must be a warrant issued by court before law-enforcement can go in and look at the registry. And the warrant would only allow them to look at specific people that are under investigation. I know the FISA court stuff was abused but this may could work. How does that sound?

They would be looking at weapons and not people. A registry would work like, “hey we found this gun used to commit a crime. Let’s check the database to see who last owned this weapon.”
 
They would be looking at weapons and not people. A registry would work like, “hey we found this gun used to commit a crime. Let’s check the database to see who last owned this weapon.”
So it would only be looked at for a specific serial number of a gun that has been involved in a crime? That sounds good. As long as there are safeties in place that we keep it from being misused.

This scenario would already happen in the state of South Carolina with SLED.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deut6_4-9
So it would only be looked at for a specific serial number of a gun that has been involved in a crime? That sounds good. As long as there are safeties in place that we keep it from being misused.

This scenario would already happen in the state of South Carolina with SLED.

Give the Feds that data, and you can forget it not being everywhere and being used for political purposes.

Nope. It should remain at the state level if collected at all. If the Feds need it, they can request it.
 
I dare say you don’t know shit about me, my experience with guns or my thoughts about gun owners. You are again assuming things, and talking about everything BUT the subject at hand by trying to redirect the discussion to your made up opinions about me.

I dont think he'sassuming or making it up. If we're being honest here, you've made some pretty disparaging comments about gun owners. You've called them names, said they fantasize about living in war movies and accused them of not caring if their fellow man dies as long as they get to buy guns.

I'd say he, and everyone else reading the whole thread, know about your feelings on gun owners, unless you just weren't being serious before.
 
..
It was a muslim terrorist people.
He was not necessarily either. He was born in Syria and was brought to the US at the age of 3, according to the reports I read. That doesn't make him a Muslim, and even if he were, neither of those two make him terrorist. The police are still investigating the motive, so this just comes off as good old xenophobia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CarlUSC and Dizzy01
How about this? A national registry where there must be a warrant issued by court before law-enforcement can go in and look at the registry. And the warrant would only allow them to look at specific people that are under investigation. I know the FISA court stuff was abused but this may could work. How does that sound?
I just fail to see how a national registry = less murders when unmarked guns can easily be purchased on the street if you know who to talk to.
 
Thanks Alex. Will you eventually be telling us all this shooting didn’t really happen and was just faked by the media?

In terms of the watch list we all know that if they added that as a blocker for the background check as soon as someone hit that there would be people screaming that someone with no criminal background was being denied a gun. It would conveniently be ignored that it was because they were part of the Klan or a Proudboy and just focus on not being a convicted criminal.

What the hell are you blabbing about?

Upset about the convenient revelation that many of these shooters are buying guns legally while they are/or have been investigated by the FBI?

I find it interesting that it keeps happening, and conveniently happens every time a political party wants to change the news cycle.

I’ll repeat....these guys aren’t buying guns from the trunk of a car in an alley, they’re legally buying, and passing FBI background checks when they’re well known to the FBI.

Something about that just doesn’t make sense to a logical person.

Now, to be fair a guy like the Charleston shooter was able to buy his pistol because the FBI hadn’t completed his background check, and didn’t ask for an extension. I’m ok with extending the number of days to complete background checks, but in truth a Rand review of multiple studies showed extending the wait time wasn’t statistically significant when it came to violent crime.

Not sure what being a Klan member has to do with anything. It’s a reprehensible organization. Also not sure what the Proud Boys, an organization led by a black man has to do with anything. If the members haven’t committed a crime or otherwise disqualified themselves from gun ownership then they have the right to own a gun just like an Antifa sympathizer or Black Panther member. Even Grandmaster Jay and his NFAC militia has the right to own firearms, even though they were stupid enough to accidentally shoot several of their own members over the last year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ghostofpepsicock
It seems like an argument is why enforce/create law as ppl will still find a way to cause harm. If
You missed my point. My point is in other situations ppl did something. When guns are involved the answer is nothing could have prevented it.

And when ppl start driving cars thru crowds, car manufacturers will be in congress answering questions about what can be done to prevent that from happening.
I understand your point but in the situations you mentioned, the companies involved can control that. I can't buy a plane. I can buy tide pods. Tide can quit producing pods.
So why do you have an issue with a real registry? Seems like such an odd position to take to knowingly make it easier for criminals to take possession of a weapon if you’re actually not a criminal.
There is a real registry. When you buy a gun you either have to show your CWP or driver's license. That goes directly to SLED and you are now submitted into a registry. What kind of "real" registry are you talking about? What part of SSN, address, DL#, your age, your height, your weight and if you have a police record. If you have a police record you get no gun. I'd like to know your definition of a "real registry".
 
What the hell are you blabbing about?

Upset about the convenient revelation that many of these shooters are buying guns legally while they are/or have been investigated by the FBI?

I find it interesting that it keeps happening, and conveniently happens every time a political party wants to change the news cycle.

I’ll repeat....these guys aren’t buying guns from the trunk of a car in an alley, they’re legally buying, and passing FBI background checks when they’re well known to the FBI.

Something about that just doesn’t make sense to a logical person.

Now, to be fair a guy like the Charleston shooter was able to buy his pistol because the FBI hadn’t completed his background check, and didn’t ask for an extension. I’m ok with extending the number of days to complete background checks, but in truth a Rand review of multiple studies showed extending the wait time wasn’t statistically significant when it came to violent crime.

Not sure what being a Klan member has to do with anything. It’s a reprehensible organization. Also not sure what the Proud Boys, an organization led by a black man has to do with anything. If the members haven’t committed a crime or otherwise disqualified themselves from gun ownership then they have the right to own a gun just like an Antifa sympathizer or Black Panther member. Even Grandmaster Jay and his NFAC militia has the right to own firearms, even though they were stupid enough to accidentally shoot several of their own members over the last year.
Then why care about the FBI watchlist? If you aren’t going to use it as a disqualifier why does it matter? All you’ve managed to establish is that all of these people who apparently had legitimate reasons to no be allowed to buy a gun were allowed to anyway.

But yes I am sure that all of these people were hand selected to go shoot a bunch of people for political reasons. I guess you just have to keep paying for these shootings until something gives.
 
I understand your point but in the situations you mentioned, the companies involved can control that. I can't buy a plane. I can buy tide pods. Tide can quit producing pods.

There is a real registry. When you buy a gun you either have to show your CWP or driver's license. That goes directly to SLED and you are now submitted into a registry. What kind of "real" registry are you talking about? What part of SSN, address, DL#, your age, your height, your weight and if you have a police record. If you have a police record you get no gun. I'd like to know your definition of a "real registry".

SLED doesn’t actually track that. The sales information goes to the ATF but they’re explicitly forbidden from tracking that information with a computer database. They have to hand search through all the records to match the data.
 
You’re ignoring the fact the Colorado shooter was a legal, law abiding gun owner until he pulled the trigger at the grocery store.

So had we required him to register his gun and show proof of insurance to pick up the weapon, the laws I’m proposing would have been followed.

So, let me make sure I understand what you’re saying.

Your contention, is a Syrian Muslim who passed a FBI background check (after already being investigated by the FBI) legally purchased a rifle (likely with the intent at the time to kill innocent people), who was willing to break the law by murdering people, would be dissuaded of committing mayhem because he needed to register his gun on some vague registry, and show proof of insurance?

I just have to shake my head in disbelief. I have to somehow respectfully tell you this is the second dumbest idea on this thread, second only to the guy who wants all “assault weapons” outlawed, including AR 15’s.....but doesn’t have the common sense to understand the Mini 14 he thumps his chest about owning fires the same bullet, at the same velocity, at the same rate of fire, with the exact same magazine capacity.

Your idea is brilliant, I don’t know how the world has overlooked it for so long....the answer to stopping ALL murder is to have murderers buy insurance when they buy a rifle, knife, hammer, baseball bat, etc.

Makes sense, since more people are beaten to death/killed with knives than with rifles.

Those college kids selling Cutco knives trying to get through school will be excited to know they can make extra cash selling knife crime insurance.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ghostofpepsicock
I’m out...we all can agree that people intent on doing harm do not need access to guns. Everyone can agree on that.

the forever unanswered question is how to do that without stomping on the rights of people who do it right and do not commit crimes...

looking forward to getting back to talking sports...I want the spring game to give us all a sense of hope for brighter days ahead athletically.
 
..

He was not necessarily either. He was born in Syria and was brought to the US at the age of 3, according to the reports I read. That doesn't make him a Muslim, and even if he were, neither of those two make him terrorist. The police are still investigating the motive, so this just comes off as good old xenophobia.
His social media indicates he was a Muslim according to news accounts of it I've read. I'm not saying anything about the terrorist tag just yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: paladin181
So, let me make sure I understand what you’re saying.

Your contention, is a Syrian Muslim who passed a FBI background check (after already being investigated by the FBI) legally purchased a rifle (likely with the intent at the time to kill innocent people), who was willing to break the law by murdering people, would be dissuaded of committing mayhem because he needed to register his gun on some vague registry, and show proof of insurance?

I just have to shake my head in disbelief. I have to somehow respectfully tell you this is the second dumbest idea on this thread, second only to the guy who wants all “assault weapons” outlawed, including AR 15’s.....but doesn’t have the common sense to understand the Mini 14 he thumps his chest about owning fires the same bullet, at the same velocity, at the same rate of fire, with the exact same magazine capacity.

Your idea is brilliant, I don’t know how the world has overlooked it for so long....the answer to stopping ALL murder is to have murderers buy insurance when they buy a rifle, knife, hammer, baseball bat, etc.

Makes sense, since more people are beaten to death/killed with knives than with rifles.

Those college kids selling Cutco knives trying to get through school will be excited to know they can make extra cash selling knife crime insurance.

Seems like something went way over your head.

The other poster claimed the guy would have never registered his weapon or insured it if we made those laws.

Hope this clarifies for you so you can get back on track.
 
It is really nobodies business who

That is simply a step in government control and would have no effect on murder rates. Bad guys don’t register illegal guns.

Yea the registry would let us know who the bad guys are giving other bad guys the guns.

it’s really not that difficult to understand.
 
How about this? A national registry where there must be a warrant issued by court before law-enforcement can go in and look at the registry. And the warrant would only allow them to look at specific people that are under investigation. I know the FISA court stuff was abused but this may could work. How does that sound?
Sounds like the first step on the road to confiscation.
 
You want no politics and you go right to assault rifle (political hot potato) ? You jest.

While that is political to a degree and I explained in another post, what I meant by political was not to blame all gun issues, violence, etc on one political party or the other. Example, don't blame the Republicans for all gun violence and don't blame the Democrats that want to implement some type gun reform bills, and don't blame the NRA for all the deaths that occur in the US.

I should have stated my intent at the very beginning but obviously didn't. Also, I wanted all responses and replies to be stated in a respectful manner. Those were my intentions and I later stated them in another post, but again should have given a more thorough explanation up front. However, I did state up front only reasonable discussion and opinions allowed.
 
Last edited:
So it would only be looked at for a specific serial number of a gun that has been involved in a crime? That sounds good. As long as there are safeties in place that we keep it from being misused.

This scenario would already happen in the state of South Carolina with SLED.
When did SC implement a gun registry?
 
Then why care about the FBI watchlist? If you aren’t going to use it as a disqualifier why does it matter? All you’ve managed to establish is that all of these people who apparently had legitimate reasons to no be allowed to buy a gun were allowed to anyway.

But yes I am sure that all of these people were hand selected to go shoot a bunch of people for political reasons. I guess you just have to keep paying for these shootings until something gives.

I’ll make it simple for you. Just randomly going back over the last ten years to March 2012 the number of monthly background checks for firearm purchases have ranged from 1,016,876 to 4,317,804. Thats from the FBI data base.

That’s a LOT of guns sold monthly over the last decade. If you just average 2,000,000 guns per month over 120 months, that’s 240,000,000 guns (rifles, pistols, and shotguns) legally sold over the last decade.

Now, taking into account mass shootings aren’t common, and taking into account more people are beaten to death/killed with knives than shot with ANY kind of long gun, don’t you find it strange that an usually high number of the shooters were already known to the FBI because of an investigation?

I don’t have a logical explanation for that, just like it’s coincidental that when political parties need to change a negative news narrative a mass shooting conveniently happens.

Maybe it’s just coincidental that our government (specifically the CIA) used to have programs in place working with this concept.

Maybe it’s just coincidence that an unusual number of mass shooters who legally bought their gun didn’t have their background check showing blinking red flags when it was run.

Seems strange to me, guess it just doesn’t resonate with you that the guys the FBI already know about aren’t redflagged.
 
I’ll make it simple for you. Just randomly going back over the last ten years to March 2012 the number of monthly background checks for firearm purchases have ranged from 1,016,876 to 4,317,804. Thats from the FBI data base.

That’s a LOT of guns sold monthly over the last decade. If you just average 2,000,000 guns per month over 120 months, that’s 240,000,000 guns (rifles, pistols, and shotguns) legally sold over the last decade.

Now, taking into account mass shootings aren’t common, and taking into account more people are beaten to death/killed with knives than shot with ANY kind of long gun, don’t you find it strange that an usually high number of the shooters were already known to the FBI because of an investigation?

I don’t have a logical explanation for that, just like it’s coincidental that when political parties need to change a negative news narrative a mass shooting conveniently happens.

Maybe it’s just coincidental that our government (specifically the CIA) used to have programs in place working with this concept.

Maybe it’s just coincidence that an unusual number of mass shooters who legally bought their gun didn’t have their background check showing blinking red flags when it was run.

Seems strange to me, guess it just doesn’t resonate with you that the guys the FBI already know about aren’t redflagged.
Studies have shown that each year over 2k guns are sold to individuals on watch lists. Since just being on the watch list doesn’t disqualify you from purchasing a firearm all the FBI can do is flag the record for review of increased surveillance or monitoring. Unless you are going to support additional questioning or interviews with field agents prior to the approval then it is kind of meaningless. I for one would fully support this occurring but I also feel fairly sure people would oppose having someone questioned because they are on a watchlist.

As to whether it is odd that people on the watch lists are involved in mass shootings why would that be? They made those lists for a reason so the fact that someone people were concerned about potentially being violent turning out to be violent doesn’t surprise me at all. In fact I’m more surprised when it’s an individual not on the watch list.
 
There have been other instances, it doesn’t play well politically though.
Ive seen Frank Luntz having a discussion with a large group of NRA members . There are gun control policies that they mentioned they would love to see go into effect. It's only political when the ppl who are paid by the NRA and other gun advocate groups take up the argument.

 
Last edited:
When did SC implement a gun registry?
I had a friend who had SLED show up asking about a gun/serial number that he had sold years before. They were not aware it had been sold. From that I assume the paperwork you fill out is not shredded and record is kept somewhere within SLED. Not sure how all the dots were connected for them to know he was the original purchaser.
 
Studies have shown that each year over 2k guns are sold to individuals on watch lists. Since just being on the watch list doesn’t disqualify you from purchasing a firearm all the FBI can do is flag the record for review of increased surveillance or monitoring. Unless you are going to support additional questioning or interviews with field agents prior to the approval then it is kind of meaningless. I for one would fully support this occurring but I also feel fairly sure people would oppose having someone questioned because they are on a watchlist.

As to whether it is odd that people on the watch lists are involved in mass shootings why would that be? They made those lists for a reason so the fact that someone people were concerned about potentially being violent turning out to be violent doesn’t surprise me at all. In fact I’m more surprised when it’s an individual not on the watch list.
One of the issues is people can end up on the watch list for having the same name as the intended individual.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT