Any chance for a reasonable discussion about guns?

Javelin said:

Do you have reading comprehension? And I quote, 

 

And this is why we can't have these discussions with people like you. Your condescension is definitely not appreciated and to think that you also moderate the forum? No, I'm sure we won't have any bias there. I read multiple (that means more than one) articles addressing his previous run ins. One was a failure on the police for not reporting it. The second on the family for not following through when he made his threats. So once again we have have a system in place not being properly utilized. 

ddavidv said:

Take away:  don't live on the east coast or California.

I find this is generally good advice irrespective of the gun issue. 

More people=more violence, regardless of method. Kind of hard to be a mass shooter when there's no...mass. 

In reply to Mndsm :

this has almost always been the case. Almost always. There will always be exceptions to the rule except that rule.

ddavidv said:

Take away:  don't live on the east coast or California.

I find this is generally good advice irrespective of the gun issue. 

Not necessarily.  That data "seems" to imply you have the same chance no mater where you live, it's just more likely for there to be one near you if you are in a higher population density area (a mater of resolution really)

Realistically a bit of an over simplification and there are certainly other more useful factors to be considered if you want to predict specific areas. 

Of note, the second chart is just shootings, which is a very similar distribution to the mass shootings, which you would tend to think are disproportionately more likely in high density areas, but maybe not.  With 3 or more being killed as the definer (I think that what that one is using), it's not really that hard to find small groups of people (or gang members, which most of these probably are) even in small towns.

bobzilla said:

Javelin said:

Do you have reading comprehension? And I quote, 

 

And this is why we can't have these discussions with people like you. Your condescension is definitely not appreciated and to think that you also moderate the forum? No, I'm sure we won't have any bias there. I read multiple (that means more than one) articles addressing his previous run ins. One was a failure on the police for not reporting it. The second on the family for not following through when he made his threats. So once again we have have a system in place not being properly utilized. 

"People like me" is exactly what is wrong with you. You clearly haven't read this thread at all. I am PRO 2A! You think that anybody who wants even the slightest modicum of enforcement of the Constitution is coming to disarm the population. (And as an aside, all a moderator does is delete spam posts, so take your victimization out of here) The police did not fail to report, the report never made it to the guy's application for his card, *because no mechanism existed*. That's a loophole. The LEO's reported everything to every authority they had the ability to. The system is broken and you're too stubborn to admit it.

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Actually that's exactly what happens. "The Aurora shooter, Gary Martin, was able to get a FOID card despite being a convicted felon."

https://newschannel20.com/news/local/illinois-state-police-actively-fixing-loopholes-in-foid-card-system

The entire FOID card system is full of loopholes. For example, you can buy ammunition without having the card run to see if it's legal - 

https://www.cookcountysheriff.org/sheriff-dart-pushes-fix-to-ammunition-loophole/

There's next to no enforcement of the law when the 2A Right has been stripped -

"In Cook County, 32,492 Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) cards have been revoked. But nearly 60% of them, or 19,238, have not turned in their cards as required under the law. Even more, 24,421 have failed to transfer their weapons to police or a legal gun owner as required."

In reply to Javelin :

Well, I see we can still have that "discussion". You seem to know an awful lot of what I seem to think. I guess from now on I'll let you tell me what I need to do. 

In reply to bobzilla :

Why don't you stop being obtuse and have an actual discussion.

The Aurora and Highland Park shooters both did NOT have 2A Rights. How do you propose we fix their ability to exploit loopholes and obtain guns through legal methods?

I'd say the question actually posed by this thread has been answered, if by a reasonable discussion we mean a discussion where people are open to reconsidering their own position based on good reasons and/or evidence.

In reply to Javelin :

OK, fine. lets start with this: 

"The Aurora and Highland Park shooters both did NOT have 2A Rights. How do you propose we fix their ability to exploit loopholes and obtain guns through legal methods?"

If they did not have 2A rights, how were they able to purchase guns legally? The answer is a failure on the systems in place. There are methods that these instances can be reported but the authorities or families decided to not follow through. Much like hte fedex shooter in Indy that the prosevcutor couldn't be bothered to file the paperwork. 

IL has some of the strictest rules and regulations in place. HP has an "assault weapons" ban. But none of these are worth a crap if the steps aren't followed through with. 

I see so many people focused on the tool and completely ignoring the the tool using the tool. Almost every one of these recent shooters have been "known to authorities" and in every case the systems in place have failed because the people using them are not following them. So instead of working on the current systems we want to add MORE systems because if we ignored the last 10, I a sure we won't ignore this one.

You want an honest discussion? We need to be talking about the state of mental health. Treatment options and helping kill the stigma that is attached to it. We need to talk about the failure that the last 2 years of totalitarian lock downs have been and how they are affecting those with mental illness. We need to be discussing why prosecutors are crying about guns but still continuing to practice their catch and release programs releasing violent offenders right back out into the public. I've given numbers before, you can find them again if you care. But well over half of current murders in this country could never happen if we kept those violent felons behind bars or under the surface 6' down. 

In reply to Javelin :

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Actually that's exactly what happens. "The Aurora shooter, Gary Martin, was able to get a FOID card despite being a convicted felon."

https://newschannel20.com/news/local/illinois-state-police-actively-fixing-loopholes-in-foid-card-system

The entire FOID card system is full of loopholes. For example, you can buy ammunition without having the card run to see if it's legal - 

https://www.cookcountysheriff.org/sheriff-dart-pushes-fix-to-ammunition-loophole/

There's next to no enforcement of the law when the 2A Right has been stripped -

"In Cook County, 32,492 Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) cards have been revoked. But nearly 60% of them, or 19,238, have not turned in their cards as required under the law. Even more, 24,421 have failed to transfer their weapons to police or a legal gun owner as required."

I think you have a misunderstanding of what a loophole is. Which is understandable, because it is a vague and often misrepresented term. But what you are describing, and what the reports you linked describe, are not loopholes in the law. They are failures in following or applying the law. To be issued a FOIC card, the law clearly states that you are not eligible if you are a convicted felon. There is nothing in the law that allows that- no loop hole- period. In practice, failure to do the proper checks results in convicted felons getting FOIC cards. This is 100% a failure in the people and systems to enforce the law, not a problem with the law itself. It sounds to me like you are calling these failures loopholes, which is not accurate. But you are not the only one, they did the same thing in the article you referenced. 

Here is a much easier example of a loophole. You are supposed to stop your car at a red light and wait until it turns green before proceeding. Running a red light is against the law. Some states allow you to turn right on a red light- a loophole (exception, loophole is a pretty loaded word) to the driving through a red light law. If someone just straight runs a red light, they broke the law. If a police officer sees it and lets them go, that isn't a failure of the law or a loophole, that is failure in enforcement. If someone gets caught repeatedly running red lights and their license isn't suspended as specified under the law, that is not a loophole. 
 

In reply to bobzilla :

I didn't ask for more systems, I asked to actually use the one in place as intended. You keep saying the law is restrictive, yet one of the most restrictive ones clearly has the ability of a wet noodle to do anything at all. Almost 25,000 individuals properly reported to the authorities, convicted by a court of law, and reviewed have not turned in their firearms. How is that "restrictive" or effective? How do we make that actually work?

I agree 100% on mental health needs, but to call our laughable restrictions "authoritarian lockdowns" is ill-informed. UK has authoritarian lockdowns, China had them, we had "please don't do things without a mask but if you do we aren't going to do anything about it".

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

You are misunderstanding the loophole part of my post (the Highland Park shooter who would have his FOID card taken due to his mental health and threats, but didn't because he didn't have a card yet, and the only mechanism to prevent the card being issued in the first place was the felony provision, ergo a loophole as he wasn't a felon) and the general disgust at the lack of enforcement of the law (the Aurora shooter who was a felon and lied on the application and the ~25,000 now illegal gun owners still walking around with weapons).

In reply to Javelin :

So, what you are saying is if the laws were enforced there would be no Aurora shooter? 

If the Highland Park shooter had been listed as a mental health risk he would never have gotten his FOID card?

So we don't need more laws and regulations, just competence in enforcing them? 

I'm not seeing any loopholes. Just the usual incompetence of government employees. 

Toyman! said:

In reply to Javelin :

So, what you are saying is if the laws were enforced there would be no Aurora shooter? 

If the Highland Park shooter had been listed as a mental health risk he would never have gotten his FOID card?

So we don't need more laws and regulations, just competence in enforcing them? 

I'm not seeing any loopholes. Just the usual incompetence of government employees. 

This is what we keep saying but the talking heads on TV keep saying the word "loophole" so much that people are starting to believe it. The "loophole" here is sheer incompetence.

Quasi Wife-O works as an Investigator for the State of Michigan at Child Protctive Services. She sees the gamut from falsely called cases to very tragic and brutal ordeals. 

One case, a woman who had YEARS of debilitating mental health issues paid her 18 year old son to purchase a handgun legally. The child was equally bogged down with mental issues, but was never arrested or forced into protection at a facility. The woman used the gun to fire at police, nurses and CPS workers in front of a mental facility because she did not want them to remove her children.

My takeaway is simple. Loopholes only exist after they are exploited. Someone needs to identify them and work at a reasonable pace to close them.

In reply to QuasiMofo (John Brown) :

There's a large difference between loopholes and incompetence. what we keep seeing repeatedly is incompetence ore than loopholes. 

Mndsm said:

ddavidv said:

Take away:  don't live on the east coast or California.

I find this is generally good advice irrespective of the gun issue. 

More people=more violence, regardless of method. Kind of hard to be a mass shooter when there's no...mass. 

 

You're absolutely right.  I realize that my views are not the same as many others, but I also say that it's kind of hard to be a mass shooter when there's no gun.  By definition, it's impossible.  There is no question that this is a MUCH deeper issue than just the physical gun itself.  However, until all of those issues can be properly addressed I just don't feel allowing people to arm themselves is a good idea.  If/when these underlying issues can be resolved then I'd be completely on board with gun ownership.  Until then, I just can't.

bobzilla said:

Toyman! said:

In reply to Javelin :

So, what you are saying is if the laws were enforced there would be no Aurora shooter? 

If the Highland Park shooter had been listed as a mental health risk he would never have gotten his FOID card?

So we don't need more laws and regulations, just competence in enforcing them? 

I'm not seeing any loopholes. Just the usual incompetence of government employees. 

This is what we keep saying but the talking heads on TV keep saying the word "loophole" so much that people are starting to believe it. The "loophole" here is sheer incompetence.

Aurora was the laws not working because they are incomplete. The law was clear and the card issuer didn't run the background check as the shooter lied on his application, which they legally didn't have to,  because we don't have universal background checks. 

I don't know how to make this any clearer, Highland Park was a loophole. The shooter's mental health issues and assualt threat were properly reported and logged by the LEOs and the court. When he applied for the FOID card, the only check to issuance is the presense of an existing felony, that's it despite the fact that there's nunnery ways to have the card taken away. That's a loophole, not incompetence. If the system had a capability of showing the flagged issues and the card got issued anyway, that would be incompetence. 

It's just another shooting that could have been prevented by universal background checks. 

In reply to Javelin :

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

You are misunderstanding the loophole part of my post (the Highland Park shooter who would have his FOID card taken due to his mental health and threats, but didn't because he didn't have a card yet, and the only mechanism to prevent the card being issued in the first place was the felony provision, ergo a loophole as he wasn't a felon) and the general disgust at the lack of enforcement of the law (the Aurora shooter who was a felon and lied on the application and the ~25,000 now illegal gun owners still walking around with weapons).

Earlier I posted the verbatim criteria for obtaining a FOID card. Mental health and threats are clearly covered are reasons for denial. If they are not using that info, that is a failure of implementation, not the law.  

The known to police thing is very difficult.   My cousin is a cop and he  can rattle off a list of people who could be carrying an illegal gun or could create violence due to past run ins.  But he can't just go out and arrest them because they might create a crime. 

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

The known to police thing is very difficult.   My cousin is a cop and he  can rattle off a list of people who could be carrying an illegal gun or could create violence due to past run ins.  But he can't just go out and arrest them because they might create a crime. 
 

This is very accurate. The closest thing I can think of that had been implemented was stop and frisk. Which was both highly controversial and highly effective at the same time. When people talk about the differences between us and other countries, the they often cite the increased number of guns we have but omit the increased protection from search and seizure. What many people want is a version of stop and frisk where we are right 100% of the time- which would never happen and and still face legal challenges. 

In reply to bobzilla :

Because Western Europe, Scandinavia, Australia and New Zealand have people gunned down at the rate we do.

In reply to 93EXCivic :

they also don't have the recividism rates, sheer volume of firearms present or even a close history like ours. We need to stop cherry picking info to suit our agenda. All of us.