|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On January 23 2013 06:11 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 06:04 farvacola wrote:On January 23 2013 05:55 Voltaire wrote:
I challenge anyone to give one example of how gun control has reduced crime in the US. Either a national, state, or local gun control law. I'm not talking about comparing the US to other countries, as there are a myriad of factors that go into a country's crime rate.
And there aren't a myriad of factors that go into the differences between national, state, and local gun control in the United States? I realize you seem to have woken up with Ron Paul on the mind, but that doesn't make repeated demagogic declarations good posts. All forms of gun control in the United States have been ineffective due to incomplete regulation and ineffective application of that regulation (state governments are particularly bad here), not to mention concerns of regional atomization and the difficulties presented by the state paradigm of US civic organization. What say you? Honestly, I think you just proved his point. You said governments can't effectively use gun control to deter crime. What makes you think the federal government is going to be more effective than your local government (who actually controls your criminal courts and police force)?
Twisting words. I'm sure what he's saying is we intentionally haven't been enforcing current gun control laws and that's why they're ineffective at the moment. It's not that the federal government "can't," it's that they "won't/aren't." This is why Obama is enacting executive actions to nominate an ATF director, have the CDC conduct research, etc.
And yes, the federal government can be more effective than the local government... what are you even smoking? FBI, NSA, CIA? Not that the CIA would be involved in this matter (unless it's trafficking across borders), but surely the FBI is better than, say, the police departments of Connecticut, and if the ATF gets what they need, then who knows what could happen? It's all about dem resources and being proactive.
|
On January 23 2013 06:32 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 06:11 BluePanther wrote:On January 23 2013 06:04 farvacola wrote:On January 23 2013 05:55 Voltaire wrote:
I challenge anyone to give one example of how gun control has reduced crime in the US. Either a national, state, or local gun control law. I'm not talking about comparing the US to other countries, as there are a myriad of factors that go into a country's crime rate.
And there aren't a myriad of factors that go into the differences between national, state, and local gun control in the United States? I realize you seem to have woken up with Ron Paul on the mind, but that doesn't make repeated demagogic declarations good posts. All forms of gun control in the United States have been ineffective due to incomplete regulation and ineffective application of that regulation (state governments are particularly bad here), not to mention concerns of regional atomization and the difficulties presented by the state paradigm of US civic organization. What say you? Honestly, I think you just proved his point. You said governments can't effectively use gun control to deter crime. What makes you think the federal government is going to be more effective than your local government (who actually controls your criminal courts and police force)? Twisting words. I'm sure what he's saying is we intentionally haven't been enforcing current gun control laws and that's why they're ineffective at the moment. It's not that the federal government "can't," it's that they "won't/aren't." This is why Obama is enacting executive actions to nominate an ATF director, have the CDC conduct research, etc. And yes, the federal government can be more effective than the local government... what are you even smoking? FBI, NSA, CIA? Not that the CIA would be involved in this matter (unless it's trafficking across borders), but surely the FBI is better than, say, the police departments of Connecticut, and if the ATF gets what they need, then who knows what could happen? It's all about dem resources and being proactive.
I'm not sure I agree they can do it that much better. You may be right that it would be an improvement. But I can't imagine it would be that significant that it would turn complete failures into resounding success. I'm skeptical of that claim, and surrendering a lot of power to the government just to try it... I'm not willing to do that.
FYI, ATF does international smuggling surveillance (not trying to be smug, I just happen to know this).
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
ATF does a lot of stuff (or is supposed to, rather).
'Resounding success' would be obtained by tackling the matter through multiple aisles (regulation, enforcement, prevention through various means, etc.). Obviously buffing enforcement/regulation would not fix everything, but it's still one of the many steps in the right direction.
|
ATF has also been barred from a lot of things that would empower them to tackle gun regulation a lot more effectively.
|
The ATF has been gutted in recent years almost to the level where it is a useless body in preventing gun smuggling etc. Should it be strengthened? Different topic entirely.
|
|
|
|
|
On January 23 2013 07:02 Zergneedsfood wrote:
ATF has also been barred from a lot of things that would empower them to tackle gun regulation a lot more effectively.
They don't exactly have a great track record. They screwed up Operation Fast and Furious pretty badly.
I'll add that I think the ATF should just focus on controlling illegal guns here in the US, instead of trying to get involved with the problems going on in Mexico. There's no reason why the ATF should have been trying to set up sting operations with Mexican cartels.
|
On January 23 2013 08:16 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 07:02 Zergneedsfood wrote:
ATF has also been barred from a lot of things that would empower them to tackle gun regulation a lot more effectively. They don't exactly have a great track record. They screwed up Operation Fast and Furious pretty badly. I'll add that I think the ATF should just focus on controlling illegal guns here in the US, instead of trying to get involved with the problems going on in Mexico. There's no reason why the ATF should have been trying to set up sting operations with Mexican cartels.
I completely agree with this. I'm not 100% sure, but I'm curious as to how the ATF would have done OFF if it wasn't for the fact that they really didn't have a lot of power to begin with, and their acting director didn't have another full time job.
|
Reports coming in of another shooting, this time at Lone Star College, Texas. Anyone can confirm?
|
On January 23 2013 09:42 emythrel wrote:
Reports coming in of another shooting, this time at Lone Star College, Texas. Anyone can confirm?
Can confirm, there have also been several links to it already in the thread =\. I left the campus about 30 minutes before it happened.
|
On January 23 2013 08:24 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 08:16 Voltaire wrote:On January 23 2013 07:02 Zergneedsfood wrote:
ATF has also been barred from a lot of things that would empower them to tackle gun regulation a lot more effectively. They don't exactly have a great track record. They screwed up Operation Fast and Furious pretty badly. I'll add that I think the ATF should just focus on controlling illegal guns here in the US, instead of trying to get involved with the problems going on in Mexico. There's no reason why the ATF should have been trying to set up sting operations with Mexican cartels. I completely agree with this. I'm not 100% sure, but I'm curious as to how the ATF would have done OFF if it wasn't for the fact that they really didn't have a lot of power to begin with, and their acting director didn't have another full time job.
Could it possibly be that they have little power to conduct any local operations?
|
I'm still just in awe of what I heard on Jon Stewart's show. There are only 4500 ATF agents, a number that hasn't increased in 40 years.
Think about that, 4500 agents to deal with alcohol, tobacco, and firearms across a country of 315 million people and almost 10 million square kilometers.
|
On January 23 2013 10:09 Saryph wrote:
I'm still just in awe of what I heard on Jon Stewart's show. There are only 4500 ATF agents, a number that hasn't increased in 40 years.
Think about that, 4500 agents to deal with alcohol, tobacco, and firearms across a country of 315 million people and almost 10 million square kilometers.
I believe its 2500, not 4500.
|
On January 23 2013 10:12 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 10:09 Saryph wrote:
I'm still just in awe of what I heard on Jon Stewart's show. There are only 4500 ATF agents, a number that hasn't increased in 40 years.
Think about that, 4500 agents to deal with alcohol, tobacco, and firearms across a country of 315 million people and almost 10 million square kilometers. I believe its 2500, not 4500.
You're right. There are only 2500 agents, with 4900ish total positions in the bureau.
Edit: That makes it something like 1500 square miles and over 125k citizens per agent.
|
My understanding is that the ATF doesn't deal with any issue involving A/T/F they just deal with importing and exporting weapons and major illegal weapons smuggling? Most problems are just dealt with by the local police aren't they? Or do they have to call an ATF agent to every moonshiner and illegal gun crime scene across the country?
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms seems strange to tie together to me. Like what do they have to do with one another... Why isn't there an agency dealing only in Firearms and then another agency dealing only in Tobacco/Alcohol? It seems like that would allow you to have more specialized agents.
|
On January 23 2013 10:28 tokicheese wrote:
My understanding is that the ATF doesn't deal with any issue involving A/T/F they just deal with importing and exporting weapons and major illegal weapons smuggling? Most problems are just dealt with by the local police aren't they? Or do they have to call an ATF agent to every moonshiner and illegal gun crime scene across the country?
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms seems strange to tie together to me. Like what do they have to do with one another... Why isn't there an agency dealing only in Firearms and then another agency dealing only in Tobacco/Alcohol? It seems like that would allow you to have more specialized agents.
Don't forget explosives. Technically, it's the BATFE. Great fucking combination.
And from what I know, yes, they're a higher level, mostly investigative agency. Collect and collate data, and work organizational level cases. Not small time shit.
|
|
|
On January 23 2013 11:21 tokicheese wrote:
What's the B for lol?
Bureau.
|
Is there any other major lobbying groups for gun owners other than the NRA? It seems like the NRA should be a fringe group rather then the main lobby group because of all the crazy things that they say video games cause school shootings etc. etc. I think most responsible gun owners are in favour of a level of gun control like a gun safety course before you can purchase a weapon but the only meaningful lobby group for gun advocates is the NRA so they are stuck going with the more fringe views. Am I wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
