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.
On June 14 2016 10:52 oneofthem wrote: why is that relevant? it is a policy question.
for an agency already overstretched on resources, you expect them to be happy about a resource intensive and inefficient investigation order instead of just cutting off the firearm with a easy disqualifier like, you are a terrorist suspect?
The FBI should be positioned to have insight into the effect of the FBI having more power to suspend people's right to buy guns. Are you saying they would obviously want it because it's easier than having to investigate people and do actual police work? That's weak, I want to know the right way to do it. In order for this to work, there would have to be a list of people that were considered too low a risk to continue investigating, but high enough a risk that if you denied legal guns to the entire group, you would stop a significant number of attacks (or else what's the point). But if the number of attacks you objectively could stop was high enough, why weren't these people risky enough to have open investigations?
Some things do just come from nowhere. How big do you estimate this class of people is that would get put on a secret list by an intelligence agency, without their knowledge, and have to spend forever in court trying to find answers and then somehow exonerate themselves to restore a their rights? Around 13,000 people, like the no-fly list, or around 400,000 people, like all terror watchlists?
As I tried to explain earlier, if you stop people from buying guns legally, they also then do it under the radar, which I assume the FBI doesn't want unless it means the people are buying from undercovers. What I want is law enforcement agencies to liaise with each other more about these types of cases, including more things being tracked automatically in other agencies' records.
what part of it being a policy question don't you understand?
On June 15 2016 02:18 oneofthem wrote: the fbi is ALREADY tasked with preventing guns from getting into the hands of terrorist suspects. all it takes is a single disqualifying legal category in the already existing CT loop of the NICS procedure, so that more background checks involving terrorism suspects return a deny or delay.
The FBI is not just a gun-blocking machine. That's only one means of trying to make the country safer. I've tried to get you to explain how many this people you think is supposed to affect and what attacks it's meant to stop that otherwise slip through the FBI's cracks - i.e., whether it can actually save any lives and whether it would be worth the tradeoff of constitutionally protected rights. For example, if the list denied guns to 100,000 people but only stopped 2 murders, it would be stopping fewer murders than you'd expect just from the base rate of the population. What makes more sense is what I said before, have more interagency tracking and records. Alert a department somewhere when someone who was in an investigation that's closed buys a gun so they can decide to take another look if it's warranted.
you are still asking for an impossibly high resource and time burden on a simple enough policy: no guns for terrorist suspects.
current practice: background check has 3 days limit, during which contact with FBI CT agent is made, databases checked, but only certain immigration/criminal records are disqualifying. the presence on terrorist watchlists is not disqualfying. the act of purchasing firearms is treated as a incident that may or may not be followed up on with surveillance.
investigating suspects after the purchase is made is already the current practice, and it's been shown to be ineffective by recent incidents.
it's not rocket science, terrorist suspects with guns is kind of dangerous, especially with ramped up remote radicalization. the only downside i could see is if denial of purchase tips off these people on the lists and driving the firearms purchases underground. however, simply revoking the 3 day limit on background check for terrorist suspects should be enough of a chilling and delay action while not tipping off the suspect.
the NRA is psychotic about the 'burden' of a background check even with the clear risks placed upon the public. guess what, 3 days is not enough to vet terrorist suspects and it is absolutely legal to take more time or outright deny based on suspected terrorist association.
I have said several times that the NRA works for the gun manufactures, who want to sell you guns to defend yourself from the criminals/terrorists they sold guns to.
It's sad and ironic, how powerless those in power really are in this country... In 2 weeks we'll go on with our lives like nothing ever happened, until the next "incident". Then everybody and his brother will be outraged again...it's a sick joke of a cycle, that keeps repeating itself.
On June 14 2016 10:52 oneofthem wrote: why is that relevant? it is a policy question.
for an agency already overstretched on resources, you expect them to be happy about a resource intensive and inefficient investigation order instead of just cutting off the firearm with a easy disqualifier like, you are a terrorist suspect?
The FBI should be positioned to have insight into the effect of the FBI having more power to suspend people's right to buy guns. Are you saying they would obviously want it because it's easier than having to investigate people and do actual police work? That's weak, I want to know the right way to do it. In order for this to work, there would have to be a list of people that were considered too low a risk to continue investigating, but high enough a risk that if you denied legal guns to the entire group, you would stop a significant number of attacks (or else what's the point). But if the number of attacks you objectively could stop was high enough, why weren't these people risky enough to have open investigations?
Some things do just come from nowhere. How big do you estimate this class of people is that would get put on a secret list by an intelligence agency, without their knowledge, and have to spend forever in court trying to find answers and then somehow exonerate themselves to restore a their rights? Around 13,000 people, like the no-fly list, or around 400,000 people, like all terror watchlists?
As I tried to explain earlier, if you stop people from buying guns legally, they also then do it under the radar, which I assume the FBI doesn't want unless it means the people are buying from undercovers. What I want is law enforcement agencies to liaise with each other more about these types of cases, including more things being tracked automatically in other agencies' records.
what part of it being a policy question don't you understand?
Never heard of "listen to the generals?"
On June 15 2016 02:18 oneofthem wrote: the fbi is ALREADY tasked with preventing guns from getting into the hands of terrorist suspects. all it takes is a single disqualifying legal category in the already existing CT loop of the NICS procedure, so that more background checks involving terrorism suspects return a deny or delay.
The FBI is not just a gun-blocking machine. That's only one means of trying to make the country safer. I've tried to get you to explain how many this people you think is supposed to affect and what attacks it's meant to stop that otherwise slip through the FBI's cracks - i.e., whether it can actually save any lives and whether it would be worth the tradeoff of constitutionally protected rights. For example, if the list denied guns to 100,000 people but only stopped 2 murders, it would be stopping fewer murders than you'd expect just from the base rate of the population. What makes more sense is what I said before, have more interagency tracking and records. Alert a department somewhere when someone who was in an investigation that's closed buys a gun so they can decide to take another look if it's warranted.
you are still asking for an impossibly high resource and time burden on a simple enough policy: no guns for terrorist suspects.
current practice: background check has 3 days limit, during which contact with FBI CT agent is made, databases checked, but only certain immigration/criminal records are disqualifying. the presence on terrorist watchlists is not disqualfying. the act of purchasing firearms is treated as a incident that may or may not be followed up on with surveillance.
That's working as intended because there's 400,000 people on those lists.
On June 15 2016 04:31 oneofthem wrote: investigating suspects after the purchase is made is already the current practice, and it's been shown to be ineffective by recent incidents.
"recent incidents" - That'd be the Orlando shooter, who wasn't being investigated and wasn't on a watch list when he bought his guns? This is why I am trying to get you to explain how many people would be affected by this and how many attacks it's supposed to stop, not how many we wish it would stop, so we can judge whether the trade-off is worth it.
On June 15 2016 04:31 oneofthem wrote: it's not rocket science, terrorist suspects with guns is kind of dangerous, especially with ramped up remote radicalization. the only downside i could see is if denial of purchase tips off these people on the lists and driving the firearms purchases underground. however, simply revoking the 3 day limit on background check for terrorist suspects should be enough of a chilling and delay action while not tipping off the suspect.
Yes, I've been saying multiple times that we should want to keep things above the table.
On June 15 2016 04:31 oneofthem wrote: the NRA is psychotic about the 'burden' of a background check even with the clear risks placed upon the public. guess what, 3 days is not enough to vet terrorist suspects and it is absolutely legal to take more time or outright deny based on suspected terrorist association.
Then extend the limit so someone gets an alert and has time to assess the new information. Especially when people with a history buy multiple guns.
"recent incidents" - That'd be the Orlando shooter, who wasn't being investigated and wasn't on a watch list when he bought his guns? This is why I am trying to get you to explain how many people would be affected by this and how many attacks it's supposed to stop, not how many we wish it would stop, so we can judge whether the trade-off is worth it.
Uhm, no..they interviewed him in 2 terror-related cases, he just didn't make the list, because they didn't have enough evidence. A simple ban on assault rifles would have made all the difference in the world. You don't kill 50 people with a pistol. You can't even get close to a guy with a rifle like that, it's called assault rifle for a reason!!
It's ridiculous how easy it is to get one of those in this country. Seriously who needs a rifle like that?! The U.S. is not a warzone....
so you want the fbi to follow up with 400k potential cases? that's working as intended? there are around 1000 gun buyers from the various lists between 2006 and 2010. this is a lot of potential cases to investigate. it would be good to just deny such purchases.
"recent incidents" - That'd be the Orlando shooter, who wasn't being investigated and wasn't on a watch list when he bought his guns? This is why I am trying to get you to explain how many people would be affected by this and how many attacks it's supposed to stop, not how many we wish it would stop, so we can judge whether the trade-off is worth it.
Uhm, no..they interviewed him in 2 terror-related cases, he just didn't make the list, because they didn't have enough evidence. A simple ban on assault rifles would have made all the difference in the world. You don't kill 50 people with a pistol. You can't even get close to a guy with a rifle like that, it's called assault rifle for a reason!!
It's ridiculous how easy it is to get one of those in this country. Seriously who needs a rifle like that?! The U.S. is not a warzone....
What makes you think an AR-15 is an assault rifle, because I'm fairly certain it doesn't meet the definition..
"recent incidents" - That'd be the Orlando shooter, who wasn't being investigated and wasn't on a watch list when he bought his guns? This is why I am trying to get you to explain how many people would be affected by this and how many attacks it's supposed to stop, not how many we wish it would stop, so we can judge whether the trade-off is worth it.
Uhm, no..they interviewed him in 2 terror-related cases, he just didn't make the list, because they didn't have enough evidence. A simple ban on assault rifles would have made all the difference in the world. You don't kill 50 people with a pistol. You can't even get close to a guy with a rifle like that, it's called assault rifle for a reason!!
It's ridiculous how easy it is to get one of those in this country. Seriously who needs a rifle like that?! The U.S. is not a warzone....
What makes you think an AR-15 is an assault rifle, because I'm fairly certain it doesn't meet the definition..
Yeah because ArmaLite is what everyone will associate with the AR name....come on you know exactly what point I was trying to make! The fact that there are people out there, who choose their right to have easy access to a rifle like that, over the lives of innocent citizens, is beyond me!
edit: But hey I won't judge! There's no point to it anyways since the gun lobby has the biggest money machine behind them...
Like I said in my previous post:
It's not about guns for them, it's about the profit! Do you really think the NRA gives a shit about gun owners/people? Nope, it's all about profit, nothing else! And yes, I own a gun, but I am not deluded enough to think, that owning a gun equals protection! When out of nowhere some maniac starts shooting, for whatever reason, I'll hit the ground faster than I can grab my gun! That's physics and yes the gun lobby will deny that, but guess what, reality is a bitch! And it won't matter, if the NRA disagrees with it! Reality quite frankly doesn't give 2 shits about opinions...
"recent incidents" - That'd be the Orlando shooter, who wasn't being investigated and wasn't on a watch list when he bought his guns? This is why I am trying to get you to explain how many people would be affected by this and how many attacks it's supposed to stop, not how many we wish it would stop, so we can judge whether the trade-off is worth it.
Uhm, no..they interviewed him in 2 terror-related cases, he just didn't make the list, because they didn't have enough evidence. A simple ban on assault rifles would have made all the difference in the world. You don't kill 50 people with a pistol. You can't even get close to a guy with a rifle like that, it's called assault rifle for a reason!!
It's ridiculous how easy it is to get one of those in this country. Seriously who needs a rifle like that?! The U.S. is not a warzone....
What makes you think an AR-15 is an assault rifle, because I'm fairly certain it doesn't meet the definition..
Yeah because ArmaLite is what everyone will associate with the AR name....come on you know exactly what point I was trying to make! The fact that there are people out there, who choose their right to have easy access to a rifle like that, over the lives of innocent citizens, is beyond me!
edit: But hey I won't judge! There's no point to it anyways since the gun lobby has the biggest money machine behind them...
It doesn't matter what people associate AR with...you're acting like the reason that there were so many deaths was because an assault rifle was used, and saying that a ban on assault rifles would have made all of the difference in the world. He didn't even use an assault rifle and assault rifles are banned. The AR-15 isn't much different from a "normal" rifle, it just looks scary.
"recent incidents" - That'd be the Orlando shooter, who wasn't being investigated and wasn't on a watch list when he bought his guns? This is why I am trying to get you to explain how many people would be affected by this and how many attacks it's supposed to stop, not how many we wish it would stop, so we can judge whether the trade-off is worth it.
Uhm, no..they interviewed him in 2 terror-related cases, he just didn't make the list, because they didn't have enough evidence. A simple ban on assault rifles would have made all the difference in the world. You don't kill 50 people with a pistol. You can't even get close to a guy with a rifle like that, it's called assault rifle for a reason!!
It's ridiculous how easy it is to get one of those in this country. Seriously who needs a rifle like that?! The U.S. is not a warzone....
What makes you think an AR-15 is an assault rifle, because I'm fairly certain it doesn't meet the definition..
Yeah because ArmaLite is what everyone will associate with the AR name....come on you know exactly what point I was trying to make! The fact that there are people out there, who choose their right to have easy access to a rifle like that, over the lives of innocent citizens, is beyond me!
An AR-15 can barely put down a feral hog, and you actually have to aim and have some level of precision to do it. It's not even remotely close to 'high powered.'
And based on most research/statistics fire arm related crimes/fire arm related deaths are decreasing and at all time lows since the 60s. I would say mass shootings are definitely on a rise, but that's a totally and separate issue. Outright banning firearms for most law abiding citizens is silly. I would say that there needs to be much more strict gun control laws nation wide, but it's silly to say all AR-15s should be banned.
I can also give several examples of countries with very strict gun laws that have very high amounts of firearm related crimes. Just because you have strict gun control laws doesn't mean bad things don't happen. It's a much more complex issue then that, and gun control is merely one of the many layers.
On June 15 2016 07:22 oneofthem wrote: so you want the fbi to follow up with 400k potential cases? that's working as intended? there are around 1000 gun buyers from the various lists between 2006 and 2010. this is a lot of potential cases to investigate. it would be good to just deny such purchases.
I'm not the one insisting the FBI should do more than it is. Yes, 400,000 people is a lot. What if the lists had 5 million people? That'd be even harder to deal with -> Just deny legal guns to even more people. But 1000 buyers in 5 years is hardly anything.
On June 15 2016 08:08 thePunGun wrote: Ah I see, we're still nitpicking, instead of seeing my argument....
Because your argument is silly at best. Statistically you're more likely to die from getting stabbed randomly in the street then you are from someone showing up and wielding an AR-15.
On June 15 2016 08:08 thePunGun wrote: Ah I see, we're still nitpicking, instead of seeing my argument....
This isn't nitpicking, nitpicking would be arguing over small details. You're trying to play the AR -15 off as something it completely isn't. In fact, your entire statement on the matter is completely false.
Yes, if he had an assault rifle the results would have been much worse, and people wouldn't have even gotten near him, which is why assault rifles are banned.
On June 15 2016 08:24 thePunGun wrote: Yeah well I prefer logic instead of statistics, it's way more accurate.
How is it silly that a guy armed with an AR-15 will gun down more people, than someone with a pistol in the same scenario?!
Because a guy with an AR-15 will immediately alert people of what is happening by the sheer size of his weapon. Not just that, wielding a full size rifle in an indoor crowded environment is far harder than it is to wield a hand held weapon that is easier to move around. There are far more factors in accounting for fatality rates then simply the rate of fire and magazine size of a weapon.
Thus exactly why I don't normally argue with people about firearms. Because alot of people are ignorant. I am by no means against additional legislation, I think it is far too easy to obtain a legal firearm at the moment. However, I do believe that an outright ban is just stupid. It will do no good in the current situation with the obscene amount of firearms that are in the United States (alot which are illegal/undocumented).
On June 14 2016 10:52 oneofthem wrote: why is that relevant? it is a policy question.
for an agency already overstretched on resources, you expect them to be happy about a resource intensive and inefficient investigation order instead of just cutting off the firearm with a easy disqualifier like, you are a terrorist suspect?
The FBI should be positioned to have insight into the effect of the FBI having more power to suspend people's right to buy guns. Are you saying they would obviously want it because it's easier than having to investigate people and do actual police work? That's weak, I want to know the right way to do it. In order for this to work, there would have to be a list of people that were considered too low a risk to continue investigating, but high enough a risk that if you denied legal guns to the entire group, you would stop a significant number of attacks (or else what's the point). But if the number of attacks you objectively could stop was high enough, why weren't these people risky enough to have open investigations?
Some things do just come from nowhere. How big do you estimate this class of people is that would get put on a secret list by an intelligence agency, without their knowledge, and have to spend forever in court trying to find answers and then somehow exonerate themselves to restore a their rights? Around 13,000 people, like the no-fly list, or around 400,000 people, like all terror watchlists?
As I tried to explain earlier, if you stop people from buying guns legally, they also then do it under the radar, which I assume the FBI doesn't want unless it means the people are buying from undercovers. What I want is law enforcement agencies to liaise with each other more about these types of cases, including more things being tracked automatically in other agencies' records.
what part of it being a policy question don't you understand?
Never heard of "listen to the generals?"
On June 15 2016 02:18 oneofthem wrote: the fbi is ALREADY tasked with preventing guns from getting into the hands of terrorist suspects. all it takes is a single disqualifying legal category in the already existing CT loop of the NICS procedure, so that more background checks involving terrorism suspects return a deny or delay.
The FBI is not just a gun-blocking machine. That's only one means of trying to make the country safer. I've tried to get you to explain how many this people you think is supposed to affect and what attacks it's meant to stop that otherwise slip through the FBI's cracks - i.e., whether it can actually save any lives and whether it would be worth the tradeoff of constitutionally protected rights. For example, if the list denied guns to 100,000 people but only stopped 2 murders, it would be stopping fewer murders than you'd expect just from the base rate of the population. What makes more sense is what I said before, have more interagency tracking and records. Alert a department somewhere when someone who was in an investigation that's closed buys a gun so they can decide to take another look if it's warranted.
You are dealing in hypotheticals with ginned up numbers to make your point. The argument is that there should be a system for the FBI to deny a gun sale if they feel the person is dangerous enough. Of course the system you created in your example would not be acceptable. But that does not mean the system shouldn’t exist.
Are you advocating that there should be no way for the FBI or law enforcement to prevent gun sales to people that they suspect will be dangerous? Yes or no. Do not give me your counter question where you demand to know how it would work so you don’t have to answer. Do you believe that the FBI and law enforcement shouldn’t be able to stop gun sales no matter what?
This will never happen in the U.S., because the gun lobby/NRA have way too much power in this country! It's not about guns for them, it's about the profit! Do you really think the NRA gives a shit about gun owners/people? Nope, it's all about profit, nothing else! And yes, I own a gun, but I am not deluded enough to think, that owning a gun equals protection! When out of nowhere some maniac starts shooting, for whatever reason, I'll hit the ground faster than I can grab my gun!
This sounds reasonable to me, but what about that time when you are hiding from the gunman? I mean, the odds of that ever happening to you specifically are very low, but I think a lot of people who want to concealed carry want to avoid a situation where they are helpless and at the mercy of pending doom, even if their gut instinct when shooting breaks out is to act just like you described. It's not all about wanting to be Rambo and saving the day while taking down terrorists in your home State.
The attitude of "I'll take my gun out when the alternative is having my life taken from me by a gunman" in the absence of context is actually very reasonable. Of course, statistics will say things like "having the gun increases your chances of dying overall" so it's pretty complicated and depends on the type of situation you are thrust into.
Thus exactly why I don't normally argue with people about firearms. Because alot of people are ignorant. I am by no means against additional legislation, I think it is far too easy to obtain a legal firearm at the moment. However, I do believe that an outright ban is just stupid. It will do no good in the current situation with the obscene amount of firearms that are in the United States (alot which are illegal/undocumented).
This is actually more popular of a position than Americans get credit for. If people want to legislate guns, then learn about guns. Banning guns is a solution to gun violence like banning banks would prevent a financial crisis.
On June 15 2016 08:24 thePunGun wrote: Yeah well I prefer logic instead of statistics, it's way more accurate.
How is it silly that a guy armed with an AR-15 will gun down more people, than someone with a pistol in the same scenario?!
Simply being a "pistol" doesn't make it less deadly. There are other aspects one has to consider. See video for an example of a pistol that easily could have done more damage.
I'm not against guns by any means, I own a glock and a kimber 1911 and enjoy target shooting, cleaning them and all that.
But why is it that I can buy a semi-automatic rifle, no questions asked, but I cannot board a plane with a shampoo bottle?! Maybe because the shampoo lobby doesn't own the senate....and the fact that 3 attempts to get stricter legislation failed the last decade makes me wonder: Why are we stuck in this insane cycle of denial?
EPT
